According to the evaluators, the estimated range for T.h. in CON biogeo region is 8000 km2. This estimation is given based on extrapolation based on a limited amount of data, and it is said that the range is equal with a Favourable Reference Range.
The range is 4 times larger than the previous evaluation, without any justification. All the available scientific data indicate a contraction (Rozylowicz and Dobre 2010, Popescu et al. 2013, Iosif et al. 2013), and thus, the evaluation is not backed by the existing data. Also, the estimation method (extrapolation based on a limited amount of data) is not correct since there are several published papers analyzing T.h. range (see the references), and also several ERDF projects where the experts surveyed this species (R.N.P.Romsilva-Administratia Parcului Natural Portile de Fier R.A. garant al unui sistem adecvat de management al biodiversitatii SMIS 36660; Elaborarea planului de management pentru situl de importanta comunitara ROSCI0405 Dealurile Strehaia-Batlanele, Managementul conservării biodiversității în Parcul naţional Domogled - Valea Cernei).
Hence, the data should be corrected by using available data, and the range reduced to a more realistic estimation. Also, please note that Italy at 10000 sqkm assessed the range as U1 while Romania as FV despite the data indicating a much large potential of occurrence (see Popescu et al. 2013, Rozylowicz 2008).
Population
The evaluation of T.h. population is wrong. The population is given as occupied grids (1x 1km), and from the presumed 8000 km2 range, the population is diminished to a maximum 20 km2 (i.e. 0.25% of the range is occupied at best). According to the evaluators, the occupied area for a favorable population should be of only 5 km2. Existing studies do not back the 5 km2 occupied as reference for FRP, and setting such a lower limit is wrong and would allow the destruction of the much larger occupied habitat. If the tortoises would be distributed only on 5 km2 to 20 km2, then the population will be critically endangered in RO, heading straight to extinction. Please note that FRP for T.h. in CON is the same with FRP for T.h. in STE despite the distribution differences.
According to the existing knowledge, some cited in the evaluation but not really used by the authors, (Rozylowicz and Dobre, 2010, Popescu et al. 2013, data from the above-mentioned ERDF projects), the occupied area in SW Romania is around 700 km2. Our published extrapolation data indicate between 220,400 mature individuals (optimistic), 60,120 mature individuals (average) and 15,030 individuals (pessimistic evaluation). If the minimum population is considered, then T.h meets the criterion for regionally endangered species (Rozylowicz and Dobre, 2010).
Thus, given the limited range, the low density and the much larger potential unoccupied habitats, the conservation status should be U1 at best, not FV.
Habitat for the species
The evaluators state that the occupied habitat (presumably 20 km2) is in good condition. The literature said the contrary (Rozylowicz and Dobre 2010, Popescu et al. 2013, Rozylowicz and Popescu 2013, Iosif et al 2013), habitat is converted at a rapid pace, and the status should at least included as unknown (e.g., because the evaluation is based on extrapolation based on limited amount of data).
A paper lead by me (Rozylowicz and Dobre, 2010) indicate that according to IUCN criteria, the species should be included as Vulnerable when considering the range (limited and fragmented range, VU B2c (i,ii,iii,iv)). Also, in Rozylowicz and Popescu (2013) we showed that the species have limited dispersal capabilities (3.79 ± 0.62 ha yearly home range, daily mean traveled distance = 31.18 ± 1.59 m, 24 individuals monitored during a LIFE project LIFENAT RO/00/7171).
Hence, in the light of published data, habitat should also U1 at best not FV.
Future prospects
According to the evaluators, the future prospects look good, but this is evaluation is based on limited amount of data. Popescu et al. (2013) in a paper published in Plos One journal, analyzed the future trends for reptiles and amphibians. For T.h., the paper indicates that the range (estimated as 111 10 x10 grids) will be reduced in the next decades with a minimum of 14% (based on various IPCC emission scenarios). All the studies in the EU indicate the same results for climate-dependent species, thus considering the prospects as FV based on the extrapolation of data without using the scientific data is not acceptable.
Also, please note that the Management plan of Iron Gates Natural Park (ROSCI0206 Porţile de Fier), where the core SW population lives, indicates a U1 conservation status.
