European Red List of Trees

European Red List of Trees Malin Rivers, Emily Beech, Ioannis Bazos, Faruk Bogunić, Antoni Buira, Danka Caković, André Carapeto, Angelino Carta, Bruno Cornier, Giuseppe Fenu, Francisco Fernandes, Pere Fraga i Arguimbau, Pablo Garcia-Murillo, Martin Lepší, Vlado Matevski, Félix Medina, Miguel Menezes de Sequeira, Norbert Meyer, Vlastimil Mikoláš, Chiara Montagnani, Tiago Monteiro-Henriques, José Naranjo-Suárez, Simone Orsenigo, Antoaneta Petrova, Alfredo Reyes-Betancort, Tim Rich, Per Harald Salvesen, Isabel Santana-López, Stephan Scholz, Alexander Sennikov, Lulëzim Shuka, Luís Filipe Silva, Philip Thomas, Angelo Troia, José Luis Villar, and David Allen About IUCN Created in 1948, IUCN has evolved into the world’s largest and most diverse environmental network. It harnesses the experience, resources and reach of its more than 1,300 Member organisations and the input of over 10,000 experts. IUCN is the global authority on the status of the natural world and the measures needed to safeguard it. Our experts are organised into six commissions dedicated to species survival, environmental law, protected areas, social and economic policy, ecosystem management, and education and communication www.iucn.org twitter.com/IUCN IUCN – Global Species Programme The IUCN Global Species Programme supports the activities of the IUCN Species Survival Commission and individual Specialist Groups, as well as implementing global species conservation initiatives. It is an integral part of the IUCN Secretariat and is managed from IUCN’s international headquarters in Gland, Switzerland. The Species Programme includes a number of technical units including the IUCN Red List Unit, Species Trade and Use, Freshwater Biodiversity Unit (all located in Cambridge, UK), the Global Biodiversity Assessment Initiative (located in Washington DC, USA), and the Marine Biodiversity Unit (located in Norfolk, Virginia, USA). www.iucn.org/species IUCN Species Survival Commission With over 8,000 members, the Species Survival Commission (SSC) is the largest of the six expert commissions of IUCN and enables IUCN to influence, encourage and assist societies to conserve biodiversity by building knowledge on the status and threats to species, providing advice, developing policies and guidelines, facilitating conservation planning, and catalysing conservation action. Members of SSC belong to one or more of the 140 Specialist Groups, Red List Authorities, Task Forces and Conservation Committees, each focusing on a taxonomic group (plants, fungi, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes and invertebrates), or a disciplinary issue, such as sustainable use and livelihoods, reintroduction of species, wildlife health, climate change and conservation planning. www.iucn.org/theme/species/about/species-survival-commission twitter.com/iucnssc European Red List of Trees Malin Rivers, Emily Beech, Ioannis Bazos, Faruk Bogunić, Antoni Buira, Danka Caković, André Carapeto, Angelino Carta, Bruno Cornier, Giuseppe Fenu, Francisco Fernandes, Pere Fraga i Arguimbau, Pablo Garcia-Murillo, Martin Lepší, Vlado Matevski, Félix Medina, Miguel Menezes de Sequeira, Norbert Meyer, Vlastimil Mikoláš, Chiara Montagnani, Tiago Monteiro-Henriques, José Naranjo-Suárez, Simone Orsenigo, Antoaneta Petrova, Alfredo Reyes-Betancort, Tim Rich, Per Harald Salvesen, Isabel Santana-López, Stephan Scholz, Alexander Sennikov, Lulëzim Shuka, Luís Filipe Silva, Philip Thomas, Angelo Troia, José Luis Villar, and David Allen The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission or of IUCN. This publication has been prepared by IUCN as a deliverable of the LIFE European Red Lists project (LIFE14 PRE/BE/000001). Project Title: Establishing a European Red List of Bryophytes, Pteridophytes, Saproxylic Beetles, Terrestrial Molluscs and Vascular Plants (LIFE European Red Lists; LIFE14 PRE/BE/000001) Project duration: May 2015 to September 2019 Project total costs: 1,166,667 EUR Contribution of the LIFE Programme: 700,000 EUR Co-financers of the project: National Parks and Wildlife Service, Republic of Ireland; Ministry of Economic Affairs, Department of Nature & Biodiversity (Ministerie van Economische Zaken, Directie Natuur & Biodiversiteit), the Netherlands; Council of Europe; Office fédéral de l‘Environnement, Switzerland; Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Naturvardsverket), Sweden; British Entomological Society, United Kingdom; Ministry of Sustainable Development and Infrastructure, Government of the Grand-Duché of Luxembourg. The LIFE Programme (https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/life) is the EU’s financial instrument supporting environmental, nature conservation and climate action projects throughout the EU. The general objective of LIFE is to contribute to the implementation, updating and development of EU environmental, nature conservation and climate policy and legislation by cofinancing projects with European added value. Published by: IUCN, Cambridge, UK and Brussels, Belgium Copyright: © 2019 IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. All rights reserved. Licensed to the European Union under conditions. Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Citation: Rivers, M.C., Beech, E., Bazos, I., Bogunić, F., Buira, A., Caković, D., Carapeto, A., Carta, A., Cornier, B., Fenu, G., Fernandes, F., Fraga, P., Garcia Murillo, P.J., Lepší, M., Matevski, V., Medina, F.M., Menezes de Sequeira, M., Meyer, N., Mikoláš, V., Montagnani, C., Monteiro-Henriques, T., Naranjo Suárez, J., Orsenigo, S., Petrova, A., Reyes-Betancort, J.A., Rich, T., Salvesen, P.H., Santana López, I., Scholz, S., Sennikov, A., Shuka, L., Silva, L.F., Thomas, P., Troia, A., Villar, J.L. and Allen, D.J. (2019) European Red List of Trees. Cambridge, UK and Brussels, Belgium: IUCN. viii + 60pp. ISBN: 978-2-8317-1985-6 (PDF) 978-2-8317-1986-3 (print) DOI: https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019.ERL.1.en Design and layout: Imre Sebestyén jr. / UNITgraphics.com Printed by: Media Process S.A., Brussels Available from: IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) 64 Boulevard Louis Schmidt, 1040 Brussels, Belgium [email protected] www.iucn.org/resources/publications Picture credits on cover page: Sorbus bohemica Kovanda (Endangered) is endemic to the České středohoří (Central Bohemian Uplands) in Czechia, where it is threatened by the cessation of traditional forest management which maintained open forests. Credit: Martin Lepší. All photographs used in this publication remain the property of the original copyright holder (see individual captions for details). Photographs should not be reproduced or used in other contexts without written permission from the copyright holder. Printed in Belgium. The text of this book is printed on 135 gsm silk paper (the cover on 300 gsm silk). This book is printed on recycled paper made from wood fibre from well-managed forests certified in accordance with the rules of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). iii Contents Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................. v Executive summary ........................................................................................................................................... vii 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 European trees ...............................................................................................................................................1 1.2 National Red Lists ..........................................................................................................................................2 1.3 Objectives and outputs ...................................................................................................................................3 2. Methods ..........................................................................................................................................................4 2.1 Geographic scope ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Global and regional assessments .....................................................................................................................4 2.3 Taxonomic scope ............................................................................................................................................4 2.4 Assessment methods and process .................................................................................................................... 5 2.5 Spatial distribution maps and analyses ............................................................................................................6 2.6 Review of assessments ....................................................................................................................................8 3. Results ............................................................................................................................................................9 3.1 Species selection and threat status ...................................................................................................................9 3.2 Criteria used ................................................................................................................................................10 3.3 Spatial distribution of species .......................................................................................................................12 3.4 Major threats to European trees....................................................................................................................16 3.5 Population trends ......................................................................................................................................... 20 3.6 Uses .............................................................................................................................................................23 4. In situ and ex situ conservation of European trees ........................................................................................24 4.1 Species in ex situ collections ..........................................................................................................................24 4.2 Number of ex situ collections .......................................................................................................................24 5. Comparison with other European Red Lists .................................................................................................28 6. Policy and conservation framework of European trees ..................................................................................29 6.1 Global policy context ...................................................................................................................................29 6.2 European policy context ..............................................................................................................................29 6.3 Red List versus priority for conservation action ............................................................................................30 7. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................32 Action on the ground .........................................................................................................................................32 Ex situ conservation ............................................................................................................................................32 Research and monitoring ...................................................................................................................................32 Policy recommendations ....................................................................................................................................32 Increased awareness ............................................................................................................................................ 32 8. Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................33 9. References ..................................................................................................................................................... 