Search

Up to now, global conservation priorities are far from incorporating megadiverse invertebrate taxa. Thus, an important emerging field in biological conservation is how we might manage landscape to preserve insects. In this study, we analyze the efficacy of Italian reserve network for protecting multiple saproxylic beetles, considering both nationally designated areas and Natura 2000 sites. We selected 150 species inhabiting the Italian territory from the European Red List for saproxylic beetles, on the basis of distribution data availability. For each species, a vulnerability score was assigned according to their Red List status, and the species' distributions data were used to perform an irreplaceability analysis. Our analyses show that conservation targets based on geographic range extent are achieved for only 7% of the considered species. We find that 13 species are not represented in any protected area: among these, two click beetle species (Elateridae) are listed in the International Union for Conservation of Nature threatened categories (i.e. Ampedus quadrisignatus EN and Ampedus brunnicornis VU). Our analyses on protected area effectiveness for the conservation of saproxylic beetles showed that nationally designated protected areas are more irreplaceable than a random selection of cells. Surprisingly, the addition of Natura 2000 sites did not improve the species representation. Moreover, these reserves include sites that are not more irreplaceable than a random selection of cells. We identify some currently unprotected areas that protection could prevent from future extinctions and ensure a favorable conservation status of saproxylic beetles. In particular, we find an important stronghold for beetle conservation, which obtained a high irreplaceability score, in the Adige river basin. We recommend the designation of new reserves in this area to complement the existing network and to help guarantee invertebrate saproxylic fauna protection.

For planning practical measures aimed at biodiversity protection, conservation priorities must be identified at a local scale. Unfortunately, identifying local conservation priorities requires high-resolution data on species distribution, and these are often unavailable. Atlases of species distribution provide data for several groups of organisms in many different areas but are often too coarse in resolution to provide valuable information. We explored the possibility of cross-scale modelling species distributions and we clarified, for the first time, its effect on prioritization exercises. We used different modelling techniques for scaling down atlas data for Sardinian reptiles, validated the outcomes with detailed, field-sampled data, and compared conservation priorities deriving from atlas maps and downscaled models. Doing this, we obtained as a further result the identification of priority species and areas for future conservation strategies. Our results encourage us to experiment further with this approach. Through the downscaling procedure, we obtain high-resolution models with strong variations in predictive performances, although most of the models show satisfactory/excellent scores. This testifies that low-resolution data can be downscaled maintaining low rates of omission and commission errors. Increasing the resolution of distribution maps used for prioritization influences the spatial patterns of priority but does not modify the evaluation of species representation. Overall, we show that atlases can meet the large demand for distribution data by decision makers if appropriate downscaling procedures are adopted. In addition, we provide practical instruments for the conservation of reptiles in Sardinia by identifying priority species and areas that require strict management.

Read the Feature Paper: Protected areas and insect conservation: questioning the effectiveness of Natura 2000 network for saproxylic beetles in Italy Commentaries on this Feature Paper: Institutional vertebratism hampers insect conservation generally; not just saproxylic beetle conservation; Knowledge gaps in protected area effectiveness