Download Towards Plant Conservation

CONSERVATION OF THREATENED SPECIES
When the environmental factor changes beyond a certain level; plants
especially endemic restricted species try to adapt to be away from the
extinction zone. However, not all plants have the same ability to adapt to
the new changes. Its become well known that plants lose its diversity with
time as a result of population growth and resource consumption, climate
change and global warming, habitat conversion and urbanization, invasive
alien species, over-exploitation of natural resources and environmental
degradation. The IUCN Red List of T hre ate ne d S pec ies highlights species
that are at the greatest risk of extinction and promotes their conservation
by 'concentrating minds on true priorities'. The Red List data are a source
of information that is essential to guide conservation efforts focused on
species. In this book we will try to enhance the understanding about the
IUCN Red List Categories & Criteria through deep assessment on the
conservation status of endemic plant species Primula boveana according to
IUCN criteria in order to produce a series of recommendations for
conservation action.
Karim A. Omar
Towards Plant Conservation
Karim A. Omar
Simple guide for Plant Conservation Assessment
Dr. Karim A. Omar is an Environmental Researcher I
GIS Specialist at Nature Conservation Sector, Egyptian
Environmental Affairs Agency with many
international published articles in the field of
Protected Areas, IUCN Red List, Conservation
Strategies, Geomatics, and Plant Ecology. He has
obtained his PhD in the field of Plant Conservation in
2013.
Omar
978-3-659-49535-9
Karim A. Omar
Towards Plant Conservation
Karim A. Omar
Towards Plant Conservation
Simple guide for Plant Conservation Assessment
LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing
Impressum I Imprint
Bibliografische
Information
der
Deutschen
Nationalbibliothek:
Die
Deutsche
Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie;
detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet uber http:IIdnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.
Alle in diesem Buch genannten Marken und Produktnamen unterliegen warenzeichen-,
marken- oder patentrechtlichem Schutz bzw. sind Warenzeichen oder eingetragene
Warenzeichen der jeweiligen Inhaber. Die Wiedergabe von Marken, Produktnamen,
Gebrauchsnamen, Handelsnamen, Warenbezeichnungen u.s.w. in diesem Werk berechtigt
auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme, dass solche Namen im Sinne
der Warenzeichen- und Markenschutzgesetzgebung als frei zu betrachten waren und
daher von jedermann benutzt werden durften.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche
Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed
bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http:IIdnb.d-nb.de.
Any brand names and product names mentioned in this book are subject to trademark,
brand or patent protection and are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective
holders. The use of brand names, product names, common names, trade names, product
descriptions etc. even without a particular marking in this works is in no way to be
construed to mean that such names may be regarded as unrestricted in respect of
trademark and brand protection legislation and could thus be used by anyone.
Coverbild I Cover image: www.ingimage.com
Verlag I Publisher:
LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing
ist ein Imprint der I is a trademark of
OmniScriptum GmbH & Co. KG
Heinrich-Bocking-Str. 6-8, 66121 Saarbrucken, Deutschland I Germany
Email: [email protected]
Herstellung: siehe letzte Seite I
Printed at: see last page
ISBN: 978-3-659-49535-9
Copyright © 2014 OmniScriptum GmbH & Co. KG
Alle Rechte vorbehalten. I All rights reserved. Saarbrucken 2014
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I feel grateful that this study has been carried out within the framework of
"Primula boveana Conservation Project (Assessment of the current conservation
status of Primula boveana in St Katherine Protectorate, South Sinai, Egypt) and
financially supported by “Rufford Foundation’’ (2013-2014). I would like to extend
my thanks to all those who contributed time, suggestions and support during the
planning, research and writing of this dissertation. I am personally indebted to:
Eng. Mohamed Kotb General Manger of Saint Katherine protectorate for
his honest support. Special thanks for fruitful advices from Prof. Dr. Townsend
Peterson, Distinguished Professor, KU Department of Ecology and Evolutionary
Biology. Deep thanks due to Prof. Dr. Francis Gilbert Professor in Faculty of
Medicine & Health Sciences, School of Biology, University of Nottingham, UK for
his continuous valuable advises during this work. Special thanks are due to my
Team Eng. Ibrahim Elgamal, Mr. Gamal Elgohary, Mr. Mohamed Kamel and Mr.
Amir Shalof for their support and encouragement during this study.
I would thank my parents, my wife my sweet daughter Laian, and my
brother for their encouragement and fruitful support during this study. At the final,
big thanks and much appreciated to all whose learn me the way for good
thinking, working smart not hard inside, and outside Egypt.
Deep thanks due to Prof. Dr. Moustafa Fouda the Minister Advisor on
Biodiversity, Nature Conservation Sector, Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency
(EEAA) for his encouragement and total support during the hard times.
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
Table of contents
Map appendix
Table appendix
Figures appendix
List of Abbreviation
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
Target Species Overview
Aim and Objectives
Structure of the book
References
CHAPTER 1: GEOGRAPHICAL RANGE
Introduction
Terminology
Methodology
Results
References
CHAPTER 2: POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Introduction
Terminology
Methodology
Results
References
CHAPTER 3: HABITATS AND ECOLOGY
Introduction
Terminology
Methodology
Results
References
CHAPTER 4: THREATS
Introduction
Methodology
Results
References
CHAPTER 5: RED LIST CATEGORY & CRITERIA
Introduction
I
II
II
II
II
II
1
4
13
14
15
15
21
21
23
25
26
29
33
33
37
39
39
44
47
47
52
52
53
60
66
66
69
71
79
82
82
Table of Contents
Terminology
Methodology
Results
References
CHAPTER 6: CONSERVATION ACTIONS & REQUIREMENTS
Introduction
Methodology
Results
References
GENERAL DISCUSSION
References
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
Recommendations
84
91
95
97
98
98
105
105
117
120
127
130
130
132
Table of Contents
MAPS APPENDIX
Map1
Map2
Map3
Map4
Automated preliminary GIS analysis of Primula boveana geographical distribution.
A- Extent Of Occurrence (EOO), and B- Area Of occupancy (AOO).
Topographic map for P. boveana within SKP. a- Digital Elevation Model, and baspect ratios for the target species.
Primula boveana population characteristics; a- population range, and bsubpopulation distribution.
Climatic variables within SKP, 1- Annual Minimum Temperature, 2- Annual
Maximum, and 3- Annual Precipitation.
TABLE APPENDIX
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Topographic variation among different P. boveana subpopulation.
Morphological and reproductive characteristics among different P. boveana
subpopulation.
IUCN Habitats Classification Scheme for P. boveana.
Soil properties variation among different P. boveana subpopulation.
Vegetation characteristics of P. boveana within SKP.
Threat Analysis (TA) for SKP vegetation and P. boveana as well.
Different threats root causes, barriers and solutions.
IUCN Threats Classification Scheme for P. boveana within SKP.
Summary of the five criteria (A-E) used to evaluate if a taxon belongs in a
threatened category (Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable).
Data for criterion B: restricted range.
Data for criterion C: small population size and continuing decline.
Primula boveana Conservation Actions In- Place.
Important Conservation Actions Needed for P. boveana conservation.
Research needed for P. boveana conservation.
Conservation requirements for better conservation program for P. boveana.
FIGURES APPENDIX
Figure 1 Morphological and reproductive characteristics of P. boveana, A- Seedling in wild, BNew adult generation (F), C- Mature plant, D- Flowering stage, E- Fruiting stage,
and F- dead plant.
Figure 2
Deterioration of Primula boveana population in the last five years in Shaq Mousa.
Figure 3
Deterioration of Primula boveana population in the last ten years at Kahf Ekghola
site.
Figure 4
View of Shaq Elgragenia, A- Site view, and B- Subpopulation number 2 (S.G.2).
Figure 5
View of Shaq Mosa, A-Subpopulation number 4 (S.M.1), and B- Subpopulation
number 6 (S.M.3).
Figure 6
View of Elgabal Elahmar.
Figure 7
View of Kahf Elghola, A- Outside view, and B- inside view.
Figure 8
View of Sad Abo Hebic
Figure 9
Threats on Primula boveana, A- Pests, B- Floods, C- Tourism, and D- Drought.
Figure10
Structure of the categories according to IUCN (2014).
V
Table of Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
3D
AOO
BIOCLIM
CBD
CITES
CR
DBF
DD
DIVA
EEAA
EIA
EN
EOO
EP
EW
EX
FAO
GEF
GIS
GPS
GRID
GSPC
IBPGR
IUCN
LC
MPCP
MPs
NE
NT
PAMU
RSFD
SIS
SK City
SKP
SSC
St
TDA
TIN
UNDP
UNEP
USAID
VU
W.
Wadi
WGS84
WWF
Three-dimensional space
Area of Occupancy
Bioclimatic Variables
Convention on Biological Diversity
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
Critically Endangered
Database file format
Data Deficient
Distance and Variance analysis
Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency
Environmental Impact Assessment
Endangered
Extent of Occurrence
Egyptian Pound
Extinct In the Wild
Extinct
Food and Agriculture Organization
Global Environment Facility
Geographical Information System
Global Position System
Global Resource Information Database
Global Strategy for Plant Conservation
International Board for Plant Genetic Resources
International Union for Conservation of Nature
Least Concern
Medicinal Plants Conservation Project
Medicinal Plants
Not Evaluated
Near Threatened
St Katherine Protectorate Management Unit
Range Size Frequency Distributions
Species Information Service
Saint Katherine City
St Katherine Protectorate
Species Survival Commission
Saint
General Authority for Tourism Development
Triangulated Irregular Network
United Nations Development Program
United Nations Environment Programme
US Agency for International Development
Vulnerable
Wadi
Arabic word for Valley
World Geodetic System 1984
World Bank/World Wildlife Fund
V
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Primula boveana Decne. ex Duby (Primulaceae) is endemic plant
species to the St Katherine Protectorate (SKP) in southern Sinai, Egypt. This
species is severely threatened by both natural (aridity of the area) and human
factors (scientific research). All these factors are pushing P. boveana to the
brink of extinction. Because of this conditions, this study is aim to assess the
current conservation status of this species according to IUCN criteria in order to
produce a series of recommendations for conservation action. After analyzing
the collected data about species geographical range, population Information,
habitat and ecology, uses, threats, and conservation requirements we can
summarize the results as fellow:
Geographic Range: Primula boveana is endemic to SKP; it was
recorded only inside the boundary of SKP; exactly, in five main very small
localities (Shaq Elgragenia, Shaq Mousa, Elgabal Elahmar, Kahf Elghola, and
Sad Abu Hebiq). Its estimated Extent Of Occurrence (EOO) found to be about
13 km² (12.7km2), and its estimated Area Of Occupancy (AOO) less than 1 km²
(700m2) (less than 6km2 by IUCN criteria). It was observed that both EOO and
AOO showed decline with time. P. boveana was recorded as abundant in the
past. SKP reports had shown also that this species record in the past at the St.
Catherine Mountain and Elgalt Elazrak area. A narrow altitudinal range was
recorded for this species ranging between 1745 and 2210 m. It was observed
that population size positively affected by elevation. Results also shown that
target species highly located in slopes that face northeast (78%) and east
aspect (22%) with slope degree ranging from 55°to 90°.
Population Information: Most of the Primula boveana subpopulations
are small, fragmented, with individual plants occurring sporadically in space in
the little groups where the soil is wet. The number of mature plants declined
from ‘abundant’ in 1832, almost 2000 in 1991, and 336 in 2007: In 2014, the
total global population size was recorded at about 1010 individuals during our
the last survey, but only 165 individuals were mature (about 16% of the total
population). Shaq Mousa was the highest in total number of individuals, it
containing 733 individuals (72.6%), 74 of them are mature. Only four immature
individuals were recorded at Kahf Elghola (0.3%). There are nine very small but
clearly separate subpopulations, but only seven of them contain between 3 and
65 mature individuals. There are no records for mature individuals in Kahf
Elghola and Sad Abu Hebiq. The largest Number of mature plants was
recorded in one of the three subpopulation recorded in Shaq Mousa and was
65 with percentage reach to 46% of the total individuals recorded in this
subpopulation.
During the last 10 years, these subpopulations showed large changes in
the total number of individuals, cover, and density. There was a peak observed
between 2008 to 2010 (345 to 360 mature individuals) but now (2012-2014) the
1
Executive Summary
population is at its lowest observed number: it may be that the species
undergoes severe fluctuations. The population decline was also recorded, thirty
individuals were recorded at the Kahf Elghoula subpopulation in 2009, but only
four immature seedlings in 2014. Forty-one individuals were recorded in Sad
Abu Hebiq subpopulation in 2007, but only six immature seedlings in 2014.
Drought is the main limiting factor for this species, and because the plant is
distributed within such a very small-restricted area, the entire population will
feel the effect of this threat: thus, they are all effectively in one location.
Habitats and Ecology: According to IUCN Habitats Classification
Scheme, this species belong to rocky habitat (mountain peaks), is restricted to
Montane wadis fed by melted snow and distributed in moist ground in the
vicinity of wells and sheltered mountain areas, especially cliffs and caves with
steep granite slopes. The cold winter climate (minimum temperature can reach
-10ºC) and cool summers (maximum about 29ºC) of the high elevations of Mt.
St. Katherine is the coolest on the peninsula. The arid climate has a mean
annual rainfall of about 37.5 mm (between 1971-2014), some in the form of
snow, but there is great inter-annual variation with up to 300 mm in any one
year, usually between October and May. Relative humidity is low, ranging from
10-35% (data for 2005-2014), and potential evaporation rates are very high, in
excess of 20 mm/day during August. P. boveana grows in loamy sandy soil with
average pH 8.2, water content 0.7 and organic matter 3.5%.
Vegetation parameters showed variation among different subpopulation;
Density varied and ranged from 0.16 (Kahf Elghola) to 22 (subpopulation 1 in
Shaq Mousa). Abundant ranged also from 4 (Kahf Elghola) to 535
(subpopulation 1 in Shaq Mousa). Cover ranged from 0.01 (Kahf Elghola) to 1.8
(subpopulation 2 in Shaq Mousa). Size Index ranged from 4.5 (Kahf Elghola) to
26 (Elgabal Elahmar). Because of its restricted micro-habitat, P. boveana is the
dominant species in most sites, but its associated species are Adiantum
capillus-veneris L., Mentha longifolia (L.) Huds., Hypericum sinaicum Boiss.
and Juncus rigidus Desf.
Primula boveana is a perennial herb with stems up to 50 cm long. The
grayish-green leaves are spear-shaped, up to 20 cm long in a rosette. It bears
several whorls of long-tubed, golden-yellow, scented flowers in late spring, and
reproduction is by seed in late summer. Field observation showed that P.
boveana starting the flowering season from the early of March and finish at the
end of July when the fruiting season started in July and finish at the end of
September and this agrees with. It was observed that Shaq Mousa contains the
highest values in most variables (Population size, mature individuals, density,
abundance, and cover); this may be explained as this site owning the best
preferable suitable conditions for species to grow and distribute.
Use and Trade: The species is not commercially or traditionally used in
Sinai, but it has been collected for pharmacological testing by various scientific
research centers.
2
Executive Summary
Threats: Because of climate change, the wild population of this species
could be in extreme danger in the relatively near future. The most important
natural threats are the long-lasting droughts, the very scarce irregular
precipitation during the year, the fragmentation inherent to its habitat, and the
possibility that rare floods may cause harm such as uprooting (5% loss
observed). Apart from climate change, the most important human impacts are
reductions in water availability caused by collection for human consumption
from the nearby areas, insect pests that eat the vegetative parts and may
cause reductions in plant vigor (observed), and a species of ant that collects
the seeds, perhaps causing reductions in the reproductive rate.
Former studies found that species subpopulations have very low genetic
variation among individuals within them, and gene flow between them must be
extremely low or actually zero: conversely, genetic differentiation among the
subpopulations is high. It may self-fertilize most of the time, apparently with little
or no detrimental effects. Probably deleterious alleles have been purged a long
time ago, making inbreeding depression, possibly not a major problem today,
although possibly restricting its ability to evolve in response to environmental
change.
Conservation requirements: The entire world distribution of Primula
boveana is inside the St. Katherine Protectorate. Six from the nine
subpopulations are already protected by fenced enclosures, and regular
monitoring by SKP rangers takes place every two years to detect the effect of
this protection on population trends. On average 48 checks are made every
year to keep a watch on the current situation for the plant and its habitat, and to
record any detrimental activities. Funded by UNEP, the Medicinal Plants
Conservation Project tried to conserve some important species, P. boveana
among them, using cultivation inside greenhouses as well as storing its seeds
for future use. Studies were initiated of its ecological, morphological and
reproductive ecology, and the threats to its existence. Much more is urgently
needed, however.
Red List Category & Criteria: After analyzing the data above, we can
say that P. boveana qualifies as Critically Endangered (CR) because it is
endemic to a tiny area (EOO 13 km², AOO <6 km²) of the high mountain area of
the St. Katherine Protectorate in South Sinai, Egypt. The total population size of
mature individuals is less than 200, distributed among nine subpopulations.
Because the main threat is drought and climate change, effectively there is only
one location. There is a continuing decline in habitat quality for this species,
with evidence of declines in subpopulation numbers as well as strong
fluctuations through time. Climate change is projected to further reduce the
available habitat of this high-elevation specialist.
Species recovery is highly recommended through In situ and ex situ
technics. Enforce legislation and raising awareness are urgently needed.
3
Introduction
INTRODUCT
TION
Biodiversity is an abbreviated form of biological diversity and refers to
living things on the earth. Plants are an important resource and have
immense impact on ecosystems and have a vital role in socioeconomic
conditions of the people. Plant diversity and ecological characteristics are
important in term of land degradation and erosion (Ahmad et al. 2010, Bocuk
et al. 2009). Plants are universally recognized as a vital component of
biodiversity and global sustainability. For example, plants provide food, fiber,
fuel, shelter, medicine. Healthy ecosystems based on plant diversity provide
the conditions and processes that sustain life and are essential to the wellbeing and livelihoods of all humankind (Wilson, 1992).
It is clear that the loss of biodiversity has serious economic and social
costs. The genes, species, ecosystems and human knowledge that are being
lost represent a living library of options available for adapting to local and
global change (UNEP, 1995). Environmental deterioration in arid ecosystems
due to unmanaged human activities including harvesting of vegetation for fuel
and medicine, overgrazing, urbanization and quarrying is evident in a
decrease of plant cover, deterioration of soil productivity, and aggravation of
soil erosion (Batanouny, 1983). Damage to vegetation and the soil surface
and in arid lands is not easily repaired (Milton et al. 1994). An accurate
picture of the status of plants and the trends that are impacting on them is
difficult to determine. Indeed, we do not yet know the exact number of plant
species in the world (estimated currently at 370,000 known species).
However, it is predicted that as many as two-thirds of the world’s plant
species are in danger of extinction in nature during the course of the 21st
century (The Gran Canaria Declaration, 1999).
Extinction and declines in plant diversity are due to a range of factors,
including population growth, high rates of habitat modification and
deforestation, over-exploitation, the spread of invasive alien species, pollution
and climate change. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment noted that
approximately 60% of the ecosystem services evaluated are being degraded
or used unsustainably (www.milleniumassessment.org). The degradation of
ecosystem services often causes significant harm to human well-being and
represents a loss of a natural asset or wealth of a country.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (henceforth ‘Red List’),
produced by the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the World
Conservation Union (IUCN; http://www.iucn.org), highlights species that are at
the greatest risk of extinction and promotes their conservation by
‘concentrating minds on true priorities’ (Collar and Andrew 1988). The
dominant method for assessment, particularly at the global level, has been the
IUCN Red List process. However, it is unlikely that the target can be reached
using this process alone, and hence it should be stressed that it is a
4
Introduction
preliminary assessment that is called for, and that this need not be a full Red
List assessment (CBD, 2009). In the last decade, there has been a gradual
increase in the number of species included in the IUCN Red List at a global
level. However, given an estimate of approximately 370,000 flowering plants,
the global assessments still only include 3-4% of plant species. More
encouraging progress has occurred at a national level. During the consultation
on this target, 52% of countries indicated that they had completed some form
of Red List assessment (CBD, 2009).
The utility of the Red List as a conservation tool derives not only from the
classification of each species into a category of threat, but also for the wealth
of data, collected to support these assessments, that are published online in a
searchable format (IUCN, 2004). Submissions to the Red List now require the
rationale for listing, supported by data on range size, population size and
trend, distribution, habitat preferences, altitude, threats and conservation
actions in place or needed. Many of these parameters are coded in
standardized ‘authority files’ that enable comparative analyses across taxa
(IUCN, 2004). The Red List data are a source of information that is essential
to guide conservation efforts focused on species. Threat categorizations
themselves are key to guiding priorities for conservation investment among
species (Collar, 1996), albeit necessarily along with other information, such as
cost and feasibility (Possingham, 2002, Mace and Lande 1991). The
assessments also produce a series of recommendations for conservation
action (BirdLife International, 2004).
When the environmental factor changes beyond a certain level; plants try
to adapt. Adaptation is any morphological, anatomical, physiological or
behavioural feature, which favour results from some environmental pressure to
increase the ability of an organism under changing environment and favour
the success of an organism in a given environmental condition. A given
population shows different levels of tolerance to a given limiting factor over its
geographic distribution. Such locally adapted populations are called ecotypes,
which may have developed due to genetic changes resulting in different
responses to varying environment (Agrawal, 2005).
An important consequence of the sedentary lifestyle of plants is that they
cannot escape from the environment in which they grow or from any changes
in this environment. To cope with this, many plants are able to alter one or
more morphological characters in response to both abiotic (e.g., climate and
weather) and biotic (e.g., grazing and competition) factors of the environment
with a potential effect on resource acquisition. For example, leaf size and leaf
area of many alpine plants change with altitude (Meinzer et al., 1985; Ko¨rner
et al., 1989; Galal, 2011 and Omar et al., 2012), and some arctic plants may
produce more or larger leaves during warmer summers than during colder
ones (Havstro¨m et al., 1995; Stenstro¨m and Jo´nsdo´ttir, 1997). Knowledge
of how ecologically important morphological characters vary within the
distributional range of plant species, as well as the underlying control
5
Introduction
mechanisms for such variation, is essential to understand how the plants may
respond to environmental change (Stenstro¨m et al., 2002).
Knowledge of reproduction is crucial to our understanding of the causes
of rarity and for conservation of rare plant taxa (Kruckeberg and Rabinowitz
1985). Herbaceous perennials that do not reproduce vegetatively depend on
seeds to recruit new individuals into populations. In order for new plants to
establish in a population, flowers must be pollinated to form fruits, ovules must
be fertilized, sustained with nutrients, and escape predation to form viable
seeds, and seeds must be dispersed to suitable substrates for growth, where
they must germinate. Any weak link or break in this chain of events curtails a
plant’s ability to reproduce and, if constant over space and time, may
contribute to a species’ rarity and impede its conservation.
Many workers have investigated single or combined components of the
reproductive ecology of rare plants, such as flowering frequency and
vegetative reproduction seed germination (Jacobs, 1993; Clark et al., 1997;
Florance, 1997), breeding system and germination (Clampitt, 1987; Menges,
1995), and seed production and predation (Menges et al., 1986).
Reinforcement of wild plant populations using individuals raised ex-situ is
considered a valid means of reducing the risk of extinction of threatened
species or populations (Bowes, 1999). If plants are multiplied from seed the
genetic diversity of local ecotypes is maximized (Fay, 1992). However, each
species has particular requirements for seed germination as a result of
adaptive radiation into patchy and changing environments (Schu¨tz and
Milberg 1997). Thus, although propagation from seed is inexpensive and
usually effective, germination requirements for native species are often
unknown, particularly for rare and/or endemic species of which material is
more difficult to obtain.
A dormant seed is one that is unable to germinate in a specified period
under a combination of environmental factors that are normally suitable for the
germination of the non-dormant seed (Baskin and Baskin 2004). Seed
dormancy is a temporary failure of a mature viable seed to germinate under
environmental conditions that would normally favour germination (Li and
Foley, 1997). Plants have evolved several dormancy mechanisms to optimize
the time of germination (Jones, 1999), seed dormancy enhances survival
(Foley, 2001). Since it is a physiological adaptation to environmental
heterogeneity, seed dormancy is a primary factor that influences natural
population dynamics (Bewley and Black 1994).
The conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats and the
maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural
surroundings and, in the case of domesticated or cultivated species, in the
surroundings where they have developed their distinctive properties is the
standard definition for in-situ conservation (CBD, 1992). In-situ conservation is
one of two basic conservation strategies, alongside ex-situ conservation.
Article 8 of the CBD specifies in-situ conservation as the primary conservation
6
Introduction
strategy, and states that ex-situ measures should play a supportive role to
reach conservation targets. In-situ conservation aims to enable biodiversity to
maintain itself within the context of the ecosystem in which it is found In-situ
management approaches can either be targeted at populations of selected
species (species centred) or whole ecosystems (ecosystem-based) (Heywood
and Dulloo 2005).
Both approaches follow the same purpose: To enable biodiversity to
maintain itself within the context of the ecosystem in which it has been found,
i.e. to enable a species population to self-replicate and maintain its potential
for continued evolution (BGCI, 2012). This requires conservation of the
components of the natural system (populations, species, communities and
biophysical systems) as well as the ecological and evolutionary processes
occurring within that system. Conservation measures are aimed at the
surroundings where a target-species developed its distinctive properties. This
could be a natural habitat, or an environment heavily modified by human
activity.
Many scientists and conservationists feel that until methods are available
to discern easily which of the millions of species and varieties will have
economic value, in-situ conservation through the protection of natural areas
should be the primary means for the maintenance of these resources.
However, a rigid preservation approach is virtually impossible to implement
and even less likely to be maintained over time. Considering trends in
population growth and the urgency of economic development--especially in
the developing countries--a more appropriate response would be to pursue
proactive alternatives to high-impact development activities, and to implement
carefully formulated strategies for in-situ methods that would include protected
areas in the development mix (William et al. 1995). In-situ Conservation is
usually the preferred conservation strategy for capturing and conserving
Medicinal Plant pockets in their natural habitats. Stress is laid on identification
of Medicinal Plant areas having rich biodiversity of genetic resources that
have priority, usually at the species level on the basis of present or potential
socio-economic value of the species and their conservation status in the
ecosystem along with group of its associate species (Punjoo, 1993).
The area-specific action plan and networking of natural sites has to be
considered the most important aspects of in-situ conservation activities. The
ecological requirement of many of the species is complex. Hence moving
them out of their own area of comfort to new area may sometime prove
counterproductive. Hence by improving the protection, removing all kind of
threats is one of the important steps towards in-situ conservation.
Conservation units are not kept too small because this will cause continuous
loss of genetic diversity by the effects of genetic drift and increased
inbreeding. Considering this, the area has to be large enough for maintaining
the genetic integrity of the original population and for generating enough seed
production (Punjoo, 1993).
7
Introduction
Traditionally, protected areas have been seen as the cornerstone of insitu conservation. Conservation approaches that are more adaptable to
individual situations and applicable beyond protected areas, are being
increasingly applied (Heywood and Dulloo 2005). Protected areas are the
cornerstone of in-situ conservation, as is outlined in Article 8 of the CBD. A
protected area network may contribute to conservation targets through the
maintenance of target species and their habitats, as well as the conservation
of natural or semi-natural ecosystems. There is a however growing
awareness of the importance of extending in-situ conservation beyond
protected areas (Newmark, 2008, Primack, 2012). The socioeconomic and
political context around a threatened habitat may prevent the establishment or
success of a protected area, and the development of alternative in-situ
conservation management approaches may prove more useful in these
situations (Cinner et al. 2012).
Many of the problems of conservation actions and policies are related to
conflicts between actions and processes occurring at different scales. Such is
the case of the time periods needed to investigate the life history of an
endangered species, or to implement a species recovery plan with regard to
the terms of research funding programmes, or conservation actions of the
administration, which are tightly dependent on political terms of office
(Heywood and Iriondo, 2003). In a similar way, management and economic
considerations often restrict the size of protected areas or restoration projects
when these should be much larger if purely biological considerations were
taken into account (Heywood and Iriondo, 2003).
It is widely accepted today that the primary strategy for nature
conservation is the establishment and maintenance of a system or network of
protected areas. But as Huntley (1999) points out, in a changing world this is
a necessary but not sufficient condition of the successful conservation of
biodiversity. Some conservationists believe that efforts to expand and
strengthen the global system of protected areas should be redoubled and at
the same time dismiss the whole concept of sustainable development of
resources as a misguided effort (Brandon, 1997; Kramer et al., 1997; Soule´
and Sanjayan, 1998).
Conservation planning is also essential for effective conservation of plant
genetic resources hotspots. Thus, Maxted (2003) indicates ways for efficient,
active conservation of plant genetic resources in European protected areas
and for identifying gaps in the in situ conservation of key resources for
Europe. Decision making is another element, inherent in all stages and areas
of conservation, which is directly related to the cost-efficiency of the process
(Wolfson et al., 1996).
It can be difficult to determine which areas to restore, what species
and/or vegetation communities to target in restoration programs, and what
threatening processes need to be mitigated. According to De la Cruz- Rot
(2001), focusing on the community level can help fill the gap between species
8
Introduction
and ecosystem approaches to plant conservation. Plant communities are in
fact basic components of the landscape and their extent and arrangement has
consequences both for species survival and for ecosystem processes
(Heywood and Iriondo, 2003).
The Sinai Peninsular extends over 61,000km2: it forms a land bridge
between Africa and Asia and its flora and fauna have been influenced by both
continental masses. Four phytogeographic regions meet and overlap in Sinai;
of these the Saharo-Arabian (desert vegetation) and the Irano-Turanian
(steppe vegetation) largely characterise the central mountain block, which
covers most of the Sinai south of latitude 29o N. and contains the St Katherine
Protectorate. This South Sinai massif is an isolated mountainous block
composed largely of crystalline rocks and is geologically related to the
Precambrian African plate and the Arabian Shield. The Gulfs of Aqaba and
Suez form effective ecological barriers. The crystalline massif is very rough
country characterised by the highest mountains in Egypt, a dense wadi
system and an arid climate. The central higher mountains constituting the
Protectorate form an island of Central Asian steppe vegetation along with
Irano-Turanian biota. Sinai’s endemic species are largely restricted to this
“island” together with relict populations of Palaearctic and Oriental species
(SKP Management Plan 2003).
In 1996, Prime Ministerial Decree No. 904 formally declared the St
Katherine Protectorate; full protected-area status was given to approximately
4,350km² of largely mountainous terrain in South Sinai. The area includes the
highest peaks in Egypt and contains a unique assemblage of natural
resources, notably high altitude ecosystems with surprisingly diverse fauna
and flora and with a significant proportion of endemic species. The
Protectorate has enormous national and international significance but its
natural resources and cultural heritage had been placed at risk of serious
damage from unsustainable development pressure. The St Katherine
Protectorate abuts the Ras Mohammed National Park and the Nabq and Abu
Galum Managed Resource Areas along the Gulf of Aqaba. Although the
coastal areas are the main attractions for mass tourism development, the St
Katherine area is attracting an increasing numbers of visitors (SKP
Management Plan 2003).
The St Katherine Protectorate is an area of great biological interest; it
has been recognized by IUCN, as one of the most important regions for flora
diversity in the Middle East. It contains about 30% of Egypt's endemic flora
and a very high proportion of Egypt's endemic fauna, including butterflies. The
dominant flora is that of montane vegetation thinly scattered over the betterwatered mountain peak system and largely made up of Irano-Turanian
elements. Twelve main plant communities are recognised dominated by
various dwarf shrubs that reflect differences in habitat conditions such as
altitude, slope, exposure, geology etc. Serphedium herba-alba is the most
prominent floral component of the higher altitude landscapes and is the
9
Introduction
dominant or co-dominant in almost all communities. Acacia is the
physiognomically dominant species of lower altitude wadi communities (SKP
Management Plan 2003, Hatab 2009, Omar, 2013).
Due to the low rainfall and poor soil development on the extensive bare
rock surfaces plant life is largely restricted to the drainage channel (wadi)
systems drainage network; as rainfall often results in torrential floods, plant
life is more common on alluvium terraces bordering channels. The main
threats discerned for vegetation are localised overgrazing, uprooting of plants
for fuel or camel fodder and over collection of medicinal and herbal plants for
sale.
The number of wild plant species requiring specific conservation efforts
is far too numerous to include all of them in conservation programmes
(Sutherland 2001). Even within the main groups of target species of economic
importance (wild relatives, forest tree species, medicinal and aromatic plants),
the number of species to consider is greatly in excess of any reasonable
expectation of conservation possibilities. If a conservation strategy depends,
as it often will, on the results of ecogeographical surveys and analyses of
genetic and biological variation, all of which require considerable investments
of time, money and expertise, not to mention any management interventions
and monitoring, then effective action will not be possible for most of the
species identified. It follows that the selection of target (candidate) species is
a key element of any in situ programme. A useful review of the principles of
priority setting in species conservation, although in an ornithological context,
is included in a recent volume on conserving bird biodiversity (Mace and
Collar 2002).
Some general principles for the selection of target species are widely
applied (Maxted et al. 1997d) (see Box 1). In addition there are special factors
that may have to be taken into account in particular cases or types of plant
(for example crop wild relatives, forest species, medicinal plants, ornamental
plants etc.) and these may affect the selection process, or may be applicable
only at a later stage, such as the extent of management needed. The main
factors are:
Coverage and distribution: The coverage and distribution of the target
species in time and space is an important factor to consider. The degree of
coverage or the percentage of the total cover occupied by the species and
their populations as well as their general distribution pattern (widespread,
disjunct populations, narrow localized species, metapopulations) will affect the
genetic architecture, population structure and the amount of variation.
Existence of variation: The existence of different types of variation
(ecotypic/genecological, chemical and clinal) and how they are distributed will
also be another major consideration to take into account. Special desirable
features such as chemical variation (Heywood, 2002) would need to be
covered in the populations selected in the case of medicinal and aromatic
plants.
10
Introduction
Threat to genetic erosion: The degree to which species and their
populations are under threat from genetic contamination might well affect their
genetic integrity and would call for special consideration in the management
of in situ populations. The competitive ability of the species to withstand
invasion of their habitat by alien species may affect the degree of
management intervention required and their capacity for natural regeneration.
Box 1: General criteria for selecting target species
• Actual or potential economic use
• Crop relative
• Medicinal or aromatic herb, shrub, tree
• Forest timber tree
• Fruit tree or shrub
• Ornamental herb tree, shrub
• Agroforestry species
• Forage species
• Species used for habitat restoration or rehabilitation
• Other
• Current conservation status: the degree and nature of threats
• Endemism
• Restricted range
• Recent rate of decline
• Rarity
• Threat of genetic erosion
• Ecogeographical distinctiveness
• Biological characteristics and importance
• Cultural importance or of high social demand
• Occurrence and frequency in current Protected Areas
• Status of protection
• Ethical considerations
• Taxonomic or phyletic uniqueness or isolation
• Focal or keystone status/ecosystem role
• Indicator species
• Umbrella species
• Keystone
• Flagship
Modified and amplified from Maxted and Hawkes (1997), Mace and
Collar (2002).
Extent of utilization: The extent of utilization of the target species;
whether it forms part of provenance and breeding programmes or is simply
harvested from the wild or used by local communities, would also be
important factors to take into account.
11
Introduction
Biological characteristics: The successful in situ conservation of target
species will depend a to a large extent on how much is already known about
the species’ biological characteristics (e.g. taxonomy, breeding system) and
whether the species is unambiguously delimited, readily available and easy to
locate and sample. Pragmatic decisions based on the above will be required
in order to ensure the likelihood of conservation success and sustainability.
Conservation costs: The relative monetary costs of conservation actions
would be yet another key determinant.
Other common criteria for selecting species include their endangerment
status, the extent and pattern of their distribution, and their occurrence in
protected areas or centres of plant diversity. Endangered species are a widely
accepted focus for conservation attention both nationally and globally and are
frequently afforded high priority. Lists of endangered species are compiled
with little regard to the economic, social or scientific importance or the biology
of the species involved. It has been pointed out that in the USA many
‘endangered’ species are peripheral populations if the whole range of the
species is taken into account (Godown and Peterson 2000; Peterson 2001)
and this may well be true of other countries as well. If, however, the species
are endemic to the country concerned then there is much greater justification
to choose them as targets for conservation.
