Connectedness and connectivity of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas across country borders in the European Union

► Connectedness and connectivity of the protected area network across country borders was studied. ► Connectivity was measured by the presence of same species on both sides of the borders. ► Connectedness and connectivity varied greatly among borders and were positively correlated. ► Very few factor...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Biological conservation 2012-09, Vol.153, p.227-238
Hauptverfasser: Opermanis, Otars, MacSharry, Brian, Aunins, Ainars, Sipkova, Zelmira
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 238
container_issue
container_start_page 227
container_title Biological conservation
container_volume 153
creator Opermanis, Otars
MacSharry, Brian
Aunins, Ainars
Sipkova, Zelmira
description ► Connectedness and connectivity of the protected area network across country borders was studied. ► Connectivity was measured by the presence of same species on both sides of the borders. ► Connectedness and connectivity varied greatly among borders and were positively correlated. ► Very few factors significantly affected variation in connectedness and connectivity. ► Each border has its own history and thus factors influencing selection of protected areas. We studied the spatial connectedness of Natura 2000 site boundaries and the functional connectivity of the Natura 2000 network across the 34 terrestrial borders of the European Union. Connectivity was measured by the dispersal success of 192 reptile, amphibian, invertebrate and plant species from Annex II of the European Union Habitats Directive, based on the presence of same species on both sides of the borders. Connectedness and connectivity varied greatly between state borders, with good and bad examples found in all parts of the European Union. Connectedness and connectivity were positively correlated. However, a few outlying examples showed that good connectedness is not necessarily associated with good connectivity and that good connectivity is not always possible because of different habitats and/or different management on both sides of border. In 13 out of 34 borders the connectivity measure was 100% and in 11 other borders it was over 50%. Very few of the geographical and political factors tested to explain variation in connectedness and connectivity were significant. Better connectedness and connectivity, both at the border and site-pair level, was correlated with the rivers forming the border. The time since the designation of the second site in a site-pair was nearly significant, suggesting that connectivity might have always existed in nature but the ‘documentation of it’ required some time for additional site inventories. It seems that each country border has its own history with a unique subset of factors influencing Natura 2000 site selection and management thus generalising our findings to other international borders would be difficult. We did not find substantial differences in trans-boundary connectivity among taxonomic groups. The application of our method elsewhere in the World would perhaps bring interesting results at a large (continental or sub-continental) scale, provided that similar data are available.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.04.031
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1669885100</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0006320712002261</els_id><sourcerecordid>1669885100</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-5ed30c47d946ce58f8a8ff9331d4b5e953fad1b301e2c987b96263c7aad552b13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU-PFCEQxYnRxHHdb2AiRy_dFk1D0xcTM1n_JBs97M6Z0FCtjLMwAr2b-fYy056NJ1Lwe6-oeoS8YdAyYPL9vp18tDG0HbCuhb4Fzp6RDVMDb7qRDc_JBgBkwzsYXpJXOe9rOXApNuS0jSGgLegC5kxNcNSuN_7RlxONMy0_kX4zZUmGdlVHA5anmH6dn44plouYmoSmym2K1cXGJZR0olNMDlOmPlxMbpYUj2gC3QUfw2vyYjaHjNd_zyuy-3Rzv_3S3H7__HX78baxfJSlEeg42H5wYy8tCjUro-Z55Jy5fhI4Cj4bxyYODDs7qmEaZSe5HYxxQnQT41fk3epbP_t7wVz0g88WDwcTMC5ZMylHpQQD-B8UeO0BqqL9il4mTjjrY_IPJp00A30ORe_1Goo-h6Kh1zWUKnu7ymYTtfmRfNa7uwr0AEyokctKfFgJrDt59Jh0th6DRedTXbV20f-7xR9cSqFv</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1660398708</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Connectedness and connectivity of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas across country borders in the European Union</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Opermanis, Otars ; MacSharry, Brian ; Aunins, Ainars ; Sipkova, Zelmira</creator><creatorcontrib>Opermanis, Otars ; MacSharry, Brian ; Aunins, Ainars ; Sipkova, Zelmira</creatorcontrib><description>► Connectedness and connectivity of the protected area network across country borders was studied. ► Connectivity was measured by the presence of same species on both sides of the borders. ► Connectedness and connectivity varied greatly among borders and were positively correlated. ► Very few factors significantly affected variation in connectedness and connectivity. ► Each border has its own history and thus factors influencing selection of protected areas. We studied the spatial connectedness of Natura 2000 site boundaries and the functional connectivity of the Natura 2000 network across the 34 terrestrial borders of the European Union. Connectivity was measured by the dispersal success of 192 reptile, amphibian, invertebrate and plant species from Annex II of the European Union Habitats Directive, based on the presence of same species on both sides of the borders. Connectedness and connectivity varied greatly between state borders, with good and bad examples found in all parts of the European Union. Connectedness and connectivity were positively correlated. However, a few outlying examples showed that good connectedness is not necessarily associated with good connectivity and that good connectivity is not always possible because of different habitats and/or different management on both sides of border. In 13 out of 34 borders the connectivity measure was 100% and in 11 other