All articles published by are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by , including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https:///openaccess.
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Seeing The Invisible
The protection of wetlands is a cornerstone in the conservation of pond-breeding amphibians. Because protected wetlands are rarely natural areas, but are often man-made, at least in Europe, it is important that they are well managed to fulfill their intended function. Appropriate management requires knowledge of the ecology of the species, particularly habitat requirements. Here, we combine species monitoring data and habitat mapping data in an analysis where our goal was to describe the factors that determine the occupancy of amphibian species in federally protected amphibian breeding sites. As expected, every species had its own habitat requirements, often a combination of both a terrestrial and aquatic habitat (i.e., landscape complementation). In most species, occupancy was strongly positively affected with the amount of aquatic habitat, but predicted occupancy probabilities were low because the amount of aquatic habitat was low in most sites. The area or proportion of ruderal vegetation also had positive effects on multiple species, while other types of terrestrial habitat (e.g., meadows) led to low occupancy probabilities. The total area of the protected breeding sites was never included in a final model and connectivity was important only for one species (Triturus cristatus). The latter finding implies that the quality of the landscape between breeding sizes is more important than distance per se, while the former implies that the area of some specific habitats within breeding sites is crucial for high occupancies. Thus, increasing the amount of aquatic habitats and likewise terrestrial habitats within protected areas would make them more likely to achieve their conservation objectives. Our study is an example of how the joint analysis of monitoring data and habitat data (based on mapping in the field) can lead to evidence-based suggestions on how to improve conservation practice.
Freshwater ecosystems such as geographically isolated wetlands and ponds are home to a large number of species [1, 2]. Yet, the decline in wetlands, ponds, and the associated species outpaces the loss of biodiversity in marine and terrestrial ecosystems [3]. Halting this decline was dubbed as the “ultimate conservation frontier” [4]. It is thus imperative that conservation scientists provide solutions on how to master the freshwater biodiversity crisis [5, 6, 7]. Numerous reviews offer research priorities for freshwater biodiversity conservation. A common suggestion is the preservation of freshwater species and habitats through the creation of dedicated nature reserves [8, 9, 10]. However, freshwater biodiversity is often insufficiently represented in networks of protected areas [11, 12]. While nature reserves are well-known to be beneficial for wildlife, they often do not fulfil their intended function because existing reserves are not well maintained [13]. For example, the authors of [14] quantified the decline in amphibians in North America. Most study sites in [14] were located in protected areas such as national parks or other government-owned land, yet declines were stronger than the declines reported by the authors of [15], who used data from a variety of habitats, both protected and unprotected. Thus, a better understanding of the qualitative and quantitative requirements of a species regarding ecological resources (e.g., food and breeding sites) could help to manage nature reserves in a better way. Importantly, research that directly informs conservation practice was a research priority identified by conservation practitioners [16].
Amphibians are a prime example of the decline in freshwater biodiversity [17]. Declines in amphibians of considerable magnitude have been observed for decades and are caused by a large number of stressors, including habitat loss and deterioration, pollution, invasive species, diseases, and climate change [14, 15, 17]. While there are many causes that contribute to global amphibian declines, every population experiences its own local combination of stressors [14]. This suggests that it is important to look for local causes for both population declines and the determinants of population persistence [7, 18].
Green Space And Mortality In European Cities: A Health Impact Assessment Study
Here, we studied the relationship between the characteristics of the aquatic and terrestrial habitat in federally protected amphibian breeding sites of national importance (the highest degree of protection that a Swiss nature reserve can attain; [19]) and the occupancy of amphibians in Switzerland. We studied pond-breeding amphibians, which require both a suitable terrestrial and aquatic habitat (landscape complementation; [20, 21, 22]). The species that we studied are known to vary in their preferences for aquatic and terrestrial habitats [23, 24, 25]. Most amphibian breeding sites in Switzerland are man-made and require habitat management, or else succession of both the aquatic and terrestrial habitat will lead to a reduction in habitat quality or even habitat loss [19, 26]. Reduced habitat quality may have contributed to the declines in both rare and common species in Switzerland [27, 28]. Describing the relationship between the quality of the habitat and distribution and abundance of threatened species is thus essential in order to restore, manage, upgrade, or create habitats suitable for the target species [10, 22, 29].