The first step in any conservation programme for target species is to
establish a baseline of available information before other activities are
initiated. The process of gathering this information is sometimes referred to as
an ecogeographical survey or study (Maxted et al. 1995) and is considered
central to all issues of conservation and a key requirement in the development
of any conservation strategy (Ouédraogo 1997). Choosing species to include
in a conservation programme requires that adequate information is available
to make proper decisions and set the right priorities. A word of caution,
however, is needed. It is important to gather as much information as possible
from as many sources as possible, but the validity of this information should
then be double-checked (USDA 1999). Once the knowledge baseline has
been established, this will allow gaps in the knowledge to be identified and will
inform the implementation of the subsequent steps.
The concept of ecogeographical surveys gained wide currency after the
publication of a booklet Ecogeographical Surveying and In Situ Conservation
of Crop Relatives by IBPGR (later IPGRI) in 1985. The term applies to various
systems of gathering and collating information on the taxonomy, geographical
distribution, ecological characteristics, genetic diversity, and ethnobiology of
the target species, as well as the geography, climate and the human setting of
the regions under study (Guarino et al. 2002). Ecogeographical information
can be used to locate significant genetic material and representative
populations can be monitored to guide the selection of representative samples
for conservation and utilization (IBPGR 1985).
12
Introduction
TARGET SPECIES:
Scientific name:
Primula boveana Decne. ex Duby, 1844
Synonym/s:
Primula verticillata subsp. boveana (Dcne.) W.W. Sm. & Forrest
English Common Name:
Sinai primrose
Other Common Names:
Khass El-Gabal (Arabic), Sahseeh, Hekp Elqualah (Arabic)
Higher Taxonomy:
Kingdom: Plantae
Phylum: Tracheophyta
Class: Magnoliopsida
Order: Ericales
Family: Primulaceae
Taxonomic Notes:
Primula boveana is a small plant, restricted to the environs of Mount
Sinai (Egypt). It was named in honour of Nicolas Bové (1812-1841), one of
the first botanists to study the flora of the Sinai Peninsula. The type was
collected near Mt. St. Catherine by N. Bové in 1832.
It belongs to the subgenus Sphondylia (Duby) Rupr. which, together
with its sister-group Dionysia Fenzl (previously regarded as a separate
genus), forms a well-supported clade within Primula (Mast et al. 2001,
2006). All the species included in Sphondylia, as well as some Dionysia,
are rare, narrow endemics distributed in wet refugia in arid areas from
northeastern Africa to Southwest Asia.
Richards & Eveleigh (2012) consider that Primula involucrata Sweet,
1839 is the valid name for this taxon; this is a catalogue name in Curtis’
Botanical Magazine referring to a figure and description of a plant called
P.verticillata, but actually from Egypt and therefore clearly P.boveana.
Primula section Sphondylia (Duby) Rupr. comprises eight species with
patchy distributions endemic to mountainous regions from the West
Himalayas to Ethiopia, including Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia,
Turkey and Yemen (Wendelbo, 1961, Richards, 2003). This section is
remarkable for its intra- and inter-specific variation of floral morphologies,
which is not as marked in other sections of the genus (Al Wadi and Richards
1993, Richards, 2003). Primula boveana Decne. ex Duby is the only species
of genus Primula in Egyptian flora. It is endemic to the SKP in South Sinai,
Egypt, and has high medical importance because of substances extracted
from its roots. This species is severely threatened by both natural (aridity of
13
Introduction
the area) and human factors (scientific research). All these factors are
pushing P. boveana to the brink of extinction. This species is restricted to
Montane wadis fed by melted snow and distributed in moist ground in the
vicinity of wells and sheltered mountain areas. Because of climate change,
the wild population of this species could be in extreme danger in the near
future.
Due to its geographic isolation, at least 1,400 km away from other
species from section Sphondylia, P. boveana is a key element for
understanding the biogeographic connections within the genus Primula.
Population sizes are very small, although this species is known to have been
more abundant in the recent past (Al Wadi, 1993, Richards, 2003). Such a
narrow distribution and scarcity prompted (Richards, 2003) to refer to P.
boveana as ‘‘one of the rarest plant species’’. The IUCN lists it under the
category deficient data (Garcı´a et al. 2010). Due to its extreme rarity, P.
boveana is considered as a priority target for conservation at a national level
in Egypt (Radford et al. 2011).
AIM AND OBJECTIVES:
This study has been carried out within the framework of "Primula boveana
conservation Project (Assessment of the current conservation status of
Primula boveana in St Katherine Protectorate, South Sinai, Egypt) funded by
"Rufford Foundation’’.
The study is aimed to assess the current conservation status of this species
according to IUCN criteria in order to produce a series of recommendations
for conservation action. In addition, we will try to enhance the understanding
about the IUCN Red List Category & Criteria by using this species as a case
study.
The objectives of this study can be summaries as fellow:
1. Assessment of the conservation status of P. boveana according to
IUCN criteria. A detailed field survey will take place to define the
geographical range and ecological status of P. boveana populations.
Every site will be mapped to characterize the extent of occurrence,
area of occupancy, mature individuals, and population size. We will
determine the vegetation structure, species diversity, and cover, in
areas where the plant does, and does not, grow. The soil environment
will similarly be measured for physical and chemical characteristics to
determine what conditions are needed for P. boveana to grow. Finally
the general environment will be characterized (elevation, aspect, and
slope), climatic conditions for P. boveana in order to detect the best
habitat preference for this species within the study area.
2. A detailed study of size and reproduction of P. boveana. Plant traits
within and among populations will be measured, including
14
Introduction
morphological aspects (leaf area, leaf shape, internode length, leaves
per plant, branches per plant) and reproductive aspects (number of
flowering stems, number of flowers, number of seeds).
3. Identify and rank the various threats to the plant, and try to identify their
underlying root causes and barriers to solutions. During the surveys all
factors within the field that may threaten the plant will be recorded. We
will gather information from the local community and from stakeholders
such as the medicinal plant collectors regarding local knowledge,
attitudes, and practices in relation to P. boveana.
4. Clearly identify conservation actions in place or for future, priorities,
research needs, suitable habitats for growth and suggest appropriate
strategies for P. boveana conservation by in situ and ex situ
techniques.
5. Clearly identification of some IUCN Red List terms highly needed when
conservation assessments take place like: Location, Extent Of
Occurrence (EOO), Area Of Occupancy (AOO), Continuing Decline,
Extreme Fluctuations, Population, Subpopulations, Mature Individuals,
Population Size, Reduction, Severely Fragmented, Quantitative
Analysis, Generation Length, Threats Classification Scheme, Critically
Endangered, Endangered, and Vulnerable, Red List Category &
Criteria, etc.
STRUCTURE OF THIS BOOK:
In this book, we will focus in some terms related to IUCN Red List categories
and criteria through detailed conservation assessment for Primula boveana.
We will study the geographical range (chapter 1), population characteristics
(chapter 2), Habitat and ecology (chapter 3), Threats (chapter 4), red list
category and criteria (chapter 5), and conservation requirements and actions
(chapter 6). General discussion, conclusion, and recommendations will be
followed.
REFERENCES:
Agrawal, A. 2005. Environmentality Community, Intimate Government, and
the Making of Environmental Subjects in Kumaon, India. Current
anthropology, 46 (2): 161-190.
Ahmad, I., Ahmad, M.S.A., Hussain, M., Ashraf, M., Ashraf, M.Y., and
Hameed, M. 2010. Spatiotemporal aspects of plant community structure
in open scrub rangelands of submountainous Himalayan plateaus. Pak.
J. Bot., 42(5): 3431-3440.
15
Introduction
Al Wadi H. and Richards A.J., 1993. Primary homostyly in Primula L.
subgenus Sphondylia (Duby) Rupr. and the evolution of distyly in
Primula. New Phytol 124:329–338.
Al Wadi, H., 1993. Primula boveana and Jebel Katarina. Bull Alp Gar Soc
61:68–70.
Baskin, J.M., Baskin, C.C. 2004. "A classification system for seed
dormancy". Seed Science Research 14 (1): 1–16.
Batanouny, K.H., 1983. Human impact on desert vegetation. In: Man’s Impact
on Vegetation”, W. Holzner, M.J.A. Werger, and I. Ikusima, (eds.), Dr.
W. Junk Publishers, London, pp. 380.
Bewley, J.D. and Black, M. 1994. Seeds: Physiology of development and
germination (2nd edition). New York, Plenum Press.
BGCI 2012. International Agenda for Botanic Gardens in Conservation: 2nd
edition. Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Richmond, UK.
BirdLife International, 2004. Threatened Birds of the World 2004, CDROM
BirdLife
International
(http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/
species/index.html).
Bocuk, H., Ture, C., and Ketenoglu, O. 2009. Plant diversity and conservation
of the northeast Phrygia region under the impact of land degradation
and desertification (Central Anatolia, Turkey). Pak. J. Bot., 41(5): 23052321.
Bowes, B.G. 1999. A Colour Atlas of Plant Propagation and Conservation.
Manson Publishing Ltd, London.
Brandon, K. 1997. Policy and practical considerations in land-use strategies
for biodiversity conservation. In: Kramer, R., van Schaik, C., Johnson, J.
(Eds.), Last Stand. Protected Areas and the Defense of Tropical
Biodiversity. Oxford University Press, New York, 90–114.
Cinner, J., Marnane, M.J., Mcclanahan, T.R., Almany, G.R., 2012. Periodic
Closures as Adaptive Coral Reef Management in the Indo- Pacific. 11:
URL http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/a
Clampitt, C.A. 1987. Reproductive biology of Aster curtus (Asteraceae), a
Pacific Northwest endemic. American Journal of Botany 76: 941–946.
Clark, D.L., Ingersoll, C.A., and Finley, K.K. 1997. Regeneration of Erigeron
decumbens var. decumbens (Asteraceae), t h e W il l amet t e D a i s y . In
T.
N. Kaye, A. Liston, R. M. Love, D. Luoma, R. J. Meinke, and M. V.
Wilson [eds.], Conservation and management of native plants and fungi,
41–47.
Collar, N.J. and Andrew, 1988. Birds to Watch – The ICBP World Check-list of
Threatened Birds, International Council for Bird Preservation.
Collar, N.J., 1996. The reasons for Red Data Books. Oryx 30, 121–130.
Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity
Article 2. Use of Terms.Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, Montreal, Canada.
16
Introduction
Fay, M.F. 1992. Conservation of rare and endangered plants using in vitro
methods. In Vitro Cellular Developmental Biology-Plant 28, 1–4.
Florance, E.R. 1997. Structure, dormancy, and germination of seeds
fromFrasera albicaulis and F. umpquaensis (Gentianaceae). In T. N. Kaye,
A. Liston, R. M. Love, D. Luoma, R. J. Meinke, and M. V. Wilson [eds.],
Conservation and management of native plants and fungi, 62–65. Foley,
M.E. 2001. Seed dormancy: an update on terminology, physiological
genetics, and quantitative trait loci regulating germinability. Weed
Science 49, 305–317.
Galal, T.M. 2011. Size structure and dynamics of some woody perennials
along elevation gradient in Wadi Gimal, Red Sea coast of Egypt. Flora Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants, 206 (7): 638645.
Garcı´a N., Cuttelod, A., and Abdul Malak, D. 2010. The status and
distribution of freshwater biodiversity in northern Africa. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland, Cambridge, UK, and Malaga, Spain.
Godown, M.E. and Peterson, A.T. 2000. Preliminary distributional analysis of
US endangered bird species. Biodiversity and Conservation 9(9):1313–
1322.
Guarino, L., Jarvis, A., Hijmans, R.J. and Maxted, N. 2002. Geographic
information systems (GIS) and the conservation and use of plant
genetic resources. In: Engels, J.M.M., Ramanatha Rao, V., Brown,
A.H.D. and Jackson, M.T. (eds.), Managing Plant Genetic Diversity.
CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Havstro¨m, M., Callaghan, T. V., Jonasson, S. and Svoboda, J. 1995. Little ice
age temperature estimated by growth and flowering differences
between subfossil and extant shoots of Cassiope tetragona, an arctic
heather. Functional Ecology 9: 650–654.
Heywood, V.H. 2002. The conservation of genetic and chemical diversity in
medicinal and aromatic plants. In: Sener, B. (ed.), Biomolecular Aspects
of Biodiversity and Innovative Utilization: Proceedings of the Third
IUPAC International Conference on Biodiversity (ICOB-3), November 3–
8, Antalya, Turkey. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, London, UK.
Heywood, V.H. and Iriondo, J.M. 2003. Plant conservation: old problems, new
perspectives. Biological Conservation, 113: 321–335.
Heywood, V.H., and Dulloo, M.E. 2005. In situ conservation of wild plant
species a critical global review of good practices, Food and Agriculture
Organisation, Rome, Italy.
Huntley, B. 1999. Species distribution and environmental change. In: Maltby,
E., Hodgate, M., Acreman, M., Weir, A. (Eds.), Ecosystem
Management. Questions for Science and Society. Royal Holloway
Institute for Environmental Research, Royal Holloway, University of
London, Egham, 115–129.
17
Introduction
IBPGR. 1985. Ecogeographical Surveying and In Situ Conservation of Crop
Relatives. IBPGR, Rome, Italy.
IUCN, 2004. 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, IUCN-SSC
(http://www.iucnredlist.org)
Jacobs, J. 1993. New hope for the Peter's Mountain mallow. Endangered
Species Technical Bulletin 18: 13–14.
Jones, H.D. (1999. Seeds get a wake-up call. Biologist 46, 65–69.
Ko¨rner, C., Neumayer, M., Menendez-riedl, S.P. And Smeetsscheel, A.
1989. Functional morphology of mountain plants. Flora, 182: 353–383.
Kramer, R., van Schalk, C. and Johnson, J. (Eds.), 1997. Last Stand.
Protected Areas and the Defense of Tropical Biodiversity. Oxford
University Press, New York, 242 pp.
Kruckeberg, A. R., and Rabinowitz, D. 1985. Biological aspects of endemism
in higher plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics.16: 447–
479.
Li, B. and Foley, M.E. 1997. Genetic and molecular control of seed dormancy.
Trends in Plant Science 2, 384–389.
Mace, G.M. and Collar, N.J. 2002. Priority-setting in species conservation. In:
Norris, K. and Pain, D. (eds.), Conserving Bird Biodiversity: General
principles and their application. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Mace, G.M. and Lande, R. 1991. Assessing extinction threats toward a reevaluation of IUCN Threatened Species Categories. Conserv. Biol. 5,
148–157.
Mast, A.R., Kelso, S. & Conti, E. (2006) Are any primroses (Primula)
primitively monomorphic? New Phytologist 171: 605–616
Mast, A.R., Kelso, S., Richards, A.J., Lang, D.J., Feller, D.M.S. & Conti, E.
2001. Phylogenetic relationships in Primula L. and related genera
(Primulaceae) based on noncoding chloroplast DNA. International
Journal of Plant Sciences 162: 1381–1400
Maxted N., van Slageren, M.W. and Rihan, J.R. 1995. Ecogeographic
surveys. In: Guarino, L., Ramanatha Rao, V. and Reid R. (eds.),
Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity. Technical guidelines.
CAB
International, Wallingford, UK. pp. 255-287.
Maxted, N. 2003. Conserving the genetic resources of crop wild relatives in
European protected areas. Biological Conservation, 113(3): 411–417.
Maxted, N. and Hawkes, J.G. 1997. Selection of target taxa. In: Maxted, N.,
Ford-Lloyd, B.V. and Hawkes, J.G. (eds.), Plant Genetic Conservation:
The in situ approach. Chapman and Hall, London, UK. pp. 43–68.
Maxted, N., Hawkes, J.G., Guarino, L. and Sawkins, M. 1997d. Towards the
selection of taxa for plant genetic conservation. Genetic Resources and
Crop Evolution 44(4):337–348.
18
Introduction
Meinzer, F.C., Goldstein, G.H. and Rundel, P.W. (1985. Morphological
changes along an altitudinal gradient and their consequences for an
Andean giant rosette plant. Oecologia, 65: 278–283.
Menges, E.S., Waller, D.M. and Gawler, S.C. 1986. Seed set and seed
predation in Pedicularis furbishiae, a rare endemic of the St. John River,
Maine. American Journal of Botany 73: 1168–1177.
Milton, S.J., Dea, W.R.J., Du Plessis, M.A., and Siegfried, W.R. 1994. A
conceptual model of arid rangeland degradation”, BioScience 44, 70-76.
Newmark, W.D. 2008. Isolation of African protected areas, Front Ecol Environ,
6, pp. 321–328.
Omar, K., Khafagi, O. and Elkholy, M.A. 2012. Eco-geographical analysis on
mountain plants: A case study of Nepeta septemcrenata in South Sinai,
Egypt. Lambert Academic Publishing, 236 pp.
Ouédraogo, A.S. 1997. Conservation and use of forest genetic resources. In:
Proceedings of the XI World Forestry Congress, 13–22 October 1997,
Antalya, Turkey. FAO, Rome, Italy. pp. 173–188.
Peterson, A.T. 2001. Endangered species and peripheral populations: cause
for reflection. Endangered Species UPDATE 18(2):30–31.
Possingham, H.P., 2002. Limits to the use of threatened species lists. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 17, 503–507.
Primack, R.B. 2012. Conservation Outside Protected Areas. In: Primack RB
(ed) A Prim. Conserv. Biol., 5th ed.
Sinauer As soc i at es ,
Massachusetts, USA, pp 256–281.
Punjoo, J.I. 1993. Ex-situ and In-situ Conservation of Medicinal plants with
particular reference to Jammu and Kashmir State, Conservator of
Forests, South circle, J&K Forest Department, pp. 17.
Radford E.A., Catullo, G., and de Montmollin, B. 2011. Important plant areas
of the south and east Mediterranean region: priority sites for
conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Malaga, Spain.
Richards AJ & Eveleigh P 2012. Four name changes in Primula. The Alpine
Gardener 80(2): 138-9
Richards, A.J. 2003. Primula, 2nd ed. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Schu¨tz, W., Milberg, P., (1997. Seed dormancy in Carex canescens: regional
differences and ecological consequences. Oikos 78, 420–428.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009. The Convention
on Biological Diversity Plant Conservation Report: A Review of
Progress in Implementing the Global Strategy of Plant Conservation
(GSPC), 48 pp.
Soule´, M.E. and Sanjayan, M.A. 1998. Conservation targets: do they help?
Science, 279: 2060–2061.
Stenstro¨m, A., and Jo´nsdo´ttir, I.S. 1997. Responses of the clonal sedge,
Carex bigelowii, to two seasons of simulated climate change. Global
Change Biology, 3: 89–96.
19
Introduction
Stenstro¨m, A., Jo´nsdo´ttir, I.S. and Augner, M. 2002. Genetic and
environmental effects on morphology in clonal sedges in the Eurasian
arctic. American Journal of Botany, 89(9): 1410–1421.
Sutherland, W.J. 2001. The Conservation Handbook: Research management
and policy. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.
The Gran Canaria Declaration, 1999. Calling for a Global Program for Plant
Conservation.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1995. Global Biodiversity
Assessment. Cambridge University Press. New York, NY.
USDA 1999. The American Wild Relatives of Crops: In situ conservation
guidelines. In Situ Subcommittee, Plant Germplasm Operations
Committee. USDA, Beltsville, MD, USA.
Wendelbo, P. 1961. Studies in Primulaceae. II. An account of Primula
subgenus Sphondylia with review of the sections of the genus. Aarbok
for Universitet I Bergen. Mat- Naturv Serie 11:1–49.
William, J., Saunier, P.R.E., and Meganck, R. A. 1995. Chapter 2 - In-situ
conservation of biodiversity, Conservation of Biodiversity and the New
Regional Planning, pp. 150.
Wilson, E.O. 1992. The Diversity of Life. Penguin, London, UK. 432 pp.
20
Geographical Range
Chapter 1 Geographical Range
INTRODUCTION:
There are a number of theoretical and practical reasons to quantify
spatial pattern in species’ ranges and their borders (Hoffmann and Blows
1994, Gaston 2003).With increasing concern about species conservation, it is
important to obtain quantitative descriptions of species’ range structure and
extent of geographical ranges of species to provide accurate information for
management purposes (Lawton 1993). The characterization of species’
ranges is, however, complicated by their spatial and temporal dynamics. For
many species, ranges may expand in some geographical regions while
contracting in others (Hengeveld 1990). Hence, descriptions of species range
boundaries require not only that borders are determined accurately at any
given point in time, but also that these limits can be characterized in terms of
their shape and width (Maurer 1994, 1999, Curnutt et al. 1996, Maurer and
Nott 1998, Gaston 2003). Furthermore, it is important to identify the internal
distribution of abundance within range boundaries. Indeed, large variations in
abundance result in gaps within a species’ range that can create internal
borders (Brown et al. 1996). Hence the quantification of spatial pattern of the
outer species’ border limit, as well as within-species range boundaries, may
help to resolve outstanding questions in spatial ecology such as the
importance of source and sink demography (Pulliam 1988).
The uneven distribution of diversity is one of the most prominent
patterns in ecology and has attracted massive scientific interest since the
beginnings of biogeography (Humboldt 1808). The debate about possible
determinants of large-scale patterns of species richness has led to a plethora
of hypotheses during the last decades and even recently further hypotheses
have been proposed (Fischer 1960, Pianka 1966, MacArthur 1972, Jansson
and Dynesius 2002, Hawkins et al. 2003b, Willig et al. 2003). Searching for
determinants of large-scale patterns of diversity, conventional approaches
analyse species richness maps dependent on environmental variables, e.g.
temperature, precipitation, ambient energy, productivity, topographical
complexity, or habitat heterogeneity (Rahbek and Graves 2001, Jetz and
Rahbek 2002, Francis and Currie 2003, Hawkins et al. 2003a).
The vast majority of studies uses species occurrence data in the form
of range maps or museum records to document and analyse large-scale
patterns of species richness and endemism (Rahbek and Graves 2001).
Thus, geographic ranges of species are the basic unit of biogeography and
one of the most prominent biogeographic features is that species differ in the
size of their geographic ranges (Brown et al. 1996). Within a given
assemblage of species most species tend to have relatively small ranges
(Gaston 1994, 1998, Brown et al. 1996) and it has been argued that this
21
Geographical Range
reflects one of the most fundamental ways of how species share space
(Brown 1995). Differences in range size may reflect interspecific differences in
ecological tolerance, dispersal ability, and evolutionary history (Pither 2003,
Lloyd et al. 2003) or may reflect ecological traits associated with different lifeforms (Kelly 1996, Kessler 2002, Hunter 2003).
Overall species richness patterns thus emerge from a complex spatial
interaction of many species with small ranges and relatively few species with
very large ranges. So far, relatively little attention has been paid to this issue.
Since species richness maps emerge from superimposed range maps of
individual species, exploring the influence of range size may substantially
improve our understanding of large-scale diversity patterns. Consequences of
the highly skewed range size frequency distributions (RSFD) on spatial
patterns of species richness and on our perception of environmental
determinants of species richness have so far been tested exclusively with
vertebrates (Jetz and Rahbek 2002, Ruggiero and Kitzberger 2004, Lennon et
al. 2004). Plants in general appear to be largely underrepresented in
macroecological studies, because reliable distribution data especially for
tropical families is insufficient.
Sinai Peninsula has the geographical importance and uniqueness of
being the meeting place of Asia and Africa. For this reason, its flora combines
elements from these two continents, Saharo-Arabian, Irano-Turanian,
Mediterranean and Sudanian elements (McGinnies et. al., 1968). The Saint
Katherine region is situated in the southern part of Sinai and is a part of the
upper Sinai massif. It is located between 33˚ 55' to 34˚ 30' East and 28°30' to
28° 35' North. Sinai Peninsula is a triangle plate au occupying the
northeastern corner of Egypt. With its position at the northeast corner of
Africa, Egypt forms a bridge between Asia and Africa. Sinai Peninsula is part
of Asia; the rest of the country is part of Africa. It is also part of the
Mediterranean Basin. Its base, is in the north along the Mediterranean Sea.
The area of the Sinai Peninsula (61,000 km²) is about 6% of that of Egypt
(Migahid and Ayyad, 1959). It is triangular in shape and is separated from the
mainland of Egypt by the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Suez. It is continuous
with the Asiatic continent for a distance of over 200 Km between Rafah on the
Mediterranean Sea and Taba at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba.
It is conventionally divided into two main parts. The southern part is
one third of the Peninsula. The northern part is almost entirely covered by
sedimentary rocks that are mostly composed of limestone, while in the
southern part the basement rocks occupy more than 80% of the area and are
mainly of granitic composition (SKP Management Plan 2003, Omar et al.,
2012). Geologically, a complex of ancient crystalline rocks forms the Saint
Katherine Protectorate with some rocks, such as the Feiran gneiss, dating
back 1,100 million years. Grey granites dating back to 850 million years are
among the oldest rocks while the more common rose granites are younger at
about 600 million years old (Map 1). Ancient p i n k , w h i t e a n d
yellow
22
Geographical Range
sandstones, dating from the Permian to the Cretaceous period, skirt the
crystalline rocks to the north and west of the Protectorate (SKP Management
Plan 2003, Hatab, 2009 and Omar et al., 2012).
The Protectorate contains some of the highest peaks in Egypt,
including Gebel Katherina (Mount Saint Katherine) the country’s highest
summit at 2642m, Gebel Umm Shaumar (2586m), Gebel El Thabt (2439m),
Mt. Sinai (Gebel Musa) (2280m) and Gebel Serbal (2070m). These mountains
are composed of rocks of various types, colors and ages; for instance Gebel
Katherina is made of andesite porphyry, a volcanic rock about ten million
years old. Neighboring mountains of Gebel Ferrah, Gebel Safsafa and Mount
Sinai are formed from pink granite, a 580 million year old basement rock.
However, Mount Sinai’s summit is made of more recent volcanic rock, again
only about ten million years old (Omar et al., 2012). Over millions of years,
massive tectonic forces have tilted and shattered the country rock causing
volcanic eruptions. The dark veins, or dykes, which cut across mountains,
sometimes running for several kilometers, are the intrusions of basalt
(volcanic) rock into rock fractures and along lines of weakness. Particularly
impressive dyke swarms can be seen along Wadi Feiran. The Bedouin often
dig their wells in these dykes, as they tend to trap underground water (SKP
Management Plan 2003, Hatab, 2009 and Omar et al., 2012).
In this part, we will define in detail the geographical range of Primula boveana
according to IUCN guidelines.
Terminology in use according to IUCN 2014:
Location: “The term ‘location’ defines a geographically or ecologically distinct area
in which a single threatening event can rapidly affect all individuals of the taxon
present. The size of the location depends on the area covered by the threatening event
and may include part of one or many subpopulations. Where a taxon is affected by
more than one threatening event, location should be defined by considering the most
serious plausible threat.” (IUCN 2001, 2012b, and 2014).
Extent Of Occurrence (EOO): Extent of occurrence is defined as "the area
contained within the shortest continuous imaginary boundary which can be drawn to
encompass all the known, inferred or projected sites of present occurrence of a taxon,
excluding cases of vagrancy" (IUCN 2001, 2012b, 2014).
Extent of occurrence (EOO) is a parameter that measures the spatial spread of the
areas currently occupied by the taxon. The intent behind this parameter is to measure
the degree to which risks from threatening factors are spread spatially across the
taxon’s geographical distribution. It is not intended to be an estimate of the amount of
occupied or potential habitat, or a general measure of the taxon’s range. Other, more
restrictive definitions of “range” may be more appropriate for other purposes, such as
23
Geographical Range
for planning conservation actions. Valid use of the criteria requires that EOO is
estimated in a way that is consistent with the thresholds set therein.
"Extent of occurrence can often be measured by a minimum convex polygon (the
smallest polygon in which no internal angle exceeds 180 degrees and which contains
all the sites of occurrence)” (IUCN 2001, 2012b, and 2014). The IUCN Red List
Categories and Criteria state that EOO may exclude “discontinuities or disjunctions
within the overall distribution of the taxa”.
Area Of Occupancy (AOO): “Area of occupancy is defined as the area within its
'extent of occurrence', which is occupied by a taxon, excluding cases of vagrancy. The
measure reflects the fact that a taxon will not usually occur throughout the area of its
extent of occurrence, which may contain unsuitable or unoccupied habitats. In some
cases, (e.g., irreplaceable colonial nesting sites, crucial feeding sites for migratory
taxa) the area of occupancy is the smallest area essential at any stage to the survival of
existing populations of a taxon. The size of the area of occupancy will be a function
of the scale at which it is measured, and should be at a scale appropriate to relevant
biological aspects of the taxon, the nature of threats and the available data. To avoid
inconsistencies and bias in assessments caused by estimating area of occupancy at
different scales, it may be necessary to standardize estimates by applying a scalecorrection factor. It is difficult to give strict guidance on how standardization should
be done because different types of taxa have different scale-area relationships.”
(IUCN 2001, 2012b, and 2014)
Area of occupancy is included in the criteria for two main reasons. The first is to
identify species with restricted spatial distribution and, thus usually with restricted
habitat. These species are often habitat specialists. Species with a restricted habitat are
considered to have an increased risk of extinction. Secondly, in many cases, AOO can
be a useful proxy for population size, because there is generally a positive correlation
between AOO and population size. The veracity of this relationship for any one
species depends on variation in its population density.
Suppose two species have the same EOO, but different values for AOO, perhaps
because one has more specialized habitat requirements. For example, two species may
be distributed across the same desert (hence EOO is the same), but one is wide
ranging throughout (large AOO) while the other is restricted to oases (small AOO).
The species with the smaller AOO may have a higher risk of extinction because
threats to its restricted habitat (e.g., degradation of oases) are likely to reduce its
habitat more rapidly to an area that cannot support a viable population. The species
with the smaller AOO is also likely to have a smaller population size than the one
with a larger AOO, and hence is likely to have higher extinction risks for that reason.
In thinking about the differences between EOO and AOO, it may be helpful to
compare species that have similar values for one of these spatial parameters and
different values for the other. All else being equal, larger EOOs usually result in a
higher degree of risk spreading (and hence a lower overall risk of extinction for the
taxon) than smaller EOOs, depending on the relevant threats to the taxa. For example,
a taxon with occurrences distributed over a large area is highly unlikely to be
adversely affected across its entire range by a single fire because the spatial scale of a
24
Geographical Range
single occurrence of this threat is narrower than the spatial distribution of the taxon.
Conversely, a narrowly distributed endemic taxon, with the same AOO as the taxon
above, may be severely affected by a fire across its entire EOO because the spatial
scale of the threat is larger than, or as large as, the EOO of the taxon.
Continuing decline: “A continuing decline is a recent, current or projected future
decline (which may be smooth, irregular or sporadic) which is liable to continue
unless remedial measures are taken. Fluctuations will not normally count as
continuing declines, but an observed decline should not be considered as a fluctuation
unless there is evidence for this.” (IUCN 2001, 2012b, and 2014)
Note that continuing decline is different from "current population trend", which
is a required field in IUCN Red List assessments, but not used in the criteria. There is
not a simple correspondence between these two terms. The current population trend
may be stable or increasing, with a continuing decline projected in the future. If the
current population trend is declining, then there is continuing decline, but only if the
trend is liable to continue into the future and it is not the declining phase of a
fluctuation.
Extreme fluctuations: “Extreme fluctuations can be said to occur in a number of taxa
where population size or distribution area varies widely, rapidly and frequently,
typically with a variation greater than one order of magnitude (i.e., a tenfold increase
or decrease).” (IUCN 2001, 2012b, and 2014)
Population fluctuations may vary in magnitude and frequency. For the ‘extreme
fluctuations’ subcriterion to be invoked, populations would normally need to fluctuate
by at least 10-fold (i.e., an order of magnitude difference between population minima
and maxima). Fluctuations may occur over any time span, depending on their
underlying causes. Short-term fluctuations that occur over seasonal or annual cycles
will generally be easier to detect than those that occur over longer time spans, such as
those driven by rare events or climatic cycles such as El Niño. Fluctuations may occur
regularly or sporadically (i.e., with variable intervals between successive population
minima or successive population maxima).
The effect of extreme fluctuations on the extinction risk will depend on both the
degree of isolation and the degree of synchrony of the fluctuations between
subpopulations.
METHODOLOGY:
The present study was carried out in the period between March to May,
2014. To determine the Geographic Range of this species we collected
sufficient data about the following: Distribution of Primula boveana within SKP
during the field survey was record. A GPS fix was recorded in decimal
degrees and datum WGS84 using Garmin 12 XL receiver. The fix was
recorded to the fifth decimal digit. Arc View GIS 9.2 was used to plot the study
sites.
25
Geographical Range
Number of locations where the target species occurs, Extent of
Occurrence (EOO), Area of Occupancy (AOO), and its decline trend were
recorded and measured according to IUCN guidelines, 2014.
For more clarification, Extent of Occurrence measured by drawing a
polygon pass through the distribution points from outside.
GIS then
determined the area of this polygon in km2, See Map 1(A).
Area of Occupancy also measured though GIS; the distribution map was
converted to grids each one cover 2 km2, each occupied cell was then
extracted and the total size were collected and presented in the form of km2,
See Map 1 (B).
Recorded GPS points for each location were imported into GIS 9.2
software as excel sheet, then it add on TIN map then from 3D analyst tool TIN
surface was chosen to extract the topographic features (Elevation, aspect,
and slope) of this species. It’s recognized that Topography is the principal
controlling factor in vegetation growth and that the type of soils and the
amount of rainfalls play secondary roles at the scale of hill slopes (O’Longhlin,
1981; Wood et al., 1988 & Dawes and Short, 1994). Elevation, aspect, and
slope are the three main topographic factors that control the distribution and
patterns of vegetation in mountain areas (Titshall et al. 2000 and Omar et al.,
2012). Among these three factors, elevation is most important (Day and
Monk, 1974 and Busing et al., 1992). Elevation along with aspect and slope in
many respects determines the microclimate and thus large-scale spatial
distribution and patterns of vegetation (Allen and Peet, 1990 and Busing et al.,
1992).
RESULTS:
Primula boveana is endemic to SKP, South Sinai Egypt; it was recorded
only inside the boundary of SKP; exactly, in five main very small localities
(Shaq Elgragenia, Shaq Mousa, Elgabal Elahmar, Kahf Elghola, and Sad Abu
Hebiq). Inside theses five, we recorded nine sites that containing this species
(Map 1). Its estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) found to be about 13 km²
(12.7km2), and its estimated area of occupancy (AOO) less than 1 km²
(700m2), but with IUCN guidelines it cover area less than 6 km2, See Map 1. It
was observed that both EOO and AOO showed decline with time. P. boveana
was recorded as abundant in the past by (Richards 2003 and Al Wadi, 1993).
SKP reports had shown also that this species record in the past at the St.
Catherine Mountain and Elgalt Elazrak area.
In early nineties, there is hearsay that the target species was distributed
in more than 12 subpopulations including Gabal St. Katherine, Elgalt Elazrak
that not recorded in this study. These studies disappeared in period between
2001 to 2007. Elgalt Elazrak subpopulation appeared from 2007 to 2012 and
then disappeared again. Area like Shaq Elgragenia that recorded in this study
as one of the main sites for P. boveana was not found in the past (2005 to
26
Geographical Range
2008). Kahf Elghola subpopulation was the main site for P. boveana in the
past but in this study, we did not record any mature individuals in it. Pimula
boveana distribution and size depending on the presence of water (rainfall)
that is mean that species is undergoes extreme fluctuations in past, ongoing,
and future resulting from irregular precipitation. These fluctuations in
subpopulations number led to fluctuations in both EOO and AOO.
Map 1: Automated preliminary GIS analysis of Primula boveana geographical distribution.
A- Extent Of Occurrence (EOO), and B- Area Of occupancy (AOO).
The relationship was further confirmed when the distribution and altitude
maps were superimposed by GIS. It was found that P. boveana has a narrow
range of distribution between 1745 and 2210 m, the average alt is 1980 m, it
means that the species' Alt niche length has occupied about 465 m upward,
this niche represents about 18% of the total available alt-niche in SKP (min-alt
= 50 m and max alt = 2642 m) (Map 2 (a)).
Extracted data that came from 3D analysis by GIS found that P. boveana
communities were strongly affected by aspect and this shiny appears in the
species distribution within special aspects. Number of stands located at each
aspect were counted and presented as percentage (Map 2(b)). Results
showed that target species highly located in slopes that face northeast- (78%)
and east aspect (22%) with slope degree ranging from 55°to 90° (Table 1).
