BookPDF Available

The Red List of Oaks 2020

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The Red List of Oaks 2020 provides and analyzes IUCN Red List assessments for the estimated 430 species in the genus Quercus—the most complete and comprehensive global analysis of extinction risk for oaks. The only previous global assessment of oaks was published in 2007 and included just 175 species (~40% of the genus; Oldfield and Eastwood, 2007). In 2015, The Morton Arboretum established a partnership with the IUCN/SSC Global Tree Specialist Group to assess all oak species by 2020, including reassessments of the species in the 2007 publication, in support of the Global Tree Assessment (GTA) initiative. Of the 430 oak species assessed, 217 (41%) are of conservation concern. This includes 112 species assessed as Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable (i.e., “threatened” according to the IUCN definition), as well as 105 species assessed as Data Deficient or Near Threatened. Thirty-one percent of oaks are estimated to be threatened with extinction, following IUCN’s method for calculating threat proportions incorporating Data Deficient species. Oak species are native to 90 countries, predominantly in the Northern Hemisphere, with highest species richness in Mexico (164 species), China (117), the United States (91), and Vietnam (49). These countries also have the highest number of threatened species at 32, 36, 16, and 20, respectively. Major threats to oak species globally include land use change, a changing climate, and native and non-native pests and diseases. Landscape level changes are often due to habitat conversion for agriculture or urbanization, logging, or alterations in fire regimes. This publication establishes a baseline for the state of oaks globally, provides insights on patterns of diversity and threats, and presents a survey of global ex situ collections of oaks. Conservationists, researchers, and oak enthusiasts should use this information to prioritize species and regions for scientifically informed conservation action. Many collaborative conservation programs and initiatives for oaks are already underway around the world, but more effort and resources are urgently needed to reverse the decline in oak populations and alleviate threats. Through informed, integrated, in situ and ex situ conservation action targeted in the global centers of diversity for oaks, these iconic and ecologically important trees can be saved.
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Red List of
Oaks 2020
Christina Carrero, Diana Jerome, Emily Beckman, Amy Byrne, Allen J. Coombes,
Min Deng, Antonio González Rodríguez, Hoang Van Sam, Eyen Khoo, Ngoc Nguyen,
Iyan Robiansyah, Hernando Rodríguez Correa, Julia Sang, Yi-Gang Song, Joeri Strijk,
John Sugau, Weibang Sun, Susana Valencia-Ávalos and Murphy Westwood
THE MORTON ARBORETUM is an internationally
recognized outdoor tree museum and tree research center
located in Lisle, Illinois (USA). As the champion of trees, the
Arboretum is committed to scientifically informed action, both
locally and globally, and encouraging the planting and
conservation of trees for a greener, healthier, more beautiful world. On 1,700 acres are
222,000 plant specimens representing 4,650 different kinds of plants, along with
specialty gardens, educational exhibits, the award-winning Children’s Garden, 16 miles
of hiking trails, and a Visitor Center. The research building houses the Center for Tree
Science and the Global Tree Conservation Program, with over 50 scientists and
conservationists working to understand and protect the world’s tree diversity. The Morton
Arboretum is a not-for-profit 501(c)3 charitable organization, welcoming more than 1.2
million visitors a year and serving 54,000 members. Learn more at mortonarb.org.
THE IUCN/SSC GLOBAL TREE SPECIALIST GROUP
(GTSG) forms part of the IUCN Species Survival Commission
(SSC)’s science-based network of more than 9,000 volunteer
experts who are working together towards achieving the vision of, “A just world that
values and conserves nature through positive action to reduce the loss of diversity of
life on earth”. The GTSG, with over 100 members, promotes and implements global
red listing for trees and acts in an advisory capacity on tree conservation issues, notably
through the Global Trees Campaign.
BOTANIC GARDENS CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL (BGCI)
is the world’s largest plant conservation network, comprising more
than 600 botanic gardens in over 100 countries, and provides the
secretariat to the IUCN/SSC Global Tree Specialist Group. BGCI was
established in 1987 and is a registered charity with offices in the UK,
US, China, Singapore and Kenya.
AUTHORS
Christina Carrero, Tree Conservation Research
Assistant, The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL, USA.
Diana Jerome, Northwestern University, Evanston,
IL, USA.
Emily Beckman, Tree Conservation Research
Assistant II, The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL, USA.
Amy Byrne, Oak Consortium Coordinator, The
Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL, USA.
Allen J. Coombes, Curator of Scientific
Collections, Herbarium and Botanic Garden,
Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla,
Puebla, México
Min Deng, School of Ecology and Environmental
Science, Yunnan University, Kunming, China.
Antonio González Rodríguez, Instituto de
Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad,
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia,
México.
Hoang Van Sam, Vietnam National University of
Forestry, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Eyen Khoo, Research Officer, Sabah Forestry
Department, Sandakan, Malaysia.
Ngoc Nguyen Van, Faculty of Biology, Dalat
University, Vietnam.
Iyan Robiansyah, Bogor Botanic Gardens,
Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Bogor,
Indonesia.
Hernando Rodríguez Correa, Escuela Nacional de
Estudios Superiores Unidad Morelia, Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia, México
Julia Sang, Forest Department Sarawak, Kuching,
Malaysia.
Yi-Gang Song, Shanghai Chenshan Plant Science
Research Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Shanghai Chenshan Botanical Garden, Shanghai,
China.
Joeri Sergej Strijk, Alliance for Conservation Tree
Genomics, Pha Tad Ke Botanical Garden, Luang
Prabang, Lao PDR.
John Sugau, Curator, Herbarium at Sabah Forestry
Department, Sandakan, Malaysia.
Weibang Sun, Professor and Director, Kunming
Botanical Garden, Kunming Institute of Botany,
Chinese Academy of Sciences/ Yunnan Key
Laboratory for Integrative Conservation of Plant
Species with Extremely Small Populations,
Kunming, China.
Susana Valencia-Ávalos, Herbario de la Facultad
de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México, Ciudad de México, México.
Murphy Westwood, Director of Global Tree
Conservation, The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL, USA.
The Morton Arboretum
4100 Illinois Route 53, Lisle, IL 60532, USA.
© 2020 The Morton Arboretum
ISBN: 978-0-9992656-2-8
IReproduction of any part of the publication for
educational, conservation and other non-profit
purposes is authorized without prior permission from
the copyright holder, provided that the source is fully
acknowledged.
Reproduction for resale or other commercial
purposes is prohibited without prior written
permission from the copyright holder.
The opinion of the individual authors does not
necessarily reflect the opinion of either the authors
or The Morton Arboretum.
The authors and The Morton Arboretum take no
responsibility for any misrepresentation of material
from translation of this document into any other
language.
Recommended citation: Carrero, C., Jerome, D.,
Beckman, E., Byrne, A., Coombes, A. J., Deng, M.,
González-Rodríguez, A., Hoang, V. S., Khoo, E.,
Nguyen, N., Robiansyah, I., Rodríguez-Correa, H.,
Sang, J., Song, Y-G., Strijk, J. S., Sugau, J., Sun,
W. B., Valencia-Ávalos, S., and Westwood, M.
(2020). The Red List of Oaks 2020. The Morton
Arboretum. Lisle, IL.
COVER PHOTOS
Front cover:
Quercus bambusifolia, EN (Joeri S. Strijk,
Alliance for Conservation Tree Genomics)
Back cover:
Quercus invaginata, LC (Béatrice Chassé)
DESIGN
John Morgan, Seascape
www.seascapedesign.co.uk
The Red List of
Oaks 2020
Christina Carrero, Diana Jerome, Emily Beckman, Amy Byrne, Allen J. Coombes,
Min Deng, Antonio González Rodríguez, Hoang Van Sam, Eyen Khoo, Ngoc Nguyen,
Iyan Robiansyah, Hernando Rodríguez Correa, Julia Sang, Yi-Gang Song, Joeri Strijk,
John Sugau, Weibang Sun, Susana Valencia-Ávalos and Murphy Westwood
December 2020
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Red List of Oaks 2020 publication would not be possible without contributions from
hundreds of experts from around the world. Thank you to all who acted as a co-
assessor, reviewer, contributor, or facilitator on the assessments covered by this report.
All credits can be found on individual species assessment profiles on the IUCN Red List
(iucnredlist.org). Special thanks to all who attended or contributed to Red List trainings
or oak assessment review sessions, including the IUCN Global Tree Specialist Group
meeting at The Morton Arboretum (USA, 2015), the oak taxonomy workshop at Jardín
Botánico de la Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla (Mexico, 2017), the
Southeast Asian Botanic Garden Network Fagaceae workshop at Pha Tad Ke Botanic
Garden (Lao PDR, 2018), the International Oak Society triennial conference at the
University of California, Davis (USA, 2018), and the IUCN Global Tree Specialist Group
meeting at La Selva Biological Station (Costa Rica, 2019). Thank you also to the many
networks that facilitated and contributed to these assessments, including members of
the IUCN Global Tree Specialist Group, International Oak Society, Oaks of the Americas
Conservation Network, Southeast Asian Botanic Garden Network, and many others.
Our thanks go to the current and previous members of the Global Tree Conservation
Program and Center for Tree Science at The Morton Arboretum, who contributed to
this project over the years: Silvia Alvarez-Clare, Chuck Cannon, Mariah Casmey, Nicole
Cavender, Rick Condit, Audrey Denvir, Gerry Donnelly, Gwen Gallagher, Vildan Gorener,
Andrew Hipp, Sean Hoban, Lisa Kenny, Chai-Shian Kua, Matt Lobdell, Fin Malone,
Margie Siefert, Jessica Turner-Skoff, and Katherine Wenzell. Thanks also to the team
of Red List experts from BGCI and the Global Tree Assessment, who provided
guidance, reviews, and coordination support for this important effort: Megan Barstow,
Emily Beech, Katharine Davies, Yvette Harvey-Brown, Ryan Hills, Abby Meyer, Sara
Oldfield, Malin Rivers, and Paul Smith. Finally, thank you to the team at the IUCN Red
List Unit, who have contributed valuable expertise throughout this process: Craig Hilton-
Taylor, Caroline Pollock, and Anna Puttick.
Funding for this project came in part from The Morton Arboretum, the US Institute of
Museum and Library Services (award #MA-30-18-0273-18), the USDA Forest Service
(Cooperative Agreement 16-CA-11132546-045), and Fondation Franklinia.
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BGCI Botanic Gardens Conservation International
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CEPF Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
FFI Fauna & Flora International
GCCO Global Conservation Consortium for Oak
GSPC Global Strategy for Plant Conservation
GTA Global Threat Assessment
GTC Global Trees Campaign
GTSG Global Tree Specialist Group
IOS International Oak Society
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
SSC Species Survival Commission
SIS Species Information Service
The Red List of Oaks 2020
2
Quercus invaginata, LC (Béatrice Chassé)
IUCN RED LIST
CATEGORIES
Extinct
Extinct in the Wild
Critically Endangered
Endangered
Vulnerable
Near Threatened
Least Concern
Data Deficient
Not Evaluated
EX
EW
CR
EN
VU
NT
LC
DD
NE
The Red List of Oaks 2020
3
CONTENTS
FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Country level occurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Red List assessment process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Reporting proportion threatened . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Phylogenetic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Ex situ collections data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
RESULTS AND EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Threat Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Geographic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Major Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Ex situ collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
CONCLUSION AND CONSERVATION
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Mexico and Central America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Southeast Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
The United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
APPENDIX A:
Summary of the IUCN Red List criteria
for threatened categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
APPENDIX B:
Full list of evaluated Quercus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
APPENDIX C:
Full list of evaluated Quercus species by
Red List category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
APPENDIX D:
IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
Quercus engelmannii, EN (Frank McDonough)
Quercus boyntonii, CR (Sean Hoban)
Quercus opaca, DD (Béatrice Chassé)
The Red List of Oaks 2020
4
What sort of times are these / When talking about trees
is almost a crime / As there are so many atrocities
left unspoken?
Bertolt Brecht wrote these lines in 1939 in the second stanza
of his poem, “To Posterity”. And I think he was right – not just
for yesterday and the times he was living in but for today and
the times we are living in.
But I believe that we can also talk about trees. Indeed, that we
must also talk about trees – and whales and butterflies and
storks and oceans and deserts and forests and everything that
makes this world beautiful and wondrous.
The Red List of Oaks 2020 is about talking about trees in the
context of the devastating effects of rapid climate change and
massive habitat disruption/destruction, all of which is the result
of an economic system that, we are told, is the only possible
one. Whether that is true or not, positive change on that front
doesn’t seem likely in the near future and therefore conservation
is one of the active alternatives for those who care.
The Morton Arboretum has been caring about trees for a very
long time and this publication is one of the many fruits of their
commitment to the genus Quercus.
As I have spent the better – and it has indeed been the best –
part of nearly the past twenty years traveling around the world
looking for oaks and growing them here in Southwest France
at the Arboretum des Pouyouleix, I am perpetually in awe of the
incredible diversity and adaptability of the species that compose
this genus. Leaving no stone unturned, as it were, they are
found in nearly every ecosystem on Earth: from deserts to
coastal shores and lowlands, from high mountain tops to river
valleys, cloud forests, alluvial plains, prairie grasslands, and
tropical jungles. And yet, in spite of their extraordinary
evolutionary and ecological success that spans fifty-six million
years, today many of them have dubious futures, as the work
that has resulted in this publication reveals.
Ex situ collections play a key role in the conservation strategies
developed herein. Nevertheless, one can’t help thinking: will not
the world be a much sadder place if the only oak trees left on
Earth are those in collections?
As I write this Foreword, I recall a drawing that I saw many years
ago depicting a forest that had been entirely cut down with the
exception of one tree left standing in the middle, preserved in a
glass cage, with tourists milling around it taking photographs. I
asked myself at the time, what is the artist trying to say? Don’t
be a conservation tourist? Or, in more modern terms, don’t be
a virtual conservationist?
Similarly, we must not let the information in this publication
remain only that, for then it will not serve its purpose, which, it
seems to me, is to inspire awareness and action on the
broadest possible scale.
In doing so perhaps we can at least hope that we shall have a
brighter poem to leave to posterity than the one left to us by
Bertolt Brecht.
Béatrice Chassé
Arboretum des Pouyouleix
Editor, International Oaks
Former President (2009-2015), International Oak Society
FOREWORD
Quercus xalapensis, LC (Allen Coombes)
Quercus brandegeei, EN (The Morton Arboretum)
The Red List of Oaks 2020
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Red List of Oaks 2020 provides and analyzes IUCN
Red List assessments for the estimated 430 species in
the genus Quercus—the most complete and
comprehensive global analysis of extinction risk for oaks. The
only previous global assessment of oaks was published in 2007
and included just 175 species (~40% of the genus; Oldfield and
Eastwood, 2007). In 2015, The Morton Arboretum established
a partnership with the IUCN/SSC Global Tree Specialist Group
to assess all oak species by 2020, including reassessments of
the species in the 2007 publication, in support of the Global
Tree Assessment (GTA) initiative.
Of the 430 oak species assessed, 217 (41%) are of conservation
concern. This includes 112 species assessed as Critically
Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable (i.e., “threatened”
according to the IUCN definition), as well as 105 species
assessed as Data Deficient or Near Threatened. Thirty-one
percent of oaks are estimated to be threatened with extinction,
following IUCN’s method for calculating threat proportions
incorporating Data Deficient species. Oak species are native
to 90 countries, predominantly in the Northern Hemisphere,
with highest species richness in Mexico (164 species), China
(117), the United States (91), and Vietnam (49). These countries
also have the highest number of threatened species at 32, 36,
16, and 20, respectively. Major threats to oak species globally
include land use change, a changing climate, and native and
non-native pests and diseases. Landscape level changes are
often due to habitat conversion for agriculture or urbanization,
logging, or alterations in fire regimes.
This publication establishes a baseline for the state of oaks
globally, provides insights on patterns of diversity and threats,
and presents a survey of global ex situ collections of oaks.
Conservationists, researchers, and oak enthusiasts should use
this information to prioritize species and regions for scientifically
informed conservation action. Many collaborative conservation
programs and initiatives for oaks are already underway around
the world, but more effort and resources are urgently needed
to reverse the decline in oak populations and alleviate threats.
Through informed, integrated, in situ and ex situ conservation
action targeted in the global centers of diversity for oaks, these
iconic and ecologically important trees can be saved.
