Current status of habitat monitoring in the European Union according to Article 17 of the Habitats Directive, with an emphasis on habitat structure and functions and on Germany

Since the beginning of the 1990s, monitoring of habitats has been a widespread tool to record and assess changes in habitat quality, for example due to land use change. Thus, Article 11 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) requires, inter alia, monitoring of the conservation status of habitat types listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive, carried out by the Member States of the European Union (EU). This monitoring provides the foundation for the National Reports on the measures implemented and their effectiveness (Art. 17 Habitats Directive), which Member States have to submit to the European Commission every six years. Based on these requirements, Member States have developed different monitoring programmes or have adapted previously existing monitoring schemes to include relevant aspects of the Habitats Directive. The parameter ‘structure and functions’ is a key parameter for the assessment of the conservation status of habitat types as it provides information on the quality of the habitats. A standardised questionnaire was developed and sent to the competent authorities of Member States to compare and analyse the assessment methods of the quality of habitat types. Responses were received from 13 of the 28 Member States, while it was possible to include another Member State in the analysis by evaluating appropriate literature. The analysis revealed very different approaches and progress amongst the Member States in the development and implementation of monitoring programmes tailored to the reporting obligations of Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. Some Member States established a special standardised monitoring programme for Article 11 of the Habitats Directive, while others used data from already existing programmes (e.g. habitat mapping, large-scale forest inventories, landscape monitoring). Most Member States responding to the questionnaire use monitoring based on samples but the data collection, sample sizes and level of statistical certainty differ considerably. The same applies to the aggregation of data and the methods for the assessment of the parameter ‘structure and functions’. In contrast to the assessment of conservation status as part of the reporting obligations according to Article 17 of the Habitats Directive, no standardised EU guidelines exist for monitoring. The present study discusses differences in the monitoring programmes and evaluates them with regard to the objectives of comparable assessments of conservation status of habitat types in the National Reports of Member States or at a biogeographical level

Bionomics and distribution of the stag beetle, Lucanus cervus (L.) across Europe

1. The European stag beetle, Lucanus cervus, is thought to be widely distributed across its range, but a detailed description of its occurrence is lacking. 2. Researchers in 41 countries were contacted and information sought on various life history characteristics of the insect. Data on adult body size were collected from seven countries. 3. Habitat associations differ between the United Kingdom and mainland Europe. Larvae are most commonly associated with oak, but the duration of the larval stage and the number of instars varies by up to 100% across Europe. 4. Adult size also varies; beetles from Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands are larger than those from Belgium or the UK. In the former countries, populations are composed mainly of large individuals, while in the UK, the majority of individuals are relatively small. Allometric relations between mandible size and total body length differ in Germany compared with the rest of Europe. 5. Distribution maps of the insect, split into records pre- and post-1970, from 24 countries are presented. While these inevitably suffer from recorder bias, they indicate that in only two countries, Croatia and Slovakia, does the insect seem to be increasing in range. 6. Our data suggest that the insect may be in decline across Europe, most likely due to habitat loss, and that conservation plans need to be produced that focus on the biology of the insect in the local area

A Primate lncRNA Mediates Notch Signaling during Neuronal Development by Sequestering miRNA

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are a diverse and poorly conserved category of transcripts that have expanded greatly in primates, particularly in the brain. We identified a lncRNA, which has acquired 16 microRNA response elements for miR-143-3p in the Catarrhini branch of primates. This lncRNA termed LncND (neuro-development) is expressed in neural progenitor cells and then declines in neurons. Binding and release of miR-143-3p, by LncND, controls the expression of Notch receptors. LncND expression is enriched in radial glia cells (RGCs) in the ventricular and subventricular zones of developing human brain. Down-regulation in neuroblastoma cells reduced cell proliferation and induced neuronal differentiation, an effect phenocopied by miR-143-3p over-expression. Gain-of-function of LncND in developing mouse cortex led to an expansion of PAX6+ RGCs. These findings support role for LncND in miRNA-mediated regulation of Notch signaling within the neural progenitor pool in primates that may have contributed to the expansion of cerebral cortex