This article was downloaded by: [Pierluigi Bombi]On: 13 December 2011, At: 03:08Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Italian Journal of ZoologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tizo20

Amphibians conservation in Italy: The contribution ofthe WWF Oases networkP. Bombi a , M. D'Amen a , D. Salvi b , M. A. Bologna a , F. Marcone c , C. Maggio c & A. Canu ca Università di Roma Tre, Dipartimento di Biologia Ambientale, Rome, Italyb CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Campus Agrário deVairão, Portugalc WWF Oasi, Rome, Italy

Available online: 06 Dec 2011

To cite this article: P. Bombi, M. D'Amen, D. Salvi, M. A. Bologna, F. Marcone, C. Maggio & A. Canu (2011):Amphibians conservation in Italy: The contribution of the WWF Oases network, Italian Journal of Zoology,DOI:10.1080/11250003.2011.623722

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11250003.2011.623722

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Italian Journal of Zoology, December 2011, iFirst, 1–9

Amphibians conservation in Italy: The contribution of the WWF Oasesnetwork

P. BOMBI1*, M. D’AMEN1, D. SALVI2, M. A. BOLOGNA1, F. MARCONE3, C. MAGGIO3,& A. CANU3

1Università di Roma Tre, Dipartimento di Biologia Ambientale, Rome, Italy, 2CIBIO, Centro de Investigação emBiodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Campus Agrário de Vairão, Portugal, and 3WWF Oasi, Rome, Italy

(Received 17 May 2011; accepted 29 August 2011)

AbstractAmphibians have emerged as a major conservation concern because of the global decline in their numbers in recent decades.Notwithstanding, they are often neglected in conservation planning respects to other less threatened vertebrate groups. InItaly, few studies have analyzed the effectiveness of amphibian protection regimes. The main aim of this paper is to estimatethe contribution of the WWF oases network to amphibians conservation in Italy. Moreover, we conducted a prioritizationof this network and we individuated additional areas that should be protected for implementing an oases role. We assembledthe largest and most up-to-date dataset available for amphibians in the WWF oases, and we adopted a spatial approachbased on gap and irreplaceability analyses. Our results provide a critical assessment of the oases importance for amphibiansconservation. Many species that are completely uncovered by oases protection have been identified, and new areas suitablefor filling the conservation gap have been recognized. We recommend designation of new reserves in these areas to helpguarantee amphibian conservation. Moreover, we identified those oases that ensure the representation of the largest numberof species. In this light, Monte Arcosu appeared to be the most important site for the achievement of the current degreeof species representation. Together with six other oases that obtained high irreplaceability scores, Monte Arcosu representsa priority for the preservation of amphibian diversity. Specific initiatives should be primarily implemented in these oases,guaranteeing that highly irreplaceable sites will maintain their crucial role in the future.

Keywords: protected areas, amphibians, Italy, gap analysis, irreplaceability

Introduction

Amphibians are an important component ofbiodiversity that recently came into view as a globalconservation priority because of their worldwidedecline (Stuart et al. 2004; Wake & Vredenburg2008; D’Amen & Bombi 2009). Since 1970, pre-cipitous amphibian population reductions have beenobserved worldwide and scientists documentedseveral extinction events, especially of tropicalmountain species, in Central and South America(e.g., Pounds et al.1999; Young et al. 2001; Ronet al. 2003). Many amphibian populations are char-acterized by natural wide fluctuations (Pechmannet al. 1991), but recent declines were far morewidespread and severe than would be expectedunder normal conditions of demographic variation(Pounds et al. 1997; Green 2003). A number of

*Correspondence: Pierluigi Bombi, Università di Roma Tre, Dipartimento di Biologia Ambientale, Viale G. Marconi 446, 00146. Rome, Italy. Email:pierluigi.bombi@gmail.com

factors, acting synergistically, have been cited aspotential causes of such declines, including: habitatloss and degradation, climate change, increase ofUV-B radiation, introduction of invasive species,pollution, over-exploitation, and emerging infectiousdiseases (e.g., Alford & Richards 1999; Alford et al.2001; Kiesecker et al. 2001; Collins & Storfer 2003;Daszak et al. 2003; Stuart et al. 2004). The latestassessment of the Status of the World’s Vertebratesreports that 41% of amphibian species are threat-ened (Baillie et al.2010). Amphibians have thehighest proportion of threatened species among thevertebrate groups, but also the highest proportion ofData Deficient species and the lowest proportion ofLeast Concern species (Baillie et al.2010). In Italy,Andreone and Luiselli (2000) assessed the threatsto amphibian populations on the basis of natural

ISSN 1125-0003 print/ISSN 1748-5851 online © 2011 Unione Zoologica Italianahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11250003.2011.623722

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pier

luig

i Bom

bi]

at 0

3:08

13

Dec

embe

r 20

11

2 P. Bombi et al.

history parameters. Moreover, it has been evidencedthat habitat loss and climate change had comparableimportance as major causes of recent populationdisappearances in Italy (D’Amen & Bombi 2009;D’Amen et al. 2010a).