borders it was over 50%. Very few of the geographical and political factors tested to explain variation in connectedness and connectivity were significant. Better connectedness and connectivity, both at the border and site-pair level, was correlated with the rivers forming the border. The time since the designation of the second site in a site-pair was nearly significant, suggesting that connectivity might have always existed in nature but the ‘documentation of it’ required some time for additional site inventories. It seems that each country border has its own history with a unique subset of factors influencing Natura 2000 site selection and management thus generalising our findings to other international borders would be difficult. We did not find substantial differences in trans-boundary connectivity among taxonomic groups. The application of our method elsewhere in the World would perhaps bring interesting results at a large (continental or sub-continental) scale, provided that similar data are available.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0006-3207</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-2917</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.04.031</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>amphibians ; Borders ; Connectedness ; Connectivity ; Conservation ; conservation areas ; Correlation ; European Union ; Habitats ; inventories ; invertebrates ; Management ; Natura 2000 ; Networks ; Political borders ; politics ; Reptiles ; rivers ; Site selection ; Trans-boundary protected areas</subject><ispartof>Biological conservation, 2012-09, Vol.153, p.227-238</ispartof><rights>2012 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-5ed30c47d946ce58f8a8ff9331d4b5e953fad1b301e2c987b96263c7aad552b13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-5ed30c47d946ce58f8a8ff9331d4b5e953fad1b301e2c987b96263c7aad552b13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320712002261$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Opermanis, Otars</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacSharry, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aunins, Ainars</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sipkova, Zelmira</creatorcontrib><title>Connectedness and connectivity of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas across country borders in the European Union</title><title>Biological conservation</title><description>► Connectedness and connectivity of the protected area network across country borders was studied. ► Connectivity was measured by the presence of same species on both sides of the borders. ► Connectedness and connectivity varied greatly among borders and were positively correlated. ► Very few factors significantly affected variation in connectedness and connectivity. ► Each border has its own history and thus factors influencing selection of protected areas. We studied the spatial connectedness of Natura 2000 site boundaries and the functional connectivity of the Natura 2000 network across the 34 terrestrial borders of the European Union. Connectivity was measured by the dispersal success of 192 reptile, amphibian, invertebrate and plant species from Annex II of the European Union Habitats Directive, based on the presence of same species on both sides of the borders. Connectedness and connectivity varied greatly between state borders, with good and bad examples found in all parts of the European Union. Connectedness and connectivity were positively correlated. However, a few outlying examples showed that good connectedness is not necessarily associated with good connectivity and that good connectivity is not always possible because of different habitats and/or different management on both sides of border. In 13 out of 34 borders the connectivity measure was 100% and in 11 other borders it was over 50%. Very few of the geographical and political factors tested to explain variation in connectedness and connectivity were significant. Better connectedness and connectivity, both at the border and site-pair level, was correlated with the rivers forming the border. The time since the designation of the second site in a site-pair was nearly significant, suggesting that connectivity might have always existed in nature but the ‘documentation of it’ required some time for additional site inventories. It seems that each country border has its own history with a unique subset of factors influencing Natura 2000 site selection and management thus generalising our findings to other international borders would be difficult. We did not find substantial differences in trans-boundary connectivity among taxonomic groups. The application of our method elsewhere in the World would perhaps bring interesting results at a large (continental or sub-continental) scale, provided that similar data are available.</description><subject>amphibians</subject><subject>Borders</subject><subject>Connectedness</subject><subject>Connectivity</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>conservation areas</subject><subject>Correlation</subject><subject>European Union</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>inventories</subject><subject>invertebrates</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Natura 2000</subject><subject>Networks</subject><subject>Political borders</subject><subject>politics</subject><subject>Reptiles</subject><subject>rivers</subject><subject>Site selection</subject><subject>Trans-boundary protected areas</subject><issn>0006-3207</issn><issn>1873-2917</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkU-PFCEQxYnRxHHdb2AiRy_dFk1D0xcTM1n_JBs97M6Z0FCtjLMwAr2b-fYy056NJ1Lwe6-oeoS8YdAyYPL9vp18tDG0HbCuhb4Fzp6RDVMDb7qRDc_JBgBkwzsYXpJXOe9rOXApNuS0jSGgLegC5kxNcNSuN_7RlxONMy0_kX4zZUmGdlVHA5anmH6dn44plouYmoSmym2K1cXGJZR0olNMDlOmPlxMbpYUj2gC3QUfw2vyYjaHjNd_zyuy-3Rzv_3S3H7__HX78baxfJSlEeg42H5wYy8tCjUro-Z55Jy5fhI4Cj4bxyYODDs7qmEaZSe5HYxxQnQT41fk3epbP_t7wVz0g88WDwcTMC5ZMylHpQQD-B8UeO0BqqL9il4mTjjrY_IPJp00A30ORe_1Goo-h6Kh1zWUKnu7ymYTtfmRfNa7uwr0AEyokctKfFgJrDt59Jh0th6DRedTXbV20f-7xR9cSqFv</recordid><startdate>20120901</startdate><enddate>20120901</enddate><creator>Opermanis, Otars</creator><creator>MacSharry, Brian</creator><creator>Aunins, Ainars</creator><creator>Sipkova, Zelmira</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120901</creationdate><title>Connectedness