Author
Diana Zlatanova
Bio: Diana Zlatanova is an academic researcher from Sofia University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Ursus & Population. The author has an hindex of 6, co-authored 19 publications receiving 2482 citations.
Topics: Ursus, Population, Habitat, Badger, Meles
Papers
More filters
••
National University of Cordoba1, Addis Ababa University2, National Autonomous University of Mexico3, State University of Campinas4, United Nations Environment Programme5, UNESCO6, United States Department of Agriculture7, Indiana University8, University of British Columbia9, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation10, University of Paris-Sud11, Landcare Research12, University College London13, Autonomous University of Madrid14, University of Cambridge15, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research16, University of Southern Denmark17, United Nations University18, Virginia Tech College of Natural Resources and Environment19, The Nature Conservancy20, University of the South Pacific21, University of East Anglia22, Kyushu University23, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology24, University of Washington25, Budapest University of Technology and Economics26, Environmental Law Institute27, Ankara University28, University of Portsmouth29, Chinese Academy of Sciences30, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay31, Kyoto University32, Joseph Fourier University33, National Scientific and Technical Research Council34, University of Yaoundé35, Polish Academy of Sciences36, University of São Paulo37, École Normale Supérieure38, University of Otago39, Stanford University40, University of Queensland41, Azim Premji University42, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ43, University of Ghana44, Corvinus University of Budapest45, Stockholm University46, Lakehead University47, Indian Institute of Forest Management48, Seoul National University49, Sofia University50
TL;DR: The first public product of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is its Conceptual Framework as discussed by the authors, which will underpin all IPBES functions and provide structure and comparability to the syntheses that will produce at different spatial scales, on different themes, and in different regions.
1,585 citations
••
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences1, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna2, KORA Organics3, University of Zagreb4, Spanish National Research Council5, The Nature Conservancy6, University of Porto7, University of Tirana8, University of Bern9, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague10, Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests11, Sapienza University of Rome12, Transilvania University of Brașov13, Forest Research Institute14, University of Ljubljana15, University of Sarajevo16, Friends of the Earth International17, Mendel University18, Environment Agency19, University of Göttingen20, University of Warsaw21, American Museum of Natural History22, Norwegian University of Life Sciences23, Hedmark University College24, Sofia University25
TL;DR: It is shown that roughly one-third of mainland Europe hosts at least one large carnivore species, with stable or increasing abundance in most cases in 21st-century records, and coexistence alongside humans has become possible, argue the authors.
Abstract: The conservation of large carnivores is a formidable challenge for biodiversity conservation. Using a data set on the past and current status of brown bears (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), gray wolves (Canis lupus), and wolverines (Gulo gulo) in European countries, we show that roughly one-third of mainland Europe hosts at least one large carnivore species, with stable or increasing abundance in most cases in 21st-century records. The reasons for this overall conservation success include protective legislation, supportive public opinion, and a variety of practices making coexistence between large carnivores and people possible. The European situation reveals that large carnivores and people can share the same landscape.
1,290 citations
01 Jan 2012
TL;DR: In this article, an expert based update of the conservation status of all populations identified by the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE), available in the document “Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large carnivores” (Linnell et al. 2008) and/or in the various Species Online Information Systems (http://www.lcie.kora.ch/sp‐ois/ ; also see Appendix 1).
Abstract: Large carnivores (bears Ursus arctos, wolves Canis lupus, lynx Lynx lynx and wolverines Gulo gulo) are among the most challenging group of species to maintain as large and continuous populations or to reintegrate back into the European landscape. Political, socioeconomic and society changes challenge past management approaches in some of the large populations. At the same time local improvements in habitat quality, the return of their prey species, public support and favourable legislation allow for the recovery of some small populations. Several of Europe’s large carnivore populations are large and robust, others are expanding, some small populations remain critically endangered and a few are declining. [
] Large carnivores need very large areas and their conservation needs to be planned on very wide spatial scales that will often span many intra‐ and inter‐ national borders. Within these large scales conservation and management actions need to be coordinated. To facilitate coordination, a common understanding of the present day conservation status of large carnivores at national and population level is an important basis. [
] The aim of this summary report is to provide an expert based update of the conservation status of all populations identified by the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE), available in the document “Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores” (Linnell et al. 2008) and/or in the various Species Online Information Systems (http://www.kora.ch/sp‐ois/ ; also see Appendix 1). [
] However, methods used to monitor large carnivores vary and a direct comparison over time or among populations will never be possible at a continental scale. It is more realistic to have an insight into the general order of magnitude of the population, its trend and permanent range as the “currencies” for comparisons and assessments (see point 2). This summary also does not aim to replace the habitat directive reporting, but rather complement it. Discrepancies will likely occur due to different time periods covered and different agreements reached on common reporting criteria on a national level which has to deal with many more species. Furthermore, for several countries the most recent data or distribution map were not always available, yet. [
] Changes in monitoring methods likely result in changing population estimates, even in stable populations. Improved and more costly methods may suddenly discover that previous estimates were too high, or may detect more individuals than previously assumed. Examples of both occur. Being aware of the change in methodology the expert assessment may still be “stable” for the population even if numbers listed in tables have changed. On the other hand, large scale “official” (government) estimates may be based on questionable or non‐transparent extrapolations that run contrary to data from reference areas within the country or similar regions from other countries. If the discrepancy is apparent, expert assessment needs to question official numbers. [
] This summary does not aim at reviewing monitoring techniques. Examples of parameters and principles for monitoring large carnivores and some “good practice” examples have been previously compiled by the LCIE (http://www.lcie.org/Docs/LCIE%20IUCN/LCIE_PSS_m onitoring.pdf). Furthermore, references at the end of many country reports do provide ample examples of well documented and state of the art monitoring of large carnivores in Europe under a wide variety of different contexts.