General comment concerning amphibians and reptiles evaluation
Please note that the section population is the same for 90% of the species, no matter species biology and biogeographic region. Taking this into account, I highly doubt the science behind the evaluation. These data look like copy/past from one species to another. Some species are very rare in EU (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis), rare in RO but still in FV status. Vipera ursinii rakosiensi with only 2-3 locations in Romania is considered with the same population as the common Coronella austriaca in CON region. The Commission should rejects such an evaluation!
References
Popescu, V.D., Rozylowicz, L., Cogălniceanu, D., Niculae, I.M. and Cucu, A.L., 2013. Moving into protected areas? Setting conservation priorities for Romanian reptiles and amphibians at risk from climate change. PloS one, 8(11). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079330
Rozylowicz, L. and Dobre, M., 2010. Assessing the threatened status of Testudo hermanni boettgeri Mojsisovics, 1889 (Reptilia: Testudines: Testudinidae) population from Romania. North-Western Journal of Zoology, 6(2). (http://biozoojournals.ro/nwjz/content/v6.2/nwjz.061118.Rozylowicz.pdf)
Rozylowicz, L. and Popescu, V.D., 2013. Habitat selection and movement ecology of eastern Hermann’s tortoises in a rural Romanian landscape. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 59(1), pp.47-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-012-0646-y
Iosif, R., Rozylowicz, L. and Popescu, V.D., 2013. Modeling road mortality hotspots of Eastern Hermann’s tortoise in Romania. Amphibia-Reptilia, 34(2), pp.163-172. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00002878
Iosif, R., 2012. Railroad-associated mortality hot spots for a population of Romanian Hermann's tortoise (Testudo hermanni boettgeri): a gravity model for railroad-segment analysis. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 14, pp.123-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.03.012
Rozylowicz, L., 2006. Metode de analiză a distribuţiei area-geografice a ţestoasei lui Hermann (Testudo hermanni Gmelin, 1789) în România: studiu de caz Parcul Natural" Porţile de Fier". Editura Universitatii din București
NOTE
I inserted some correction but please take the comments as reference as the inline correction are not really friendly for someone like me who don't know the abbreviations.
by University of Bucharest
2020-03-06 07:28
I accept the national report all MS and add Laurentiu Rozylowicz's remark to the Datasheet info.
Range
According to the evaluators, the estimated range for T.h. in CON biogeo region is 8000 km2. This estimation is given based on extrapolation based on a limited amount of data, and it is said that the range is equal with a Favourable Reference Range.
The range is 4 times larger than the previous evaluation, without any justification. All the available scientific data indicate a contraction (Rozylowicz and Dobre 2010, Popescu et al. 2013, Iosif et al. 2013), and thus, the evaluation is not backed by the existing data. Also, the estimation method (extrapolation based on a limited amount of data) is not correct since there are several published papers analyzing T.h. range (see the references), and also several ERDF projects where the experts surveyed this species (R.N.P.Romsilva-Administratia Parcului Natural Portile de Fier R.A. garant al unui sistem adecvat de management al biodiversitatii SMIS 36660; Elaborarea planului de management pentru situl de importanta comunitara ROSCI0405 Dealurile Strehaia-Batlanele, Managementul conservării biodiversității în Parcul naţional Domogled - Valea Cernei).
Hence, the data should be corrected by using available data, and the range reduced to a more realistic estimation. Also, please note that Italy at 10000 sqkm assessed the range as U1 while Romania as FV despite the data indicating a much large potential of occurrence (see Popescu et al. 2013, Rozylowicz 2008).
Population
The evaluation of T.h. population is wrong. The population is given as occupied grids (1x 1km), and from the presumed 8000 km2 range, the population is diminished to a maximum 20 km2 (i.e. 0.25% of the range is occupied at best). According to the evaluators, the occupied area for a favorable population should be of only 5 km2. Existing studies do not back the 5 km2 occupied as reference for FRP, and setting such a lower limit is wrong and would allow the destruction of the much larger occupied habitat. If the tortoises would be distributed only on 5 km2 to 20 km2, then the population will be critically endangered in RO, heading straight to extinction. Please note that FRP for T.h. in CON is the same with FRP for T.h. in STE despite the distribution differences.
