Bird-monitoring in Europe – a first overview of practices, motivations and aims

Schmeller, Dirk S.; Henle, Klaus; Loyau, Adeline; Besnard, Aurélien; Henry, Pierre‐Yves

doi:10.3897/natureconservation.2.3644

Cited by 50 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The involvement of local people in conservation strategies has been shown to be highly efficient (e.g. Schmeller et al 2012). For example, in the United States, bird protection has been recently modified and improved by crediting landowners who have adapted their land to migratory and threatened species (recovery credit trading), and by establishing a Farm Bill, a law encouraging farmers and ranchers to protect important habitats through the Conservation Reserve Program (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency 1997).…”

Section: Recommendations and Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network to cover threatened species

Trochet¹,

Schmeller²

2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The world's biodiversity is currently in rapid decline -Europe being no exception -with as principal cause a human-mediated global change. The Natura 2000 network is an important conservation tool for European biodiversity; it is a network of natural and semi-natural sites within Europe with high heritage values due to the exceptional flora and fauna they contain. Here, we evaluated the coverage of 300 threatened species by the Natura 2000 network, and determined potential factors influencing the designation of sites and the structure of the network within a country (social, ecological and demographic national factors). Our analysis was based on a coverage ratio between the Natura 2000 sites and distribution maps of threatened European species. We showed that the distributions of a large proportion of threatened species of mammals, birds and reptiles considered in our study were highly covered (above 90%) by the current Natura 2000 network, demonstrating that the Natura 2000 network also covers species not listed in the annexes of the Nature Directives. However, our results confirm that a large proportion of threatened species (some of them listed on the European annexes), especially fishes, are currently poorly covered by the Natura 2000 network. The coverage of species likely seemed to be highly related to national demographic factors, i.e. the proportion of the national urban population. Our analysis also suggested that the designation of sites depends too strongly on governmental politics, economic and cultural criteria, and interactions between society and the environment. A more effective process might be necessary to ensure the Natura 2000 network reaches its potential as the most important and comprehensive network of protected areas intended to halt the loss of biodiversity in Europe in the near future.

show abstract

Section: Recommendations and Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network to cover threatened species

Trochet¹,

Schmeller²

2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The necessary knowledge levels to carry out the monitoring are relatively low, as programs are often aimed at common, charismatic, or conspicuous taxa (e.g. birds, butterflies; (Schmeller et al 2012a;van Swaay et al 2008). Therefore, capacity building for such programs may focus on activities aimed at building large networks of volunteers with basic skill levels (Schmeller et al 2017).…”

Section: Building Capacity For Extensive Monitoring Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This information is especially important in remote areas where long-term, repeated monitoring is difficult to implement or has been implemented belatedly. Therefore, the involvement of volunteers and local communities in monitoring is key to maximizing sampling effort, by acquiring a broad picture of environmental change and biodiversity status (Engel and Voshell Jr 2002;Schmeller et al 2012b;). An additional benefit from participation of locals in biodiversity monitoring is the concomitant increase in environmental awareness, trust in the policy outputs supported by the collected observation data, and management through their involvement (Danielsen et al 2003).…”

Section: Building Capacity For Extensive Monitoring Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, different strategies for motivating participants will need to be employed, taking local customs and culture into consideration, in order to promote the longevity of the monitoring program (Figure 3). These are crucial points and often lead to controversy about the effectiveness and advantages of PMNs (Danielsen et al 2003;2006;Schmeller et al 2009;2012b;Yoccoz et al 2001;2003). Gustine 2014).…”

Section: Building Capacity For Extensive Monitoring Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite freshwater and terrestrial systems being more accessible to humans than most ocean environments, and terrestrial species monitoring in particular having a long-standing history (Marsh and Trenham 2008;Schmeller 2008;2012b), biases towards temperate Northern hemisphere regions persist here as well.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Building capacity in biodiversity monitoring at the global scale

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human-driven global change is causing ongoing declines in biodiversity worldwide. In order to address these declines, decision-makers need accurate assessments of the status of and pressures on biodiversity. However, these are heavily constrained by incomplete and uneven spatial, temporal and taxonomic coverage. For instance, data from regions such as Europe and North America are currently used overwhelmingly for large-scale biodiversity assessments due to lesser availability of suitable data from other, more biodiversity-rich, regions. These data-poor regions are often those experiencing the strongest threats to biodiversity, however. There is therefore an urgent need to fill the existing gaps in global biodiversity monitoring. Here, we review current knowledge on best practice in capacity building for biodiversity monitoring and provide an overview of existing means to improve biodiversity data collection considering the different types of biodiversity monitoring data. Our review comprises insights from work in Africa, South America, Polar Regions and Europe; in governmentfunded, volunteer and citizen-based monitoring in terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems. The key steps to effectively building capacity in biodiversity monitoring are: identifying monitoring questions and aims; identifying the key components, functions, and processes to monitor; identifying the most suitable monitoring methods for these elements, carrying out monitoring activities; managing the resultant data; and interpreting monitoring data. Additionally, biodiversity monitoring should use multiple approaches including extensive and intensive monitoring through volunteers and professional scientists but also harnessing new technologies. Finally, we call on the scientific community to share biodiversity monitoring data, knowledge and tools to ensure the accessibility, interoperability, and reporting of biodiversity data at a global scale.4

show abstract