European mammals: Red List status, trends, and ... · The status of mammals in Europe was assessed...
22
248 Folia Zool. – 58(3): 248–269 (2009) European mammals: Red List status, trends, and conservation priorities Helen J. TEMPLE 1 and Andrew TERRY 2,3 1 IUCN Species Programme, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, U.K.; email: [email protected] 2 IUCN Regional Office for Europe, Boulevard Louis Schmidt 64, Brussels 1040, Belgium 3 Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Les Augrès Manor, La Profonde Rue, Trinity, Jersey JE3 5BP, Channel Islands Received 31 March 2008; Accepted 15 June 2009 A b s t r a c t . The status of mammals in Europe was assessed according to IUCN Red List Criteria and regional Red Listing guidelines. We found that nearly one in six (15%) of Europe’s 231 mammal species were threatened (IUCN categories CR, EN, VU), with a further 9% considered Near Threatened. Marine mammals faced particularly high levels of threat, with 22% of marine species (n=27) versus 14% of terrestrial species (n=204) assessed as threatened. More than a quarter (27%) of mammals had declining populations. A further 32% were stable and 8% increasing; 33% were of unknown population trend. Terrestrial mammal biodiversity was greatest in south-eastern Europe (the Balkan Peninsula, Hungary, and Romania) and in the mountainous regions of Mediterranean and temperate Europe. Habitat loss and degradation was the greatest threat to terrestrial mammals in Europe, although human disturbance, pollution, accidental mortality (e.g., secondary poisoning, vehicle collisions), overexploitation and invasive species were also important. The main threats to marine mammals were accidental mortality (e.g., fisheries bycatch), pollution and overexploitation. EU Member States have committed to halt biodiversity loss by 2010, but the evidence from this study suggests that this target is unlikely to be met and significant actions must take place to halt the decline of mammal biodiversity in Europe. The results presented here provide a baseline against which future progress can be measured. Key words: IUCN Red List, threatened species, biodiversity, threats Introduction The threatened status of plants and animals is one of the most widely used indicators for assessing the condition of ecosystems and their biodiversity. It also provides an important tool in conservation planning and priority setting at multiple spatial scales, from local to global (C o l l a r 1996, R o d r i g u e s et al. 2004, B i r d L i f e I n t e r n a t i o n a l & C o n s e r v a t i o n I n t e r n a t i o n a l 2005). At the global scale the most comprehensive source of information on the conservation status of plants and animals is the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (R o d r i g u e s et al. 2006). The Red List provides taxonomic, conservation status, and distribution information on taxa that have been evaluated using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1 (I U C N 2001). This system is designed to determine the relative risk of extinction, with the main purpose of cataloguing and highlighting those taxa that are facing a higher risk of extinction (i.e. those listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable). The European Mammal Assessment (EMA), the results of which are presented here, is a comprehensive status assessment of Europe’s mammal species against the IUCN Red
Transcript of European mammals: Red List status, trends, and ... · The status of mammals in Europe was assessed...
248
Folia Zool. – 58(3): 248–269 (2009)
European mammals: Red List status, trends, and conservation priorities
Helen J. TEMPLE1 and Andrew TERRY2,3
1 IUCN Species Programme, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, U.K.; email: [email protected] IUCN Regional Office for Europe, Boulevard Louis Schmidt 64, Brussels 1040, Belgium3 Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Les Augrès Manor, La Profonde Rue, Trinity, Jersey JE3 5BP, Channel Islands
Received 31 March 2008; Accepted 15 June 2009
A b s t r a c t . The status of mammals in Europe was assessed according to IUCN Red List Criteria and regional Red Listing guidelines. We found that nearly one in six (15%) of Europe’s 231 mammal species were threatened (IUCN categories CR, EN, VU), with a further 9% considered Near Threatened. Marine mammals faced particularly high levels of threat, with 22% of marine species (n=27) versus 14% of terrestrial species (n=204) assessed as threatened. More than a quarter (27%) of mammals had declining populations. A further 32% were stable and 8% increasing; 33% were of unknown population trend. Terrestrial mammal biodiversity was greatest in south-eastern Europe (the Balkan Peninsula, Hungary, and Romania) and in the mountainous regions of Mediterranean and temperate Europe. Habitat loss and degradation was the greatest threat to terrestrial mammals in Europe, although human disturbance, pollution, accidental mortality (e.g., secondary poisoning, vehicle collisions), overexploitation and invasive species were also important. The main threats to marine mammals were accidental mortality (e.g., fisheries bycatch), pollution and overexploitation. EU Member States have committed to halt biodiversity loss by 2010, but the evidence from this study suggests that this target is unlikely to be met and significant actions must take place to halt the decline of mammal biodiversity in Europe. The results presented here provide a baseline against which future progress can be measured.