183 citations
••
TL;DR: An assessment of genetic population structure of brown bears in Bulgaria is provided by analysing tissue samples as well as samples collected with noninvasive genetic methods, including hair and faecal samples, to reveal the presence of weak genetic substructure in the study area with considerable degrees of genetic admixture.
49 citations
••
University of Freiburg1, Bavarian Forest National Park2, Weihenstephan-Triesdorf University of Applied Sciences3, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences4, University of Sassari5, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague6, University of Córdoba (Spain)7, Wageningen University and Research Centre8, Swiss National Park9, Max Planck Society10, Norwegian University of Life Sciences11, University of Ljubljana12, University of Würzburg13, Forest Research Institute14, Harvard University15, Polish Academy of Sciences16, Sofia University17, Humboldt State University18, University of Aveiro19, Transilvania University of Brașov20, University of Zagreb21, Aarhus University22
TL;DR: It is shown that many European national parks do not fulfil the aims of protected area management as set by IUCN guidelines, and the importance of creating a more integrated European ungulate management policy to meet the aims and objectives of national parks is highlighted.
24 citations
Cited by
More filters
••
TL;DR: The notion of nature's contributions to people (NCP) was introduced by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) as mentioned in this paper, a joint global effort by governments, academia, and civil society to assess and promote knowledge of Earth's biodiversity and ecosystems and their contribution to human societies.
Abstract: A major challenge today and into the future is to maintain or enhance beneficial contributions of nature to a good quality of life for all people. This is among the key motivations of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a joint global effort by governments, academia, and civil society to assess and promote knowledge of Earth's biodiversity and ecosystems and their contribution to human societies in order to inform policy formulation. One of the more recent key elements of the IPBES conceptual framework ( 1 ) is the notion of nature's contributions to people (NCP), which builds on the ecosystem service concept popularized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) ( 2 ). But as we detail below, NCP as defined and put into practice in IPBES differs from earlier work in several important ways. First, the NCP approach recognizes the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining all links between people and nature. Second, use of NCP elevates, emphasizes, and operationalizes the role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding nature's contribution to people.
1,470 citations
••
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences1, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna2, KORA Organics3, University of Zagreb4, Spanish National Research Council5, The Nature Conservancy6, University of Porto7, University of Tirana8, University of Bern9, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague10, Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests11, Sapienza University of Rome12, Transilvania University of Brașov13, Forest Research Institute14, University of Ljubljana15, University of Sarajevo16, Friends of the Earth International17, Mendel University18, Environment Agency19, University of Göttingen20, University of Warsaw21, American Museum of Natural History22, Norwegian University of Life Sciences23, Hedmark University College24, Sofia University25
TL;DR: It is shown that roughly one-third of mainland Europe hosts at least one large carnivore species, with stable or increasing abundance in most cases in 21st-century records, and coexistence alongside humans has become possible, argue the authors.
Abstract: The conservation of large carnivores is a formidable challenge for biodiversity conservation. Using a data set on the past and current status of brown bears (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), gray wolves (Canis lupus), and wolverines (Gulo gulo) in European countries, we show that roughly one-third of mainland Europe hosts at least one large carnivore species, with stable or increasing abundance in most cases in 21st-century records. The reasons for this overall conservation success include protective legislation, supportive public opinion, and a variety of practices making coexistence between large carnivores and people possible. The European situation reveals that large carnivores and people can share the same landscape.