Quercus glaucoides, LC (Béatrice Chassé)
INTRODUCTION
Quercus, commonly known as oaks, is the largest genus of the
Fagaceae family and one of the largest genera of all tree families
(Valencia-Ávalos, 2004). There are an estimated 430 species of
oaks globally (see the Taxonomy section of Methods), with several
new species being described every year. The majority of oaks are
large trees growing to 20-30 meters, but there is extraordinary
morphological and ecological diversity across the various regions
and ecosystems where they grow (Menitsky, 2005). From small
shrubs growing on dry, sandy soils in the western United States
and montane regions in Mexico, to towering trees in the canopy
of the tropical forests of Southeast Asia (Menitsky, 2005; Nixon,
2006), the current global diversity of oaks is the result of
geographic and ecological diversification within wide-ranging
lineages over 56 million years of evolution (Hipp et al., 2020). Oak
diversity in North America was shaped by the radiation of oaks in
cooler, drier climates as broad-leaved temperate forests evolved
during the long global cool-down from the early Eocene onward
(Hipp et al., 2018; Cavender-Bares, 2019). Within Mexico, oaks
diversified later as they migrated southward and into the
mountains (Hipp et al., 2018). Southeast Asian oak diversity and
portions of the European oak flora were driven by changing climate
and the uplift of the Himalayas (Hipp et al., 2020; Deng et al.,
2018; Jiang et al., 2019). Kremer and Hipp (2020) attribute the
high species diversity and success of oaks to: 1) high genetic
diversity within populations and species, 2) rapid migration and
high adaptability, 3) high rates of ecological diversity within clades
and convergent solutions to ecological problems across clades,
and 4) hybridization and introgression.
The global distribution of oaks also overlaps substantially with
biodiversity hotspots, as recognized by the Critical Ecosystem
Partnership Fund (CEPF). CEPF defines biodiversity hotspots as
regions that contain at least 1,500 species of vascular plants found
nowhere else on Earth and that have lost at least 70% of their
native vegetation. There are 36 recognized biodiversity hotspots
that meet this criteria (https://www.cepf.net/our-work/biodiversity-
hotspots) including at least 18 where oak species are found. Thus,
oaks are associated with regions of the planet characterized by
rich biodiversity, but also severe habitat loss.
Oaks are a valuable genus ecologically, economically, and
culturally. They are keystone species in many ecosystems
including the oak-pine woodlands of Mexico, hardwood forests of
eastern North America, and the broadleaved forests of Southeast
Asia. They contribute countless ecosystem services, providing
habitat and food for birds and small mammals as well as providing
carbon sources for edible fungi (Logan, 2005; Cavender-Bares,
2016, 2019). In North America alone, oaks support over 500
species of moths and butterflies, making Quercus the most
ecologically important plant group for Lepidopteran insects
(Tallamy and Shropshire, 2009). Oaks are also economically
important, used for timber, fuel, furniture, ship building, livestock
feed, dyes and tannins, charcoal, and food for local and
indigenous peoples. They are also a charismatic and culturally
significant tree, commonly found in folklore and mythology, and
recognized and loved worldwide for their often large stature,
recognizable leaves, and iconic acorns. Oaks appear on the
national flags of Mexico, San Marino, and many other counties
and states, and are recognized as the national tree of many
countries, including the United States.
Despite the global ecological and economic importance of oaks,
they are difficult to conserve. Oaks are considered “exceptional
species” as they produce seeds that cannot be seed-banked
through conventional conditions of low humidity and temperature
(Kramer and Pence, 2012; Walters and Pence, 2020). They
produce copious amounts of tannins, making tissue culture
extremely challenging, and some species are difficult to propagate
vegetatively through grafting (Kramer and Pence, 2012; Brennan
et al., 2017)). Though there is ongoing research to improve
conservation methods for oaks, including cryopreservation and
in-vitro propagation, the primary and most reliable protection for
oaks currently is through ex situ collections (Westwood et al.,
2020). Oak species abundance across many biodiversity
hotspots, their ecological, economical, and cultural importance,
and the challenges encountered in preserving species constitute
a compelling case for the urgent and coordinated conservation of
oaks globally. The first step toward collaborative conservation is
prioritization of species and conservation actions, and The Red
List of Oaks 2020 provides vital information for such conservation
planning and action.
The Red List of Oaks 2020
6
Box 1: Global Tree
Assessment (GTA)
There are nearly 60,000 tree
species globally, and the Global
Tree Assessment aims to provide conservation
assessments of the world’s tree species by 2020. Despite
the importance of trees, many are threatened by
overexploitation and habitat destruction, as well as by pests,
diseases, drought and their interaction with global climate
change. In order to estimate the impact of such threats to
trees there is an urgent need to conduct a complete
assessment of the conservation status of the world’s tree
species – the Global Tree Assessment. The Global Tree
Assessment, led by BGCI and the IUCN SSC Global Tree
Specialist Group, prioritizes the tree species at greatest risk
of extinction. The Global Tree Assessment provides
information to ensure that conservation efforts are directed
at the right species so that no tree species becomes extinct.
www.globaltreeassessment.org.
The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (2011-2020), a
program of the Convention on Biological Diversity, outlines 16
targets towards collaborative, international plant conservation,
including Target 2: “An assessment of the conservation status of
all known plant species, as far as possible, to guide conservation
action.” The Global Tree Assessment (GTA; Box 1) was
spearheaded by the IUCN Global Tree Specialist Group (GTSG),
and seeks to meet this target by collaborating with partners
globally to assess all tree species of the world by the end of 2020.
A partnership was established in 2015 between GTSG and The
Morton Arboretum to assess all the oaks globally. The Red List of
The Red List of Oaks 2020
7
Box 2: Oaks as a Model System
Translated and adapted from “Introduction; Importance of
Oaks” originally written by Susana Valencia-Ávalos for
Manual de propagación de Quercus: Una guía fácil y rápida
para cultivar encinos en México y América Central.
(Rodríguez-Acosta and Coombes, 2020).
Species of the genus Quercus, known as encinos in Mexico
and Central America, have been connected to human
development since the time of the caves, playing an
important role in folklore, mythology, religion and everyday
life. The genus is very broad and comprises more than 400
species worldwide. Its greatest country level diversity is in
Mexico, where there are more than 160 species. Many
Mexican oak species present a high degree of hybridization
and in turn show high variation and rapid radiation,
adaptation to new habitats and diversification, and a
complicated taxonomy qualifying them as a “model system”
to understand evolutionary, biogeographic and ecological
aspects in plants.
Since their appearance in the late Paleocene (ca. 55 Ma), the
oaks have survived a series of biotic and abiotic changes,
showing great diversity and survival to unfavorable periods.
Hybridization and introgression in oaks are recurring
mechanisms and sources of genetic variation of great
importance in the adaptive evolution and diversification of the
genus. Related to their adaptation, oaks are studied in order
to find evidence of evolutionarily adapted characters in
response to drought and marked winters, freezing, as well
as to identify adaptive changes that could occur in the future
in view of global climate change.
The dominance of oaks in many ecosystems has made it
possible to know their biogeographic distribution, define areas
of high species richness, and to identify barriers to their
distribution and possible migration routes, all of which can be
extrapolated to many species that are associated with them,
and therefore oaks are considered a model clade. Model
clades are very well studied lineages from which abundant
phylogenetic, genetic, functional, ecological and evolutionary
data have been generated, which allow us to understand
general concepts and processes (mainly ecological and
evolutionary) that can potentially be applied to other groups
and systems and thus lead to adequate conservation and
ecosystem management decision-making.
The way in which oak species cope with different climatic
conditions makes it possible to propose them as candidates
for regeneration of communities. Some species can be
pioneers in secondary successions, such as the soil-forming
Quercus urbani, while others can only establish in sites with
mature soils, such as species of the mountain rainforest.
Therefore, properly choosing the species to regenerate is
essential to produce quality results.
Mexico, as the holder of the world's greatest richness of oak
species and endemism, has a great commitment in the
knowledge and protection of this group. In this commitment,
it is necessary to take into account the limited environmental
requirements in which most endemic oaks develop, their long
life cycle, and the global warming that makes them more
vulnerable, suggesting that some of them may be at risk of
extinction. Taking into account its predominant role in
terrestrial ecosystems, if an oak species disappears, the
threat or disappearance will also extend to the species
associated with it.
Oaks (Oldfield and Eastwood, 2007) was the first effort to evaluate
the threat status of the world’s oaks, but included just 175 of the
430 oak species. These assessments were never formally
published on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
(iucnredlist.org), and are now out of date. The Morton Arboretum
completed assessments for all oaks native to the United States,
detailing their extinction risks in the 2017 publication, The Red List
of US Oaks (Jerome et al., 2017), and assisted in completing
European oak assessments by the end of 2018. Between 2018
and 2020, the remaining assessment efforts targeted oak species
native to Mexico/Central America and Asia.
The Red List of Oaks 2020
8
The Red List of Oaks 2020 reevaluates every species from the
2007 report, includes all species from the Red List of US Oaks,
and assesses for the first time the remaining 60% of the species
in the genus Quercus. We provide a synthesis of the genus at a
global scale, examining geographic trends, patterns of diversity
and threat, and an overview of the state of ex situ collections of
oaks. This study also provides deeper analyses of oak species
diversity and conservation at regions of high richness and threat:
Mexico/Central America (Box 2), China/Southeast Asia (Box 3),
and the United States. Full assessments for reported oak
species (excluding 14 species whose assessments will be
available in 2021 and are included in all analyses) can be found
on the official IUCN Red List website (iucnredlist.org/).
Box 3: Ecology and taxonomy of Quercus in Asia: the
importance of molecular studies
Joeri Sergej Strijk
The oaks of Asia are important ecological, economical, and
cultural elements, occurring in a wide range of habitat types,
mostly in mid-high elevation forests, but with significant
extensions into the warm tropical lowlands. Continental Asia is
home to ~200 species of Quercus. Compared to Europe/N.
Africa (~30 species) and the Americas (~220 species), it ranks
as the world’s second hotspot of oak diversity (Govaerts and
Frodin, 1998). Temperate and (sub-) tropical forests in greater
Southeast Asia and China hold by far the majority of these
species (Strijk, 2020), and new species are being reported
regularly (Binh et al., 2018 a, b, c). Oaks are spread throughout
five of the ten major biodiversity hotspots in Asia (most notably
in the mountains of Central Asia, the Himalayas, Indo-Burma,
Japan and the Western Sundas - Indonesia, Malaysia and
Brunei). Their wood, leaves and fruits are sought after for use
in construction, as fuel, for industrial use, as ornamentals, in
rituals and occasionally for consumption.
Over the past decades, China and tropical Southeast Asia
have seen tremendous change, with urbanization, logging
and land conversion for monoculture crops (e.g., banana,
eucalypts, maize, palm oil, pulses, rice, rubber and teak)
taking place at unprecedented scales (Dixon et al., 2002;
Sodhi et al., 2004; Squires, 2014). Asia’s rapidly expanding
urban population is placing intense pressure on the remaining
natural resources, as witnessed by the growing numbers of
oaks (and many other regional flagship species) appearing
on the IUCN Red List in recent years (IUCN, 2020).
Evolutionary divergence and ecological adaptation of oaks in
Asia differs markedly from the radiation in the Americas,
where large numbers of species have adapted to temperate
and xeric environments (le Hardÿ de Beaulieu and Lamant,
2010). In Asia, species ranges of oaks appear to be smaller,
especially in warm wet evergreen forests towards the Equator.
Furthermore, species and populations of oaks in Asia are
spread out over both continental and insular areas, which
provided isolation and opportunities for past speciation, and
continues to fragment species’ populations today. The
complex diversity and geography of Asia poses significant
challenges to locate, assess and conserve species and
genetic diversity of oaks.
A revision of the infrageneric classification, taking into
account much of the recent molecular work in oaks, has
resolved many of the issues in the taxonomic and
evolutionary framework originally based solely on
morphological characters (Loudon, 1838; Ørsted, 1871;
Camus, 1939-1954; Menitsky, 2005; Denk et al., 2017). The
new classification synthesizes morphological traits,
molecular-phylogenetics and the evolutionary history of the
oaks, resolving the group into two subgenera and eight
sections. In China and Southeast Asia, both subgenera
(Quercus and Cerris) are present but only the latter occurs
with all sections (sects. Cyclobalanopsis, Ilex and Cerris). Of
subgenus Quercus, only section Quercus occurs, mostly in
the temperate and subtropical zone (Huang et al., 1999).
Following a prolonged period of marker-based phylogenetics
and reconstruction of historical biogeographic patterns (e.g.,
Menitsky, 2005; Denk and Grimm, 2010; Hubert et al., 2014;
Xing et al., 2014), rapid technological advances in genome
sequencing have now moved studies of oak evolution firmly
into the genomic era. Novel genome-wide survey techniques,
such as comparative skimming (Hinsinger and Strijk, 2019),
MIG-seq (Suyama and Matsuki, 2015; Binh et al., 2018 a; Strijk
et al., 2020) and RADseq analyses (Hipp et al., 2015; Fitz-
Gibbon et al., 2017; Deng et al., 2018; Jiang et al. 2019) are
providing exciting advances into understanding oak and
Fagaceae evolution. As whole genomes are being sequenced
for each of the oak sections, a comprehensive reconstruction
of oak genomic evolution will be within reach (Hipp et al., 2020),
explaining how geography, time and opportunity led to global
diversification of one of the world's most enigmatic tree groups.
The Red List of Oaks 2020
9
METHODS
TAxONOMy
There is no current, comprehensive, single treatment for the
genus Quercus. As a large, cosmopolitan, morphologically
diverse genus, Quercus is taxonomically challenging and species
delimitations are much debated. As such, the taxonomic
backbone for this project is the result of consultation with many
taxonomic experts, and largely follows several key floras and
checklists: Flora of North America (Nixon, 1997), Diversidad del
género Quercus (Fagaceae) en México (Valencia-Ávalos, 2004),
Oaks of Asia (Menitsky, 2005), Flora of China (Huang et al.,
1999), The Plant List (2013), NatureServe (2015), A Checklist of
Woody Plants from Eastern Asia (Ma, 2017), The USDA PLANTS
Database (2017), Oaks of the World (Hélardot, 2020), and World
Checklist of Selected Plant Families (Govaerts et al., 2020).
Our knowledge of the genus Quercus continues to evolve with
the advent of new technologies in molecular biology and
morphological analysis. Many new oak species are being
described every year, especially in centers of oak diversity like
Mexico/Central America, and China/Southeast Asia. As such,
this report represents the state of threat for a consensus
checklist of the world’s oak species, to the best of our
knowledge, with the currently available data.
COUNTRy LEvEL OCCURRENCE
Country level distribution for each oak species was gathered from
various sources including Flora of North America (Nixon, 1997),
Flora of China (Huang et al., 1999), A Checklist of Woody Plants
from Eastern Asia (Ma, 2017), GlobalTreeSearch (BGCI, 2020),
Oaks of the World (Hélardot, 2020), and World Checklist of
Selected Plant Families (Govaerts et al., 2020), as well as herbaria
records, primarily from Global Biodiversity Information Facility
(GBIF; gbif.org/), and peer-reviewed journal articles. Country level
occurrence data was recorded based on IUCN’s country list,
which follows the United Nations Statistics Division. Full methods
and the list of countries, territories, and regions recognized by
IUCN are available in the assessment tools resource on the IUCN
website (iucnredlist.org/resources/country-codes). Countries
analyzed in this report align with those listed on the IUCN Red
List country codes webpage, and do not necessarily reflect the
political opinions of the authors or organizations associated with
this report.
RED LIST ASSESSMENT PROCESS
All species assessments followed the methodology of the IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species as outlined in the IUCN Red List
Categories and Criteria, Version 3.1 (IUCN, 2012) and detailed in
the Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria,
Version 14 (IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee, 2019).
Information regarding species distribution, occurrence, population
size, habitat and ecology, use and trade, threats, conservation,
and ecosystem services was collected from a variety of sources
including floras (primarily those listed in the methods sections for
taxonomy and country level occurrence), published and
unpublished literature, contributions from taxonomic and regional
experts, and herbaria and botanic garden records.
All oak species were evaluated for threats according to the
standardized codes following the IUCN Red List threats
classification scheme (iucnredlist.org/resources/threat-
classification-scheme). Occurrence points were gathered from
Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF: gbif.org/),
iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org/), collections reported in
published literature, and herbaria records provided by regional
experts. The Extent of Occurrence (EOO) and Area of
Occupancy (AOO) as reported in the distribution section of each
assessment were calculated using the Geospatial Conservation
Assessment Tool (GeoCAT: geocat.kew.org/). All references are
cited for each species assessment and available on the Red List
website at iucnredlist.org.
Based on the best available data and expert input, every oak
species was assessed against the IUCN Red List categories and
criteria (Appendix A) and classified into one of the following IUCN
Red List categories (Figure 1): Extinct (EX), Extinct in the Wild (EW),
Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU),
Near Threatened (NT), Least Concern (LC), or Data Deficient (DD).