34 Annex 1 Full list of tree species assessed ............................................................................................................41 Annex 2 Summary of the IUCN Red List Category and Criteria .......................................................................52 Annex 3 Example of species summary and distribution map ............................................................................53 iv Foreword The European continent has a rich and varied natural heritage, however, Europe’s landscape has been shaped by centuries of land use and land change through diverse farming and forestry traditions, as well as more recent urbanisation trends. As a result, a mosaic of natural, semi-natural, managed and artificial landscapes has developed and the continent’s habitats and biodiversity has undergone significant declines. Many of Europe’s ecosystems are now so heavily degraded that their ability to deliver valuable ecosystem services has been drastically reduced. The EU Biodiversity Strategy is part of a 2050 vision aiming to protect, value and restore biodiversity and the services it provides – its natural capital. This is important not only to protect nature’s non-instrumental value, but also for its essential contribution to human wellbeing and economic prosperity, and to avert catastrophic changes caused by the loss of biodiversity. In recent years, awareness has risen surrounding the crucial role of plants — and especially trees — in providing ecosystem services and on the threats that they face. Trees are one of the essential foundations of healthy ecosystems that we depend on, including the European forest landscape, a mosaic largely shaped by people. However, significant gaps in knowledge still remain. In this context, this European Red List of Trees provides the first ever comprehensive assessment of the extinction risk of all tree species that are native to Europe. With all 454 species assessed, this assessment highlights that 42% of European tree species are considered threatened (i.e. assessed as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable) and therefore having a high risk of extinction. The primary threat to tree species in Europe has been identified as invasive or problematic species, including disease and tree pests, affecting 38% of all tree species. Deforestation, degradation, wood harvesting and urban development are other significant threats. For threatened species, livestock farming, land abandonment and other ecosystem modifications are the major threats, impacting the survival of trees and their habitats. The assessment indicates that they are the second most threatened group of plant species assessed to date for the IUCN European Red List — and the third most threatened group overall, only exceeded by the freshwater molluscs and by the ‘policy plants’ (plant taxa listed in European and international policy instruments). By comparison, amongst the plants, 2% of medicinal plants, 8% of aquatic plants, 16% of crop-wild relatives, 20% of ferns and lycopods, 22% of bryophytes, and 57% of the ‘policy plants’ are threatened. It is clear that Europe therefore has a responsibility to conserve these unique species that contribute so much to the landscapes, ecosystems and economies of Europe. One encouraging finding is that nearly 80% of species are found in at least one protected area, including the Natura 2000 network. Measures must be taken in order to improve the status of European trees. These assessments complement existing national conservation assessments to allow targeted conservation planning, and the outcomes of this initiative should be used to develop policy to ensure that the species considered threatened are protected both in and ex situ; and to inform, inspire and catalyse research and conservation action to prevent the extinction of European tree diversity. I hope that this new IUCN European Red List will help place trees high on the conservation agenda, as well as inform the wider debate and contribute to the discussion on priorities within the conservation community. This work complements work already undertaken within the European Union to understand and conserve forests, such as the European Atlas of Forest Tree Species and the EU Forest Strategy. Investment in scientific research, and increasing awareness and communications will help towards the delivery of targeted conservation actions and positive impacts for these species. Humberto Delgado Rosa Director for Natural Capital DG Environment, European Commission v Acknowledgements The European Red List of Trees project was coordinated by David Allen (IUCN) with immense support from colleagues at IUCN, Ana Nieto Serradilla, Mariana García Criado, and Marta Cálix. The project was implemented by Malin Rivers and Emily Beech and colleagues at Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI), who compiled the list of species to be included, drafted the majority of assessments, undertook all analyses, and wrote the report. The co-authors of this publication are the many experts who participated in the assessment review workshops, Emily Beech (BGCI), Malin Rivers (BGCI) and David Allen (IUCN). All of the European Red List assessment projects rely on the willingness of scientists who are often, but not always, members of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC), who pool and contribute their collective knowledge to make the most reliable estimates of a species’ conservation status and distribution. Without their dedicated commitment to species conservation, this kind of assessment project would not be possible. These experts are either the assessors and contributors to the IUCN Red List species assessments that have been completed through this and earlier projects, or provided their time and expertise to review species assessments at review workshops or by email. We would like to express our sincere thanks to all who have contributed as assessment Assessors, Reviewers and Contributors, and our apologies if they are omitted here in error. Those experts and former or current IUCN staff who contributed to this work through assessing, compiling or reviewing the species assessments are as follows; Hossein Akhani, Mostafa Alaoui, Antun Alegro, Jelena Aleksić, Alexander Alexandrov, Rafael S. Almeida Pérez, Montserrat Arista, Mora Aronsson, Åsmund Asdal, Michael Avishai, Gianluigi Bacchetta, Olga Baeta, Simonetta Bagella, Dalibor Ballian, Angel Bañares Baudet, Megan Barstow, Denes Bartha, Irina Belyaeva-Chamberlain, Melanie Bilz, Igor Boršić, Ferdinando Branca, Zofia Bulińska, Francisco Barreto Caldas, Eduardo Carqué Álamo, José Augusto Carvalho, Mariana Carvalho, Helen Chadburn, Tom Christian, Charalambos Christodoulou, Andreas Christou, Leah Collett, Dan Crowley, Annabelle Cuttelod, Gérard de Bélair, Bertrand de Montmollin, Marcelino del Arco Aguilar, Pinelopi Delipetrou, Panayotis Dimopoulos, Gianniantonio Domina, Domizia Donnini, David Draper Munt, Maria Cristina Duarte, Ehsan Dulloo, Garifalia Economou, Bernhard Egli, Pavol Eliáš, Stefan Ericsson, Aljos Farjon, Laurence Fazan, Viera Ferakova, Hafawa Ferchichi, Ángel Fernández López, Di Flanagan, Bruno Foggi, Christina Fournaraki, David Frey, Mariana García-Criado, Nieves García, Lauren Gardiner, Martin Gardner, Giuseppe Garfì, Domenico Gargano, Shanina Ghazanfar, Zeineb Ghrabi-Gammar, Belgin Göçmen Taşkın, Bárbara Goettsch, Vildan Gorener, Patrick Grillas, Serene Hargreaves, Yvette Harvey-Brown, Stephen Herrington, Iva Hodálová, Vojtech Holubec, Laetitia Hugot, Marilena Idzojtic, Dusan Isajev, Devin Johnson, Costa Kadis, Salih Kavak, Shelagh Kell, Chris Kik, Gergely Király, Sabina Knees, Helena Korpelainen, Gregor Kozlowski, Dario Kramer, Angelos Kyratzis, Juozas Labokas, Richard V. Lansdown, Danna Leaman, Lucia Lopez Poveda, Daniel Luscombe, Joana Magos Brehm, Manuel Marrero Gómez, Águedo Marrero-Rodríguez, Riverine woodland along the River Wey near Headley Park, southern England. © John Spooner (CC BY-NC 2.0) vi Oleg Maslovky, Milan Mataruga, Izolda Matchutadze, Nigel Maxted, Stephen Mifsud, Rebecca Miller, Pablo Moreno Cárdenas, Patrik Mráz, Serge Muller, Csaba Németh, Ana Nieto, Elizabeth Ojeda Land, Sara Oldfield, Ana Ortega- Olivencia, Joanna Osborne, Özge Ozden, Salvador Pasta, María Dolores Peraza Zurita, Aline Perez Graber, Lorenzo Peruzzi, Danka Caković, Stergios Pirintsos, Daniela Requena Suarez, Laila Rhazi, Mouhssine Rhazi, Naomi Rich, Josep Rosselló, Shyamali Roy, Beatriz Rumeu Ruiz, Terhi Ryttäri, Llorenç Sáez Goñalons, Pedro Sánchez Gómez, Rosario Schicchi, Fabian Schweizer, Kirsty Shaw, Isamberto Silva, Lajos Somlyay, Pedro Sosa Henríquez, Chrissie Stanley, Vladimir Stevanović, Darrin Stevens, Silvia Strajeru, Arne Strid, Andrii Tarieiev, Maria do Carmo Tavares, Helen Temple, Jean-Marc Tison, Néstor Torres, Panagiotis Trigas, Dana Turonova, Katya Uzundzhalieva, An Vanden Broeck, Errol Véla, Jiří Velebil, Rudolf Vögel, Gabor Vörösváry, Martin Wigginton and Brett Wilson. A number of IUCN SSC Specialist Groups have assisted in the compilation and review of assessments. These include: the Conifer Specialist Group (Philip Thomas), the Crop Wild Relative Specialist Group (Nigel Maxted, Shelagh Kell, Joana Brehm), the Freshwater Plant Specialist Group (Richard Lansdown), the Global Tree Specialist Group (Sara Oldfield and Dan Crowley), the Macaronesian Island Plant Specialist Group, and the Mediterranean Plant Specialist Group. We thank the Committee for Mapping the Flora of Europe (Atlas Florae Europaeae) for making plant distribution data available for a significant number of species included in this assessment. Especial thanks are due to Alexander Sennikov, Secretary of the Committee, who made significant contributions to review workshops and facilitated the use of AFE data. The Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland (BSBI) kindly provided access to their record data, which greatly improved the distribution maps for a number of species. We are indebted to the hosts of the three Red List assessment review workshops that brought together botanical experts from across the region. They were: Croatia, Sanja Kovačić and Vanja Stamenkovic, The Botanical Garden of the Faculty of Science of the University of Zagreb (Sorbus species, June 2016); Italy, Andrea Di Giulio and Graziano Rossi (Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra e dell’Ambiente of the University of Pavia) and Gian Attilio Sacchi, Ilda Vagge, and Simone Orsenigo (Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali–Produzione, Territorio, Agroenergia of the University of Milan), with the workshop held at the University of Pavia Botanical Garden (various tree genera, October 2016); and Canaries, Spain, Juli Caujapé Castells, Jardín Botánico Canario “Viera y Clavijo”, Las Palmas, Gran Canaria (Macaronesian species, January 2017). Colleagues from BGCI Red List Programme (Yvette Harvey- Brown, Helen Rawlinson, and Lydia Murphy) have provided time and hard work towards these assessments. Many thanks to all the institutions contributing ex situ collection data for this report. Numerous colleagues from the IUCN Global Species Programme have provided assistance throughout the project, with Jemma Window providing mapping training and support, coordinating the production of maps, and leading on the analysis of spatial data. Red List Unit staff (Craig Hilton-Taylor, Caroline Pollock, and Ackbar Joolia) provided guidance throughout. We would like to thank IUCN colleagues in Cambridge (Mickael Chevalier, Amy Burden and Aisha Ghauri) and Gland (Anna Rosenberg) who have worked tirelessly with all project reporting and financial issues. Katharina Lapin and Kevin Smith contributed to the section on alien invasive and problematic species. We thank the Federal Department for the Environment (FOEN), Switzerland, for their significant financial contribution to the European Vascular Plant Assessment project, which supported the three assessment review workshops, allowing us to ensure expert representation from across the European region. This publication benefitted greatly from comments and suggestions made by the external reviewers; Steven Bachman (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew), Daniele de Rigo (external consultant for the European Commission (ARCADIA SIT s.r.l) and Maieutike Research Initiative), Achille Mauri (Joint Research Centre, JRC), Tracy Houston Durrant (external consultant for the European Commission; (GFT Italia s.r.l), and Giovanni Caudullo (External consultant for the European Commission; (Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A.). The European Red List of Trees, including this publication, are outputs of a LIFE project co-funded by the European Commission and other donors (LIFE14 PRE/BE/000001 Establishing a European Red List of Bryophytes, Pteridophytes, Saproxylic Beetles, Terrestrial Molluscs and Vascular Plants). In particular, we would like to thank Frank Vassen (European Commission, DG Environment) and the LIFE monitors for their support throughout the project, allowing for a smooth implementation. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission, IUCN, or the IUCN Species Survival Commission. vii Executive summary The European Red List of Trees is a review of the conservation status of all the European tree species according to IUCN’s regional Red List guidelines. It identifies those species that are threatened with extinction at the European regional level to inform the conservation actions needed to improve their conservation status. The geographical scope extends from Iceland in the west to the Urals in the east, and from Franz Josef Land in the north to the Canary Islands in the south. Red List assessments are made at two regional levels: for continental Europe, and for the 28 Member States of the European Union. This European Red List publication summarises the results for the Red List assessment of all known native European trees, a total of 454 species, of which over 58% (265 species) are endemic to continental Europe, with 56% (252 species) endemic to the 28 EU Member States. Overall, 42% of European tree species have been assessed as threatened (i.e. assessed as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable) and therefore having a high risk of extinction. This report reveals that trees are one of the most highlythreated groups of species that have yet been assessed for the European Red List, exceeded only in their risk of extinction by freshwater molluscs (59%; Cuttelod et al., 2011) and by the plant species (57%; Bilz et al., 2011) that are listed in European and international policy instruments, such as the Bern Convention. A further 13 species are assessed as Near Threatened, almost meeting the criteria for a threatened category; and 216 species are considered Least Concern and therefore not of current conservation concern. However, for 57 species there was insufficient information to assign a conservation status, and are therefore classified as Data Deficient. The main threat to tree species in Europe has been identified as invasive or problematic species, impacting 38% of tree species, followed by deforestation and wood harvesting, and urban development (both affecting 20% of tree species). For threatened species, livestock farming, land abandonment, changes in forest and woodland management, and other ecosystem modifications such as fire are the major threats, impacting the survival of trees. Out of all European trees, 359 species (79%) are currently known to occur in at least one protected area and 393 European tree species (87%) are found in ex situ collections in botanic gardens and arboreta. Assessments are available on the EU data portal and on the IUCN European Red List website ec.europa.eu/environment/ nature/conservation/species/redlist and www.iucnredlist.org/ regions/europe Trees are essential for life on earth and are a key component of the cultural, economic and natural landscapes of Europe. The European Red List of Trees not only recognises the importance of tree species in Europe, but also represents the first comprehensive assessment of the threat status of the region’s tree species and details the threats affecting these species, and assesses their risk of extinction. These assessments complement existing regional or national conservation assessments to allow targeted conservation planning. The assessments should be used to inform and direct policy to ensure that the species considered threatened are protected both in and ex situ; and to inform, inspire and catalyse conservation action to prevent the extinction of European tree diversity. 6 regional guidelines (IUCN, 2012a) (Figure 2). Species were assigned to one of the eleven categories: Extinct (EX), Extinct in the Wild (EW), Regionally Extinct (RE), Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened (NT), Data Deficient (DD) and Least Concern (LC), Not Applicable (NA), Not Evaluated (NE). See Annex 2 for a summary of the qualifying thresholds for each of the three threatened Red List categories. 2.5 Spatial distribution maps and analyses Digital distribution maps were created using distribution data collated from available literature, internet sources, the Atlas Florae Europaeae (Kurtto et al., 2013), European Forest Genetic Resources Programme (EUFORGEN) species data, and the European Atlas of Forest Tree Species (San-Miguel-Ayanz et al., 2016; Caudullo et al., 2017). For some countries (and for some species), including Spain (Anthos, 2016), France (SILENE, 2017), UK (BSBI, 2017), Bulgaria, Sweden and Switzerland, distributions were available as either point location data (latitude/longitude) or in grid cell format. In addition, extensive use was made of the webbased GeoCAT Geospatial Conservation Assessment Tool (Bachman et al., 2011) to view and edit occurrence records held by the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF, 2017) and other sources, and to compile additional localities from literature or through workshops. Where point or grid data were available, data were projected in a Geographical Information System (GIS) (ESRI ArcMap) and polygons drawn manually, clustering points where appropriate. Depending on information availability, metadata coding was used to distinguish presence, origin, and seasonality across the spatial extent of a species’ distribution. These codes differentiate the species presence (species are recorded as extant, possibly extant or extinct); seasonal presence of the species in the location (the default setting of ‘resident’ was assigned); and the origin of the species (native, introduced, reintroduced or uncertain). The coding information can be found in the Red List digital distribution metadata guidance (IUCN, 2014). In the analysis of the spatial data, only distributions with the following Presence, Seasonal and Origin codes were used: • Presence: Extant and Possibly Extant • Origin: Native and Re-introduced • Seasonality: Resident Spatial data were analysed using a geodesic discrete global grid system, defined on an icosahedron and projected to the sphere using the inverse Icosahedral Snyder Equal Area (ISEA) Projection (S39). This corresponds to a hexagonal grid composed of individual units (cells) that retain their shape and area (865 km2) throughout the globe. These are more suitable for a range of ecological Figure 2. The IUCN Red List Categories at the regional scale (version 3.1) (Source: IUCN, 2012a). 7 Species profile: Horse-Chestnut - Aesculus hippocastanum Aesculus hippocastanum or the Horse-Chestnut tree, as it is more commonly called, is widely found across much of Europe but is in fact only native to Bulgaria, Albania, the mainland of Greece, and Republic of North Macedonia. This gives the species a large native range of 150,000 to 160,000 km2 but, despite this, the species is threatened (Allen & Khela, 2017). National assessments consider the species Endangered in Bulgaria and Greece and Critically Endangered in Albania. This iconic tree experiences a multitude of threats across its native range. In Bulgaria it is threatened by local tourism, pollution, wood extraction and forests fires which have caused the decline of the restricted subpopulation in the eastern part of the country. The species is similarly threatened within Albania; logging is of particular threat here as it occurs illegally and is centred on the old growth A. hippocastanum forests of the Pindus Mountains. Across its entire range A. hippocastanum is threatened by defoliation by the leaf miner moth, Cameraria ohridella, an alien invasive. Infection by this pest has caused severe declines in population size as it reduces the survival and regeneration potential of the tree. The species is also affected by horse-chestnut leaf blotch caused by the fungus Phyllosticta sphaeropsoidea. This pathogen does not damage the tree but does cause its usually bright green, palmate leaves to become brown and blotched. Both these infections also affect the species in areas of introduction and cultivation where the species was originally grown as an attractive garden ornamental or street tree. Within the species’ native Balkan range, remnant populations preferentially grow within broad-leaf forest on rocky slopes and valleys, a habitat which itself is in decline. There is a growing incidence of landslides and collapse on these mountainous sites as they are developed for tourism and ecosystems are left out of balance due to clear cutting and soil erosion. The species is deservedly found within Nature 2000 sites and other protected areas within its native range. However, some of these are still adversely impacted by anthropogenic pressures; for example in the Iti National Park, Greece, mining still occurs. These threats have left the remaining wild population of the species small and in continuing decline. Overall, it is estimated that the population is smaller than 10,000 individuals and no subpopulation is expected to contain more than 1,000 trees, causing the species to be assessed as Vulnerable C2a(i). Greece boasts the largest population of the species in its native range as population size estimates for Albania and Republic of North Macedonia are below 500 trees. Even so, within Greece the population has become scattered and only 1,500 mature individuals were found across 98 subpopulations. Aesculus hippocastanum is a regionally important species of conservation concern. The species has been present within Europe prior to the last ice age. The species’ spiked fruits are archetypal and the polished brown conker held within is perhaps more famous than the tree itself. This is due to their use for children’s playground games. In Albania and Bulgaria conkers are used in folk medicine and have more recently been introduced into the pharmaceutical industry as they contain escin, which can be used to treat vascular problems (EMA, 2009). The Horse Chestnut Leaf-miner, Cameraria ohridella. © Patrick Clement (CC BY 2.0) 8 applications than the most commonly used rectangular grids (S40). The range of each species was converted to a hexagonal grid for analysis purposes. Coastal cells were clipped to the coastline. The pattern of overall species richness (Figure 4a) was mapped by counting the number of species in each cell (or cell section, for species with a coastal distribution). Patterns of threatened species richness (Figure 4b) were mapped by counting the number of threatened species (categories Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable at the European regional level) in each cell or cell section. The pattern of endemic species richness was mapped by counting the number of species in each cell (or cell section for coastal species) that were flagged as being endemic to geographic Europe as defined in this study (Figure 4d). Finally, the distribution of species assessed as Data Deficient is shown in Figure 4e. 2.6 Review of assessments Following production of the draft assessment and compilation of distribution data, the majority of the assessments underwent a process of peer review through assessment review workshops. The first review workshop (6-10 June 2016, hosted by The Botanical Garden of the Faculty of Science of the University of Zagreb, Croatia) focussed on European Sorbus species; the second workshop (10-14 October 2016, The Botanic Garden of the University of Pavia, Italy) on the remaining tree species of Europe, with a third workshop (23-24 January 2017; Jardin Botanico Canario “Viera y Clavijo”, Gran Canaria) held on the Canary Island to review species endemic or near-endemic to the Canary Islands. A small number of species assessments were reviewed outside these workshops by direct consultation with experts with relevant geographical or taxonomic expertise. The reviewed assessments then underwent consistency checks by the IUCN Red List Unit to ensure the global and regional IUCN Criteria and Guidelines were applied correctly. The IUCN assessments are the result of peerreviewed scientific consensus and are found online (www. iucnredlist.org). Sorbus assessments were published to the Red List in mid-2017, with the remaining assessments published in late 2017. Mixed evergreen and deciduous forest (Carpinus orientalis) in southern Albania. © Lulezim Shuka 9 3. Results 3.1 Species selection and threat status In total, there are 454 species of native trees in Europe, found in 45 families. The most speciose family is Rosaceae, which has 216 tree species, the majority of which are from the genus Sorbus (see Case Study 1). In accordance with IUCN Red List guidelines, we have applied the species concept for both sexual and apomictic species. For a list of all the tree species in Europe with their conservation rating, see Annex 1. Of the 454 European native tree species, 168 of the species are considered threatened in Europe (i.e. assessed as Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered, and therefore having an elevated risk of extinction). There are thirteen species (3%) assessed as Near Threatened, almost meeting the criteria for a threatened category. A further 216 species (47%) are considered Least Concern and therefore not of current conservation concern. None of the trees were considered Extinct (or Extinct in the Wild, or Regionally Extinct). However, 57 species (13%) were considered to be Data Deficient (DD), as insufficient information is available to assign a conservation status (Table 1). Due to the high number of Data Deficient species, the proportion of threatened species could be between 37.1% (if no DD species are considered threatened) and 49.6% (if all DD species are considered threatened) for Europe (Table 2). The mid- Table 1. Summary of tree species in each Red List category in Europe and the EU 28. IUCN Red List Category Tree species Europe (endemic species) Tree species in EU 28 (endemic species) Extinct (EX) 0 0 Extinct in the Wild (EW) 0 0 Regionally Extinct (RE) 0 0 Critically Endangered (CR) 68 (66) 66 (64) Endangered (EN) 62 (58) 57 (53) Vulnerable (VU) 38 (31) 37(30) Near Threatened (NT) 13 (7) 10 (5) Least Concern (LC) 216 (67) 207 (66) Data Deficient (DD) 57 (36) 54 (34) Total number of species assessed 454 (265) 431 (252) Sorbus cordigastensis (EN) is endemic to Bavaria in southern Germany. There are only 100 known mature individuals, and the species is threatened by forest management changes which encourage natural succession reducing the amount of available light. © Norbert Meyer 10 point value (42.3%) provides the best estimation of the proportion of threatened species (IUCN, 2011). Of the 57 species rated as DD, 41 (72%) belong to five genera of Rosaceae family: Crataegus, Malus, Prunus, Pyrus and Sorbus (Annex 1). Almost all threatened species are endemic European trees; only thirteen threatened trees are non-European endemics. This means at least 58% (155 species) of all endemic European trees are threatened (Table 1). There is very little difference in the figures between Europe and the EU 28 assessments, the patterns are very similar (Figure 3, Table 2). 