<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Simonson, William D</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Allen, Harriet D</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Coomes, David a.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Remotely sensed indicators of forest conservation status: Case study from a Natura 2000 site in southern Portugal</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ecological Indicators</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Favourable conservation status</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">LiDAR</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">mediterranean forest</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Natura 2000</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Elsevier Ltd</style></publisher><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">24</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">636-647</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The successful implementation of habitat conservation measures demands regular and spatially explicit monitoring and reporting on conservation status at a range of scales, based on indicators of both habitat range and condition (structure and functions required for long-term maintenance). Such is the case with the Natura 2000 protected areas in Europe. Focusing on the cork oak (Quercus suber) forests of one such area, the Serra de Monchique in southern Portugal, we test the complementarity and joint effectiveness of airborne multispectral and laser scanning (lidar) in providing robust indicators of conservation status. Principal forest types and other land covers are mapped to an accuracy of up to 70% (11 land cover classes) and 81% (5 classes) by fusing the two remote sensing datasets, results that are superior to using either one alone. Using previously tested relationships between lidar height metrics, forest vegetation structure and species diversity, we develop a map predicting areas of high (22% of area), medium (25%) and low (53%) condition. We recommend the further development and testing of remotely sensed range and condition indicators of conservation status for their application in important forested sites across Europe and beyond</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Halada, Lubos</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evans, Doug</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Romão, Carlos</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Petersen, Jan-Erik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Which habitats of European importance depend on agricultural practices?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Biodiversity and Conservation</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Agricultural management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Favourable conservation status</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Grazing</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Habitats directive</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">High Nature Value Farmland</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mowing</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Natura 2000</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ostermann list</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s10531-011-9989-z</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">20</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2365 - 2378</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The aim of this paper is to identify the habitat types listed in the Habitats Directive Annex I that require low-intensity agricultural management for their existence. We assessed the link between the Annex I habitat types and agricultural practices in order to identify habitat types that depend on the continuation of agricultural practices or whose existence is prolonged or spatially enlarged via blocking or reducing the secondary succession by agricultural activities. 63 habitat types that depend on or which can proﬁt from agricultural activities—mainly grazing and mowing—were identiﬁed. They are classiﬁed into 2 groups: (1) habitats fully dependent on the continuation of agricultural management; (2) habitats partly dependent on the continuation of agricultural management. This paper also brieﬂy discusses habitat types for which either doubts remain on their dependence on agricultural management, or the relation to extensive farming practices exists only in part of their area of distribution in Europe or under certain site conditions, respectively. Assessments of the conservation status of habitats of European Importance by 25 EU Member States in 2007 showed that habitats identiﬁed by us as depending on agricultural practices had a worse status than non-agricultural habitats.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11</style></issue></record></records></xml>