Species assessed as Critically Endangered, Endangered, and
Vulnerable are considered threatened. Species of conservation
concern are those assessed as any of the three threatened
categories, Near Threatened, or Data Deficient. Near Threatened
species are those that meet most but not all of the criteria for a
threatened category, while Data Deficient species do not have
enough information available to be placed in another category.
Quercus honbaensis, CR (S. Tagane)
Threatened species (i.e., CR, EN, and VU) must meet at least one
of five criteria: A) Population reduction; B) Geographic range; C)
Small population size and decline; D) Very small or restricted
population; or E) Quantitative analysis (Appendix A).
Assessments were completed using the IUCN Species
Information Service (SIS), an online portal for recording and
managing assessment and taxonomy data. Each completed
assessment was reviewed by at least one additional person
knowledgeable about the plant group, region, and/or Red List
methodology. Assessments were submitted to the Red List
through SIS and reviewed by a member of the Red List Unit before
being published.
REPORTING PROPORTION ThREATENED
Estimates of threatened species are calculated following IUCN’s
Guidelines for Reporting on Proportion Threatened (IUCN, 2016).
The mid-point is the “percentage of threatened species among
those for which threat status could be determined” and accounts
for the estimated proportion of Data Deficient species reassessed
as threatened in the future if current Red List category trends for
the genus are maintained. The mid-point is reported as the most
likely threatened estimate, calculated as [(CR+EN+VU)/(Assessed-
DD)]*100. The reported range includes the lower bound and upper
bound, which indicate the extreme potentials of threatened
species in the genus. The lower bound estimates threat
percentages assuming that no Data Deficient species will be
reassessed as threatened in the future, whereas the upper bound
estimates threat percentages assuming all Data Deficient species
will be reassessed as threatened. The lower bound is calculated
as [(CR+EN+VU)/Assessed]*100 and the upper bound is
calculated as [(CR+EN+VU+DD)/Assessed]*100. Unless
otherwise noted, all reported threat percentage estimates
represent the mid-point calculation.
PhyLOGENETIC ANALySIS
The 430 assessed species were matched to the most recent
phylogenetic studies of oaks (Denk et al., 2017; Hipp et al., 2020).
Thirty-five species assessed for this report were not included in
either of these phylogenetic studies. For these species, a literature
review was conducted to determine their section and/or regional
oak experts were consulted to assign a section (A. Coombes and
J. Strijk, pers. comm.).
EX SITU COLLECTIONS DATA
The number of ex situ collections for each assessed species was
determined by combining existing datasets from four sources:
1) a 2017 ex situ survey conducted by The Morton Arboretum
for the Conservation Gap Analysis of Native U.S. Oaks (Beckman
et al., 2019); 2) a 2019 survey conducted for a project funded
through the Institute of Museum and Library Services (award
#MA-30-18-0273-18 to S. Hoban et al., results in prep.); 3) a
2020 survey funded by the USDA Forest Service (cooperative
agreement #16-CA-11132546-045 to M. Westwood, results in
prep.) and Fondation Franklinia to support the conservation work
of the Global Conservation Consortium for Oak; and 4) records
held in BGCI’s PlantSearch database of plants in cultivation
(https://tools.bgci.org/plant_search.php; accessed May, 2020).
Species records were checked for taxonomic synonyms and
organized to remove duplicate institutions. The final combined
dataset was analyzed to determine the number of ex situ
collections holding each oak species.
The Red List of Oaks 2020
10
Figure 1. Structure of the IUCN Red List categories (version 3.1;
IUCN, 2012).
Quercus microphylla, LC (Béatrice Chassé)
The Red List of Oaks 2020
11
RESULTS
ThReAT STATUS
This publication reports, for the first time, the most
comprehensive, up-to-date Red List status of oaks globally,
including about 230 species never before assessed in any
publication. A total of 430 species of oaks were evaluated
using the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species methodology,
and their published assessments can be found here:
https://bit.ly/32V1tyV (14 species will be published in the spring
2021 IUCN Red List update).
An estimated 31% of oaks are threatened with extinction
(considering Data Deficient species, lower bound: 26%; midpoint
estimate 31%; upper bound: 42%). Forty-one percent of oaks are
considered to be of conservation concern, assessed as either
Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable, Near Threatened,
or Data Deficient (Figure 2; Table 1). The majority of threatened
and Near Threatened oak species (122) are assessed under
criterion B, which considers geographic range size and reduction
as calculated by species’ Extent of Occurrence (EOO) and/or Area
of Occupancy (AOO; Table 2).
The section of the genus Quercus with the highest proportion
majority of threatened oaks is Cyclobalanopsis (Figure 3), which
are exclusively found in east and Southeast Asia (Menitsky, 2005).
Nine oaks entered the IUCN Red List already Critically Endangered
and possibly extinct or possibly extinct in the wild, all of which are
endemic to southern China and Southeast Asia and all but one of
which is in section Cyclobalanopsis.
Figure 2. Percentage of 430 oak species assessed in each IUCN
Red List category.
Critically Endangered Near Threatened
Endangered Data Deficient
Vulnerable Least Concern
49.5%
15.6%
7.4%
8.8%
5.3%
13.3%
IUCN Red List Category Number of
species
Critically Endangered (CR) 32
Endangered (EN) 57
Vulnerable (VU) 23
Near Threatened (NT) 38
Data Deficient (DD) 67
Least Concern (LC) 213
TOTAL 430
Table 1. Number of oak species in each IUCN Red List category.
IUCN Red List Criteria Number of
species
Criterion A (Population size reduction) 6
Criterion B (Geographic range in the form
of Extent of Occurrence (EOO) and/or
Area of Occupancy (AOO)
122
Criterion C (Small population size and decline) 6
Criterion D (Very small or restricted population) 19
Criterion E (Quantitative analysis) 0
Table 2. Number of Critically Endangered, Endangered,
Vulnerable, and Near Threatened oak species assessed under
each of the five Red List criteria. Some species are assessed
under more than one criterion.
Quercus georgiana, EN (The Morton Arboretum)
The Red List of Oaks 2020
12
Figure 3. Proportion of species in each IUCN Red List category for the eight sections of the genus Quercus. Section nomenclature is from
Denk et al. (2017). Framework phylogeny adapted, with authors’ permission, from an analysis of genomic data from Hipp et al. (2020), and
all sections are supported with high statistical support. Branch lengths are in units of millions of years (based on fossil calibration).
In parentheses is the number of species per section assessed for the IUCN Red List. The size of the pie chart is roughly proportional to the
size of the section, based on the number of species assessed in this report.
Cyclobalanopsis (112 spp)
Cerris (15 spp)
Lobatae (113 spp)
Ponticae (2 spp)
Quercus (128 spp)
6.0
Ilex (39 spp)
Protobalanus (4 spp)
Virentes (7 spp)
Vulnerable
Near Threatened
Data Deficient
Least Concern
Critically Endangered
Endangered
GEOGRAPhIC ANALySIS
Oaks are native to 90 countries (Figure 4), with 243 endemic oak
species occurring in 20 countries (Figure 5). Countries with the
highest oak species richness are Mexico (164 species, 99
endemics), China (117 species, 58 endemics), and the US (91
species, 41 endemics). Threatened oak species occur in 31
countries (Figure 6), with the most threatened species in China (36
species), Mexico (32), Vietnam (20), the US (16), and Malaysia (9).
The Red List of Oaks 2020
13
Figure 4. Native oak species richness by country or territory.
Quercus scytophylla, LC (Béatrice Chassé) Quercus liaoi, DD (Béatrice Chassé)
The Red List of Oaks 2020
14
Figure 6. Threatened oak species richness by country or territory. Threatened oaks are those assessed as Critically Endangered,
Endangered, or Vulnerable.
Figure 5. Endemic oak species richness by country or territory.
The Red List of Oaks 2020
15
Figure 7. Most common threats to threatened (Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable) and not threatened (Near Threatened,
Least Concern, and Data Deficient) oak species.
MAjOR ThREATS
The most common threats to oaks globally are agriculture and
aquaculture (impacting 226 species, including 84 threatened
species), biological resource use (144, 63), and residential and
commercial development (109, 49; Figure 7). For oaks threatened
by biological resource use, this is most commonly the result of
Agriculture & aquaculture
Biological resource use
Residential & commercial
development
Natural system modifications
Climate change & severe weather
Invasive & other problematic
species, genes & diseases
Transportation & service corridors
Human intrusions &disturbance
Energy production & mining
Pollution
Other threats
Geological events
050 100 150 200
Not threatened
Threatened
Number of species
Threats
Figure 8. Most common threats to oak species, by geographic region. Species may be coded with more than one threat, but only
those species with at least one coded threat are included in this analysis. Some species are included in more than one region. The
oaks of Cuba (1 species) and Colombia (1 species) are included in Mexico & Central America.
Europe &
North Africa
(29 species)
Canada & the
United States
(44 species)
Mexico &
Central America
(101 species)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Residential &
commercial
development
Agriculture &
aquaculture
Energy production
& mining
Transportation &
service corridors
Biological
resource use
Human intrusions
& disturbance
Pollution Geological events
Natural system
modifications
Invasive & other
problematic species,
genes & diseases
Climate change
& severe weather Other threats
Asia
(100 species)
logging and wood harvesting. Threat pressures differ in frequency
based on region and country; agriculture and aquaculture is the
most common threat in Asia, Europe, and Mexico and Central
America, whereas invasive pests and diseases is the most
common threat in the United States (Figure 8; Table 3).
The Red List of Oaks 2020
16
China
Mexico
Vietnam
United States
Malaysia
Indonesia
Lao PDR
Thailand
India
Myanmar
Lebanon
Bangladesh
Brunei Darussalam
Bhutan
Cuba
Algeria
Georgia
Japan
Cambodia
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Hong Kong (China)
Honduras
Panama
Belize
Guatemala
Philippines
El Salvador
Syrian Arab Republic
Tunisia
Turkey
36
32
20
16
9
5
5
5
4
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Country/Territory
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Biological resource use
Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseases
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture, Biological resource use
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture, Biological resource use
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture, Energy production & mining,
Natural system modifications
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture, Biological resource use
Agriculture & aquaculture
Biological resource use
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture, Biological resource use
Residential & commercial development,
Agriculture & aquaculture, Biological resource use
Agriculture & aquaculture, Biological resource use
Biological resource use
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture, Natural system modifications
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Biological resource use
Most common threat(s)
Threatened
oak species
117
164
49
91
19
14
24
33
21
27
7
9
5
9
1
6
5
15
3
10
12
8
20
10
11
26
1
15
10
5
17
Total oak
species
Table 3. Most common threat(s) to oak species, by country/territory. Of the 90 countries with native oak species, only the 31
countries/territories with at least one threatened species are shown.
Quercus kingiana, EN (S. Sirimongkol) Quercus lobbii, EN (Jean-Louis Hélardot)
The Red List of Oaks 2020
17
EX SITU REPRESENTATION
There are 296 oak species reported in the ex situ collections of
botanic gardens and arboreta globally, with the majority of species
(165) held in 20 collections or fewer (Figure 9). Nearly one-third of
oak species (134) are not reported in any ex situ collection globally,
including 58 species (51%) of threatened oaks (Table 4).
Figure 9. Number of oak species in ex situ collections, by IUCN Red List category.
0
1-5
6-10
11-20
21-50
51-100
101-200
201-300
300+
0
CR
EN
VU
NT
DD
LC
Number of oak species
Number of ex situ collections
50 100 150
Quercus glabrescens, LC (Béatrice Chassé) Quercus planipocula, LC (Béatrice Chassé)
The Red List of Oaks 2020
18
China
Mexico
Vietnam
United States
Malaysia
Indonesia
Lao PDR
Thailand
India
Myanmar
Costa Rica
Honduras
Hong Kong (China)
Panama
Bangladesh
Belize
Guatemala
Lebanon
Algeria
Bhutan
Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia
Cuba
El Salvador
Georgia
Japan
Nicaragua
Philippines
Syrian Arab Republic
Tunisia
Turkey
36
32
20
16
9
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Country/ Territory Threatened
oak species
117
164
49
91
19
14
24
33
21
27
12
20
8
10
9
11
26
7
6
9
5
3
1
15
5
15
10
1
10
5
17
Total oak
species
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Biological resource use
Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseases
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture, Biological resource use
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture, Biological resource use
Agriculture & aquaculture, Biological resource use
Residential & commercial development, Agriculture & aquaculture, Biological resource use
Biological resource use
Agriculture & aquaculture, Biological resource use
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Biological resource use
Agriculture & aquaculture, Energy production & mining, Natural system modifications
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture, Biological resource use
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture, Natural system modifications
Agriculture & aquaculture
Agriculture & aquaculture
Biological resource use
Most common threat(s)
Table 4. Threatened oak species (Critically Endangered, Endangered, and Vulnerable) not reported in any ex situ collections.
*Species assessment to be published in the first IUCN Red List update of 2021.
Quercus confertifolia, LC (Béatrice Chassé) Quercus praeco, LC (Béatrice Chassé)
The Red List of Oaks 2020
19
CONCLUSIONS AND CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Nearly one-third of all oak species are threatened with extinction
and more than forty percent are considered of conservation
concern. Regions with high numbers of native and threatened
species include Mexico & Central America, China & Southeast
Asia, and the United States. More specifically, China, Mexico,
Vietnam, and the United States contain the highest number of
threatened oaks. Although conservation of oaks in all parts of
the world is necessary, conservation in these centers of diversity
is the highest priority to ensure efficient, strategic protection for
as many species as possible.
Analyses of global oak assessments show increasing current
and projected threats to species, populations, and habitats.
Pressures from land use change for agriculture, housing and
urban area development, logging, natural system modifications,
climate change, and invasive pests and diseases are identified
as serious threats. Different regions require different strategies
for protection based on threat; oak species in the United States
show higher threats from climate change and invasive species,
whereas concerns in Asia and Mexico and Central America are
primarily due to deforestation from logging (coded as biological
resource use), urbanization (residential and commercial
development), and agriculture.
Living ex situ collections are an important method of oak
conservation because oaks are “exceptional species” and cannot
be seed banked through convention methods. Yet, the botanical
garden community is severely lacking in ex situ collections of high
conservation quality. More than half of threatened oaks (58
species), predominantly from China and Southeast Asia, are not
currently found in any ex situ collections globally. More than 130
of all oak species are not found in any ex situ collections and 34
species are only found in one collection. All threatened oak
species not currently present in ex situ collections are listed in
(Table 4) to help prioritize species for future collecting efforts.
Without active and coordinated conservation efforts to increase
oak richness and diversity in ex situ collections globally, many
threatened species will face extinction.
It is helpful to classify centers of oak richness for native and
threatened species both by region (following the natural
distribution patterns of oaks) and country (as this is often
thepolitical unit at which conservation policies are made). The
most common conservation recommendations across all Red
List assessments for oaks include increasing ex situ collections,
designating land and government protections for species in situ,
and increased surveying of oaks in the wild to monitor
populations, habitat, and threat trends. A preliminary summary
of conservation efforts in the global centers of diversity Mexico
& Central America, China & Southeast Asia, and the United
States are provided below. Additional syntheses of current oak
conservation initiatives and needs in the United States can
be found in The Red List of US Oaks (Jerome et al., 2017) and
the Conservation Gap Analysis of Native U.S. Oaks (Beckman
et al., 2019).
Mexico and central aMerica
Mexico and Central America host the highest concentration of
oak species in the world, with an estimate of 160 species, from
which approximately 100 are endemic to Mexico, six are
endemic to Central America, and 27 are shared between the
two regions (the remaining species are shared between Mexico
and the United States). Approximately 53% of these species are
considered to have intermediate or large distributional range
sizes (presence in three or more Mexican states), while about
60 species are restricted to only one or two Mexican states
(Valencia-Á., 2004). This restricted distribution makes them
particularly vulnerable to threats including habitat loss due to
land use conversion, climate change, direct logging, and pest
and diseases.
According to the recently published Global Forest Resources
Assessment by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (2015), the rate of annual loss of primary forest
in Mexico has been decreasing over the last three decades.
However, deforestation is still more than one hundred thousand
hectares per year. This puts some oak species at risk,
particularly those in areas such as Michoacán state where forest
conversion to avocado orchards is rampant.
Quercus kiukangensis, EN (Béatrice Chassé)
Climate change is also a significant threat. All modeling studies
in Mexico have found that areas climatically suitable for oaks will
decrease in extents that vary from slight to dramatic, depending
on the species (Gómez-Mendoza and Arriaga, 2007; Ramírez-
Preciado et al., 2019). Particularly worrisome are the possible
interactions between climate change and emergent pests and
diseases, such as those caused by the pathogen Phytophthora
cinnamomi or the gall wasp Andricus quercuslaurinus, which
seem to have had an increasing impact over the last decade
(Sáenz-Romero et al., 2020).