Table 1: Topographic variation among different P. boveana subpopulation.
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Subpopulation
S.G.1
S.G.2
S.G.3
S.M.1
S.M.2
S.M.3
E.A.
K.E.
A.H.
Topographic feathers
Aspect
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
E
E
NE
Altitude (m)
1886
2170
2210
2067
2065
1939
1914
1850
1745
Slope (Degree)
70°
55°
90°
90°
85°
79°
80°
82°
90°
Note: S.G=Shaq Elgragenia, S.M=Shaq Mousa, E.A.= Elgabal Elahmar, K.E= Kahf Elghola, and A.H.= Sad
Abu Hebik.
27
Geographical Range
Map 2. Topographic map for P. boveana within SKP. a- Digital Elevation Model, and
b- aspect ratios for the target species.
Biogeographic realm for this species is Palearctic; Drought is the main
limiting factor for this species, and because the plant is distributed within such
a very small-restricted area, the entire population will feel the effect of this
threat: thus, they are all effectively in one location.
The very narrow range of geographical distribution of this species
reflects the restricted geographic range for this threatened endemic species.
Species distributed above 1700 m asl and situated in aspect NE and E with
slopes ranged between 55° to 90° found to be cool climate lover. Climate
decrease with the increase in the attitude. In addition most of Primula sites
are concentrated on Northeast, and East aspect which give the species more
sheltered conditions, its recognized that these aspects are cooler with lower
soil evaporation resulting from lower amount of solar radiation coming from
lower hours of sun facing these aspects (Omar et al. 2013).
There is no such thing as the best method to delineate border and
characterize range. In fact, the choice of the most appropriate methods is
guided the combination of data type, data quality, and research questions.
Here our goal was to stress how the combination of existing and novel
quantitative and spatial statistics could be used in a complementary way to
better describe species’ geographical range. This wealth of statistical methods
comes, however, with a suite of technical challenges related to the spatial and
temporal resolution of the data: too fine a resolution would portray highly
fragmented species occupancy patterns and range edges that seem
exceedingly variable, while too coarse a resolution would not pick up species
responses t o envi r onm ent al c hanges and changing land us e
pressur es.
28
Geographical Range
Taxonomic accuracy is also a fundamental problem as species taxonomy is a
moving target: speciation events do occur and the novel abilities that separate
species into sub-species may become more and more apparent with intensive
study (Fortin et al. 2005).
Having these concerns in mind, the spatial statistics presented here
can still be used to produce reliable species’ range maps, which are needed
for conservation purposes. By doing so, important questions regarding the
identification of the locations where species expand or go locally extinct can
be investigated by comparing the locations of species’ borders estimated at
different times. Caution should be taken when comparing historic geographic
ranges, which presumably reflect thousands of years of species dispersal,
occupancy and speciation, with recent estimates of geographic ranges which
are based on a few decades of data in highly changing landscapes. Hence, a
comparison of historic and current geographic ranges based solely on their
physical properties (size, limits, and pattern) may be misleading, akin to
comparing apples to oranges (Fortin et al. 2005).
Species with narrow ranges are particularly in the focus of conservation
because they are subject to a higher risk of extinction (Gaston 1994, Purvis et
al. 2000). Large-scale conservation strategies depend substantially on
macroecological approaches to identify priority areas (Prendergast et al.
1999, Rahbek and Graves 2000, Margules and Pressey 2000, Whittaker et al.
2005). However, species with narrow ranges are discriminated by many
conventional correlative analyses due to the small amount of spatial
information they contribute to the overall species richness patterns and
because their environmental predictors are difficult to determine (Kreft et al.
2006).
REFERENCES:
Al Wadi, H., 1993. Primula boveana and Jebel Katarina. Bull Alp Gar Soc
61:68–70
Allen, R.B. and Peet, R.K. 1990. Gradient analysis of forests of the Sangre de
Cristo Range, Colorado. Canadian Journal of Botany, 68: 193-201.
Brown, J.H. 1995. Macroecology. Univ. of Chicago Press.
Brown, J.H., Stevens, G.C. and Kaufman, D.M. 1996. The geographic range:
size, shape, boundaries, and internal structure. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.
27: 597-623.
Busing, R.T., White, P.S., and MacKende, M.D. 1992. Gradient analysis of old
spruce-fir forest of the Great Smokey Mountains circa 1935. Canadian
Journal of Botany, 71: 951-958.
Curnutt, J.L., Pimm, S.L. and Maurer, B.A. 1996. Population variability of
sparrows in space and time. Oikos 76: 131-144.
Dawes, W.R., and Short, D. 1994. The significance of topology for modelling
the Surface hydrology of fluvial landscapes. Water Resources Research,
30: 1045- 1055.
29
Geographical Range
Day, F.P., and Monk, C.D. 1974. Vegetation patterns on a Southern
Appalachian watershed. Ecology, 55: 1064-1074.
Fischer, A.G. 1960. Latitudinal variations in organic diversity. Evolution 14:
64-81.
Fortin, M.J., Keitt, T.H., Maurer, B.A., Taper, M.L., Kaufman, D.M., and
Blackburn, T.M. 2005. Species’ geographic ranges and distributional
limits: pattern analysis and statistical issues. OIKOS 108: 7-17.
Francis, A.P. and Currie, D.J. 2003. A globally consistent richness-climate
relationship for angiosperms. Am. Nat. 161: 523-536.
Gaston, K.J. 1994. Rarity. Chapman and Hall.
Gaston, K.J. 1998. Species-range size distributions: products of speciation,
extinction, and transformation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 353: 219-230.
Gaston, K.J. 2003. The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges. Oxford
Univ. Press.
Hatab, E.E. 2009. Ecological studies on the Acacia Species and Ecosystem
Restoration in the Saint Katherine Protectorate, South Sinai, Egypt.
Ph.D., Thesis, Fac. Sci., Al-Azhar Univ 227pp.
Hawkins, B.A., Richard Field, Howard V. Cornell, David J. Currie, JeanFrançois Guégan, Dawn M. Kaufman, Jeremy T. Kerr, Gary G.
Mittelbach, Thierry Oberdorff, Eileen M. O'Brien, Eric E. Porter, and John
R. G. Turner 2003a. Energy, water, and broad-scale geographic patterns
of species richness. Ecology 84: 3105-3117.
Hawkins, B.A., Porter, E.E. and Diniz-Filho, J.A.F. 2003b. Productivity and
history as predictors of the latitudinal diversity gradient of terrestrial birds.
Ecology 84: 1608-1623.
Hengeveld, R. 1990. Dynamic biogeography. - Cambridge Univ. Press.
Hoffmann, A.A. and Blows, M.W. 1994. Species borders: ecological and
evolutionary perspectives. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9: 223-227.
Humboldt, A.V. 1808. Ansichten der Natur mit wissenschaftlichen
Erla¨uterungen. Cotta.
Hunter, J.T. 2003. Factors affecting range size differences for plant species
on rock outcrops in eastern Australia. Div. Distribut. 9: 211-220.
IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN
Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, U.K.
IUCN. 2012b. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second
edition. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. Available at
www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/categories-and-criteria
IUCN. 2014. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria.
Version 11. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee.
Downloadable
from
http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf.
Jansson, R. and Dynesius, M. 2002. The fate of clades in a world of recurrent
climatic change: Milankovitch oscillations and evolution. Annu. Rev. Ecol.
Syst. 33: 741-777.
Jetz, W. and Rahbek, C. 2002. Geographic range size and determinants of
avian species richness. Science 297: 1548-1551.
Kelly, C. K. 1996. Identifying plant functional types using floristic data bases:
ecological correlates of plant range size. J. Veg. Sci. 7: 417-424.
30
Geographical Range
Kessler, M. 2002. Environmental patterns and ecological correlates of range
size among bromeliad communities of Andean forests in Bolivia. Bot.
Rev. 68: 100-127.
Kreft, H., Sommer, J.H., and Barthlott, W. 2006. The significance of
geographic range size for spatial diversity patterns in Neotropical palms.
ECOGRAPHY 29: 21-30.
Lawton, J. H. 1993. Range, population abundance, and conservation. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 8: 409-413.
Lennon, J.J. Koleff, P., Greenwood, J.J.D., and Gaston K.J.
2004.
Contribution of rarity and commonness to patterns of species richness.
Ecol. Lett. 7: 81-87.
Lloyd, K. M., Wilson, J. B. and Lee, W. G. 2003. Correlates of geographic
range size in New Zealand Chionochloa (Poaceae) species. J. Biogeogr.
30: 1751-1761.
MacArthur, R.H. 1972. Geographical ecology: patterns in the distribution of
species. Harper and Row.
Margules, C. R. and Pressey, R. L. 2000. Systematic conservation planning.
Nature 405: 243-253.
Maurer, B. A. 1994. Geographical population analysis: tools for the analysis of
biodiversity. Blackwell.
Maurer, B. A. 1999. Untangling ecological complexity. - Univ. Chicago Press.
Maurer, B. A. and Nott, M. P. 1998. Geographic range fragmentation and the
evolution of biological diversity. In: McKinney, M. L. (ed.), Biodiversity
dynamics: turnover of population, species, higher taxa, and communities.
Columbia Univ. Press.
McGinnies, W.G., Goldman, B.J. and Paylore, P. 1968. Deserts of the world
An appraisal of research into their physical and biological environments,
The university of Arizona press.569-645 pp.
Migahid, A.M. and Ayyad, M.A. 1959. An ecological study of Ras El-Hikma
district. IV. Structure of vegetation in the main habitats. Bull. Inst. Desert
Egypte, 9(1): 99–120.
O’Loughlin, E. M., 1981. Saturation regions in catchments and their relations
to soil and topographic properties. Journal of Hydrology, 53: 229-246.
Omar, K., Khafaga, O., Elkholy. M.A. 2013. Geomatics and plant
conservation: GIS for best conservation planning. LAP LAMBERT
Academic Publishing; 312 pp.
Omar, K., Khafagi, O. and Elkholy, M.A. (2012): Eco-geographical analysis on
mountain plants: A case study of Nepeta septemcrenata in South Sinai,
Egypt. Lambert Academic Publishing, 236 pp.
Pianka, E. R. 1966. Latitudinal gradients in species diversity: a review of
concepts. Am. Nat. 100: 33-46.
Pither, J. 2003. Climate tolerance and interspecific variation in geographic
range size. Proc. R. Soc. B 270: 475-481.
Prendergast, J. R., Quinn, R. M. and Lawton, J. H. 1999. The gaps between
theory and practice in selecting nature reserves. Conserv. Biol. 13: 484492.
Pulliam, H. R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am. Nat. 132:
652-661.
Purvis, A. Gittleman, J.L., Cowlishaw, G., and Mace, G.M. 2000. Predicting
extinction risk in declining species. - Proc. R. Soc. B 267: 1947-1952.
31
Geographical Range
Rahbek, C. and Graves, G. R. 2001. Multiscale assessment of patterns of
avian species richness. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 4534-4539.
Rahbek, C. and Graves, G. R. 2001. Multiscale assessment of patterns of
avian species richness. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 4534-4539.
Richards, A.J., 2003. Primula, 2nd ed. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Ruggiero, A. and Kitzberger, T. 2004. Environmental correlates of mammal
species richness in South America: effects of spatial structure, taxonomy
and geographic range. Ecography 27: 401-416.
SKP Management Plan 2003. The management and development plan for
Saint Katherine Protectorate, Full reference edition, 148 pp.
Titshall, L.W., O’Connor, T.G., and Morris, C.D. 2000. Effect of long-term
exclusion of fire and herbivory on the soils and vegetation of sour
grassland. African Journal of Range and Forage Science, 17: 70–80.
Whittaker, R. J., Willis, K. J. and Field, R. 2001. Scale and species richness:
towards a general, hierarchical theory of species diversity. J. Biogeogr.
28: 453-470.
Willig, M. R., Kaufman, D. M. and Stevens, R. D. 2003. Latitudinal gradients
of biodiversity: pattern, process, scale, and synthesis. Annu. Rev. Ecol.
Evol. Syst. 34: 273-309.
Wood, E. F., Sinpalan, M., Beven K., and Band L. 1988. Effects of spatial
variability and scale with implications to hydrological modelling. Journal
of Hydrology, 102: 29-47.
32
Population Characteristics
Chapter 2 Population Characteristics
INTRODUCTION:
The term population, like all ecological entities, requires definition. This
has two purposes: a) to differentiate populations from other entities that are
not populations, and b) to differentiate between different populations. The
most widely accepted definition is that a population is a collection of
individuals of the same species occurring together in a particular space and
time. Since populations consist of individuals, which occur in communities
together with other organisms, populations should be examined at a different
organizational level than both individual organisms and communities. This is a
matter of "focus" of observation: only overall quantities of the collection of
individuals and the interactions among the individuals are considered. From
the point of view of the population, whatever occurs within individuals is
"detail" and interactions with other organisms are part of the "background".
Both are essential for understanding populations, but describe phenomena
that can be examined by using a different focus (Begon et al. 1990, Stearns,
1992).
The second purpose of the definition is more problematical. This is due
to a h i g h d e g r e e
of fuzziness of
all components of the
definition: individual, species, space, and time. This is a problem inherent in
biological systems and reflects their diverse and dynamic character. The
solution is to know the target organisms well and to use ad hoc definitions that
fit the specific question and the unique properties of the organisms. Problems
often arise when defining where in space a population is. For some organisms
that are fixed to a certain place or move only short distances, we can know
exactly where the individuals are, but not where the boundaries of the
population are. In these cases decisions are often taken arbitrarily based on
sampling considerations, or based on landscape boundaries (a recognizable
patch, a woodlot, etc.). On the other hand, a population of animals migrating
in flocks or herds, for instance, has clearly recognizable boundaries at any
moment, but its place changes constantly (Allan and Hoekstra 1989).
The most variable term in the definition is the individual, even though it
is the most tangible entity in ecology. In unitary organisms (most animals)
there is usually no problem recognizing individuals, because they are both
genetically and physiologically separate. Many species of plants and
invertebrates, however, have vegetative propagation to produce new
individuals, besides sexual reproduction. In such modular organisms new
functional modules are formed (ramets) from a single genetically unique
individual (the genet). If the ramets are physiologically independent, they can
be counted as individuals, though not genetically distinct. This is just like
33
Population Characteristics
internodes and branches of a plant, except that the connections between
them are gone (Begon et al. 1990).
The term species may also pose problems, if taxonomic definitions of species
vary (splitting one species or lumping two species), or if the biological species
concept, requiring the possibility of mating between all individuals, is not
applicable. This is the case when there is no sexual reproduction at all, only
fragmentation (a form of vegetative propagation common in flatworms, for
instance), or cleistogamy (sexual reproduction by self-pollination without
crossing between individuals in many plants - wild barley, for instance).
The question "What determines structure and functioning of a
population?" implies that we are interested in understanding which factors
influence a population, and how it responds to these factors. In order to deal
with these questions, we have to specify what properties populations have
that can be described, and what kind of factors can influence them. There are
many differences between populations - first of all between populations of
different species, and even two populations of the same species can be very
different. Nevertheless, there are properties that all populations possess,
though in different shapes and proportions. These properties are:
a) dimensions - population density, abundance or size, based on the number
of individuals (per unit area, or in the entire population); b) composition - the
proportions of individuals with different states (gender, age, developmental
stage, or size); c) dynamics - changes in time of the dimensions and
composition of a population; this includes the rate of change of the
dimensions (population growth rate), and changes in the distributions of
individuals' states (Silvertown,1982, Caswell, 1989).
The properties of populations change all the time, and the rate of
change can vary from very low to high. Even in populations that do not
change in density, the individuals change and are replaced. They are born,
grow and reproduce (or not), and die. These changes in the state of
individuals can be summarized as r a t e s of c h a n g e , s u c h as bi r t h r a t e
and mortality rate, or the proportion of individuals growing to a particular size
in an interval of time, etc. These demographic processes are direct causes for
the changes (or lack of it) in the population's dimensions, composition and
dynamics. Demographic processes are abstractions, derived from actual
changes in the state of the individuals. They are calculated as the proportion
of individuals in a particular stage who manage to get to the next stage. Each
individual experiences a different rate of change, in accordance with its
general c o n d i t i o n , i t s p a s t a n d
its
genotype. Vital
rates are
demographic processes averaged over groups of individuals (according to
age, size, or stage). Vital rates include birth rate, survivorship, growth, and
fertility or fecundity. The states of individuals and the rates that form the
connections between them, determine the life-cycle of the population
(Silvertown, 1982, Caswell, 1989).
34
Population Characteristics
Two different populations of the same species differ first of all in their
vital rates, since they express how individuals respond to environmental
variation. For example, comparing a population of a particular animal species
in a rich and a poor habitat regarding food availability, we will usually see that
population growth rate in the rich place is higher than in the poorer place. This
is because individuals survive better, grow faster, attain reproductive maturity
faster, and produce more offspring when there is more food. Environmental
factors that affect demographic processes are very diverse and can be
divided in many ways. Categories are not exclusive: some factors may appear
in more than one category (Begon et al. 1990, Stearns, 1992).
The concept of 'structure' in this sense has not been generally applied
to plant populations. The study of plant population dynamics has suffered
particularly from emphasis given to plasticity and vegetative reproduction.
characteristics which render plants awkward as demographic units (Harper,
1967). Vegetative reproduction presents us with problems of definition, both of
the true genetic individual and of the unit to be regarded as an individual for
the purpose of counting. Plasticity may cause individuals of the same absolute
age to differ 100-fold or more in size, allowing them to play very different roles
within the population. The ecologist may, understandably, be reluctant to give
such individuals equal weight in a population census. Finally, it is often difficult
or impossible to ascertain the absolute age of a plant growing in the field,
although careful observation may sometimes make this possible, as when
scars are left by annually-produced inflorescences (Tamm, 1948).
The structure of plant populations can be evaluated in terms of age,
size and form of the individuals that constitute it (Harper & White, 1974). As
the reproductive capacity and survival of plants depends more on size rather
than the age (Watkinson & White, 1985; Weiner, 1985) it is better to classify
the life history of a plant by stages (size) rather than the age (Caswell, 2001).
The structure of a plant population is governed both by abiotic and biotic
factors that also have a substantial bearing on the spatial pattern, age
grouping and genetic structure of plant populations (Hutchings, 1997).
Additionally, these groups of factors also regulate the spatial and temporal
changes in the number of individuals in the populations (Watkinson, 1997;
Silvertown & Charlesworth, 2001). Size distributions with few individuals in
larger size-classes and numerous smaller ones in small-size classes have
been reported by several workers (Knox et al. 1989, Arenas & Fernandez,
2000). The size class distributions, often referred to as size hierarchies
(Weiner & Solbrig, 1984; Weiner, 1985) reflect various characteristics
including the growth rate of individuals that are mainly the result of
asymmetric competition (Weiner & Thomas, 1986).
Among the biotic factors, competition (Weiner, 1985) and herbivory
(Barboza et al., 2009) play vital role in size class distribution of individuals.
The size distribution reflects the reproductive ability and the recruitment of
new individuals (relative to mortality rate) or the prevalence of disturbance
35
Population Characteristics
regime or events (Harper, 1977). The studies on size structure have been
conducted for some tropical plant species in various regions (Mosallam, 2005,
2007; Barboza et al., 2009; Al-Sodany et al., 2009). The distribution pattern of
plants in space as an outcome of possible regulatory mechanisms involved
within the community, has attracted the attention of numerous workers (Dale,
1999). Pattern in a population can be defined (Ludwig & Reynolds, 1988) as a
quantitative description of the horizontal distribution of individuals of a species
within a community.
Spatial pattern of plants reflect multiple ecological processes including
competition, predation, allelopathy, herbivory, dispersal, various types of
disturbances,
plant-microbe
interactions
and
edaphictopographic
characteristics (Dale, 1999, Potts, 2003, Woods, 2004). Two contrasting types
of spatial pattern are generally exhibited by perennial plants in arid
environments. Regular patterns are exhibited by desert shrubs or trees which
arise as a result of competition predominantly for moisture and to a lesser
degree for nutrients (Phillips & MacMahon, 1981). By contrast plants often
show aggregated or contagious distribution pattern that may be the result of a
multitude of factors such as limited dispersal, vegetative reproduction,
environmental heterogeneity and intraspecific competition (Southwood &
Handerson, 2000).
Aggregated patterns are also caused by harsh physical environments,
typically during succession in a homogeneous habitat (Bertness & Callaway,
1994; Haase et al., 1996). Contagious pattern is generally exhibited at
various scales with varied intensity (Dale, 1999). Many facets of plant
reproduction, such as seed size and number and reproductive potential have
long been the subject of focus for ecologists. In recent years, a great deal of
work has been undertaken on the determination of reproductive effort, the
proportion of total energy (biomass) allocated to reproduction in various plant
species (Watson, 1984; Hancock & Pritts, 1987) and the allocation of energy
to seed production. The relative size of plants in a community, as influenced
by soil moisture and nutrients, herbivory and competition, appears to be
directly correlated with seed size and number (Watkinson & White, 1985). A
trade-off between seed size and number has been well recognized (Werner &
Platt, 1976; Harper, 1977).
There is an urgent need to understand the mechanism of reproduction
of endangered species for more explanations about how this species deal
with the changes in the environment and how we can do to enhance its ability
to be more adaptive to these changes (Kruckeberg and Rabinowitz 1985). In
order for new plants to establish in a population, flowers must be pollinated to
form fruits, ovules must be fertilized, sustained with nutrients, and escape
predation to form viable seeds, and seeds must be dispersed to suitable
substrates for growth, where they must germinate. Any weak link or break in
this chain of events curtails a plant’s ability to reproduce and, if constant over
36
Population Characteristics
space and time, may contribute to a species’ rarity and impede its
conservation.
Phytogeographically, the Sinai Peninsula stands in a middle position
between three well-defined phytogeographical regions of the world – SaharoScindian (African- Indian Desert region of Good, 1947), Irano-Turanian (west
and central Asiatic region of Good, 1947) and the Mediterranean. Accordingly,
the flora of Sinai combines the elements of these three regions (El-Hadidi,
1969). South Sinai, an arid to extremely arid region, is characterized by an
ecological uniqueness due to its diversity in landforms, geologic structures,
and climate that resulted in a diversity in vegetation types, which is
characterized mainly by the sparseness and dominance of shrubs and subshrubs and the paucity of trees (Danin, 1983; Zahran and Willis, 2009;
Moustafa and Klopatek, 1995 and Helmy et al., 1996), and a variation in soil
properties (Ramadan, 1988; Kamh et al., 1989 and Abd El-Wahab, 1995).
In this part, we will focus on the definition of some terms related to population
according to IUCN guidelines and will use Primula boveana as case study.
Terminology in use according to IUCN 2014:
Population: “The term ‘population’ is used in a specific sense in the Red List Criteria
that is different to its common biological usage. Population is here defined as the total
number of individuals of the taxon. For functional reasons, primarily owing to
differences between life forms, population size is measured as numbers of mature
individuals only. In the case of taxa obligately dependent on other taxa for all or part
of their life cycles, biologically appropriate values for the host taxon should be used.”
(IUCN 2001, 2012b)
The definition above means that a "population" (IUCN 2001, 2012b, and 2014)
includes all individuals (mature and other life stages) that are assigned to the taxon
throughout its distribution. “Population” and “Population size” are, however, not
synonymous.
Subpopulations: “Subpopulations are defined as geographically or otherwise distinct
groups in the population between which there is little demographic or genetic
exchange (typically one successful migrant individual or gamete per year or less).”
(IUCN 2001, 2012b, and 2014).
Mature individuals: “The number of mature individuals is the number of individuals
known, estimated or inferred to be capable of reproduction.
Population size: There are two important aspects of the definition of population size.
First, population size is measured only in terms of mature individuals. Thus, the
interpretation of this definition depends critically on an understanding of the
definition of ‘mature individuals’. Second, population size is defined as the total
number of mature individuals in all areas. Even if some of the taxon exists in
subpopulations that might be seen as distinct populations in a general biological
sense, for the purposes of the criteria, the total number of mature individuals in all
37
Population Characteristics
areas (or all subpopulations) is used to measure the "population size" of the taxon.
Reduction is a decline in population size of at least the % stated in criterion A over
the specified time period.
Continuing decline: “A continuing decline is a recent, current or projected future
decline (which may be smooth, irregular or sporadic) which is liable to continue
unless remedial measures are taken. Fluctuations will not normally count as
continuing declines, but an observed decline should not be considered as a fluctuation
unless there is evidence for this.” (IUCN 2001, 2012b, and 2014)
Note that continuing decline is different from "current population trend", which
is a required field in IUCN Red List assessments, but not used in the criteria. There is
not a simple correspondence between these two terms. The current population trend
may be stable or increasing, with a continuing decline projected in the future. If the
current population trend is declining, then there is continuing decline, but only if the
trend is liable to continue into the future and it is not the declining phase of a
fluctuation.
Severely fragmented: “The phrase ‘severely fragmented’ refers to the situation in
which increased extinction risks to the taxon results from the fact that most of its
individuals are found in small and relatively isolated subpopulations (in certain
circumstances this may be inferred from habitat information). These small
subpopulations may go extinct, with a reduced probability of recolonization.” (IUCN
2001, 2012b and 2014).
Extreme fluctuations: “Extreme fluctuations can be said to occur in a number of taxa
where population size or distribution area varies widely, rapidly and frequently,
typically with a variation greater than one order of magnitude (i.e., a tenfold increase
or decrease).” (IUCN 2001, 2012b, and 2014)
Population fluctuations may vary in magnitude and frequency. For the ‘extreme
fluctuations’ subcriterion to be invoked, populations would normally need to fluctuate
by at least 10-fold (i.e., an order of magnitude difference between population minima
and maxima). Fluctuations may occur over any time span, depending on their
underlying causes. Short-term fluctuations that occur over seasonal or annual cycles
will generally be easier to detect than those that occur over longer time spans, such as
those driven by rare events or climatic cycles such as El Niño. Fluctuations may occur
regularly or sporadically (i.e., with variable intervals between successive population
minima or successive population maxima).
Quantitative analysis: “A quantitative analysis is defined here as any form of
analysis which estimates the extinction probability of a taxon based on known life
history, habitat requirements, threats and any specified management options.
Population viability analysis (PVA) is one such technique. Quantitative analyses
should make full use of all relevant available data. In a situation in which there is
limited information, such data as are available can be used to provide an estimate of
extinction risk (for instance, estimating the impact of stochastic events on habitat). In
presenting the results of quantitative analyses, the assumptions (which must be
appropriate and defensible), the data used and the uncertainty in the data or
quantitative model must be documented.” (IUCN 2001, 2012b, and 2014).
38
Population Characteristics
METHODOLOGY:
The present study was carried out in the period between March to May,
2014. To understand the population characteristics of this species we
collected sufficient data about the following:
Number of P. boveana populations and subpopulations, number of total
individuals were recorded within field visits, number of mature individuals,
population structure and dynamics were determined according to IUCN
(2014). Population trend, fluctuations, fragmentation, and decline trend were
recorded and measured according to IUCN guidelines (2014) using historical
data about population size, number of individuals, occurrences from former
studies.
RESULTS:
Number of population: Primula boveana located in five very small localities
within Saint Katherine Protectorate (SKP) with 12.7 km2 EOO and less than
six km2 AOO. Because of this small area, we consider all sites presents just
one population that will receive the same threat if it comes to one of these
localities it will reflect its effect to all (Map 3a).
Number of subpopulations: During the field survey, we record nine very
small but clearly separate subpopulations. These subpopulations distributed
within the main five localities, three of them are located in Shaq Elgragenia
and three other in Shaq Mousa while the other three localities containing only
one subpopulation (Map 3b).
Map 3. Primula boveana population characteristics; a- population range, and bsubpopulation distribution.
39
Population Characteristics
Mature individuals: The total global population size was recorded at about
1010 individuals during this survey, but only 165 individuals were mature
(about 16% of the total population). Shaq Mousa was the highest in total
number of individuals, it containing 733 individuals (72.6%), 74 of them are
mature. Only four immature individuals were recorded at Kahf Elghola (0.3%),
See Table 2.
Omar and Elgamal (2014) found that morphological and reproductive
characteristics of this species present a great variation within and among
different subpopulation (See Table 2). Number of leaves per individual plant
ranged from five (K.E) to 33 (S.G.2) with average of 18 leaf per individual.
Number of branches per plant ranged from zero (K.G & A.H.) to two (S.G.3)
with average one branch per plant. Leaf area showed great variation ranged
from 8 cm2 (A.H.) to 75 cm2 (S.M.2) with average of 35 cm2. P. boveana
individuals showed also a great variation in size index ranged from 8 cm
(A.H.) to 36 cm (A.) with mean of 21 cm.
Results of reproductive characteristics showed great variation among
different subpopulations. Only 3 locations from five containing adult
individuals (K.E. & A.H. containing only seedlings); 16% of total recorded
individuals are adult that able to produce seeds. Field observation showed
that P. boveana starting the flowering season from the early of March and
finish at the end of July when the fruiting season started in July and finish at
the end of September (Figure 1). Number of flowers per individual plant
ranged from 6 (S.G.2) to 17 (E.A.) with average of 8 flowers per individual.
Number of inflorescence per plant ranged from 1 (All except S.G.3) to two
(S.G.3) with average one inflorescence per plant. Number of seed per site
ranged from 310 (S.G.1) to 5725 (S.G.3) with average of 2275 seeds per site.
Seed weight ranged from 0.001 gm. (S.G.1) to 0.32 gm. (S.G.3) with average
of 0.1 seeds per site (See Table 2).
Table 2. Morphological and reproductive characteristics among different P. boveana
subpopulation.
Morphological Characteristics
Subpopulation
No.
No.
Shape
Leaf
Reproductive characteristics
Size
No.
of
Mature
No.
No.
No.
Seed
Weight
flowers
Infl.
Seed
8
1
310
0.001
65
6
1
4100
0.225
16
10
2
5725
0.32
535
24
11
1
2235
0.125
28
103
37
12
1
3658
0.205
25
80
12
10
1
983
0.055
36
36
20
8
17
1
3300
0.185
2
13
11
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
8
8
6
0
0
0
0
0
Leaf
Branch
Index
Area
Index
S.G.1
12
1
2
14
12
23
3
S.G.2
33
1
2
38
23
141
S.G.3
26
2
2
38
26
98
S.M.1
20
1
1
50
21
S.M.2
12
1
1
75
S.M.3
23
1
2
47
E.A.
21
1
2
K.E.
5
0
A.H.
6
0
40
Indv.
(gm)
Population Characteristics
Figure 1. Morphological and reproductive characteristics of P. boveana, A- Seedling
in wild, B-New adult generation (F), C- Mature plant, D- Flowering stage, E- Fruiting
stage, and F- dead plant.
Most of species subpopulations are small, fragmented, with individual
plants occurring sporadically in space in the little groups where the soil is wet.
The number of mature plants declined from ‘abundant’ in 1832 (Richards,
2003), almost 2000 in 1991 (Al Wadi, 1993), 336 in 2007 (Jime´nez et al.
2014), and 165 in 2014. Only seven from the nine subpopulations contain
between 3 and 65 mature individuals. There are no records for mature
individuals in Kahf Elghola and Sad Abu Hebiq. The largest Number of mature
plants was recorded in one of the three subpopulation recorded in Shaq
Mousa and was 65 with percentage reach to 46% of the total individuals
recorded in this subpopulation (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Deterioration of Primula boveana population in the last five years in Shaq
Mousa.
41
Population Characteristics
During the last 10 years, these subpopulations showed large changes
in the total number of individuals, cover, and density. There was a peak
observed between 2008 to 2010 (345 to 360 mature individuals) but now
(2012-2014) the population is at its lowest observed number: it may be that
the species undergoes severe fluctuations. The population decline was also
recorded, thirty individuals were recorded at the Kahf Elghoula subpopulation
in 2009, but only four immature seedlings in 2014. Forty-one individuals were
recorded in Sad Abu Hebiq subpopulation in 2007 (Jime´nez et al. 2014), but
only six immature seedlings in 2014 (Figures 2 and 3).
Figure 3. Deterioration of Primula boveana population in the last ten years at Kahf
Ekghola site.
It’s important to know exactly the differences between reduction and
containing decline when you study the population status. In timing, reduction
is One-off event or Ongoing, while containing decline the decline is expected
to continue unless something is done to stop it. Reduction is apply only
population size, while containing decline apply on Population size, Extent of
occurrence, Area of occupancy, Area, extent and/or quality of habitat,
locations, and subpopulations (IUCN, 2014).
Its requested to record the continuing decline percentage in mature
individuals within 1, 2, 3 generation or 3, 5, 10 years, whichever is longer by
one or more of the following: Observed – Inferred - Projected , it’s important to
note to not go 100 years in future.
Its request to record population reduction in past, future, and ongoing.
In past, percent change in past, past population reduction basis, causes of
past reduction reversible? causes of past reduction understood?, and causes
42
Population Characteristics
of past reduction ceased? In future, percent change in future, and future
population reduction basis.
In ongoing, both: percent change over any 10 year or 3 generation
period, whichever is longer, and must include both past and future, future
can't go beyond 100 years, both population reduction basis, causes of both
(past and future) reduction reversible?, causes of bot h (past and future)
reduction understood?, and causes of both (past and future) reduction
ceased?.
Quantitative Analysis is important part to be record when IUCN
assessment takes place. It’s requested to detect the probability of extinct ion
in the wild within 3 generations or 10 y ears, whichever is longer, maximum
100 years, probability of extinct ion in the wild within 5 generations or 20
years, whichever is longer, maximum 100 years, and probability of extinct ion
in the wild within 100 years (IUCN 2014).
From the above, we found that P. boveana is in extreme danger and by
time, it will tend to be in extinct cycle. The sharp decline in population size,
number of total individuals, number of mature individuals, and habitat may
came from the changing in the world climate, which increase the effect of the
main threat to this species (drought). Consequently, it is necessary to carry
out regular monitoring to keep updated on the population size, distribution &
its trends. Researches and workshops must establish rabidly to start in
Species Action/Recovery Plan. This dramatic demographic decline observed
in P. boveana is likely caused by environmental changes in the past few
decades. Habitat deterioration as a consequence of global warming trends is
a general threat for the survival not only of P. boveana, but also of other
species endemic to the Sinai Mountains (Hoyle and James 2005, Jime´nez et
al. 2014).
Both temperatures and aridification are expected to increase in the
Mediterranean region in the next decades (Alpert et al. 2008, Giorgi and
Lionello 2008, Issar, 2008), and predictive models forecast a high extirpation
risk for species in the mountains, especially in arid areas (McCain and
Colwell, 2011). Less precipitation throughout the year would unavoidably
reduce the volume of the water flows to which P. boveana is intimately linked,
therefore reducing the number and size of habitat patches suitable for this
species (Jime´nez et al. 2014). Furthermore, rising human demands on the
environment would aggravate the problem of water availability. Besides the
direct effect of low water availability on plant survival, an increase in
temperatures could definitely affect the flowering phenology of the species
and further disrupt the already irregular pollination services (Root et al 2003,
Jime´nez et al. 2014).
43
Population Characteristics
REFERENCES:
Abd El-Wahab, R.H. 1995. Reproduction ecology of wild trees and shrubs in
Southern Sinai, Egypt. M.Sc. Thesis, Botany Department, Faculty of
Science, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt.
Al Wadi, H., 1993. Primula boveana and Jebel Katarina. Bull Alp Gar Soc
61:68–70
Alpert P., Krichak, S.O., Shafir, H., Haim, D., and Osetinsky, I. 2008. Climatic
trends to extremes employing regional modeling and statistical
interpretation over the E. Mediterranean. Global Planet Change 63:163–
170.
Al-Sodany, Y.M., Shaltout, K., and Eid, E.M., 2009. Demography of Ipomoea
carnea: An invasive species in the Nile Delta, Egypt. Int. J. Agri. & Biol.,
11(5): 501-508.
Arenas, F. and Fernandez, C. 2000. Size structure and dynamics in a
population of Sargassum muticum (Phaeophyceae). Journal of
Phycology, 36(6): 1012-1020.
Barbosa, P., Hines, J., Kaplan, I., Martinson, H., Szczepaniec, A., and
Szendrei. Z. 2009. Associational susceptibility: having right or wrong
neighbours. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 40: 1-20.