Notwithstanding their imperiled status, amphib-ians are relatively neglected in conservation stud-ies with respect to other less threatened taxonomicgroups (Brito 2008) and they are often ignored inconservation planning (Rodrigues et al. 2004; Pawaret al. 2007). If compared with other European coun-tries, the Italian amphibian fauna is highly diverseand has a high percentage of endemic and/or threat-ened species (Gasc et al.1997; Bologna 2004; Temple& Cox 2009). In Italy, few studies have analyzedthe effectiveness of amphibians protection regime.Maiorano et al. (2006, 2007) evaluated the capa-bility of Italian national parks and Natura 2000sites to conserve terrestrial vertebrates in the cur-rent conditions. D’Amen et al. (2010b) analyzedthe long-term efficacy of the same set of protectedareas for amphibian conservation under two climatechange scenarios for the mid of 21st century. Thesestudies evidenced that, similarly to other Europeanregions (e.g., Dimitrakopoulos et al. 2004; Araújoet al. 2007), existing protected areas in Italy areinsufficient to conserve current patterns of bio-diversity. The ensemble of nationally designatedparks and Natura 2000 sites does not represent theentire set of protected areas available for biodiversityconservation.

More than 100 additional sites across Italy, knownas “oases”, are protected by WWF under differ-ent conservation regimes. Such network of oasesrepresents the main instrument of WWF for theconservation of Italian biodiversity. These sites areplaced in most of the Italian regions including allthe biogeographic districts and most of the mainecosystems hosted in Italy. The size of the singleoases ranges from 0.3 ha up to 3600 ha and as awhole they cover nearly 30,000 ha (WWF 2010),being the largest network of protected areas in Italymanaged by a single private organization. The oasesnetwork protects the richest ecosystems in biodiver-sity yet the most vulnerable and threatened ones.Thus, although this network is only a componentof the overall system of protected areas in Italy,it may represent a complex and pervasive reserves’framework, which embodies a strategic element forthe conservation of the Italian biodiversity. Of theover one hundred oases that make up the network,33 of these have been selected for their richnessin terms of biodiversity and vulnerability requiringintensive conservation efforts, and for the complexityin their daily management. They reflect ecosystems

with high species richness, species of national andcommunity interest, rare and endemic species, andhabitats and species most threatened both at nationaland international levels.

The main aim of this paper is to estimate theextent to which the network of WWF oases con-tributes to protecting the amphibian species in Italy.More specifically, our work aspires to give an answerto the following key questions: (i) how many, andwhich species are protected by the oases network?(ii) Which oases give the largest contribution toamphibians protection? (iii) Which additional areasshould be protected for implementing the oases role?To do this, we evidenced on the one hand the cur-rent gaps of conservation, in terms of species thatare not, or insufficiently represented into the oasesnetwork (Jennings 2000). On the other hand, wecalculated the contribution of each oasis for rep-resenting the current set of species. In additionto analyze amphibian species richness, we adopteda spatial approach based on the principle of irre-placeability (Pressey et al. 1994; Coetzee et al.2009) for measuring the contribution of individ-ual oases. Such a framework allowed us to iden-tify priorities for the conservation of amphibiansin Italy, both in terms of critical species and ofkey sites. This could help to optimize the allo-cation of limited conservation funds to priorityareas, limiting the investments in areas where con-servation initiatives have an high probability to beinefficient.

Materials and methods

Dataset

We derived species records for the 33 selectedoases from field researches, literature informa-tion, and appropriate faunal databases (Figure 1).Fieldwork was carried out in more than twenty fieldcampaigns during 2008 and 2009. On the whole,we surveyed 15 oases throughout Italy, includingmountain systems such as Alps and Apennines,mid-elevation, coastal, and insular areas. Surveyswere carried out by visual census and placing livetraps. If necessary (as for larval stages), specimenswere temporarily captured and released immediatelyafter the specific identification. Since WWF oasesoften coincide with sites of community impor-tance, special protection areas, or Ramsar sites,we also examined the Bioitaly and the Natura2000databanks (available at respectively: http://wwwbioitaly.casaccia.enea.it/wwwbioitaly; ftp://ftp.scn.minambiente.it/Cartografie/Natura2000/schede_e_mappe). Moreover, when appropriate, we utilized

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pier

luig

i Bom

bi]

at 0

3:08

13

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Amphibians conservation by the Italian WWF Oases 3

Figure 1. Geographic location of the 33 WWF oases considered in this paper and of place names used in the text.

other faunal databases, which contained local,georeferenced observations (e.g., the herpetologicaldatabase of Latium used by Bologna et al. (2000)updated to 2009). In this study we considered all ofthe 37 amphibian species of the Italian fauna. Forthe species names we followed Lanza et al. (2007).Contrary to the recent critical review by Speybroecket al. (2010), here we considered Bombina pachypus,Bufo balearicus, and Bufo siculus as full species (Veith1996; Stöck et al. 2006; Colliard et al. 2010) and weadopted the name Mesotriton alpestris for the alpinenewt (Lanza et al.2007). Overall, we assembled thelargest and most up-to-date dataset available foramphibians in the WWF oases.