Current, innovative technologies allow enhanced oak
conservation efforts. Recent findings have provided a clear
phylogenetic framework (Hipp et al., 2020) to incorporate an
evolutionary perspective on oak studies. Also, several authors
have focused on the importance of in situ conservation strategies
for oak diversity preservation; for example, Natural Protected
Areas harbor ~84% of the Mexican oak species (Torres-Miranda
et al., 2011; Ramírez-Toro et al., 2017). Finally, ex situ
conservation strategies are prioritized, particularly by botanic
gardens who protect ~36% of the oak species native to Mexico.
Highly threatened species and habitats have been identified and
studied collaboratively with local communities using ecosystems
management approaches (Montes-Hernández and López-
Barrera, 2013). However, there is still a lot of work to do. The
drivers for environmental degradation and diversity loss do not
need to be coordinated to continue threatening biodiversity.
Unlike such effects, the scientific community, decision-making
actors, and invested citizens must act as a whole. Despite the
development of several recent initiatives, including those from
the Oaks of the Americas Conservation Network (OACN; Box
4), BGCI, and the Global Trees Campaign, current conservation
actions are not enough.
Therefore, a new conservation science is urgently needed. We
must find ways to enhance, improve, and merge current
ecological and evolutionary knowledge, while also considering
the needs of local communities, in order to achieve
multidisciplinary approaches for oak conservation.
ChINA
One-third of Fagaceae species (~300) are distributed in China
and account for 13.7% of the total area of natural forests in the
country. Chinese oaks occur in a diversity of habitats including
tropical rainforests, subtropical broadleaved evergreen forest,
temperate deciduous broadleaved forest, and conifer forests,
and range in elevation from 0 to 4500 meters.
Quercus species in China play an important role in regulating
ecosystem function and maintaining community stability. Local
people harvest Chinese oaks for timber, charcoal, the
production of dyes, and starchy food. Currently, many Chinese
oaks are threatened with extinction, primarily due to land use
changes, unsustainable harvesting, climate change, soil erosion,
and habitat destruction. During the last few hundred years and
increasing in the last one hundred years, large areas of the oak
forest in China have been cleared for agricultural crops,
commercial crops, and monocrop economic forests.
Additionally, oaks growing near the top of mountains with limited
populations (e.g., Quercus arbutifolia and Q. litseoides) are
especially threatened from habitat destruction, soil erosion, and
climate change.
The Red List of Oaks 2020
20
Box 4: Oaks of the Americas Conservation Network
The Oaks of the Americas Conservation Network (OACN)
was born out of the International Workshop on Oak
Conservation held in March 2016 in Morelia, Mexico, as a
collaborative effort between The Morton Arboretum, the
National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), and
University of Minnesota, in partnership with BGCI and FFI.
OACN is a consortium of researchers and conservationists
at universities, botanical gardens, arboreta, non-
governmental organizations, and government agencies
working to conserve threatened oak species throughout the
Americas, with a focus on Latin America as a global hotspot
for oak diversity. With an integrated approach to oak
conservation in Mexico and Central America in mind, OACN
pursues research and conservation projects that span a
variety of species, audiences, and methodologies. These
projects involve international collaboration across different
sectors to maximize efficiency and effectiveness. Together,
these projects will forge new partnerships, strengthen the
network of engaged conservationists in an oak diversity
hotspot, build knowledge and capacity, and result in direct
conservation action for rare and threatened oak species
(Denvir et al., 2018).
Quercus deserticola, LC (Béatrice Chassé)
China is in need of increased conservation actions for oaks, as
well as all genera of the Fagaceae family. However, the List of
National Key Protected Wild Plants (First Group) issued by the
National Forestry Bureau and Agriculture Ministry of China in 1999,
only included three Fagaceae species: Castanopsis concinna,
Fagus hayatae and Formanodendron (Trigonoabalanus)
doichangensis. Only C. concinna, Cyclobalanopsis sichourensis
(= Quercus sichourensis) and Quercus bawanglingensis are
included in a draft list for promulgating (Formanodendron
doichangensis and Fagus hayatae were deleted from the list in
1999). In 2004, Wang and Xie published the China Species Red
List which included 93 oak species with limited occurrence data
(less than 5). China later developed the conservation action
concept of Plant Species with Extremely Small Populations
(PSESP) in 2005, and national conservation actions have been
launched based on the National 120 PSESP List released in 2012.
Unfortunately, there were no Fagaceae species included in the list,
and only Cyclobalanopsis sichourensis was included in the
Provincial 62 PSESP List of Yunnan approved by the government
in 2010. Huang (2014) reported that 207 Fagaceae species have
been cultivated ex situ in China’s major botanical gardens. Among
these species, only eight are nationally evaluated as threatened:
Castanopsis kawakamii, Castanopsis rockii, Cyclobalanopsis
dinghuensis (= Quercus dinghuensis), Cyclobalanopsis disciformis
(= Quercus disciformis), Cyclobalanopsis sichourensis,
Lithocarpus crytocarpus, Lithocarpus fordianus and
Formanodendron doichangensis (Qin et al., 2017). Based on the
report, only two species, Cyclobanopsis sichourensis and
Formanodendron doichangensis, are effectively conserved by in
situ protection, ex situ preservation, and population reinforcement
and reintroduction in the country (Sun, 2013; Sun et al., 2011,
2016, 2019, and 2020; Xia et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2019). For the
other threatened Fagaceae species, effective protective actions
are urgently needed. Botanical gardens and nature reserves need
to take immediate action to protect Chinese Fagaceae species.
SOUThEAST ASIA
Southeast Asia is a regional hotspot of species richness with high
species endemism (Koh et al., 2013). The tropical climate, varied
topography, and expansive land cover make this area ideal for
development of rich and diverse plant life. For these reasons, it
is also a region of high oak diversity and richness. Oaks in
Southeast Asia occur from sea level to elevations of more than
3,000 meters, with the majority of species in mid-upper montane
wet evergreen forests. Locally, oaks and other Fagaceae
dominate the lower and middle forest strata in varying species
assemblages over large areas. Similar to other Fagaceae in Asia,
oaks are generally absent from areas with seasonal climate,
although certain species have ranges that extend into high
elevation summit zones (e.g., Quercus lineata and Q.
gemelliflora). Soil type does not appear to be a major determining
factor for oak presence as they are found on a wide variety of
substrates. However, some species have a specific preference
for podzolized soils (kerangas) or soils derived from ultrabasic
bedrock, whereas calcareous soils are mostly lacking oak and
other Fagaceae elements (Soepadmo and van Steenis, 1972).
There are an estimated 86 oak species native to the 11
countries comprising Southeast Asia (this definition excludes
southern China). Nine of the 31 countries with threatened oak
species are located in this region (Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand,
Lao PDR, Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Cambodia, and
Brunei). With 36 threatened species (an estimated 48%),
Southeast Asia is the most threatened region for oaks globally.
Additionally, nine oak species have been assessed for the first
time as Critically Endangered and possibly extinct or possibly
extinct in the wild, and all are native to southern China and
Southeast Asia (Appendices B and C).
The Red List of Oaks 2020
21
Box 5: Southeast Asian Botanic Garden Network
The Southeast Asian Botanic Garden (SEABG) Network,
established in 2004 with BGCI as secretariat, works to
coordinate and promote the work of botanic gardens in the
region. The goals of SEABG are to set standards among
Southeast Asian botanic gardens, promote the exchange
of technical expertise, connect members of the botanic
garden community, and guide members in implementing
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), specifically
the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC),
as well as the International Agenda for Botanic Gardens.
For more information see bgci.org/our-work/where-we-
work/asia/botanic-garden-networks-in-asia/
Quercus acerifolia, EN (Béatrice Chassé)
These species have very small populations and/or restricted
ranges and are primarily threatened by land conversion for
logging, agriculture, and urbanization. They are listed as possibly
extinct due to one or a combination of the following: few,
unreadable, and/or misidentified herbaria records, inaccessible
herbaria records due to a lack of capacity for local botanical
communities, little to no recent surveying capacity, lack of
strategic surveying due to minimal ecology/habitat knowledge,
and/or doubt about species presence due to increased
deforestation in the species’ suspected locality. For example, a
great proportion ( 75%) of the herbaria collection data for
Southeast Asian oaks came from the 1960s - 1990s, an era
where active logging and land development led to greater
accessibility and facilitated specimen collections. However, this
poses a potential problem of collection locality bias, showing
certain areas to have high number of species representation,
while areas with similar habitat conditions but difficult accessibility
showed low representation.
Southeast Asia is reported to have the highest relative rate of
deforestation of any major tropical region (Sodhi et al., 2004).
Threats to forest areas in Southeast Asia are primarily a result of
logging and rapid clearing for urbanization (Hughes, 2017).
These threats also extend to oaks in the region, as seen in the
results of this publication. Despite these severe threats, there has
been minimal coordinated conservation action in the region to
preserve threatened oak species. Though there have been
changes in regulations in some regions of Southeast Asia to
protect species, such as the prohibition of logging Fagaceae
species in Sabah (Malaysia) and the increase of Totally Protected
Areas (TPAs) by Sabah and Sarawak (Malaysia), challenges from
a lack of shared information, funding, human resources, and
collection bias (fertile specimens only) slow the progress of oak
research, prioritization, and conservation action. Though much
effort is invested in the management of in situ habitats where the
majority of recorded species are found, there is still a need for
the establishment of regional oak ex situ collections. At present,
there is no regional ex situ effort focused specifically on the
Southeast Asian oaks to secure a significant proportion of their
species and genetic diversity. For many species, propagation
and growing requirements remain unknown, further complicating
both studies of shrinking populations and ex situ conservation
efforts. Conservation actions to protect oaks in this region must
be collaborative, considerate of local expertise, and focus on
increasing the survey of oaks in the wild, with the goal of
monitoring populations, habitat, and threat trends and increasing
oak ex situ collections in regional botanic gardens (Box 5).
ThE UNITED STATES
With 91 native oak species, the US is a diversity center for
Quercus. The Conservation Gap Analysis of Native U.S. Oaks
(Beckman et al., 2019) identified 28 of the 91 native oaks (31%)
as species of conservation concern based on extinction risk,
vulnerability to climate change, and lack of representation in ex
situ collections (Beckman et. al., 2019). While some oak species
of conservation concern have been the focus of collecting
efforts, many are underrepresented in ex situ collections. Nine
species of conservation concern are represented by fewer than
15 plants in collections and four species of concern are not
found in any collections in North America (Beckman et. al.,
2019). Fortunately, the US has resources and networks in place
that provide a strong foundation to conduct oak conservation
and research. The Red List of US Oaks (Jerome, et al., 2017),
which contains additional threat analyses for species in the US,
and the Conservation Gap Analysis of Native U.S. Oaks
(Beckman et al., 2019), provides a roadmap for action, outlining
priority conservation and research activities for the oak species
of conservation concern. Botanic gardens and arboreta are the
champions for native US oaks, with strong, well-resourced
networks providing coordination and guidance, including
support for ex situ collection and coordination through the
American Public Gardens Association Plant Collections Network
Quercus Multisite, guidelines available through the Center for
Plant Conservation, and the recently established Global
Conservation Consortium for Oak (GCCO; Box 6). These
networks and resources provide a valuable base for the
continued conservation of oaks in the US.
The Red List of Oaks 2020
22
Quercus scytophylla, LC (Béatrice Chassé)
Quercus obtusata, LC (Béatrice Chassé)
The Red List of Oaks 2020
23
Since no single institution
can conserve all of the
world's threatened oak
species, a coordinated
global network is needed
to ensure that threatened species are represented in ex situ
collections and conserved in the wild, and that the institutions
and experts in the global centers of diversity for oaks have
the resources and conservation capacity to adequately
conserve priority oak species. For these reasons, the Global
Conservation Consortium for Oak (GCCO) was created. The
GCCO is led by The Morton Arboretum (Illinois, USA) in
collaboration with BGCI and dozens of other partners. The
goal of the GCCO is to mobilize a coordinated network of
institutions and experts who work collaboratively to develop
and implement a comprehensive conservation strategy to
prevent extinction of the world’s oak species.
The objectives of the GCCO are to:
Establish and foster a global network of oak experts
Identify and prioritize species of greatest conservation
concern through the IUCN Red List
Establish and manage coordinated ex situ collections of
high conservation value to support in situ action
Undertake and facilitate applied research (e.g., conservation
biology, population genetics, taxonomy)
Ensure that threatened species are conserved in situ
Build capacity to empower and mobilize in-country partners
in centres of diversity to act for target species in these areas
Increase public awareness and engagement in tree
conservation
Raise funding to scale up conservation action for target
groups
Through the GCCO, partners and collaborators will have the
tools and support needed to efficiently and effectively
overcome challenges, catalyze action, and build capacity to
conserve threatened oak species around the world.
Since launching in 2019, the GCCO has become well-
established in the US, with five year work plan outlining goals
and objectives for the US region, and working groups
established to address key oak conservation activities such
as cryopreservation, propagation, collecting, curation and
conservation grove design. Virtual meetings have provided
an opportunity for closer collaboration between members.
As momentum builds in the US, the GCCO is working to
replicate this model in Mexico, China, and Southeast Asia.
For more information see bgci.org/our-work/projects-and-
case-studies/a-global-conservation-consortium-for-oak/.
Box 6: The Global Conservation Consortium for Oak
By Amy Byrne
Quercus obtusata, LC (Béatrice Chassé) Quercus repanda, LC (Béatrice Chassé)
REFERENCES
Beckman, E., Meyer, A., Denvir, A., Gill, D., Man, G.,
Pivorunas, D., Shaw, K., and Westwood, M. 2019.
Conservation Gap Analysis of Native U.S. Oaks. Lisle, IL: The
Morton Arboretum.
BGCI. 2020. GlobalTreeSearch online database. Botanic
Gardens Conservation International. Richmond, U.K. Available
at www.bgci.org. Accessed 2020.
BGCI. 2020. PlantSearch online database. Botanic Gardens
Conservation International. Richmond, U.K. Available at
www.bgci.org. Accessed May 2020.
Binh, h. T., van Ngoc, N., Tagane, S., Toyama, h., Mase, K.,
Mitsuyuki, C., Strijk, j. S., Suyama, y., and yahara, T. 2018 a.
A taxonomic study of Quercus langbianensis complex based on
morphology and DNA barcodes of classic and next generation
sequences. PhytoKeys 95: 37-70.
Binh, h. T., van Ngoc, N., Tai, v. A., Son, h. T., Tagane, S.,
and yahara, T. 2018 b. Quercus trungkhanhensis (Fagaceae),
a New Species from Cao Vit Gibbon Conservation Area, Cao
Bang Province, northeastern Vietnam. Acta Phytotaxonomica
et Geobotanica 69(1):53-61.
Binh, h. T., van Ngoc, N., Bon, T. N., Tagane, S., Suyama, y.,
and yahara, T. 2018 c. A new species and two new records of
Quercus (Fagaceae) from northern Vietnam. PhytoKeys (92):1.
Brennan, A., Pence, v., Taylor, M., Trader, B., and
Westwood, M. 2017. Tissue culture using mature material for
the conservation of oaks. HortTechnology 27(5): 644-649.
Camus, A. 1936–1954. Les Chênes. Monographie du genre
Quercus. Tome I-III. Text: Paul Lechevalier, Paris.
Cavender-Bares, j. 2016. Diversity, distribution, and
ecosystem services of the North American oaks. International
Oaks 27: 37–48.
Cavender-Bares, j. 2019. Diversification, adaptation, and
community assembly of the American oaks (Quercus), a model
clade for integrating ecology and evolution. New Phytologist
221: 669–692.
Deng, M., jiang, x-L., hipp, A. L., Manos, P
. S., and hahn,
M. 2018. Phylogeny and biogeography of East Asian evergreen
oaks (Quercus section Cyclobalanopsis; Fagaceae): Insights
into the Cenozoic history of evergreen broad-leaved forests in
subtropical Asia. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 119:
170–181.
Denk, T. and Grimm, G. W. 2010. The oaks of western Eurasia:
traditional classifications and evidence from two nuclear
markers. Taxon 59:351–366.
Denk, T., Grimm, G. W., Manos, P. S., Deng, M., and hipp,
A. L. 2017. “An updated infrageneric classification of the oaks:
review of previous taxonomic schemes and synthesis of
evolutionary patterns”. In: Oaks - physiological ecology.
Exploring the functional diversity of genus Quercus L. (pp. 13-
38). Springer, Cham
Denvir, A., Westwood, M., Coombes, A., and hipp, A. 2018.
The Oaks of the Americas Conservation Network. International
Oaks 29: 91-98.
