caa a22 4500 605526486 CHVBK 20210128100803.0 cr unu---uuuuu 210128e20150601xx s 000 0 eng 10.1007/s10531-015-0862-3 doi (NATIONALLICENCE)springer-10.1007/s10531-015-0862-3 A gap analysis comparing the effectiveness of Natura 2000 and national protected area networks in representing European amphibians and reptiles [Elektronische Daten] [Pedro Abellán, David Sánchez-Fernández] Protected area networks represent one of the mainstays of worldwide conservation policies and play a key role in the protection of biodiversity. While numerous studies have evaluated the extent to which reserves fulfil their role of protecting biodiversity (so called ‘gap analysis') in Europe at national and subnational scales, their performance across the whole of Europe has seldom been assessed. Here we assess the effectiveness of nationally designated protected areas and the pan-European Natura 2000 network in representing and maintaining over time European amphibian and reptile biodiversity using a comprehensive and newly available species occurrence dataset. Overall, our results show that often national protected areas and Natura 2000 sites perform poorly in representing amphibians and reptiles, but highlight differences in the effectiveness of both protected area networks when the goal is to promote the persistence of the species. While nationally designated areas did not usually cover more species than a random selection of areas for both vertebrate groups across different conservation targets, Natura 2000 network usually covered significantly more species than random when the goal was to include multiple representations of each species. In any case, these covered species were mostly widespread taxa, while narrow-range species remained under-represented. Additionally, our findings provide important evidence of the need to assess sensitivity of reserve effectiveness assessments todata and decision-rules, as the effectiveness of both reserve networks varied greatly across the different thresholdsused for assigning reserves to grid cells andthe criteria usedto consider species as covered. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht, 2015 Conservation areas nationallicence Europe nationallicence Reserves nationallicence Persistence nationallicence Systematic conservation planning nationallicence Abellán Pedro Department of Biology, Queens College, City University of New York, 65-30 Kissena Blvd Flushing, 11367, New York, NY, USA aut Sánchez-Fernández David Institute of Evolutionary Biology, CSIC-Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Passeig Maritim de la Barceloneta 37-49, 08003, Barcelona, Spain aut Biodiversity and Conservation Springer Netherlands 24/6(2015-06-01), 1377-1390 0960-3115 24:6<1377 2015 24 10531 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0862-3 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 Metadata rights reserved Springer special CC-BY-NC licence nationallicence 1 research-article jats NATIONALLICENCE NATIONALLICENCE NL-springer NATIONALLICENCE 856 40 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0862-3 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI NATIONALLICENCE 700 1- Abellán Pedro Department of Biology, Queens College, City University of New York, 65-30 Kissena Blvd Flushing, 11367, New York, NY, USA aut NATIONALLICENCE 700 1- Sánchez-Fernández David Institute of Evolutionary Biology, CSIC-Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Passeig Maritim de la Barceloneta 37-49, 08003, Barcelona, Spain aut NATIONALLICENCE 773 0- Biodiversity and Conservation Springer Netherlands 24/6(2015-06-01), 1377-1390 0960-3115 24:6<1377 2015 24 10531