and connectivity of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas across country borders in the European Union</title><author>Opermanis, Otars ; MacSharry, Brian ; Aunins, Ainars ; Sipkova, Zelmira</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-5ed30c47d946ce58f8a8ff9331d4b5e953fad1b301e2c987b96263c7aad552b13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>amphibians</topic><topic>Borders</topic><topic>Connectedness</topic><topic>Connectivity</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>conservation areas</topic><topic>Correlation</topic><topic>European Union</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>inventories</topic><topic>invertebrates</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Natura 2000</topic><topic>Networks</topic><topic>Political borders</topic><topic>politics</topic><topic>Reptiles</topic><topic>rivers</topic><topic>Site selection</topic><topic>Trans-boundary protected areas</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Opermanis, Otars</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacSharry, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aunins, Ainars</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sipkova, Zelmira</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Biological conservation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Opermanis, Otars</au><au>MacSharry, Brian</au><au>Aunins, Ainars</au><au>Sipkova, Zelmira</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Connectedness and connectivity of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas across country borders in the European Union</atitle><jtitle>Biological conservation</jtitle><date>2012-09-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>153</volume><spage>227</spage><epage>238</epage><pages>227-238</pages><issn>0006-3207</issn><eissn>1873-2917</eissn><abstract>► Connectedness and connectivity of the protected area network across country borders was studied. ► Connectivity was measured by the presence of same species on both sides of the borders. ► Connectedness and connectivity varied greatly among borders and were positively correlated. ► Very few factors significantly affected variation in connectedness and connectivity. ► Each border has its own history and thus factors influencing selection of protected areas. We studied the spatial connectedness of Natura 2000 site boundaries and the functional connectivity of the Natura 2000 network across the 34 terrestrial borders of the European Union. Connectivity was measured by the dispersal success of 192 reptile, amphibian, invertebrate and plant species from Annex II of the European Union Habitats Directive, based on the presence of same species on both sides of the borders. Connectedness and connectivity varied greatly between state borders, with good and bad examples found in all parts of the European Union. Connectedness and connectivity were positively correlated. However, a few outlying examples showed that good connectedness is not necessarily associated with good connectivity and that good connectivity is not always possible because of different habitats and/or different management on both sides of border. In 13 out of 34 borders the connectivity measure was 100% and in 11 other borders it was over 50%. Very few of the geographical and political factors tested to explain variation in connectedness and connectivity were significant. Better connectedness and connectivity, both at the border and site-pair level, was correlated with the rivers forming the border. The time since the designation of the second site in a site-pair was nearly significant, suggesting that connectivity might have always existed in nature but the ‘documentation of it’ required some time for additional site inventories. It seems that each country border has its own history with a unique subset of factors influencing Natura 2000 site selection and management thus generalising our findings to other international borders would be difficult. We did not find substantial differences in trans-boundary connectivity among taxonomic groups. The application of our method elsewhere in the World would perhaps bring interesting results at a large (continental or sub-continental) scale, provided that similar data are available.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.biocon.2012.04.031</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0006-3207
ispartof Biological conservation, 2012-09, Vol.153, p.227-238
issn 0006-3207
1873-2917
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1669885100
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects amphibians
Borders
Connectedness
Connectivity
Conservation
conservation areas
Correlation
European Union
Habitats
inventories
invertebrates
Management
Natura 2000
Networks
Political borders
politics
Reptiles
rivers
Site selection
Trans-boundary protected areas
title Connectedness and connectivity of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas across country borders in the European Union
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T11%3A07%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Connectedness%20and%20connectivity%20of%20the%20Natura%202000%20network%20of%20protected%20areas%20across%20country%20borders%20in%20the%20European%20Union&rft.jtitle=Biological%20conservation&rft.au=Opermanis,%20Otars&rft.date=2012-09-01&rft.volume=153&rft.spage=227&rft.epage=238&rft.pages=227-238&rft.issn=0006-3207&rft.eissn=1873-2917&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.04.031&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1669885100%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1660398708&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0006320712002261&rfr_iscdi=true