Dixon, j., Gulliver, A., and Gibbon, D. 2002. Farming Systems
and Poverty: Improving farmers' livelihoods in a changing world.
FAO.
eFloras. 2008. Published on the Internet http://www.efloras.org
[accessed 22 February 2008]*' Missouri Botanical Garden, St.
Louis, MO & Harvard University Herbaria, Cambridge, MA.
FAO: Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: How have
the world’s forests changed? 2015. Rome, Italy.
Fitz-Gibbon, S., hipp, A. L., Pham, K. K., Manos, P
. S., and
Sork, v. L. 2017. Phylogenomic inferences from reference-
mapped and de novo assembled short-read sequence data
using RADseq sequencing of California white oaks (Quercus
section Quercus). Genome 60(9):743-55.
Gómez-Mendoza, L. and Arriaga, L. 2007. Modelling the
effect of climate change on the distribution of oak and pine
species of Mexico. Conservation Biology 21: 1545-1555.
Govaerts, R. and Frodin, D. G. 1998. World Checklist and
Bibliography of Fagales: 1-408. The Board of Trustees of the
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
Govaerts, R., Andrews, S., Coombes, A., Gilbert, M., hunt,
D., Nixon, K., and Thomas, M. 2020. World Checklist of
Fagaceae. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
Published on the Internet; http://wcsp.science.kew.org/
Retrieved 5 November 2020
hélardot, j-L. 2020. Oaks of The World. Corrèze, France.
Available at: http://oaks.of.the.world.free.fr/.
The Red List of Oaks 2020
24
The Red List of Oaks 2020
25
Hinsinger, D. D. and Strijk, J. S. 2019. Plastome of Quercus
xanthoclada and comparison of genomic diversity amongst
selected Quercus species using genome skimming. PhytoKeys
132: 75-89.
Hipp, A. L., Manos, P., McVay, J. D., Cavender-Bares, J.,
González-Rodriguez, A., Romero-Severson, J., Hahn, M.,
Brown, B. H., Budaitis, B., Deng, M., Grimm, G., Fitzek, E.,
Cronn, R., Jennings, T. L., Avishai, M., and Simeone, M. C.
2015. A phylogeny of the World’s oaks. Botany 2015, Edmonton.
Hipp, A. L., Manos, P. S., González-Rodríguez, A., Hahn, M.,
Kaproth, M., McVay, J. D., Valencia-Ávalos, S., and
Cavender-Bares, J. 2018. Sympatric parallel diversification of
major oak clades in the Americas and the origins of Mexican
species diversity. New Phytologist 217(1): 439-452.
Hipp, A. L., Manos, P. S., Hahn, M., Avishai, M., Bodénès,
C., Cavender-Bares, J., Crowl, A. A., Deng, M., Denk, T.,
Fitz-Gibbon, S., Gailing, O., Gonzalez-Elizondo, M. S.,
González-Rodríguez, A., Grimm, G., Jiang, X-L., Kremer, A.,
Lesur, I., McVay, J., Plomion, C., Rodríguez-Correa, H.,
Schulze, E-D., Simeone, M., Sork, and Valencia-Ávalos, S.
2020. Genomic landscape of the global oak phylogeny. New
Phytologist 226(4): 1198-1212.
Huang, C., Zhang, Y., and Bartholomew, B. 1999. Fagaceae.
In: Wu Z-Y, Raven PH (eds.), Flora of China 4 - Cycadaceae
through Fagaceae. Science Press and Missouri Botanical
Garden Press, Beijing, St. Louis, p. 314–400.
Huang, H. W. 2014. A Checklist of Ex Situ Cultivated Flora of
China. Beijing of China, Science Press.
Hubert, F., Grimm, G.W., Jousselin, E., Berry, V., Franc, A.,
and Kremer, A. 2014. Multiple nuclear genes stabilize the
phylogenetic backbone of the genus Quercus. Syst. Biodivers.
12:405–423.
Hughes, A. C. 2017. Understanding the drivers of Southeast
Asian biodiversity loss. Ecosphere 8(1):1-33.
IUCN. 2012. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version
3.1. Second edition. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK:
IUCN. iv + 32pp.
IUCN. 2016. Guidelines for Reporting on Proportion Threatened.
Version 1.1.
IUCN. 2020. “Fagaceae”. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2020-2. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed
on 10 October 2020.
IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee. 2019. Guidelines
for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 14.
Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Committee.
Downloadable from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/
RedListGuidelines.pdf.
Jerome, D., Beckman, E., Kenny, L., Wenzell, K., Kua, C-S.,
and Westwood, M. 2017. The Red List of US Oaks. The
Morton Arboretum. Lisle, IL.
Jiang, X-L., Hipp, A. L., Deng, M., Su, T., Zhou, Z-K., and
Yan, M-X. 2019. East Asian origins of European holly oaks via
the Tibet-Himalayas. Journal of Biogeography 46: 2203–2214.
Koh, L. P., Kettle, C. J., Sheil, D., Lee, T. M., Giam, X.,
Gibson, L., and Clements, G. R. 2013. “Biodiversity State and
Trends in Southeast Asia”. In S. Levin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Biodiversity (2nd ed., pp. 509–527). Elsevier Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00357-9
Kramer, A. T. and Pence, V. 2012. The challenges of ex-situ
conservation for threatened oaks. International Oak Journal 23:
91-108.
Quercus deserticola, LC (Béatrice Chassé)
The Red List of Oaks 2020
26
Quercus magnoliifolia, LC (Béatrice Chassé)
Kremer, A. and hipp, A. L. 2020. Oaks: an evolutionary
success story. New Phytologist 226: 987-1011.
Le hardÿ de Beaulieu, A. and Lamant T. 2010. Guide illustré
des Chênes. 2 vols. Edilens, Geer.
Logan, W. B. 2005. Oak: Frame of civilization. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company, Inc.
Loudon, j. C. 1838. Arboretum et Fruticetum Brittanicum. Vol.
III. Printed for the author by A. Spottiswoode, London.
Ma, j. S. 2017. A Checklist of Woody Plants from Eastern Asia.
Henan Science and Technology Press, Zhengzhou, China.
Menitsky, y. L. 2005. Oaks of Asia [Translated from Russian].
Science Publishers, Inc., Enfield (NH), USA and Plymouth, UK.
Montes-hernández, B. and López-Barrera, F. 2013. Seedling
establishment of Quercus insignis: A critically endangered oak
tree species in southern Mexico. Forest Ecology and
Management, 310, 927-934.
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer [web
application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available
https://explorer.natureserve.org/. (Accessed: 2015)
Nixon, K. C. 1997. “Quercus”. In: Flora of North America
Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North
of Mexico. 21+ vols. New York and Oxford. Vol. 3. Pp. 431-506.
Nixon, K. C. 2006. “Global and neotropical distribution and
diversity of oak (genus Quercus) and oak forests”. In: Kappelle
M, ed. Ecology and conservation of neotropical montane oak
forests. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Verlag, 3–13.
Oldfield, S. and Eastwood, A. 2007. The Red List of Oaks.
Cambridge, UK: Fauna & Flora International.
Ørsted AS. 1871. Bidrag til Kundskab om Egefamilien. Kongl
Danske Vidensk Selsk Biol Skr 5 Naturvidensk Math. Afd.
6:331–538.
Qin, h. N., yang, y., Dong, S. y., et al., 2017. Threatened
Species List of China’s Higher Plants. Biodiversity Science 25
(7): 696–744.
Ramírez-Preciado, R. P., Gasca-Pineda, j., and Arteaga, M.
C. 2019. Effects of global warming on the potential distribution
ranges of six Quercus species (Fagaceae). Flora 251, 32-38.
Ramírez-Toro, W., Torres-Miranda, A., González-Rodríguez,
A., Ruiz-Sanchez, E., Luna-vega, I., and Oyama, K. (2017).
A multicriteria analysis for prioritizing areas for conservation of
oaks (Fagaceae: Quercus) in Oaxaca, southern Mexico. Tropical
Conservation Science 10, 1940082917714227.
Rodríguez-Acosta, M. and Coombes, A. j. (Eds.). 2020.
Manual de propagación de Quercus: Una guía fácil y rápida para
cultivar encinos en México y América Central. Jardín Botánico
Universitario de la Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de
Puebla. México.
Sáenz-Romero, C., Mendoza-Maya, E., Gómez-Pineda, E.,
Blanco-Garcíam, A., Endara-Agramont, A. R., Lindig-
Cisneros, R., López-Upton, j., Trejo-Ramírez, O., Wehenkel,
C., Cibrián-Tovar, D., Flores-López, C., Plasencia-González,
A., and vargas-hernández, j. j. 2020. Recent evidence of
Mexican temperate forest decline and the need for ex situ
conservation, assisted migration, and translocation of species
ensembles as adaptive management to face projected climatic
change impacts in a megadiverse country. Canadian Journal of
Forest Research 50, 843-854.
Sodhi, N. S., Koh, L. P., Brook, B. W., and Ng, P. K. 2004.
Southeast Asian biodiversity: an impending disaster. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution 19(12): 654-660.
Soepadmo, E. and van Steenis, C. G. G. j. 1972. Flora
Malesiana, Volume 7.
Squires, D. 2014. Biodiversity Conservation in Asia. Asia & the
Pacific Policy Studies 1(1):144-59.
Strijk, j. S., Binh, h. T., Ngoc, N. v., Pereira, j. T., Slik, j. F.,
Sukri, R. S., Suyama, y., Tagane, S., Wieringa, j. j., yahara,
T., and hinsinger, D. D. 2020. Museomics for reconstructing
historical floristic exchanges: Divergence of stone oaks across
Wallacea. PloS one 15(5):e0232936.
Strijk, j. S. 2020. “Quercus” - AsianFagaceae.com–
The complete database for information on the evolutionary
history, diversity, identification and conservation of over 700
species of Asian trees. Published on the Internet:
http://www.asianfagaceae.com/quercus/. (accessed April 17,
2020).
Sun, W. B., Li, F. R., and Zhou, y. 2020. Reintroduction of
Trigonobalanus doichangensis, a Threatened Plant Species with
Extremely Small Populations. In: Ren H. Conservation and
Reintroduction of Rare and Endangered Plants in China.
Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd., 167-174.
Sun, W. B., yang, j., and Dao, Z. L. 2019. Study and
Conservation of Plant Species with Extremely Small Populations
(PSESP) in Yunnan Province, China. Science Press, Beijing,
China.
Sun, W. B., Zhou, y., han, C. y., et al. 2011. ‘Trigonobalanus’.
In: Kole C. Wild Crop Relatives and Breeding Resources-Forest
Tre e . Germany: Spring-Verlag Berlin Heideberg,145-160.
Sun, W. B., Zhou, Z. K., Chen, W. y., et al. 2016. Rescuing
Plant Species with Extremely Small Populations (PSESP) in
China: the case of the Xichou Oak (Quercus sichourensis).
International Oaks, 27:163-170.
Sun, W. B. 2013. Conservation of Plant Species with Extremely
Small Populations (PSESP) in Yunnan - Practice and
Exploration. Yunnan Science and Technology Press, Kunming,
China,
Suyama, y. and Matsuki, y. 2015. MIG-seq: an effective PCR-
based method for genome-wide single-nucleotide
polymorphism genotyping using the next-generation
sequencing platform. Scientific Reports 5:16963.
Tallamy, D. W. and Shropshire, K. j. 2009. Ranking
Lepidopteran use of native versus introduced plants.
Conservation Biology 23 (4): 941-947.
The Plant List (2013). Version 1.1. Published on the Internet;
http://www.theplantlist.org/.
Torres-Miranda, A., Luna-vega, I., and Oyama, K. 2011.
Conservation biogeography of red oaks (Quercus, section
Lobatae) in Mexico and Central America. American Journal of
Botany 98(2), 290-305.
USDA, NRCS. 2017. The PLANTS Database
(http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro,
NC 27401-4901 USA.
valencia-Ávalos, S. 2004. Diversidad del género Quercus
(Fagaceae) en México. Boletín de la Sociedad Botánica de
México 75: 33-53.
Walters, C. and Pence, vC. 2020. The unique role of
seed banking and cryobiotechnologies in plant
conservation. Plants, People, Planet 2020; 00: 1– 9.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10121
Westwood, M., Cavender, N., Meyer, A., and Smith, P. 2020.
Botanic garden solutions to the plant extinction crisis. Plants
People Planet 2020;00: 1-11.
xia, K., Fan, L., Sun, W. B., and Chen, W. y. 2016.
Conservation and fruit biology of Sichou oak (Quercus
sichourensis, Fagaceae) - A critically endangered species in
China. Plant Diversity 38(5): 223-237.
xing, y., Onstein, R. E., Carter, R. j., Stadler, T., and Linder,
h. P
. 2014. Fossils and large molecular phylogeny show that
the evolution of species richness, generic diversity, and turnover
rates are disconnected. Evolution 68: 2821–2832.
yang, j., Cai, L., Liu, D., Chen, G., Gratzfeld, j. and Sun, W.,
2019. China’s conservation program on Plant Species with
Extremely Small Populations (PSESP): Progress and
perspectives. Biological Conservation 244: p.108535.
The Red List of Oaks 2020
27
APPENDIX A:
C. Small population size and decline
SUMMARy OF ThE IUCN RED LIST CRITERIA FOR ThREATENED CATEGORIES (vERSION 3.1; IUCN)
A1 Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected in the past
where the causes of the reduction are clearly reversible AND understood
AND have ceased.
A2 Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected in the past
where the causes of reduction may not have ceased OR may not be
understood OR may not be reversible.
A3 Population reduction projected, inferred or suspected to be met in the future
(up to a maximum of 100 years) [(a) cannot be used for A3].
A4 An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population
reduction where the time period must include both the past and the future
(up to a max. of 100 years in future), and where the causes of reduction
may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible.
(b) Continuing decline observed, estimated, inferred or projected in any of: (i) extent of occurrence; (ii) area of occupancy; (iii) area, extent
and/or quality of habitat; (iv) number of locations or subpopulations; (v) number of mature individuals
(c) Extreme fluctuations in any of: (i) extent of occurrence; (ii) area of occupancy; (iii) number of locations or subpopulations; (iv) number
of mature individuals
(a) direct observation [except A3]
(b) an index of abundance appropriate to
the taxon
(c) a decline in area of occupancy (AOO),
extent of occurrence (EOO) and/or
habitat quality
(d) actual or potential levels of exploitation
(e) effects of introduced taxa, hybridization,
pathogens, pollutants, competitors
(a) (i) Number of mature individuals in each subpopulation
(ii) % of mature individuals in one subpopulation =
(b) Extreme fluctuations in the number of mature individuals
AND at least 2 of the following 3 conditions:
A. Population size reduction. Population reduction (measured over the longer of 10 years or 3 generations) based on any of A1 to A4
Vulnerable
50%
30%
Endangered
70%
50%
Critically Endangered
90%
80%
A1
A2, A3 & A4
B. Geographic range in the form of either B1 (extent of occurrence) AND/OR B2 (area of occupancy)
Vulnerable
< 20,000 km²
< 2,000 km²
Endangered
< 5,000 km²
< 500 km²
Critically Endangered
< 100 km²
< 10 km²
B1. Extent of occurrence (EOO)
B2. Area of occupancy (AOO)
(a) Severely fragmented OR Number of locations = 1 5 10
Vulnerable
< 10,000
Endangered
< 2,500
Critically Endangered
< 250
Number of mature individuals
AND at least one of C1 or C2
C1 An observed, estimated or projected continuing decline of at
least (up to a max. of 100 years in future):
C2 An observed, estimated, projected or inferred continuing
decline AND at least 1 of the following 3 conditions:
25% in 3 years or
1 generation
(whichever is longer)
20% in 5 years or
2 generations
(whichever is longer)
10% in 10 years or
3 generations
(whichever is longer)
50
90–100%
250
95–100%
1,000
100%
Vulnerable
10% in 100 years
Endangered
20% in 20 years or
5 generations,
whichever is longer
(100 years max.)
Critically Endangered
50% in 10 years
or 3 generations,
whichever is longer
(100 years max.)
Indicating the probability of extinction in the wild to be:
E. Quantitative Analysis
Vulnerable
D1. < 1,000
D2. typically: AOO
< 20 km² or number
of locations 5
Endangered
< 250
Critically Endangered
< 50
D1 Number of mature individuals
D2 Only applies to the VU category
Restricted area of occupancy or number of locations with a
plausible future threat that could drive the taxon to CR or EX in
a very short time.
