Sabina Nowak

Bio: Sabina Nowak is an academic researcher from University of Warsaw. The author has contributed to research in topics: Canis & Population. The author has an hindex of 20, co-authored 48 publications receiving 2345 citations.

Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes

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.

Status, management and distribution of large carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine – in Europe

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.

Habitat variables associated with wolf (Canis lupus) distribution and abundance in northern Poland

Abstract: Based on data collected during the National Wolf Census in 2000 ‐ 01, we analysed the main habitat factors influencing the distribution and abundance of the wolf, Canis lupus , in northern Poland. The study region forms the western border of the continuous Eastern European range of wolves, although attempts at westward dispersal have been observed. Using Geographic Information System techniques, we measured nine habitat variables and three parameters related to wolf occurrence in 134 circular sample plots (radius 7 km, area 154 km 2 each). We compared 72 plots where wolves were recorded and 62 plots with no signs of wolf presence. Wolf plots were characterized by significantly higher forest cover, less fragmentation of forests, lower density of villages, towns, motorways, and railways than wolf-free plots. We found a positive correlation between the sum of wolf observations in plots and forest cover. The number of domestic animals killed by wolves was higher in areas with higher indices of wolf abundance and lower forest area. In multiple regression analysis, four independent variables explained 59% of the variation in wolf distribution and abundance in northern Poland: straight-line distance to continuous range of wolves in Eastern Europe; forest cover; forest fragmentation; and length of major motorways. We conclude that protection of wolves in Poland (since 1998) may not be an adequate conservation measure, especially because of the increasing density of highways and express motorways. Existing forest corridors should be protected and new ones should be restored to ensure long-term conservation of wolves and allow range expansion into Western Europe.

Habitat suitability model for Polish wolves based on long-term national census

Abstract: The central-European population of wolves Canis lupus has its western border of contiguous range in eastern Poland. Protected since 1998, Polish wolves began to expand towards the west. Based on large-scale data on wolf abundance (2000–2006) and geographic information system (GIS) tools, we built a habitat suitability model (HSM) for the species in Poland. The best model, selected by the Akaike information criterion, of the resource selection function (RSF) by wolves included percentage cover of forests, meadows and marshes (positively correlated to wolf abundance) and road density (negatively correlated), and explained 53% of the total variation in the wolf abundance index in a 10 � 10 km cell grid. That RSF was then used to evaluate the whole country in terms of suitability for wolves. Potential wolf range appeared to consist of 24 patches of good habitat (predicted relative probability of wolf occurrence Z30%), including six patches already occupied and 17 new ones. In total, habitat suitable for wolves covers at least 20–24% of Poland, compared with 16% of the country’s area now occupied by the species. HSM was validated with historical data on wolf occurrence in 1950–2006. The areas selected by our model and those inhabited by wolves in at least one decade overlapped in 81–86%. Furthermore, the probability of wolf occurrence predicted by the model correlated positively with the number of decades the wolves were actually recorded in the area. Based on the empirical relationship between patch size and wolf numbers, we estimated that Poland could support a population of 1450–1540 wolves, two to three times larger than the current estimate. HSM needs to be supplemented with a GIS-based connectivity analysis among patches, which in turn should be validated by molecular genetics studies on dispersing wolves. Because of broadly similar geographic conditions, the model may be applicable to eastern Germany, Belarus Republic and the Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia).

Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes

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.

Effects of Roads on Animal Abundance: an Empirical Review and Synthesis

Abstract: The authors attempted a complete review of the empirical literature on effects of roads and traffic on animal abundance and distribution. They found 79 studies, with results for 131 species and 30 species groups. Overall, the number of documented negative effects of roads on animal abundance outnumbered the number of positive effects by a factor of 5; 114 responses were negative, 22 were positive, and 56 showed no effect. Amphibians and reptiles tended to show negative effects. Birds showed mainly negative or no effects, with a few positive effects for some small birds and for vultures. Small mammals generally showed either positive effects or no effect, mid-sized mammals showed either negative effects or no effect, and large mammals showed predominantly negative effects. The authors synthesized this information, along with information on species attributes, to develop a set of predictions of the conditions that lead to negative or positive effects or no effect of roads on animal abundance. Four species types are predicted to respond negatively to roads: (i) species that are attracted to roads and are unable to avoid individual cars; (ii) species with large movement ranges, low reproductive rates, and low natural densities; and (iii and iv) small animals whose populations are not limited by road-affected predators and either (a) avoid habitat near roads due to traffic disturbance or (b) show no avoidance of roads or traffic disturbance and are unable to avoid oncoming cars. Two species types are predicted to respond positively to roads: (i) species that are attracted to roads for an important resource (e.g., food) and are able to avoid oncoming cars, and (ii) species that do not avoid traffic disturbance but do avoid roads, and whose main predators show negative population-level responses to roads. Other conditions lead to weak or non-existent effects of roads and traffic on animal abundance. The authors identify areas where further research is needed, but they also argue that the evidence for population-level effects of roads and traffic is already strong enough to merit routine consideration of mitigation of these effects in all road construction and maintenance projects.

Mountain Weather and Climate

Abstract: Prefaces Acknowledgements 1. Mountains and their climatological study 2. Geographical controls of mountain meteorological elements 3. Circulation systems related to orography 4. Climatic characteristics of mountains 5. Regional case studies 6. Mountain bioclimatology 7. Changes in mountain climates Appendix General index Author index.

Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people

Abstract: How can we manage farmlands, forests, and rangelands to respond to the triple challenge of the Anthropocene-biodiversity loss, climate change, and unsustainable land use? When managed by using biodiversity-based techniques such as agroforestry, silvopasture, diversified farming, and ecosystem-based forest management, these socioeconomic systems can help maintain biodiversity and provide habitat connectivity, thereby complementing protected areas and providing greater resilience to climate change. Simultaneously, the use of these management techniques can improve yields and profitability more sustainably, enhancing livelihoods and food security. This approach to "working lands conservation" can create landscapes that work for nature and people. However, many socioeconomic challenges impede the uptake of biodiversity-based land management practices. Although improving voluntary incentives, market instruments, environmental regulations, and governance is essential to support working lands conservation, it is community action, social movements, and broad coalitions among citizens, businesses, nonprofits, and government agencies that have the power to transform how we manage land and protect the environment.

Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene.

Abstract: Biodiversity is essential to human well-being, but people have been reducing biodiversity throughout human history. Loss of species and degradation of ecosystems are likely to further accelerate in the coming years. Our understanding of this crisis is now clear, and world leaders have pledged to avert it. Nonetheless, global goals to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss have mostly not been achieved. However, many examples of conservation success show that losses can be halted and even reversed. Building on these lessons to turn the tide of biodiversity loss will require bold and innovative action to transform historical relationships between human populations and nature.