Gap analysis

The basic principle of gap analysis consist of compar-ing species ranges to the distribution of conservationareas and determining the elements that are notrepresented in the reserve network, or representedinsufficiently with respect to predefined specific con-servation targets (Jennings 2000). We considered as“total gap species” those represented in none oasis,while species that met only a portion of their conser-vation target were considered “partial gap species”

(Rodrigues et al. 2004). We established the conser-vation target for species conservation on the basisof species-specific extent of occurrence, followingRodrigues et al. (2004). We assumed that eachspecies should be represented in the oases networkproportionally to its range size. The specific extentof occurrences were measured on the basis of theCKmap databank (Stoch 2000–2005) and updatingthe distribution information for the newly recognizedspecies using maps from IUCN Red List (IUCN2009). We set the minimum conservation target toone oasis for the represented species with the small-est range (i.e., Speleomantes genei) and the maximumto 22 oases for the most widespread species (i.e.,Pelophylax spp.), as this is the number of oaseswhere Pelophylax spp. is represented in. Targets for allspecies with intermediate range sizes were calculatedby interpolating the extreme range size targets usinga linear regression on the log-transformed numberof occupied cells (Rodrigues et al. 2004; Maioranoet al. 2006). By comparing the number of oases thatharbor each species with the respective conservationtargets, we calculated the percentage of target met foreach species. This procedure allowed us to identifyany current gaps of conservation in terms of non-, orunder-represented species.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pier

luig

i Bom

bi]

at 0

3:08

13

Dec

embe

r 20

11

4 P. Bombi et al.

Irreplaceability analysis

To measure the relative conservation importance ofdifferent oases, in addition to analyzing the relativespecies richness, we estimated the summed irreplace-ability value of each site using the C-Plan SystematicConservation Planning System, Version 4 (Presseyet al. 2009). Simply defined, the irreplaceability ofa site is the degree to which that site is requiredin a reserve network in order to achieve establishedconservation targets (Pressey et al. 1994). To avoidan intractable exact calculation, we estimated irre-placeability as the number of combinations of sitesthat include the focal site and meet conservation tar-gets, but which would not meet the targets if thefocal site were removed. This estimation was doneby using a predictive approach based on the centrallimit theorem (see Ferrier et al. 2000 for details).Summed irreplaceability is calculated by adding allthe feature (species) irreplaceabilities of all featuresin that site. This value can range from zero to a largenumber depending on the number of features in thesite. A high value of summed irreplaceability indi-cates that the site is crucial for achieving conservationtargets for many species. Values close to zero indi-cate that the site is not important for any features.For irreplaceability analysis, we set the conservationtarget to one oasis for all the species. It means thatthe irreplaceability value we estimated quantifies theimportance of each oasis in order that the entire oasesnetwork represents the current set of species.

Results

Despite WWF oases protect less than 1% of theItalian total surface, their network represents a con-siderable percentage of amphibian species (56.76%).Nevertheless, 16 species are completely uncovered byoases protection (Table I). The oases network rep-resents with similar efficiency Anura and Caudata(respectively 5 and 11 total gap species; χ2 = 2.588,p = 0.108). Moreover, out of the 21 speciesrepresented in the network, nine species are under-represented with respect to their specific conserva-tion target (Table I). Partial gap species are similarlyabundant within Anura and Caudata (respectively sixand three partial gap species; χ2 = 0.845, p = 0.358).Overall, 32.43% of the total number of Italian speciesis adequately protected by the oases network.

The number of represented species varies greatlyamong different oases, from a minimum of one up toa maximum of 10 species (Figure 2a). Species richoases are widespread along northern, central, andsouthern Italy (sensu Eurostat (2007)) (Figure 2b).Of the five most species-rich oases (>7 species), two

Table I. Representation level of Italian amphibians in the WWFoases network. For each species are indicated: number of occupiedoases, conservation target, and percentage of target met

Speciesocc.oases target

% oftarget met

Euproctus platycephalus 0 1 0Salamandra atra 0 2 0Salamandra lanzai 0 1 0Salamandra salamandra 6 10 60Salamandrina perspicillata 2 4 50Salamandrina terdigitata 0 2 0Lissotron italicus 4 4 100Lissotron vulgaris 12 11 >100Mesotriton alpestris 1 6 17Triturus carnifex 16 14 >100Speleomantes ambrosii 0 1 0Speleomantes flavus 0 1 0Speleomantes genei 1 1 100Speleomantes imperialis 0 1 0Speleomantes italicus 0 2 0Speleomantes strinatii 0 2 0Speleomantes supramontis 0 1 0Proteus anguinus 0 1 0Bombina pachypus 3 6 50Bombina variegata 1 3 33Discoglossus pictus 0 3 0Discoglossus sardus 2 2 100Pelobates fuscus 1 2 50Pelodytes punctatus 0 1 0Bufo bufo 24 19 >100Bufo balearicus 15 10 >100Bufo siculus 2 2 100Bufo viridis 0 2 0Hyla arborea 0 1 0Hyla intermedia 22 16 >100Hyla meridionalis 0 1 0Hyla sarda 2 2 100Pelophylax spp. 22 22 100Rana dalmatina 11 12 92Rana italica 5 9 56Rana latastei 4 4 100Rana temporaria 3 8 38

are in northern Italy, one in central Italy, and twoin southern Italy. Similarly, two of the five species-poor oases are in northern Italy, one in central Italy,one in southern Italy, and one in Sicily. All thefour considered oases located in insular regions arerelatively species-poor (<5 species). Overall, oases’species richness comes from a normally distributedpopulation (Shapiro-Wilk W = 0.958; p = 0.224)with a mean of 4.82 species.