Key words: IUCN Red List, threatened species, biodiversity, threats
Introduction
The threatened status of plants and animals is one of the most widely used indicators for assessing the condition of ecosystems and their biodiversity. It also provides an important tool in conservation planning and priority setting at multiple spatial scales, from local to global (C o l l a r 1996, R o d r i g u e s et al. 2004, B i r d L i f e I n t e r n a t i o n a l & C o n s e r v a t i o n I n t e r n a t i o n a l 2005). At the global scale the most comprehensive source of information on the conservation status of plants and animals is the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (R o d r i g u e s et al. 2006). The Red List provides taxonomic, conservation status, and distribution information on taxa that have been evaluated using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1 (I U C N 2001). This system is designed to determine the relative risk of extinction, with the main purpose of cataloguing and highlighting those taxa that are facing a higher risk of extinction (i.e. those listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable).
The European Mammal Assessment (EMA), the results of which are presented here, is a comprehensive status assessment of Europe’s mammal species against the IUCN Red
249
List Categories and Criteria. It is the first time that European mammals have been evaluated according to the Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels (I U C N 2003) and as such is an important contribution to our understanding of the threats facing Europe’s mammals, and the action required to improve their status.
Materials and Methods
We assessed the status of all terrestrial and marine European mammals according to the 2001 IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (I U C N 2001) and the IUCN Guidelines for the Application of Red List Criteria at Regional levels (I U C N 2003). The IUCN Red List Categories provide an explicit framework for determining a species’ conservation status, with an emphasis on identifying those at highest risk of extinction. In this context, the term “threatened” refers to those species classified under the Red List Categories Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered. Species are assigned to Red List Categories based on whether or not they meet quantitative criteria. The five Red List Criteria (A-E) were developed following a wide review aimed at detecting risk factors across the broad range of organisms and the diverse life histories they exhibit (M a c e & L a n d e 1991, M a c e et al. 1992, M a c e & S t u a r t 1994). They measure multiple factors related to the likelihood of extinction, such as population size, rate of population reduction, range size, area of habitat occupied, subpopulation structure and fragmentation, and so on. For a species to be listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable, it must meet at least one of the five Criteria at the appropriate level (the quantitative thresholds for listing as Critically Endangered are higher than for Endangered or in turn Vulnerable).
Information on each species was compiled by a small team, in collaboration with IUCN Specialist Groups and other experts. For each species there following data were collected:
• Species classification• Geographic range (including a distribution map)• Red List Category and Criteria• Population information (size, trend, fluctuations)• Habitat preferences• Major threats• Conservation measures• Species utilization• Other general information• Key literature references Habitat preferences, major threats and conservation measures were coded according to
IUCN’s standardized Classification Schemes (see http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/authority_files for more information). Regional assessments were carried out at an assessment workshop held from 18-22 May 2006 in Illmitz, Austria, and through correspondence with relevant experts. More than 150 mammal experts from over 40 countries in Europe and adjacent regions actively participated in the assessment and review process.
The geographical scope of the European Mammal Assessment is shown in Fig. 1. For terrestrial species, Red List assessments were made at two regional levels: geographical Europe, and the EU 25 (the Member States of the European Union when the assessment was initiated in 2005). For marine species, a single assessment was made, which applies to both geographical Europe and the EU. All terrestrial and marine mammal species native to Europe
250
or naturalized in Europe before 1500 A.D. were included (see T e m p l e & T e r r y 2007 for a comprehensive list). We used Mammal Species of the World (W i l s o n & R e e d e r 2005) as the default taxonomy for most taxonomic groups, although we departed from this in a few justified cases.
Results
Detailed assessment data for each mammal species covered can be found online (see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/ema/index.htm). Here, we present a summary of our key findings (for details see Appendix).
T h r e a t e n e d s t a t u s a n d d e m o g r a p h i c t r e n d s
At the European regional level, 14.2% of terrestrial mammals were assessed as threatened, with 1.5% Critically Endangered, 3.4% Endangered, and 9.3% Vulnerable. A further 3.4% were classed as Data Deficient. Within the EU 25, the pattern is similar, with 14.4% of terrestrial mammals threatened, although a higher proportion of species was Critically Endangered (2.4%) (Table 1). A higher proportion of marine species was assessed as threatened: 22.2% in total, evenly split between the threatened categories with 7.4% Critically Endangered, 7.4% Endangered and 7.4% Vulnerable. The true proportion of threatened species may be even higher, as a large proportion of marine mammals (44.4%) was assessed as Data Deficient.
Fig. 1. Regional assessments of terrestrial species were made for two areas – continental Europe and the EU 25. For marine species a single regional assessment was made.