D. Very small or restricted population
based on
any of the
following:
The Red List of Oaks 2020
29
APPENDIX B:
FULL LIST OF EvALUATED QUERCUS SPECIES AND RED LIST CATEGORy: LISTED ALPhABETICALLy
Quercus acatenangensis
Quercus acerifolia
Quercus acherdophylla
Quercus acrodonta
Quercus acuta
Quercus acutifolia
Quercus acutissima
Quercus aerea
Quercus afares
Quercus affinis
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus ajoensis
Quercus alba
Quercus albicaulis
Quercus albocincta
Quercus aliena
Quercus alnifolia
Quercus alpescens
Quercus annulata
Quercus aquifolioides
Quercus arbutifolia
Quercus argentata
Quercus argyrotricha
Quercus ariifolia*
Quercus aristata
Quercus arizonica
Quercus arkansana
Quercus asymmetrica
Quercus aucheri
Quercus augustini
Quercus auricoma
Quercus austrina
Quercus austrocochinchinensis
Quercus baloot
Quercus bambusifolia
Quercus baniensis
Quercus baolamensis
Quercus baronii
Quercus barrancana
Quercus bawanglingensis
Quercus bella
Quercus benthamii
Quercus berberidifolia
Quercus bicolor
LC
EN
DD
LC
LC
VU
LC
DD
VU
LC
LC
VU
LC
CR
LC
LC
LC
DD
LC
LC
EN
LC
CR
NT
LC
LC
VU
EN
LC
LC
LC
VU
VU
LC
EN
CR
CR
LC
DD
CR
NT
NT
LC
LC
Scientific
Name
IUCN
Red List
Category
GT,MX,SV
US
MX
CN
CN,JP,KR,TW
BZ,GT,HN,MX
BT,CN,IN,JP,KP,KR,LA,MM,NP,TH,VN
MX
DZ,TN
MX
MX,US
MX,US
CA,US
CN
MX
CN,JP,KP,KR,LA,MM,TH,TW
CY
MX
CN,IN,MM,NP,VN
BT,CN,MM
CN,VN
ID,MY,SG
CN
MX
MX
MX,US
US
CN,VN
GR,TR
CN,MM,TH,VN
CN,TH,VN
US
CN,LA,TH,VN
AF,PK
CN,HK,VN
VN
VN
CN
MX
CN
CN,VN
CR,GT,HN,MX,NI,PA,SV
MX,US
CA,US
Country
distribution
0
44
13
3
46
34
201
0
18
23
94
5
234
0
3
101
48
1
0
6
0
3
4
1
0
31
48
0
13
4
0
25
0
7
4
0
0
16
0
0
1
15
43
220
Number of
ex situ
collections
Lobatae
Lobatae
Lobatae
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Cerris
Lobatae
Cerris
Lobatae
Lobatae
Quercus
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Quercus
Ilex
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Lobatae
Quercus
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Ilex
Quercus
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Quercus
Quercus
Quercus
section
-
3.2,2.3.2,7.1.2,5.3.4,1.3,8.4.1,6.1,1.2,9.4
-
-
-
2.3.4,11.2,11.1,2.1.4,5.3.4
5.3.2
-
2.1.1,6.3,1.2,2.3.2,4.1
2.1.2,5.3.3
2.3.3,1.1,7.1.3,5.3.2,2.1.3,8.4.2
11.2,8.2
7.1.2,8.2.2,1.1
2.2.3,5.3.1,5.3.4
-
7.1.3,2.2.1
11.1,7.1.1
-
-
-
11.1,1.1
-
6.3
11.2,11.3
5.3.4,5.3.1,1.1,2.3.4,2.1.4
-
2.1.3,1.3,5.3.4,7.3,7.1.1,8.1.2,9.3.3,
11.1,11.2
1.1,1.2,5.3.4,6.3
6.1,5.3.5,11.1,1.3,1.1
-
-
2.1.2,2.1.3,3.1,5.3.1,8.2.1,11.2,6.1
8.2.2,1.1,5.3.3
-
12.1,2.1.3
-
-
-
-
2.2.3,5.3.3
2.2.2
5.3.1,2.1.3,2.3.3
8.2.2,8.2.2,8.2.2,8.2.2,8.2.2,8.2.2,8.2.2
7.1.1,5.3.5,8.2.2,8.2.2,11.1
Threat
codes
The Red List of Oaks 2020
30
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Virentes
Cyclobalanopsis
Cerris
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Lobatae
Lobatae
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Lobatae
Cerris
Quercus
Lobatae
Cerris
Protobalanus
Quercus
Cerris
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Cerris
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Protobalanus
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Ilex
Ilex
Lobatae
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Quercus
Quercus
Lobatae
Quercus
Quercus
Lobatae
Lobatae
Quercus
section
Quercus bidoupensis
Quercus blakei
Quercus blaoensis
Quercus boyntonii
Quercus braianensis
Quercus brandegeei
Quercus brandisiana
Quercus brantii
Quercus breedloveana*
Quercus brevicalyx
Quercus buckleyi
Quercus bumelioides
Quercus calophylla
Quercus cambodiensis
Quercus camusiae
Quercus canariensis
Quercus canbyi
Quercus carduchorum
Quercus carmenensis
Quercus castanea
Quercus castaneifolia
Quercus cedrosensis
Quercus centenaria*
Quercus cerris
Quercus championii
Quercus chapensis
Quercus chapmanii
Quercus chenii
Quercus chevalieri
Quercus chihuahuensis
Quercus chrysocalyx
Quercus chrysolepis
Quercus chrysotricha
Quercus chungii
Quercus ciliaris
Quercus coahuilensis
Quercus coccifera
Quercus cocciferoides
Quercus coccinea
Quercus coffeicolor
Quercus conduplicans
Quercus confertifolia
Quercus congesta
Quercus convallata
Quercus conzattii
Quercus cornelius-mulleri
Quercus corrugata
Quercus cortesii
Quercus costaricensis
CR
LC
CR
CR
VU
EN
LC
LC
DD
DD
LC
LC
LC
CR
CR
DD
LC
DD
EN
LC
NT
VU
DD
LC
LC
DD
LC
NT
DD
LC
DD
LC
EN
LC
LC
DD
LC
LC
LC
DD
DD
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
NT
VU
Scientific
Name
IUCN
Red List
Category
VN
CN,HK,LA,VN
VN
US
LA,VN
MX
LA,MM,TH
IQ,IR,SY,TR
MX
CN,LA,TH
US
CR,GT,HN,MX,NI,PA
GT,MX
KH
VN
DZ,ES,MA,PT,TN
MX
IR
MX,US
GT,MX,SV
AZ,IR
MX,US
MX
AL,AT,BA,BG,CH,CZ,ES,FR,GR,HR,HU,
IT,LB,ME,MK,PT,RO,RS,SI,SK,SY,TR
CN,TW
CN,VN
US
CN
CN,VN
MX,US
CN,KH,LA,TH,VN
MX,US
MY
CN
CN
MX
AL,BA,BG,CY,DZ,ES,FR,GR,HR,IL,IT,JO,
LB,LY,MA,ME,MK,PS,PT,RS,SI,SY,TN,TR
CN
US
MX
CN
MX
IT
MX
MX
MX,US
BZ,CR,GT,HN,MX,SV
BZ,CR,GT,HN,MX,NI,PA,SV
CR,HN,PA
Country
distribution
0
1
0
21
0
9
0
23
0
0
51
1
16
0
0
83
39
0
3
25
105
2
0
211
6
3
16
38
0
5
1
82
0
1
10
0
131
2
216
0
0
0
0
0
1
15
14
0
2
Number of
ex situ
collections
-
5.3.5
-
9.4,1.3,5.3.1,6.1
2.1.4
2.3.2,1.3,11.2,5.3.1
2.1.1,5.3.1
5.3.3,8.4.1
-
2.1.1
8.2.2,8.4.2
2.3.4,2.1.4,5.3.5
2.1.2,1.1
1.1,5.3.5
-
7.1.1,5.3.2,2.2.2,11.2
2.1.2,7.1.1,2.3.2
8.1.1,11.3,11.2
8.2.2,2.3.2
1.1,2.3.4,2.1.4
2.1.4,2.3.4
6.2,7.1.3,4.1,5.3.1
-
2.1.1
-
-
7.1.2,6.1,1.1
2.1.4,1.1,5.3.5
-
2.3.2,6.1,7.1.3
5.3.1
1.1,7.1.2
5.3.5
-
-
-
2.3.4,2.2.3,7.1.1
-
8.4.2
-
-
2.1.2,2.3.2,4.2
7.1.1,2.3.4,2.1.4,1.1
-
-
6.1
-
1.2,2.1.3
5.3.1,4.1,11.1,7.1.1,10.3,5.3.1,4.1
Threat
codes
Lobatae
Lobatae
Lobatae
Lobatae
Lobatae
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Quercus
Lobatae
Quercus
Quercus
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Quercus
Quercus
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Quercus
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Quercus
Lobatae
Ilex
Lobatae
Ilex
Quercus
Ilex
Quercus
Quercus
section
The Red List of Oaks 2020
31
Quercus crassifolia
Quercus crassipes
Quercus crispifolia
Quercus crispipilis
Quercus cualensis
Quercus cupreata
Quercus daimingshanensis
Quercus dalechampii
Quercus dankiaensis
Quercus delavayi
Quercus delgadoana
Quercus delicatula
Quercus deliquescens
Quercus dentata
Quercus depressa
Quercus depressipes
Quercus deserticola
Quercus devia
Quercus dilacerata
Quercus dinghuensis
Quercus disciformis
Quercus diversifolia
Quercus dolicholepis
Quercus dongfangensis
Quercus donnaiensis
Quercus douglasii
Quercus dumosa
Quercus durata
Quercus durifolia
Quercus edithiae
Quercus eduardi
Quercus edwardsiae
Quercus elevaticostata
Quercus ellipsoidalis
Quercus elliptica
Quercus elmeri
Quercus emoryi
Quercus engelmannii
Quercus engleriana
Quercus eumorpha
Quercus fabrei
Quercus faginea
Quercus falcata
Quercus fimbriata
Quercus flocculenta
Quercus floribunda
Quercus frainetto
Quercus franchetii
Quercus frutex
LC
LC
NT
NT
EN
EN
EN
DD
CR
LC
EN
EN
DD
LC
LC
LC
LC
EN
CR
CR
EN
EN
LC
DD
CR
LC
EN
LC
NT
EN
LC
DD
DD
LC
LC
NT
LC
EN
LC
DD
LC
LC
LC
CR
EN
LC
LC
LC
LC
Scientific
Name
IUCN
Red List
Category
GT,MX
MX
GT,MX
GT,MX
MX
MX
CN
IT
VN
CN
MX
CN
MX
CN,JP,KR,MN,RU,TW
MX
MX,US
MX
MX
VN
CN
CN
MX
CN
CN
VN
US
MX,US
US
MX
CN,HK,VN
MX
MX
CN
CA,US
BZ,GT,HN,MX,NI,SV
BN,ID,MY
MX,US
MX,US
CN
MM,TH
CN,HK
ES,MA,PT
US
CN
MX
AF,IN,NP,PK
AL,BA,BG,CZ,GR,HR,IT,MK,RO,
RS,SK,TR
CN,TH
MX
Country
distribution
36
32
0
7
1
4
0
21
0
2
9
0
3
168
2
1
9
0
0
1
2
3
14
0
0
63
30
37
10
0
7
3
0
115
5
1
30
36
15
0
31
88
111
0
3
3
132
17
8
Number of
ex situ
collections
1.1,2.3.4,11.1
5.3.1,2.3.3
3.3,2.1.3
5.3.2,11.1,2.3.3
3.2,1.3,2.3.2,5.3.5
1.1,2.3.2,5.3.1
1.1,2.1.4,4.1,5.3.1
-
-
-
2.1.2,5.3.1,5.3.3
1.1
2.3.2,1.1,1.2,4.2
-
1.2,2.3.2,4.1,11.1,11.2,5.3.3
5.3.5
-
2.3.2
-
1.1,5.3.1
1.1
1.2,1.1
-
2.2.2
-
2.3.2,11.2,8.1.1,1.1,7.1.2,8.2.2,8.2.2
1.3,7.1.3,1.1,6.1,8.2.2,8.2.2,8.2.2
-
2.1.4,2.3.4,5.3.1
1.1,5.3.1
5.3.1,2.3.4,11.1,2.1.4
-
-
8.4.2,11.1
8.4.2
2.1.4,7.1.3
5.3.1,8.2.2,2.3.2,6.1,5.2.1,8.2.2,
7.1.2,11.1
1.2,1.1,2.3.4,7.1.1,8.2.2,11.1,8.2.2
-
-
-
2.1.4,11.2,8.2,11.3,1.3
8.4.2
1.1
1.1,5.3.3
-
2.1.4,8.3,5.3.1
-
8.4.1,11.5
Threat
codes
The Red List of Oaks 2020
32
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Lobatae
Virentes
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Virentes
Lobatae
Quercus
Lobatae
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Lobatae
Lobatae
Lobatae
Quercus
Quercus
Quercus
Lobatae
Ilex
Quercus
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Quercus
Lobatae
Lobatae
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Quercus
Lobatae
Ilex
Quercus
section
Quercus fuliginosa
Quercus fulva
Quercus furfuracea
Quercus fusiformis
Quercus gaharuensis
Quercus galeanensis
Quercus gambelii
Quercus gambleana
Quercus garryana
Quercus gemelliflora
Quercus geminata
Quercus georgiana
Quercus germana
Quercus ghiesbreghtii
Quercus gilliana
Quercus gilva
Quercus glabrescens
Quercus glauca
Quercus glaucescens
Quercus glaucoides
Quercus gomeziana
Quercus gracilenta
Quercus graciliformis
Quercus gracilior*
Quercus grahamii
Quercus gravesii
Quercus greggii
Quercus griffithii
Quercus grisea
Quercus gulielmi-treleasei
Quercus guyavifolia
Quercus hartwissiana
Quercus havardii
Quercus helferiana
Quercus hemisphaerica
Quercus hinckleyi
Quercus hintonii
Quercus hintoniorum
Quercus hirtifolia
Quercus honbaensis
Quercus hondae
Quercus humboldtii
Quercus hypargyrea
Quercus hypoleucoides
Quercus hypophaea
Quercus hypoxantha
Quercus ichnusae
Quercus ignaciensis
Quercus ilex
DD
LC
VU
LC
VU
EN
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
EN
LC
DD
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
DD
DD
CR
DD
DD
LC
LC
LC
LC
VU
LC
DD
EN
LC
LC
CR
EN
VU
EN
CR
VU
LC
NT
LC
NT
LC
LC
DD
LC
Scientific
Name
IUCN
Red List
Category
CN
MX
MX
MX,US
ID,MY
MX
MX,US
BD,CN,IN
CA,US
BN,ID,MY
US
US
MX
MX
CN
CN,JP,KR,TW
MX
AF,BT,CN,HK,IN,JP,KP,KR,LA,
MM,NP,TW
MX
MX
BD,CN,MM,VN
CN
MX,US
HN
MX
MX,US
MX
BT,CN,IN,LA,MM,NP,TH,VN
MX,US
CR,PA
CN
BG,GE,RU,TR
US
CN,IN,LA,MM,TH,VN
US
MX,US
MX
MX
MX
VN
JP
CO,PA
CN
MX,US
TW
MX
IT
MX
AL,BA,CH,DZ,ES,FR,GR,HR,IT,LY,
MA,ME,MT,RS,SI,TN,TR
Country
distribution
0
2
5
39
0
8
76
0
79
5
28
55
27
0
0
35
16
111
0
20
0
0
21
0
3
36
27
26
39
2
10
53
19
0
48
12
3
6
7
0
2
7
21
27
1
5
0
0
212
Number of
ex situ
collections
2.1.4
-
5.3.4,5.3.1,2.3.3
5.3.3,2.3.4,8.2,8.4.2
2.2.3,5.3.5,1.1
2.1.2,5.3.2,1.1,2.3.2
-
-
2.3.2,8.2.2,8.2.2,8.2.2,8.1.2
2.2.2
-
11.1,11.2,6.1,8.2.2
2.3.3,2.3.2,5.3.1
-
-
-
5.3.2,2.3.3
2.1.1
7.1.3,5.3.5,2.1.4
2.1.1,1.1,8.1.2
-
-
6.1,7.2.8,8.2.2,7.1.3
-
-
7.2.2,2.3.2,11.2
-
2.1.1
2.3.2,2.1.2,5.3.1,11.1
5.3.5
-
7.1.3,5.3.1,1.2
3.1,2.3.3,9.3.3
5.3.1
8.2.2
8.2.2,8.2.2,11.1,2.3.4,4.1,1.3,8.2.1
2.1.2,1.1,2.3.2,4.1,5.3.1,7.1.1
7.1.1,1.1,2.1.2
5.3.3,1.2,4.1,2.3.2,11.2,11.1
-
2.1.4
1.1,4.1,5.3.1
1.1,5.3.5
-
1.1,4.1
-
2.3.4,7.1.1
-
1.2,1.1,9.5.4,7.1.3,5.3.1,11.2,2.3.3,
2.1.3,8.2
Threat
codes
The Red List of Oaks 2020
33
Lobatae
Lobatae
Lobatae
Lobatae
Quercus
Lobatae
Quercus
Quercus
Quercus
Cerris
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Lobatae
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Quercus