Summed irreplaceability (SI) allows the identifica-tion of five groups of oases according to the NaturalBreaks criterion (Figure 3a), which seeks to reducethe variance within classes and maximize the variancebetween classes (Jenks 1967). Only one oasis (MonteArcosu in Sardinia; SI = 2.24) obtained very highirreplaceability values (SI > 1.63) (Figure 3b). Six

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pier

luig

i Bom

bi]

at 0

3:08

13

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Amphibians conservation by the Italian WWF Oases 5

Figure 2. a, Number of represented species per oasis; b, geographic distribution of amphibian richness in the oases.

Figure 3. a, Summed irreplaceability scores per oasis; b, geographic distribution of irrepleaceability in the oases.

oases obtained high irreplaceability values (0.62 <

SI ≤ 1.63). Together these seven sites represent pri-ority oases for conservation initiatives. Three oasesobtained medium irreplaceability values (0.33 < SI≤ 0.62). Nine oases obtained low irreplaceability val-ues (0.08 < SI ≤ 0.33). Fourteen oases obtained verylow irreplaceability values (SI ≤ 0.08). Three of thesix highly irreplaceable oases are placed in northernItaly, one in central Italy, one in southern Italy, andone in Sardinia (Figure 3b).

Discussion

Our study represents the first estimation of WWFoases contribution for amphibian conservation at

a national scale in Italy and allows the identifica-tion of the main conservation priorities in terms ofboth species and sites. In this light, future initia-tives should be primarily focused on enlarging therepresentation of gap species (both total and par-tial) and on guaranteeing that highly irreplaceableoases should maintain their crucial role. The for-mer goal could be obtained by increasing the localhabitat suitability for the focal species in single siteswithin appropriate oases, modifying the perimeter ofappropriate oases to include potentially close sitesof focal species presence, or creating new oasesin appropriate areas characterized by the presenceof the focal species. The latter goal requires thedetailed understanding of all the potential threats for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pier

luig

i Bom

bi]

at 0

3:08

13

Dec

embe

r 20

11

6 P. Bombi et al.

amphibian populations at global, regional, and localscales. This understanding should represent the basisfor planning any specific initiative, which should beprimarily implemented in the priority oases.

In terms of species, those completely uncoveredby the network have, evidently, the highest priority.Nevertheless, among these 16 species some particu-lar emergency should be evidenced. The Sardinianbrook newt, E. platycephalus, is an island endemic,restricted to a few isolated areas mainly in theLimbara, Gennargentu, and Settefratelli Mountains(Lecis & Norris 2003; Bovero et al. 2005). Thisspecies is listed as endangered by IUCN (Romanoet al. 2010), was identified by Andreone and Luiselli(2000) as the most at risk on the basis of naturalhistory parameters, and new threats from hotbeds ofchytridiomycosis were revealed (Bovero et al. 2008).Moreover, Maiorano et al. (2006) showed thatE. platycephalus is completely neglected by Italianprotected areas. Neither of the two Sardinian oasesharbors this species, being primarily found on theeast side of the island. Nevertheless, recent, uncon-firmed observations from Monte Arcosu should becarefully verified, representing a potentially funda-mental step toward the protection of the Sardinianbrook newt. The painted frog, Discoglossus pictus, israther widespread in northern Africa and in Sicily.In Italy, this species has experienced a large reduc-tion in recent decades (>30%) (D’Amen & Bombi2009) and it is poorly represented in protected areas(D’Amen et al. 2010b). Increasing the habitat suit-ability for the painted frog through appropriate actionin at least one of the two Sicilian oases could rep-resent an efficient strategy for achieving a sufficientprotection.

Among partial gap species some critical casesare demonstrated as well. The spadefood toad,Pelobates fuscus, is widespread in the Palaearcticregion, but in Italy it is present as the endemic, highlythreatened subspecies P. f. insubricus. This taxonhad a strongly declined in recent decades (>50%)(D’Amen & Bombi 2009) and is predicted to facefurther reductions in the future because of climatechange (D’Amen et al.2010b). Moreover, it is theleast represented species in protected areas (D’Amenet al. 2010b). Thus, the inclusion of one of the 12remnant populations in the oases network would bea great goal for the conservation of P. f. insubricus.The Apennine yellow-bellied toad, Bombina pachy-pus, is endemic to peninsular Italy, where it hassuffered severe declines in recent decades (D’Amen& Bombi 2009). This species is listed as Endangeredby IUCN (Andreone et al. 2010) and increasing itsrepresentation in the oases network would be cru-cial for meeting its conservation target. The Italian

stream frog, Rana italica, is endemic to peninsularItaly and, despite it being quite common in suitablehabitats, it is acknowledged as highly threatened byAndreone and Luiselli (2000) because of its natu-ral history traits. Enlarging the number of oases thatharbor R. italica should be considered an importantinitiative.

