Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T13:09:26.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The effects of using different species conservation priority lists on the evaluation of habitat importance within Hungarian grasslands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2007

PÉTER BATÁRY
Affiliation:
Hungarian Natural History Museum, Ludovika tér 2, 1083 Budapest, Hungary
ANDRÁS BÁLDI
Affiliation:
Animal Ecology Research Group of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the Hungarian Natural History Museum, Ludovika tér 2, 1083 Budapest, Hungary
SAROLTA ERDŐS
Affiliation:
Hungarian Natural History Museum, Ludovika tér 2, 1083 Budapest, Hungary
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Many bird species of conservation importance inhabit the grasslands of the Hungarian Great Plain. Although extensive grazing management usually supports more bird species than intensive management, the conservation priority is to protect rare or declining species. Therefore, the conservation status of species must also be included in assessments of the value of different habitats. We used territory mapping to count birds in 21 extensively and intensively grazed field pairs on the Hungarian Great Plain, and subsequently adjusted site scores depending on which species appeared on various lists of priority taxa. We investigated differences in conservation scores of two global conservation lists (the Bonn Convention and another based on values of eight biological characteristics), two West Europe based lists (Bird Directive and CORINE), three continental lists (European Threat Status, SPEC and Bern Convention) and two Hungarian lists (protected species of Hungary and an alternative based on the specifics of Hungarian populations). Extensively managed fields had higher conservation values under seven of the nine priority lists: only the two West Europe based lists showed opposite trends in more than half the study areas. Since both West Europe based lists cover many central and eastern European countries, there is an urgent need to revise these lists, especially the Bird Directive list that gives serious legal responsibilities to countries.

Type
Articles
Copyright
BirdLife International 2007