Current cave monitoring practices, their variation and recommendations for future improvement in Europe: A synopsis from the 6th EuroSpeleo Protection Symposium
-
Published:2022-05-04
Issue:
Volume:8
Page:
-
ISSN:2367-7163
-
Container-title:Research Ideas and Outcomes
-
language:
-
Short-container-title:RIO
Author:
Weigand AlexanderORCID, Bücs Szilárd-LehelORCID, Deleva StanimiraORCID, Lukić Bilela LadaORCID, Nyssen Pierrette, Paragamian KaloustORCID, Ssymank AxelORCID, Weigand Hannah, Zakšek Valerija, Zagmajster Maja, Balázs Gergely, Barjadze ShalvaORCID, Bürger Katharina, Burn William, Cailhol DidierORCID, Decrolière Amélie, Didonna Ferdinando, Doli Azdren, Drazina Tvrtko, Dreybrodt Joerg, Ðud Lana, Egri Csaba, Erhard Markus, Finžgar Sašo, Fröhlich Dominik, Gartrell Grant, Gazaryan Suren, Georges Michel, Godeau Jean-Francois, Grunewald Ralf, Gunn John, Hajenga Jeff, Hofmann Peter, Knight Lee, Köble Hannes, Kuharic Nikolina, Lüthi Christian, Munteanu CristianORCID, Novak Rudjer, Ozols Dainis, Petkovic Matija, Stoch Fabio, Vogel Bärbel, Vukovic Ines, Hall Weberg Meredith, Zaenker Christian, Zaenker Stefan, Feit Ute, Thies Jean-Claude
Abstract
This manuscript summarizes the outcomes of the 6th EuroSpeleo Protection Symposium. Special emphasis was laid on presenting and discussing monitoring activities under the umbrella of the Habitats Directive (EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC) for habitat type 8310 "Caves not open to the public" and the Emerald Network. The discussions revealed a high level of variation in the currently conducted underground monitoring activities: there is no uniform definition of what kind of underground environments the "cave" habitat should cover, how often a specific cave has to be monitored, and what parameters should be measured to evaluate the conservation status. The variation in spatial dimensions in national definitions of caves further affects the number of catalogued caves in a country and the number of caves to be monitored. Not always participants are aware of the complete national monitoring process and that data sets should be freely available or easily accessible. The discussions further showed an inherent dilemma between an anticipated uniform monitoring approach with a coherent assessment methodology and, on the contrary, the uniqueness of caves and subterranean biota to be assessed – combined with profound knowledge gaps and a lack of resources. Nevertheless, some good practices for future cave monitoring activities have been identified by the participants: (1) Cave monitoring should focus on bio- and geodiversity elements alike; (2) Local communities should be involved, and formal agreements envisaged; (3) Caves must be understood as windows into the subterranean realm; (4) Touristic caves should not be excluded ad-hoc from regular monitoring; (5) New digital tools and open FAIR data infrastructures should be implemented; (6) Cave biomonitoring should focus on a large(r) biological diversity; and (7) DNA-based tools should be integrated. Finally, the importance of the 'forgotten' Recommendation No. 36 from the Bern Convention as a guiding legal European document was highlighted.
Publisher
Pensoft Publishers
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|