Notwithstanding the achievement of respectiveconservation targets by non-gap species, somedangerous situations should be highlighted. TheTyrrhenian Painted Frog, Discoglossus sardus, andthe Tyrrhenian Tree Frog, Hyla sarda, are mainlyrestricted to Sardinia and Corsica. The Italian AgileFrog, Rana latastei, is sub-endemic to northernItaly, where it is mainly restricted to the Po Riverplain. These three species are considered vulnera-ble (R. latastei) or of least concern (D. sardus andH. sarda) following IUCN (2010), but are highlythreatened on the basis of their respective naturalhistory traits (Andreone & Luiselli 2000) and arescarcely represented in protected areas (Maioranoet al. 2006; D’Amen et al. 2010b). Therefore, theyshould be considered relative priorities and oasesharboring these species privileged in conservationinitiatives.

In terms of oases, the highest priority should begiven to the most irreplaceable sites, which canguarantee the representation of the largest num-ber of species considering the network as a whole.Secondly, oases’ species richness should be takeninto account for maximizing local diversity. In thislight, Monte Arcosu is by far the most fundamen-tal site for the achievement of the current degreeof species representation. This oasis is relativelyspecies poor, but three of the four species presentare restricted to Sardinia and one (Speleomantes genei)is represented uniquely in this site. Moreover, asmentioned above, D. sardus and H. sarda are pri-ority species and, if confirmed, the observation ofE. platycephalus would further increase the crucialimportance of this oasis. Both the low number ofspecies and the very high irreplaceability of MonteArcosu derive from the insular location of this oasis.The six highly irreplaceable oases should also be con-sidered as keystones of the current oases network. Inparticular, Valpredina, Guardiaregia-Campochiaro,Bosco Rocconi, and Bosco di Vanzago are highlyirreplaceable and species rich at the same time.Moreover, some priority species are present in thesesites: Rana latastei (Valpredina), Bombina pachypus(Guardiaregia-Campochiaro, Bosco Rocconi), Ranaitalica (Guardiaregia-Campochiaro, Bosco Rocconi),and Pelobates fuscus (Bosco di Vanzago). Therefore,the ensemble of these seven oases should be con-sidered the core of the network, where protection

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pier

luig

i Bom

bi]

at 0

3:08

13

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Amphibians conservation by the Italian WWF Oases 7

should be particularly strict and conservation mea-sures should be primarily developed.

Our analysis also allowed us to identify furtherareas that, if included in the network, would reinforcethe existing set of oases partially filling the currentgaps of conservation. Here we also demonstratedsome high priorities in terms of further areas. Threeof the 16 total gap species (Pelodytes punctatus, Hylameridionalis, and Speleomantes strinatii) occur sym-patrically in western Liguria, which represents theeasternmost limit of distribution for several speciesat West-Mediterranean chorotype (Vigna Tagliantiet al.2000). In this area are also present two partialgap species (Mesotriton alpestris and Salamandra sala-mandra). Similarly, in the province of Trieste, wheresome Balkan species are present, three species com-pletely neglected by the current set of oases (Proteusanguinus, Hyla arborea, and Bufo viridis) and two par-tial gap species (Bombina variegata and Salamandrasalamandra) occur sympatrically. Thus, identifyingappropriate sites for setting new reserves in suchareas should maximize the species representation,filling significant parts of the conservation gaps of theWWF network. Moreover, the identification of someadditional sites in appropriate locations in Sardiniashould be acknowledged for the possibility to covertwo more total gap species (Euproctus platycephalusand Speleomantes imperialis). Finally, the identifica-tion of an appropriate site in northern Calabriawould allow the inclusion of Salamandrina terdigitatain the set of the represented species and to implementthe protection of five partial gap species (Mesotritonalpestris, Bombina pachypus, Rana italica, Salamandrasalamandra, and Rana dalmatina). The creation of areserved site in northern Calabria is particularly rel-evant to amphibian conservation as no other oasesare already established in the zone and a large partof the genetic diversity of several Italian amphib-ians is hosted here because of the peninsular location(Bombina pachypus, Pelophylax lessonae, and Rana ital-ica) (Canestrelli et al. 2006, 2008; Canestrelli &Nascetti 2008).