251
Overall, considering both terrestrial and marine species at the European regional level, 15.2% of species were threatened. A further 9.1% were considered Near Threatened, and 1.3% were already regionally or globally Extinct. A further 51 species were classed as Not Applicable: 22 were introduced after 1500 A.D., 27 are of marginal occurrence in the European region, and two are feral descendants of ancient domesticated animals.
More than a quarter (27%) of European mammals were declining in population. A further 32% were stable, and only 8% were increasing. Population trend information was not available for the remaining 33% of species.
S t a t u s b y t a x o n o m i c g r o u p
Terrestrial mammals native to Europe belong to eight major groups, or taxonomic orders: Lagomorpha (rabbits, hares and pikas) and Rodentia (rodents), Erinaceomorpha (hedgehogs and their relatives), Soricomorpha (shrews and moles), Chiroptera (bats), Artiodactyla
Table 1. Summary of numbers of species within each category of threat.
IUCN Red List categoriesNo. species
(Europe terrestrial)
No. species(EU 25
terrestrial)No. species(marine)
No. species(Europe
terrestrial and marine)
Extinct (EX) 2 2 0 2Extinct in the Wild (EW) 0 0 0 0Regionally Extinct (RE) 0 0 1 1
Threatened categories
Critically Endangered (CR) 3 4 2 5Endangered (EN) 7 5 2 9Vulnerable (VU) 19 15 2 21Near Threatened (NT) 20 19 1 21Least Concern (LC) 146 113 7 153Data Deficient (DD) 7 9 12 19Total number of species assessed* 204 167 27 231Total number of extant species* 202 165 26 228
*Excluding species that are considered Not Applicable.
Table 2. Red List Status (European Regional level) by taxonomic order.
Order Total* EX EW RE CR EN VU NT LC DD % Threatened or Extinct
Lagomorpha 8 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 0 37.5%Rodentia 85 0 0 0 1 2 4 8 69 1 8.2%Erinaceomorpha 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0%Soricomorpha 30 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 21 4 10%Chiroptera 40 0 0 0 0 3 7 8 20 2 25.0%Artiodactyla 14 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 21.4%Cetacea 23 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 4 12 21.7%Carnivora 27 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 20 0 22.2%Total 231 2 0 1 5 9 21 21 153 19 16.5%
*Does not include species classed as Not Applicable (NA).
252
(even-toed ungulates), Cetacea (whales, dolphins and porpoises), Carnivora (carnivores). Considerable differences were seen among these groups in both species numbers as well as threatened status (Table 2). Rodents, bats, and soricomorphs (shrews and moles) constituted the majority of European mammals. Carnivores, ungulates, bats and lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) were particularly threatened.
S p a t i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s p e c i e s
The geographic distribution of mammal species richness in Europe is presented in Fig. 2. The mountainous regions of temperate and Mediterranean Europe (including the Cantabrian mountains, Pyrenees, Massif Central, Alps, Apennines, Carpathians, and the mountains of the Balkan peninsula) clearly stand out as areas of high species richness. The whole Balkan peninsula emerges as a hotspot of mammalian diversity. There is a marked latitudinal gradient in species richness, with southern Europe (especially southeastern Europe) containing a greater diversity of mammal species than the north. In the marine realm, species richness is higher in the open Atlantic ocean than it is in the enclosed Baltic, Mediterranean and Black Seas.
A map showing the distribution of threatened mammals in Europe (Fig. 3) reveals somewhat different patterns from depictions of overall species diversity. The greatest concentration of threatened species is found in the Balkan Peninsula, especially Bulgaria. The Mediterranean islands of Corsica and Sardinia are also highlighted as having a high number of threatened mammal species, as well as parts of Iberia, the Pyrenees, and the
Fig. 2. Species richness of European mammals.
253
Apennines. The distribution of threatened marine mammals correlates with overall marine mammal species richness – there is a higher number of threatened species in the Atlantic than in the Mediterranean, Black and Baltic Seas.
M a j o r t h r e a t s
Habitat loss and degradation have by far the largest impact on both threatened and nonthreatened species, affecting 27 of the 29 threatened species, and 94 species in total (Fig. 4). The number of species impacted by habitat loss and degradation was nearly three times greater than the next most common threat, pollution (including global climate change). Human disturbance, accidental mortality (e.g. bycatch or vehicle collisions), invasive alien species and overharvesting were also identified as significant threats.
The two most frequently recorded major threats to marine species were accidental mortality (e.g., entanglement in fishing gear and ship strikes) and pollution (see Fig. 5). These threats are particularly severe in the enclosed seas of the continent such as the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, and the Baltic. Although harvesting (e.g., overexploitation through unregulated commercial whaling) only ranked third overall when looking at both threatened and non-threatened species, this study showed it was a highly significant threat to threatened species. All Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered, and Regionally Extinct species had harvesting listed as a major threat. For a number of these species, historic overexploitation is the main reason why they are currently listed as threatened; some species have failed to recover even though their harvest has now ceased.