Begon, M., Harper J.L., and Townsend, C.R. 1990. Ecology - Individuals,
Populations and Communities, Blackwell Scientific Publ., London, UK,
2nd edition (or newer).
Bertness, M.D. and Callaway, R. 1994. The role of positive forces in natural
communities: A post-cold war perspective. Trends in Ecol. & Evol., 9:
191-193.
Caswell, H. 1989. Matrix population models. Sinauer, Sunderland, USA.
Caswell, H. 2001. Matrix population Models: Construction, Analysis and
Interpretation. Sinauer, Sunderland, M. A. second edition.
Dale, M.R.T. 1999. Spatial pattern analysis in plant ecology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Danin, A. 1983. Desert Vegetation of Israel and Sinai. Cana Pub. House,
Jerusalem, Israel, 148 pp.
El-Hadidi, M.N. 1969. Observations on the flora of the Sinai mountain region.
Bull. Soc. Giogr. Egypte, 40: 124–155.
Giorgi F. and Lionello, P. 2008. Climate change projections for the
Mediterranean region. Global Planet Change 63:90–104.
Good, R. 1947. The Geography of the Flowering Plants. Longmans Green,
London, 403pp. Haines, R.W. (1951). Potential annuals of the Egyptian
desert. Bull. Inst. Fouad I du Desert, Egypte, 1(2): 103–118.
Haase, P., Pugnaire, F.I., Clark, S.C., and Incoll, L.D. 1996. Spatial patterns
in a two-tiered semi-arid shrubland in south-eastern Spain. J. Veg. Sci.,
7: 527-534.
Hancock, J.F. and Pritts, M.P. 1987. Does reproductive effort vary across
different life forms and seral environments? A review of the literature.
Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, 114: 53-59.
Harper, J.L 1967. A Darwinian approach to plant ecology. J. Eeol. 55: 247270.
Harper, J.L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press London.
44
Population Characteristics
Harper, J.L. and White, J. 1974. Demography of Plants. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst.,
5: 419-463.
Helmy, M.A., Moustafa, A.A., Abd El-wahab, R.H. and Batanony, K.H. 1996.
Distribution behavior of seven common shrubs and trees growing in
South Sinai, Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Botany 36(1): 53- 70.
Hoyle M. and James, M. 2005. Global warming, human population pressure,
and viability of the world’s smallest butterfly. Conserv Biol 19:1113–1124.
Hutchings, M.J. 1997. The structure of plant populations. In: Plant Ecology,
(Ed.): M.J. Crawley. pp 325-358. 2nd edn. Blackwell Science: Oxford.
Issar A.S., 2008. The impact of global warming on the water resources of the
Middle East: past, present and future. In: Zereini F, Ho¨tzl H (eds)
Climate changes and water resources in the Middle East and North
Africa. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 145–164.
IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN
Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, U.K.
IUCN. 2012b. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second
edition. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. Available at
www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/categories-and-criteria
IUCN. 2014. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria.
Version 11. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee.
Downloadable
from
http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf.
Jime´nez, A., Mansour, H., Keller, B., and Conti, E. 2014. Low genetic
diversity and high levels of inbreeding in the Sinai primrose (Primula
boveana), a species on the brink of extinction. Plant Syst Evol (2014)
300:1199–1208.
Kamh, R.N., El-Kadi, M.A., El-Kadi, A.H. and Dahdoh, M.S.A. 1989.
Evaluation of Mn forms in selected soils of Sinai. Desert Institute Bulletin,
A.R.E. 39(1):183-197.
Knox, R.G., Peet, R.K., and Christensen, N.L. 1989. Population dynamics in
loblolly pine stands: changes in skewness and size inequality. Ecology,
70: 1153-66.
Kruckeberg, A.R., and Rabinowitz, D. 1985. Biological aspects of endemism
in higher plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics.16: 447–
479.
Ludwig, J.A. and Reynolds, J.F. 1988. Statistical Ecology. Wiley, New York.
McCain C.M. and Colwell, R.K. 2011. Assessing the threat to montane
biodiversity from discordant shifts in temperature and precipitation in a
changing climate. Ecol Lett 14:1236–1245.
Mosallam, H.A.M. 2005. Size Structure of Zygophyllum album and Cornulaca
monacantha Populations in Salhyia Area, East of Egypt. Int. J. Agri. &
Biol., 7: 345-351.
Mosallam, H.A.M. 2007. Assessment of Target Species in Saint Katherine
Protectorate, Sinai, Egypt. J Appl. Sci. Res., 3: 456-459.
Moustafa, A.A. and Klopatek. J.M. (1995): Vegetation and landforms of the
Saint Katherine area, Southern Sinai, Egypt. Journal of Arid
Environments, 30: 385-395.
45
Population Characteristics
Omar, K. and Elgamal, I. 2014. Reproductive and germination ecology of
Sinai primrose, Primula boveana Decne. ex Duby. Journal of Global
Biosciences. Vol. 3(3); 695-708.
Phillips, D.L. and MacMahon, J.A. 1981. Competition and spacing patterns in
desert shrubs. J. Eco., 69: 97-115.
Potts, M.D. 2003. Drought in a Bornean everwet rain forest. J. Ecol., 91: 467474.
Ramadan, A.A. 1988. Ecological studies in Wadi Feiran, Its Tributaries and
The Adjacent Mountains. Ph.D. Thesis, Botany Department, Faculty of
Science, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt.
Richards, A.J., 2003. Primula, 2nd ed. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Root T.L., Price, J.T., Hall, K.R., Schneider, S.H., Rosenzweig, C., and
Pounds, J.A. 2003. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and
plants. Nature 421:57–60.
Silvertown, J. 1982. Introduction to Plant Population Ecology. Longman,
London, UK.
Silvertown, J. and Charlesworth, D. 2001. Introduction to Plant Population
Biology. Fourth Edition. Blackwell Science. Oxford, UK.
Southwood, T.R.E. and Henderson, P.A. 2000. Ecological Methods, 3rd. ed.
Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Stearns, S.C. 1992. The Evolution of Life Histories. Oxford Univ. Press,
Oxford,
UK.
Allan, T.F.H. and Hoekstra, T.W. 1985. The confusion between scaledefined levels and conventional levels of organization in ecology. Journal
of Vegetation Science 1(1): 5-12.
Tamm, C.O. 1948. Observations on reproduction and survival of some
cerennial herbs. Bot. Notiser. 3: 305-321.
Watkinson, A.R. 1997. Plant population dynamics. In: Plant ecology, (Ed.):
M.J. Crawley. pp. 359-400.
Watkinson, A.R. and White, J. 1985. Some life-history consequences of
modular construction in plants. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. London, Series
B, 313: 31-51.
Watson, M.A. 1984. Developmental constraints, effect of population growth
and pattern allocation in a colonal plant. Amer. Natur., 123: 411-426.
Weiner, J. 1985. Size hierarchies in experimental populations of annual
plants. Ecology, 66: 743-752.
Weiner, J. and Solbrig, O.T. 1984. The meaning and measurement of size
hierarchies in plant populations. Oecologia, 61: 334-6.
Weiner, J. and Thomas, S.W. 1986. Size variability and competition in plant
monocultures. Oikos, 47: 211-222.
Woods, K.D. 2004. Intermediate disturbance in a late successional hemlocknorthern hardwood forest. J. Ecol., 92: 464-476.
Zahran, M.A. and Willis, A.J. (2009): The Vegetation of Egypt. Springer
Science+Business Media B.V. (2): 221-249.
46
Habitats and Ecology
Chapter 3 Habitats and Ecology
INTRODUCTION:
Plant ecology is a subdiscipline of ecology which studies t h e
distribution and abundance of plants, the effects of environmental f a c t o r s
upon the abundance of plants, and the interactions among and between
plants and other organisms (Keddy, 2007). A habitat, or biome, is the type of
environment in which plant and animals live. Habitat is dictated by what kinds
of plants grow there, the climate and the geography. Plant distributions is
governed by a combination of historical factors, ecophysiology and biotic
interactions. The set of species that can be present at a given site is limited by
historical contingency. In order to show up, a species must either have
evolved in an area or dispersed there (either naturally or through human
agency), and must not have gone locally extinct. The set of species present
locally is further limited to those that possess the physiological adaptations to
survive the environmental conditions that exist. This group is further shaped
through interactions with other species (Lambers et al. 2008).
Plant communities are broadly distributed into biomes based on the
form of the dominant plant species. For example, grasslands are dominated
by grasses, while forests are dominated by trees. Biomes are determined by
regional climates, mostly temperature and precipitation, and follow general
latitudinal trends. Within biomes, there may be many ecological communities,
which are impacted not only by climate and a variety of smaller-scale
features, including soils, hydrology, and disturbance regime. Biomes also
change with elevation, high elevations often resembling those found at higher
latitudes.
The Saint Katherine Protectorate (SKP) is one of Egypt’s largest
protected areas and includes the country’s highest mountains. This arid,
mountainous ecosystem supports a surprising biodiversity and a high
proportion of plant endemics and rare (SKP Management Plan 2003). The
flora of the mountains differs from the other areas, due to its unique geology,
morphology and climate aspects. It is currently recognized as one of the
central regions for flora diversity in the Middle East by the IUCN the World
Conservation Union and Worldwide Fund for Nature (IUCN, 1994). The
clearest characteristics of the desert vegetation are scarcity of plant growth
and near lack of trees; many plant species have become endangered due to
increasing aridity and human activities. The continuous overgrazing,
overcutting and uprooting are leading to the disappearance of the pastoral
plant communities, a reduction of plant cover and soil erosion (SKP
Management Plan 2003, Hatab, 2003).
The landscape ranges from rugged mountains, which includes Mount
Katherine (2642 m), Egypt’s highest peak, whose slopes are incised by Wadi
47
Habitats and Ecology
Rivers. The Wadi Rivers generally slope towards the east, in the direction of
the Gulf of Aqaba, or westwards towards the Gulf of Suez (El-Alqamy, 2002).
The diversity of both landforms and geologic structures of SKP leads to the
differentiation of a number of microhabitats. Each of them has its peculiar
environmental conditions and unique flora which is rich in medicinal, rare and
endemic plants. The diversity in geomorphological and geological structures
of SKP resulted in a unique landscape. Six landform types are identified in
this landscape namely: Wadis (valleys), Terraces, Slopes, Gorges, Cliffs,
Farsh (basins) and Caves (SKP Management Plan 2003, Khedr, 2007 and
Omar et al., 2012).
 Wadis are one of the most important and clearly defined ecosystems
in SKP. They act as drainage systems collecting water from
catchment areas and form favorable habitats for plant growth. The
wadis in SKP are very narrow, have very steep slopes, short in length
and occur at higher elevations ranging from 1190m to 1900m.
Floristically, these wadis are relatively diverse and characterized by
the presence of many medicinal plants e.g. Seriphidium herba-album,
and some endemic plants e.g. Ballota kaiseri, Phlomis aurea and
Euphorbia sanctae-catharinae.
 Terraces are platforms of bedrock mantled with a sheet of gravel and
sand, or rocky surface. This microhabitat is dominated by perennial
species (lithophytes) that grow on the surface of hard granitic rock
covered with very thin deposits. The most important medicinal plants
are Stachys aegyptiaca, Teucrium polium and some endemic species
e.g. Silene leucophylla, Nepeta septemcrenata and Bufonia
multiceps. It occurs at higher elevations ranging from 1453m to
1928m.
 Slopes represent all land surfaces ranging from horizontal to vertical.
Slope habitat dominates in Mount Katherine. It appears at different
elevations ranging from 1634 m to 2300m. It is also characterized by
different moisture availability. Annual plant species are restricted to
pockets of soil in gentle slopes.
 Gorges originate from joints or faults. It is one of the most important
microhabitats in Mount Katherine, Mount Musa, and Mount El-Ahmar.
The gorge microhabitats are characterized by gravel and sand
between the boulders and pockets of soil. In addition, some gorges
have dykes that trap water resulting in significant plant cover. It
occurs at higher elevations ranging from 1594m to 2037m.
 Cliffs: In geography and geology, a cliff is a significant vertical, or
near vertical, rock exposure. Cliffs are formed as erosion landforms
due to the processes of erosion and weathering that produce them.
Cliffs are common on coasts, in mountainous areas, escarpments
and along rivers. Many cliffs also feature tributary waterfalls or rock
48
Habitats and Ecology


shelters. This microhabitat supports quite growth of the endemic
species Primula boveana, Hypericum sinaicum and Capparis spinosa
and very small other medicinal plants with vegetation cover varying
between 5 and 10%.
Farsh (basin) microhabitats are restricted to higher elevations 20252233m. It occurs as depressions between the peaks of high
mountains. This microhabitat is characterized by the presence of
pockets of soil, open with the gentle slope. This microhabitat supports
dense growth of the endemic species Thymus decussates, Nepeta
septemcrenata and many other medicinal plants with v e g e t a t i o n
cover varying between 50 and 75%.
Caves are very important microhabitats in the north-facing slopes of
SKP Mountains. It is usually found at an elevation above 1750 m, and
is usually found near springs and in cracks of red granite, where
water is available almost all over the year. The endemic species
which is restricted to cave microhabitat is Primula boveana. It is
associated with Adiantum capillus-veneris and Funaria sp.
There are no permanent watercourses in the SKP; wadis may run for
short periods following heavy rainfall and floods can be destructive. In certain
wadis, e.g. Wadi Isla, water may flow above ground for short distances
throughout the year following good rain. Natural springs occur where rocks
are highly fractured or jointed. The springs may form small oases and are
often tapped by Bedouins to irrigate gardens; they are also the only water
sources available for wildlife (Hatab, 2009 and Omar et al., 2012). The main
water bearing formations in South Sinai include: (1) the basement complex
occupying the southern part of Sinai specially the highly fissured igneous
rocks (Saint Catherine area, Wadi El-Sheik and Wadi Feiran) and (2) the
alluvial deposits occupying the alluvial plains which are parallel to the Gulf of
Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba (Hammad, 1980, SKP Management Plan 2003,
Hatab, 2009).
In the arid and semi-arid region, although there is a correlation
between mean rainfall and vegetation productivity over the growing season
and the soil moisture is regarded as the determining factor in vegetation
conditions, considerable uncertainty of the vegetation response to climate
change still remains (Goward & Prince, 1995). This uncertainty is mainly due
to our current limited understanding of the forcing/feedback surface–
atmosphere interactions, which usually have complex temporal lag effects
(Tian et al., 2000; Zhou et al., 2001). For example, warming temperature,
combined with changes in precipitation, can affect vegetation growth through
influencing soil moisture and nutrient availability (Kindermann et al., 1996;
Tian et al., 1999). Potter et al., (1999) found that, in the arid and semi-arid
mid-latitude areas of the northern hemisphere, vegetation net primary
49
Habitats and Ecology
production can be affected by temperatures preceding the current period by
up to 1 year.
Many workers (Ezcurra et al., 1987 & Sharma and Shankar, 1991)
report major differences in desert vegetation between hills and plains based
primarily on the dichotomy between rocky and sandy substrates. On rocky
substrates the distribution of vegetation may be related to rock and crevice
micro-topography (e.g. Olsvig-Whittaker et al., 1983 & Moustafa and Zaghloul,
1996) with little vegetation clumping evident, and erosional (or solutional)
drainage lines where linear patterns may again emerge, reflecting riparian
habitats. Phytogeographically, the Sinai Peninsula stands in a middle position
between three well-defined phytogeographical regions of the world – SaharoScindian (African- Indian Desert region of Good, 1947), Irano-Turanian (west
and central Asiatic region of Good, 1947) and the Mediterranean. Accordingly,
the flora of Sinai combines the elements of these three regions (El-Hadidi,
1969).
The flora and vegetation of the mountain country of Sinai proper have
been studied by many workers, e.g. Täckholm (1932, 1956, 1974), Zohary
(1935, 1944, 1966, 1972 & 1978), Ali (2004), Moursy, (2010), Zahran and
Gilbert (2010), Hart (2012) and Omar et al., (2012).
The rock habitat is unfavorable to the growth of plants because of the
high resistance to root penetration, a thin depth of soil and deficient water
content. For these reasons only certain plants, chasmophytes, can tolerate
the adverse conditions of the habitat. Some of the rock plants of Sinai are
firmly attached to the smooth surface of the rock by means of hook-like roots,
e.g. Galium sinaicum and Origanum syriacum (Zahran and Willis, 2009).
Other plants grow in rock crevices, which, though narrow, are sometimes very
deep. Soil and plant litter accumulate in these crevices, retaining water and
forming a fertile substratum through which plant roots penetrate. Deep
crevices support several species of shrubs and trees, e.g. Capparis
cartilaginea,
Cupressus
sempervirens.
Ephedra
alata,
Ficus
pseudosycomorus and Moringa peregrina (Migahid and Ayyad 1959).
South Sinai, an arid to extremely arid region, is characterized by an
ecological uniqueness due to its diversity in landforms, geologic structures,
and climate that resulted in a diversity in vegetation types, which is
characterized mainly by the sparseness and dominance of shrubs and subshrubs and the paucity of trees (Moustafa and Klopatek, 1995 and Helmy et
al., 1996), and a variation in soil properties (Abd El-Wahab, 1995). Human
impacts of settled societies and nomadic Bedouin groups have been recorded
in South Sinai (Moustafa et al., 1999).
The Saint Katherine area has a variety of landform types: terraces,
gorges, slopes, ridges, wadis and plains. Landform type and other elements
such as elevation, soil physical characteristics (including soil texture and
nature of surface), slope, aspect and topography all play an important role in
determining the distribution of plant communities (Ayyad and Ammar, 1974;
50
Habitats and Ecology
Danin, 1983 and Moustafa, 1990). Guenther et al., (2005); Abd El-Wahab,
(2006); Omar, et al., (2012) and Moursy et al., (2012) found that Saint
Kathreine Mountain landforms (slopes, gorges, and terraces) are dominated
by the following communities: Artemisia herba-alba, Tanacetum santolinoides,
Stachys aegyptiaca, Teucrium polium, Phlomis aurea, Echinops
spinosissimus, Mentha longifolia and Nepeta septemcrenata. AbdelElazeem, (2009) and Omar, et al., (2012) found that Lamiaceae, Asteraceae
and Cruceferae represented the dominant families in SKP area.
The first step towards understanding what controls the abundance and
activities of organisms, and the factors that lead to spatial and temporal
variability in soil biological communities is to gain an understanding of the
physical and chemical nature of the soil matrix in which they live (Bardgett,
2005). Within most landscapes there is a tremendous variety of soil types
varying in physical and chemical make-up. The soil-forming factors are central
to understanding the variability in soils at the landscape level and at the level
of the individual soil profile (Bardgett, 2005).
Soils of mountainous landforms are shallow in depth but rich in silt and
clay, and different soil nutrients, (Kassas, 1952) of rough sand texture, which
is characterized by low content of organic matter, and poorness of many
essential soil nutrients such as N, P, and K (Balba, 1995). Soil pH, EC, silt
and clay content are the most important indicators of soil quality, and
represent driving variables in the soil system, influencing the availability of soil
nutrients and controlling the coverage and structure of vegetation.
Soils of South Sinai, as desert soils (Aridisols), are characterized by
spatial heterogeneity, where soil properties vary over quite small distances.
The causes of this heterogeneity include variation in plant cover, vegetation
composition, slope, and topography (Durnkerley and Brown, 1997). Balba,
(1995), Moustafa and Zayed, (1996) and Omar et al., (2012) found that soils
of the South Sinai are gravelly in wadis and plains, rocky at mountains in
surface, sand to loamy sand in texture, alkaline, non-saline to slightly saline.
They are characterized by low content of essential nutrients and Cataion
Exchange Capacity (CEC). Mosallam, (2007) found that soil of Saint
Katherine generally has alkine pH, with a minimum of 7.2 in the location of
Al-Ahmar mountain and a maximum of 8.3 in the location of Wadi garagnia.
Omar et al., (2012) found that soil texture of SKP composes of loamy
sand, sandy, sandy loam and loam. Soil moisture ranging from 0.08% to 32%
and soil pH values was slightly alkaline and ranging from 7.1 to 8.9. Total
soluble salts ranging from 45 ppm to 1730 ppm and electrical conductivity
ranging from 92 μs/ cm to 3390 μs/ cm. Soil organic matter at this area is
ranged from 0.226% to 19.34% .
Climate is one of the major factors governing the distribution of wild
plant species, acting directly through physiological constraints on growth and
reproduction (Guisan and Zimmerman, 2000) or indirectly through ecological
factors such as competition for resources (Shao and Halpin, 1995). When a
51
Habitats and Ecology
species distribution is predicted using climate variables only, it is commonly
referred to as a climate envelope model.
In this part, we will focus on the definition of some terms related to Habitats
and Ecology according to IUCN guidelines and will use Primula boveana as
case study.
Terminology in use according to IUCN 2014:
Continuing decline: “A continuing decline is a recent, current or projected future
decline (which may be smooth, irregular or sporadic) which is liable to continue
unless remedial measures are taken. Fluctuations will not normally count as
continuing declines, but an observed decline should not be considered as a fluctuation
unless there is evidence for this.” (IUCN 2001, 2012b, and 2014)
Note that continuing decline is different from "current population trend", which
is a required field in IUCN Red List assessments, but not used in the criteria. There is
not a simple correspondence between these two terms. The current population trend
may be stable or increasing, with a continuing decline projected in the future. If the
current population trend is declining, then there is continuing decline, but only if the
trend is liable to continue into the future and it is not the declining phase of a
fluctuation.
Generation length: is the average age of parents of the current cohort (i.e., newborn
individuals in the population). Generation length therefore reflects the turnover rate of
breeding individuals in a population. Generation length is greater than the age at first
breeding and less than the age of the oldest breeding individual, except in taxa that
breed only once. Where generation length varies under threat, such as the exploitation
of fishes, the more natural, i.e. pre-disturbance, generation length should be used.”
(IUCN 2001, 2012b, and 2014).
METHODOLOGY:
The present study was carried out in the period between September
2013 to May, 2014. To determine the Habitats and Ecology of this species we
collected sufficient data about the following:
 Preferable habitat and microhabitat of the target species and its decline
trend within the field survey, according to IUCN Habitats Classification
Scheme were recorded (IUCN 2014).
 Life form and species correlation were recorded according to field
observation.
 Climatic features (Max. Temp., Min. Temp., and Perception) were
extracted from BIOCLIM data using DIVA-GIS.
 Soil properties (Physical and chemical) were determined according to
Piper, (1950), Richard, (1954), Black (1965), Jackson, (1967), and
Allen et al., (1976).
52
Habitats and Ecology

Vegetation characteristics of target species like density, cover,
abundance, Size Index, and associated species within each site were
recorded.
 Plant species in each given quadrant has been tentatively recorded
in the field and put in tabulated form, giving the authentication of
their identification with the help of the local floristic workers (Boulos,
1999; 2000; 2002 and 2003 & Fayed and Shaltout, 2004). A total of
9 circles with diameter 10 m were established to cover all
vegetation aspects. Vegetation parameters were calculated
depending on the following:
o Density = no. of individuals / area sampled
o Abundance = total number of individuals of species / total
number of plots in which species occurred.
o Cover = area of circle (n*r^2) where r the half average of
plant width.
o Size index (cm) = (Plant height + Plant diameter) / 2
RESULTS:
According to IUCN Habitats Classification Scheme, this species belong
to rocky habitat (mountain peaks), Caves, and Desert, it is restricted to
Montane wadis fed by melted snow and distributed in moist ground in the
vicinity of wells and sheltered mountain areas, especially cliffs and caves with
steep granite slopes. The species recorded in five main localities presenting
the best preferable habitat for this species (Table 3). Description of these
localities as fellow:
1. Shaq Elgragnia
Location: 28.532072°N 33.969543°E, 28.518591°N 33.9 70243°E.
Altitude range: 1810-2150m.
Soil texture: Bolder: 40%, Rocks: 40%, Gravel: 15%, Sand: 5%.
Human activity: moderate.
Description: Figure (4), Gorge consists of bolder and rocks substrate with
granite and basalt geology. Gorge has a rigid topography with a North to
Northwest slope exposure. The steepness of the gorge ranges from 40˚60˚ while the steepness of slope ranges from 70˚-90˚. The gorge has
approximately width range from 15-40 meters; gorge length is
approximately 2.8 km. The distance from Saint Kathreine city is about
4.5km.
Vegetation is dominated by Origanum syriacum, Nepeta septemcrenata
and Phlomis aurea.
53
Habitats and Ecology
Figure 4. View of Shaq Elgragenia, A- Site view, and B- Subpopulation number 2
(S.G.2).
2. Shaq Mousa
Location: 28.533603°N 33.965518°E, 28.518911°N 33 .959451°E.
Altitude range: 1780-2020m.
Soil texture: Bolder: 45%, Rocks: 40%, Gravel: 10%, Sand: 5%.
Human activity: High.
Description: This wadi is a steep gorge which rises from the end of Wadi
Arbaein steeply upwards towards the summit of Mount St. Katherine.
Gorge consists of bolder and rocks substrate with granite geology with
sporadic sandstone features (Figure 5). Gorge has a rigid topography with
a Northwest slope exposure. The steepness of the gorge ranges from 30˚50˚ while the steepness of slope ranges from 70˚-90˚. The gorge has
approximately width range from 15-50 meters; gorge length is
approximately 2.8 km. The distance from Saint Kathreine city is about
4.2km. Vegetation is dominated by Echinops spinosus, Seriphidium herbaalbum and Achillea fragrantissima. (Omar et al., 2012).
54
Habitats and Ecology
Figure 5 . View of Shak Mosa, A-Subpopulation number 4 (S.M.1), and BSubpopulation number 6 (S.M.3).
3. Elgabal Elahmar
Location: 28.520714°N 33.938425°E, 28.520318°N 33. 950556°E.
Altitude range: 1930-2200 m.
Soil texture: Bolder: 50%, Rocks: 30%, Gravel: 15%, and Sand: 5%.
Human activity: High.
Description: Gorge consists of boulder and rocks with granitic geology.
The topography of the gorge is concave and the slope exposure varies
from northeast to northwest. The width of the gorge ranges from 15 meters
to 35 meters while gorge length is approximately 1.5 km. The distance
from Saint Kathreine city is about 4.8 km (Figure 6). The steepness of the
gorge ranges from 45˚- 75˚ while the steepness of slope ranges from 50˚75˚. There is a high diversity and cover of species in this gorge. The
vegetation is dominated by Tanacetum sinaicum (fresen.) Delile ex Bremer
& humphries, Phlomis aurea Decne, and Echinops spinosus L. (Omar et
al., 2012).
Figure 6. View of Elgabal Elahmar.
55
Habitats and Ecology
4. Kahf Elghola
Location: 28.545522°N 33.949411°E
Altitude: 1860 m.
Soil texture: Bolder: 10%, Rocks: 40%, Gravel: 25%, Sand: 25%.
Human activity: High.
Description: Figure 7, Cave found near springs and in cracks of red
granite, where water is available almost all over the year. Cave rising from
the base of Wadi Alarbein, Northeast slope exposure. The steepness of
the cave ranges from 45˚-60˚ while the steepness of slope ranges from
30˚- 60˚. The cave has approximately width range from 5-20 meters; The
distance from Saint Kathreine city is about 1.8 km. The endemic species
which is restricted to cave microhabitat is Primula boveana. It is
associated with Adiantum capillus-veneris and Funaria sp (Omar et al.,
2012).
Figure 7. View of Kahf Elghola, A- Outside view, and B- inside view.
5. Sad Abo Hebic
Location: 28.561568 N 33.874364 E , 28.560068 N 33.875262 E.
Altitude range: 1745 – 1766 m.
Soil texture: Bolder: 45%, Rocks: 30%, Gravel: 15%, Sand: 10%.
Human activity: High.
Description: Figure 8, Wadi consists of boulder and rocks with granite
geology. The topography of is wadi is concave and the slope exposure is
northeast. The width of the wadi ranges from 25 meters to 50 meters. This
wadi contains water spots collecting from rain water throw whole year. The
56
Habitats and Ecology
steepness of the wadi ranges from 10˚-30˚ while the steepness of slope
ranges from 30˚-60˚. There is a high diversity and cover of species in this
wadi resulting from the continuous water supply. Trees and shrubs are
present in this wadi by high cover. The vegetation is dominated by Salix
mucronata Thunb. and Hypericum sinaicum Hochst. & Steud. (Omar et
al., 2012).
Figure 8. View of Sad Abo Hebic
Table 3. IUCN Habitats Classification Scheme for P. boveana.
Season
Suitability
Major Importance?
6. Rocky areas (eg. inland cliffs, mountain peaks)
7 .1. Caves and Subterranean Habitats (nonaquatic) -> Caves and Subterranean Habitats (nonaquatic) - Caves
8.2 . Desert -> Desert - Temperate
Habitat
resident
Suitable
Yes
resident
Suitable
Yes
resident
Suitable
Yes
8.3 . Desert -> Desert - Cold
resident
Unknown
-
It was observed that these microhabitat showed decline in the last
years resulting from irregular rainfall and human water consumption which led
to deterioration in plant population.
Being part of Egypt at the extreme Northeast of Africa, the Sinai
Peninsula belongs climatically to the dry province (Ayyad & Ghabour 1986
and Peel et. al., 2007). Sinai is characterized by an arid to extremely arid
climate with long hot rainless summer and mild winter (Issar & Gilad, 1982
and Danin, 1983). Most of the precipitations in St. Katherine occurred in the
autumn, winter and spring seasons, the number and the time of the yearly
rains are unpredictable (Danin, 1983).
57
Habitats and Ecology
The heaviest daily rain’s amount was during the year 1937 and it was
76.2 mm in the month of November. Rainfall in St. Katherine is characterized
by the irregularity patterns in both time and place, in one year the mean
annual rainfall can reach 100mm and in the next year it reach only 10mm
per/year (Omar et. al., 2012). The cold winter climate (minimum temperature
can reach -10ºC) and cool summers (maximum about 29ºC) of the high
elevations of Mt. St. Katherine is the coolest on the peninsula (Omar et al.
2013). The arid climate has a mean annual rainfall of about 37.5 mm
(between 1971-2014), some in the form of snow, but there is great interannual variation with up to 300 mm in any one year, usually between October
and May. Relative humidity is low, ranging from 10-35% (data for 2005-2014),
and potential evaporation rates are very high, in excess of 20 mm/day during
August (Map 4).
Map 4. Climatic variables within SKP, 1- Annual Minimum Temperature, 2- Annual
Maximum, and 3- Annual Precipitation.
Results found that P. boveana grow in loamy sandy soil with average
pH 8.3 (7.6-8.8), water content 1.4 (0.7-2.1), EC 903 μs/ cm (38-3390),
organic matter 4.2% (1-7.8), CaCo3 16.3% (14-19), Mg 4.3 meq/L (1-11.5),
HCo3 10.5 meq/L (5-14.3), Cl 7.9 meq/L (4.7-12.5), and So4 70 meq/L (275133), See Table 4.
Table 4: Soil properties variation among different P. boveana subpopulation.
Subpopulation
habitat
S.G.1
S.G.2
S.G.3
EC
μs/
cm
O.M .%
8.4
236
1.58
15
8.5
165
3.28
14.5
145
4.98
14
Micro-
Cliff
Slope
Cliff
Texture
W.C.
pH
Loamy
sand
Loamy
sand
Loamy
1.5
0.7
2
8.6
CaCO3%
Mg++
HCO3meq/L
Clmeq/L
SO4-meq/l
2
7.5
7.25
35.5
2
13.5
4.75
27.5
2
14.3
6.3
39.2
meq/L
sand
58
Habitats and Ecology
S.M.1
S.M.2
Cliff
Cliff
S.M.3
Cliff
E.A.
K.E.
Gorge
Cave
A.H.
Cliff
Loamy
Loamy
Sandy
loam
Loamy
sand
Sandy
Loamy
1.43
1.3
7.6
8.1
1086
898
1.02
4.41
15.5
16.5
11.5
4.5
11
11
12.5
5.25
108
98
2.1
8.6
460
7.8
17.5
3
12
8.4
43
0.94
1.03
7.8
3390
5.54
15.5
5
12.5
8
133
8.8
38
7.25
19
1
6
10
66.5
1.45
8.4
87
1.72
19
3.5
8
8
58.5
sand
El-Nennah et al., (1981), Ramadan (1988), Kamh et al., (1989), Balba
(1995), Moustafa and Zayed (1996) and Omar et al, (2012) reported also that
soils of south Sinai are gravelly in wadis and plains, rocky in mountainous
area, sandy to loamy sand in texture, alkaline, non-saline to slightly saline.
They are characterized by low content of essential nutrients and CEC and this
agrees with our result. Variation in soil prosperities within this study may be
caused due the variation in topography, slopes and vegetation composition of
the different sites (Schlesinger et al., 1996; Durnkerley and Brown, 1997).
Variation in soil texture, drainage, exposure and countless other
environmental factors can influence the intensities and abundances of species
found in a particular habitat (Harper, 1977; Magurran, 1988). Since human
activities have a strong effect on biodiversity, apopulation/community level
approach is considered to be the level that can help in exploring the
responses of the whole ecological system to various kinds of disturbance
(Hanski and Gilpin, 1991; Barbault and Hochberg, 1992).
The distribution, pattern and abundance of plant species and
communities in desert environments have most often been related to three
groups of factors; physical environmental variables affecting water availability,
soil chemistry and anthropogenic disturbance. Physical factors include rainfall
(Kadmon and Danin, 1999), soil moisture and texture (El-Demerdash et al.,
1995 & Kumar, 1996), ground-water depth (Cornelius and Schultka, 1997),
altitude (Burke, 2001), aspect, slope, topographic position and landform
(Vetaas, 1993), and Aeolian and fluvial processes (Cornelius and Schultka,
1997).
Vegetation
parameters
showed
variation
among
different
subpopulation; Density varied and ranged from 0.16 (Kahf Elghola) to 22
(subpopulation 1 in Shaq Mousa). Abundant ranged also from 4 (Kahf
Elghola) to 535 (subpopulation 1 in Shaq Mousa). Cover ranged from 0.01
(Kahf Elghola) to 1.8 (subpopulation 2 in Shaq Mousa). Size Index ranged
from 4.5 (Kahf Elghola) to 26 (Elgabal Elahmar). Because of its restricted
micro-habitat, P. boveana is the dominant species in most sites, but its
associated species are Adiantum capillus-veneris L., Mentha longifolia (L.)
Huds., Hypericum sinaicum Boiss. and Juncus rigidus Desf.
Primula boveana is a perennial herb with stems up to 50 cm long. The
grayish-green leaves are spear-shaped, up to 20 cm long in a rosette. It bears
several whorls of long-tubed, golden-yellow, scented flowers in late spring,
and reproduction is by seed in late summer. Field observation showed that P.
59
Habitats and Ecology
boveana starting the flowering season from the early of March and finish at
the end of July when the fruiting season started in July and finish at the end of
September and this agrees with (Omar and Elgamal 2014), See Table 5.
Table 5: Vegetation characteristics of P. boveana within SKP.
Subpopulation
S.G.1
D.
0.92
A.
23
C.
0.09
S.I
6
Dominant Sp.
Primula boveana
S.G.2
5.04
141
S.G.3
3.92
98
0.99
10
Primula boveana
1.11
11.5
Primula boveana
S.M.1
S.M.2
S.M.3
22
4.12
3.2
535
103
80
1.6
1.8
0.6
5
15.5
8.5
Primula boveana
Primula boveana
Primula boveana
A.
0.8
20
1.4
28
Juncus rigidus
K.E.
0.16
4
0.01
4.5
Associated Species
Mentha longifolia, Juncus rigidus,
Hypericum sinaicum, Scrophularia libanotica
Nepeta septemcrenata, Mentha longifolia,
Juncus rigidus, Origanum syriacum
Mentha longifolia, Juncus rigidus, Origanum
syriacum
Mentha longifolia, Crataegus x sinaica
Scrophularia libanotica
Hypericum sinaicum, Mentha longifolia,
Juncus rigidus, Scrophularia libanotica
Adiantum capillus-veneris, Hypericum
sinaicum, Phlomis aurea, Mentha longifolia
Hypericum sinaicum, Mentha longifolia,
Juncus rigidus
Mentha longifolia, Juncus rigidus
Adiantum
capillus-veneris
A.H.
