The importance of taking into account ecosystems, plant communities and habitats for the development of biodiversity conservation strategies is increasingly acknowledged. Recently, the first ever European Red List of Habitats was produced, which provided an evaluation of the extinction risk of EUNIS-based natural and semi-natural habitats in Europe. As assessment unit, it used the habitat intended as a plant community, thus representing a landmark for the role of vegetation science in nature conservation. In the present paper, the results of the European Red List of Habitats are analyzed at the national scale with specific reference to the terrestrial and freshwater habitat types occurring in Italy. More than three-quarters of the assessed European habitat types were recognized for the Italian territory. The distribution of the threat categories reflects approximately the situation at the EU28 level. About 35% of the assessed habitat types are referred to a threat category; no critically endangered habitat is present in Italy. The most frequently used criteria are those related to a reduction in quantity. Some critical issues arising from the analyses are discussed. In particular, the presence of knowledge gaps is pointed out, with remarkable reference to the poor availability of spatial and quantitative data, severely affecting the application of the criteria adopted for the assessment. Descriptions of habitat types from Italy are reported, some of which are representative, emblematic or even exclusive to the Italian territory. The outcomes of the analysis represent the starting point for the future development of a national-scale Red List of Habitats. Results also emphasized how habitat types with a too broad definition pose a limit to a proper evaluation of the regional biogeographic variability, often very high in Italy, with local floristic and phytocoenotic peculiarities which do not find room in the adopted European typology. This is the reason why the development of national subtypes stands as a necessary step for the development of a realistic and effective assessment at the national scale.
Question: Can landscape quality be evaluated and compared with a single numerical value using vegetation maps? Location: Northern Apennines (Italy), ca. 44° N,10–11° E. Methods: Seven phytosociological vegetation maps (1:25000), which correspond to man's different impact on mountain landscapes, were considered. Syntaxa were classified into five degrees of naturalness: urbanized, agricultural, semi‐natural, sub‐natural, and natural. Vegetation maps showing naturalness were derived in a vectorial GIS. The degrees of naturalness were ordered according to increasing naturalness. If c1 is the cumulative relative value of every mapped area of the degrees of naturalness, the sum of these cumulative values A =∑ ci is is a measure of vegetation artificiality. Its maximum value is Amax= n‐1. The Index of Vegetation Naturalness IVN = 1 ‐A/Amax, ranging from 0 to 1. Our IVN is an extension of the ILC by Pizzolotto & Brandmayr (1996) due to the ordinal character of the vegetation classification into degrees of naturalness. The maps of vegetation naturalness were also analysed by two known metrics for the evaluation of landscape quality: TECI (Total Edge Contrast Index) and MSI (Mean Shape Index). Results: The case studies show that IVN is linearly correlated with decreasing area of urbanized and agricultural vegetation types as well as with increasing area of the highest degree of naturalness. Conclusions: IVN can be joined with the TECI for the evaluation of naturalness of landscapes. TECI can supply additional information about the importance of landscape ecotones. Our case studies suggest that an urbanized landscape should correspond to IVN values lower than 0.20. A natural landscape will have IVN values higher than 0.80.
The spatial pattern of the altitudinal limit of beech woods in the Northern Apennines and its correlation with the Fagus sylvatica thermal requirements were studied. The study area was the whole northern side of the Northern Apennines (latitude 44°N), including a timberline. The pattern was described on a scale of 1:25,000, using digitized phytosociological vegetation maps. The timberline elevation ranges from 1,200 to 1,825 m a.s.l., with the highest range at 1,525 to 1,725 m and a peak (13%) at 1,600-1,625 m. As suggested by the known beech thermal requirements, the following thermal parameters were considered: mean annual temperature, mean of the coldest month (January), mean of the warmest month (July); days with maximum temperatures >10°C and summer mean (June to September). The values were calculated using data for 1951-2002 from six weather stations. The present upper timberline (1,825 m) corresponds to the following: i) mean annual temperature of 4.5°C; ii) coldest month mean temperature of −2.3°C; iii) summer mean of 11.5°C; iv) warmest month mean temperature of 13°C; v) 139 days with maximum temperatures of 10°C or higher. The mean temperature of the warmest month corresponds to the July mean temperature in maritime mountains, such as the Appalachians and the New Zealand Alps (13°C). The geographical location of the Northern Apennines close to the Mediterranean Sea seems to indicate that such a conclusion is reliable. With reference to the elevation variability of the upper timberline, the multiple regression shows that the annual mean is the best explaining thermal parameter (P<0.05). Our thermal data do not take into account the atmospheric phenomena that can affect the temperature lapse rate with altitude, such as the cloudiness of the chain, and site factors, such as wind-exposed topography and snow cover duration, which play a crucial role in the Northern Apennine local climate.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.