The discussion about “biodiversity” in Italy rightly takes in multiple aspects. An ex lege national management of environmental matters should also ensure a unified view of issues related to monitoring and saving animal and plant biodiversity. However, several other aspects related to environmental management (hunting, agriculture, forestry, landscaping etc.) result in regional or local competence. Synergistic collaboration between agencies is desirable and required for the near future, including at the European level. In addition, status monitoring of species and habitats often results in an incomplete state, hence a lack of and partial knowledge of the reality of the facts. Actions of public awareness, citizen science, non-profit and collaborative projects in the economic, productive, tourist and naturalistic sense result in good practices for the future management of the natural environment.

It is well known by now that the definition of “biodiversity” is as complex and exhaustive as ever, capable of considering all phenomena describing a natural “diversity” within a specific context. In a nutshell, the term – now commonly used and often trivialized – indicates precisely “the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part: this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems” [1].

Although the term thus explicated may seem easy to understand, the same cannot be said when we enter the field of its practical application. That is when one wants – for a certain territory – to define, study (qualitatively and qualitatively), protect, increase, and regulate biological diversity. And the first difficulty results precisely in defining what results in biodiversity for a given area. Where is it greatest? Where is it less? And why?

An eclectic as well as witty professor at the University of Padova used to repeat (referring to Dr. Filippo Prosser, “field” botanist for the Trentino area): “We are studying two sites, one natural and one anthropized. The second one has more species. Shannon says it is more biodiverse. It should therefore be “better.” I have strong doubts. When you want to do something, it’s better to be few and good, than many and going off in all directions. Filippo goes it alone, for example. He has done more for botany than all the universities in the Triveneto area. An ecosystem must be difficult to make. “It must not contain so many species, but few and right”.

Many species or few species? And which species? How to define a fair or unfair species?

For the territory of Trentino alone, research (ed. mainly by the aforementioned Dr. Prosser) shows that the numbers of plant species alone have soared over the past hundred years. Too bad that almost all of them are alien and invasive species, which are gradually replacing our native ones [2]. On the contrary, the endemic and rarer species for the territory (see Orchidaceae), are shown to be among the most threatened by climate change and land-use modifications, resulting in their displacement to cooler microclimates (north and at higher altitudes) or less anthropized areas [3; 4].

 In short, biodiversity is a serious business. Simple, because it is there for all to see, and yet extremely complex because it involves a hodgepodge of functional, ecological, genetic, chemical, physical and anthropogenic relationships that are difficult to untangle, categorize and pigeonhole. And especially for the Italian reality, the situation becomes as intricate as ever. The Country’s altitudinal and latitudinal differences are inevitably reflected in huge climatic, geological and broader environmental differences, hence huge ecological and therefore biodiversity differences.

Fig 1: Biodiversity is also to be understood in the concept of landscape diversity. View of Valsugana (Trento, Italy) with the Lakes of Levico and Caldonazzo from Malga Campomandriolo, Gallio – Altopiano di Asiago (Vicenza, Italy). Photo: Author. 09.08.2021

In conclusion, it must be remembered how, the definition of biodiversity implies not only a natural component in the strict sense, made up of animal and plant species as well as the ecosystems that accommodate them, but a fundamental part results from the synergistic work of man and nature in shaping the land. The natural and biological diversity present can also be found in the landscape component, where the latter is aptly defined as “part of the land, as perceived by local people or visitors, which evolves through time as a result of being acted upon by natural forces and human beings” [5]. And precisely for the mountain environment, there are opposing views in the literature about anthropogenic effects on high-altitude ecosystems. Indeed, on the one hand, it is a well-known fact by now that abandonment of high-lands has been the dominant trend for alpine territories during the last decades [6], on the other hand, there are still debates about whether this abandonment results to be positive or negative for mountains in ecological and biodiversity terms.

The discriminant factor lies precisely in the evaluation of the synergistic effects of man and nature in defining a territory. For subtractors of ecological benefits related to the presence of humans in alpine areas [7], the less human presence the better for nature. However, it should rightly be noted that the effects of man’s work on the mountainous particularly related to deforestation and the opening and maintenance of pastures and meadows as well as fire management -have conversely-and without explicit intention- created ideal habitats for the establishment of multiple animal and plant species, increasing their numbers (see Shannon) as well as their rarity [8].

Related articles:

Cover- and preview image: Frog in alpine pasture. Malga Larici di Sotto, Località Larici – Altopiano di Asiago (Vicenza, Italy). Photo: Author. 30.07.2024