0.24
6
0.01
6
Adiantum
Capillus-veneris
Note: S. G=Shaq Elgragenia, S. M=Shaq Mousa, A= Elgabal Elahmar, K. E= Kahf Elghola, A. H. = Sad Abu
Hebik, D. = Density, A. = Abundant, C. = Cover, and S. I= Size Index.
It was observed that Shaq Mousa contains the highest values in most
variables (Population size, mature individuals, density, abundance, and
cover); this may be explained as this site owning the best preferable suitable
conditions for species to grow and distribute.
The stability of the habitats of endemic species may have not only
favoured their persistence but may also have contributed to trait evolution in
endemic plants. The study by Lavergne et al. (2004) has also shown that
endemic species have lower maternal fertility than their widespread
congeners and floral traits associated with inbreeding. They also have fewer
populations at the regional level than their widespread congeners.
When you start to determine the Life History of target species
according IUCN you are request to determine all of the following: Generation
Length, Age at Maturity, Size at Maturity (in cms), Longevity, Average
Reproductive Age, and Annual Rate of Population Increase. Unfortunately, we
do not have enough data for our species about these aspects.
REFERENCES:
Abd Elazeem, A.M. 2009. Operation Wallacea in Egypt I- Apreliminary study
on diversity of fungi in the world hirtage site of Saint Katherin, Egypt.
Assiut Univ. J. of Botany, 38 (1): 29-54.
Abd El-Wahab, R.H. 1995. Reproduction ecology of wild trees and shrubs in
Southern Sinai, Egypt. M.Sc. Thesis, Botany Department, Faculty of
Science, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt.
Abd El-Wahab, R.H. 2006. Landforms, Vegetation, and Soil Quality in South
Sinai, Egypt. The Egyptian Society for Environmental Sciences. 1(2):
127-138.
60
Habitats and Ecology
Ali, M.A. 2004. On the Ecology of Sinai Peninsula. MSc Thesis, Faculty of
Science, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Allen, S.E., Grimshaw, H.M., Parkinson, J.A., Quarmby, C. and Roberts, J.D.
1976. Chemical Analysis of Ecological Materials. Edited by S.B.
Chapman. Blackwell Sci. Publ., Oxford. Chapter 8: 166-411.
Ayyad, M.A. and Ammar, M.Y. 1974. Vegetation and environment of the
Western Mediterranean Coastal Land of Egypt. II. The habitat of inland
ridges. J. Ecol., 62: 439-456.
Ayyad, M.A. and Ghabour, S.L. 1986. Hot Desert of Egypt and the Sudan. In:
Evenari, M., Noy-Meir, I. and Goodal, D.W. (eds.), Ecosystem of the
world, Vol. 12B, Hot Desert and Arid Shrub Lands, B, Elsevier,
Amsterdam.,149-202.
Balba, A.M. 1995. Management of problem soils in arid ecosystems. Lewis
Publishers, CRC Press, Inc., New York. 250 pp.
Barbault, R. and Hochberg, M.E. 1992. Population and community level
approaches to studying biodiversity in international research programs.
Acta Oecol., 13: 137-146.
Bardgett, R.D. 2005. The Biology of Soil: A Community and Ecosystem
Approach. Oxford University Press, 242 pp.
Black, C. A. 1965. Methods of soil analysis. Am. Soc. Agron., Vol. P 7711572.
Boulos, L. 1999. Flora of Egypt. Al hadara publishing, Cairo, Egypt, Vol. 1:
419 pp.
Boulos, L. 2000. Flora of Egypt. Al hadara publishing, Cairo, Egypt, Vol. 2:
392 pp.
Boulos, L. 2002. Flora of Egypt. Al hadara publishing, Cairo, Egypt, Vol. 3:
373 pp.
Boulos, L. 2003. Flora of Egypt. Al hadara publishing, Cairo, Egypt, Vol. 4:
617 pp.
Burke, A. 2001. Classification and ordination of plant communities of the
Naukluft Mountains, Namibia. Journal of Vegetation Science 12: 53–60.
Cornelius, R. and Schultka, W. 1997. Vegetation structure of a heavily grazed
range in Northern Kenya: ground vegetation. Journal of Arid
Environments 36:459–474.
Danin, A. 1983. Desert Vegetation of Israel and Sinai. Cana Pub. House,
Jerusalem, Israel, 148 pp.
Durnkerley, D.L., and Brown, K.J. 1997. Desert soils. In D.S. Thomas, (ed.)
Arid zonegeomorphology: Process, form and change in drylands, second
edition. John Wiley and Sons Limited. 55-68 pp.
El-Alqamy, H.M. 2002. Developing and Assessing a Population Monitoring
Program for Dorcas Gazelle (Gazella dorcas) Using Distance Sampling
in Southern Sinai, Egypt. M.Sc. thesis, School of Biology, Division of
Environmental and Evolutionary Biology, University of St. Andrews,
Scotland. 118 pp.
El-Demerdash, M.A., Hegazy, A.K., and Zilay, A.M. 1995. Vegetation–soil
relationships in Tihamah coastal plains of Jazan region, Saudi Arabia.
Journal of Arid Environments 30: 161–174.
El-Hadidi, M.N. 1969. Observations on the flora of the Sinai mountain region.
Bull. Soc. Giogr. Egypte, 40: 124–155.
61
Habitats and Ecology
El-Nennah, M., El-Kadi, M.A., Kamh, R.N. and El-Sherif, S. 1981. Forms of
copper and zinc in soils of Sinai. Desert Institute Bulletin, A.R.E.
31(B):129- 139.
Ezcurra, E., Equihua, M. and Lopez-Portillo, J. 1987. The desert vegetation
of El Pinacate Sonora Mexico. Vegetatio 71: 49–60.
Fayed, A. and Shaltout, K. 2004. Conservation and sustainable use of
Medicinal plants in arid and semi-arid eco-systems project, Egypt (GEF,
UNDP) (project no: 12347/12348), Flora of Saint Catherine protectorate,
final report. And Floristic Survey of the Mountainous Southern Sinai:
Saint Katherine Protectorate, final report.
Good, R. 1947. The Geography of the Flowering Plants. Longmans Green,
London, 403pp. Haines, R.W. 1951). Potential annuals of the Egyptian
desert. Bull. Inst. Fouad I du Desert, Egypte, 1(2): 103–118.
Goward, S.N., and Prince, S.D. 1995. Transient effects of climate on
vegetation dynamics: Satellite observations. Journal of Biogeography,
22: 549– 563.
Guenther, R., Gilbert, F., Zalat, S., Selimk and the volunteers of operation
wallacea in Egypt 2005. Vegetation and grazing in the St Katherine
Protectorate, South Sinai, Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Biology, 7: 55-65.
Guisan, A. and Zimmerman, N.E. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models
in ecology. Ecol. Model. 135: 147–186.
Hammad, F.A. 1980. Geomorphological and hydrological aspects of Sinai
Peninsula, A.R.E. Annals of the geological survey of Egypt. Vol. X, 807817.
Hanski, I. and Gilpin, M. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and
conceptual domain. Biological J. Linean Soc. 42:3-16.
Harper, J.L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, London,
892 pp.
Hart, H.C. 2012. On The Botany Of Sinai And South Palestine. Nabu Press,
96 pp.
Hatab, E.E. 2003. Establishing and Monitoring the Dynamic Population Of
Acacia in Saint Katharine Protectorate, South Sinai, Egypt. M.Sc. Thesis,
Botany Dep., Facu. Of Sci. Al-Azhar Univ., Egypt.205 pp.
Hatab, E.E. 2009. Ecological studies on the Acacia Species and Ecosystem
Restoration in the Saint Katherine Protectorate, South Sinai, Egypt.
Ph.D., Thesis, Fac. Sci., Al-Azhar Univ 227pp.
Helmy, M.A., Moustafa, A.A., Abd El-wahab, R.H. and Batanony, K.H. 1996.
Distribution behavior of seven common shrubs and trees growing in
South Sinai, Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Botany 36(1): 53- 70.
Issar, A. and Gilad, D. 1982. Ground water flow systems in the arid crystalline
province of southern Sinai. Journal of Hydrological Science, 27 (3): 309325.
IUCN, 1994. IUCN Redlist Categories. Prepared by the Special Survival
Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN
Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, U.K.
IUCN. 2012b. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second
edition. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. Available at
www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/categories-and-criteria
62
Habitats and Ecology
IUCN. 2014. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria.
Version 11. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee.
Downloadable
from
http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf.
Jackson, M.L. 1967. Soil chemical analysis, Prentice-Hall of India private,
New Delhi, India. 498 pp.
Kadmon, R. and Danin, A. 1999. Distribution of plant species in Israel in
relation to spatial variation in rainfall. Journal of Vegetation Science 10:
421–432.
Kamh, R.N., El-Kadi, M.A., El-Kadi, A.H. and Dahdoh, M.S.A. 1989.
Evaluation of Mn forms in selected soils of Sinai. Desert Institute Bulletin,
A.R.E. 39(1):183-197.
Kassas, M. 1952. Habitat and plant communities in the Egyptian Desert. IIntroduction. Journal of Ecology, 40: 342-351.
Keddy, P.A. 2007). Plants and Vegetation. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Khedr, A. 2007. Assessment, classification, and analysis of microhabitats
Supporting globally significant Plant species: Abdel-Hamid A. Khedr,
May-September 2007, 1-37.
Kindermann, J., Wurth, G., Kohlmaier, G.H., and Badeck, F.W. 1996.
Interannual variation of carbon exchange fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.
Global Biogeochemical Cycle, 10: 737–755.
Kumar, S. 1996. Trends in structural compositional attributes of duneinterdune vegetation and their edaphic relations in the Indian desert.
Vegetation, 124: 73–93.
Lambers, Hans; F. Stuart Chapin III; Thijs L. Pons 2008). Plant Physiological
Ecology (Second Edition ed.).
Lavergne, S., Thompson, J. D., Garnier, E. & Debussche, M. 2004. The
biology and ecology of endemic and widespread plants: a comparative
study of trait variation in 20 congeneric pairs. Oikos 107: 505–518.
Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton
University Press, Great Britain. 179 pp.
Migahid, A.M. and Ayyad, M.A. 1959. An ecological study of Ras El-Hikma
district. IV. Structure of vegetation in the main habitats. Bull. Inst. Desert
Egypte, 9(1): 99–120.
Mosallam, H.A.M., 2007. Assessment of Target Species in Saint Katherine
Protectorate, Sinai, Egypt. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 3(6):
456-469.
Moursy, M.M., 2010. Ecophysiological studies on the endemic plant
Euphorbia sanctae-catharinae Fayed, in Saint Katherine Protectorate,
South Sinai, Egypt. M.Sc., Thesis, Fac. Sci., Al-Azhar Univ 350 pp.
Moursy, M.M., Khafagi, O.A. and Sharaf, A.M.A. 2012. Ecology of insular
plant in Mountain Island in Egypt: Eco-physiological studies on
Euphorbia obovata as insular plant in high mountainous region, South
Sinai, Egypt. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing. 248 pp.
Moustafa, A.A. and Klopatek. J.M. 1995. Vegetation and landforms of the
Saint Katherine area, Southern Sinai, Egypt. Journal of Arid
Environments, 30: 385-395.
Moustafa, A.A., 1990. Environmental gradients and species distribution on
Sinai Mountains. Ph.D. Thesis, Bot. Dept., Suez Canal Univ., Ismailia,
Egypt, 115 pp.
63
Habitats and Ecology
Moustafa, A.A., Abd El-wahab, R.H. and Zaghloul. M.S. 1999. Conservation
and sustainable use of medicinal plants in arid and semi-arid ecosystems
of Egypt (St. Katherine, Sinai). Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency,
Cairo, Egypt.
Moustafa, A.M. and Zaghloul, M.S. 1996. Environment and vegetation in the
montane Saint Catherine area, South Sinai, Egypt. Journal of Arid
Environments, 34: 331–349.
Moustafa, A.M., and Zayed, A.M. 1996. Effect of environmental factors on the
flora of alluvial fans in southern Sinai. Journal of Arid Environments, 32:
431-443.
Olsvig-Whittaker, L., Shachak, M. and Yair, A. 1983. Vegetation patterns
related to environmental factors in a Negev Desert watershed, Israel.
Vegetatio 54: 153–165.
Omar, K. and I. Elgamal, 2014. Reproductive and germination ecology of
Sinai primrose, Primula boveana Decne. ex Duby. Journal of Global
Biosciences. Vol. 3(3); 695-708.
Omar, K., Khafagi, O. and Elkholy, M.A. 2012. Eco-geographical analysis on
mountain plants: A case study of Nepeta septemcrenata in South Sinai,
Egypt. Lambert Academic Publishing, 236 pp.
Omar, K., O. Khafaga and M.A. Elkholy, 2013. Geomatics and plant
conservation: GIS for best conservation planning, LAP LAMBERT
Academic Publishing; 312 pp.
Peel, M. C. and Finlayson, B. L. and McMahon, T. A. 2007. Updated world
map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
11: 1633-1644.
Piper, C.S. 1950. Soil and plant analysis, Univ. of Adelaide press. Australia,
85-91. Richard, L.A. 1954. Diagnosis and Improvement of saline and
Alkaline, Soils. U. S. Department Agr. Handbook. 66 pp.
Potter, C.S., Klooster, S.A., and Brooks, V. 1999. International variability in
terrestrial net primary production: Exploration of trends and controls on
regional to global scales. Ecosystems, 2: 36–48.
Press. ISBN 978-0-521-86480-0.
Ramadan, A.A. 1988. Ecological studies in Wadi Feiran, Its Tributaries and
The Adjacent Mountains. Ph.D. Thesis, Botany Department, Faculty of
Science, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt.
Schlesinger, W.H., Raikes, J.A., Hartley, A.E. and A.F. Cross 1996. On the
spatial pattern of soil nutrients in desert ecosystems. Ecology 77: 364374.
Shao, G. and Halpin, P.N. 1995. Climatic controls of eastern North American
coastal tree and shrub distributions. Journal of Biogeography, 22: 1083–
1089.
Sharma, S.K. and Shankar, V. 1991. Classification and ordination of
vegetation of the Kailana catchments in the Indian Thar Desert ii. Woody
Vegetation. Tropical Ecology 32: 269–286.
SKP Management Plan 2003. The management and development plan for
Saint Katherine Protectorate, Full reference edition, 148 pp.
Täckholm, V. 1932. Some new plants from Sinai and Egypt. Svensk Botanisk
Tidskrift, 26 (1–2): 370–380.
Täckholm, V. 1956. Students’Flora of Egypt. Anglo-Egyptian Bookshop, Cairo,
649 pp.
64
Habitats and Ecology
Täckholm, V. 1974. Students’ Flora of Egypt, 2nd edn. Cairo Univ. (Publ.),
Cooperative Printing Company, Beirut, 888 pp.
Tian, H., Melillo, J. M., Kicklighter, D. W., McGuire, A. D., and Helfrich, J.
1999. The sensitivity of terrestrial carbon storage to historical climate
variability and atmospheric CO2 in the United States. Tellus, 51B: 414–
452.
Tian, H., Melillo, J.M., Kicklighter, D.W., McGuire, A.D., Helfrich, J., Moore III,
B., & Vorosmarty, C.J. 2000. Climatic and biotic controls on annual
carbon storage in Amazonian ecosystems. Global Ecology and
Biogeography, 9, 315– 335.
Vetaas, O.R. 1993. Spatial and temporal vegetation changes along moisture
gradient in northeastern Sudan. Biotropica. 25: 164–175.
Zahran, M. A. and Gilbert, F. 2010. Climate - Vegetation: Afro-Asian
Mediterranean and Red Sea Coastal Lands (Plant and Vegetation).
Springer, 343 pp.
Zahran, M.A. and Willis, A.J. 2009. The Vegetation of Egypt. Springer
Science+Business Media B.V. (2): 221-249.
Zhou, L., Tucker, C.J., Kaufmann, R.K., Slayback, D., Shabanov, N.V., and
Myneni, R.B. 2001. Variations in northern vegetation activity inferred
from satellite data of vegetation index during 1981 to 1999. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 106 (17. 269–283.
Zohary, M. 1935. Die phytogeographische Gliederung der Flora der Halbinsel
Sinai. Beih. Bot. Centralbl., 52 (2): 549–621.
Zohary, M. 1944. Vegetation transects through the desert of Sinai. Palestine
J. Bot., 3 (2): 57– 78.
Zohary, M. 1966. Flora Palaestina. Part I, The Israel Academy of Sciences
and Humanities, Jerusalem, 364pp.
Zohary, M. 1972. Flora Palaestina. Part II, The Israel Academy of Sciences
and Humanities, Jerusalem, 489 pp.
Zohary, M. 1978. Flora Palaestina. Part III, The Israel Academy of Sciences
and Humanities, Jerusalem, 481pp.
65
Threats
Chapter 4 Threats
INTRODUCTION:
Biodiversity is under serious threat as a result of human activities. The
main dangers worldwide are population growth and resource consumption,
climate change and global warming, habitat conversion and urbanization,
invasive alien species, over-exploitation of natural resources and
environmental degradation. Every day species’ extinctions are continuing at
up to 1,000 times or more the natural rate. The extinction of individual
species, but also habitat destruction, land conversion for agriculture and
development, climate change, pollution and the spread of invasive species
are only some of the threats responsible for today's crisis (IUCN, 2010). With
the current biodiversity loss, we are witnessing the greatest extinction crisis
since dinosaurs disappeared from our planet 65 million years ago. Not only
are these extinctions irreversible, but they also pose a serious threat to our
health and wellbeing.
Global warming is also considered to be a major potential threat to
global biodiversity in the future (Kannan and James 2009). Climate change
has seen many claims about potential to affect biodiversity but evidence
supporting the statement is tenuous. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
certainly affects plant morphology (Ainsworth and Long 2004) and is acidifying
oceans (Doney et al. 2009), and temperature affects species ranges (Loarie
et al. 2009, Walther et al. 2009, Thomas and Hannah (2005), phenology
(Hegland et al. 2009), and weather (Min et al. 2011), but the major impacts
that have been predicted are still just potential impacts. We have not
documented major extinctions yet, even as climate change drastically alters
the biology of many species.
In 2004, an international collaborative study on four continents
estimated that 10 percent of species would become extinct by 2050 because
of global warming. "We need to limit climate change or we wind up with a lot
of species in trouble, possibly extinct," said Dr. Lee Hannah, a co-author of
the paper and chief climate change biologist at the Center for Applied
Biodiversity Science at Conservation International (Brown, 2004).
By knowing that biodiversity is strongly affected by climate change so
we need to make additional efforts to minimize the negative influence of other
factors. This way we can ensure that ecosystems are less vulnerable and
more resilient to the increasing threat posed by climate change. But climate
change can also largely benefit from conserved biodiversity and particularly
healthy ecosystems when these are placed at the very centre of the efforts to
tackle climate change (IUCN, 2010). Through absorbing and storing carbon in
a range of terrestrial and marine ecosystems, such as forests, peatlands and
other wetlands, biodiversity contributes to climate change mitigation- by
66
Threats
storing carbon dioxide. Biodiversity also helps people to adapt to climate
change through providing the ecosystem services which reduce their
vulnerability and enhance their adaptive capacity to change. This includes the
coastal protection provided by coastal mangrove forests from flooding and
coastal erosion caused by sea-level rise and more powerful storms (IUCN
2010).
The threat of climate change include the direct impacts on habitat,
ecosystem functioning and populations of higher concentrations of carbon
dioxide; altered rainfall and temperature patterns; and more frequent extreme
storms, floods and heat waves. Many species are highly sensitive to changes
in climate and weather-related patterns and events. These can disrupt
seasonal food supplies and other resources, life cycle events, development,
mortality, breeding and fertility, such that entire reproductive strategies
become less successful. Expected direct impacts on species populations
include: changes in species abundance, changes in distribution, and changes
in genetics over the long term as species adapt (Commonwealth of Australia
2009). The ability of species to adapt to changing conditions and recover after
extreme climatic events will be compromised by the legacy of fragmentation,
habitat loss and other pressures that have collectively reduced overall
diversity, population sizes, and resilience in many species (Commonwealth of
Australia 2009).
It is estimated that there are around 400.000 plant species in the world,
and at least 25% are threatened with extinction. Humans are the main cause
of extinction and the principle threat to species at risk of extinction. Since they
are often confined to very small areas, and sometimes to unusual and
sensitive habitats within these localities, many endemic species are
endangered. Among the threats they face are land use by humans for
agriculture or building, and invasive species introduced either intentionally or
accidentally. Biogeographical studies can be a way for biologists to defend a
dwindling organism against encroachment on its habitat from human
communities or commercial activity. A life form whose sole habitat is under
attack can be classified as an endangered species. If the total population is
below a certain number, it might be classified as critically endangered
(Leverkuhn, 2014).
Feral donkeys, plant over collection, tourist intrusions (e.g. trespassing
beyond trail borders and collection of firewood during camping), overgrazing,
collection for scientific research, urbanization and settlement expansion and
quarries were recorded by Assi (2007) as the main threats on vegetation in
SKP. Assi (2207) and Khafagi (2013) had found that most root causes of
threats come from lack of awareness, weak law enforcement, lack of suitable
strategies, weak financial support, and lack of stakeholder’s cooperation.
These results confirm the results of Assi (2007). Drought, feral donkeys and
over collection are the most harmful threats for vegetation in SKP. To achieve
these solutions and decrease the effect of previous threats within study area,
67
Threats
Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA) must improve the annual
budget of SKP and insert new departments within SKP organization.
The threat from feral donkeys is aggravated by the fact that these feral
animals cause further destruction to the variety of plant species just by
continuous walking over and trespassing (Khafaja et al., 2006). Most
Bedouins consume many of those plants mainly as herbal infusion. However,
overharvesting is to a large extent exerted by commercial collectors and not
by collections for personal use. The quantities collected for personal use are
minor compared to those collected for trade (Assi, 2007).
Successful tourism attracts migrant labor, aggravating pressure on
infrastructure and environmental resources. Even ecotourism can degrade the
environment, because many of the places visited by ecotourists support
fragile ecosystems (Budowski, 1976). Structures in ecologically fragile areas
destroy habitats. Access roads are often more destructive than the tourist
projects themselves.
Many plant species are threatened due to cessation of grazing and
mowing (Rassi et al., 2001 and Oostermeijer, 2003). This suggests that
grazing and mowing are also important for maintaining plant species richness
on broader spatial scales. Several explanations have been proposed for high
plant species richness of grazed and mowed areas (Gigon & Leutert, 1996
and Olff & Ritchie, 1998).
Bedouins used to have their own system of protection (Hilf): An
agreement to close an area to prevent grazing for a certain period. Now
because of Bedouins’ settlement, overgrazing became a threat because of the
limited area for grazing around the settlements- although the average size of
herd decreased from 50 in old days to 10 nowadays as indicated by many
stakeholders (Assi, 2007). Collection of plants for research resulting from
increased interest at the national and international levels in studying the active
ingredients and other characteristics of medicinal plants (MPs) species
(particularly endemic and rare species). Also researchers are interested in
conducting their studies on sources obtained from the wild and not from
cultivation (Assi, 2007). The vegetation in Saint Katherine Protectorate has
been subjected to disturbance through the human activities including
"overgrazing, uprooting, tourism quarrying and over-exploitation".
The aim of this part is to identify and rank the different threats, and to identify
their underlying root causes, as well as the barriers, affecting the conservation
of the medicinal plants specially Primula boveana within the rich areas of
SKP, and we will focus on the definition of some terms related to threats
according to IUCN guidelines and will use P. boveana as case study.
68
Threats
METHODOLOGY:
In this part, we will extract our data from former studies like Assi (2207)
and Khafagi (2013) who worked on plant threats in SKP. From these studies,
we extracted 7 main threats affecting the distribution of wild plants within SKP.
They used a systematic sampling approach to capture local environmental
gradients, placing 237 circles with 10 m diameters at equal distances apart to
cover most area around St. Catherine City which containing the hottest spots
for vegetation inside SKP. Within each circle, they recorded within the field
that may be a threat to the plant community. Each threat was evaluated as
follows:
1. Feral Donkeys: Using the methods of Alqamy, (2005); Hatab, (2009) and
Omar et al., (2012), numbers of dung (droppings) of donkeys were
counted at each circle to frequency of animal presence.
2. Over collection: At each circle they recorded any sign of plant collection
for the purposes of trade as medicinal plants, fuel or any economic value.
Also assessment through meetings and interviews with the relevant
stakeholders (collectors, traders and eco guides) will cover the medicinal
plants rich sites within SKP and identify the hot spots.
3. Tourist Intrusions: At each site they recorded any tourism activity (paths,
camping, rest points and wastes) and ranked each point by density level
(How much area it cover) (Very low 20%, Low 40%, Medium 60%, High
80% and Very high >80%).
4. Overgrazing: Level of grazing was measured by dung abundance and
ranked each point by density level (How much area it cover) (Very low
20%, Low 40%, Medium 60%, High 80% and Very high >80%).) Mammal
dung was surveyed by recording the species concerned (mainly camel,
goat, ibex, and fox) and the number of droppings (Alqamy, 2005 and Omar
et al., 2012).
5. Collection for Scientific Research: They recorded all sites and target
species of scientific interest by universities, research centers and scientific
scholarships within SKP by reviewing reports and notifications from EIA
(Environmental Impact Assessment) created by SKP staff.
6. Urbanization and Settlement Expansion: In this factor they used several
approaches. First, using satellite images available in Google Earth
6.0.1.2032 (beta) with build date 2010, they observed settlements, roads
and gardens and characterized them according to boundaries and density.
Second, they carried out field assessment to detect any expansion
(buildings, dams, wells and roads). Third, they carried out meeting with
stockholders (City committee) to identify the hot spot sites defined as high
impact area.
7. Quarries: They recorded all quarrying sites within SKP and created maps
describing the exposed area for its impact of each site.
69
Threats
Underlying threat root causes, barriers and solutions.
For each threat, they assigned the root causes, barriers, area, intensity,
urgency, total ranking and categorical threat level. The above terms will
describe as follows: Root causes: These are the underlying factors, usually
social, economic, political, institutional, or cultural in nature, which enable or
otherwise contribute to the occurrence and/or persistence of direct threats
(IUCN definition). There is typically a chain of underlying causes behind any
given direct threat. Barriers: These are constraints (institutional, legal,
technical, knowledge), which limit effective conservation of MPs. A = Area:
Approximate proportion of the overall area of a site likely to be affected by a
threat under current circumstances (i.e. given the continuation of the existing
situation). *Since there are 8 direct threats, the highest ranked threat for
“Area” receives a score of 8, and the lowest ranked threat receives a score of
1 I = Intensity: refers to the impact of the threat within a micro-site. Will the
threat completely destroy the habitat in a small locality, or will it only cause
minor changes (i.e. given the continuation of the existing situation). Since
there are 8 direct threats, the highest ranked threat for “Intensity” receives a
score of 8, and the lowest ranked threat receives a score of 1 . U = Urgency:
The importance of taking immediate action to counter the threat. Since there
are 8 direct threats, the highest ranked threat for “Urgency” receives a score
of 8, and the lowest ranked threat receives a score of 1. TR = Total Ranking:
Sum of Area + Intensity + Urgency.
Threat Level:
Threat levels have been arranged as:
1- Very High (rating above 20): The threat is likely to be very
widespread or pervasive in its scope, is likely to destroy or eliminate
the conservation target over some portion of the target’s occurrence
at the site and seriously affect the conservation target throughout the
target’s occurrence at the site. The threat must be countered
immediately or limited action today will likely mitigate much more
intensive action in the future.
2- High (rating between 15 and 20): The threat is likely to be
widespread in its scope, to seriously degrade and affect the
conservation target at many of its locations at the site. The threat
must be countered in the next 5 years OR limited action in the next 5
years will likely mitigate much more intensive action in the future.
3- Medium (rating between 9 and 14): The threat is likely to be
localized in its scope, to moderately degrade and affect the
conservation target at some of the target’s locations at the site. The
threat probably will need to be countered in the next 5-10 years.
4- Low (below 9): The threat is likely to be very localized in its scope,
is likely to only slightly impair and affect the conservation target
70
Threats
within a limited portion of the target’s location at the site. The threat
does not need to be countered in the next 10 years.
Timing, scope, severity, and impact score for each threat were determined
according to IUCN Threats Classification Scheme (IUCN, 2014).
RESULTS:
Threats hotspots and effect:
1. Feral Donkeys
A total of 129 (54.4%) sites out of 237 were affected by feral donkeys.
Twenty five (10.5%) sites had a high frequency of donkey occurrence, 45
(18.9%) had a medium level, 45 (18.9%) had a low level, 14 (5.9%) had a
very low level and 108 (45.6%) sites had no donkey droppings.
It was observed that donkey’s distribution affected by vegetation cover
(donkeys concentrated on areas with high vegetation cover) which affecting
by good water supply and showed negative relation with Bedouin community
distribution (distributed away from human presence). Sites located within
elevations ranging from 1800 m to 2000 m such as Abu Tweita, Wadi Gebal,
Farsh Elromana and Farsh Messila recorded the highest presence for
donkeys (Map 5b). Grazing by these usually causes uprooting of the plants as
indicated by Bedouins and field observations and this prevents plant regrowth.
Soil compaction is associated with use by these animals and causes
destruction to a variety of plant species through continuous trampling (Khafaja
et al., 2006). The field observations showed that feral donkeys grazed on a
very wide spectrum of plant species compared with goats and camels;
however, the numbers of feral donkeys have decreased sharply compared
with the results of Assi, (2007). The local community explained this was due
to the sharp decrease in water supply.
In spite of all this influence, P. boveana do not affect by the presence of
this threats because of the special microhabitat (cliffs) and because that most
species subpopulation are found away from threat hotspots and protected
inside fenced enclosures (Map 5b).
2. Over collection.
Fifty-eight sites (24.4%) of 237 were affected by plant collection. One site
0.4%) had a high level of plant collection, 10 (4.2%) had a medium level, 16
(6.7%) had a low level, 32 (13.5%) had very low collection pressure and 178
(75%) sites showed no observations for plant collection.
Locations like Abo Hebik, Elgalt Elazrak, Abu Tweita, Sherige, Shak Musa,
Elmesirdi and wadi Eltalaa are most targeted for collection (Map 5d). These
sites are characterized by high plant productivity and water supply; however,
the collecting of plants increased with precipitation and was concentrated
71
Threats
between March and December each year (flowering season). It was observed
that collecting of plants may be affected by economic factors. In other words,
when tourism levels fall, Bedouin start to collect plants for income. Results
obtained from local communities showed that women are the most common
collectors of plants, and they collect 5 times per season. Although the reasons
for collecting these plants are always for trade or personal use as fuel, the use
of plants as fuel has decreased sharply with the advent of butagaz.
Results showed that Origanum syriacum, Mentha longifolia, Salvia
multicaulis, Chiliadenus montanus, Crataegus x sinaica and Thymus
decussatus are the most collected species for trade within the study area
because of their medicinal value.
Hand picking of plant species is widely practiced as indicated by
stakeholders, particularly collectors, which increases the rate of uprooting
instead of using pruning shears. Collections of some species, such as
Origanum syriacum and Salvia multicaulis, are limited to flowers. This could
impact a plant species’ life cycle and decrease the population size with time. It
was observed that most collectors collect species with medicinal or economic
value for personal consumption; however, the amount collected for this
purpose is small compared with amounts collected for trade.
Bedouin mentioned that P. boveana with its great medicinal importance is
still unused and not collected by local communities for folk medicine in SKP.
3. Tourist Intrusions.
Two hundred one sites (84.8%) out of 237 were affected by tourism. Thirty
eight sites (16%) had a high level of tourism, 47 (19.9%) had a medium level,
72 (30.3%) had a low level, 44 (18.5%) had a very low level and 36 (15%)
sites showed no observations of tourism. Wadi Gebal, Farsh Elromana, Elgalt
Elazrak, Abu Tweita, Wadi Tenia, Wadi Sherige and Wady Eltalaa were the
sites with the highest levels of tourism (Map 5f). About 3 million people from
51 nationalities visited SKP from 2003 to 2011 with an average 335.000
people per year. Most of them focused on the northern part of SKP, a world
heritage site. Many of the tourists do safari and camp in remote areas;
usually safaris extend for many days using different camping sites; the most
camping sites are in Firsh Elromana, Wadi Tenia, and Wadi Gebal.
Some of the negative impacts associated with tourists include collecting
medicinal plants as souvenirs from the SKP and plant collection for fuel. Soil
compactions due to trespassing leads to poor vegetation cover and results
from trampling. Garbage also may lead to deterioration in species growth.
Camping takes place in sheltered sites which provide water sources for
tourists.
4. Grazing analysis:
Results showed that the animals recorded within the greatest number of
sites in the study area were goats followed by camels. A total of 158 sites
72
Threats
(66.6%) out of 237 were affected by goats. Twenty eight sites (11.8%) had a
high level of goat presence, 21 (8.8%) had a medium level, 69 (29.1%) had a
low level, 39 (16.4%) had a very low level and 79 (33%) sites showed no
observations for goat dung. Elmesirdi, Sheiage, Elahmar and Shak Musa had
the most sites with goat’s presence which can be explained by their proximity
to local community settlements (Map 5a).
There was significantly more domestic mammal dung (goats (58%) and
camels (39%)) encountered than native mammal dung and this agrees with
results observed by Guenther et al. (2005) and Omar et al. (2012).
There were 18 plant families that showed heavy grazing; Asteraceae
(33.3%), Lamiaceae (22.2%), Brassicaceae (16.6%) and Caryophyllaceae
(16.6%) were the predominant families among grazed plants.
Results showed that Tebok, Abo Twita, Ain Shekia, Shak Sakr and
Elmesirdy had the highest number of grazed plants among the different
locations. These locations are having high levels of tourism and other human
activities which are compounded by the presence of camels and donkeys
used as transportation to and from historical sites. Bedouin communities are
also settled beside these locations and this increases goat presence in these
locations.
There is no records that P. bovaena affected by any kind of grazing in this
study or through our field observation.
5. Collection for Scientific Research.
A very low number of sites were affected by collection for scientific
research (e.g, for the purpose of herbarium specimens, phytochemistry or
genetics). The research that affected the most sites was the collection of
specimens for herbaria. The collectors sometimes collected a big amount of
plants complete with flowering parts and roots. Also, collection for
phytochemistry requires more than a kilo for good extraction (traditional
knowledge). Results showed that the most affected sites were Wadi Tennia,
Abu Tweita, Elmesirdi, Abu Kasaba, Shak Musa and Elgalt Elazrak (Map 5c).
It was recorded that our target species is highly affected by this threats.
Kahf Elghola was the main site for this species in the past but now only 4
seedlings are present as a result from un managed scientific research which
focus in his study on endangered species as it give a value for their study.
6. Urbanization and Settlements Expansion.
The entire study area is located within a high mountain area, which is far
from cities and Bedouin settlements. Within our study area, we recorded
human activities, including destruction of rocks for building gardens and
digging wells; the sites with the most frequent effects of human settlement
were Abu Twita and Zawitein (Map 5e).
Main roads (asphalt roads) located and ending in SK City are also far from
the study area. Bedouin gardens were distributed at all sites within the study
73
Threats
area but had the highest frequency at Wadi Gebal, Farsh Elromana, Wady
Tenia, and Farsh Messila.
Primula boveana distributed away from urbanization, there is no negative
impact from this threat on our plant. However, human modification was the
extent of water cannons relocating water from elevated wadies rich in water
supply to low wadies. This activity leads to consume and loss of water from
wells which directly affect the plant population size resulting from consuming
the water around Primula habitat and lead to extreme deterioration.
7. Quarries.
No quarries were recorded within study area; all quarries are concentrated
at the southern part of SKP (Wadi Elkabila, Wadi Elsamaa, Wadi Om Adawy
and Al-Nheid.
Map 5. Hotspots for main threats in SKP, A- Overgrazing , B- Distribution of feral donkeys, CScientific research, D- Over collecting, E- Urbanization, and F- tourism.
Threat ranking and level of effect:
In general, feral donkeys, over collection, tourist intrusions, and
overgrazing are the most threats influence the distribution of plants in SKP.
however, unmanaged collection for scientific research is the most harmful
threat on Primula boveana (Table 6).
Table 6. Threat Analysis (TA) for SKP vegetation and P. boveana as well.
Threats
Criteria Rankings
Area
Intensity
V.
P.
V.
P.
