4.7 Article

Ecological classification of land and conservation of biodiversity at the national level: The case of Italy

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 147, 期 1, 页码 174-183

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.12.028

关键词

Hierarchical approach; Land unit; Gap analysis; Environmental quality assessment; Conservation strategies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aims of this study are to describe the ecological classification of land in Italy and to show how the resulting land units can act as reliable frameworks for coarse scale environmental analyses that can be used to implement national conservation strategies. We first collected, homogenised and drew physical thematic maps, which were then linked to biological and human features. We then performed a gap analysis of land heterogeneity compared with Natural Protected Areas and Natura2000 network on the basis of three categories: Total gaps, Partial gaps, and Protected. Moreover, we assessed the conservation status of the land units by summarising the environmental quality using the Index of landscape Conservation. We identified and mapped 3 Land Regions, 24 Land Systems, and 149 Land Facets. Total gaps account for 28% of the country, Partial gaps for 38% and Protected for 34%. The Natura2000 network is more representative than the system of National Protected Areas of the overall land heterogeneity as regards both the types (18 out of 24) and extent (72%) of the land Systems. Low conservation status prevails in the Land Facets of the Mediterranean Region located along the coasts and plains on sedimentary deposits, whereas high and very high conservation status is found along the higher belts of the Alpine and Apennine chains. These results highlight the potential use of ecological land classification for biodiversity monitoring and conservation purposes, e.g. when identifying land units that need to be recovered or targeted for enhanced biodiversity and ecosystem services protection. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据