Ecological landscape assessment in a silvicultural system in the Urdaibai Reserve (Basque Country, Spain)

  1. Oreina Orrantia
  2. M. Mercedes Ortega-Hidalgo
  3. Javier Loidi
Journal:
Mediterranean Botany

ISSN: 2603-9109

Year of publication: 2019

Volume: 40

Issue: 1

Pages: 95-110

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5209/MBOT.63044 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Mediterranean Botany

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

Forestry industry has transformed deciduous Cantabrian colline landscape from very diverse ecosystems into exotic monospecific Pinus spp. or Eucalyptus spp. tree plantations. Our aim was to determine the biological quality present at a forested and protected river basin based on vascular plant communities’ field examination and cartographic and aerial information analysis. We have transformed vegetation maps into biological quality maps, readily interpreted in terms of conservation state for land management. We have tested the index along an anthropized but protected area in the Atlantic Iberian Peninsula (Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve –and Natura 2000 site, Basque Country) individually assessing 158 vegetation fragments included in ten quadrats of 25 ha each. A comparison of land use distribution between exotic coniferous plantations and native forests showed a ratio ~11:1, and Quercus robur native forests have been fragmented and reduced to small patches, mostly below one ha (73.7% of fragments). The ratio real to potential cover revealed occupation below 8% of potential territory, confined to altitudes and slopes over 200 m asl and 30% respectively. Mean biological value of the basin (38.4% of maximum) correlated to conifer plantation surface and native forest emerged as the only vegetation unit attaining index values above 50%. A quantitative approach to determine whether local lowland oak forest could be considered at favourable conservation status involved studying co-variation between index values and fragment size by means of asymptotic models that would provide a maximum expected biological value associated to a minimum required surface (72.9% for ≥2.5ha). We have obtained the highest index values (77.1%) for forest patches ≥5.0 ha, although fragments over that threshold accounted for barely 2.9% of the basin. Oak forests are far from showing a favourable conservation status, revealing that actual protection policies provide little shelter to native forest where silvicultural policies rule the landscape