3.2 Criteria used The majority of threatened species (72%) were assessed under criterion D (Table 3), indicating a restricted population size. Forty percent of threatened species were listed under criterion B, threatened due to a restricted geographic range. It was only possible to assess 14 species using criterion A and C, highlighting the difficulties in calculating population reductions for many tree species. This is in part due to their longevity, but also the result of the lack of monitoring data across the range over long enough time periods, and the difficulty in estimating generation time for many tree species. The majority of threatened species (135 species, 80%) were listed under a single criterion; 33 species (19%) of the species were listed as threatened using multiple criteria. Table 3. The IUCN Red List Criteria used for assessing the threatened trees at the European level and the percentage of threatened species assessed under each criterion. Criterion Number of species (%) A 4 (2) B 68 (40) C 10 (6) D 121 (72) E 0 (0) Total 168 Table 2. Percentage of threatened trees in Europe and EU 28. Europe % threatened trees EU 28% threatened trees Lower bound (CR+EN+VU)/(assessed-EX) 37.1% 37.1% Mid-point (CR+EN+VU)/(assessed-EX-DD) 42.3%42.4% Upper bound (CR+EN+VU+DD)/(assessed-EX) 49.6% 49.7% Figure 3. Percentage of trees in each Red List category in a) Europe b) the EU 28. CR EN VU NT LC DD 15% 14% 48% 12% 8% 3% 15% 13% 48% 13% 9% 2% a) b) 11 Case study 1. Sorbus Tim Rich Sorbus sensu lato is a genus of trees and shrubs that is widespread in the northern hemisphere. Jankun (1993) regarded Southeast Asia as the primary centre of origin, with three secondary centres of diversity in 1) the east Himalayas and China, 2) the Caucasus and Armenia, and 3) in Europe. Except a few widespread species, the European Sorbus species are found in single countries, with hotspots in the UK, Hungary, Germany, Czech Republic and the Balkans. The genus Sorbus contains 170 tree species in Europe. Over three-quarters of these species are considered threatened: 57 species being Critically Endangered, 48 species being Endangered and 24 species being Vulnerable. Only 19 species of the more widespread species are Least Concern or Near Threatened. Information about status is very patchy in Europe mainly reflecting where work has been done recently, and too little is known about 22 species to assess them (Data Deficient). The European Sorbus diversity arises from the unusual mode of reproduction which involves a combination of hybridisation, polyploidy and apomixis. The main lineages are genetically distinct but weak barriers to hybridisation between the species, combined with the isolating mechanisms of polyploidy and apomixis, has resulted in complex arrays of hybrids arising where species meet. Polyploidy is the occurrence of additional sets of chromosomes to the normal two (diploid) sets found in sexual species. In Sorbus there are five diploid species (S. aria, S. aucuparia, S. domestica, S. chamaemespilus and S. torminalis), and numerous species with three (triploid) or four (tetraploid) or rarely with five (pentaploid) sets of chromosomes. Apomixis is a form of asexual reproduction in which seed formation occurs directly from the tissue of the mother tree without any genetic input from the father and the seeds are direct clones of the mother, and apomixis is passed on genetically to the progeny. A further complication is pseudogamy, where pollination is required for development of the seed endosperm even if the pollen does not contribute to the genetic makeup of the seed. Recent studies (Ludwig et al., 2013) have shown that whilst some species are purely (obligate) apomictic others have occasional sexual events (facultative apomicts) which drives further speciation. This reproductive complexity has resulted in the origin of many new species where different parents have met during recolonization of Europe after the last glaciation and the process is ongoing today. The main threats are from succession to tall woodland or deforestation, selective forestry, quarrying and grazing, and the small populations are often vulnerable. The small populations result from their recent origin and variable fertility, and they often have restricted habitats such as ungrazed, rocky cliffs as many are short, light-demanding trees which are palatable to animals. Lack of knowledge may also cause unnecessary losses. There is still much to do to conserve these beautiful little trees. Sorbus hazslinszkyana (VU) from the Szádelői-völgy (Szádelői Gorge) in Slovakia. © Alexander Sennikov Sorbus milensis (CR) is restricted to Milá Hill in the České středohoří (central Bohemian Uplands) in northwestern Bohemia, Czechia. With only 38 mature individuals known, the species is threatened by low recruitment as well as grazing and competition from Fraxinus excelsior, reducing the habitat quality for this species. The entire known population occurs within the Milá Nature Reserve. © Martin Lepš 12 3.3 Spatial distribution of species 3.3.1 Overall species richness Figure 4a highlights areas of particularly high concentrations of species. Not surprisingly, the highest numbers of species are found in the Mediterranean region and mountain areas such as the Balkan Peninsula, with further areas of high richness in the Crimean Peninsula. Such a distribution pattern of the tree species richness coincides with general distribution of plant diversity ‘hotspots’ and refugia in Europe (Médail & Diadema, 2009; Svenning & Skov, 2007; Svenning et al., 2010; Taberlet & Cheddadi, 2002; Thompson, 2005). 3.3.2 Distribution of threatened species The distribution of the 168 threatened taxa (those assessed as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable) are shown in Figure 4b. Of the threatened taxa, 130 are of the Sorbus genus (Figure 4c), showing a high concentration within Cheddar Gorge, southern Wales and north Cornwall in the United Kingdom, in parts of the Carpathians, and in Hungary. 3.3.3 Distribution of endemic species Two hundred and sixty-five species were found to have distributions restricted to Europe, (see Appendix 1). This information is presented visually in Figure 4d. In common with the results of several other European Red Lists (e.g. vascular plants (Allen et al., 2014; Bilz et al., 2011; García Criado et al., 2017), some of the highest levels of endemism are found in the main mountain Figure 4a. The overall species richness of trees within Europe. The Crimean Rowan Sorbus tauricola (EN) is endemic to the coastal mountains of southern Crimea, where it is threatened by regular and extensive damage to seeds by the wasp, Megastigmus brevicaudis, which prevents regeneration. © Alexander Sennikov 13 Figure 4b. The distribution of threatened (CR, EN and VU) tree species in Europe. Figure 4c. The distribution of threatened Sorbus species in Europe. 14 Figure 4d. The distribution of endemic tree species in Europe. Figure 4e. The distribution of Data Deficient tree species in Europe. 15 Species profile: Heberdenia excelsa Heberdenia excelsa is a shrub or tree to 20 metres tall. It is native to all islands of the Canary Islands (except Lanzarote), where it most commonly grows as a shrub. The species is also present on Madeira and the islands of Desertas and Porto Santo. This gives the species a wide native range but an area of occupancy of only 304 km 2 . This Macaronesian endemic can be found at high elevations in cloud forest where the environment is made more favourable by the trade winds and also on rocks and cliffs, while on the north-eastern coast of Tenerife the species occurs at lower elevations (200-400 m) in the remaining patches of thermophilous forest. The species also infrequently grows in the region’s famous Laurisilva forests. Here individuals take a different morphological form to those in the thermophilous forest to the extent that some botanists would like them to be recognised as different species, but this will require further morphological and genetic analysis. Heberdenia excelsa is assessed as Vulnerable. Although the total population is thought to exceed 3,000 individuals it is fragmented and scattered across many islands. Also, many of these subpopulations consist of only a single individual or low number of individuals. The smallest subpopulations are found on Fuerteventura and El Hierro where the species is threatened by browsing from rats and goats. Elsewhere on the Canary Islands the population is in decline due to wildfires, landslides and both natural and anthropogenic-induced drought. The Madeira archipelago is home to an estimated 1,000 individuals of H. excelsa and these are broadly considered to be less threatened than the Canary island subpopulations. Luckily the species is protected under law and found within many protected National Parks, as well as occurring within ex situ collections. Further conservation action will involve the monitoring of the Fuerteventura subpopulation and raising awareness of the species’ plight in this locality. Heberdenia excelsa (VU) is endemic to the Canary and Madeiran archipelagos. Although the species is relatively widespread, the subpopulations are affected by browsing by rats and goats, wildfires, and landslides. ©Damián Esquivel Díaz (CC BY-SA 4.0) 22 Forest fire in Greece. © Lotus R (CC BY-SA 2.0) Figure 5. The major threats identified to the European tree species. Invasive and problematic species Land abandonment and other ecosystem modifications Deforestation and wood harvesting Livestock farming Climate change Urban development Fire Geological events Transportation corridors Human intrusions and disturbance Other threat Agriculture Mining and quarrying Pollution Tree plantations Water use and management Plant collection Threat unknown 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Threatened species LC, NT and DD species 23 3.6 Uses The majority of European trees (245 tree species) have at least one recorded use (Figure 7). 209 tree species have no recorded use, and of these 106 are considered to not be utilised – for the remainder there is no information available. The uses are very diverse (Figure 7), ranging from food, medicines, construction, fuel, handicrafts etc. Some of these uses may, if overexploited and not monitored, have had a direct effect on the conservation status of the species. The largest single use is horticulture; indeed the ornamental value of European trees is high with 30% of species used in the horticultural trade. For information on how this is important use is reflected in botanic garden collections see Chapter 4. Figure 6. Population trends of European tree species. Figure 7. The number of European tree species with a recorded use. Decreasing Stable/Increasing Unknown Number of tree species 0 50 100 150 200 250 Threatened species LC, NT and DD species Horticulture Structural materials Medicine Food - human & animal Fuel Household goods Handicrafts, jewellery Chemicals Fibre Research Wearing apparel, accessories Other 195 84 79 98 53 51 32 29 13 7542 24 4. In situ and ex situ conservation of European trees Out of all European trees species, 359 (79%) are currently found in at least one protected area. However, more studies are needed to establish the scope and effectiveness of these protected areas for tree species. This was unfortunately outside the remit of this project. For assessing which European trees are conserved ex situ in botanic gardens, arboreta and seed banks around the world, we conducted an ex situ conservation survey. Tree species were matched to records held in the BGCI database PlantSearch (Box 3) (as of 11/07/2017). All collections of European tree species were included, regardless of their geographic origin. It is possible that some of the non-endemic tree collections are of non- European origin. The ex situ conservation survey identified 19,257 records of European trees found in 643 different institutions. This number represents the presence of a single taxon in a collection within an institution and does not take into account the number of accessions or individuals. Only species records were included in the analysis, records of cultivars or infraspecific taxa were excluded. 4.1 Species in ex situ collections In total, 393 European tree species (87%) are found in ex situ collections with 61 species (13%) not found in collections (Figure 8). Of the species not found in ex situ collections, most are assessed as Critically Endangered or Data Deficient (Figure 8). Of the 168 threatened tree species, 136 species are found in ex situ collections in botanic gardens, arboreta or seed banks. Species that are not found in ex situ collections are not safeguarded against extinction if wild populations are lost. Thirty-two threatened species are currently not found in any ex situ collections, all except Rhamnus lojaconoi are species of Sorbus (Table 4). Further efforts should be made to ensure the remaining threatened species are brought into collections. 4.2 Number of ex situ collections Although a single ex situ collection in a botanic garden or seed bank prevents the extinction of a species, multiple collections are needed for protection from stochastic events or loss from natural causes, and to contain sufficient genetic diversity to enable the collections to be used in restoration or reintroduction programmes. 