1. |
- Maes, Dirk, et al.
(author)
-
Integrating national Red Lists for prioritising conservation actions for European butterflies
- 2019
-
In: Journal of Insect Conservation. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1366-638X .- 1572-9753. ; 23:2, s. 301-330
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Red Lists are very valuable tools in nature conservation at global, continental and (sub-) national scales. In an attempt to prioritise conservation actions for European butterflies, we compiled a database with species lists and Red Lists of all European countries, including the Macaronesian archipelagos (Azores, Madeira and Canary Islands). In total, we compiled national species lists for 42 countries and national Red Lists for 34 of these. The most species-rich countries in Europe are Italy, Russia and France with more than 250 species each. Endemic species are mainly found on the Macaronesian archipelagos and on the Mediterranean islands. By attributing numerical values proportionate to the threat statuses in the different national Red List categories, we calculated a mean Red List value for every country (cRLV) and a weighted Red List value for every species (wsRLV) using the square root of the country’s area as a weighting factor. Countries with the highest cRLV were industrialised (NW) European countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Denmark, whereas large Mediterranean countries such as Spain and Italy had the lowest cRLV. Species for which a Red List assessment was available in at least two European countries and with a relatively high wsRLV (≥ 50) are Colias myrmidone, Pseudochazara orestes, Tomares nogelii, Colias chrysotheme and Coenonympha oedippus. We compared these wsRLVs with the species statuses on the European Red List to identify possible mismatches. We discuss how this complementary method can help to prioritise butterfly conservation on the continental and/or the (sub-)national scale.
|
|
2. |
|
|
3. |
|
|
4. |
- van Swaay, Chris A.M., et al.
(author)
-
The European Butterfly Indicator for Grassland species: 1990-2015
- 2016
-
Reports (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This report presents the sixth version of the European Grassland Butterfly Indicator, one of the EU biodiversity indicators of the European Environment Agency.The indicator is based on more than 9200 transects in national Butterfly Monitoring Schemes covering 22 countries across Europe, most of them active in the European Union. In 2015, counts were made in more than 4500 transects.Butterflies represent the largest animal group (insects), highly included in food webs, having a high impact on ecosystem services and stability. This report does not represent only the patrimonial conservation of some species, but indicates the changes in biodiversity on grasslands and discusses underlying causes.Fluctuations in numbers between years are typical features of butterfly populations. The assessment of change istherefore made on an analysis of the underlying trend.Indicators were produced on EU, European (EU plus Norway and Switzerland) and pan-European level (including Ukraine, Russia and Armenia).The underlying analysis of the indicator shows that since 1990, grassland butterfly abundance has declined by 30%.The rate of loss has slowed in the last 5-10 years. Part of this slowing down might be caused by climate warming, as this favours cold-blooded animals like butterflies, thus masking the effects of intensification. In parts of Western Europe butterfly numbers outside nature reserves have come to an absolute minimum, meaning it is unlikely for the indicator to further drop.The priority now is to halt further losses and support recovery. This can only come about with greater protection and more sustainable management of semi-natural grassland.
|
|
5. |
|
|
6. |
- van Swaay, Chris, et al.
(author)
-
The European Grassland Butterfly Indicator: 1990–2011
- 2013
-
Reports (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This report presents the European Grassland Butterfly Indicator, based on national Butterfly Monitoring Schemes (BMS) in 19 countries across Europe, most of them in the European Union. The indicator shows that since 1990 till 2011 butterfly populations have declined by almost 50 %, indicating a dramatic loss of grassland biodiversity. This also means the situation has not improved since the first version of the indicator published in 2005. Of the 17 species, 8 have declined in Europe, 2 have remained stable and 1 increased. For six species the trend is uncertain. The main driver behind the decline of grassland butterflies is the change in rural land use: agricultural intensification where the land is relatively flat and easy to cultivate, and abandonment in mountains and wet areas, mainly in eastern and southern Europe. Agricultural intensification leads to uniform, almost sterile grasslands for biodiversity. Grassland butterflies thus mainly survive in traditionally farmed low‑input systems (High Nature Value (HNV) Farmland) as well as nature reserves, and on marginal land such as road verges and amenity areas.
|
|
7. |
|
|
8. |
- Wiemers, Martin, et al.
(author)
-
An updated checklist of the European Butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea)
- 2018
-
In: ZooKeys. - : Pensoft Publishers. - 1313-2989 .- 1313-2970. ; 811, s. 9-45
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This paper presents an updated checklist of the butterflies of Europe, together with their original name combinations, and their occurrence status in each European country. According to this checklist, 496 species of the superfamily Papilionoidea occur in Europe. Changes in comparison with the last version (2.6.2) of Fauna Europaea are discussed. Compared to that version, 16 species are new additions, either due to cryptic species most of which have been discovered by molecular methods (13 cases) or due to discoveries of Asian species on the eastern border of the European territory in the Ural mountains (three cases). On the other hand, nine species had to be removed from the list, because they either do not occur in Europe or lost their species status due to new evidence. In addition, three species names had to be changed and 30 species changed their combination due to new evidence on phylogenetic relationships. Furthermore, minor corrections were applied to some authors' names and years of publication. Finally, the name Polyommatusottomanus Lefèbvre, 1831, which is threatened by its senior synonym Lycaenalegeri Freyer, 1830, is declared a nomen protectum, thereby conserving its name in the current combination Lycaenaottomana.
|
|