Fig. 3. Distribution of threatened mammals in Europe.
254
Fig. 4. Major threats to terrestrial mammals in Europe.
Fig. 5. Major threats to marine mammals in Europe.
255
Discussion
S t a t u s a n d p o p u l a t i o n t r e n d s o f E u r o p e a n m a m m a l s
Patterns of terrestrial species status were similar at the European and EU 25 level, although there were some notable differences. The proportion of threatened terrestrial mammals was nearly identical for Europe and the EU 25 (14.2% and 14.4% respectively), although in the EU 25 a larger percentage of species were placed in the highest category of threat, Critically Endangered (2.4% in the EU versus 1.5% in Europe as a whole). Two terrestrial mammal species qualified as Critically Endangered at the EU 25 level, although they were considered less threatened at the European regional level. These were the European mink Mustela lutreola (considered CR in the EU 25 but EN in Europe) and the Arctic fox Alopex lagopus (considered CR in the EU 25 but LC in Europe). The European mink qualified as threatened at both levels because of very rapid population declines throughout its range; better information from the eastern part of its range might result in a future uplisting to Critically Endangered at the European regional level too. By contrast, the Arctic fox has a tiny and severely threatened population in the European Union (Sweden and Finland), but is not considered threatened at the European regional level because of the presence of large populations in the Russian Federation that are not believed to be declining at a rate approaching the IUCN Red List thresholds.
Birds are the only other taxonomic group that has been subject to a status assessment at both the European and the EU 25 level. A higher proportion of bird species have Unfavourable conservation status at the EU 25 level than at the pan-European level (B i r d L i f e I n t e r n a t i o n a l 2 004b, see T e m p l e & T e r r y 2007 for a discussion of the important differences between Unfavourable conservation status sensu the EU Habitats Directive and threatened status sensu IUCN Red List Criteria). Almost half (48%) of the EU 25’s 448 species were assessed as having Unfavourable conservation status, whereas only 43% of 524 European species had Unfavourable conservation status (B i r d L i f e I n t e r n a t i o n a l 2004b).
Marine mammals showed a notably high proportion of Data Deficient species. This was driven in part by the inclusion in the assessment of six species of the family Ziphiidae (beaked whales). These rarely-recorded and inconspicuous deepwater species are the most poorly known of cetaceans; they tend to remain well out to sea, avoid ships, and dive to great depths and are consequently often missed in surveys (B a r l o w 1999, N o w a k 1999). All six of these species were classed as Data Deficient.
Data collected on population trends showed that just over a quarter of European mammals are experiencing population decline whereas only one in 12 are increasing. Our findings are approximately comparable with population trends recorded for birds in Europe: from 1990 to 2000, 23% of European bird species showed population declines, 51% were stable, 9% were increasing and 17% were of unknown population trend (B i r d L i f e I n t e r n a t i o n a l 2004a). The status assessment of European bird species benefited from quantitative population trend data from a well established monitoring network covering the majority of species and countries in Europe. By contrast, comprehensive and reliable population trend data are available for very few mammal species. The population trend analysis in this report is based in many cases on survey data from a small and potentially non-representative part of the species’ range, or on a subjective assessment of population trend based on known threats. A task for the future is to strengthen capacity for monitoring mammal populations in Europe, especially those of threatened, Near Threatened and Data Deficient species.
256
T h e e n l a r g e d E U 2 7
Our research highlights the importance of the new Member States Romania and Bulgaria for species conservation in Europe – both of these countries have notably high mammalian biodiversity, as well as important concentrations of threatened species. The addition of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU in 2007 has brought three new mammal species that did not previously occur in the EU. These three species are the Romanian hamster Mesocricetus newtoni and the Balkan mole-rat Spalax graecus (both Near Threatened at the European regional level), as well as the Levant mole Talpa levantis (Least Concern). The Romanian hamster and the Balkan mole-rat are both of conservation concern as they have very restricted ranges and are believed to be negatively affected by agricultural intensification. The Balkan mole-rat is not currently listed on Annexes II or IV of the Habitats Directive. One of the main habitats for the Balkan mole-rat is agricultural land, so it is important that changes to agricultural policies and practices implemented as a result of EU accession take into account the needs of this species. Romania and Bulgaria also hold important populations of two species that were previously only of marginal occurrence in the EU. These are the marbled polecat Vormela peregusna (Vulnerable at the European regional level), the grey hamster Cricetulus migratorius (Least Concern at the European regional level). Additionally, Bulgaria holds a significant part of the global distribution of Roach’s mouse-tailed dormouse Myomimus roachi, a species that is considered Endangered at the European level. V. peregusna and M. roachi have been added to Annexes II and IV of the Habitats Directive. The new Member States significantly enrich the European Union’s biodiversity, but ensuring that these wildlife riches are conserved and sustainably managed will be a major challenge for policymakers in the years ahead.