24% of threatened European tree species are found in a single collection, and 53% are found in five or fewer collections. Therefore despite a large proportion of European trees being found in ex situ collections, more can still be done in terms of diversifying these collections, and ensuring they are safe. Figure 8. The number of tree species found (blue) and not found (light blue) in ex situ conservation collections, including the conservation category of those not found in ex situ collections. 61 21 7 4 2 7 20 393 Present CR EN VU NT LC DD 25 Species profile: Sorbus albensis Martin Lepší South Bohemian Museum, České Budějovice, Czechia Sorbus albensis is a tree up to 13 m high, endemic to the northern Bohemia region of the Czech Republic. Sorbus albensis bears a unique morphology within this group. With its irregularly serrated to shallowly lobed leaves it is morphologically close to S. danubialis (S. aria group). The presence of the other parent, S. torminalis is evident in the orange-red colour of the fruits. Both of its supposed parents, i.e. S. danubialis and S. torminalis, and another endemic Sorbus bohemica occur commonly at its localities. Sorbus albensis is assessed as Endangered. It was recorded at 15 localities in the České Středohoří Mountains, with a restricted range of 20 km2 and its population consists of just 600 individuals. Sorbus albensis occurs in open habitat such as wood margins, grasslands, shrublands, screes and rocks, and open forests on both acidic and base-rich soils. A majority of individuals occur in human-affected seminatural forests or man-made grasslands or shrublands. Only twice has it been found in relic habitats such as rocks and screes. This species is threatened by changes in forest management, encouraging the growth of ‘high’ forests which reduce the reproductive success of Sorbus albensis. In the undergrowth of high forests, it is very often sterile and only produces fruits when there are gaps in the canopy or it reaches the tree layer. Seedling growth is limited by grazing by deer and mouflon at some localities. Rarely, it is able to spread in grasslands on calcareous marls. In good conditions it produces plenty of fruit and seedlings and forms monospecific closed stands. The population of the species may have been reduced considerably by intensive farming in the past. Conversely, management have maintained open habitats at some localities, allowing the species to establish and survive until now. The species’ habitat range is restricted, which is caused by the cessation of grazing within the area, leading to natural succession, causing colonisation of open sites by trees and closing tree canopy in former open forests. Succession is a continuing threat to the species, as is also the case for many other European Sorbus species. © Martin Lepší 26 In contrast, some species are found in a very large number of ex situ collections, these are often linked with high ornamental value. The top ten species in the largest number of collections are shown in Table 5. Table 5. The top-10 European tree species found in the largest number of ex situ collections. Taxon English common name Rating Number of collections Cornus mas Cornelian Cherry LC 233 Picea abies Norway Spruce LC 228 Buxus sempervirens Box LC 225 Quercus robur European Oak LC 223 Taxus baccata Common or European Yew LC 212 Laurus nobilis Bay Laurel LC 210 Acer campestre Field Maple LC 208 Fagus sylvatica European Beech LC 208 Pinus sylvestris Scots Pine LC 208 Picea omorika Serbian Spruce EN 203 Table 4. Threatened European tree species not found in ex situ collections. Rhamnus lojaconoi Sorbus moravica Sorbus acutiserrata Sorbus polgariana Sorbus amici-petri Sorbus pontis-satanae Sorbus barabitsii Sorbus pyricarpa Sorbus bodajkensis Sorbus scannelliana Sorbus bosniaca Sorbus scepusiensis Sorbus busambarensis Sorbus seyboldiana Sorbus dracofolia Sorbus slovenica Sorbus gerecseensis Sorbus subdanubialis Sorbus harziana Sorbus thayensis Sorbus keszthelyensis Sorbus tobani Sorbus klasterskyana Sorbus udvardyana Sorbus kmetiana Sorbus ujhelyii Sorbus lonetalensis Sorbus vallerubusensis Sorbus magocsyana Sorbus veszpremensis Sorbus meyeri Sorbus zertovae Acer campestre (LC) is widespread across the European region. As well as being a common ornamental tree and frequent in botanical gardens, the wood is widely used. © Dean Morley (CC BY-ND 2.0) Box 3. PlantSearch BGCI’s PlantSearch database is a global database of plants in cultivation. It is available online, and it is free to contribute to and access. PlantSearch connects around 2,000 researchers and horticulturists to collections every year. Locations and gardens are not publicly revealed and requests can be made via blind email messages. PlantSearch is an easy way for ex situ collection holders to contribute to broader ex situ assessments, such as this survey. https://tools.bgci.org/plant_search.php 27 Species profile: Serbian Spruce - Picea omorika Martin Gardner, IUCN SSC Conifer Specialist Group & International Conifer Conservation Programme Serbian Spruce (Picea omorika) is a very distinctive European endemic conifer with its narrow pencil-like shape and distinctive flattened needles which have two broad silvery-white bands beneath. Soon after its discovery in 1875 by the Serbian botanist Josif Pančić, it was introduced to cultivation in 1889, since when it has been widely cultivated for commercial forestry and as an ornamental tree. It has a relatively restricted natural distribution adjacent to the Drina River of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia where it has an altitudinal range of 800-1,500 meters above sea-level. Within its four main locations it occurs in 25 sites with nearly half of these occurring in Serbia’s Tara National Park. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is confined to the eastern part of the country in Republika Srpska with the largest cluster of sites between Višegrade and Srebrenica and is contiguous with the main location in Serbia. Typically it grows on steep north to northwest-facing slopes which overlay igneous rocks. In Serbia there is one unusual site on peatland and another on serpentine soils that are derived from ultramafic rocks. It occurs with other coniferous species such as Abies alba, Picea abies, Pinus nigra and Pinus sylvestris. Until the middle of the 19th century the natural range of Serbian Spruce was less fragmented than it is today, which has mainly been caused by forest clearing and wildfires. Serbian Spruce is dependent on catastrophic events for good recruitment and healthy subsequent growth to take place. Dieback related to drought has been observed in recent years, which is thought to be a response to extreme weather events suggesting that this species is likely to face difficulties in adapting to climate change within its natural range. Serbian Spruce, considered Endangered, is afforded protection throughout its natural range. Researchers recommend the removal of competitive trees such as Fagus sylvatica and planting in areas of its natural range which are not currently occupied by this species. The 2014 BGCI survey of ex situ conifer collections reports that the Serbian Spruce is grown in 209 sites but only 42 of these contain plants from known wild origin. The International Conifer Conservation Programme (ICCP) based at Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh and in collaboration with Bedgebury National Pinetum, has made two visits to sample seed from across its natural range. The ICCP has planted 722 plants in 65 sites. Seed from the native forests were also deposited in the Millennium Seed Bank, at Wakehurst. Picea omorika seed cones, shown here in cultivation in Estonia, outside its natural range. © Iifar / Wikimedia 28 5. Comparison with other European Red Lists In comparison with other groups that have been assessed on a European scale, trees are among the most threatened species in Europe. Other plant groups that have been assessed are: ‘policy plants’, crop wild relatives, aquatic plants (Bilz et al., 2011), medicinal plants (Allen et al., 2014) and lycopods and ferns (García Criado et al., 2017). There is some overlap of the species included in these reports, but the result still shows that with 42% threatened species, trees have the highest proportion of threatened species, apart from ‘policy plants’. It is not surprising that ‘policy plants’ contain more threatened species, as the species were selected due to their conservation concern. In comparison beyond plants, only European freshwater molluscs are more threatened than trees (Table 6). Table 6. Summary of European Red List assessments with the proportion of threatened species (mid-point value). Taxonomic group Threatened species (%) Reference Freshwater molluscs 59% Cuttelod et al., 2011 ‘Policy’ plants* 57% Bilz et al., 2011 Trees 42% This report Freshwater fishes 40% Freyhof & Brooks, 2011 Grasshoppers, crickets and bush-crickets 29% Hochkirch et al., 2016 Amphibians 23% Temple & Cox, 2009 Terrestrial molluscs 22% Cuttelod et al., 2011; Neubert et al., 2019 Mosses, liverworts and hornworts 22% Hodgetts et al., 2019 Reptiles 20% Cox & Temple, 2009 Lycopods and ferns 20% García Criado et al., 2017 Dragonflies 16% Kalkman et al., 2010 Crop wild relatives* 16% Bilz et al., 2011 Saproxylic beetles* 15% Nieto & Alexander, 2010 Mammals 15% Temple & Terry, 2007 Birds 13% BirdLife International, 2015 Bees 9% Nieto et al., 2014 Butterflies 9% van Swaay et al., 2010 Aquatic plants* 8% Bilz et al., 2011 Marine fishes 8% Nieto et al., 2015 Medicinal plants 2% Allen et al., 2014 * European Red Lists assessing a selection, rather than complete set, of species. 29 6. Policy and conservation framework of European trees Plant conservation in Europe is covered to varying degrees by a series of international, European, European Union and national strategies and legal frameworks relating both specifically to plant conservation and to plant conservation within the broader biodiversity framework. 6.1 Global policy context All European countries (as well as the EU itself) are Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The CBD Strategic Plan 2011–2020 includes 20 targets (Aichi Targets) that guide the implementation of the CBD and link to other international environmental agreements. Of relevance, Aichi Target 12 focuses on preventing the extinction of known threatened species and improving their status (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2011). The information provided in this Red List of European trees contributes to measuring progress made towards meeting this target, especially because some species have been re-assessed, allowing changes in conservation status over time to be measured. Within the framework of the CBD, the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) (CBD, 2002) was developed in response to a recognised need for a greater focus on plants within the broader biodiversity agenda. The GSPC was adopted by the Parties to the CBD in 2002 and all signatory governments were committed to delivering the Strategy’s 16 ambitious targets by 2010, which were subsequently updated to run until 2020 (CBD, 2012). This project directly addresses Target 2 (calling for assessment of the conservation status of all plant species), but many of the other targets are also relevant for the conservation of trees. Since its adoption, the GSPC has motivated action to save plant diversity from extinction at national, regional and international levels and in Europe, several countries (e.g. Spain, Ireland and the UK) have used the GSPC as a basis for developing national plant conservation strategies. There are currently no European trees listed on annexes of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). For more information on CITES is available from the CITES section on the BGCI website: www.bgci.org/our-work/ policy-and-advocacy/cites/. 6.2 European policy context To coordinate the implementation of the GSPC at the regional level, the European Strategy for Plant Conservation (ESPC) was developed in 2001 by the Planta Europa network and the Council of Europe, in partnership with other related conservation organisations. European countries and EU Member States are signatories to several conventions aimed at conserving biodiversity, including the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). The Bern Convention was the first convention developed Box 4: Important Plant Areas (IPA) Plant habitat conservation efforts have in part been focused through the identification of Important Plant Areas (IPAs). IPAs are natural or semi-natural sites exhibiting exceptional botanical richness, or supporting rare, threatened or endemic plant species or vegetation of high botanical value. The European IPA programme, coordinated by PlantLife International and IUCN, has three objectives: to identify within each biogeographic zone the most important sites for the conservation of plants; to promote awareness of the importance and need to conserve these areas; to promote direct conservation action and funding towards these sites. To date, more than 16 European countries have been actively engaged in IPA identification projects and more than 1,770 IPAs have been identified (Plantlife, 2010). Online data on the sites, their qualifying features and threats are available at www.plantlifeipa.org. 30 specifically for the conservation of wild European flora and fauna and their natural habitats. It also focuses on promoting European co-operation in this field. It requires Member States of the Council of Europe to ensure conservation of all wild plant and animal species; to increase cooperation between states; and to afford special protection to the most vulnerable species. The Bern Convention is a binding international legal instrument in the field of nature conservation, which covers the whole of the natural heritage of the European continent and extends to some states of Africa. In Appendix I of the Bern Convention (Strictly Protected Flora Species), a total of seven tree species are listed (Zelkova abelicea, Pyrus anatolica, Tetraclinis articulata, Euphorbia margalidiana, Abies nebrodensis, Ribes sardoum, Phoenix theophrasti). In line with international commitments, the EU itself has committed to a long-term (2050) vision and midterm headline target for biodiversity, which is “To halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020 and restore them in so far as possible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.” This target underpins the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2011-2020 which aims to halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The strategy sets out six targets and 20 actions to achieve these objectives by 2020. EU nature legislation, most notably the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive, form the backbone of biodiversity policy and the legal basis for the nature protection network. At the centre of these Directives is the creation of a coherent ecological network of protected areas throughout Europe – known as Natura 2000. Some 27,000 sites have so far been included in the Natura 2000 network and collectively they cover nearly one fifth of the EU land and marine area (European Commission, 2016). 