Bibliographic References

  • Ammer, U. &Utschick, H. 1982. Methodische Überlegungen für eine Biotopkartierung im Wald. For. Centr. 101(1): 60–68.
  • Asensi, A. 1990. Aplicación de la fitosociología a la evaluación del territorio. Monogr. Fl. Veg. Béticas 4: 91–100.
  • Atauri, J.A., De Pablo, C.L., de Agar, P.M., Schmitz, M.F. & Pineda, F.D. 2004. Effects of management on understory diversity in the forest ecosystems of Northern Spain. Environ. Manag. 34(6): 819–828.
  • Bastian, O. & Bernhardt, A. 1993. Anthropogenic landscape changes in Central Europe and the role of bioindication. Landscape Ecol. 8(2): 139–151.
  • Bastian, O. 1996. Biotope mapping and evaluation as a basis of nature conservation and landscape planning. Ekol. Bratislava 15: 5–17.
  • Bölöni, J., Molnár, Z., Illyés, E. & Kun, A. 2007. A new habitat classification and manual for standardized habitat mapping. Ann. Bot. 7: 55–76.
  • Boteva, D., Griffiths, G. & Dimopoulos, P. 2004. Evaluation and mapping of the conservation significance of habitats using GIS: an example from Crete, Greece. J. Nat. Conserv. 12: 237–250.
  • Bryan, G. & Henshaw, B. 2013. How much habitat is enough? Third edition. Environ. Canada. 130 p.
  • Csorba, P. & Szabó, S. 2012. The application of landscape indices in landscape ecology. In: Tiefenbacher, J. (Ed.). Perspectives on nature conservation–paterns, pressures and prospects. Pp. 121–140. Inst. Geosci. Univ. Drebecen, Debrecen.
  • Deixler, W. 1982. Biotopkartierung in Bayern. For. Centr. 101(1): 54–60. .
  • Deixler, W. 1988. Das bayerische Arten-und Biotopschutzprogramm. For. Centr. 107(1): 292–294.
  • Dimopoulos, P., Bergmeier, E., Papastergiadou, E., Sykora, K. & Dafis, S. 1998. Evaluation system of the relative importance of vegetation syntaxa for nature conservation in Greece. In: Tsekos I, Moustakas, M. (Eds.). Proceedings of the First Balkan Botanical Congress: Progress in Botanical Research. Thessaloniki (Greece), 19-22 September 1997. Pp. 45–48. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht.
  • Douda, J. 2010. The role of landscape configuration in plant composition of floodplain forests across different physiographic areas. J. Veg. Sci. 21(6): 1110–1124.
  • Egurbide, X. 2007. Análisis del estado de conservación de los hábitats del entorno del Pagasarri. MSc Thesis. Sci. Tech. Fac., Dep. Plant Biol. Ecol., Univ. Basque Country, Bilbao.
  • García, D., Quevedo, M., Obeso, J.R., Abajo, A. 2005. Fragmentation patterns and protection of montane forest in the Cantabrian range (NW Spain). For. Ecol. Manag. 208(1): 29–43.
  • García-Baquero, G. & Valle, C.J. 1998. Ensayo de Valoración Naturalística en el Centro-Oeste Ibérico, Salamanca (Hoja 13-19, 1: 50.000). Stvd. Bot. 17: 9–22.
  • Géhu, J. & Géhu-Frank, J. 1981. Essai d’évaluation biologique des milieux naturels. Examples littoraux. Sém. Phytosoc. Appl. Inst. Europ. Ecologie, Metz.
  • Gómez-Mercado, F., Navarro, J., Giménez Luqu,e E., Delgado, I.C., de Haro, S. & del Moral, F. 2007. Valoración naturalística del Corredor Verde del Río Guadiamar (Andalucía, España). Lagascalia 27: 7–22.
  • Hernando, A., Tejera, R., Velazquez, J. & Nuñez, M.V. 2010. Quantitatively defining the conservation status of Natura 2000 forest habitats and improving management options for enhancing biodiversity. Biodiv. Conserv. 19: 2221–2233.
  • Herrera, J., Laskurain, N.A., Loidi, J., Escudero A. & Olano, J. M. 2001. Sucesión secundaria en un abedular-hayedo en el Parque Natural de Urquiola (Vizcaya). Lazaroa 22: 59–66.
  • Kouba, Y., Martínez-García, F., de Frutos, Á. & Alados, C.L. 2014. Plant β-diversity in human-altered forest ecosystems: the importance of the structural, spatial, and topographical characteristics of stands in patterning plant species assemblages. European Journal of Forest Research, pp. 1–16.
  • Loidi, J. 1994. Phytosociology applied to nature conservation and land management. In: Song, Y., Dierschke, H. & Wang, X. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 35th symposium of international association for vegetation science (IAVS): Applied Vegetation Ecology, Shanghai (China), 21-25 September 1992. Pp. 17–30. East China Normal Univ. Press, Shanghai.
  • Loidi, J. 2008. La fitosociología como proveedora de herramientas de gestión. Lazaroa 29: 7–17.