We combined data from a large-scale amphibian monitoring programme with data from a habitat mapping programme to determine the relationship between amphibian occupancy and the structure of the aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Specifically, we quantified the relationship between the amount and type of aquatic habitats such as pond surface area or hydroperiod and species presence/absence. We also tested which types of terrestrial habitat, which was only mapped within the nature reserves, had positive or negative effects on occupancy. Even though the wider landscape is often used by amphibians, we did not include it in this analysis as the effects are often weak in our study area (the exception was connectivity; [30, 31, 32, 33]).
Given that species have different preferences, we expected species-specific responses to the quality and quantity of aquatic and terrestrial habitats (e.g., [23, 24, 25]). While we expected that all species would respond favourably to a larger number of ponds within reserves, we expected that preferences for the type of pond (i.e., temporary vs. permanent) would depend on the species’ position along the pond hydroperiod gradient [34, 35]. Given different preferences for the terrestrial habitat [23, 24, 36, 37, 38], we expected species-specific responses to variation in the structure of the terrestrial habitat.
Why Do Animals Have Tails?
We used data collected by the Swiss national monitoring programme “Monitoring the Effectiveness of Habitat Conservation in Switzerland” (“Wirkungskontrolle Biotopschutz Schweiz” (WBS); see https://biotopschutz.wsl.ch/en/index.html (accessed on 2 October 2022); [26, 33, 39, 40]). We used data from a subset of the sites for which habitat mapping data were available (n = 113).
Sites are visited according to a rotating panel design [41], such that each of the 258 sites is visited once every six years (43 sites visited every year). For our analyses, we used data collected from 2011 to 2016. For every site, we had data from one year (for example, the site shown in Figure 1 was surveyed in 2011). Five additional sites were surveyed in 2020 to increase the sample size in the Swiss biogeographic region Jura (the total n was thus 118; for a map, see Appendix A). Survey protocols for the monitoring programme include four visits during the breeding season (March–June). Alpine sites were visited only twice. The survey time window spans four months in order to include the breeding seasons of all amphibians in the assemblage. Repeated visits to a site allow imperfect detection to be accounted for when estimating site occupancy and breeding probabilities [42]. Site visits were limited to one hour. If sites were large and could not be completely surveyed within this time, surveyors searched for the amphibians in the parts of the sites that the surveyors judged to be most suitable for amphibians. At each visit, the goal was to detect all pond-breeding amphibian species and all life history stages (eggs, larvae, adults, and calling males) that are present (i.e., the two Salamandra species were not the targets of the survey). The methods included visual encounter surveys, aural surveys, and dip-netting [43], and have been approved by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment and the Swiss Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office [44]. Permits for field work were obtained from the cantonal
We used data collected by the Swiss national monitoring programme “Monitoring the Effectiveness of Habitat Conservation in Switzerland” (“Wirkungskontrolle Biotopschutz Schweiz” (WBS); see https://biotopschutz.wsl.ch/en/index.html (accessed on 2 October 2022); [26, 33, 39, 40]). We used data from a subset of the sites for which habitat mapping data were available (n = 113).
Sites are visited according to a rotating panel design [41], such that each of the 258 sites is visited once every six years (43 sites visited every year). For our analyses, we used data collected from 2011 to 2016. For every site, we had data from one year (for example, the site shown in Figure 1 was surveyed in 2011). Five additional sites were surveyed in 2020 to increase the sample size in the Swiss biogeographic region Jura (the total n was thus 118; for a map, see Appendix A). Survey protocols for the monitoring programme include four visits during the breeding season (March–June). Alpine sites were visited only twice. The survey time window spans four months in order to include the breeding seasons of all amphibians in the assemblage. Repeated visits to a site allow imperfect detection to be accounted for when estimating site occupancy and breeding probabilities [42]. Site visits were limited to one hour. If sites were large and could not be completely surveyed within this time, surveyors searched for the amphibians in the parts of the sites that the surveyors judged to be most suitable for amphibians. At each visit, the goal was to detect all pond-breeding amphibian species and all life history stages (eggs, larvae, adults, and calling males) that are present (i.e., the two Salamandra species were not the targets of the survey). The methods included visual encounter surveys, aural surveys, and dip-netting [43], and have been approved by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment and the Swiss Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office [44]. Permits for field work were obtained from the cantonal
0 comments
Post a Comment