3
0
6
0
5
1
5
1
5
3
6
3
4
0
4
0
3
5
3
5
Feral Donkeys
Over collection
Tourist Intrusions
Overgrazing
Collection for Scientific research
Urbanization & Settlements
3
1
3
Expansion
Quarries
1
0
1
Pests and disease
5
4
3
Note: V.- vegetation of SKP, and P. Primula boveana.
Urgency
V.
P.
5
0
5
1
3
4
4
0
2
6
Total Ranking
V.
P.
14
0
15
3
14
10
12
0
8
16
Threat level
V.
P.
Medium
None
Medium
Very Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
None
Low
High
2
3
2
9
5
Medium
Low
0
4
1
2
0
3
3
10
0
11
Low
Medium
None
Medium
74
Threats
Underlying threat root causes, barriers and solutions:
From the previous results (Assi, 2007 and Khafagi et al. 2013) and from data
collected from local communities we can conclude and discuss all threats,
root causes, barriers, and solutions in the following table (Table 7).
Table 7. Different threats root causes, barriers and solutions.
75
Threats
76
Threats
From the previous threat results we can conclude that most root
causes of threats come from lack of awareness, weak law enforcement, lack
of suitable strategies, weak financial support and lack of stakeholder’s
cooperation. To achieve these solutions and decrease the effect of previous
threats within study area, Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency must
improve the annual budget of SKP and insert new departments within SKP
organization.
Because of climate change, the wild population of P. boveana could be
in extreme danger in the relatively near future. The most important natural
threats are the long-lasting droughts, the very scarce irregular precipitation
during the year, the fragmentation inherent to its habitat, and the possibility
that rare floods may cause harm such as uprooting (5% loss observed). Apart
from climate change, the most important human impacts are reductions in
water availability caused by collection for human consumption from t he
nearby areas, possible sheep and goat grazing, insect pests that eat the
vegetative parts and may cause reductions in plant vigor (observed), and a
species of ant that collects the seeds, perhaps causing reductions in the
reproductive rate (Table 8, Figure 9).
Table 8: IUCN Threats Classification Scheme for P. boveana within SKP.
Threat
Tourism & recreation areas
Timing
Ongoing
Scope
Minority (< 50%)
Gathering terrestrial plants -Intentional
use (species is the target)
Gathering
terrestrial
plants
Persecution/control
Human intrusions & disturbance - Work
& other activities
Dams & water management/use Abstraction of ground water (domestic
use)
Droughts
Ongoing
Minority (< 50%)
Ongoing
Minority (< 50%)
Ongoing
Minority (< 50%)
Ongoing
Minority (< 50%)
Ongoing
Whole (> 9 0%)
Temperature extremes
Ongoing
Whole (> 9 0%)
Storms & flooding
Ongoing
Whole (> 9 0%)
77
Severity
Causing/Could
cause fluctuations
Slow, Significant
Declines
Slow, Significant
Declines
Slow, Significant
Declines
Slow, Significant
Declines
Impact Score
Low Impact
Very Rapid
Declines
Very Rapid
Declines
Very Rapid
Declines
High Impact
Low Impact
Low Impact
Low Impact
Low Impact
High Impact
High Impact
Threats
Figure 9. Threats on Primula boveana, A- Pests, B- Floods, C- Tourism, and DDrought.
Former studies found that species subpopulations have very low
genetic variation among individuals within them, and gene flow between them
must be extremely low or actually zero: conversely, genetic differentiation
among the subpopulations is high (Jime´nez et al. 2014). It may self-fertilize
most of the time, apparently with little or no detrimental effects (Al Wadi and
Richards 1993, Jime´nez et al. 2014). Probably deleterious alleles have been
purged a long time ago, making inbreeding depression, possibly not a major
problem today, although possibly restricting its ability to evolve in response to
environmental change (Jime´nez et al. 2014).
The sharp decline in population size, number of total individuals,
number of mature individuals, and habitat of this species may came from the
changing in the world climate, which increase the effect of the main threat to
this species (drought). Many explanations found that global warming
represents perhaps the most pervasive of the various threats to the planet’s
biodiversity, given its potential to affect even areas far from human habitation.
Despite this and recent reports outlining the extensive biological changes that
are ongoing because of the warming (Parmesan and Yohe 2003), few efforts
have been made to assess the potential effects of greenhouse warming on
terrestrial biodiversity at a global scale (Noss, 2001).
A recent exception is (Thomas et al. 2014), who used a climateenvelope modeling approach to look at the potential future distributions of
1103 species in six regions. Their work suggests that restricted-range
endemic species may be especially vulnerable, which is notable given recent
efforts to prioritize conservation at the global scale by identifying biodiversity
hotspots that are of particular value based on their high species richness and
endemism. Extensive impacts due to global warming within these high-value
ecosystems would constitute a key threat to the planet’s biodiversity. Indeed,
threats to these ecosystems would presumably constitute the unnatural
adaptation of ecosystems that is to be avoided under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change.
78
Threats
REFERENCES:
Ainsworth, E.A. and L o n g , S.P. 2004. "What have we learned from 15 years
of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the
responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to
rising CO2". New Phytologist 165 (2): 351–372.
Al Wadi H. and Richards A.J., 1993. Primary homostyly in Primula L.
subgenus Sphondylia (Duby) Rupr. and the evolution of distyly in Primula.
New Phytol 124:329–338.
Alqamy H. 2005. Developing and assessing a population monitoring program
for the Dorcas Gazelle Gazella dorcas using Distance Sampling in South
Sinai, Egypt. MSc thesis, University of Saint Andrewsa, Scotland.
Assi R. 2007. MP Threat Analysis and Threat Reduction Assessment Report.
Conservation and sustainable use of medicinal plants in arid and semiarid ecosystems project.
Brown, P. 2004. "An unnatural disaster”. The Guardian (London). Retrieved
2009-06-21.
Budowski G. 1976. ‘Tourism and environmental conservation: conflict,
coexistence or symbiosis?’ Environmental Conservation 3(1):27-31.
Commonwealth of Australia, 2009. Australia’s Terrestrial Biodiversity 2008.
Chapter 5 Threats to Australian biodiversity. Australian government,
Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Art. 149-212.
Doney, S.C., Fabry, V.J., Feely, R.A., Kleypas, J.A. 2009. "Ocean
Acidification: The Other CO Pr obl em ". Annual Rev i ew of Mari ne
Science 1 (1):
169–
192.Bibcode:2009ARMS....1..169D.doi:10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.
163834.
Gigon, A. and Leutert, A. 1996. The dynamic keyhole key model of
coexistence to explain diversity of plants in limestone and other
grasslands. - J. Veg. Sci. 7:29-40.
Guenther R, Gilbert F, Zalat S, Selimk and The volunteers of Operation
Wallacea in Egypt 2005. Vegetation and grazing in the St Katherine
Protectorate, South Sinai, Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Biology, 7: 55-65.
Hatab EE. 2009 Ecological studies on the Acacia Species and Ecosystem
Restoration in the Saint Katherine Protectorate, South Sinai, Egypt.
Ph.D., Thesis, Fac. Sci., Al-Azhar Univ.
Hegland, S.J., Nielsen, A., Lázaro, A., Bjerknes, A., Totland, Ø. 2009. "How
does climate warming affect plant-pollinator interactions?” Ecology
Letters 12 (2): 184–195.
IUCN, 2010. Biodiversity in crisis, “Why is biodiversity in crisis?” available
online on: http://www.iucn.org/what/biodiversity/about/biodiversity_crisis/
IUCN. 2014. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria.
Version 11. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee.
Downloadable
from
http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf.
Jime´nez, A., H. Mansour, B. Keller, and E. Conti 2014. Low genetic diversity
and high levels of inbreeding in the Sinai primrose (Primula boveana), a
species on the brink of extinction. Plant Syst Evol (2014) 300:1199–1208.
Kannan, R. and James, D. A. 2009. "Effects of climate change on global
biodiversity: a review of key literature". Tropical Ecology 50 (1): 31–39.
79
Threats
Khafaja T, Hatab A and Dsouki A. 2006. Report on the current situation of the
plant vegetation cover in the high mountain area of Saint Katherine. Plant
Conservation and Monitoring Programme, Saint Katherine Protectorate.
Leverkuhn, A. 2014. What Is an Endemic Species? Conjecture Corporation.
Available
online
on:
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-an-endemicspecies.htm.
Loarie, S.R., Duffy, P.B., Hamilton, H., Asner, G.P., Field, C.B., Ackerly, David
D. 2009. "The velocity of climate change". Nature 462 (7276): 1052–
1055.
Milton, S.J., Dean, W.R.J., Duplessis, M.A. and Siegfri, W.R. 1994. A
conceptual model of arid rangeland degradation. Bioscience 44:70–76.
Min, S., Xuebin Z., Francis, W. Z., Gabriele C.H. 2011. "Human contribution to
more-intense precipitation extremes". Nature 470(7334): 378–381.
Noss, R.F., 2001. Beyond Kyoto: forest management in a time of rapid climate
change. Conservation Biology 15: 578-590.
Khafaga, O., Hatab, E.E., Omar. K. 2013. Challenges towards Hypericum
sinaicum conservation in south Sinai, Egypt. Jordan Journal of Biological
Sciences. 6(2): 116-126.
Olff, H. & Ritchie, M. E. 1998. Effects of herbivores on grassland plant
diversity. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:261-265.
Omar K, Khafagi O and Elkholy M. 2012. Eco-geographical analysis on
mountain plants: A case study of Nepeta septemcrenata in South Sinai,
Egypt. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, Germany.
Oostermeijer, J.G.B. 2003: Threats to rare plant persistence. - In: Brigham, C.
A. & Schwartz, M.W . (eds.), Population viability in plants.
Springer- Verlag, pp. 17-58.
Parmesan, C. and G. Yohe, 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate
change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37-42.
Rassi, P., Alanen, A., Kanerva, T. & Mannerkoski, I. (eds.) 2001: Suomen
lajien uhanalaisuus 2000. Uhanalaisten lajien II seurantatyöryhmä.
(Summary: The 2000 Red List of Finnish species. Ministry of the
Environment, Helsinki.
Thomas E.; Hannah, Lee (2005).Climate change and biodiversity. New
Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 41–55. ISBN 0-300-10425-1.
Thomas, C.D., Cameron, A., Green, R.E., Bakkenes, M., Beaumont, L.J.,
Collingham, Y.C., Erasmus, B.F.N., Siqueira, M.F.D., Grainger, A., and
Hannah,
L.
2004. "Extinction
risk
from
climate
change" (PDF). Nature 427 (6970): 145–148.
Walther, G., Roques, A., Hulme, P.E., Sykes, M.T., Pyšek, P.K.I, Zobel, M.,
Bacher, S., Botta-D.Z., Bugmann, H. 2009. "Alien species in a warmer
world: risks and opportunities". Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24 (12):
686–693.
80
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Red List Category & Criteria
Chapter 5 Red List Category & Criteria
INTRODUCTION:
The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria are intended to be an easily
and widely understood system for classifying species at high risk of global
extinction. The general aim of the system is to provide an explicit, objective
framework for the classification of the broadest range of species according to
their extinction risk. However, while the Red List may focus attention on those
taxa at the highest risk, it is not the sole means of setting priorities for
conservation measures for their protection. Extensive consultation and testing
in the development of the system strongly suggest that it is robust across
most organisms. However, it should be noted that although the system places
species into the threatened categories with a high degree of consistency, the
criteria do not take into account the life histories of every species. Hence, in
certain individual cases, the risk of extinction may be under- or over-estimated
(IUCN, 2012 and 2014).
Before 1994 the more subjective threatened species categories used in
IUCN Red Data Books and Red Lists had been in place, with some
modification, for almost 30 years. Although the need to revise the categories
had long been recognized (Fitter and Fitter 1987), the current phase of
development only began in 1989 following a request from the IUCN Species
Survival Commission (SSC) Steering Committee to develop a more objective
approach. The IUCN Council adopted the new Red List system in 1994.
The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria have several specific aims:

to provide a system that can be applied consistently by different
people;

to improve objectivity by providing users with clear guidance on how to
evaluate different factors which affect the risk of extinction;

to provide a system which will facilitate comparisons across widely
different taxa;

to give people using threatened species lists a better understanding of
how individual species were classified.
Since their adoption by IUCN Council in 1994, the IUCN Red List
Categories have become widely recognized internationally, and they are now
used in a range of publications and listings produced by IUCN, as well as by
numerous governmental and non-governmental organizations. Such broad
and extensive use revealed the need for a number of improvements, and SSC
was mandated by the 1996 World Conservation Congress (WCC Res. 1.4) to
conduct a review of the system (IUCN 1996). This document presents the
revisions accepted by the IUCN Council. The proposals presented in this
document result from a continuing process of drafting, consultation and
validation (IUCN, 2012).
82
Red List Category & Criteria
The production of a large number of draft proposals has led to some
confusion, especially as each draft has been used for classifying some
set of species for conservation purposes. To clarify matters, and to open the
way for modifications as and when they become necessary, a system for
version numbering has been adopted as follows:
Version 1.0: Mace and Lande (1991)
The first paper discussing a new basis for the categories, and
presenting numerical criteria especially relevant for large vertebrates.
Version 2.0: Mace et al. (1992)
A major revision of Version 1.0, including numerical criteria appropriate
to all organisms and introducing the non-threatened categories.
Version 2.1: IUCN (1993)
Following an extensive consultation process within SSC, a number of
changes were made to the details of the criteria, and fuller explanation
of basic principles was included. A more explicit structure clarified the
significance of the nonthreatened categories
Version 2.2: Mace and Stuart (1994)
Following further comments received and additional validation
exercises, some minor changes to the criteria were made. In addition,
the Susceptible category present in Versions 2.0 and 2.1 was
subsumed into the Vulnerable category. A precautionary application of
the system was emphasised.
Version 2.3: IUCN (1994)
IUCN Council adopted this version, which incorporated changes as a
result of comments from IUCN members, in December 1994. The initial
version of this document was published without the necessary
bibliographic details, such as date of publication and ISBN number, but
these were included in the subsequent reprints in 1998 and 1999. This
version was used for the 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals
(Baillie and Groombridge 1996), The World List of Threatened Trees
(Oldfield et al. 1998) and the 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species (Hilton-Taylor 2000).
Version 3.0: IUCN/SSC Criteria Review Working Group (1999)
Following comments received, a series of workshops were convened to
look at the IUCN Red List Criteria following which, changes were
proposed affecting the criteria, the definitions of some key terms and
the handling of uncertainty.
Version 3.1: IUCN (2001)
The IUCN Council adopted this latest version, which incorporated
changes as a result of comments from the IUCN and SSC
memberships and from a final meeting of the Criteria Review Working
Group, in February 2000.
All new assessments from January 2001 should use the latest adopted
version and cite the year of publication and version number.
83
Red List Category & Criteria
The first edition of the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version
3.1 was published in 2001, after its formal adoption by the IUCN Council in
February 2000. Since then it has been used as the standard for global Red
List assessments published on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. It is
also used alongside the Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at
Regional and National Levels (IUCN 2003, 2012), by many countries around
the world as a standard system for national Red List assessments.
Over the last decade, the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria have
been used to assess an increasingly more diverse range of taxa occurring in a
wide variety of habitats. In addition, ongoing technological advances continue
to provide more scope for improving data analysis. Therefore it is necessary
for the IUCN Red List to adapt to maintain and further develop its usefulness
as a conservation tool. However, it is also essential that the central rules for
assessing extinction risk for the IUCN Red List remain stable to be able to
compare changes in Red List status over time (IUCN, 2014).
In this part, we will focus on the definition of some terms related to Red
List Category & Criteria according to IUCN guidelines and will use Primula
boveana as case study.
Terminology in use according to IUCN 2014:
THE CATEGORIES
A representation of the relationships between the categories is shown in Figure 10.
EXTINCT (EX)
A taxon is Extinct when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died.
A taxon is presumed Extinct when exhaustive surveys in known and/or expected
habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, annual), throughout its historic range
have failed to record an individual. Surveys should be over a time frame appropriate
to the taxon’s life cycle and life form.
EXTINCT IN THE WILD (EW)
A taxon is Extinct in the Wild when it is known only to survive in cultivation, in
captivity or as a naturalized population (or populations) well outside the past range. A
taxon is presumed Extinct in the Wild when exhaustive surveys in known and/or
expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, annual), throughout its
historic range have failed to record an individual. Surveys should be over a time
frame appropriate to the taxon’s life cycle and life form.
CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (CR)
A taxon is Critically Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it
meets any of the criteria A to E for Critically Endangered, and it is therefore
considered to be facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.
ENDANGERED (EN)
A taxon is Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of
the criteria A to E for Endangered, and it is therefore considered to be facing a very
84
Red List Category & Criteria
high risk of extinction in the wild.
VULNERABLE (VU)
A taxon is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of
the criteria A to E for Vulnerable, and it is therefore considered to be facing a high
risk of extinction in the wild.
NEAR THREATENED (NT)
A taxon is Near Threatened when it has been evaluated against the criteria but does
not qualify for Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable now, but is close to
qualifying for or is likely to qualify for a threatened category in the near future.
LEAST CONCERN (LC)
A taxon is Least Concern when it has been evaluated against the criteria and does not
qualify for Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened.
Widespread and abundant taxa are included in this category.
DATA DEFICIENT (DD)
A taxon is Data Deficient when there is inadequate information to make a direct, or
indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction based on its distribution and/or population
status. A taxon in this category may be well studied, and its biology well known, but
appropriate data on abundance and/or distribution are lacking. Data Deficient is
therefore not a category of threat. Listing of taxa in this category indicates that more
information is required and acknowledges the possibility that future research will
show that threatened classification is appropriate.
NOT EVALUATED (NE)
A taxon is Not Evaluated when it has not yet been evaluated against the criteria.
Figure 10. Structure of the categories according to IUCN (2014).
85
Red List Category & Criteria
V. THE CRITERIA FOR CRITICALLY ENDANGERED, ENDANGERED,
AND VULNERABLE CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (CR)
A taxon is Critically Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it
meets any of the following criteria (A to E), and it is therefore considered to be facing
an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild:
A. Reduction in population size based on any of the following:
1. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population size reduction of 2:90%
over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, where the
causes of the reduction are clearly reversible AND understood AND ceased,
based on (and specifying) any of the following:
(a) direct observation
(b) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon
(c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of
habitat
(d) actual or potential levels of exploitation
(e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants,
competitors or parasites.
2. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population size reduction of 2:80%
over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, where the
reduction or its causes may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may
not be reversible, based on (and specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1.
3. A population size reduction of 2:80%, projected or suspected to be met within the
next 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer (up to a maximum of
100 years), based on (and specifying) any of (b) to (e) under A1.
4. An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population size
reduction of 2:80% over any 10 year or three generation period, whichever is
longer (up to a maximum of 100 years in the future), where the time period must
include both the past and the future, and where the reduction or its causes may
not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based on
(and specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1.
B. Geographic range in the form of either B1 (extent of occurrence) OR B2 (area of
occupancy) OR both:
1. Extent of occurrence estimated to be less than 100 km2, and estimates indicating
at least two of a-c:
a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at only a single location.
b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the
following:
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat
(iv) number of locations or subpopulations
(v) number of mature individuals.
c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:
86
Red List Category & Criteria
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) number of locations or subpopulations
(iv) number of mature individuals.
2. Area of occupancy estimated to be less than 10 km2, and estimate indicating at
least two of a-c:
a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at only a single location.
b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the
following:
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat
(iv) number of locations or subpopulations
(v) number of mature individuals.
c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) number of locations or subpopulations
(iv) number of mature individuals.
C. Population size estimated to number fewer than 250 mature individuals and
either:
1. An estimated continuing decline of at least 25% within three years or one
generation, whichever is longer, (up to a maximum of 100 years in the future) OR
2. A continuing decline, observed, projected, or inferred, in numbers of mature
individuals AND at least one of the following (a-b):
a. Population structure in the form of one of the following:
(i) no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 50 mature
individuals, OR
(ii) at least 90% of mature individuals in one subpopulation.
b. Extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals.
D. Population size estimated to number fewer than 50 mature individuals.
E. Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least
50% within 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer (up to a
maximum of 100 years).
ENDANGERED (EN)
A taxon is Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of
the following criteria (A to E), and it is therefore considered to be facing an extremely
high risk of extinction in the wild:
A. Reduction in population size based on any of the following:
1. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population size reduction of 2:70%
over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, where the
causes of the reduction are clearly reversible AND understood AND ceased,
87
Red List Category & Criteria
based on (and specifying) any of the following:
(a) direct observation
(b) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon
(c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of
habitat
(d) actual or potential levels of exploitation
(e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants,
competitors or parasites.
2. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population size reduction of 2:50%
over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, where the
reduction or its causes may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may
not be reversible, based on (and specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1.
3. A population size reduction of 2:50%, projected or suspected to be met within the
next 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer (up to a maximum of
100 years), based on (and specifying) any of (b) to (e) under A1.
4. An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population size
reduction of 2:50% over any 10 year or three generation period, whichever is
longer (up to a maximum of 100 years in the future), where the time period must
include both the past and the future, and where the reduction or its causes may
not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based on
(and specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1.
B. Geographic range in the form of either B1 (extent of occurrence) OR B2 (area of
occupancy) OR both:
1. Extent of occurrence estimated to be less than 5000 km2, and estimates
indicating at least two of a-c:
a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at no more than five locations..
b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the
following:
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat
(iv) number of locations or subpopulations
(v) number of mature individuals.
c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) number of locations or subpopulations
(iv) number of mature individuals.
2. Area of occupancy estimated to be less than 500 km2, and estimate indicating at
least two of a-c:
a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at no more than five locations.
b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the
following:
88
Red List Category & Criteria
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat
(iv) number of locations or subpopulations
(v) number of mature individuals.
c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) number of locations or subpopulations
(iv) number of mature individuals.
C. Population size estimated to number fewer than 2500 mature individuals and
either:
1. An estimated continuing decline of at least 20% within three years or one
generation, whichever is longer, (up to a maximum of 100 years in the future) OR
2. A continuing decline, observed, projected, or inferred, in numbers of mature
individuals AND at least one of the following (a-b):
a. Population structure in the form of one of the following:
(i) no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 250 mature
individuals, OR
(ii) at least 95% of mature individuals in one subpopulation.
b. Extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals.
D. Population size estimated to number fewer than 250 mature individuals.
E. Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least
20% within 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer (up to a
maximum of 100 years).
VULNERABLE (VU)
A taxon is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of
the following criteria (A to E), and it is therefore considered to be facing an extremely
high risk of extinction in the wild:
A. Reduction in population size based on any of the following:
1. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population size reduction of 2:50%
over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, where the
causes of the reduction are clearly reversible AND understood AND ceased,
based on (and specifying) any of the following:
(a) direct observation
(b) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon
(c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of
habitat
(d) actual or potential levels of exploitation
(e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants,
competitors or parasites.
2. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population size reduction of 2:30%
89
Red List Category & Criteria
over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, where the
reduction or its causes may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may
not be reversible, based on (and specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1.
3. A population size reduction of 2:30%, projected or suspected to be met within the
next 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer (up to a maximum of
100 years), based on (and specifying) any of (b) to (e) under A1.
4. An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population size
reduction of 2:30% over any 10 year or three generation period, whichever is
longer (up to a maximum of 100 years in the future), where the time period must
include both the past and the future, and where the reduction or its causes may
not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based on
(and specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1.
B. Geographic range in the form of either B1 (extent of occurrence) OR B2 (area of
occupancy) OR both:
1. Extent of occurrence estimated to be less than 20,000 km2, and estimates
indicating at least two of a-c:
a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at no more than 10 locations.
b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the
following:
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat
(iv) number of locations or subpopulations
(v) number of mature individuals.
c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) number of locations or subpopulations
(iv) number of mature individuals.
2. Area of occupancy estimated to be less than 2000 km2, and estimate indicating
at least two of a-c:
a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at no more than 10 locations.
b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the
following:
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat
(iv) number of locations or subpopulations
(v) number of mature individuals.
c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) number of locations or subpopulations
90
Red List Category & Criteria
(iv) number of mature individuals.
C. Population size estimated to number fewer than 10,000 mature individuals and
either:
1. An estimated continuing decline of at least 10% within three years or one
generation, whichever is longer, (up to a maximum of 100 years in the future)
OR
2. A continuing decline, observed, projected, or inferred, in numbers of mature
individuals AND at least one of the following (a-b):
a. Population structure in the form of one of the following:
(i) no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 1000 mature
individuals, OR
(ii) all mature individuals in one subpopulation.
b. Extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals.
D. Population very small or restricted in the form of either of the following:
1. Population size estimated to number fewer than 1,000 mature individuals.
2. Population with a very restricted area of occupancy (typically less than 20
km2) or number of locations (typically five or fewer) such that it is prone to
the effects of human activities or stochastic events within a very short time
period in an uncertain future, and is thus capable of becoming Critically
Endangered or even Extinct in a very short time period.
E. Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least
10% within 100 years.
METHODOLOGY:
We will assess the taxon using the information and data recorded in this
study, and follow the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (Table 9): version
3.1. and current version of the Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List
Categories and Criteria for guidance on applying the IUCN criteria. We will
record the available data for population sizes, trends, decline rates, ranges,
etc. to compare against the IUCN Red List Criteria thresholds.
Data for criterion A: rate of population reduction, Data for criterion B:
restricted range, Data for criterion C: small population size and continuing
decline, Data for criterion D: small population size or restricted range, and
Data for criterion E: quantitative analysis were recorded according IUCN
(2014).
91
Red List Category & Criteria
Table 9. Summary of the five criteria (A-E) used to evaluate if a taxon belongs in a
threatened category (Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable).
92
Red List Category & Criteria
When assessment takes place, you are request from Species
Information Service (SIS) to fill in the data required for each criterion to
complete the Red List assessment:
Data for Criterion A:
93
Red List Category & Criteria
Data for Criterion B:
Data for Criterion C:
94
Red List Category & Criteria
Data for Criterion D:
Data for Criterion E:
RESULTS:
From the data collected within this study about population, habitat and
ecology, geographical range, and threats, we can extract the conservation
status for P. boveana as follow:
Data about the percentage of reduction in population size is not enough here
to assess, so we will eliminate the Criterion A.
From Tables 10 and 11, P. boveana qualifies as Critically Endangered
(CR) under criterion B1ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v)c(iv)+2ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v)c(iv); C2b because
it is endemic to a tiny area (with an EOO of 13 km2 and AOO of less than 6
km2) of the high mountain area of the St. Katherine Protectorate in southern
Sinai, Egypt. The total population size of mature individuals is less than 200,
distributed among nine subpopulations. As the main threats are drought and
climate change, effectively there is only one location. There is a continuing
decline in habitat quality for this species, with evidence of declines in
subpopulation numbers, as w ell as strong fluctuations through time. Climate
change is projected to further reduce the available habitat of this high.
95
Red List Category & Criteria
Table 10. Data for criterion B: restricted range.
Criteria
1. Extent Of Occurrence
a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at only a single location.
b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the following:
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat
(iv) number of locations or subpopulations
(v) number of mature individuals.
c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) number of locations or subpopulations
(iv) number of mature individuals.
2. Area Of Occupancy
a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at only a single location.
b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the following:
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat
(iv) number of locations or subpopulations
(v) number of mature individuals.
c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) number of locations or subpopulations
(iv) number of mature individuals.
Status
2
12.7 km
X
X
X
6 km
2
X
X
X
Table 11. Data for criterion C: small population size and continuing decline.
Criteria
Population size (mature individuals)
1. An estimated continuing decline of at least 25% within three years or one
generation, whichever is longer, (up to a maximum of 100 years in the future)
OR
2. A continuing decline, observed, projected, or inferred, in numbers of mature
individuals AND at least one of the following (a-b):
a. Population structure in the form of one of the following:
(i) no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 50 mature
individuals, OR
(ii) at least 90% of mature individuals in one subpopulation.
b. Extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals.
Status
165
X
X
X
X
Estimated population size recorded as fewer than 250 (165) mature
individuals and due to the small number of mature individuals and the
population structure this species would also qualify as Endangered under
Criterion D. Data about Quantitative analysis showing the percentage
probability of extinction in the wild within 10 years or three generations,
whichever is the longer (up to a maximum of 100 years) are not enough to
assess this criterion so we eliminate the criterion E.
96
Red List Category & Criteria
REFERENCES:
Baillie, J. and Groombridge, B. (eds). 1996. 1996 IUCN Red List of
Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Fitter, R. and Fitter, M. (eds). 1987. The Road to Extinction. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland.
IUCN. (2012). IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second
edition. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iv + 32pp.
IUCN. 1993. Draft IUCN Red List Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. IUCN.
1994. IUCN Red List Categories. Prepared by the IUCN Species
Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN. 1996. Resolution 1.4. Species Survival Commission. Resolutions and
Recommendations, pp. 7-8. World Conservation Congress, 13-23
October 1996, Montreal, Canada. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN
Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
UK.
IUCN. 2003. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional
Levels: Version 3.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
IUCN. 2014. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria.
Version 11. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee.
Downloadable
from
http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf.
IUCN/SSC Criteria Review Working Group. 1999. IUCN Red List Criteria
review provisional report: draft of the proposed changes and
recommendations. Species 31-32: 43-57.
Mace, G.M. and Lande, R.1991.Assessing extinction threats: toward a reevaluation of IUCN threatened species categories. Conservation Biology
5: 148 157.
Mace, G.M. and Stuart, S.N. 1994. Draft IUCN Red List Categories, Version
2.2. Species 21-22: 13-24.
Mace, G.M., Collar, N., Cooke, J., Gaston, K.J., Ginsberg, J.R., LeaderWilliams, N., Maunder, M. and Milner-Gulland, E.J. 1992. The
development of new criteria for listing species on the IUCN Red List.
Species 19: 16 22.
Oldfield, S., Lusty, C. and MacKinven, A. 1998. The World List of Threatened
Trees. World Conservation Press, Cambridge.
97
Conservation actions & Requirements
Chapter 6
Conservation actions & requirements
INTRODUCTION:
Plants are of fundamental importance to life on earth. They form the
backbone of Earth’s ecosystems and provide a wide range of ecosystem
goods and services. The benefits they provide include food, medicines,
genetic material for crop improvement, clothing and shelter, and they have
great economic and cultural value. They thus make an important contribution
to human well-being. Over the last hundred years the trends observed in the
loss of plant biodiversity have been a matter of great concern. Despite all the
efforts made to conserve plant diversity, the situation today is still very
alarming. Up to one-quarter of the estimated 400 000 species of plants are
believed to be threatened worldwide (Heywood and Dulloo 2005).
One of the major factors affecting biodiversity conservation today is
global change—demographic, land-use and climatic yet the biodiversity
movement and most conservation planners have so far largely failed to factor
global change into their planning models and strategies (Hannah et al. 2002).
Global change is causing a major transformation of the Earth’s environment
as a result of the numbers and growth of the human population (Steffen et al.
2004) and will have effects on both ecosystems and species and their
populations and genes, and consequently on efforts to conserve these.
Degradation, fragmentation, simplification and loss of terrestrial and aquatic
habitats, caused by urbanization, industrialization and expanding agriculture
will place many species at risk and even lead to the possible collapse of major
systems such as the Amazon forest (Schellnhuber 2002) or of ‘ecosystems’
such as mangrove swamps.
A focus on species conservation is readily comprehensible, since most
people find it easy to empathize with biodiversity inherent in species,
especially if they are charismatic or flagship species. Moreover, such a focus
may well serve the interests both of conservation and of those who exploit
species (Hutton and Leader- Williams 2003). The question that has to be
addressed is whether a species-based approach to in situ conservation is
feasible or even desirable. It is often stated that such an approach to
conservation is not possible because of the sheer numbers of entities involved
and the continuing rise in the numbers of threatened species (Ricklefs et al.
1984), whereas a habitat/ecosystem-based approach allows a large number
of species to be given some form of protection at the same time. There is,
moreover, an increasing tendency today to shift the focus away from species
and to view biodiversity conservation and sustainable use through the lens of
the ecosystem, with an emphasis on maintaining the healthy functioning of the
system.
98
Conservation actions & Requirements
For species that are threatened or endangered, the removal or
containment of the factors causing the threat means that some form of
intervention is necessary so that a ‘hands-off’ approach is not appropriate. If
the species is threatened as a consequence of habitat loss, as is increasingly
common, then it is clearly essential to ensure that the remaining habitat is
secured and, additionally, population reinforcement and other measures may
be required. It is clear, however, that for many wild species the best that we
can hope for is not some targeted form of action but simply to ensure their
presence in some form of protected area where, provided the area itself is not
under threat, and subject to the dynamics of the system and the extent of
human pressures, some degree of protection may be afforded (Heywood and
Dulloo 2005).
The number of wild plant species requiring specific conservation efforts
is far too numerous to include all of them in conservation programmes
(Sutherland 2001). Even within the main groups of target species of economic
importance, the number of species to consider is greatly in excess of any
reasonable expectation of conservation possibilities. If a conservation strategy
depends, as it often will, on the results of ecogeographical surveys and
analyses of genetic and biological variation, all of which require considerable
investments of time, money and expertise, not to mention any management
interventions and monitoring, then effective action will not be possible for most
of the species identified.
A critically
endangered (CR) species is
one
which
has
been categorised by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as
facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild. It is the highest risk category
assigned by the IUCN Red List for wild species. There are currently
2129 animals and 1821 plants with this assessment, compared with 1998
levels of 854 and 909, respectively (IUCN, 2012). As the Red List does not
consider a species extinct until extensive, targeted surveys have been
conducted, species which are possibly extinct are still listed as "critically
endangered". A new ideal category for "possibly extinct" has been suggested
by BirdLife International to categorize these taxa.
Once a decision has been made on which species to target for in situ
conservation and basic information on the geographical distribution of the
target species and the target areas in which they occur has been obtained, a
decision has to be made on which areas should be chosen for detailed survey
and sampling. This in turn will allow a decision to be made on how many
populations and which populations are to be conserved, their size and
proportions, how much genetic and other diversity they should contain, as well
as their geographical distribution (Hodgkin 1997). The choice of precise sites
for conservation of target species is an essential component of a conservation
strategy and involves setting goals, targets and scales (Balmford 2002). Apart
from technical considerations, priority may well be given to sites that are
protected areas or centres of plant diversity or are centres of crop origins or
99
Conservation actions & Requirements
diversification. In practical terms, the size of the sites in which the target
species occur in is also an important consideration, as this may well
determine viable population size.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which came into force
in December 1993, has been the major global instrument to rally world-wide
efforts for the effective conservation of biological diversity. It calls for
mechanisms to be put in place for both in situ and ex situ conservation (see
Articles 8 and 9).
A Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) has subsequently
been developed and was adopted at the Sixth Meeting of the Conference of
Parties to the CBD held in The Hague in April 2002 (Decision VI/9). This
strategy provides an innovative framework of 16 outcome-oriented targets
aimed at achieving a series of measurable targets by 2010, of which targets 7,
8 and 9 relate to in situ and ex situ conservation of target species. Target 7 of
the GSPC calls for “60% of the world’s threatened species to be conserved in
situ”. This is taken to mean that populations of the species are effectively
conserved in protected areas or through other in situ management measures.
To be able to achieve this target of the GSPC, a major effort will be required
to augment existing tools and methodologies for the effective conservation of
plant biodiversity (Heywood and Dulloo 2005).
The different approaches to in situ conservation that have been
developed to date have been widely applied to a range of situations, but
seldom to target species of wild plants. For many plant species of value to
agriculture, including crop wild relatives, efforts to conserve threatened
germplasm have led to a massive ex situ collection of over 6 million
accessions conserved in over 1500 genebanks world-wide. In situ
conservation efforts world-wide have mostly focused on establishing protected
areas and taken an ecosystem-oriented rather than a species-oriented
approach. Protected areas are seldom established for individual species,
unless they are highly charismatic (Heywood and Dulloo 2005).