  • Loidi, J., Biurrun, I. & Herrera, M. 1997. La vegetación del centro-septentrional de España. Itinera Geobot. 9: 161–618.
  • Loidi, J., Ortega, M. & Orrantia, O. 2007. Vegetation Science and the implementation of the Habitat Directive in Spain: up-to- now experiences and further development to provide tools for management. Fitosociologia 44: 9–16.
  • Loidi, J., Biurrun, I., Campos, J.A., García-Mijangos, I. & Herrera, M. 2011. La vegetación de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco. Leyenda del mapa de series de vegetación a escala 1: 50.000. Univ. País Vasco, Bilbao.
  • Lomba, A., Torres, J., Alves, H. & Honrado, J. 2004. GIS applied to landscape valuation management in coastal areas. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium: Littoral. Delivering sustainable coasts, Aberdeen (Scotland), 20-22 September 2004. Cambridge Publications, pp. 770–771.
  • Louette, G., Adriaens, D., Paelinckx, D., Hoffmann, M. 2015. Implementing the Habitats Directive: How science can support decision making. J. Nat. Conserv. 23: 27–34.
  • Machado, A. 2004. An index of naturalness. J. Nat. Conserv. 12: 95–110.
  • Meaza, G., Cadiñanos, J. 2000. Valoración de la vegetación. Metodología y práctica de la Biogeografía. Serbal, Barcelona. pp. 195–238. [in Spanish]
  • Merino, A., Fernández-López, A., Solla-Gullón, F. &Edeso, J.M. 2004. Soil changes and tree growth in intensively managed Pinus radiata in northern Spain. For. Ecol. Manag. 196(2): 393–404.
  • Miklín, J. & Čížek, L. 2014. Erasing a European biodiversity hot-spot: Open woodlands, veteran trees and mature forests succumb to forestry intensification, succession, and logging in a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. J. Nat. Conserv. 22(1): 35–41.
  • Milder, J.C., Lassoie, J.P. & Bedford, B.L. 2008 Conserving biodiversity and ecosystem function through limited development: An empirical evaluation. Conservation Biology 22(1): 70–79.
  • Mucina, L. 2013. Ecosystems of Europe. In: Levin, S.A. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of biodiversity, 2nd edition. Pp. 635–647. Academic Press, Waltham.
  • Orrantia, O. 2004. El Pago por Servicios Ambientales como herramienta para promover la conservación de recursos naturales del País Vasco. MSc Thesis, ALFA-GIACT Program of the European Union, Escuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica, pp. 168.
  • Orrantia, O., Ortega-Hidalgo, M.M., Quirós-Madrigal, O. & Loidi, J. 2008. Servicios ambientales del bosque: ensayo en una cuenca atlántica europea con base en la experiencia de Centroamérica. Revista de Biología Tropical 56: 2087–2098.
  • Panitsa, M., Koutsias, N., Tsiripidis, I., Zotos, A. & Dimopoulos, P. 2011. Species-based versus habitat-based evaluation for conservation status assessment of habitat types in the East Aegean islands (Greece). J. Nat. Conserv. 19: 269–275.
  • Peet, R.K. & Roberts, D.W. 2013. Classification of natural and semi-natural vegetation. In: van der Maarel, E., Franklin, J. (Eds.). Vegetation Ecology, 2nd edition. Pp. 28–70. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Oxford.
  • Penas, A., del Río, S. & Herrero, L. 2005. A new methodology for the quantitative evaluation of the conservation status of vegetation: the potentiality distance index (PDI). Fitosociologia 42: 23–31
  • Peralta, J., Biurrun, I., García-Mijangos, I., Remón, J.L., Olano, J.M., Lorda, M., Loidi, J. & Campos, J.A. 2013. Manual de hábitats de Navarra. Gob. Navarra. Pamplona. 576 p.
  • Rescia, A.J., Schmitz, M.F., Martin de Agar, M.P., de Pablo, C.L. & Pineda, F.D. 1995. Ascribing plant diversity values to historical changes in landscape: a methodological approach. Landscape Urban Plan. 31: 181–194.
  • Rescia, A.J., Willaarts, B.A., Schmitz, M.F. & Aguilera, P.A. 2010. Changes in land uses and management in two Nature Reserves in Spain: Evaluating the social–ecological resilience of cultural landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan. 98: 26–35.
  • Rivas-Martínez, S. 2007. Mapa de series, geoseries y geopermaseries de vegetación de España (Memoria del mapa de vegetación potencial de España), I. Itinera Geobot. 17: 1-436.
  • Rivas-Martínez, S. & coautores. 2011. Mapa de series, geoseries y geopermaseries de vegetación de España (Memoria del mapa de vegetación potencial de España). II. Itinera Geobot. 18: 1–424.
