A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Journal of Insect Conservation
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Journal of Insect Conservation (2019) 23:301–330
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-019-00127-z
ORIGINAL PAPER
Integrating national Red Lists forprioritising conservation actions
forEuropean butterflies
DirkMaes1,2 · RudiVerovnik2,3· MartinWiemers2,4 · DimitriBrosens5,6 · StoyanBeshkov7· SimonaBonelli8 ·
JaroslawBuszko9· LisetteCantú‑Salazar10· Louis‑FrancisCassar11 · SueCollins2· VladDincă12 · MilanDjuric13·
GoranDušej14· HallvardElven15· FilipFraneta16· PatriciaGarcia‑Pereira17 · YuriiGeryak18· PhilippeGoart19·
ÁdámGór20· UlrichHiermann21· HelmutHöttinger22· PeterHuemer23 · PredragJakšić24· EddieJohn25·
HenrikKalivoda26· VassilikiKati27 · PaulKirkland2,28· BenjaminKomac29· ÁdámKőrösi30,31 · AnatolijKulak32 ·
MikkoKuussaari33 · LionelL’Hoste10· SuvadLelo34· XavierMestdagh10· NikolaMicevski35· IvaMihoci36·
SergiuMihut37· YerayMonasterio‑León38 · DmitryV.Morgun39· MiguelL.Munguira2,40 · TomásMurray41 ·
PerStadelNielsen42· ErlingÓlafsson43 · ErkiÕunap44· LazarosN.Pamperis45· AloisPavlíčko46·
LarsB.Pettersson2,47 · SerhiyPopov48· MilošPopović24 · JuhaPöyry33 · MikePrentice2,49· LienReyserhove5 ·
NilsRyrholm50· MartinaŠašić2,36 · NikolaySavenkov51· JosefSettele2,4,52 · MarcinSielezniew53 ·
SergeySinev54 · ConstantiStefanescu55 · GiedriusŠvitra56· ToomasTammaru44 · AnuTiitsaar44·
ElliTzirkalli25,27 · OlgaTzortzakaki57 · ChrisA.M.vanSwaay2,58 · ArneLykkeViborg42· IrmaWynho2,58 ·
KonstantinaZografou59 · MartinS.Warren2
Received: 11 July 2018 / Accepted: 7 January 2019 / Published online: 22 January 2019
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
Abstract
Red Lists are very valuable tools in nature conservation at global, continental and (sub-) national scales. In an attempt to pri-
oritise 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, Rus-
sia 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.
Keywords Policy· Management· Threatened species· Habitats directive· IUCN· Biogeography· Lepidoptera
Introduction
Red Lists provide information on the extinction risk of spe-
cies in a given region (IUCN 2013) and have become well-
established tools in nature conservation (e.g. Keller and
Bollmann 2004; Butchart etal. 2005; Rodrigues etal. 2006;
Fitzpatrick etal. 2007). Regional IUCN criteria (Gärdenfors
etal. 2001; IUCN 2012) are increasingly used at the (sub-)
* Dirk Maes
dirk.maes@inbo.be
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.