53 of the 233 Annex 1 habitats are forest habitats. Even though many of the threatened trees were recorded in at least one protected area (including national parks, Natura 2000 sites or nature reserves), the management of protected areas rarely focuses directly on the threatened trees. One example is the Natura 2000 habitat, Macaronesian laurel forests. Conservation management actions include selective cutting to encourage regrowth, converting plantations into laurel forest, removing invasive species and restoring populations of threatened species such as Morella rivas-martinezii (Guimarães & Olmeda, 2008). 6.3 Red List versus priority for conservation action Assessing the extinction risk and setting conservation priorities are related but distinct processes. The purpose of the IUCN Red List assessment is to produce a relative estimate of the likelihood of extinction of a taxon that can be used, with other data, to identify and prioritise species for conservation action. On the other hand, setting conservation priorities also considers other factors Box 5: Plant Micro-Reserves (PMRs) Another form of protection for plants are Plant Micro-Reserves (PMRs), which are present in several European countries. These are based on the use of vegetation fragments as small-scale reserves to conserve and monitor populations of rare, endemic and threatened species (Kadis et al., 2013; Laguna et al., 2016). The concept is built on the basis of a voluntary but non-reversible contribution of land property, both public and private, with the goal of creating a network of micro-areas. PMRs have been the focus of targeted EU LIFE funds in a number of European countries, for example, in Cyprus (LIFE08NAT/CY/000453), Greece (Crete LIFE04 NAT/GR/000104), and Bulgaria (LIFE08NAT/BG/000279). Box 6: Species Action Plans In addition, several countries have developed management or action plans for several species, and have legislation in place to protect certain species legally. Some examples of successful action plans include UK Biodiversity Action Plans such as for Juniperus communis (JNCC, 2010) and the Zelkova Global Action Plan (Kozlowski & Gratzfeld, 2013). 31 such as ecological, phylogenetical, historical, economical, or cultural preferences for some taxa over others. Also, the probability of success of conservation actions, availability of funds or personnel, cost-effectiveness and legal frameworks for the conservation of threatened taxa is considered. In the context of regional risk assessments, several additional pieces of information are valuable for setting conservation priorities. For example, it is important to consider not only conditions within the region, but also the status of the taxon from a global perspective and the proportion of the global population that occurs within the region. The decision on how these three variables, and the other factors, are used for establishing conservation priorities is a matter for the regional authorities to determine, considering the assessment status of the species of concerned. Box 7: High Conservation Value The High Conservation Value (HCV) approach was first developed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), but recently it has proven useful for identifying and managing environmental and social values in other production landscapes (Brown et al., 2013). HCV is now widely used in certification standards (forestry, agriculture and aquatic systems) and more generally for resource use and conservation planning. The HCV system recognizes and includes all above mentioned global and European policies and practice. The FSC developed the HCV concept as part of its standard (Principle 9) to ensure maintenance of significant or critical environmental and social values in the context of forest certification. This is a very effective way for the forestry sector to ensure that the appropriate management for tree species conservation is in place in many EU and non-EU countries (Ioras et al., 2009; Maesano et al., 2016). The Sicilian Fir Abies nebrodensis does not grow in the Nebrodi Mountains, it is actually found in the Madonie Mountains in the north-central part of Sicily. It is Critically Endangered as a result of past decline, and because of the current small population size, with just 25 fertile trees out of the 32 known adult trees. It was considered to be extinct at once point, but a small population was discovered in 1957, and has benefited from a number of LIFE-funded conservation initiatives. © Angelo Troìa/IUCN SSC Mediterranean Plant Specialist Group. 38 J., Slapnik, R., Son, M., Štamol, V., Teixeira, D., Triantis, K., Vardinoyannis, K., von Proschwitz, T. and Walther, F. (2019). European Red List of Terrestrial Molluscs. IUCN: Cambridge, UK and Brussels, Belgium. https://portals. iucn.org/library/node/48439 Newton, A., Oldfield, S., Rivers, M., Mark, J., Schatz, G., Tejedor Garavito, N., Cantarello, E., Golicher, D., Cayuela, L. and Miles, L. (2015). ‘Towards a Global Tree Assessment’. Oryx 49(3): 410-415. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0030605315000137 Nieto, A. and Alexander, K.N.A. (2010). European Red List of Saproxylic Beetles. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2779/84561 Nieto, A., Ralph, G.M., Comeros-Raynal, M.T., Heessen, H.J.L. and Rijnsdorp, A.D. (2015). European Red List of Marine Fishes. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2779/082723 Nieto, A., Roberts, S.P.M., Kemp, J., Rasmont, P., Kuhlmann, M., García Criado, M., Biesmeijer, J.C., Bogusch, P., Dathe, H.H., De la Rúa, P., De Meulemeester, T., Dehon, M., Dewulf, A., Ortiz-Sánchez, F.J., Lhomme, P., Pauly, A., Potts, S.G., Praz, C., Quaranta, M., Radchenko, V.G., Scheuchl, E., Smit, J., Straka, J., Terzo, M., Tomozii, B., Window, J. and Michez, D. (2014). European Red List of Bees. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2779/51181 Niklfeld, H. and Schratt-Ehrendorfer, L. (1999). Rote Liste Gefährdeter Farn- Und Blütenpflanzen (Pteridophyta Und Spermatophyta) Österreichs. 2. Fassung. In: H. Niklfeld (ed.). Rote Listen Gefährdeter Pflanzen Österreichs. 2nd edition. Wein: Grüne Reihe des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie 10. Nikolić, T. and Topić, J. (2005). Red Book of Vascular Flora of Croatia. Ministarstvo Kulture, Državni Zavod Za Zaštitu Prirode, Zagreb. Pausas, J.G. and Fernández-Muñoz, S. (2012). ‘Fire regime changes in the Western Mediterranean Basin: from fuellimited to drought-driven fire regime’. Climatic Change 110: 215-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011- 0060-6 Pautasso, M., Aas, G., Queloz, V. and Holdenrieder, O. (2013). ‘European Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) dieback – A conservation biology challenge’. Biological Conservation 158: 37-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.08.026 Peev, D., Vladimirov, V., Petrova, A.S., Anchev, M., Temniskova-Topalova, D.N., Mitev Denchev, C., Ganeva, A. and Gussev, C. (2015). Red Data Book of the Republic of Bulgaria. Volume 1. Plants and Fungi. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences & Ministry of Environment and Waters. Petrova, A. and Vladimirov, V. (eds.) (2009). ‘Red List of Bulgarian Vascular Plants’. Phytologia Balcanica 15(1): 63- 94. Phitos, D., Strid, A., Snogerup, S. and Greuter, W. (eds.) (1995). The Red Data Book of Rare and Threatened Plants of Greece. Athens: WWF-Greece. Plantlife (2010). Important Plant Areas around the World: Target 5 of the CBD Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. Salisbury, UK: Plantlife International. Porté, A.J., Lamarque, L.J., Lortie, C.J., Michalet, R. and Delzon, S. (2011). ‘Invasive Acer negundo outperforms native species in non-limiting resource environments due to its higher phenotypic plasticity’. BMC Ecology 11: 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-11-28 Rašomavičius, V. (ed.) (2007). Lietuvos Raudonoji Knyga. Vilnius: Lietuvos Respublikos aplinkos ministerija. Rassi, P., Hyvärinen, E., Juslén, A. and Mannerkoski, I. (eds.) (2010). The 2010 Red List of Finnish Species. Helsinki: Ympäristöministeriö ja Suomen ympäristökeskus [Ministry of the Environment and Finnish Environment Institute]. Rigo, D. de, Libertà, G., Houston Durrant, T., Artés Vivancos, T. and San-Miguel-Ayanz, J. (2017). Forest fire danger extremes in Europe under climate change: variability and uncertainty. Joint Research Centre: Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi. org/10.2760/13180 Rigo, D. de, Caudullo, G., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J. and Barredo, J.I. (2017). Robust modelling of the impacts of climate change on the habitat suitability of forest tree species. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi. org/10.2760/296501 Rivers, M.C. (2017). ‘The Global Tree Assessment - Red Listing the World’s Trees’. BGJournal 14(1): 16-19. Rivers, M.C. and Beech, E. (2017). ‘Genista aetnensis’. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 3: e.T79727282A79727286. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-3.RLTS. T79727282A79727286.en. Rejmánek, M. and Richardson, D. (2013). ‘Trees and shrubs as invasive alien species – 2013 update of the global database’. Diversity and Distributions 19: 1093-1094. https://doi. org/10.1111/ddi.12075 Ronzon, T., and M’Barek, R. (2018). ‘Socioeconomic indicators to monitor the EU’s bioeconomy in transition’. Sustainability 10(6): 1745. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su10061745 Rossi, G., Montagnani, C., Gargano D., Peruzzi L., Abeli T., Ravera, S., Cogoni, A., Fenu, G., Magrini, S., Gennai, M., Foggi, B., Wagensommer, R.P., Venturella, G., Blasi, C., Raimondo, F.M. and Orsenigo, S. (2013). Lista Rossa Della Flora Spontanea Italiana. 1. Policy Species e Altre 39 Specie Minacciate. Comitato Italiano IUCN e Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare. http://hdl.handle.net/10281/106736 San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., de Rigo, D., Caudullo, G., Houston Durrant, T. and Mauri, A. (eds.) (2016). European Atlas of Forest Tree Species. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2788/4251 Seidl, R., Thom, D., Kautz, M., Martin-Benito, D., Peltoniemi, M., Vacchiano, G., Wild, J., Ascoli, D., Petr, M., Honkaniemi, J., Lexer, M., Trotsiuk, V., Mairota, P., Svoboda, M., Fabrika, M., Nagel, T.A. and Reyer, C.P.O. (2017). ‘Forest disturbances under climate change’. Nature Climate Change 7:395-402. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nclimate3303 Seebens, H., Blackburn, T.M., Dyer, E.E., Genovesi, P., Hulme, P.E., Jeschke, J.M., Pagad, S., Pysek, P., Winter, M., Arianoutsou, M., Bacher, S., Blasius, B., Brundu, G., Capinha, C., Celesti-Grapow, L., Dawson, W., Dullinger, S., Fuentes, N., Jaeger, H., Kartesz, J., Kenis, M., Kreft, H., Kuehn, I., Lenzner, B., Liebhold, A., Mosena, A., Moser, D., Nishino, M., Pearman, D., Pergl, J., Rabitsch, W., Rojas-Sandoval, J., Roques, A., Rorke, S., Rossinelli, S., Roy, H.E., Scalera, R., Schindler, S., Stajerova, K., Tokarska-Guzik, B., van Kleunen, M., Walker, K., Weigelt, P., Yamanaka, T. and Essl, F. (2017). ‘No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide’. Nature Communications 8: 10.1038/ncomms14435. https://doi. org/10.1038/ncomms14435 Shaw, K., Stritch, L., Rivers, M., Roy, S., Wilson, B. and Govaerts, R. (2014). The Red List of Betulaceae. Richmond, UK: BGCI. http://www.citeulike.org/group/15400/ article/13628742 Shoo, L.P., Hoffmann, A.A., Garnett, S., Pressey, R.L., Williams, Y.M., Taylor, M., Falconi, L., Yates, C.J., Scott, J.K., Alagador, D. and Williams, S.E. (2013). ‘Making decisions to conserve species under climate change’. Climatic Change 119(2): 239-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10584-013-0699-2 SILENE (2017). Système d’Information et de Localisation Des Espèces Natives et Envahissantes. Conservatoire Botanique National Méditerranéen de Porquerolles, Conservatoire Botanique National Alpin. http://www.silene.eu/ Skoberne, P. (1996). Rdeci Seznam Ogrozenih Praprotnic in Semenk Slovenije [Red List of Threatened Vascular Plants in Slovenia]. Lubljana. Spinoni, J., Vogt, J.V., Naumann, G., Barbosa, P. and Dosio, A. (2017). ‘Will drought events become more frequent and severe in Europe?’ International Journal of Climatology 38(4): 1718-1736. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5291 Stevanović, V. (ed.) (1999). The Red Data Book of Flora of Serbia I: Extinct and Critically Endangered Taxa. Belgrade: Institute for Protection of Nature of the Republic of Serbia. Stocks, J., Buggs, R.J.A. and Lee, S.J. (2017). ‘A first assessment of Fraxinus excelsior (Common Ash) susceptibility to Hymenoscyphus fraxineus (Ash dieback) throughout the British Isles’. Scientific Reports 7: DOI:10.1038/s41598- 017-16706-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017- 16706-6 Svenning, J.-C., Fitzpatrick, M.C., Normand, S., Graham, C.H., Pearman, P.B., Iverson, L.R., and Skov, F. (2010). ‘Geography, topography, and history affect realized- to-potential tree species richness patterns in Europe’. Ecography 33(6): 1070-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1600-0587.2010.06301.x Svenning, J.-C., and Skov, F. (2007). ‘Ice Age legacies in the geographical distribution of tree species richness in Europe’. Global Ecology and Biogeography 16(2): 234-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2006.00280.x Swaay, C. van, Cuttelod, A., Collins, S., Maes, D., López Munguira, M., Šašić, M., Settele, J., Verovnik, R., Verstrael, T., Warren, M., Wiemers, M. and Wynhof, I. (2010). European Red List of Butterflies. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi. org/10.2779/83897 Taberlet, P. and Cheddadi, R. (2002). ‘Enhanced: quaternary refugia and persistence of biodiversity’. Science 297 (5589): 2009-2010. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.297.5589.2009 Temple, H.J. and Cox, N.A. (2009). European Red List of Amphibians. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. https://doi. org/10.2779/73661 Temple, H.J. and Terry, A. (2007). The Status and Distribution of European Mammals. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. https:// portals.iucn.org/library/node/9047 Thompson, J.D. (2005). Plant Evolution in the Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ acprof:oso/9780198515340.001.0001 Trutnev, Y.P. (ed.) (2008). Красная книга Российской Федерации (растения и грибы) [Red Data Book of the Russian Federation (Plants and Fungi)]. Moscow: Tovarischestvo nauchnykh izdanyi KMK. Tsintides, T., Christodoulou, C.S., Delipetrou, P. and Georghiou, K. (2007). The Red Data Book of the Flora of Cyprus. Lefkosia: Cyprus Forestry Association. Tubby, K.V. and Webber, J.F. (2010). ‘Pests and diseases threatening urban trees under a changing climate’. Forestry 83(4): 451-59. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpq027 40 Tutin, T.G., Heywood, V.H., Burges, N.A., Valentine, D.H., Walters, S.M. and Webb, D.A. (eds.) (1964). Flora Europaea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Turco, M., von Hardenberg, J., AghaKouchak, A., Llasat, M.C., Provenzale, A. and Trigo, R.M. (2017). ‘On the key role of droughts in the dynamics of summer fires in Mediterranean Europe.’ Scientific Reports 7(81): https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00116-9 UICN France, FCBN and MNHN (2012). La Liste Rouge Des Espèces Menacées En France - Chapitre Flore Vasculaire de France Métropolitaine: Premiers Résultats Pour 1 000 Espèces, Sous-Espèces et Variétés. Paris, France: Comité français de l’UICN, Fédération des Conservatoires botaniques nationaux, and Muséum national d’histoire naturelle. Van der Meijden, R., Odé, B., Groen, L.G., Witte, R. and Bal, D. (2000). ‘Bedreigde En Kwetsbare Vaatplanten in Nederland. Basisrapport Met Voorstel Voor de Rode Lijst’. Gorteria 26(4): 85–208. Van Landuyt, W., Vanhecke, L. and Hoste, I. (2006). ‘Rode Lijst van de Vaatplanten van Vlaanderen En Het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest’. In: W. Van Landuyt, I. Hoste, L. Vanhecke, P. Van den Bremt, E. Vercruysse and D. De Beer (eds.). Atlas van de Flora van Vlaanderen En Het Brussels Gewest. Brussels/Meise: NBO en Nationale Plantentuin van België. Veira, A., Lasslop, G. and Kloster, S. (2016). ‘Wildfires in a warmer climate: Emission fluxes, emission heights, and black carbon concentrations in 2090–2099.’ Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 121(7): https://doi. org/10.1002/2015JD024142 Vítková, M., Müllerová, J., Sádlo, J., Pergl, J. and Pyšek, P. (2017). ‘Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) beloved and despised: A story of an invasive tree in Central Europe’. Forest Ecology and Management 384: 287-302. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.10.057 WCSP (2016). World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. http://wcsp.science.kew.org Witkowski, Z.J., Król, W. and Solarz, W. (2003). Carpathian List of Endangered Species. WWF and Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences, Vienna- Krakow. Wyse Jackson, M., FitzPatrick, Ú., Cole E., Jebb, M., McFerran, D., Sheehy Skeffington, M., and Wright, M. (2016). Ireland Red List No. 10: Vascular Plants. Dublin, Ireland: National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. 41 Annex 1 Full list of tree species assessed, their assessment on a European and EU 28 level, if endemic to Europe and the number of recorded ex situ collections in botanic gardens. *An asterisk indicates that a species was assessed for the EU 27 Member States (pre-2013). Family Species European Red List Category and Criteria EU 28* Red List Category and Criteria Endemic Ex situ collections ANACARDIACEAE Cotinus coggygria LC LC* No 196 ANACARDIACEAE Pistacia atlantica LC LC No 38 ANACARDIACEAE Pistacia lentiscus LC LC* No 86 ANACARDIACEAE Pistacia terebinthus LC LC No 56 ANACARDIACEAE Rhus coriaria LC LC No 35 ANACARDIACEAE Searsia pentaphylla VU D1 VU D1 No 2 ANACARDIACEAE Searsia tripartita VU D1 VU D1 No 1 AQUIFOLIACEAE Ilex aquifolium LC LC* No 178 AQUIFOLIACEAE Ilex canariensis LC LC Yes 12 AQUIFOLIACEAE Ilex perado LC LC Yes 13 BETULACEAE Alnus alnobetula LC LC No 10 BETULACEAE Alnus cordata LC LC Yes 94 BETULACEAE Alnus glutinosa LC LC No 178 BETULACEAE Alnus incana LC LC No 98 BETULACEAE Alnus orientalis LC LC No 17 BETULACEAE Betula baschkirica DD NA Yes 0 BETULACEAE Betula celtiberica DD DD Yes 12 BETULACEAE Betula klokovii CR B1ab(iii,v); C2a(i); D NA Yes 1 BETULACEAE Betula kotulae DD NA Yes 0 BETULACEAE Betula pendula LC LC* No 199 BETULACEAE Betula pubescens LC LC* No 129 BETULACEAE Carpinus betulus LC LC No 194 BETULACEAE Carpinus orientalis LC LC No 68 BETULACEAE Corylus avellana LC LC No 181 BETULACEAE Corylus colurna LC LC No 175 BETULACEAE Corylus maxima DD DD* Yes 40 BETULACEAE Ostrya carpinifolia LC LC No 144 BUXACEAE Buxus sempervirens LC LC* No 225 CAPRIFOLIACEAE Lonicera arborea LC LC No 18 CAPRIFOLIACEAE Lonicera nummulariifolia LC LC No 10 CAPRIFOLIACEAE Sambucus lanceolata VU D1 VU D1 Yes 1 CAPRIFOLIACEAE Sambucus nigra LC LC* No 168 CAPRIFOLIACEAE Viburnum tinus LC LC No 16 CAPRIFOLIACEAE Viburnum treleasei LC LC Yes 2 CELASTRACEAE Euonymus europaeus LC LC No 160 CELASTRACEAE Euonymus latifolius LC LC No 75 CELASTRACEAE Maytenus canariensis NT NT Yes 14 CELASTRACEAE Maytenus umbellata LC LC Yes 2 CHENOPODIACEAE Halostachys belangeriana LC NA No 1 CLETHRACEAE Clethra arborea LC LC Yes 35 COMPOSITAE Sonchus fruticosus LC LC Yes 9 42 Family Species European Red List Category and Criteria EU 28* Red List Category and Criteria Endemic Ex situ collections COMPOSITAE Sonchus pinnatus LC LC Yes 5 CORNACEAE Cornus mas LC LC No 233 CUPRESSACEAE Cupressus sempervirens LC LC No 161 CUPRESSACEAE Juniperus brevifolia VU B2ab(ii,iii,v) VU B2ab(ii,iii) Yes 10 CUPRESSACEAE Juniperus cedrus EN B2ab(ii,iii,v); C2a(i) EN B2ab(ii,iii,v); C2a(i) Yes 39 CUPRESSACEAE Juniperus communis LC LC No 194 CUPRESSACEAE Juniperus drupacea EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) No 29 CUPRESSACEAE Juniperus excelsa LC LC No 40 CUPRESSACEAE Juniperus foetidissima LC LC No 23 CUPRESSACEAE Juniperus oxycedrus LC LC No 57 CUPRESSACEAE Juniperus phoenicea LC LC Yes 71 CUPRESSACEAE Juniperus thurifera LC LC No 34 CUPRESSACEAE Juniperus turbinata NT NT No 0 CUPRESSACEAE Tetraclinis articulata EN B2ab(iii) EN B2ab(iii) No 70 DRACAENACEAE Dracaena draco EN B2ab(iii) EN B2ab(iii) No 184 DRACAENACEAE Dracaena tamaranae CR C2a(i); D CR C2a(i); D Yes 4 ELAEAGNACEAE Elaeagnus rhamnoides LC LC* No 5 ERICACEAE Arbutus andrachne LC LC No 31 ERICACEAE Arbutus canariensis NT NT Yes 31 ERICACEAE Arbutus unedo LC LC* No 141 ERICACEAE Erica arborea LC LC No 88 ERICACEAE Vaccinium cylindraceum LC LC Yes 18 ERICACEAE Vaccinium padifolium LC LC Yes 16 EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia dendroides LC LC No 38 EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia margalidiana VU D1+2 VU D1+2 Yes 10 EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia mellifera LC LC Yes 46 FAGACEAE Castanea sativa LC LC* No 143 FAGACEAE Fagus orientalis LC LC No 69 FAGACEAE Fagus sylvatica LC LC No 208 FAGACEAE Quercus alnifolia LC LC Yes 20 FAGACEAE Quercus aucheri LC LC No 3 FAGACEAE Quercus canariensis NT NT No 50 FAGACEAE Quercus cerris LC LC No 149 FAGACEAE Quercus coccifera LC LC No 84 FAGACEAE Quercus congesta LC LC Yes 0 FAGACEAE Quercus crenata DD DD Yes 7 FAGACEAE Quercus dalechampii DD DD Yes 15 FAGACEAE Quercus faginea LC LC No 53 FAGACEAE Quercus frainetto LC LC* No 79 FAGACEAE Quercus hartwissiana DD DD No 37 FAGACEAE Quercus ichnusae LC LC Yes 0 FAGACEAE Quercus ilex LC LC No 147 FAGACEAE Quercus infectoria LC LC No 13 FAGACEAE Quercus ithaburensis LC LC No 21 FAGACEAE Quercus lusitanica LC LC No 18 FAGACEAE Quercus pauciradiata DD DD Yes 0 FAGACEAE Quercus petraea LC LC* No 106 43 Family Species European Red List Category and Criteria EU 28* Red List Category and Criteria Endemic Ex situ collections FAGACEAE Quercus pubescens LC LC No 86 FAGACEAE Quercus pyrenaica LC LC No 60 FAGACEAE Quercus robur LC LC* No 223 FAGACEAE Quercus rotundifolia LC LC No 20 FAGACEAE Quercus suber LC LC No 136 FAGACEAE Quercus trojana LC LC No 45 HAMAMELIDACEAE Liquidambar orientalis CR B1ab(ii,iii)+2ab(ii,iii) CR B1ab(ii,iii)+2ab(ii,iii) No 75 JUGLANDACEAE Juglans regia LC LC No 163 LAURACEAE Apollonias barbujana LC LC Yes 27 LAURACEAE Laurus azorica LC LC Yes 47 LAURACEAE Laurus nobilis LC LC* No 210 LAURACEAE Laurus novocanariensis LC LC No 5 LAURACEAE Ocotea foetens LC LC Yes 28 LAURACEAE Persea indica LC LC Yes 45 LEGUMINOSAE Anagyris foetida LC LC No 27 LEGUMINOSAE Ceratonia siliqua LC LC* No 137 LEGUMINOSAE Cercis siliquastrum LC LC No 144 LEGUMINOSAE Cytisus aeolicus EN B1ab(iii,v)+2ab(iii,v); C2a(i) EN B1ab(iii,v)+2ab(iii,v); C2a(i) Yes 161 LEGUMINOSAE Cytisus arboreus LC LC No 1 LEGUMINOSAE Cytisus proliferus LC LC Yes 2 LEGUMINOSAE Genista aetnensis LC LC Yes 42 LEGUMINOSAE Genista maderensis LC LC Yes 4 LEGUMINOSAE Genista thyrrena LC LC Yes 2 LEGUMINOSAE Laburnum alpinum LC LC Yes 84 LEGUMINOSAE Laburnum anagyroides LC LC Yes 124 LEGUMINOSAE Medicago citrina EN B2ab(ii,iii,v) EN B2ab(ii,iii,v) Yes 5 MALVACEAE Tilia cordata LC LC* No 189 MALVACEAE Tilia dasystyla LC NA No 41 MALVACEAE Tilia platyphyllos LC LC* Yes 132 MALVACEAE Tilia tomentosa LC LC* No 128 MORACEAE Ficus carica LC LC No 184 MYRICACEAE Morella faya LC LC Yes 2 MYRICACEAE Morella rivas-martinezii CR B2ab(iii,v) CR B2ab(iii,v)* Yes 2 MYRSINACEAE Heberdenia excelsa VU C1 VU C1 Yes 6 MYRSINACEAE Pleiomeris canariensis CR C2a(i) CR C2a(i) Yes 3 MYRTACEAE Myrtus communis LC LC* No 150 OLEACEAE Fraxinus angustifolia LC LC* No 80 OLEACEAE Fraxinus excelsior NT NT* No 179 OLEACEAE Fraxinus ornus LC LC No 164 OLEACEAE Fraxinus pallisiae DD DD No 6 OLEACEAE Olea europaea DD DD No 135 OLEACEAE Olea maderensis LC LC Yes 1 OLEACEAE Phillyrea latifolia LC LC No 84 OLEACEAE Picconia azorica LC LC Yes 16 OLEACEAE Picconia excelsa LC LC Yes 22 OLEACEAE Syringa vulgaris LC LC Yes 172 44 Family Species European Red List Category and Criteria EU 28* Red List Category and Criteria Endemic Ex situ collections PALMAE Chamaerops humilis LC LC No 172 PALMAE Phoenix canariensis LC LC Yes 145 PALMAE Phoenix theophrasti NT NT No 50 PENTAPHYLACACEAE Visnea mocanera LC LC Yes 33 PINACEAE Abies alba LC LC Yes 129 PINACEAE Abies cephalonica LC LC Yes 103 PINACEAE Abies nebrodensis CR A2cd; D CR A2cd; D Yes 49 PINACEAE Abies pinsapo EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) EN (B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii)) No 128 PINACEAE Cedrus libani VU D2 VU D2 No 132 PINACEAE Larix decidua LC LC Yes 172 PINACEAE Picea abies LC LC Yes 228 PINACEAE Picea obovata LC NA No 69 PINACEAE Picea omorika EN B1ab(i,ii,v)+2ab(i,ii,v) NA Yes 203 PINACEAE Pinus brutia LC LC No 43 PINACEAE Pinus canariensis LC LC Yes 69 PINACEAE Pinus cembra LC LC Yes 154 PINACEAE Pinus halepensis LC LC No 86 PINACEAE Pinus heldreichii LC LC Yes 78 PINACEAE Pinus mugo LC LC Yes 171 PINACEAE Pinus nigra LC LC No 180 PINACEAE Pinus peuce NT VU B1ab(ii)B2ab(iii)) Yes 102 PINACEAE Pinus pinaster LC LC No 93 PINACEAE Pinus pinea LC LC No 130 PINACEAE Pinus sylvestris LC LC No 208 PINACEAE Pinus uncinata LC LC Yes 45 PITTOSPORACEAE Pittosporum coriaceum CR D CR D* Yes 8 PLATANACEAE Platanus