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Ilex
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cerris
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Ilex
Cerris
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Quercus
Quercus
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
section
Quercus ilicifolia
Quercus iltisii
Quercus imbricaria
Quercus incana
Quercus infectoria
Quercus inopina
Quercus insignis
Quercus intricata
Quercus invaginata
Quercus ithaburensis
Quercus jenseniana
Quercus jinpinensis
Quercus john-tuckeri
Quercus jonesii
Quercus kelloggii
Quercus kerangasensis
Quercus kerrii
Quercus kinabaluensis
Quercus kingiana
Quercus kiukiangensis
Quercus kotschyana
Quercus kouangsiensis
Quercus laceyi
Quercus laeta
Quercus laevis
Quercus lamellosa
Quercus lanata
Quercus lancifolia
Quercus langbianensis
Quercus laurifolia
Quercus laurina
Quercus lenticellata
Quercus liaoi
Quercus libani
Quercus liboensis
Quercus liebmannii
Quercus lineata
Quercus litseoides
Quercus lobata
Quercus lobbii
Quercus lodicosa
Quercus longinux
Quercus longispica
Quercus look
Quercus lowii
Quercus lungmaiensis
Quercus lusitanica
Quercus lyrata
Quercus macdougallii
Quercus macranthera
Quercus macrocalyx
LC
NT
LC
LC
LC
LC
EN
LC
LC
LC
NT
DD
LC
LC
LC
VU
LC
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
LC
LC
LC
NT
LC
LC
NT
LC
LC
EN
DD
LC
EN
LC
LC
VU
NT
EN
EN
LC
LC
EN
NT
CR
LC
LC
EN
LC
LC
Scientific
Name
IUCN
Red List
Category
CA,US
MX
US
US
AZ,CY,GR,IL,IQ,IR,LB,PS,SY,TR
US
BZ,CR,GT,HN,MX,NI,PA
MX,US
MX
AL,GR,IL,IT,LB,SY,TR
CN
CN
US
MX
MX,US
BN,ID,MY
CN,KH,LA,MM,TH,VN
MY
CN,LA,MM,TH
CN
LB
CN
MX,US
MX
US
BT,CN,IN,MM,NP,TH
BT,CN,IN,MM,NP,TH,VN
BZ,CR,GT,HN,MX,NI,PA,SV
VN
US
GT,MX,SV
TH
TW
IQ,IR,SY,TR
CN
MX
BD,CN,ID,IN,LA,MY,TH,VN
CN,HK
US
BD,CN,IN
CN,IN,MM
TW
CN
LB,SY
MY
CN
ES,MA,PT
US
MX
AM,AZ,GE,IQ,IR,LB,RU,SY,TR
CN,LA,VN
Country
distribution
101
0
190
43
51
7
27
5
9
84
3
0
22
2
68
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
33
25
29
11
7
10
0
70
30
0
1
88
2
8
1
1
82
0
0
12
5
16
0
1
33
111
0
100
6
Number of
ex situ
collections
7.1.2,11.1
5.3.4,4.1,1.1,2.3.4,2.1.4
8.4.2,11.1
7.1.2,11.1
5.3.5,2.1.4,2.3.4
7.1.2,1.2,1.1,2.1.4
2.1.2,2.3.2,5.3.1
2.3.2,1.2,5.2.2,7.1.2,11.2
-
5.3.1,2.3.4,1.3,1.1
5.3.5,2.1.4
-
1.1,7.1.2,2.3.2
-
5.3.2,7.1.2,7.1.1,8.2.2,8.2.2
2.2.2,7.1.1
-
2.2.2,7.1.1
1.1,2.1.4,2.2.3,5.3.1,5.3.3
5.3.5,7.1.3
2.3.2,5.3.1,11.1
2.1.3,4.1,5.3.4
11.1
11.1
2.2.2,8.4.2,11.1
2.1.4,5.3.3,5.3.4,7.1.3
-
1.2,2.3.3
-
8.4.1,8.4.2
7.1.1,5.3.5,2.3.1
5.3.5,7.1.3
-
8.4.1
1.1,2.1.3
2.3.2
2.2.2
11.1,1.3
1.1,2.1.1,7.1.2,2.3.2,11.1
5.3.5
5.3.5
-
-
2.3.2,11.1
2.2.2,7.1.1
2.1.4
-
11.1
2.3.2,5.3.4,7.1.1
11.2,2.3.1,8.1.1,8.2
-
Threat
codes
The Red List of Oaks 2020
34
Quercus
Quercus
Quercus
Lobatae
Ilex
Quercus
Lobatae
Lobatae
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Lobatae
Quercus
Quercus
Virentes
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Quercus
Ilex
Quercus
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Quercus
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Virentes
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Lobatae
Protobalanus
Lobatae
Quercus
section
Quercus macrocarpa
Quercus magnoliifolia
Quercus margarettae
Quercus marilandica
Quercus marlipoensis
Quercus martinezii
Quercus mcvaughii
Quercus meavei
Quercus melissae*
Quercus merrillii
Quercus mespilifolia
Quercus mexiae*
Quercus mexicana
Quercus michauxii
Quercus microphylla
Quercus minima
Quercus miquihuanensis
Quercus miyagii
Quercus mohriana
Quercus mongolica
Quercus monimotricha
Quercus monnula
Quercus montana
Quercus morii
Quercus motuoensis
Quercus muehlenbergii
Quercus mulleri
Quercus myrsinifolia
Quercus myrtifolia
Quercus nigra
Quercus ningangensis
Quercus ningqiangensis
Quercus nivea
Quercus nixoniana
Quercus obconicus
Quercus oblongata
Quercus oblongifolia
Quercus obtusata
Quercus oglethorpensis
Quercus oidocarpa
Quercus oleoides
Quercus opaca
Quercus oxyodon
Quercus oxyphylla
Quercus pachyloma
Quercus pacifica
Quercus pagoda
Quercus palmeri
Quercus palustris
LC
LC
LC
LC
CR
LC
NT
VU
DD
VU
DD
DD
LC
LC
LC
LC
EN
LC
LC
LC
LC
CR
LC
LC
CR
LC
CR
LC
LC
LC
DD
DD
EN
EN
EN
NT
LC
LC
EN
NT
NT
DD
LC
NT
LC
EN
LC
NT
LC
Scientific
Name
IUCN
Red List
Category
CA,US
MX
US
US
CN
MX
MX
MX
GT,MX
ID,MY,PH
BD,IN,LA,MM,TH,VN
MX
MX
US
MX
US
MX
JP
MX,US
CN,JP,KP,KR,MN,RU
CN,MM
CN
US
TW
CN
CA,MX,US
MX
CN,HK,JP,KR,LA,TH,TW,VN
US
US
CN
CN
MY
MX
CN
BD,IN,MM,NP,PK,TH,VN
MX,US
MX
US
ID,MM,MY,TH,VN
BZ,CR,GT,HN,MX
MX
BD,BT,CN,IN,MM,NP,TH
CN
CN,TW
US
US
MX,US
CA,US
Country
distribution
261
5
28
101
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
43
115
11
12
12
0
18
150
10
0
165
18
0
184
0
108
24
128
3
0
0
0
0
16
23
27
47
1
12
1
15
0
6
22
60
29
263
Number of
ex situ
collections
7.1.2,2.3.4
11.1,7.1.1,5.3.2
11.1
8.4.1
1.1,5.3.1
-
1.1,2.3.4,2.1.4
5.3.3,1.2,4.1,2.3.2,11.1,11.2
-
2.2.2,7.1.1
-
-
1.1,2.3.4,11.1,2.1.4
8.2.2,8.2.2,8.2.2,8.2.2,8.2.2,8.2.2
7.1.2
7.1.2,1.1,2.3.3,2.2.2
5.3.1,2.3.2
-
-
5.3.2
-
1.1,2.1.3
8.1.2,8.2.2,8.2.2,8.2.2,8.2.2,11.1
-
1.1,2.1.3
8.2.2,7.1.1,8.1.2,8.2.2,8.2.2,11.1
5.3.4,4.1,2.2.3,2.1.4
8.2.2
7.1.2,1.2,1.1
8.4.1
-
-
2.2.2,7.1.1
5.3.2,2.1.3,4.1
2.2.2
5.3.1,5.3.2,2.1.4
2.3.2,8.2.2
5.3.5,2.3.4
8.1.2,8.1.2,8.1.2,2.1.4,2.2.2,1.2,
11.2,7.1.1,11.4,7.2.11
2.1.3,7.1.1
1.1,5.3.1,2.3.2
-
-
1.1,2.1.3
-
2.3.2,8.1.2,8.1.2,6.1,8.1.2,8.1.2,8.1.2,
1.3,9.5.4,5.3.1,3.2
8.4.2,11.1
1.1,11.1,11.2,8.2.1,1.3,7.1.3
8.4.1,8.4.2,11.1
Threat
codes
The Red List of Oaks 2020
35
Ilex
Quercus
Quercus
Lobatae
Quercus
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Cerris
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Ponticae
Quercus
Quercus
Quercus
Quercus
Quercus
Quercus
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Lobatae
Quercus
Quercus
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Ilex
Quercus
Quercus
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Quercus
section
Quercus pannosa*
Quercus parvula
Quercus pauciradiata
Quercus paxtalensis
Quercus peduncularis
Quercus peninsularis
Quercus pentacycla
Quercus percoriacea
Quercus perpallida
Quercus persica
Quercus petelotii
Quercus petraea
Quercus phanera
Quercus phellos
Quercus phillyreoides
Quercus pinbianensis
Quercus pinnativenulosa
Quercus planipocula
Quercus platycalyx
Quercus poilanei
Quercus polymorpha
Quercus pontica
Quercus porphyrogenita*
Quercus potosina
Quercus praeco
Quercus pringlei
Quercus prinoides
Quercus protoroburoides*
Quercus pseudosetulosa
Quercus pseudoverticillata*
Quercus pubescens
Quercus pumila
Quercus pungens
Quercus purulhana
Quercus pyrenaica
Quercus quangtriensis
Quercus radiata
Quercus ramsbottomii
Quercus rehderiana
Quercus rekonis
Quercus repanda
Quercus resinosa
Quercus rex
Quercus robur
LC
NT
DD
DD
LC
NT
DD
EN
DD
NT
EN
LC
EN
LC
LC
CR
NT
LC
DD
LC
LC
EN
DD
LC
LC
LC
LC
DD
CR
CR
LC
LC
LC
NT
LC
VU
EN
EN
LC
DD
LC
LC
LC
LC
Scientific
Name
IUCN
Red List
Category
CN
US
ES
MX
BZ,GT,HN,MX,SV
MX
CN
MY
MX
IQ,IR
VN
AL,AM,AT,AZ,BA,BE,BG,BY,CH,CZ,DE,
DK,ES,FR,GB,GE,HR,HU,IE,IR,IT,LT,ME,
MK,NL,NO,PL,RO,RS,RU,SI,SK,SY,TR,UA
CN
US
CN,JP,KP,KR
CN
MX
MX
CN,VN
CN,TH,VN
GT,HN,MX,US
GE,TR
MX
MX
MX
MX
CA,US
BG
CN
MY
AL,AT,BE,BG,CH,CZ,DE,ES,FR,GR,HR,
IT,MD,ME,MK,RO,RS,RU,SI,SK,TR,UA
US
MX,US
BZ,GT,HN,MX,NI
ES,FR,MA,PT
CN,LA,MM,TH,VN
MX
MM,TH
CN,TH
MX
MX
MX
CN,IN,LA,MM,TH,VN
AL,AM,AT,AZ,BA,BE,BG,BY,CH,CZ,DE,D
K,EE,ES,FI,FR,GB,GE,GR,HR,HU,IE,IR,
IT,KZ,LT,LU,LV,MD,ME,MK,NL,NO,PL,
PT,RO,RS,RU,SE,SI,SK,TR,UA
Country
distribution
0
25
0
0
8
2
2
0
0
0
0
178
1
180
105
0
6
2
0
0
47
91
0
4
1
8
70
0
0
0
136
27
24
0
89
0
0
0
6
0
5
3
2
332
Number of
ex situ
collections
-
1.1,2.3.4,6.1,7.1.1,8.1.2,11.2
8.3,12.1,1.1
7.1.1,5.3.2,2.3.3
11.1
2.3.2
-
2.1.3,7.1.1
-
5.3.1,5.3.2
5.3.4
8.1.2,2.2.2,5.3.2,5.3.1,11.1,8.1.2
1.1,2.1.3
8.4.1
-
2.2.2,2.1.3
1.1,2.1.2,5.3.4
2.1.3,7.1.1
2.2.2,1.1,5.3.4
-
5.2.1,5.3.1,11.1
2.3.1,5.3.1,5.3.2
-
5.3.2,2.1.3,8.4.1,2.3.3
5.3.5,2.3.4
2.3.2,7.1.1,2.1.2
11.1
-
11.1
2.2.2,7.1.1
11.3,1.1,8.2,7.1.1
7.1.2
-
7.1.1,5.3.2,1.1,2.3.3
2.1.3,8.2.1,8.2,2.1.2,7.1.1,2.3.3,2.3.2,
2.2.2,11.5,11.2
2.2.2,1.1,5.3.4
2.3.2,4.1,2.2.2
2.1.4,2.2.3
-
-
-
11.5
-
8.1.2,5.3.2,1.1,2.3.4,2.2.3,11.4,11.3,
11.2,11.1,2.1.4,8.3,8.1.2
Threat
codes
The Red List of Oaks 2020
36
Lobatae
Ilex
Lobatae
Lobatae
Quercus
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Ponticae
Virentes
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Lobatae
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Quercus
Quercus
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Ilex
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Ilex
Quercus
section
Quercus robusta
Quercus rotundifolia
Quercus rubra
Quercus rubramenta
Quercus rugosa
Quercus runcinatifolia
Quercus rupestris
Quercus rysophylla
Quercus sadleriana
Quercus sagrana
Quercus salicifolia
Quercus salicina
Quercus saltillensis
Quercus sapotifolia
Quercus sarahmariae*
Quercus saravanensis
Quercus sartorii
Quercus schottkyana
Quercus scytophylla
Quercus sebifera
Quercus segoviensis
Quercus semecarpifolia
Quercus semiserrata
Quercus semiserratoides
Quercus senescens
Quercus serrata
Quercus sessilifolia
Quercus setulosa
DD
LC
LC
VU
LC
EN
EN
NT
NT
EN
LC
LC
NT
LC
DD
DD
NT
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
CR
LC
LC
LC
LC
Scientific
Name
IUCN
Red List
Category
MX,US
DZ,ES,FR,MA,PT
CA,US
MX
GT,HN,MX,US
MX
VN
MX
US
CU
CR,GT,HN,MX,NI,PA,SV
JP,KR
MX
BZ,CR,GT,HN,MX,PA,SV
CR
CN,LA,TH
MX
CN
MX
MX
GT,HN,MX,NI,SV
AF,CN,IN,NP,PK
BD,BT,CN,ID,IN,MM,MY,TH,VN
CN
CN
CN,JP,KP,KR,TW
CN,JP,TH,TW
CN,LA,TH,VN
Country
distribution
2
47
334
0
70
1
0
53
25
1
4
44
7
2
0
0
24
19
8
6
0
19
0
2
5
127
23
0
Number of
ex situ
collections
7.1.3,6.1,11.4,11.2
2.1.2,2.3.2,11.2,11.3,7.1.1,8.1.2
11.2,11.3,8.4.2
2.1.3,2.1.2,2.3.2
11.1,5.2.1,7.1.1,5.3.1,1.1
1.1,2.3.2,5.3.1
5.3.4
5.3.5,1.2
1.1,6.1,4.1,7.1.2,5.3.2,2.3.2,3.2
7.1.1,2.3.3,3.2
5.3.2,2.3.2
-
2.3.2,2.1.1,1.1
-
-
-
2.3.2,11.5
-
5.3.1,2.3.3
5.3.2,2.3.3
2.3.2
-
-
2.2.2,5.3.1
-
2.1.1,1.1
-
-
Threat
codes
Quercus magnoliifolia, LC (Béatrice Chassé) Quercus insignis, EN (Diego Gomez Hoyos)
The Red List of Oaks 2020
37
Ilex
Quercus
Quercus
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Quercus
Quercus
Lobatae
Quercus
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Cerris
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Lobatae
Lobatae
Ilex
Ilex
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Cerris
Ilex
Quercus
Quercus
Lobatae
Ilex
Quercus
Quercus
Cerris
Lobatae
Ilex
Lobatae
Protobalanus
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
section
Quercus shangxiensis
Quercus shennongii
Quercus shingjenensis
Quercus shumardii
Quercus sichourensis
Quercus sideroxyla
Quercus similis
Quercus sinuata
Quercus skinneri
Quercus sororia
Quercus spinosa
Quercus steenisii
Quercus stellata
Quercus stenophylloides
Quercus stewardiana
Quercus striatula
Quercus suber
Quercus subsericea
Quercus subspathulata
Quercus sumatrana
Quercus supranitida
Quercus tarahumara
Quercus tardifolia
Quercus tarokoensis
Quercus tatakaensis
Quercus texana
Quercus thomsoniana