We identified priority areas for the expansion of theoasis network, but our analysis is obviously at a spa-tial scale that does not permit directly the locationof new reserved sites. In order to set oases bound-aries in these broad areas, researches at higher spatialresolution would be required (e.g., Bombi 2010).These researches should focus not only on the prop-erties of individual sites, but also give great emphasisto the issues of complementarity with other exist-ing reserves (nationally designed and Natura 2000networks). Indeed, other components of the Italiansystem of protected areas could be functionally linkedto the oases network and this linkage could be used

for incrementing the degree of connectivity of theItalian system of protected areas as a whole. Theconnectivity is a fundamental issue for increasing thesurvival probabilities of species (Crooks & Sanjayan2006), especially in view of the future climate changeforecast in the 21st century. Predictive modelingsuggests that the distributions of many species inItaly will be influenced by climate change, with theeffects varying greatly between species, from regionalextinction to very marked range shifts (Girardelloet al. 2010; D’Amen et al.2010b). The survivalof many species will depend on the possibility tomove through the landscape, thus a large numbersof protected areas adequately connected, may assistthe geographic movement of those species that haveat least moderate dispersal abilities (Gaston et al.2008). These effects of climate change should betaken into account in planning future initiatives andstudies that clarify the role of each oasis for fac-ing such effects, by predicting the specific responsesto climate change (e.g., Bombi et al. 2011) wouldbe required.

The availability of biodiversity data remains a sig-nificant constraint to conservation assessment andplanning. For such a reason we claim the need forconcerted efforts to compile a faunal assessment onthe amphibian diversity for each oasis. This couldmean extending the prioritization analysis, carriedout in this work, to the entire WWF network in Italy.Moreover, deepening the faunal knowledge of theoases would contribute to a reduction in the rate offalse absences, which could cause an underestima-tion of the species representation and the selectionof conservation targets that are too small. Furtherand more detailed studies are required at the oasislevel for the real implementation of specific initia-tives, especially in the here defined priority areas.In particular, the size and viability of amphibianpopulations should be investigated at the oasis levelbecause it may influence the role that each oasis canhave for species conservation. In addition, the rela-tion of species richness and size of populations withthe oases’ surface should be clarified. Environmentalexigencies of the focal species should be analyzedat the local scale for optimizing measures aimedat increasing habitat suitability in single sites (e.g.,Bombi et al. 2009). In addition, a deep understand-ing of all the threatening factors at local, regional,and global levels (e.g., Bovero et al. 2008; D’Amenet al. 2010b) must be obtained for planning themost efficient initiatives to maximize the probabilitiesof long-term survival. For these reasons, this papershould be interpreted not only as an assessment ofthe efficacy of the WWF oases network for protectingItalian amphibians, but also as a basic instrument for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pier

luig

i Bom

bi]

at 0

3:08

13

Dec

embe

r 20

11

8 P. Bombi et al.

targeting further studies and optimizing conservationmeasures.

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the company WWF Oasi.We are grateful to all managers and staff of theWWF oases who helped in data collection and field-work. Thanks also to Daniela Lucente, Mirko Bessi,Cristiano Liuzzi, and Roberto Colella for their helpin the fieldwork. Amphibians were captured andhandled under permits from the Italian Ministry ofEnvironment DPN-2009-0005106.

References

Alford RA, Dixon PM, Pechmann JH. 2001. Global amphibianpopulation decline. Nature 41:499–500.

Alford RA, Richards SJ. 1999. Global amphibian declines: a prob-lem in applied ecology. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution,and Systematics 30:133–165.

Andreone F, Corti C, Sindaco R, Romano A, Giachi F, Vanni S,Delfino G. 2010. Bombina pachypus. In: IUCN. IUCN RedList of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. Available: http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 3 November 2010.

Andreone F, Luiselli L. 2000. The Italian batrachofauna andits conservation status: a statistical assessment. BiologicalConservation 96:197–208.

Araújo MB, Lobo JM, Moreno JC. 2007. The effectiveness ofIberian protected areas in conserving terrestrial biodiversity.Conservation Biology 21:1423–1432.

Baillie JEM, Griffiths J, Turvey ST, Loh J, Collen B. 2010.Evolution Lost: Status and Trends of the World’s Vertebrates.London: Zoological Society of London.

Bologna MA. 2004. Introduction: a monitoring project on threat-ened Italian amphibians and reptiles. Italian Journal of Zoology71(Suppl. 1):3–8.

Bologna MA, Capula M, Carpaneto GM, editors.2000. Anfibi eRettili del Lazio. Rome: Fratelli Palombi Editori.

Bombi P. 2010. Toward a new instrument for identifyingthe Italian hotspots of biodiversity: the study case of theamphibians and reptiles of Sicily. Italian Journal of Zoology77:453–459.

Bombi P, Capula M, D’Amen M, Luiselli L. 2011. Climatechange threatens the survival of highly endangered Sardinianpopulations of the snake Hemorrhois hippocrepis. AnimalBiology 61:239–248. DOI 10.1163/157075511X584191.

Bombi P, Salvi D, Luiselli L, Bologna MA. 2009. Modelling cor-relates of microhabitat use of two sympatric lizards: A modelselection approach. Animal Biology 59:109–126.

Bovero S, Sotgiu G, Angelini C, Doglio S, Gazzaniga E,Picciau L. 2005. New data on the distribution of theSardinian brook salamander (Euproctus platycephalus) in south-ern and western Limbara mountain complex (Sardinia).Herpetological Bulletin 93:17–20.

