European Red List of Vascular Plants - European Commission
European Red List of Vascular Plants - European Commission European Red List of Vascular Plants - European Commission
threatened species are endemic to the Canary Islands and to the Madeira and Azores archipelagos, as well as to Sicily – this is of course no surprise, since not only do these islands have a high degree of endemism, but many island habitats are highly degraded, fragmented and fragile (Kell et al. 2008a). 4.5 Major threats to CWR in Europe The major threats to each CWR species were coded using the IUCN Threats Classification Scheme. Threats were reported for 279 (49%) of the CWR species assessed and for 223 of these species, they were recorded to be ongoing. A summary of the relative importance of the most threatening processes is shown in Figure 17 14 . Intensified livestock farming in the form of overgrazing is indicated to have by far the greatest impact on CWR in Europe, affecting 22 out of 66 threatened species and 75 species in total. Intensive arable farming was reported as a threat to 22 species, six of which are threatened – an associated threat is the use of herbicides and pesticides which was reported for 22 species (four species were coded for both of these threats, three of which are threatened). However, we should not conclude from these results that all types of farming are threatening CWR diversity; in fact, farmed areas (including arable land and pasture) are one of the primary habitats of CWR species. It is intensive and unsustainable farming practices, such as severe overgrazing, conversion of land to monocultures and the over-use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides that are the major threats to CWR that grow in agricultural areas – this includes grazing in semi-natural habitats such as Mediterranean maquis (Kell et al. 2011a). Development for tourism and recreation is also a major threat to European CWR, impacting 19 out of 66 threatened species and 44 species overall. This is affecting species throughout Europe but is concentrated in Greece, Ukraine, Cyprus, Portugal, Spain and Italy. Coastal development in these countries is particularly pervasive and is having a severe impact on populations that grow in coastal habitats. Housing and urban development is also a significant threat, affecting 38 species, 12 of which are threatened. Other threats having a major impact on CWR diversity in Europe include invasive alien species (impacting nearly 29% of threatened species), recreational activities (affecting more than 18% of threatened species), transport infrastructure development (affecting Figure 17. Major threats to CWR species in Europe 14 Based only on threats reported to be ongoing (i.e., not those that have affected the species in the past, are expected to affect them in the future or those for which the timing was reported as ‘unknown’). 30
more than 16% of threatened species), an increase in fire frequency or intensity (or sometimes also fire suppression), severe weather events, such as drought and flooding, and intensive forestry (including pollutants from forestry activities). Although Figure 17 shows intensified livestock farming as the most widespread threat to CWR species, if the proportion of threatened to non-threatened species is considered, only 29% of CWR impacted by livestock farming are assessed as threatened. The opposite is the case for the impact of alien invasive species on CWR, where 66% of species impacted are threatened. This may lead to the conclusion that in Europe alien invasive species are a more pernicious threat to CWR species than livestock farming; however, this result has to be interpreted with care. Firstly, overall more threatened and Near Threatened species are affected by intensified livestock farming (32 species) than by invasive species (21 species). Secondly, many species are affected by more than one threat and it might be a certain combination of threats that increases the species’ risk of extinction. These potential cumulative effects have not been analysed. Further, the Red List assessments are only a measure of the threatened status of species as entities (i.e., taxonomic diversity), not of intraspecific diversity. Livestock farming and indeed many of the other threats impacting CWR could be causing significant levels of genetic erosion; however, without regular and long-term monitoring of genetic diversity within and between a broad range of CWR species, we cannot make any supported assumptions. Climate change is also a significant threatening factor for CWR species. It is predicted to increase average temperatures by 2–4°C over the next 50 years and cause considerable changes in regional and seasonal patterns of precipitation (IPCC 2007). Within Europe, Thuiller et al. (2005) predict that by 2080 climate change will result in a 27–42% loss of species, with potential extremes ranging from 2.5–86% loss of current floristic diversity. There have been few studies of the likely impact on CWR diversity; however, Jarvis et al. (2008) undertook a comparative study of three crop gene pools – Arachis, Solanum and Vigna – and compared current distribution Beta patula is a primary wild relative of cultivated beets and is an important gene source for enhancing drought and virus resistance. It is endemic to two small, uninhabited islets in the Madeira archipelago – Ilhéu do Desembarcadouro and Ilhéu Chão – where it grows in dry, rocky places by the sea. It is threatened by invasive alien species, rabbit grazing and an increase in the seagull population, and is globally assessed as Critically Endangered. B. patula is listed in Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive and the islands on which it occurs are part of the Parque Natural da Madeira which is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protected Area (SPA); however, special management measures are needed to ensure the survival of this species. Photograph © Brian Ford-Lloyd. 31
- Page 1: European Red List of Vascular Plant
- Page 4 and 5: Published by the European Commissio
- Page 6 and 7: 6. Discussion .....................