C o n s e r v a t i o n p r i o r i t i e s
Species frequently require a combination of conservation responses to ensure their continued survival. These responses include legislation, monitoring, research, management of populations, land acquisition and management, and even captive breeding and translocations for some of Europe’s most threatened mammal species (e.g., Iberian lynx Lynx pardinus and European mink). For species threatened across their range, limited or local actions are unlikely to be sufficiently strong or coherent to prevent extinction, and coordinated action is required at the regional level. Under the Bern Convention Action Plans have been developed for certain priority species (all large carnivores, European bison, a number of bats), outlining specific conservation measures that are urgently needed (B o i t a n i 2000, L a n d a et al. 2000, L i m p e n s et al. 2000, S w e n s o n et al. 2000, P u c e k et al. 2004). The implementation of Action Plans is an effective means of improving the status of some of Europe’s most threatened species (N a g y & C r o c k f o r d 2004), and measures (including financial incentives) to promote the development and implementation of more Action Plans should be taken.
The protection of sites plays a key role in any effective conservation strategy. Several international treaties call for the selection and protection of sites on the basis of their importance for biodiversity. In Europe, the primary mechanism for site protection is the Natura 2000 network of protected areas. This paper identifies a number of areas within Europe that are regionally important for mammalian biodiversity and threatened species richness. The spatial distribution data gathered for individual species as part of the IUCN European Mammal Assessment can be used to inform site selection at a finer scale. In
257
particular, it is very important that Natura 2000 sites are rapidly proposed and adopted in the new Member States of Bulgaria and Romania, to protect the unusually high concentrations of threatened mammals that are found in these countries.
Europe is the most urbanized and, together with Asia, the most densely populated continent in the world. Human pressure on the landscape over millennia has produced a mosaic of semi-natural habitats, and today only about 1% of the surface area of Europe can be considered as wilderness, with the old growth forests of Poland, Scandinavia, the Balkans and Russia representing the last pristine areas. As a response to this extensive habitat modification and fragmentation, conservation planners have developed a number of tools to increase connectivity between core areas of habitat for the movement of species. These methods include planning tools such as ecological networks, which aim to identify core areas, species corridors and mixed land use zones (e.g., buffer zones), integration of ecological concerns into spatial land use planning and broader approaches to increase landscape permeability (J o n g m a n & P u n g e t t i 2004, C r o o k s & S a n j a y a n 2006). Providing increased connectivity is a vitally important aspect of mammal conservation in Europe and will provide a key tool to allow species to adapt to current habitat fragmentation and future climate change.
Monitoring of endangered wild mammal populations is now a statutory responsibility under EU legislation. However, many European countries have no formal schemes for monitoring even common and widespread species, let alone those that are under threat. National mammal population monitoring schemes have been initiated in some EU Member States, for example in the United Kingdom the Tracking Mammals Partnership www.trackingmammals.org has set up a surveillance and monitoring network that aims to deliver distribution and population trend information on all UK mammals. At the regional level, the European Union must report its progress towards the stated aim of halting biodiversity loss by 2010. If the Red List assessments described in this paper are periodically updated, it will enable the changing status of European mammals to be tracked through time and will provide an indicator of the changing fate of biodiversity to 2010 and beyond (B r o o k s & K e n n e d y 2004, B u t c h a r t et al. 2004, 2005, 2006).
Conclusions
Our research indicates that many mammals are declining in Europe and 15% are threatened with extinction at the regional level. There is a rich diversity of mammals in Europe, ranging from highly secretive and rarely seen species to the charismatic large carnivores that have become flagship species for conservation (L e a d e r - W i l l i a m s & D u b l i n 2000). Although Europe is associated with lower species richness than other regions of the world, it is home to the world’s most threatened cat species and species continue to be newly identified or re-discovered (M u c e d d a et al. 2002, B o n h o m m e et al. 2004, C u c c h i et al. 2006). Conservation of this diversity requires the full implementation of the Natura 2000 network and the development and implementation of Species Action Plans. Essential for many of these species will be the implementation of landscape management approaches integrated with other sectoral policies that allow species to disperse and adapt to habitat fragmentation and climate change. Additional research and monitoring of mammals is required and should be developed as part of coordinated programmes across Europe. The dynamic nature of mammal populations means their numbers can change rapidly over relatively short periods
258
of time. Therefore regular updates on the status of Europe’s mammals are essential – both to assess the effectiveness of conservation efforts and to ensure that the species in most need of attention receive it promptly.