Bovero S, Sotgiu G, Angelini C, Doglio S, Gazzaniga E,Cunningham AA, Garner TWJ. 2008. Detection of chytrid-iomycosis caused by Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in theendangered Sardinian Newt (Euproctus platycephalus) inSouthern Sardinia, Italy. Journal of Wildlife Diseases44:712–715.

Brito D. 2008. Amphibian conservation: Are we on the right track?Biological Conservation 141:2912–2917.

Canestrelli D, Cimmaruta R, Costantini V, Nascetti G. 2006.Genetic diversity and phylogeography of the Apennine yellow-bellied toad Bombina pachypus, with implications for conserva-tion. Molecular Ecology 15:3741–3754.

Canestrelli D, Cimmaruta R, Nascetti G. 2008. Populationgenetic structure and diversity of the Apennine endemic streamfrog, Rana italica – insights on the Pleistocene evolution-ary history of the Italian peninsular biota. Molecular Ecology17:3856–3872.

Canestrelli D, Nascetti G. 2008. Phylogeography of the pool frogRana (Pelophylax) lessonae in the Italian peninsula and Sicily:multiple refugia, glacial expansions and nuclear–mitochondrialdiscordance. Journal of Biogeography 35:1923–1936.

Coetzee BWT, Robertson MP, Erasmus BFN, van Rensburg BJ,Thuiller W. 2009. Ensemble models predict Important BirdAreas in southern Africa will become less effective for con-serving endemic birds under climate change. Global Ecologyand Biogeography 18:701–710. DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00485.x.

Colliard C, Sicilia A, Turrisi GF, Arculeo M, Perrin N, Stöck M.2010. Strong reproductive barriers in a narrow hybrid zoneof West-Mediterranean green toads (Bufo viridis subgroup)with Plio-Pleistocene divergence. BMC Evolutionary Biology10:232.

Collins JP, Storfer A. 2003. Global amphibian declines: sortingthe hypotheses. Diversity and Distributions 9:89–98.

Crooks KR, Sanjayan M. 2006. Connectivity conservation: main-taining connections for nature. In: Crooks KR, SanjayanM, editors.Connectivity conservation. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–20.

D’Amen M, Bombi P. 2009. Global warming and biodiversity: evi-dence for climate-linked amphibian declines in Italy. BiologicalConservation 142:3060–3067.

D’Amen M, Bombi P, Pearman PB, Schmatz DR, ZimmermannNE, Bologna MA. 2010b. Will climate change reduce the effi-cacy of protected areas for amphibian conservation in Italy?Biological Conservation 144:989–997.

D’Amen M, Pietrangeli B, Bologna MA. 2010a Human provokedamphibian decline in central Italy and the efficacy of protectedareas. Wildlife Research 37:547–557.

Daszak P, Cunningham AA, Hyatt AD. 2003. Infectious dis-ease and amphibian population declines. Diversity andDistributions 9:141–150.

Dimitrakopoulos PG, Memtsas D, Troumbis AY. 2004.Questioning the effectiveness of the Natura2000 SpecialAreas of Conservation strategy: the case of Crete. GlobalEcology and Biogeography 13:199–207.

Eurostat. 2007. Regions in the European Union. Nomenclatureof territorial units for statistics. European Communities.Available: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat.Accessed 3 November2010.

Ferrier S, Pressey RL, Barrett TW. 2000. A new predictor of theirreplaceability of areas for achieving a conservation goal, itsapplication to real-world planning, and a research agenda forfurther refinement. Biological Conservation 93:303–325.

Gasc JP, Cabela A, Crnobrnja-Isailovic J, Dolmen D,Grossenbacher K, Haffner P, Lescure J, Martens H, MartinezRica JP, Maurin H, Oliveira ME, Sofianidou TS, Vaith M,Zuiderwijk A, 1997. Atlas of Amphibians and Reptiles inEurope. Paris:Societas Europaea Herpetologica and MuséumNational d’Histoire Naturelle.

Gaston KJ, Jackson SF, Nagy A, Cantú-Salazar L, JohnsonM. 2008. Protected areas in Europe: Principle and practice.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134:97–119.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pier

luig

i Bom

bi]

at 0

3:08

13

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Amphibians conservation by the Italian WWF Oases 9

Girardello M, Griggio M, Whittingham MJ, Rushton SP. 2010.Models of climate associations and distributions of amphibiansin Italy. Ecological Research 25:103–111.

Green DM. 2003. The ecology of extinction: population fluc-tuation and decline in amphibians. Biological Conservation111:331–343.

IUCN. 2009. 2009 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Avai-lable: http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed November 2010.

Jenks GF. 1967. The data model concept in statistical mapping.International Yearbook of Cartography 7:186–190.

Jennings MD. 2000. Gap analysis: concepts, methods, and recentresults. Landscape Ecology 15:5–20.

Kiesecker JM, Blaustein AR, Belden LK. 2001. Complex causesof amphibian population declines. Nature 410:681–684.

Lanza B, Andreone F, Bologna MA, Corti C, Razzetti E., editors.2007. Fauna d’Italia, XLII, Amphibia. Bologna: Calderini

Lecis R, Norris K. 2003. Habitat correlates of distributionand local population decline of the endemic Sardiniannewt Euproctus platycephalus. Biological Conservation 115:303–317.