1,290 citations
••
University of Cambridge1, University of the Basque Country2, National Autonomous University of Mexico3, University of Córdoba (Spain)4, Corvinus University of Budapest5, University of Southern Denmark6, University of Gothenburg7, University of East Anglia8, Lund University9, University of Kiel10, United Nations11, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ12, University of Khartoum13, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology14, University of Washington15, University of Oxford16, Ministry of Forestry17, University College Dublin18, National University of Cordoba19, Carthage University20, University of Chile21, Harvard University22, Norwegian University of Life Sciences23, University of Pretoria24, University of Antwerp25, Wetlands International26, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro27, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources28, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research29, University of Western Australia30, National University of General Sarmiento31, Calcutta Institute of Engineering and Management32, European Commission33, Government of Canada34, Finnish Environment Institute35, International Institute of Minnesota36, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro37, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro38, Victoria University of Wellington39, Indian Institute of Forest Management40, University of Tokyo41
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present the rationale for the inclusive valuation of nature's contributions to people (NCP) in decision making, as well as broad methodological steps for doing so, and argue that transformative practices aiming at sustainable futures would benefit from embracing such diversity, which require recognizing and addressing power relationships across stakeholder groups that hold different values on human nature-relations and NCP.
985 citations
••
National University of Cordoba1, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ2, Leipzig University3, Indiana University4, United Nations5, University of the West Indies6, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology7, National Autonomous University of Mexico8, University of Minnesota9, BirdLife International10, University of Cambridge11, University of British Columbia12, National University of Río Negro13, National Institute for Environmental Studies14, Chiba University15, Michigan State University16, International Institute of Minnesota17, United Nations University18, Stellenbosch University19, Simón Bolívar University20, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation21, Hungarian Academy of Sciences22, University of Queensland23, Duke University24, Natural History Museum25, Imperial College London26, University of the West of England27, Stockholm University28, Clark University29, University of Cape Town30, IFREMER31, Radboud University Nijmegen32, George Mason University33, Royal Botanic Gardens34, University of Oxford35, University of the Philippines Diliman36
TL;DR: The first integrated global-scale intergovernmental assessment of the status, trends, and future of the links between people and nature provides an unprecedented picture of the extent of the authors' mutual dependence, the breadth and depth of the ongoing and impending crisis, and the interconnectedness among sectors and regions.
Abstract: The human impact on life on Earth has increased sharply since the 1970s, driven by the demands of a growing population with rising average per capita income. Nature is currently supplying more materials than ever before, but this has come at the high cost of unprecedented global declines in the extent and integrity of ecosystems, distinctness of local ecological communities, abundance and number of wild species, and the number of local domesticated varieties. Such changes reduce vital benefits that people receive from nature and threaten the quality of life of future generations. Both the benefits of an expanding economy and the costs of reducing nature's benefits are unequally distributed. The fabric of life on which we all depend-nature and its contributions to people-is unravelling rapidly. Despite the severity of the threats and lack of enough progress in tackling them to date, opportunities exist to change future trajectories through transformative action. Such action must begin immediately, however, and address the root economic, social, and technological causes of nature's deterioration.
913 citations
••
West Virginia University1, Yale University2, Food and Agriculture Organization3, Landcare Research4, University of Udine5, Max Planck Society6, University of Alaska Fairbanks7, Technische Universität München8, Université du Québec à Montréal9, University of the French West Indies and Guiana10, University of Freiburg Faculty of Biology11, Cornell University12, Wageningen University and Research Centre13, University of Sydney14, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu15, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro16, University of Göttingen17, Russian Academy of Sciences18, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research19, Lakehead University20, University of La Frontera21, Seoul National University22, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg23, University of Cambridge24, Center for International Forestry Research25, James Cook University26, University of Zurich27, University of Yaoundé I28, University of Wisconsin-Madison29, Queensland Government30, Florida International University31, Institut national de la recherche agronomique32, Forest Research Institute33, University of Minnesota34, Polish Academy of Sciences35, Warsaw University of Life Sciences36, Ştefan cel Mare University of Suceava37, University of Florence38, University of Warsaw39, Spanish National Research Council40, King Juan Carlos University41, National University of Austral Patagonia42, International Trademark Association43, National Scientific and Technical Research Council44, Wildlife Conservation Society45, College of African Wildlife Management46, University of York47, Durham University48, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources49, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador50, Centre national de la recherche scientifique51, Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi52, University of Leeds53, University College London54
TL;DR: A consistent positive concave-down effect of biodiversity on forest productivity across the world is revealed, showing that a continued biodiversity loss would result in an accelerating decline in forest productivity worldwide.
Abstract: The biodiversity-productivity relationship (BPR) is foundational to our understanding of the global extinction crisis and its impacts on ecosystem functioning. Understanding BPR is critical for the accurate valuation and effective conservation of biodiversity. Using ground-sourced data from 777,126 permanent plots, spanning 44 countries and most terrestrial biomes, we reveal a globally consistent positive concave-down BPR, showing that continued biodiversity loss would result in an accelerating decline in forest productivity worldwide. The value of biodiversity in maintaining commercial forest productivity alone-US$166 billion to 490 billion per year according to our estimation-is more than twice what it would cost to implement effective global conservation. This highlights the need for a worldwide reassessment of biodiversity values, forest management strategies, and conservation priorities.
889 citations