A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s
This research was carried out as part of a service contract with the European Commission (Service Contract No. 070502/2005/414893/MAR/B2). The Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry Environment and Water and Vilda Nature Photography provided additional support. We received extensive expert advice and assistance from many IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Specialist Groups and Working Groups, and more than 150 mammal experts from more than 40 countries in Europe and adjacent regions contributed to the species assessments. For a full list of people and organizations that contributed to the European Mammal Assessment, please see T e m p l e & T e r r y (2007). 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, the Austrian Ministry of the Environment or the World Conservation Union (IUCN).
L I T E R A T U R E
Barlow J. 1999: Trackline detection probability for long diving whales. In: Garner G.W. et al. (eds.), Marine mammal survey and assessment methods. Balkema Press, Netherlands: 209–221.
Birdlife International 2004a: Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends, and conservation status. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.
Birdlife International 2004b: Birds in the European Union: a status assessment. BirdLife International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Birdlife International and Conservation International 2005: Areas Importantes para la Conservacion de las Aves en los Andes Tropicales: Sitios Prioritarios para la Conservacion de la Biodiversidad. BirdLife International.
Boitani L. 2000: Action plan for the conservation of the wolves (Canis lupus) in Europe. Nature and Environment, Council of Europe Publishing 113: 1–86.
Bonhomme F., Orth A., Cucchi T., Hadjisterkotis E., Vigne J.-D. & Auffray J.-C. 2004: Découverte d’une nouvelle espèce de souris sur l’île de Chypre. Comptes Rendus Biologies 327: 501–507.
Brooks T. & Kennedy E. 2004: Biodiversity barometers. Nature 431: 1046–1049.Butchart S.H.M., Stattersfield A.J., Bennun L.A., Shutes S.M., Akcakaya H.R. et al. 2004: Measuring global trends
in the status of biodiversity: Red List Indices for birds. PLoS Biology 2: e383.Butchart S.H.M., Stattersfield A.J., Baillie J.E.M., Bennun L.A., Stuart S.N. et al. 2005: Using Red List Indices to
measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London B 360: 255–268.Butchart S.H.M., Akcakaya H.R., Kennedy E. & Hilton-Taylor C. 2006: Biodiversity indicators based on trends in
conservation status: strengths of the IUCN Red List Index. Conserv. Biol. 20: 579–581.Collar N.J. 1996: The reasons for Red Data Books. Oryx 30: 121–130.Crooks K.C. & Sanjayan M.A. 2006: Conectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Cucchi T., Orth A., Auffray J.-C, Renaud S., Fabre L., Catalan J., Hadjisterkotis E., Bonhomme F. & Vigne J.-D.
2006: A new endemic species of the subgenus Mus (Rodentia, Mammalia) on the Island of Cyprus. Zootaxa 1241: 1–36.
IUCN 2001: IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN 2003: Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels: Version 3.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Jongman R.H.G. & Punghetti G. 2004: Ecological networks and greenways: Concept, design, implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Landa A., Linden M. & Kojola I. 2000: Action plan for the conservation of wolverines in Europe (Gulo gulo). Council of Europe Nature and Environment 115: 1–45.
Leader-Williams N. & Dublin H.T. 2000: Charismatic megafauna as ‘flagship species’. In: Entwistle A. & Dunstone N. (eds.), Priorities for the conservation of mammalian diversity: Has the panda had its day? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 53–84.
259
Limpens H., Lina P.H.C. & Hutson A.M. 2000: Action plan for the conservation of the pond bat in Europe (Myotis dasycneme). Council of Europe, Nature and Environment Series No. 108.
Mace G.M., Collar N., Cooke J., Gaston K.J., Ginsberg J.R., Leader-Williams N., Maunder M. & Milner-Gulland E.J. 1992: The development of new criteria for listing species on the IUCN Red List. Species 19: 16–22.
Mace G.M. & Lande R. 1991: Assessing extinction threats: toward a re-evaluation of IUCN threatened species categories. Conserv. Biol. 5: 148–157.
Mace G.M. & Stuart S.N. 1994: Draft IUCN Red List Categories, Version 2.2. Species 21–22: 13–24. Muccedda M., Kieffer A., Pidinchedda E. & Veith M. 2002: A new species of long-eared bat (Chiroptera,
Vespertilionidae) from Sardinia (Italy). Acta Chiropterol. 4: 121–135.Nagy S. & Crockford N. 2004: Implementation in the European Union of species action plans for 23 of Europe’s
most threatened birds. BirdLife International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Nowak R.M. 1999: Walker’s mammals of the world. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.Pucek Z. (ed.) 2004: European bison. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Bison Specialist
Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.Rodrigues A.S.L., Akcakaya H.R., Andelman S.J., Bakarr M.I., Boitani L., Brookes T.M., Chanson J.S., Fishpool
L.D.C., Da Fonseca G.A.B., Gaston K.J., Hoffmann M., Marquet P.A., Pilgrim J.D., Pressey R.L., Schipper J., Sechrest W., Stuart S.N., Underhill L.G., Waller R.W., Watts M.E.J. & Yan X. 2004: Global gap analysis: priority regions for expanding the global protected-area network. Bioscience 54: 1092–1100.