Existing protected areas are often poorly managed and some have no
management at all, as was revealed at the Fifth World Park Congress held in
Durban, South Africa, in 2003. Effectiveness of protected area management
depends on adequate human and financial resources, which in many places
are not available. In addition to making up for existing inadequacies, protected
area managers will have to face new threats such as invasive species, habitat
degradation and destruction, as climate change and other global changes
become apparent. In the past, priority has been given to the conservation of
crop landraces ’on-farm’, which the CBD defines as a form of in situ
conservation in the place where the domesticated or cultivated species have
developed their distinctive properties. There is an urgent need to also pay
attention to the many economically important wild species that are neither onfarm nor in protected areas (Heywood and Dulloo 2005). The populations of
many of these wild species are under heavy pressure due to over-exploitation,
100
Conservation actions & Requirements
habitat degradation and invasive species. Their effective in situ conservation
will be difficult to accomplish and therefore presents a huge challenge to
conservationists.
The main problem in achieving [in situ] conservation goals is, at present,
the lack of institutional and political frameworks under which adequate land
use and operational management choices, fair to all stakeholders, can be
considered and efficiently implemented in the short as well as in the long term
(FAO 2002a). Recovery programmes for nationally or subnationally
threatened, rare or endangered wild species (whether of ec onomic
importance or not). Species recovery programmes are a special case of in situ
conservation of target species. They may often require recovery of their
habitats. Restoration, recovery or rehabilitation of habitats with t h e
widespread ecological destruction now occurring around the world, habitat
restoration has attracted growing attention and often environmental legislation
requires habitat rehabilitation or restoration of areas affected by activities such
as mining to be undertaken to mitigate the damage caused. Likewise, species
recovery programmes may require not only management and reinforcement
of populations but also rehabilitation or restoration of the habitats in which the
often fragmented populations occur (Heywood and Dulloo 2005).
In situ conservation therefore covers not only species and ecosystems
but also genetic variability. Unless we recognize the diversity of approaches
involved in in situ conservation, we risk overlooking or obscuring some of the
key issues involved. In practice, however, conservation of wild species or
populations in situ is widely interpreted as meaning their presence within a
protected area or habitat, i.e. with the focus primarily on the ecosystem.
However, this may also involve the preparation and implementation of rescue,
recovery or management plans for target species that are seriously
endangered at the local, national or global level, to prevent their becoming
extinct in the wild (Heywood and Dulloo 2005).
The main general aim and long-term goal of in situ conservation of
target species is to protect, manage and monitor the selected populations in
their natural habitats so that the natural evolutionary processes can be
maintained, thus allowing new variation to be generated in the gene pool that
will allow the species to adapt to gradual changes in environmental conditions
such as global warming, changed rainfall patterns, or acid rain. On the other
hand, many of the species that may be targeted for in situ conservation
because of their economic use are subject to exploitation. It should not be
assumed that the conservation objective is simply to maintain the species in
such a way that they will continue to evolve as natural viable populations; it
may be that the emphasis will be more on sustaining the use itself for the
benefit of the various stakeholders (Freese, 1997) and this will affect the
management objectives.
It must be emphasized that in situ conservation of target species is only
one aspect of a broader strategy that may be required for the successful
101
Conservation actions & Requirements
maintenance of a given species and its genetic variability. It is increasingly
recognized that biodiversity conservation, whether of genes, species or
ecosystems, should be viewed in the context of a mosaic of land-use options
(Wilcox 1990, 1995), each of which will require its own range of management
approaches. Thus the conservation of target species may be undertaken in
nature reserves and other protected areas; in private and publicly owned
natural forests and plantations and other types of habitat; as trees, shrubs and
herbs in agroforestry systems of various types, including home gardens; in
homesteads; and along rivers and roads.
Various forms of ex situ conservation may also be needed to
supplement the in situ action, such as conservation collections in arboreta and
botanic gardens, properly sampled accessions in seed banks, clone banks,
field trials and seed production areas (Palmberg- Lerche 2002). In situ
conservation thus covers a wide range of different activities and goals. The
clear distinction between in situ and ex situ conservation traditionally
recognized by conservationists (exemplified by protected areas and botanic
gardens, respectively) breaks down when applied to crop and forest genetic
resources where a range of situations occurs, reflecting the complete
spectrum between wild and completely domesticated species (Heywood
1999a). It has been suggested (Bretting and Duvick 1997) that it would be
better to distinguish between the different approaches according to their
specific objectives. Thus it has been proposed that the term ‘static
conservation’ could be used to substitute for ex situ conservation and
‘dynamic conservation’ for in situ conservation. Another dimension that can be
used is the extent of deliberate intervention needed to achieve a specific
conservation objective (Lleras 1991).
The ways in which ecosystems respond to climate change will be
complex and varied and will depend on the location and extent of changes in
temperature and other climatic parameters. It is now widely accepted that
global climate change poses a critical threat to ecosystems, species and
biodiversity in general (IPCC 2002). Current patterns of habitat loss,
fragmentation and loss of species diversity will be exacerbated by climate
change and, as far as species are concerned, the rates of global warming will
exceed the migration capacity of many of those affected. Global warming is
expected to increase extinction rates significantly. The interplay between
ecosystems and the species they contain under these changing
circumstances will lead to novel situations and assemblages that will
challenge ecologists and conservationists. Responses at the genetic and
physiological levels within species, populations and individuals require
detailed case studies and long-term monitoring.
Increased fragmentation of populations within ecosystem fragments will
lead to significant losses of genetic diversity within species and will add to the
pressure for in situ genetic conservation of target species while they still retain
their diversity. With the disruption of habitats, an increase in invasive and
102
Conservation actions & Requirements
weedy species and others with high dispersal abilities is likely and this will
impact on native species and natural ecosystems. Not only is it likely that
global change will lead to an increased need for in situ species conservation
but it will also have an effect on the way this is undertaken. It will, for example,
have major impacts on conservation strategies and facilities such as protected
areas, botanic gardens, field genebanks, clonal collections, and seed forests,
and even the survival of some of these will be placed in jeopardy in some
regions. If protected areas are put at risk, then any species conservation
actions being undertaken in them may be adversely affected (Heywood and
Dulloo 2005).
In situ conservation within protected habitats must remain the primary
means by which our wild plant species are conserved. However, ex situ
preservation in botanical gardens, seed banks, home or farm gardens, and
commercial operations plays an essential role in conserving our native
botanical diversity. Ex situ conservation helps to provide the flexibility to
respond to unforeseen environmental changes and consequent impacts on
habitat conservation and utilization of wild plant species. Ex situ collections
are sources of plant material for recovery of threatened or endangered
species, habitat rehabilitation and restoration, crop improvement, new product
development, and a wide variety of research studies. Researchers can obtain
access to rare and endangered species without disturbing or damaging
natural populations. Ex situ conservation of plant species in seed banks is
advantageous in terms of efficiency and economy of long-term storage
(PGRC, 2005).
The in situ conservation of habitats and entire ecosystems is often
considered the best method to conserve species. Consequently ex situ
conservation measures are not as well developed as those undertaken for in
situ conservation. Though there are potential problems with ex situ
conservation in maintaining genetic variation, or achieving success with
reintroductions of species into natural habitats, such measures can usefully
assist in the temporary restoration of ecosystem services, wildlife corridors
and general amenity. The mining industry in some parts of the world notably
in Australia, has developed sophisticated methods for reconstruction of plant
communities on stripmined areas (Roche et al. 1997). Ex situ conservation is
usually used in reference to plant conservation at the taxon level. An
extensive literature is developing on ex situ conservation methods and
techniques. Integrated conservation was proposed by Richardson (1992) as a
term that covered both ex situ and in situ conservation on the basis that both
were part of a spectrum of techniques rather than mutually exclusive
methods.
Ex situ conservation methods samples genetic diversity of species using
certain criteria and store/propagate the collected material outside the natural
environments in which the species grows (Heywood and Iriondo 2003).
Importance of ex situ collections for conservation in situ was realized when
103
Conservation actions & Requirements
collections in botanical gardens and arboreta helped implementation of
population management and recreation (Millar and Libby 1991). At the same
time, limitations of their usefulness became evident. The latter include poor
genetic or demographic management almost inevitably resulting in genetic
erosion, artificial selection and spontaneous hybridization. To prevent/reduce
negative effects of genetic drift, inbreeding depression and mutational
meltdown, that all happen as a result of small (effective) population size of a
collection, sampled individuals must be maintained separately or through
controlled breeding and pedigree design. This introduces other limitations of
ex situ collections, such as space limitations and high cost of maintenance.
The design of protected area systems will require serious rethinking and
more flexibility in size and scale so as to provide a connected network of
patches of different habitat types at various scales to allow species to migrate
and adjust their ranges in response to the various kinds of change. The
planning of in situ species conservation under such circumstances may well
be difficult, if not impossible, in practice. The effects of global change on
agricultural biodiversity and on agricultural patterns will be significant, but in
some regions it will be possible to mitigate the adverse effects by adaptation
much more effectively than in the case of natural ecosystems (Heywood and
Dulloo 2005).
The potential number of candidate species for in situ conservation is
vastly in excess of the resources or finances available for this purpose. The
strategy of protecting enough habitat so as to ensure the presence of viable
populations of all the native species of a region, as has been suggested, is a
laudable aim but seldom possible, and is fraught with difficulties. For most
wild species the best that we can hope for is their presence in some form of
protected area where, provided the area itself is not under threat and subject
to the dynamics of the system and the extent of human pressures, some
degree of protection may be afforded. This approach has been widely
advocated and is known as the ‘hands-off’ or ‘benign neglect’ approach. In the
words of Holden et al. (1993), “…for species which are not under threat of
destruction, the most sensible and effective policy is to leave the material to
conserve itself, in the wild…” It is also known as ‘passive’ conservation
(Maxted et al. 1997a) in that the presence of particular species in the
protected area is coincidental and passive, and not the result of active
conservation. This approach can be contrasted with ‘active’ conservation in
which positive action promotes the sustainability of the target taxa and the
maintenance of the natural, semi-natural or artificial (e.g. agricultural)
ecosystems which contain these taxa. This latter approach implies the need
for associated habitat monitoring.
If examined in detail, such a hands-off strategy is somewhat problematic
and may frequently lead to the loss of those very species or assemblages
whose conservation one wishes to ensure. The most obvious problem is that,
even if not ostensibly under threat, many—if not most—protected areas are
104
Conservation actions & Requirements
not effectively managed: as noted below, protected areas are very diverse as
is their degree of management. A report commissioned by the World
Bank/World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Alliance and carried out by IUCN revealed
that less than one quarter of declared national parks, wildlife refuges, and
other protected areas in ten key forested countries were well managed, and
many had no management at all. This means that only 1% of these areas is
secure from serious threats such as human settlement, agriculture, logging,
hunting, mining, pollution, war, and tourism, among other pressures. A further
report entitled How Effective are Protected Areas? undertaken by WWF
provides a preliminary analysis of the management effectiveness of nearly
200 forest protected areas in 34 countries using a tracking tool developed by
the World Bank and the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WWF
2004).
Without effective management, the populations of target species in
existing protected areas are at risk of change in size and genetic composition
because of the dynamics involved. Moreover, protected areas in some
regions will be put at risk as a result of global change (Malcolm and Markham
2000; IUCN 2003) and as global change intensifies, more areas and many of
the species they house will be placed at risk. The mere presence of target
species in a protected area is therefore no guarantee of its conservation.
Frequently some form of intervention or management of the populations of the
target species is needed to ensure its successful maintenance and continued
evolutionary development. Of course, many species that will be selected as
targets do not occur in areas that are currently protected and the chances of
setting up areas for them, even without proper species-orientated
management, are very limited.
METHODOLOGY:
In this part, we will collect any information about past, ongoing, and
future activities to protect P. boveana in-place or outside-place. Conservation
actions that will take place on land or that needed in the near future will also
recorded. Researches needed according to IUCN Scheme were
recommending (IUCN 2014).
RESULTS:
The entire world distribution of Primula boveana is inside the St.
Katherine Protectorate. Six from the nine subpopulations are already
protected by fenced enclosures, and regular monitoring by SKP rangers takes
place every two years to detect the effect of this protection on population
trends. On average 48 checks are made every year to keep a watch on the
current situation for the plant and its habitat, and to record any detrimental
activities. Undertaken by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP),
105
Conservation actions & Requirements
the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Egyptian Environmental Affairs
Agency (EEAA), the Medicinal Plants Conservation Project (MPCP) tried to
conserve some important species, P. boveana among them, using cultivation
inside greenhouses as well as storing its seeds for future use.
The Medicinal Plants Conservation Project was launched in January
2003 and ended in 2013. It is a national project that aims at examining and
eliminating the root causes to the loss in biodiversity and addressing the
threats to the conservation and sustainable use of medicinal plants in Egypt
through a number of interventions, while at the same time empowering the
Bedouin community to use and manage its resources in a sustainable
manner. It aims at conserving the medicinal plant species within the
ecosystem (in situ) through the development of sustainable management
practices, including the protection of hotspots and individual plants or
populations wherever it is not possible to utilise the resources sustainably. Ex
situ conservation measures will be applied when the threat to a species is
considered severe and warrant such measures (MPCPEgypt, 2010). However
all this activities the project didn’t the point of conserving Primula boveana by
in situ technique because of some technical problems. Studies were initiated
of its ecological, morphological and reproductive ecology, and the threats to
its existence (Omar, 2013b) (Table 12). Much more is needed, however.
Table 12. Primula boveana Conservation Actions In- Place.
Action In Place
Status
Action Recovery Plan.
Yes
Systematic monitoring scheme.
Yes
Conservation sites identified.
Yes
Occur in at least one PA.
Yes
Percentage of population protected by PAs (0-100).
100
Area based regional management plan.
Yes
Invasive species control or prevention.
Not Applicable
Harvest management plan.
No
Successfully reintroduced or introduced benignly.
No
Subject to ex-situ conservation.
Yes
Subject to recent education and awareness programmes.
No
Included in international legislation.
No
Subject to any international management /trade controls.
No
Saint Katherine Protectorate (SKP) has a strong management plan
worked with it from 2003 to date (See Executive Summary).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (SKP Management Plan 2003):
This management plan is designed to ensure the conservation and
sustainable development of the natural and cultural resources of the Saint
Katherine Protectorate and bring local and national benefits to the people of
106
Conservation actions & Requirements
Egypt. The plan aims to protect critical habitats and historical sites including
the area nominated for World Heritage status, for which a management plan
is an international obligation. It is also to assist community programmes and
to establish appropriate management infrastructure.
The plan sets out the basic purpose and management philosophy for the St
Katherine Protectorate. It is intended to provide a frame of reference for
decision making to guide the development and management of the protected
area over the next five years. It lays out the goals and objectives for the
protectorate and general courses of action to achieve them. However, it is not
a detailed or rigid operational plan; it allows for an adaptive approach to its
implementation, which should be achieved through the development of annual
operational plans.
The management plan has been prepared in response to prevailing conditions
and with regard to available resources and staff capacity; it should be
reviewed periodically and revised as required in response to changing internal
or external conditions and as the management process and capacity evolves.
Ideally all physical development and resource management programmes are
located and implemented after the integrated area management plan has
been developed and on the basis of zone prescriptions, formulated policies
and regulations. However, a more pragmatic approach had to be adopted, as
some management interventions were required prior to the development of
this plan. A generic five-year work plan and budget were developed to initiate
the p r o g r a m m e ( Hobbs, 1 9 9 6 ). This i n t e g r a t e d p l a n s h o u l d
p r o j e c t t h e management process over the next five years.
The Ministry of Planning aims at achieving radical development changes for
the whole of the Sinai Peninsula that will completely transform its socioeconomic and physical morphology. If population targets are to be maintained
and without the discovery and exploitation of new water resources of
substantial quantities, water demands will be insupportable so the growth of
St Katherine in the urban and tourism sectors will have to be severely
constrained.
The target increase in population levels is unsustainable for various social and
environmental reasons:
 The non-Bedouin population would increase to 75% of the population
overwhelming the indigenous population and so would fundamentally
alter the area’s unique cultural character.
 At a minimum, an additional 1,000 jobs would need to be generated.
 The demand on groundwater supplies is already excessive and the
requirements of the target population would be double the available
sources.
 The physical characteristics of St Katherine and its importance as a
cultural/historical landscape impose severe limits on the availability of
suitable land for housing development, which will be insufficient for
107
Conservation actions & Requirements
planned needs.
Primary Management Goals
The conservation of the contained mountain ecosystem of Southern Sinai
including all its elements and processes and the conservation of the site’s
traditional cultural and religious values:
1. To facilitate and strengthen the institutional capacity for Protectorate
management and development in partnership with relevant institutions
and local stakeholders.
2. The integration of the St Katherine Protectorate management and
development planning into the network of protected areas forming the
South Sinai Management Sector.
3. The integration of the protectorate into the local development process
and land use management system in order to assist sustainable local
rural development.
Zonation
The zoning system proposed for St Katherine Protectorate is a resourcebased approach by means of which the area is zoned/classified according to
its need for protection, level or intensity of management and capacity to
sustain traditional, public or commercial use. The system provides guidelines
for management actions and helps resolve conflicts, which frequently arise
when attempts are made to conserve and utilise the same resource base.
The internal management zones for St Katherine Protectorate are:
1. Wildlife Sanctuary Zones.
2. Premium Wilderness Zones.
3. Protected Tourism Zones.
4. Archaeological Protection Zones
5. Traditional Use Zones
6. Multiple and Intensive Use Management Zones
An external zone category will be applied to accommodate the Protectorate’s
adjacent area:
7. Buffer Zone.
In addition, the recently declared World Heritage Site in the core area of the
Protectorate will have special management prescriptions.
Staff selection and recruitment
The PAMU administration will recruit sufficient suitable staff for the
management of the St Katherine Protectorate. Present staffing levels
represent a staffing ratio of 16 staff per 1,000km2, which is below the global
mean of 27 staff per 1,000km² for protected areas and well below the average
for Africa of 70 per 1000km².
The PAMU must have sufficient staff to fulfil all planned activities; this will
108
Conservation actions & Requirements
require a minimum target staff level of 85 i.e. 20-staff/1,000km² which is 75%
of the global mean.
Staff career development and training
Seven career ranks are proposed for Protected Area staff within the
NCS/EEAA:
1. Community Guards.
2. Technician/Junior Ranger.
3. Ranger.
4. Senior Ranger.
5. Area Manager.
6. Sector Manager.
7. Regional Manager.
It is vital that a realistic career system with different entry points, qualification
and promotion ceilings for the various grades is introduced. A proposed
schedule for staff promotion, qualifications and entry points is given.
All staff from new recruits to experienced Rangers should benefit from
ongoing training programmes to enhance their job performance and improve
career opportunities and promotion. A proposed integrated PAMU training
programme for all staff from new recruits to senior rangers is outlined.
Implementation of the Management Plan
Management issues and task priorities
Part III summarises the major management priorities to be addressed during
the period of this Management Plan, i.e. over the next five years. These
issues invariably entail a number of usually interrelated tasks that must be
elaborated in detail in the Annual Operating Plan see below.
The highest priority must be given to:
1. A critical review of all development proposals in the St Katherine
Protectorate, particularly those scheduled within the World Heritage
Site, and the implementation of a strategy to ensure that all
development is appropriate and in accordance with World Heritage
Convention conditions, particularly those that control development.
2. Ensuring the early introduction of the variable entrance fee and
revenue retention system to guarantee the sustainable funding of the
Protectorate.
3. The development of a Master Plan for Visitor Management within the
World Heritage Site, with particular importance given to specific tourism
sites such as Mount Sinai.
4. The construction of the PAMU office and accommodation complex.
5. The introduction of the Protectorate zoning plans and associated
programmes after close consultation with local stakeholders.
109
Conservation actions & Requirements
6. Implementing the Public Awareness strategy with particular emphasis
on ensuring the new Visitor Centre is fully operational and is properly
promoted as a visitor destination.
Annual operating plan
Unless their actions are guided by an officially approved overall operating plan
it can happen that PA Managers may take short-term decisions that are
actually at variance with the long-term management objectives of the area set
out in the Management Plan.
The annual operating plan (AOP) will be drawn up in accordance with the
policies and objectives set out in the management plan and will be prepared
to justify the Protectorate’s annual budget request.
Reviewing and monitoring management planning for the Protectorate
This integrated resource management plan for St Katherine Protectorate is
designed to provide general guidelines and specific prescriptions for the
myriad conservation management issues within the context of the
Protectorate’s overall objectives. The i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t he p l a n w i l l
b e considered effective when it can be verifiably shown to have contributed
to:
1. The implementation of a participatory management system that
benefits all partners: Verifiable when all stakeholders can be shown to
be either formally involved through protocols or informal agreements.
2. The conservation of natural areas and their contained biodiversity:
Verifiable through results of monitoring programmes.
3. The management and sustainable use of the Protectorate’s natural
resources: Verified with the endorsement and implementation of the
management plan by stakeholders.
4. The maintenance of the area’s economic potential and the mitigation of
negative impacts resulting from development activities and the
rationalisation of all conflicting uses within and around the Protectorate:
Verified by the implementation of the sustainable urban plan,
moratorium on development and reduction in quarrying.
5. The establishment of the Protectorate as a valued element in the
economic development of Southern Sinai especially in relation to local
communities: Verified by the introduction of entrance fees and other
Protectorate revenue generators and the re-investment of a significant
portion of this income.
6. The conservation of the cultural heritage and the protection of
traditional rights: Verified from reports on historical site protection and
UNESCO national committee reports to World Heritage committee.
7. An improvement in the living conditions of local people: Verifiable from
monitoring data indicating improvements to health (e.g. child nutritional
status) and income generation (e.g. Fansina craft company and ecolodge revenues).
110
Conservation actions & Requirements
Primula boveana inserted as one of the most plants of conservation
interest and recovery plans in SKP Management Plan (2003). Recovery plans
for P. boveana started in 2003.
The overall objective of the recovery plans was:
1. Prepare and implement a long-term (five years) conservation plan for
the species.
2. Ensure a viable population of the species by the end of the
implementation plan.
3. Introduce measures for the sustainable utilisation of the species.
This done by:
1. Mapping locations for occurrence of the species in the Protectorate.
2. Studying the natural regeneration of the species.
3. Quantifying threats and look for ways to combat them.
4. Designing a recovery plan involving all stakeholders.
5. Developing protocols for ex situ conservation of the species.
Public Awareness is one of the main tools for conservation inside SKP,
according to SKP Management Plan (2003):
Guiding principles: Public awareness in protected areas aims to elicit the
support and goodwill of stakeholders as a means of meeting management
and conservation goals. Public support flows from relationships based on
trust, respect and a sense of ownership of the protected area, public
awareness is, therefore, about participation, effective two-way communication
and education between the stakeholders and the agency.
Policy: To raise local, national and international awareness in order to elicit
support for St Katherine Protectorate. The target audiences are Bedouin
communities, tour operators, tourists, local and regional authorities, hotels,
investors and the St Katherine Community at large, particularly
schoolchildren.
Strategy: Administratively the St Katherine Protectorate Management Unit
(PAMU) must:
1. Maintain, expand and continuously update the established public
awareness programmes (newsletter, web page, brochures etc.).
2. Respond promptly to e-mail messages.
3. Fully utilise the new visitor reception and interpretation centre for the St
Katherine Protectorate to expand visitors’ perceptions of the
Protectorate and raise environmental awareness.
In recent years and because the sharp decrease in staff number we find
problem to achieve this goal effectively, In spite of there is educational
awareness to school students about some critical issues theirs an urgent
needs for duplicate this effort and focus on our target species especially within
universities and Scientific Research Centres the main sites that collecting this
species for scientific testing.
111
Conservation actions & Requirements
Conservation Actions For future:
The hierarchical structure for the Conservation Actions Needed as
show on Table 13. Assessors are asked to use this Classification Scheme to
indicate the conservation actions or measures that are needed for the plant or
animal concerned. In suggesting what actions are needed, assessors are
asked to be realistic and not simply select everything. The selection should be
for those actions that are most urgent, significant and important; and that they
could realistically be achieved within the next five years. The actions needed
should also be informed by the conservation actions already in place (Table
13).
As we mention before P. boveana is located inside protected area and
its protected by protectorate laws and regulations. Because of the weak
financial support, low staff numbers, large protected area, and weak of
environmental awareness week law enforcement by time is a result and to
solve this its urgent needs for new qualified staff, maintenance the
deteriorated habitat (Kahf Elghola) and preventing any collecting from the
species even for Scientific Research by using hands off strategy for some
years at least 2 years and keep monitoring the response, managing water use
around species hot areas throw making Hilf with the target stakeholders
(Local community) (Table 13).
The species is not commercially or traditionally used in Sinai, but it has
been collected for pharmacological testing by various scientific research
centers. Moreover, because of very small population size the limiting
population growth is unacceptable.
Species recovery is highly recommended through rehabilitation,
restoration, reintroduction, and benign introduction in areas that have similar
environmental conditions. Its found that P. boveana is restricted to cliffs
supported by melt water all the time, suitable habitat for optimum growth,
including climatic, edaphic, topographic, and preferable microhabitat should
be followed when in-situ conservation by rehabilitation or restoration takes
place as listed in this study. It found that places like Elmesirdi, Shaq Itlah, Abu
Tweita, Abu Hamman, Wadi Eltebq, and Wadi Eltalaa are the best places for
this process.
There is an urgent need to conserve the species outside its habitat (Ex
situ) though seed collection, artificial propagation from seeds, botanical
garden, seed storage, tissue culture, Cultivation, seed bank, freezing cuts
from the plant, or stocking the seeds, Tissue bank, Cryobank, Pollen bank,
and Field gene bank by planting plants for the conservation of genes. For this
purpose we construct ecosystem artificially. Through this method one can
compare the difference among plants of different species and can study it in
detail. It needs more land, adequate soil, weather, etc. (Table 13).
It was revealed from Omar and Elgamal (2004) that propagation from
seed is a viable method for the ex-situ conservation of P. boveana, although
this species has stringent requirements for germination (i.e. growth promoters
112
Conservation actions & Requirements
that may only be provided by specialist research or propagation facilities).
However, seed storage and germination are only the first steps in the
reinforcement of populations of these species: studies to attain baseline data
on ex-situ plant development and establishment in the field following
transplantation are now required. Seeds of this species are scarce, and
should extensive population reinforcement be necessary, a subsequent phase
of multiplication using rosette division or meristem culture could be performed.
There are urgent needs to work fast in two directions to keep this
species save; 1) Ex-situ conservation through a seed bank, genome resource
bank, and artificial propagation, 2) In-situ conservation through rehabilitation
and restoration, and fenced enclosures. It’s important to carry out a wide
range of educational and awareness activities in universities, and scientific
research centers about the sensitivity of this important threatened species.
According to SKP Management Plan (2003) Protectorate legislation can be
summarize as follow:
PROTECTORATE LEGISLATION:
1. Law 102/1983
The main Protectorate legislative instrument, Law 102 sets out the principles
for the declaration of natural protectorates and stipulates development
restrictions and activities within and adjacent to the protectorate.
The Law obliges the EEAA, as the concerned administrative body, to:
 Forbid actions leading to the destruction or deterioration of the natural
environment and biota or which would detract from the aesthetic
standards of the protectorate.
 Regulate scientific research.
 Develop management programmes for declared Protected Areas.
 Increase Public Awareness.
 Regulate r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s i n p r o t e c t o r a t e s t o
p r o t e c t n a t u r a l resources.
 Establish control systems to enforce regulatory measures.
Article 3 of Law 102 states, ‘It is forbidden to undertake activities or
experiments in the areas surrounding designated protectorates, which will
have an effect on the protectorate’s environment and nature, except with the
permission of the concerned administrative body.’
In addition, the Law established the Natural Protectorates Fund specifically to
finance the management of protected areas; this fund includes all revenue
from donations, grants, sales, entrance fees, fines and subsidies. According
to Article 6 the Fund can be used for:
1. Supplementing the budget of the EEAA.
2. Enhancement of protectorates.
113
Conservation actions & Requirements
3. Undertaking surveys and field research.
4. Rewarding p e r s o n s w h o p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n o n o f f e n c e s
o r w h o apprehend offenders.
2. Ministerial Decree 1067/1983
Designates the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency as the authorised
body to apply Law 102.
3. Prime Ministerial Decree 264/1994.
Sets out conditions, rules and procedures for definition and regulation of
activities in natural reserve areas and provides the Nature Protectorates
Department of EEAA with executive administrative authority over natural
protectorates. It has six articles and various conditions and rules and
expressly forbids construction or development of any type without the
permission of the EEAA.
4. Law 4/1994
Establishes principles and procedures to address all environmental issues in
the ARE. This comprehensive law includes measures to address terrestrial,
air and water pollution. Law 4 notes that the EEAA has the power to
administer and supervise the natural protectorates.
5. Prime Ministerial Decree 613/1986.
The decree declares St Katherine a Protected Area; the Decree is based on
Law 102 from which all relevant regulatory articles are derived and contains a
map defining the Protectorate’s boundaries.
6. Law 2/1973
Authorises the Ministry of Tourism as the administrative body for the
supervision and exploitation of tourism areas.
7. Law 117/1983
Provides for the protection of antiquities and historical sites.
8. Ministerial Decree 66/1983
Bans the hunting of bustards and all birds of prey.
9. Presidential Decree 374/1991.
Establishes the General Authority for Tourism Development (TDA) to be
responsible for allocation and sale of land in designated tourism areas. The
local Governorate approves development within recognised boundaries of
urban areas.
10. Ministerial Decree 1611/1989 (Ministry of Justice)
Granted “police powers” to the manager of the EEAA Governorate branch in
which there is a protected area and to the manager of the protected area.
11. Ministerial Decree 1353/1996
Vests certain employees of the EEAA, including Managers of Natural
Protectorates with the capacity of “Judiciary Seizure Officers” relative to
infringements of the Environmental Code enacted by Law 4/1994 and its
Bylaws, relative to their competence.
114
Conservation actions & Requirements
B. Wildlife regulations
1. Law 53/1966 (Ministry of Agriculture)
Defines wild fauna protection regulations.
2. Decrees (Ministry of Agriculture) 28/1967, 5/1983, 1227/1998 and
90/1990.
Lists the protected species in Egypt (12 mammals, 13 reptiles and more than
100 birds).
3. Governorate decree 16/1980 (South Sinai Governorate)
Enforces the law forbidding hunting of all animals in the area between Ras
Mohammed and Gebel Katherina. Punishment for offenders includes
imprisonment for between six months and two years.
4. Law 4/1994
Prohibits the hunting, possession, transport and sale of those species of wild
fauna (alive or dead) determined by Executive Statutes of the same law.
5. Presidential Decrees: Yearly directives (first issued in 1988) for banning of
hunting activities in Egypt to allow populations to recover.
International Obligations
Egypt has ratified or signed a number of conservation related international
conventions including the Bonn Convention, Ramsar Convention, CITES,
Biodiversity Convention and the African Convention on Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources. Of particular relevance to the management of
the St Katherine Protectorate is the Convention concerning the Protection of
the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, which are signed in 1983. Four
cultural sites in Egypt are already listed. To qualify for listing the site must
satisfy “conditions of integrity” that include national legal protection and
adequate management. In other words, a management plan for a natural area
is an essential requirement for listing as a World Heritage Site.
Although of all these laws and regulations, the species is still in
extreme danger and one of the most important threats that may lead to
extinction is collecting. Theirs urgent needs to held specific Critically
Endangered species conservation convention, Influencing legislations
appropriations, harsher punishment for endangered plant species assembly
without clear permission from the main authorities (Table 13).
Table 13. Important Conservation Actions Needed for P. boveana conservation.
Action Needed
1 Land/water protection
1.1 Site/area protection
1.2 Resource & habitat protection
2 Land/water management
2.1 Site/area management
Status
Done
Need active enforcement
2.2 Invasive/problematic species control
2.3 Habitat & natural process restoration
115
Maintenance of habitat, maintenance of
enclosures, area hands off, training staff
Not applicable
Habitat restoration, water rights, to reduce
of stop species collecting.
Conservation actions & Requirements
3 Species management
3.1 Species management
3.1.1 Harvest management
3.1.2 Trade management
3.1.3 Limiting population growth
3.2 Species recovery
3.3 Species re-introduction
3.3.1 Reintroduction
3.3.2 Benign introduction
3.4 Ex-situ conservation
3.4.1 Captive breeding/artificial
propagation
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Highly needed
Highly needed
Highly needed
Highly needed
Seed collection, artificial propagation from
seeds, botanical garden, seed storage,
tissue culture, Cultivation
Seed bank, freezing cuts from the plant,
or stocking the seeds, Tissue bank,
Cryobank, Pollen bank, Field gene bank
3.4.2 Genome resource bank
4 Education & awareness
4.1 Formal education
Universities, Scientific Research Centers,
School student
Enhance knowledge about conservation
importance to species for staff and
stakeholders.
Media, web blogs, journal articles
4.2 Training
4.3 Awareness & communications
5 Law & policy
5.1 Legislation
5.1.1 International level
Critically endangered sepsis conservation
convention
Influencing legislations appropriations
Harsher punishment for endangered plant
species assembly without clear
permission from the main authorities
5.1.2 National level
5.1.3 Sub-national level
It’s recommended to start work on the items presented in Table 14.
Although of achieving the purpose of this study by inserting P. boveana in its
level as Critically Endangered species according to the available data about
population, habitat, geographical range and threats there are more topics to
be discover and work on it in the near future like population reduction,
functions, generation length, probability to be extinct, and percentage of
decline in the future should be traced and presented clearly for future
monitoring.
Table 14. Research needed for P. boveana conservation.
IUCN Code
Research
1 .2 .
Research
.1 .
2
2 .2 .
3 .1 .
.4 .
3
Conservation Planning
Conservation Planning
Monitoring
Monitoring
Needed
Population size, distribution & trends,
genetics
Species Action/Recovery Plan Area-based Management Plan Population trends
Habitat trends
116
Conservation actions & Requirements
REFERENCES:
Balmford, A. 2002. Selecting sites for conservation. In: Norris, K. and Pain, D.
(eds.), Conserving Bird Biodiversity: General principles and their
application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 74–104.
Bretting, P.K. and Duvick, D.N. 1997. Dynamic conservation of plant genetic
resources. Advances in Agronomy 61:1-51.
FAO. 2002a. Progress Report on the Development of a Network of In Situ
Conservation Areas. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture. CGRFA-9/02/13/Add.1. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Freese, C.H. 1997. The “use it or lose it” debate. In: Freese, C.H. (ed.),
Harvesting Wild Species: Implications for biodiversity conservation.
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA. pp. 1–48.
Hannah, L., Midgley, G.F. and Millar, D. 2002. Climate change–integrated
conservation strategies. Global Ecology and Biogeography 11(6):485–
495.
Heywood VH, Dulloo ME. 2005. In situ conservation of wild plant species: a
critical global review of best practices. IPGRI Technical Bulletin 11.
IPGRI, Rome, Italy.
Heywood VH, Iriondo JM (2003) Plant conservation: old problems, new
perspectives. Biological Conservation 113: 321–335.
Heywood, V.H. 1999a. Use and Potential of Wild Plants in Farm Households.
FAO Farm Systems Management Series 15. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Hobbs, J. (1996), Bedouin support programme – inception mission report: St
Katherine’s Protectorate. SEM/04/220/016A. Euronet. Egyptian
Environmental Affairs Agency.
Hodgkin, T. 1997. Managing the populations: some general considerations.
In: Valdés, B., Heywood, V.H., Raimondo, F.M. and Zohary, D. (eds.),
Conservation of the Wild Relatives of European Cultivated Plants.
Bocconea 7:197–205.
Holden, J., Peacock, J. and Williams, T. 1993. Genes, Crops and the
Environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Hutton, J.M. and Leader-Williams, N. 2003. Sustainable use and incentivedriven conservation: realigning human and conservation interests. Oryx
37(2):215– 226.
IPCC. 2002. Climate Change and Biodiversity. IPCC Technical Paper V.
IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
IUCN 2012. "IUCN Red List version 2012.2: Table 2: Changes in numbers of
species in the threatened categories (CR, EN, VU) from 1996 to 2012
(IUCN Red List version 2012.2) for the major taxonomic groups on the
Red List" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-12-31.
IUCN. 2003. A Guide to Securing Protected Areas in the Face of Global
Change: Options and guidelines. Draft Report by the Ecosystems,
117
Conservation actions & Requirements
Protected Areas, and People Project. IUCN World Commission on
Protected Areas, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN. 2014. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria.
Version 11. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee.
Downloadable
from
http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf.
Lleras, E. 1991. Conservation of genetic resources in situ. Diversity 7:72–74.
Malcolm, J . R . And M a r k h a m , A . 2000. Global W a r m i n g a n d
Terrestrial
Biodiversity Decline. Report prepared for WWF. WWF, Gland,
Switzerland.