Maiorano L, Falcucci A, Boitani L. 2006. Gap analysis of ter-restrial vertebrates in Italy: priorities for conservation plan-ning in human dominated landscape. Biological Conservation133:455–473.

Maiorano L, Falcucci A, Garton EO, Boitani L. 2007.Contribution of the Natura 2000 network to biodi-versity conservation in Italy. Conservation Biology 21:1433–1444.

Pawar S, Koo MS, Kelley C, Ahmed MF, Chaudhuri S,Sarkar S. 2007. Conservation assessment and prioritization ofareas in Northeast India: Priorities for amphibians and reptiles.Biological Conservation 136:346–361.

Pechmann JHK, Scott DE, Semlitsch RD, Caldwell JP, Vitt LJ,Gibbons JV. 1991. Declining amphibian populations: the prob-lem of separating human impacts from natural fluctuations.Science 253:892–895.

Pounds JA, Fogden MPL, Campbell JH. 1999. Biologicalresponse to climate change on a tropical mountain. Nature398:611–615.

Pounds JA, Fogden MPL, Savage JM, Gorman GC. 1997. Testof null models for amphibian declines on a tropical mountain.Conservation Biology 11:1309–1322.

Pressey RL, Johnson IR, Wilson PD. 1994. Shades of irreplace-ability: towards a measure of the contribution of sites to areservation goal. Biodiversity Conservation 3:242–262.

Pressey RL, Watts ME, Barrett TW, Ridges MJ. 2009. TheC-Plan conservation planning system: origins, applications,and possible futures. In: Moilanen A, Possingham HP, WilsonKA, editors. Spatial models for conservation. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press. Available: http://www.uq.edu.au/~uqmwatts/cplan.html. Accessed December 2009.

Rodrigues ASL, Akçakaya HR, Andelman SJ, Bakarr MI, BoitaniL, Brooks TM, Chanson JS, Fishpool LDC, Fonseca GAB,

Gaston KJ, Hoffmann M, Marquet P, Pilgrim JD, PresseyRL, Schipper J, Sechrest W, Stuart SN, Underhill LG, WallerRW, Watts MEJ, Yan X. 2004. Global Gap Analysis: PriorityRegions for Expanding the Global Protected-Area Network.BioScience 54:1092–1100.

Romano A, Sindaco R, Andreone F, Lecis R, Edgar P, Schmidt B,Corti C. 2010. Euproctus platycephalus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCNRed List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. Available:http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed November 2010.

Ron SR, Duellman WE, Coloma LA, Bustamante MR. 2003.Population decline of the Jambato toad Atelopus ignescens(Anura: Bufonidae) in the Andes of Ecuador. Journal ofHerpetology 37:116–126.

Speybroeck J, Beukema W, Crochet P-A. 2010. A tentative specieslist of the European herpetofauna (Amphibia and Reptilia) - anupdate. Zootaxa 2492:1–27.

Stoch F. 2000–2005. CKmap5.3.8. Ministero dell’Ambiente edella Tutela del Territorio, Dir. Prot. Nat. Available: http://www.minambiente.it/index.php?id_sezione=1930. AccessedJanuary 2010.

Stöck M, Moritz C, Hickerson M, Frynta D, Dujsebayeva T,Eremchencko V, Macey JR, Papenfuss TJ, Wake DB. 2006.Evolution of mitochondrial relationships and biogeography ofPalearctic green toads (Bufo viridis subgroup) with insightsin their genomic plasticity. Molecular Phylogenetics andEvolution 41:663–689.

Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE, RodriguesASL, Fischman DL, Waller RW. 2004. Status and trendsof amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science306:1783–1786.

Temple HJ, Cox NA. 2009. European Red List of Amphibians.Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the EuropeanCommunities.

Veith M. 1996. Molecular markers and species delimitation: exam-ples from the European batrachofauna. Amphibia-Reptilia17:303–314.

Vigna Taglianti A, Audisio PA, Biondi M, Bologna MA,Carpaneto GM, De Biase A, Fattorini S, Piattella E, SindacoR, Venchi A, Zapparoli M. 2000. A proposal for a chorotypeclassification of the Near East fauna, in the framework of theWestern Palearctic region. Biogeographia (n.s.) 20:31–59.

Wake DB, Vredenburg VT. 2008. Are we in the midst ofthe sixth mass extinction? A view from the world ofamphibians. Proceeding of the National Academy of Science105:11466–11473.

WWF. 2010. Documento Oasi 2010. Available: http://www.wwf.it/UserFiles/File/News%20Dossier%20Appti/DOSSIER/Oasi/DOC_OASI_2010.pdf. Accessed November 2010.

Young BE, Lips K, Reaser J, Ibáñez R, Salas A, Cedeño R,Coloma L, Ron S, LaMarca E, Meyer J, Muñoz A, Bolaños F,Chavez G, Romo D. 2001. Population declines and prioritiesfor amphibian conservation in Latin America. ConservationBiology 15:1213–1223.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pier

luig

i Bom

bi]

at 0

3:08

13

Dec

embe

r 20

11