According to the existing knowledge, some cited in the evaluation but not really used by the authors, (Rozylowicz and Dobre, 2010, Popescu et al. 2013, data from the above-mentioned ERDF projects), the occupied area in SW Romania is around 700 km2. Our published extrapolation data indicate between 220,400 mature individuals (optimistic), 60,120 mature individuals (average) and 15,030 individuals (pessimistic evaluation). If the minimum population is considered, then T.h meets the criterion for regionally endangered species (Rozylowicz and Dobre, 2010).
Thus, given the limited range, the low density and the much larger potential unoccupied habitats, the conservation status should be U1 at best, not FV.
Habitat for the species
The evaluators state that the occupied habitat (presumably 20 km2) is in good condition. The literature said the contrary (Rozylowicz and Dobre 2010, Popescu et al. 2013, Rozylowicz and Popescu 2013, Iosif et al 2013), habitat is converted at a rapid pace, and the status should at least included as unknown (e.g., because the evaluation is based on extrapolation based on limited amount of data).
A paper lead by me (Rozylowicz and Dobre, 2010) indicate that according to IUCN criteria, the species should be included as Vulnerable when considering the range (limited and fragmented range, VU B2c (i,ii,iii,iv)). Also, in Rozylowicz and Popescu (2013) we showed that the species have limited dispersal capabilities (3.79 ± 0.62 ha yearly home range, daily mean traveled distance = 31.18 ± 1.59 m, 24 individuals monitored during a LIFE project LIFENAT RO/00/7171).
Hence, in the light of published data, habitat should also U1 at best not FV.
Future prospects
According to the evaluators, the future prospects look good, but this is evaluation is based on limited amount of data. Popescu et al. (2013) in a paper published in Plos One journal, analyzed the future trends for reptiles and amphibians. For T.h., the paper indicates that the range (estimated as 111 10 x10 grids) will be reduced in the next decades with a minimum of 14% (based on various IPCC emission scenarios). All the studies in the EU indicate the same results for climate-dependent species, thus considering the prospects as FV based on the extrapolation of data without using the scientific data is not acceptable.
Also, please note that the Management plan of Iron Gates Natural Park (ROSCI0206 Porţile de Fier), where the core SW population lives, indicates a U1 conservation status.
General comment concerning amphibians and reptiles evaluation
Please note that the section population is the same for 90% of the species, no matter species biology and biogeographic region. Taking this into account, I highly doubt the science behind the evaluation. These data look like copy/past from one species to another. Some species are very rare in EU (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis), rare in RO but still in FV status. Vipera ursinii rakosiensi with only 2-3 locations in Romania is considered with the same population as the common Coronella austriaca in CON region. The Commission should rejects such an evaluation!
References
Popescu, V.D., Rozylowicz, L., Cogălniceanu, D., Niculae, I.M. and Cucu, A.L., 2013. Moving into protected areas? Setting conservation priorities for Romanian reptiles and amphibians at risk from climate change. PloS one, 8(11). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079330
Rozylowicz, L. and Dobre, M., 2010. Assessing the threatened status of Testudo hermanni boettgeri Mojsisovics, 1889 (Reptilia: Testudines: Testudinidae) population from Romania. North-Western Journal of Zoology, 6(2). (http://biozoojournals.ro/nwjz/content/v6.2/nwjz.061118.Rozylowicz.pdf)
Rozylowicz, L. and Popescu, V.D., 2013. Habitat selection and movement ecology of eastern Hermann’s tortoises in a rural Romanian landscape. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 59(1), pp.47-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-012-0646-y
Iosif, R., Rozylowicz, L. and Popescu, V.D., 2013. Modeling road mortality hotspots of Eastern Hermann’s tortoise in Romania. Amphibia-Reptilia, 34(2), pp.163-172. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00002878
Iosif, R., 2012. Railroad-associated mortality hot spots for a population of Romanian Hermann's tortoise (Testudo hermanni boettgeri): a gravity model for railroad-segment analysis. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 14, pp.123-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.03.012
Rozylowicz, L., 2006. Metode de analiză a distribuţiei area-geografice a ţestoasei lui Hermann (Testudo hermanni Gmelin, 1789) în România: studiu de caz Parcul Natural" Porţile de Fier". Editura Universitatii din București
NOTE
I inserted some correction but please take the comments as reference as the inline correction are not really friendly for someone like me who don't know the abbreviations.
I accept the national report all MS and add Laurentiu Rozylowicz's remark to the Datasheet info.
Jump to Top