  • Rodà, F., Olano, J.M., Cabello, J., Fernández-Palacios, J.M., Gallardo, A., Escudero, A. & Valladares, F. 2009. Grupo 9. Bosques. In: Bases ecológicas preliminares para la conservación de los tipos de hábitat de interés comunitario en España. Min. Med. Amb. Med. Rur. Mar., Madrid. 8 p.
  • Roces-Díaz, J., Jiménez-Alfaro, B., Álvarez-Álvarez, P. & Alvarez-García, M.A. 2014. Environmental niche and distribution of six deciduous tree species in the Spanish Atlantic region. iFor. Bio. For. 8: 214–221.
  • Sainz Ollero, H., de Dios, R.S. & Morales, A.G.C. 2010. La cartografia sintética de los paisajes vegetales españoles: una asignatura pendiente en geobotánica. Ecología 23: 249–275.
  • San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., Parviainen, J., Schuck, A., Bozzano, M., Estreguil, C., Koskela, J., Lier, M., Spielmann, M., Van Brusselen, J., Bücking, W., Caudullo, G. & Larsson, T.B. 2011. Criterion 4: Maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement of biological diversity in forest ecosystems. State of Europe’s Forests 2011. In: Barbati, A., Bastrup-Birk, A. & Baycheva, T. (Eds.). Status and Trends in Sustainable Forest Management in Europe. Pp. 65–97. For. Europe Liais. Un., Oslo.
  • Santos Martins, I., Proença, V. & Pereira, H.M. 2014. The unusual suspect: Land use is a key predictor of biodiversity patterns in the Iberian Peninsula. Acta Oecol. 61: 41–50.
  • Santos, T., Telleria, J.L., Carbonell, R. 2002. Bird conservation in fragmented Mediterranean forests of Spain: effects of geographical location, habitat and landscape degradation. Biol.Conserv. 105: 113–125.
  • Schmitz, M.F., Atauri, J.A., de Pablo, C.L., de Agar, P.M., Rescia, A.J. & Pineda, F.D. 1998. Changes in land use in Northern Spain: effects of forestry management on soil conservation. For. Ecol. Manag. 109: 137–150.
  • Seibert, P. 1980. Ökologische Bewertung von homogenen Landschaftsteilen, Ökosys. Pflanzen. Ber. ANL 4: 10–23.
  • Sesma, J. & Loidi, J. 1993. Estudio de la vegetación de Monte Peña (Navarra) y su valoración naturalística. Príncipe de Viana. Supl. Ci. 13: 127–168.
  • Taffetani, F. & Rismondo, M. 2009. Bioindicator system for the evaluation of the environmental quality of agro-ecosystems. Fitosociologia 46: 3–22.
  • Walker, S., Price, R. & Stephens, T.R. 2008. An index of risk as a measure of biodiversity conservation achieved through land reform. Conserv. Biol. 22: 48–59.
  • Wood, C.C., Gross, M.R. 2008. Elemental conservation units: communicating extinction risk without dictating targets for protection. Conserv. Biol. 22: 36–47.
  • Zapata, V.M. & Robledano, F. 2014. Assessing biodiversity and conservation value of forest patches secondarily fragmented by urbanisation in semiarid southeastern Spain. J. Nat. Conserv. 22: 166–175.
  • AEMET. Meteorology national agency. www.aemet.es/
  • CBD. Convention of Biological Diversity. Forest Biodiversity, Definitions. Forest Diversity group of the. https://www.cbd.int/forest/definitions.shtml
  • FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global forest resources assessment 2010: Terms and definitions. Working paper 144/E, Rome. www.fao.org/docrep/014/am665e/am665e00.pdf
  • gvGIS Development Team. Geographic Information System Sofware, Version 2.1. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. www.gvsig.org
  • Vegetation Map of the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country. Vicecons. Med. Amb., Vitoria. www.geo.euskadi.eus/geograficos/habitats-vegetacion-actual-y-usos-del-suelo/s69-geodir/es/
  • Aerial photograph of the Basque Country. Basque Government, Vicecons. Med. Amb., Vitoria. www.geo.euskadi.eus/s69-geoser/es/contenidos/informacion/contenido_sigrid/es_84/index.shtml
  • LIDAR. 2008. map of the Basque Country, 1: 25.000, Hoja 38. Basque Government, Vicecons. Med. Amb., Vitoria. www.geo.euskadi.eus/s69-15375/es
  • EUNIS. Habitat, actual vegetation and land use cartography of the Basque Country.1:10.000. 2003, 2009 EUNIS map correction. Vicecons. Med. Amb., Vitoria. www.geo.euskadi.eus/geograficos/habitats-vegetacion-actual-y-usos-del-suelo/s69-geodir/es/
  • Series vegetation map of the Basque Country, 1:50.000. Vicecons. Med. Amb., Vitoria. www.euskadi.eus/web01-a2ingdib/es/u95aWar/comunJSP/u95aEntradaAccesoExterno.do?&idAcceso=series_vegetacion
Data source: Dialnet