- Page 8 and 9: Acknowledgements All of IUCN’s Re
- Page 10 and 11: Andrés Vicente Pérez Latorre Lore
- Page 12 and 13: are declining. But more interesting
- Page 14 and 15: a global “biodiversity hotspot”
- Page 16 and 17: The assessment provides three main
- Page 18 and 19: level, and species complexes have b
- Page 20 and 21: Convention includes 612 European pl
- Page 22 and 23: 3.2 Threat status of policy plants
- Page 24 and 25: Figure 5. Species richness of polic
- Page 26 and 27: Figure 7. Distribution of threatene
- Page 28 and 29: indica aggressively compete for spa
- Page 30 and 31: Today, agricultural production is c
- Page 32 and 33: particularly important to Europe in
- Page 34 and 35: ecause they are wild relatives of a
- Page 36 and 37: Table 6. Threatened and extinct CWR
- Page 38 and 39: It should be noted that the percent
- Page 40 and 41: Figure 14. Species richness of Euro
- Page 44 and 45: with the predicted range in 2055. T
- Page 46 and 47: The following definition was consid
- Page 48 and 49: Near Threatened. One species is Ext
- Page 50 and 51: through Africa north and south of t
- Page 52 and 53: 5.4 Major threats to aquatic plants
- Page 54 and 55: fertilisation. As a consequence man
- Page 56 and 57: plant species are classed as Extinc
- Page 58 and 59: into water bodies as run-off and ca
- Page 60 and 61: the list are threatened but it also
- Page 62 and 63: in natural populations within defin
- Page 64 and 65: Greater Pasque Flower (Pulsatilla g
- Page 66 and 67: ■■ Raise the profile of CWR as
- Page 68 and 69: References Anderson, S. 2002. Ident
- Page 70 and 71: IPCC. 2007. Fourth Assessment Repor
- Page 72 and 73: identifying_and_protecting_the_worl
- Page 74 and 75: Family Species Red List Status Euro
- Page 76 and 77: Family Species Red List Status Euro
- Page 78 and 79: Family Species Red List Status Euro
- Page 80 and 81: Family Species Red List Status Euro
- Page 82 and 83: Appendix 2. Red List status of sele
- Page 84 and 85: Family Species IUCN Red List Catego
- Page 86 and 87: Family Species IUCN Red List Catego
- Page 88 and 89: Family Species IUCN Red List Catego
- Page 90 and 91: Family Species IUCN Red List Catego
threatened species are endemic to the Canary Islands and<br />
to the Madeira and Azores archipelagos, as well as to Sicily<br />
– this is <strong>of</strong> course no surprise, since not only do these<br />
islands have a high degree <strong>of</strong> endemism, but many island<br />
habitats are highly degraded, fragmented and fragile (Kell<br />
et al. 2008a).<br />
4.5 Major threats to CWR in Europe<br />
The major threats to each CWR species were coded using<br />
the IUCN Threats Classification Scheme. Threats were<br />
reported for 279 (49%) <strong>of</strong> the CWR species assessed<br />
and for 223 <strong>of</strong> these species, they were recorded to be<br />
ongoing. A summary <strong>of</strong> the relative importance <strong>of</strong> the<br />
most threatening processes is shown in Figure 17 14 .<br />
Intensified livestock farming in the form <strong>of</strong> overgrazing<br />
is indicated to have by far the greatest impact on CWR<br />
in Europe, affecting 22 out <strong>of</strong> 66 threatened species and<br />
75 species in total. Intensive arable farming was reported<br />
as a threat to 22 species, six <strong>of</strong> which are threatened – an<br />
associated threat is the use <strong>of</strong> herbicides and pesticides<br />
which was reported for 22 species (four species were<br />
coded for both <strong>of</strong> these threats, three <strong>of</strong> which are<br />
threatened). However, we should not conclude from<br />
these results that all types <strong>of</strong> farming are threatening<br />
CWR diversity; in fact, farmed areas (including arable<br />
land and pasture) are one <strong>of</strong> the primary habitats <strong>of</strong><br />
CWR species. It is intensive and unsustainable farming<br />
practices, such as severe overgrazing, conversion <strong>of</strong><br />
land to monocultures and the over-use <strong>of</strong> fertilizers,<br />
herbicides and pesticides that are the major threats to<br />
CWR that grow in agricultural areas – this includes<br />
grazing in semi-natural habitats such as Mediterranean<br />
maquis (Kell et al. 2011a).<br />
Development for tourism and recreation is also a<br />
major threat to <strong>European</strong> CWR, impacting 19 out <strong>of</strong><br />
66 threatened species and 44 species overall. This is<br />
affecting species throughout Europe but is concentrated<br />
in Greece, Ukraine, Cyprus, Portugal, Spain and Italy.<br />
Coastal development in these countries is particularly<br />
pervasive and is having a severe impact on populations<br />
that grow in coastal habitats. Housing and urban<br />
development is also a significant threat, affecting 38<br />
species, 12 <strong>of</strong> which are threatened.<br />
Other threats having a major impact on CWR diversity<br />
in Europe include invasive alien species (impacting<br />
nearly 29% <strong>of</strong> threatened species), recreational activities<br />
(affecting more than 18% <strong>of</strong> threatened species),<br />
transport infrastructure development (affecting<br />
Figure 17. Major threats to CWR species in Europe<br />
14 Based only on threats reported to be ongoing (i.e., not those that have affected the species in the past, are expected to affect them in the future or those for<br />
which the timing was reported as ‘unknown’).<br />
30
Change language