Rodrigues A.S.L., Pilgrim J.D., Lamoreaux J.F., Hoffmann M. & Brooks T.M. 2006: The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21: 71–76.
Swenson J.E., Gerstl N., Dahle B. & Zedrosser A. 2000: Action plan for the conservation of the brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Europe. Report to the Council of Europe Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats T-PVS (2000) 24: 1–68.
Temple H.J. & Terry A. 2007: The status and distribution of European mammals. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Wilson D.E. & Reeder D.M. (eds.) 2005: Mammal species of the world. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Available online at http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/msw/.
260
App
endi
x. R
ed L
ist s
tatu
s of
Eur
opea
n m
amm
als.
Ord
erFa
mily
Spec
ies
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(Eur
ope)
IUC
N R
ed L
ist
Crit
eria
(E
urop
e)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(EU
25)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t Crit
eria
(E
U 2
5)
Ende
mic
to
Eu
rope
? (Y
/N)
LAG
OM
OR
PHA
LEPO
RID
AE
Lepu
s co
rsic
anus
VU
A2b
cde+
3bcd
eV
UA
2bcd
e+3b
cde
YLA
GO
MO
RPH
ALE
POR
IDA
ELe
pus
gran
aten
sis
LCLC
YLA
GO
MO
RPH
ALE
POR
IDA
ELe
pus
euro
paeu
sLC
LCN
LAG
OM
OR
PHA
LEPO
RID
AE
Lepu
s ca
pens
isLC
LCN
LAG
OM
OR
PHA
LEPO
RID
AE
Lepu
s ca
stro
viej
oiV
UB
1ab(
iii,v
)V
UB
1ab(
iii,v
)Y
LAG
OM
OR
PHA
LEPO
RID
AE
Lepu
s tim
idus
LCLC
NLA
GO
MO
RPH
ALE
POR
IDA
EO
ryct
olag
us c
unic
ulus
NT
NT
NLA
GO
MO
RPH
APR
OLA
GID
AE
Prol
agus
sar
dus
EXEX
Y
RO
DEN
TIA
CA
STO
RID
AE
Cas
tor
fiber
LCLC
NR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Allo
cric
etul
us e
vers
man
niLC
NE
NR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Arvi
cola
am
phib
ius
LCLC
NR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Arvi
cola
sap
idus
NT(
VU
)*N
T(V
U)*
YR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Chi
onom
ys n
ival
isLC
LCN
RO
DEN
TIA
CR
ICET
IDA
EC
rice
tulu
s m
igra
tori
usLC
NA
NR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Cri
cetu
s cr
icet
usLC
LCN
RO
DEN
TIA
CR
ICET
IDA
ED
icro
ston
yx to
rqua
tus
LCN
EN
RO
DEN
TIA
CR
ICET
IDA
ED
inar
omys
bog
dano
viN
T(V
U)*
DD
YR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Ello
bius
talp
inus
LCN
EN
RO
DEN
TIA
CR
ICET
IDA
ELa
guru
s la
guru
sLC
NE
NR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Lem
mus
lem
mus
LCLC
YR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Lem
mus
sib
iric
usLC
NE
NR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Mer
ione
s ta
mar
isci
nus
LCN
EN
RO
DEN
TIA
CR
ICET
IDA
EM
erio
nes
mer
idia
nus
LCN
EN
RO
DEN
TIA
CR
ICET
IDA
EM
esoc
rice
tus
new
toni
NT
NE
YR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Mic
rotu
s du
odec
imco
stat
usLC
LCY
261
Ord
erFa
mily
Spec
ies
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(Eur
ope)
IUC
N R
ed L
ist
Crit
eria
(E
urop
e)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(EU
25)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t Crit
eria
(E
U 2
5)
Ende
mic
to
Eu
rope
? (Y
/N)
RO
DEN
TIA
CR
ICET
IDA
EM
icro
tus
tatr
icus
LCLC
YR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Mic
