Shedding light on typical species: Implications for habitat monitoring

Shedding light on typical species: Implications for habitat monitoring

Habitat monitoring in Europe is regulated by Article 17 of the Habitats Directive, which suggests the use of typical species to assess habitat conservation status. Yet, the Directive uses the term “typical” species but does not provide a definition, either for its use in reporting or for its use in impact assessments. To address the issue, an online workshop was organized by the Italian Society for Vegetation Science (SISV) to shed light on the diversity of perspectives regarding the different concepts of typical species, and to discuss the possible implications for habitat monitoring. To this aim, we inquired 73 people with a very different degree of expertise in the field of vegetation science by means of a tailored survey composed of six questions. We analysed the data using Pearson's Chi-squared test to verify that the answers diverged from a random distribution and checked the effect of the degree of experience of the surveyees on the results. We found that most of the surveyees agreed on the use of the phytosociological method for habitat monitoring and of the diagnostic and characteristic species to evaluate the structural and functional conservation status of habitats. With this contribution, we shed light on the meaning of “typical” species in the context of habitat monitoring.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Bonari, Gianmaria, Fantinato, Edy, Lazzaro, Lorenzo, Gaia Sperandii, Marta, Teresa, Alicia, Acosta, Rosario, Allegrezza, Marina, Assini, Silvia, Caccianiga, Marco, Cecco, Valter Di, Frattaroli, Annarita, Gigante, Daniela, Rivieccio, Giovanni, Tesei, Giulio, Valle, Barbara, Viciani, Daniele, Albani Rocchetti, Giulia, Angiolini, Claudia, Badalamenti, Emilio, Barberis, Davide, Barcella, Matteo, Bazan, Giuseppe, Bertacchi, Andrea, Bolpagni, Rossano, Bonini, Federica, Bricca, Alessandro, Buffa, Gabriella, Calbi, Mariasole, Cannucci, Silvia, Cao Pinna, Luigi, Caria, Maria Carmela, Carli, Emanuela, Cascone, Silvia, Casti, Mauro, Cerabolini, Bruno Enrico Leone, Copiz, Riccardo, Cutini, Maurizio, Simone, Leopoldo De, Toma, Andrea De, Fratte, Michele Dalle, Martino, Luciano Di, Pietro, Romeo Di, Filesi, Leonardo, Foggi, Bruno, Fortini, Paola, Gennaio, Roberto, Gheza, Gabriele, Lonati, Michele, Mainetti, Andrea, Malavasi, Marco, Marcenò, Corrado, Micheli, Carla, Minuzzo, Chiara, Mugnai, Michele, Musarela, C.M., Napoleone, Francesca, Nota, Ginevra, Piga, Giovanna, Pittarello, Marco, Pozzi, Ilaria, Praleskouskaya, Safiya, Rota, Francesco, Santini, Giacomo, Sarmati, Simona, Selvaggi, Alberto, Spampinato, Giovanni, Stinca, Adriano, Pio Tozzi, Francesco, Venanzoni, Roberto, Villani, Mariacristina, Zanatta, Katia, Zanzottera, Magda, Bagella, Simonetta
Other Authors: Libera Università di Bolzano
Format: artículo biblioteca
Published: Pensoft Publishers 2021
Subjects:Diagnostic and characteristic species, Habitat monitoring, Keystone species, Natura 2000, Plant community, Structure and functions, Typical species, 92/43/EEC Directive,
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/10261/266749
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Habitat monitoring in Europe is regulated by Article 17 of the Habitats Directive, which suggests the use of typical species to assess habitat conservation status. Yet, the Directive uses the term “typical” species but does not provide a definition, either for its use in reporting or for its use in impact assessments. To address the issue, an online workshop was organized by the Italian Society for Vegetation Science (SISV) to shed light on the diversity of perspectives regarding the different concepts of typical species, and to discuss the possible implications for habitat monitoring. To this aim, we inquired 73 people with a very different degree of expertise in the field of vegetation science by means of a tailored survey composed of six questions. We analysed the data using Pearson's Chi-squared test to verify that the answers diverged from a random distribution and checked the effect of the degree of experience of the surveyees on the results. We found that most of the surveyees agreed on the use of the phytosociological method for habitat monitoring and of the diagnostic and characteristic species to evaluate the structural and functional conservation status of habitats. With this contribution, we shed light on the meaning of “typical” species in the context of habitat monitoring.

Similar Items