Maxted, N., Ford-Lloyd, B.V. and Hawkes, J.G. (eds.) 1997a. Plant Genetic
Conservation: The in situ approach. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.
Millar CI, Libby WJ 1991. Strategies for conserving clinal, ecotypic, and
disjunct population diversity in widespread species. Pp. 149–170 In:
Falk DA, Holsinger KE (Eds) Genetics and conservation of rare plants.
Oxford University Press, New York.
MPCPEgypt, 2010. The Medicinal Plants Conservation Project website,
http://www.mpcpegypt.org/English/Global/Page.aspx?PageID=1
Omar, K. 2013b. Primula boveana conservation (assessment of the current
conservation status of Primula boveana in St Katherine Protectorate,
South Sinai, Egypt). Rufford Small Grants Foundation.
Omar, K. and Elgamal, I. 2014. Reproductive and germination ecology of
Sinai primrose, Primula boveana Decne. ex Duby. Journal of Global
Biosciences. Vol. 3(3); 695-708.
Palmberg-Lerche, C. 2002. Thoughts on genetic conservation in forestry.
Unasylva 53(209) [online].
PGRC, 2005. Ex Situ Conservation of Wild Plant Species at Plant Gene
Resources
of
Canada
4pp.
available
online:
pgrc3.agr.gc.ca/wildplant.pdf
Richardson, M.M. 1992. Plant Conservation and Networking in the SW Pacific
and SE Asia. In: Proceedings of The Strategy of Indonesian Flora
Conservation. Bogor.
Ricklefs, R.E., Naveh, Z. and Turner, R.E. 1984. Conservation of Ecological
Processes.vIUCN Commission on Ecology Paper 8. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland.
Roche, S., Koch, J.M. & Dixon, K.W. 1997. Smoke enhanced germination for
mine rehabilitation in the southwest of Western Australia. Restoration
Ecology 5(3):191–203.
Schellnhuber, H.J. 2002. Coping with earth system complexity and
irregularity. In: Steffen, W., Jäger, J., Carson, D.J. and Bradshaw, C.
(eds.), Challenges of a Changing Earth. Proceedings of the Global
Change Open Science Conference, Amsterdam, 10–13 July 2001.
Springer, Heidelberg, Germany. pp. 151–156.
118
Conservation actions & Requirements
SKP Management Plan 2003. The management and development plan for
Saint Katherine Protectorate, Full reference edition, 148 pp.
Steffen, W., Turner, B.L., II, Wasson, R.J., Sanderson, A., Tyson, P., Jäger,
J., Matson, P., Moore, B., III, Oldfield, F., Richardson, K. and
Schellnhuber, H.J. 2004. Global Change and the Earth System: A
planet under pressure. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sutherland, W.J. 2001. The Conservation Handbook: Research management
and policy. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.
Wilcox, B.A. 1990. Requirements for the establishment of a global network of
in situ conservation areas for plants and animals. FAO, Rome, Italy
(unpublished).
Wilcox, B.A. 1995. Tropical forest resources and biodiversity: the risks of
forest loss and degradation. Unasylva 46(181) [online]
WWF. 2004. How Effective are Protected Areas? Preliminary analysis of
forest protected areas by WWF—the largest ever global assessment of
protected area management effectiveness. Report prepared for the
Seventh Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, February 2004. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
119
General Discussion
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Being a part of mountain ecosystem mean that you are in extreme
challenge and variable conditions. The Saint Katherine Protectorate (SKP) is
one of Egypt’s largest protected areas and includes the country’s highest
mountains. This arid, mountainous ecosystem supports a surprising
biodiversity and a high proportion of plant endemics and rare. Mountain lands
provide a scattered but diverse array of habitats in which a large range
of plants and animals can be found. At higher altitudes harsh environmental
conditions generally prevail, and a treeless alpine vegetation, upon which the
present account is focused, is supported. Lower slopes commonly are
covered by montane forests. At even lower levels mountain lands grade into
other types of landform and vegetation desert (Jeremy, 2014)
Mountain ranges are separated from other mountains by "seas” of
desert, across which plant and animal migration is difficult due to the dramatic
differences in environment between the high elevations and the basins below.
Each mountain range behaves much like an island, where species are
trapped. They adapt and change within the very specific parameters of that
one location. Populations of mountain species are commonly both small—
although fluctuating—and isolated and often have evolved over a relatively
short period of time. It is therefore not unusual to encounter related but
distinct species on separate mountain peaks. This recent and rapid production
of new species contributes significantly to the biodiversity and biological
importance of mountain lands (Jeremy, 2014).
The flora of the mountains differs from the other areas, due to its unique
geology, morphology and climate aspects. It is currently recognized as one of
the central regions for flora diversity in the Middle East by the IUCN the World
Conservation Union and Worldwide Fund f o r N a t u r e ( IUCN, 1 9 9 4 )
Mountain environments have different climates from the surrounding
lowlands, and hence the vegetation differs as well. The differences in climate
result from two principal causes: altitude and relief. Altitude affects climate
because atmospheric temperature drops with increasing altitude by about 0.5
to 0.6 °C (0.9 to 1.1 °F) per 100 metres (328 feet). The relief of mountains
affects climate because they stand in the p a t h o f w i n d s y s t e m s a n d
force air to rise over them. As the air rises it cools, leading to higher
precipitation on windward mountain slopes (orographic precipitation); as it
descends leeward slopes it becomes warmer and relative humidity falls,
reducing the likelihood of precipitation and creating areas of drier climate (rain
shadows) (Jeremy, 2014).
While these general principles apply to all mountains, particular mountain
climates vary. For instance, mountains in desert regions receive little rain
because the air is almost always too dry to permit precipitation under any
conditions. Latitude also can affect mountain climates. Microclimate variations
120
General Discussion
are also important in mountain regions, with different aspects of steep slopes
exhibiting contrasting conditions due to variations in precipitation and solar
energy receipt. In temperate regions mountain slopes facing the Equator—
southward in the Northern Hemisphere and northward in the Southern
Hemisphere—are significantly warmer than opposite slopes. This can directly
and indirectly influence the vegetation; the length of time snow remains on the
ground into spring affects when vegetation will emerge, and this in turn affects
the land’s utility for grazing (Jeremy, 2014).
Mountain soils are usually shallow at higher altitudes, partly because the
soil has been scraped off by the ice caps that formed on most high mountains
throughout the world during the last glacial interval that ended about 10,000
years ago. Soils are generally poor in nutrients important to plants, especially
nitrogen. Rapid erosion of loose materials is also common and is exacerbated
by frost heaving, steep slopes, and, in temperate regions, substantial runoff of
meltwater in spring. Soil is virtually absent on rocky peaks and ridges.
Considering the wide geographic extent of mountains and their resultant
geologic and climatic variability, it is remarkable that they exhibit such a clear
overall pattern in vegetation (Jeremy, 2014).
Plants face severe challenges in arid environments. Problems they need
to solve include how to obtain enough water, how to avoid being eaten and
how to reproduce. The expression 'available water' refers to water in the soil
in excess to the wilting point. The air over a hot desert may actually contain
substantial amounts of water vapor but that water may not be generally
accessible to plants, except for very specialized organisms. 'Lack of water'
refers to use by plants. The water that is actually present in the environment
may be sufficient for some species or usages (such as climax vegetation),
and grossly insufficient for others. Aridity, the characteristic nature of an arid
climate, may thus depend on the use of the land. Regards to the presence of
life, what is more important than the degree of rainfall is the fraction
of precipitation that is not quickly lost through evaporation or runoff. It can also
be characterized by having more evapotranspiration than precipitation.
Attempts to quantitatively describe the degree of aridity of a place has often
led to the development of aridity indexes. There is no universal agreement on
the precise boundaries between classes such as 'hyper-arid', 'arid', 'semi-arid',
etc.
The clearest characteristics of the desert vegetation are scarcity of plant
growth and near lack of trees; many plant species have become endangered
due to increasing aridity and human activities. The continuous overgrazing,
overcutting and uprooting are leading to the disappearance of the pastoral
plant communities, a reduction of plant cover and soil erosion (Hatab, 2003).
The high mountains of southern Sinai support mainly Irano-Turanian (west
and central Asiatic region) steppe vegetation. Smooth faced rock outcrops
supply sufficient runoff water to permit the survival of the unique flora (Hatab,
2009 and Omar, 2013).
121
General Discussion
From this study, we found that P. boveana is in extreme danger and by
time, it will tend to be in extinct cycle. The sharp decline in population size,
number of total individuals, number of mature individuals, and habitat may
came from the changing in the world climate, which increase the effect of the
main threat to this species (drought). Many explanations found that global
warming represents perhaps the most pervasive of the various threats to the
planet’s biodiversity, given its potential to affect even areas far from human
habitation. Despite this and recent reports outlining the extensive biological
changes that are ongoing because of the warming (Parmesan and Yohe
2003), few efforts have been made to assess the potential effects of
greenhouse warming on terrestrial biodiversity at a global scale (Noss, 2001).
There is no doubt that this improvement or deterioration in the vegetation
parameters may be also due to difference in climatic variables, particularly the
annual rainfall. In the regions characterized by topographic and physiographic
heterogeneity, like the mountainous region in Saint Katharine, the variation in
microclimate plays the major role in governing the natural vegetation
(Moustafa et al. 2001). A recent exception is (Thomas et al. 2004), who used
a climate-envelope modeling approach to look at the potential future
distributions of 1103 species in six regions. Their work suggests that
restricted-range endemic species may be especially vulnerable, which notable
is given recent efforts to prioritize conservation at the global scale by
identifying biodiversity hotspots that are of particular value based on their high
species richness and endemism (Mayers et al. 2000). Extensive impacts due
to global warming within these high-value ecosystems would constitute a key
threat to the planet’s biodiversity. Indeed, threats to these ecosystems would
presumably constitute the unnatural adaptation of ecosystems that is to be
avoided under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(Article 2).
A characteristic of the steep, open, and rocky habitats where endemic
species occur is the stability of such habitats; both in relation to vegetation
succession and human activities. In such habitats, environmental constraints
on vegetation establishment may limit aboveground competition (due to
reduced cover of dominant species) and halt the successional development of
a tree cover. Their inaccessibility and unsuitability for cultivation may have
allowed such habitats to serve as a refuge for endemic taxa during periods of
intense human induced landscape modification (Lavergne et al., 2005).
Polunin (1980) pointed out that due to the reduced impact of disturbance by
humans and grazing animals, and reduced competition, the vegetation of
Mediterranean gorges and cliffs is often rich in endemic species. It is thus
probable that the persistence of endemics may have been favoured by their
capacity to grow in rocky habitats with fewer competitive interactions, which
may have fundamental effects on diversity and the persistence of endemic
plants. Habitat stability may be crucial for the persistence of endemic species.
122
General Discussion
Narrow endemism is a key ingredient of plant biodiversity in the
Mediterranean flora, and also the other Mediterranean-climate regions where
ecological specialization in nutrient poor conditions has been a primary
determining factor (Cowling et al. 1996). A review of the literature illustrates
that ecological differentiation may contribute to the evolution of narrow
endemic species in a range of different plant groups (Thompson, 2005).
It's recognized that, many rare and/or endemic species like P. boveana
have one or more of the following characteristics: (1) They have a narrow (or
single) geographical range, (2) they have only one or a few populations
remaining, (3) they show small population size and little genetic variability, (4)
they are usually over-exploited (overhunted and over-harvested) by people,
(5) they exhibit declining population sizes, (6) they have low reproductive
ability, (7) they show specialized niche demands, (8) they grow in stable and
nearly constant environments. All of these attributes, either alone or in
combination, make a species prone to extinction at an increased rate. When
habitats of a rare and/or endemic species are damaged and/or fragmented by
mismanagement and various other human activities, the distribution ranges,
population sizes, and genetic variability of the species will be reduced and its
members will become vulnerable to extinction at a faster rate than other
species. Species with any one or more of the above attributes must be
carefully monitored and managed in an effort to maintain biodiversity (Kani,
2011).
Consequently, it is necessary to carry out regular monitoring to keep
updated on the population size, distribution & its trends. Researches and
workshops must establish rabidly to start in Species Action/Recovery Plan.
This dramatic demographic decline observed in P. boveana is likely caused
by environmental changes in the past few decades. Habitat deterioration as a
consequence of global warming trends is a general threat for the survival not
only of P. boveana, but also of other species endemic to the Sinai Mountains
(Hoyle and James 2005, Jime´nez et al. 2014). Both temperatures and
aridification are expected to increase in the Mediterranean region in the next
decades (Alpert et al. 2008, Giorgi and Lionello 2008, Issar, 2008) and
predictive models forecast a high extirpation risk for species in the mountains,
especially in arid areas (McCain and Colwell 2011). Less precipitation
throughout the year would unavoidably reduce the volume of the water flows
to which P. boveana is intimately linked, therefore reducing the number and
size of habitat patches suitable for this species (Jime´nez et al. 2014).
Furthermore, rising human demands on the environment would aggravate the
problem of water availability. Besides the direct effect of low water availability
on plant survival, an increase in temperatures could definitely affect the
flowering phenology of the species and further disrupt the already irregular
pollination services (Root et al. 2003, Jime´nez et al. 2014).
One of the natural strategies that may buffer P. boveana against the risk
of extinction is the build-up of seed banks (Moustafa et al. 2001, Zaghloul,
123
General Discussion
2008, Jime´nez et al. 2014), a strategy previously reported for other primroses
(Milberg, 1994, Shimono et al. 2006). Seed banks in arid habitats allow seeds
to stay dormant in dry years and germinate when conditions are more
favorable to growth and reproduction (Jime´nez et al. 2014). In addition, seed
banks can also act as reservoirs of genetic variation, thus delaying the loss of
genetic variation and maintaining the evolutionary potential of populations
(Zaghloul, 2008, Jime´nez et al. 2014). Therefore, as long as dry periods are
interspersed with moister intervals, seed banks could buffer the genetic and
demographic erosion of P. boveana. However, as explained above, both
temperatures and aridification are expected to increase in the Sinai mountains
in the very near future. These measures, mainly focused on habitat
preservation, should include a careful management of water resources in the
region, restoration of the habitats potentially suitable for P. boveana and, if
necessary, occasional artificial irrigation of the populations. In addition, the
fenced subpopulations protect the plants from threats of lesser concern
currently affecting P. boveana, such as sporadic collections for medicinal uses
(Gonza´lez-Tejero, 2008) and grazing (H. Mansour, personal observation),
however Kahf Elghola enclosure needs for rapid maintenance. This location
showed fast deterioration in the last 5 years resulted from drought and
unmanaged collecting for scientific research, its urgent need for closing this
site for any visits for at least two years and keep monitoring on the population
trend. Elgabal Elahmar subpopulation located inside a fenced enclosure that
condensed by plants, this makes this place is like a closed room and will lead
to negative impact on species reproduction by time. Number of individuals in
this subpopulation is 8 from 2006 to date this number is constant; I think it will
be useful if we cut some parts from unranked plant species that surround
Primula like Juncus rigidus to increase the size for reproductive success and
will decrease the pressure.
Many monitoring programmes intend to determine the response of a
plant population to a particular management activity, but in reality few
monitoring programmes conclusively identify the cause of the response
(Nogue´s-Bravo, 2007). As well as monitoring the biological status of a target
taxon and its habitat, it is equally important to monitor the status of actual or
potential threats, which may be biotic, abiotic or social in nature. This
perspective is critical to be able to adjust management interventions to
minimize or prevent threat impacts. In this study, we recorded variation in
response of some endemic species to in situ conservation (enclosures); and
to understand the mechanism of this process we should have enough data
about species population dynamics, and about the surrounding environment.
In general, the protection of target species against threats especially
human activities in Saint Katharine Protectorate when comparing inside by
outside resulted in improving the vegetation in terms of its total density, total
cover and species richness. While for 10 years protection the situation
changes. It was observed that Primula boveana showed positive response to
124
General Discussion
10 years of protection. Primula boveana is restricted species to montane
wadis fed by melted snow and distributed in moist ground near wells and
sheltered mountain areas. About 67% of this species populations are found
inside enclosures; the highly importance of this species, it’s one of the rarest
species all over the world and threated by drought, over collecting and unmanaged scientific research. By these threats, this species may be extinct
from the wild in the near future and this is the main reason that makes it in the
top of our priority for in situ conservation. It was found that such species need
to be more protected for long time to regenerate safely (to be ready when
suitable conditions become available).
The stability of the habitats of endemic species may have not only
favoured their persistence but may also have contributed to trait evolution in
endemic plants. The study by Lavergne et al. (2004) has also shown that
endemic species have lower maternal fertility than their widespread
congeners and floral traits associated with inbreeding. They also have fewer
populations at the regional level than their widespread congeners. Decreased
reproductive effort may be associated with greater longevity. The combination
of differences in ecology and fertility suggests marked differences in the
population ecology of endemic and widespread species. Populations of
endemic species may rely on local persistence (low population turnover),
while more widespread species may have populations that are more closely
connected to one another by virtue of higher rates of colonisation and
extinction. Although there is some evidence that narrow endemics have a
more specialised ecology, confirmation of the generality of this issue will
require detailed and comparative field studies across the range of the
distribution of endemic and widespread congeners, accompanied
by
transplant experiments to assess the potential roles of dispersal limitation and
habitat specificity for the distribution of endemic species.
The preservation of genetic diversity is important, because it provides
long-term evolutionary potential for changing environmental conditions. There
is no clear-cut answer to the question, when losses of diversity become
critical. At some point losses will affect local communities, and, at a higher
level, they will affect global stability. Conservation of globally endangered
plant resources is a critical ecological, cultural and economic issue.
Considerable and growing attention has been given in the recent years to
issues surrounding the in situ conservation, and ecologically and economically
– based sustainable use of populations of wild rare plants. Most conservation
focus has been given to individual internationally and regionally economically
significant over-exploited endangered medicinal plant species.
When
choosing species for ex situ conservation, priority should be given to
endangered species of global rarity, morphologically and genetically isolated
species, monospecific genera, and relict populations (Anonymous, 1995). It’s
clearly known that P. boveana facing many threats from drought,
overcollicting and climate change that may lead to its extinction in the near
125
General Discussion
future. It was observed that P. boveana number of individuals specially adult
ones is too small that may reach to be listed it as endangered species and
this need a high level of proficient care in dealing with this situation in the near
future.
The results obtained by Omar and Elgamal (2014) suggest that
germination behavior could differ between sites. A warmer and drier climate
may contribute to reducing species fitness and increasing the risk of local
extinction in the long term. Its recommended that conservation units are not
kept too small because this will cause continuous loss of genetic diversity by
the effects of genetic drift and increased inbreeding. Considering this, the
area has to be large enough for maintaining the genetic integrity of the original
population and for generating enough seed production (Baskin and Baskin
1979). Any of the factors that prevent potentially fertile individuals from
meeting will reproductively isolate the members of distinct species. The types
of barriers that can cause this isolation include: different habitats, physical
barriers, and a difference in the time of sexual maturity or flowering (Wu et al.
1995, Wiens, 2004). When factors change, especially physical barriers, often,
species will branch off.
Since human activities have a strong effect on biodiversity, a
population/community level approach is considered to be the level that can
help in exploring the responses of the whole ecological system to various
kinds of disturbance. The Saint Katherine area is an arid to extremely arid
region, is characterized by an ecological uniqueness due to its diversity in
landforms a variety of landform types: terraces, gorges, slopes, ridges, wadis
and plains. It was observed from this study that enclosures distributed in all
landform. These landform type and other elements such as elevation, soil
physical characteristics (including soil texture and nature of surface), slope,
aspect and topography all play an important role in determining the
distribution of plant communities as agreed with (Ayyad, and Ammar 1974,
Danin, 1983). Ecologists concerned with the size of geographic range of
species pointed out that, in certain cases, the range decreases with
decreasing elevation (Brown et al. 1996). Soil moisture availability, which is a
function of altitude variation, slope degree, nature of soil surface and soil
texture, is the most limiting factor in the distribution of plant communities in
South Sinai that agrees with (Moustafa, and Zaghloul 1996, Moustafa, and
Zayed 1996).
The results of evaluation of monitoring data will help to pinpoint where,
and how, a plan should be remodeled. Restructuring or redesign of plan
elements based on the results of this study, will contribute to adaptive
management, i.e. management which is responsive to changing conditions
and project objectives. The plan should set out the time intervals (mid-term,
terminal) between evaluations and should state who (individual, organization,
or agency) will carry out evaluations and who will be the recipients of reports.
For the evaluation to have some practical effect in improving conservation
126
General Discussion
management, there should be specific mechanisms for feeding the results of
evaluation back into the management process, and assigned responsibilities
for follow-up. As with monitoring, evaluation should be an ongoing part of
biodiversity conservation management, rather than a project-based activity.
REFERENCE:
Alpert P., Krichak, S.O., Shafir, H., Haim, D., and Osetinsky, I. 2008. Climatic
trends to extremes employing regional modeling and statistical
interpretation over the E. Mediterranean. Global Planet Change 63:163–
170.
Anonymous, 1995. A handbook for botanic gardens on the reintroduction of
plants to the wild. Botanic Gardens Conservation International, 31 pp.
Ayyad, M.A. and Ammar, M.Y. 1974. Vegetation and environment of the
Western Mediterranean Coastal Land of Egypt. II. The habitat of inland
ridges. J. Ecol., 62. 439-456.
Baskin, J.M., and Baskin, C.C. 1979. The ecological lifecycle of the cedar
glade endemic Lobelia gattingeri. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical
Club 106: 176–181.
Brown, J.H., Stevens, C., and Kaufman, D.M. 1996. The geographic range:
Size, shape, boundaries, and internal structure, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.
27, 597–623.
Cowling, R.M., Rundel, P.W., Lamont, B.B., Arroyo, M.K. & Arianoutsou, M.
1996. Plant diversity in Mediterranean- climate regions. Trends Ecol.
Evol. 11: 362–366.
Danin, A. Desert Vegetation of Israel and Sinai, Cana Pub. House, Jerusalem,
Israel.148.
Giorgi F. and Lionello, P. 2008. Climate change projections for the
Mediterranean region. Global Planet Change 63:90–104.
Gonza´lez-Tejero M.R., Casares-Porcel, M., Sa´nchez-Rojas, C.P., RamiroGutie´rrez, J.M., Molero-Mesa, J., Pieroni, A., Giusti, M.E., Censorii, E.,
de Pascale, C., Della, A., Paraskeva-Hadijchambi, D., Hadjichambis, A.,
Houmani, Z., El-Demerdash, M., El-Zayat, M., Hmamouchi M., and
ElJohring, S. 2008. Medicinal plants in the Mediterranean area: synthesis
of the results of the project Rubia. J Ethnopharmacol 116:341–357.
Hatab, E.E. 2003. Establishing and Monitoring the Dynamic Population Of
Acacia in Saint Katharine Protectorate, South Sinai, Egypt. M.Sc. Thesis,
Botany Dep., Facu. Of Sci. Al-Azhar Univ., Egypt.205 pp.
Hatab, E.E. 2009. Ecological studies on the Acacia Species and Ecosystem
Restoration in the Saint Katherine Protectorate, South Sinai, Egypt.
Ph.D., Thesis, Fac. Sci., Al-Azhar Univ 227pp.
Hoyle M. and James, M. 2005. Global warming, human population pressure,
and viability of the world’s smallest butterfly. Conserv Biol 19:1113–1124.
127
General Discussion
Issar A.S., 2008. The impact of global warming on the water resources of the
Middle East: past, present and future. In: Zereini F, Ho¨tzl H (eds) Climate
changes and water resources in the Middle East and North Africa.
Springer, Heidelberg, pp 145–164.
IUCN, 1994. IUCN Redlist Categories. Prepared by the Special Survival
Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Jeremy M.B. Smith 2014. Mountain ecosystem. Encyclopaedia Britannica,
available
online:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/394887/mountain-ecosystem
Jime´nez, A., Mansour, H., Keller, B., and Conti, E. 2014. Low genetic
diversity and high levels of inbreeding in the Sinai primrose (Primula
boveana), a species on the brink of extinction. Plant Syst Evol (2014)
300:1199–1208.
Kani, I.I.K., 2011. Rare and endemic species: why are they prone to
extinction? Turk J Bot. 35: 411-417.
Lavergne, S., Thuiller, W., Molina, J. & Debussche, M. 2005. Environmental
and human factors influence rare plant local occurrence, extinction and
persistence: a 115 year study in the Mediterranean region. J. Biogeogr.
32: 799–811.
Mayers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B., and
Kent, J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature
403: 853-858.
McCain C.M. and Colwell, R.K. 2011. Assessing the threat to montane
biodiversity from discordant shifts in temperature and precipitation in a
changing climate. Ecol Lett 14:1236–1245.
Milberg, P., 1994. Germination ecology of the polycarpic grassland perennials
Primula veris and Trollius europaeus. Ecography 17:3–8.
Moustafa A.A., Ramadan, A.A., Zaghloul, M.S., and Helmy, M.A. 2001.
Characteristics of two endemic and endangered species (Primula
boveana and Kickxia macilenta) growing in South Sinai. Egypt J Bot
41:17–39.
Moustafa, A.M., and Zaghloul, M.S. 1996. Environment and vegetation in the
montane Saint Catherine area, South Sinai, Egypt, Journal of Arid
Environments, 34, 331–349.
Moustafa, A.M., and Zayed, A.M. 1996. Effect of environmental factors on the
flora of alluvial fans in southern Sinai.” Journal of Arid Environments, 32,
431-443.
Nogue´s-Bravo D, Arau´jo, M.B., Errea, M.P., and Martı´nez-Rica, J.P. 2007.
Exposure of global systems to climate warming during the 21st Century.
Global Environ Chang 17:420–428.
Noss, R.F., 2001. Beyond Kyoto: forest management in a time of rapid climate
change. Conservation Biology 15: 578-590.
Omar, K. 2013. Using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to detect the
ecological a n d g e o g r a p h i c a l s t a t u s o f H y p e r i c u m s i n a i c u m i n
Saint
128
General Discussion
Katherine P r o t e c t o r a t e , S o u t h S i n a i , E g y p t . PhD t h e s i s ,
F a c u l t y o f Science, Al-Azhar University, Cairo. 500 pp.
Omar, K. and Elgamal, I. 2014. Reproductive and germination ecology of
Sinai primrose, Primula boveana Decne. Ex Duby. Journal of Global
Biosciences. Vol. 3(3); 695-708.
Parmesan, C. and Yohe, G. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate
change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37-42.
Polunin, O. 1980. Flowers of Greece and the Balkans: a Field guide. Oxford
Univ. Press, Oxford.
Root T.L., Price, J.T., Hall, K.R., Schneider, S.H., Rosenzweig, C., and
Pounds, J.A. 2003. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and
plants. Nature 421:57–60.
Shimono A, Ueno, S., Tsumura, Y., and Washitani, I. 2006. Spatial genetic
structure links between soil seed banks and above-ground populations of
Primula modesta in subalpine grassland. J Ecol 94:77–86.
Thomas, C.D., Cameron, A., Green, R.E., Bakkenes, M., Beaumont, L.J.,
Collingham, Y.C., Erasmus, B.F.N., Siqueira, M.F.D., Grainger, A., and
Hannah,
L.
2004. "Extinction
risk
from
climate
change" (PDF). Nature 427 (6970): 145–148.
Thompson, J. D. 2005. Plant Evolution in the Mediterranean. Oxford Univ.
Press, Oxford.
Wiens, J. 2004. Speciation and ecology revisited: phylogenetic niche
conservatism and the origin of species. Evolution 58: 193-197.
Wu, C.I., Hollocher, H., Begun, D.J., Aquadro, C.F., Xu, Y., Wu, M.L. 1995.
"Sexual isolation in Drosophila melanogaster: a possible case of incipient
speciation”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 92(7): 2519–2523.
Zaghloul, M.S. 2008. Diversity in soil seed bank of Sinai and implications for
conservation and restoration. Afr J Environ Sci Technol 2:172–184.
129
Conclusion & Recommendations
Conclusion & Recommendations
CONCLUSION:
1- IUCN Red List assessment is a simple and effective tool for
conservation status determination especially for endemic species.
With small accurate data about your target species focused on its
geographical range, population, habitat, and threats it’s easy to rank
your species in suitable level as a first point for complete
conservation process.
2- It’s not needed to collect all data required for IUCN assessment; for
example you can list your species as Critically Endangered species if
you have only data about its geographical range. However it’s
preferable to collect data as you can to cover all criteria to reflect a
good detailed picture about the species situation on land in order to
start a perfect conservation planning and design suitable actions.
3- The distribution, population size, demography, reproduction, and
genetics of restricted endemic species like Primula boveana seems to
be highly affected by environmental variation like topography, climate,
and soil properties. In the regions characterized by topographic and
physiographic heterogeneity, like the mountainous region in Saint
Katharine, the variation in microclimate plays the major role in
governing the natural vegetation and irregularity of rainfall may lead
to fluctuations in all species aspects.
4- Primula boveana qualifies to be Critically Endangered because it is
endemic to a tiny area (EOO 13 km², AOO <6 km²) of the high
mountain area of the St. Katherine Protectorate in southern Sinai,
Egypt. The total population size of mature individuals is less than
200, distributed among seven subpopulations. Because the main
threat is drought and climate change, effectively there is only one
location. There is a continuing decline in habitat quality for this
species, with evidence of declines in subpopulation numbers as well
as strong fluctuations through time. Climate change is projected to
further reduce the available habitat of this high-elevation specialist
(table 15).
5- The most important natural threats to this species are the long-lasting
droughts, the very scarce irregular precipitation during the year, the
fragmentation inherent to its habitat, and the possibility that rare
floods may cause harm such as uprooting (5% loss observed). Apart
from climate change, the most important human impacts are
reductions in water availability caused by collection for human
consumption from the nearby areas, possible sheep and goat
grazing, insect pests that eat the vegetative parts and may cause
130
Conclusion & Recommendations
reductions in plant vigour (observed), and a species of ant that
collects the seeds, perhaps causing reductions in the reproductive
rate.
6- Although the target species is totally located inside protected area
and partly conserved through in situ and ex situ technics in the past
within the regulations and policies of the park, much more however is
urgently needed.
7- The outcome of the undertaken study; A general model is presented
describing ecosystem degradation to help decide when restoration,
rehabilitation, or reallocation should be the preferred response.
Table 15. Conservation requirements for better conservation program for P. boveana.
Environmental variable
Status
Geographical Variables
Latitude
Longitude
Distribution
EOO
AOO
Elevation
Aspect
Slope rate
Climatic Variables
Annual minimum temp.
Annual maximum temp.
Precipitation
Population Characteristics
Number of population
Number of subpopulation
Population Size
Mature Individuals
Habitat and ecology
Habitats
Microhabitats
Vegetation parameters
Associated species
Phenology, flowering season
Fruiting season
Seed availability for collect
Germination rate
Edaphic Variables
Geological preference
33.9331°, 33.9715°
28.6123°, 28.4575°
High elevation region , world heritage site (five main
very small localities (Shaq Elgragenia, Shaq Mousa,
Elgabal Elahmar, Kahf Elghola, and Sad Abu Hebiq)).
Less than 13 km2
Less than 6 km2
1745 - 2210 m
North East and East
55°to 90°.
8.09-11.08
19.46-22.28
4.08-9.25
1
9 but 7 with IUCN criteria
165 individuals
165
Rocky mountain
Cliffs, Cave, and Gorges
Density: 0.16 - 22, Abundant: 4 - 535, Cover: 0.01 1.8. Size Index: 4.5 - 6
Adiantum capillus-veneris L., Mentha longifolia (L.)
Huds., Hypericum sinaicum Boiss. and Juncus rigidus
Desf.
From April to July.
From July to September
Shaq Mousa, Shaq Elgragenia
33% - 77%
Granitic rocks
131
Conclusion & Recommendations
Flow direction
Hillshad
Soil texture
Chemical properties
Use and Trade
Threats
Areas under extreme risk
Conservation action needed
Research needed
Low
Low incoming solar radiation
sandy, loamy sand, and sandy loam
Average pH 8.3 (7.6-8.8), water content 1.4 (0.7-2.1),
EC 903 μs/ cm (38-3390), organic matter 4.2% (17.8), CaCo3 16.3% (14-19), Mg 4.3 meq/L (1-11.5),
HCo3 10.5 meq/L (5-14.3), Cl 7.9 meq/L (4.7-12.5),
and So4 70 meq/L (275-133),
not used
Long-lasting droughts, climate change, habitat
fragmentation, inbreeding depression, unmanaged
collecting.
Kahf Elghola and Sad Abu Hebik
In
situ
(Restoration,
benign
introduction,
reintroduction. Ex situ (Seed collection, artificial
propagation from seeds, botanical garden, seed
storage, tissue culture, cultivation, Seed bank,
freezing cuts from the plant, or stocking the seeds,
Tissue bank, Cryobank, Pollen bank, and Field gene
bank), Educational and environmental awareness.
Population size, distribution & trends, genetics,
Species
Action/Recovery
Plan,
Area-based
Management Plan, Population and Habitat trends.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1- There is an urgent need to integrate the knowledge derived from
ecological, demographic and genetic approaches to species
conservation in order to be able to formulate management strategies
that take into account all different considerations.
2- Species recovery is highly recommended through rehabilitation,
restoration, reintroduction, and benign introduction in areas that have
similar environmental conditions.
3- There is an urgent need to conserve the species outside its habitat (Ex
situ) though seed collection, artificial propagation from seeds, botanical
garden, seed storage, tissue culture, cultivation, seed bank, freezing
cuts from the plant, or stocking the seeds, Tissue bank, Cryobank,
Pollen bank, and Field gene bank.
4- Enforce legislation: Enforcement of the current legislation is urgent, in
particular preventing over collecting of P. boveana by avoiding the use
of illegal collecting techniques and ensuring the compliance with the
current closed season obligations. In addition, legislation to protect
threatened species and their critical habitats must be reinforced to
prevent these highly threatened species to disappear, causing major
losses of fundamental ecosystem services (recommended by IUCN).
5- Raising awareness through biodiversity information: Effective
educational programmes with special focus on children need to be
132
Conclusion & Recommendations
implemented in order to raise awareness about the importance of
threatened species, their habitats’ conservation and the threats
increasingly faced by this biome. Moreover, educational projects
oriented to all the population levels about the value of species and
conservation and the need of more efficient techniques for the
utilization of this resource are needed. Due to the rapid development of
the region, it is fundamental to provide politicians, legislators and other
relevant stakeholders with key biodiversity information about the status
of freshwater ecosystems and the importance of its integration in short
and long term decision-making and planning (Highly recommended by
IUCN).
6- Data deficiency and research: Research efforts focusing on species for
which there is currently little knowledge must be dramatically
increased. A Data Deficient listing does not mean that species are not
threatened. In fact, as knowledge improves, such species are often
found to be amongst the most threatened (or suspected as such from
available evidence). It is therefore essential to direct research efforts
and funding towards these species as well as those in threatened
(Highly recommended by IUCN).
7- There is an urgent need to carry out annual monitoring on species
population trend, habitat trend, fluctuations, and reduction probability to
fellow up its situation.
8- Integrated protocols should be established with ministries of scientific
research, agriculture, industry for dealing with target species as
Critically Endangered, and need urgent special care.
9- It is recommend using this study specially this species as a base line to
detect the effect of global warming on species distribution by annual
monitoring.
10- It’s highly recommended when you start a new assessment to go
through
IUCN
Assessment
website
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/assessment-process),
this step will facilitate the process to the maximum through detailed
documentation about assessment process, information required,
guidelines and many related documents.
133
Buy your books fast and straightforward online - at one of world’s
fastest growing online book stores! Environmentally sound due to
Print-on-Demand t e c h n o l o g i e s .
Buy your books online at
www.get-morebooks.com
Kaufen Sie Ihre Bücher schnell und unkompliziert online – auf einer
der am schnellsten wachsenden Buchhandelsplattformen weltweit!
Dank Print-On-Demand umwelt- und ressourcenschonend produziert.
Bücher schneller online kaufen
www.morebooks.de
VDM Verlagsservicegesellschaft mbH
Heinrich-Böcking-Str. 6-8
D - 66121 Saarbrücken
Telefon: +49 681 3720 174
Telefax: +49 681 3720 1749
[email protected]
www.vdm-vsg.de