Quercus thorelii
Quercus tiaoloshanica
Quercus tinkhamii
Quercus tomentella
Quercus tomentosinervis
Quercus toumeyi
Quercus toxicodendrifolia
Quercus treubiana
Quercus trinitatis
Quercus trojana
Quercus trungkhanhensis*
Quercus tsinglingensis
Quercus tuberculata
Quercus tuitensis
Quercus tungmaiensis
Quercus turbinella
Quercus undata
Quercus ungeri
Quercus urbani
Quercus utilis
Quercus uxoris
Quercus vacciniifolia
Quercus valdinervosa
DD
DD
DD
LC
CR
LC
LC
LC
NT
LC
LC
EN
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
NT
LC
NT
DD
LC
DD
DD
DD
LC
CR
DD
EN
DD
EN
CR
DD
DD
VU
DD
LC
CR
DD
LC
VU
EN
LC
DD
DD
LC
EN
LC
LC
NT
Scientific
Name
IUCN
Red List
Category
CN
CN
CN
CA,US
CN
MX
US
MX,US
BZ,GT,HN,MX,SV
MX
CN,MM,TW
ID
US
TW
CN
MX
DZ,ES,FR,IT,MA,PT,TN
BN,ID,MY
MX
ID,MY
MX
MX
MX,US
TW
TW
US
BD,BT,IN
CN,LA,TH,VN
CN
MX
MX,US
CN
MX,US
MX
ID,MY
MX,SV
AL,BA,BG,GR,HR,IT,ME,MK,RS,TR
VN
CN
MX
MX
CN,IN
MX,US
MX
IR
MX
CN
MX
US
BN,ID,MY
Country
distribution
0
0
0
173
1
8
3
40
5
0
17
0
107
30
5
5
197
3
7
0
0
6
0
6
5
104
0
1
0
3
33
0
8
1
0
0
76
0
0
7
0
3
54
0
0
1
2
7
38
0
Number of
ex situ
collections
-
-
-
8.4.2,11.1
2.1.4,5.3.1
5.3.2,2.3.2,11.1,2.2.2
11.1
-
5.3.1,2.3.3
1.1,2.3.3
-
2.1.4,5.3.3
8.4.1,8.2.2
-
-
1.3,1.2
2.1.4,8.2.1,8.2,7.3,7.1.1,11.2
2.2.2,7.1.1
5.3.3,5.3.1
2.2.2,7.1.1
-
5.3.1,1.1
-
-
-
8.4.2,11.1
1.1,5.3.4,2.1.3
-
2.2.2
-
2.1.2,8.1.2,8.1.2,2.3.2,8.1.2,8.2.2,8.2.2,
8.2.2,8.1.2,8.1.2,8.1.2,8.1.2
5.3.1,2.1.4,7.1.1,1.1
8.2.2
-
2.2.2,7.1.1
5.3.2,2.1.3,5.3.4
5.3.1
6.3
-
-
2.1.2,5.3.2,5.3.4
1.1,2.1.3
-
-
-
-
1.1,4.1,5.3.1,5.3.4
5.3.1,2.1.2,4.1
5.3.2,11.1,7.1.2
2.2.2,7.1.1
Threat
codes
The Red List of Oaks 2020
38
Cerris
Quercus
Lobatae
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Lobatae
Virentes
Quercus
Lobatae
Quercus
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
section
Quercus variabilis
Quercus vaseyana
Quercus velutina
Quercus verde
Quercus vestita
Quercus vicentensis
Quercus viminea
Quercus virginiana
Quercus vulcanica
Quercus wislizeni
Quercus wutaishanica
Quercus xalapensis
Quercus xanthoclada
Quercus xanthotricha*
Quercus xuanlienensis*
Quercus xylina
Quercus yonganensis
LC
LC
LC
DD
DD
VU
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
DD
EN
CR
NT
DD
Scientific
Name
IUCN
Red List
Category
CN,HK,JP,KP,KR,TW,VN
MX,US
CA,US
MX
IN
MX,SV
MX,US
US
SY,TR
MX,US
CN
GT,HN,MX,NI
LA,MM,VN
CN,LA
VN
MX
CN
Country
distribution
137
32
182
0
0
1
3
132
15
64
33
15
0
0
0
0
0
Number of
ex situ
collections
6.3
-
11.2,8.4.2,8.1.2
-
-
5.3.5,1.1
5.2.1,2.3.2,5.2.2,11.1
7.1.1,11.3,8.4.2
1.3
2.3.2,11.1,7.1.2
-
-
-
2.1.3
-
2.3.2,2.1.2
-
Threat
codes
Country/territory codes follow the International Organization for Standardization ISO-3166-1. A list of all
countries and territories used in IUCN's Red List of Threatened Species can be found online
(iucnredlist.org/resources/country-codes).
Based on combined results from: 1) 2017 ex situ survey conducted by The Morton Arboretum (Beckman et
al., 2019); 2) 2019 survey conducted for a project funded through the Institute of Museum and Library
Services (award #MA-30-18-0273-18); 3) 2020 survey funded by the USDA Forest Service (cooperative
agreement #16-CA-11132546-045) and Fondation Franklinia to support the conservation work of the Global
Conservation Consortium for Oak; and 4) records held in BGCI’s PlantSearch database of plants in cultivation
(tools.bgci.org/plant_search.php; accessed May, 2020).
Threat codes follow IUCN's Threats Classification Scheme (Version 3.2) found online
(iucnredlist.org/resources/threat-classification-scheme)
Assessed species were matched to the most recent phylogenetic studies of oaks (Denk et al., 2017; Hipp
et al., 2020). Thirty-five species assessed for this report were not included in either of these phylogenetic
studies. For these species, a literature review was conducted to determine their section and/or regional oak
experts were consulted to assign a section (A. Coombes and J. Strijk, pers. comm.).
*Assessments to be published in the first IUCN Red List update of 2021
Data sources for Appendices B and C
Country/Territory distribution
Number of ex situ collections
Threat codes
Quercus section
Quercus ajoensis, VU (Beth Fallon) Quercus havardii, LC (Emily Beckman)
The Red List of Oaks 2020
39
APPENDIX C:
FULL LIST OF EvALUATED QUERCUS SPECIES By RED LIST CATEGORy
Quercus albicaulis
Quercus argyrotricha
Quercus baniensis
Quercus baolamensis
Quercus bawanglingensis
Quercus bidoupensis
Quercus blaoensis
Quercus boyntonii
Quercus cambodiensis
Quercus camusiae
Quercus dankiaensis
Quercus dilacerata
Quercus dinghuensis
Quercus donnaiensis
Quercus fimbriata
Quercus graciliformis
Quercus hinckleyi
Quercus honbaensis
Quercus lungmaiensis
Quercus marlipoensis
Quercus monnula
Quercus motuoensis
Quercus mulleri
Quercus pinbianensis
Quercus pseudosetulosa*
Quercus pseudoverticillata
Quercus semiserratoides
Quercus sichourensis
Quercus thomsoniana
Quercus tomentosinervis
Quercus trungkhanhensis*
Quercus xuanlienensis*
Quercus acerifolia
Quercus arbutifolia
Quercus asymmetrica
Quercus bambusifolia
Quercus brandegeei
Quercus carmenensis
Quercus chrysotricha
Quercus cualensis
Quercus cupreata
Quercus daimingshanensis
Quercus delgadoana
Quercus delicatula
Quercus devia
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
Scientific
Name
IUCN
Red List
Category
CN
CN
VN
VN
CN
VN
VN
US
KH
VN
VN
VN
CN
VN
CN
MX,US
MX,US
VN
CN
CN
CN
CN
MX
CN
CN
MY
CN
CN
BD,BT,IN
CN
VN
VN
US
CN,VN
CN,VN
CN,HK,VN
MX
MX,US
MY
MX
MX
CN
MX
CN
MX
Country
distribution
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
21
12
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
44
0
0
4
9
3
0
1
4
0
9
0
0
Number of
ex situ
collections
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Ilex
Lobatae
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Ilex
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Virentes
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Quercus
section
2.2.3,5.3.1,5.3.4
6.3
-
-
2.2.3,5.3.3
-
-
9.4,1.3,5.3.1,6.1
1.1,5.3.5
-
-
-
1.1,5.3.1
-
1.1
6.1,7.2.8,8.2.2,7.1.3
8.2.2,8.2.2,11.1,2.3.4,4.1,1.3,8.2.1
-
2.1.4
1.1,5.3.1
1.1,2.1.3
1.1,2.1.3
5.3.4,4.1,2.2.3,2.1.4
2.2.2,2.1.3
11.1
2.2.2,7.1.1
2.2.2,5.3.1
2.1.4,5.3.1
1.1,5.3.4,2.1.3
5.3.1,2.1.4,7.1.1,1.1
6.3
-
3.2,2.3.2,7.1.2,5.3.4,1.3,8.4.1,6.1,1.2,9.4
11.1,1.1
1.1,1.2,5.3.4,6.3
12.1,2.1.3
2.3.2,1.3,11.2,5.3.1
8.2.2,2.3.2
5.3.5
3.2,1.3,2.3.2,5.3.5
1.1,2.3.2,5.3.1
1.1,2.1.4,4.1,5.3.1
2.1.2,5.3.1,5.3.3
1.1
2.3.2
Threat
codes
The Red List of Oaks 2020
40
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Lobatae
Lobatae
Lobatae
Quercus
Lobatae
Lobatae
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Ilex
Cerris
Quercus
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Ponticae
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Virentes
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Ilex
Ilex
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Cerris
Quercus
Quercus
section
Quercus disciformis
Quercus diversifolia
Quercus dumosa
Quercus edithiae
Quercus engelmannii
Quercus flocculenta
Quercus galeanensis
Quercus georgiana
Quercus havardii
Quercus hintonii
Quercus hirtifolia
Quercus insignis
Quercus kinabaluensis
Quercus kingiana
Quercus kiukiangensis
Quercus kotschyana
Quercus kouangsiensis
Quercus lenticellata
Quercus liboensis
Quercus lobbii
Quercus lodicosa
Quercus look
Quercus macdougallii
Quercus miquihuanensis
Quercus nivea
Quercus nixoniana
Quercus obconicus
Quercus oglethorpensis
Quercus pacifica
Quercus percoriacea
Quercus petelotii
Quercus phanera
Quercus pontica
Quercus radiata
Quercus ramsbottomii
Quercus runcinatifolia
Quercus rupestris
Quercus sagrana
Quercus steenisii
Quercus tiaoloshanica
Quercus tomentella
Quercus tungmaiensis
Quercus utilis
Quercus xanthotricha*
Quercus acutifolia
Quercus afares
Quercus ajoensis
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
VU
VU
VU
Scientific
Name
IUCN
Red List
Category
CN
MX
MX,US
CN,HK,VN
MX,US
MX
MX
US
US
MX
MX
BZ,CR,GT,HN,MX,NI,PA
MY
CN,LA,MM,TH
CN
LB
CN
TH
CN
BD,CN,IN
CN,IN,MM
LB,SY
MX
MX
MY
MX
CN
US
US
MY
VN
CN
GE,TR
MX
MM,TH
MX
VN
CU
ID
CN
MX,US
CN,IN
CN
CN,LA
BZ,GT,HN,MX
DZ,TN
MX,US
Country
distribution
2
3
30
0
36
3
8
55
19
3
7
27
0
0
4
0
0
0
2
0
0
16
0
12
0
0
0
47
22
0
0
1
91
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
33
3
2
0
34
18
5
Number of
ex situ
collections
1.1
1.2,1.1
1.3,7.1.3,1.1,6.1,8.2.2,8.2.2,8.2.2
1.1,5.3.1
1.2,1.1,2.3.4,7.1.1,8.2.2,11.1,8.2.2
1.1,5.3.3
2.1.2,5.3.2,1.1,2.3.2
11.1,11.2,6.1,8.2.2
3.1,2.3.3,9.3.3
2.1.2,1.1,2.3.2,4.1,5.3.1,7.1.1
5.3.3,1.2,4.1,2.3.2,11.2,11.1
2.1.2,2.3.2,5.3.1
2.2.2,7.1.1
1.1,2.1.4,2.2.3,5.3.1,5.3.3
5.3.5,7.1.3
2.3.2,5.3.1,11.1
2.1.3,4.1,5.3.4
5.3.5,7.1.3
1.1,2.1.3
5.3.5
5.3.5
2.3.2,11.1
2.3.2,5.3.4,7.1.1
5.3.1,2.3.2
2.2.2,7.1.1
5.3.2,2.1.3,4.1
2.2.2
8.1.2,8.1.2,8.1.2,2.1.4,2.2.2,1.2,11.2,
7.1.1,11.4,7.2.11
2.3.2,8.1.2,8.1.2,6.1,8.1.2,8.1.2,8.1.2,
1.3,9.5.4,5.3.1,3.2
2.1.3,7.1.1
5.3.4
1.1,2.1.3
2.3.1,5.3.1,5.3.2
2.3.2,4.1,2.2.2
2.1.4,2.2.3
1.1,2.3.2,5.3.1
5.3.4
7.1.1,2.3.3,3.2
2.1.4,5.3.3
2.2.2
2.1.2,8.1.2,8.1.2,2.3.2,8.1.2,8.2.2,8.2.2,
8.2.2,8.1.2,8.1.2,8.1.2,8.1.2
1.1,2.1.3
1.1,4.1,5.3.1,5.3.4
2.1.3
2.3.4,11.2,11.1,2.1.4,5.3.4
2.1.1,6.3,1.2,2.3.2,4.1
11.2,8.2
Threat
codes
The Red List of Oaks 2020
41
Lobatae
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Protobalanus
Lobatae
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Quercus
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Cerris
Cerris
Lobatae
Lobatae
Lobatae
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus
Cyclobalanopsis
Lobatae
Cyclobalanopsis
Cyclobalanopsis
Virentes
Ilex
Protobalanus
Quercus
Lobatae
Cerris
Lobatae
Quercus
Lobatae
Quercus
section
Quercus arkansana
Quercus austrina
Quercus austrocochinchinensis
Quercus braianensis
Quercus cedrosensis
Quercus costaricensis
Quercus furfuracea
Quercus gaharuensis
Quercus gulielmi-treleasei
Quercus hintoniorum
Quercus hondae
Quercus kerangasensis
Quercus litseoides
Quercus meavei
Quercus merrillii
Quercus quangtriensis
Quercus rubramenta
Quercus treubiana
Quercus tuitensis
Quercus vicentensis
Quercus ariifolia*
Quercus bella
Quercus benthamii
Quercus castaneifolia
Quercus chenii
Quercus cortesii
Quercus crispifolia
Quercus crispipilis
Quercus durifolia
Quercus elmeri
Quercus hypargyrea
Quercus hypophaea
Quercus iltisii
Quercus jenseniana
Quercus lamellosa
Quercus langbianensis
Quercus lobata
Quercus lowii
Quercus mcvaughii
Quercus oblongata
Quercus oidocarpa
Quercus oleoides
Quercus oxyphylla
Quercus palmeri
Quercus parvula
Quercus peninsularis
Quercus persica
Quercus pinnativenulosa
Quercus purulhana
Quercus rysophylla
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Scientific
Name
IUCN
Red List
Category
US
US
CN,LA,TH,VN
LA,VN
MX,US
CR,HN,PA
MX
ID,MY
CR,PA
MX
JP
BN,ID,MY
CN,HK
MX
ID,MY,PH
CN,LA,MM,TH,VN
MX
ID,MY
MX
MX,SV
MX
CN,VN
CR,GT,HN,MX,NI,PA,SV
AZ,IR
CN
BZ,CR,GT,HN,MX,NI,PA,SV
GT,MX
GT,MX
MX
BN,ID,MY
CN
TW
MX
CN
BT,CN,IN,MM,NP,TH
VN
US
MY
MX
BD,IN,MM,NP,PK,TH,VN
ID,MM,MY,TH,VN
BZ,CR,GT,HN,MX
CN
MX,US