orientalis VU A3ce+4ce VU A3ce+4ce No 100 RHAMNACEAE Frangula alnus LC LC* No 87 RHAMNACEAE Frangula azorica LC LC Yes 6 RHAMNACEAE Rhamnus alaternus LC LC No 45 RHAMNACEAE Rhamnus alpina LC LC No 19 RHAMNACEAE Rhamnus cathartica LC LC No 108 RHAMNACEAE Rhamnus glandulosa LC LC Yes 10 RHAMNACEAE Rhamnus lojaconoi CR D CR D Yes 0 RHAMNACEAE Rhamnus persicifolia EN B1ab(iii,v)+2ab(iii,v) EN B1ab(iii,v)+2ab(iii,v) Yes 3 ROSACEAE Chamaemeles coriacea EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D Yes 1 ROSACEAE Crataegus ambigua LC NA No 28 ROSACEAE Crataegus azarolus LC LC* No 48 ROSACEAE Crataegus chlorocarpa LC NA No 6 ROSACEAE Crataegus heldreichii LC LC Yes 7 ROSACEAE Crataegus laciniata NT NT No 25 ROSACEAE Crataegus laevigata LC LC Yes 77 ROSACEAE Crataegus meyeri DD NA No 11 ROSACEAE Crataegus monogyna LC LC* No 159 ROSACEAE Crataegus nigra EN A2ac; B1ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v) +2ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v) EN A2ac; B1ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v)+ 2ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v) Yes 26 ROSACEAE Crataegus pentagyna DD DD* No 26 45 Family Species European Red List Category and Criteria EU 28* Red List Category and Criteria Endemic Ex situ collections ROSACEAE Crataegus pycnoloba LC LC Yes 3 ROSACEAE Crataegus rhipidophylla LC LC No 9 ROSACEAE Crataegus sphaenophylla NT NA Yes 1 ROSACEAE Malus crescimannoi DD DD* Yes 1 ROSACEAE Malus dasyphylla DD DD* Yes 0 ROSACEAE Malus florentina DD DD* No 32 ROSACEAE Malus sylvestris DD DD* Yes 85 ROSACEAE Malus trilobata LC LC* No 30 ROSACEAE Marcetella moquiniana EN B2ab(iii) EN B2ab(iii) Yes 25 ROSACEAE Mespilus germanica LC LC No 118 ROSACEAE Prunus avium LC LC* No 123 ROSACEAE Prunus brigantina DD DD* Yes 18 ROSACEAE Prunus cerasifera DD DD* No 92 ROSACEAE Prunus cocomilia DD DD* No 16 ROSACEAE Prunus discolor DD DD* No 0 ROSACEAE Prunus domestica DD DD No 56 ROSACEAE Prunus laurocerasus LC LC* No 142 ROSACEAE Prunus lusitanica VU B2ab(ii,v) VU B2ab(ii,v)* No 92 ROSACEAE Prunus mahaleb LC LC* No 79 ROSACEAE Prunus padus LC LC* No 117 ROSACEAE Prunus prostrata DD DD* No 21 ROSACEAE Prunus ramburii VU C2a(i); D2 VU C2a(i); D2* Yes 6 ROSACEAE Prunus spinosa LC LC* No 130 ROSACEAE Prunus webbii DD DD* No 5 ROSACEAE Pyrus bourgaeana LC LC* No 9 ROSACEAE Pyrus castribonensis LC LC Yes 0 ROSACEAE Pyrus ciancioi DD DD Yes 0 ROSACEAE Pyrus communis LC LC* No 119 ROSACEAE Pyrus cordata DD DD* No 19 ROSACEAE Pyrus elaeagrifolia DD DD* No 15 ROSACEAE Pyrus nivalis DD DD* No 37 ROSACEAE Pyrus sicanorum LC LC Yes 0 ROSACEAE Pyrus spinosa DD DD* No 12 ROSACEAE Pyrus syriaca LC LC* No 16 ROSACEAE Pyrus vallis-demonis DD DD* Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus acutiserrata CR D CR D Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus adamii CR B1ab(iii); D CR B1ab(iii); D Yes 7 ROSACEAE Sorbus adeana EN D EN D Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus admonitor EN D EN D Yes 3 ROSACEAE Sorbus albensis EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus alnifrons EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D Yes 2 ROSACEAE Sorbus amici-petri EN D EN D Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus andreanszkyana CR B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) CR B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) Yes 2 ROSACEAE Sorbus anglica NT NT Yes 25 ROSACEAE Sorbus aria LC LC No 129 ROSACEAE Sorbus arranensis EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D Yes 22 ROSACEAE Sorbus arvonensis CR D CR D Yes 0 46 Family Species European Red List Category and Criteria EU 28* Red List Category and Criteria Endemic Ex situ collections ROSACEAE Sorbus aucuparia LC LC No 183 ROSACEAE Sorbus austriaca LC LC Yes 22 ROSACEAE Sorbus avonensis CR D CR D Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus badensis VU D1 VU D1 Yes 2 ROSACEAE Sorbus bakonyensis CR D CR D Yes 7 ROSACEAE Sorbus balatonica VU B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) VU B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) Yes 2 ROSACEAE Sorbus baldaccii DD DD Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus barabitsii CR D CR D1 Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus barrandienica CR D CR D Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus bodajkensis CR D CR D Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus bohemica EN C2a(i) EN C2a(i) Yes 2 ROSACEAE Sorbus borbasii DD DD Yes 17 ROSACEAE Sorbus borosiana CR B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D CR B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D Yes 3 ROSACEAE Sorbus bosniaca EN B1ab(iii) EN B1ab(iii) Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus bristoliensis EN D EN D Yes 26 ROSACEAE Sorbus budaiana DD DD Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus buekkensis DD DD Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus busambarensis CR D CR D Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus cambrensis EN D EN D Yes 3 ROSACEAE Sorbus cheddarensis CR D CR D Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus collina LC LC Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus cordigastensis EN D EN D Yes 2 ROSACEAE Sorbus croceocarpa DD DD Yes 10 ROSACEAE Sorbus cucullifera CR B1ab(iii) CR B1ab(iii) Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus cuneifolia EN D EN D Yes 2 ROSACEAE Sorbus danubialis LC LC Yes 16 ROSACEAE Sorbus decipientiformis DD DD Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus degenii VU B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D1 VU B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D1 Yes 9 ROSACEAE Sorbus devoniensis VU D1 VU D1 Yes 21 ROSACEAE Sorbus dolomiticola EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus domestica LC LC No 85 ROSACEAE Sorbus dominii DD DD Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus dracofolia CR D CR D Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus eminens VU D1 VU D1 Yes 10 ROSACEAE Sorbus eminentiformis EN D EN D Yes 3 ROSACEAE Sorbus eminentoides CR D CR D Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus eugenii-kelleri VU B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) VU B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) Yes 6 ROSACEAE Sorbus evansii CR D CR D Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus eximia EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D Yes 2 ROSACEAE Sorbus eystettensis CR D CR D Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus fischeri EN D EN D Yes 2 ROSACEAE Sorbus franconica VU D1 VU D1 Yes 2 ROSACEAE Sorbus futakiana DD DD Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus gauckleri CR B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D CR B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus gayeriana EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D Yes 3 ROSACEAE Sorbus gemella EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D Yes 1 47 Family Species European Red List Category and Criteria EU 28* Red List Category and Criteria Endemic Ex situ collections ROSACEAE Sorbus gerecseensis EN B1ab(iii); D EN B1ab(iii); D Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus graeca LC LC No 30 ROSACEAE Sorbus greenii CR D CR D Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus harziana CR D CR D Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus hazslinszkyana VU D1 VU D1 Yes 3 ROSACEAE Sorbus herbipolitana CR D CR D Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus herculis DD DD Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus herefordensis EN D EN D Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus hibernica VU D1 VU D1 Yes 12 ROSACEAE Sorbus hoppeana EN D EN D Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus hornadensis EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus hungarica DD DD Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus hybrida LC LC Yes 57 ROSACEAE Sorbus intermedia LC LC Yes 96 ROSACEAE Sorbus javorkana VU D1 VU D1 Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus joannis DD DD Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus keszthelyensis VU D1 VU D1 Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus klasterskyana EN D EN D Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus kmetiana CR D CR D Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus lancastriensis LC LC Yes 17 ROSACEAE Sorbus lancifolia CR B1ab(iii,v)+2ab(iii,v) NA Yes 8 ROSACEAE Sorbus latifolia VU B1ab(iii) VU B1ab(iii) Yes 64 ROSACEAE Sorbus latissima DD DD Yes 5 ROSACEAE Sorbus legrei EN D EN D Yes 2 ROSACEAE Sorbus leighensis EN D EN D Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus leptophylla EN D EN D Yes 12 ROSACEAE Sorbus leyana CR D CR D Yes 10 ROSACEAE Sorbus lonetalensis CR B1ab(iii,v)+2ab(iii,v); D CR B1ab(iii,v)+2ab(iii,v); D Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus magocsyana EN D EN D Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus margaretae EN B1ab(iii); D EN D Yes 3 ROSACEAE Sorbus meierottii CR D CR D Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus meinichii VU D1 NA Yes 24 ROSACEAE Sorbus mergenthaleriana CR D CR D Yes 2 ROSACEAE Sorbus meyeri VU D1 VU D1 Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus milensis CR B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D CR B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus minima VU D1 VU D1 Yes 31 ROSACEAE Sorbus moravica CR B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) CR B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus mougeotii LC LC Yes 55 ROSACEAE Sorbus neglecta EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D NA Yes 2 ROSACEAE Sorbus obtusifolia LC EN D Yes 4 ROSACEAE Sorbus omissa EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii); D Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus pannonica VU D1 VU D1 Yes 4 ROSACEAE Sorbus parviloba CR D CR D Yes 4 ROSACEAE Sorbus paxiana DD DD Yes 0 ROSACEAE Sorbus pekarovae CR B1ab(iii) CR B1ab(iii) Yes 1 ROSACEAE Sorbus pelsoensis DD DD Yes 0 54 55 56 57 58 59 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ – European Regional Assessment Reports •The Status and Distribution of European Mammals. Temple and Terry (compilers), 2007. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/9047 •European Red List of Reptiles. Cox and Temple (compilers), 2009. https://doi.org/10.2779/74504 •European Red List of Amphibians. Temple and Cox (compilers), 2009. https://doi.org/10.2779/73661 •European Red List of Dragonflies. Kalkman et al. (compilers), 2010. https://doi.org/10.2779/84650 •European Red List of Saproxylic Beetles. Nieto and Alexander (compilers), 2010. https://doi.org/10.2779/84561 •European Red List of Butterflies. van Swaay et al. (compilers), 2010. https://doi.org/10.2779/83897 •European Red List of Non-marine Molluscs. Cuttelod et al., 2011. https://doi.org/10.2779/84538 •European Red List of Freshwater Fishes. Freyhof and Brooks, 2011. https://doi.org/10.2779/85903 •European Red List of Vascular Plants. Bilz et al., 2011. https://doi.org/10.2779/8515 •European Red List of Medicinal Plants. Allen et al., 2014. https://doi.org/10.2779/907382 •European Red List of Bees. Nieto et al., 2014. https://doi.org/10.2779/51181 •European Red List of Birds. BirdLife International, 2015. https://doi.org/10.2779/975810 •European Red List of Marine Fishes. Nieto et al., 2015. https://doi.org/10.2779/082723 •European Red List of Grasshoppers, Crickets and Bush-Crickets. Hochkirch et al., 2016. https://doi.org/10.2779/60944 •European Red List of Lycopods and Ferns. García Criado et al., 2017. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2017.ERL.1.en •European Red List of Saproxylic Beetles. Cálix et al., 2018. Update to Nieto and Alexander, (2010). https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/47296 •A miniature world in decline: European Red List of Mosses, Liverworts and Hornworts. Hodgetts et al., 2019. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019.ERL.2.en •European Red List of Trees. Rivers et al., 2019. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019.ERL.1.en •European Red List of Terrestrial Molluscs: Snails, slugs, and semi-slugs. Neubert et al., 2019. Update to Cuttelod et al., 2011. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/48439 •European Red List of selected endemic shrubs. Wilson et al., 2019. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/48438 The European Red List is a review of the status of European species according to IUCN regional Red Listing guidelines. It identifies those species that are threatened with extinction at the regional level – in order that appropriate conservation action can be taken to improve their status. This publication summarises results for all Europe’s native species of tree (454 species). Of these, 168 (42.3%, mid-point value) of the species are threatened with extinction at the European level. This European Red List was compiled by IUCN and BGCI with support from the IUCN Species Survival Commission and other experts. This report is a deliverable of a LIFE project co-funded by the European Commission (LIFE European Red Lists, LIFE14 PRE/BE/001), Establishing a European Red List of Bryophytes, Pteridophytes, Saproxylic Beetles, Terrestrial Molluscs and Vascular Plants The report is available online at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist and https://www.iucnredlist.org/regions/europe