rotu
s lu
sita
nicu
sLC
LCY
RO
DEN
TIA
CR
ICET
IDA
EM
icro
tus
mul
tiple
xLC
LCY
RO
DEN
TIA
CR
ICET
IDA
EM
icro
tus
arva
lisLC
LCN
RO
DEN
TIA
CR
ICET
IDA
EM
icro
tus
thom
asi
LCLC
YR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Mic
rotu
s gu
enth
eri
LCLC
NR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Mic
rotu
s fe
lteni
LCLC
YR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Mic
rotu
s ba
vari
cus
CR
B1a
b(iii
)+2a
b(iii
)C
RB
1ab(
iii)+
2ab(
iii)
YR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Mic
rotu
s oe
cono
mus
LCLC
NR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Mic
rotu
s ca
brer
aeV
UB
2ab(
ii,iii
)c(iv
)V
UB
2ab(
ii,iii
)c(iv
)Y
RO
DEN
TIA
CR
ICET
IDA
EM
icro
tus
savi
iLC
LCY
RO
DEN
TIA
CR
ICET
IDA
EM
icro
tus
levi
sLC
LCN
RO
DEN
TIA
CR
ICET
IDA
EM
icro
tus
agre
stis
LCLC
NR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Mic
rotu
s gr
egal
isLC
NE
NR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Mic
rotu
s lie
chte
nste
ini
LCLC
YR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Mic
rotu
s ge
rbei
LCLC
YR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Mic
rotu
s su
bter
rane
usLC
LCN
RO
DEN
TIA
CR
ICET
IDA
EM
icro
tus
soci
alis
LCN
EN
RO
DEN
TIA
CR
ICET
IDA
EM
icro
tus
brac
hyce
rcus
LCLC
YR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Mic
rotu
s m
idde
ndor
ffii
NA
NE
NR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Myo
des
rutil
usLC
LCN
RO
DEN
TIA
CR
ICET
IDA
EM
yode
s ru
foca
nus
LCLC
NR
OD
ENTI
AC
RIC
ETID
AE
Myo
des
glar
eolu
sLC
LCN
RO
DEN
TIA
CR
ICET
IDA
EM
yopu
s sc
hist
icol
orLC
LCN
RO
DEN
TIA
DIP
OD
IDA
EAl
lact
aga
maj
orN
TN
EN
RO
DEN
TIA
DIP
OD
IDA
EAl
lact
aga
elat
erLC
NE
NR
OD
ENTI
AD
IPO
DID
AE
Dip
us s
agitt
aN
AN
EN
RO
DEN
TIA
DIP
OD
IDA
EPy
gere
tmus
pum
ilio
LCN
EN
262
Ord
erFa
mily
Spec
ies
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(Eur
ope)
IUC
N R
ed L
ist
Crit
eria
(E
urop
e)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(EU
25)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t Crit
eria
(E
U 2
5)
Ende
mic
to
Eu
rope
? (Y
/N)
RO
DEN
TIA
DIP
OD
IDA
ESi
cist
a se
vert
zovi
LCN
EY
RO
DEN
TIA
DIP
OD
IDA
ESi
cist
a su
btili
sN
TV
UB
1ab(
iii)
NR
OD
ENTI
AD
IPO
DID
AE
Sici
sta
betu
lina
LCLC
NR
OD
ENTI
AD
IPO
DID
AE
Sici
sta
stra
ndi
LCN
EN
RO
DEN
TIA
DIP
OD
IDA
ESt
ylod
ipus
telu
mLC
NE
NR
OD
ENTI
AG
LIR
IDA
ED
ryom
ys n
itedu
laLC
LCN
RO
DEN
TIA
GLI
RID
AE
Elio
mys
que
rcin
usN
TN
TY
RO
DEN
TIA
GLI
RID
AE
Glis
glis
LCLC
NR
OD
ENTI
AG
LIR
IDA
EM
usca
rdin
us a
vella
nari
usLC
LCN
RO
DEN
TIA
GLI
RID
AE
Myo
mim
us ro
achi
ENB
1ab(
ii,iii
)D
DN
RO
DEN
TIA
HY
STR
ICID
AE
Hys
trix
cri
stat
aLC
LCN
RO
DEN
TIA
MU
RID
AE
Acom
ys m
inou
sLC
LCY
RO
DEN
TIA
MU
RID
AE
Apod
emus
alp
icol
aLC
LCY
RO
DEN
TIA
MU
RID
AE
Apod
emus
mys
taci
nus
LCLC
NR
OD
ENTI
AM
UR
IDA
EAp
odem
us u
rale
nsis
LCLC
NR
OD
ENTI
AM
UR
IDA
EAp
odem
us e
pim
elas
LCLC
YR
OD
ENTI
AM
UR
IDA
EAp
odem
us a
grar
ius
LCLC
NR
OD
ENTI
AM
UR
IDA
EAp
odem
us s
ylva
ticus
LCLC
NR
OD
ENTI
AM
UR
IDA
EAp
odem
us fl
avic
ollis
LCLC
NR
OD
ENTI
AM
UR
IDA
EM
icro
mys
min
utus
LCLC
NR
OD
ENTI
AM
UR
IDA
EM
us m
aced
onic
usLC
LCN
RO
DEN
TIA
MU
RID
AE
Mus
cyp
riac
usLC
LCN
RO
DEN
TIA
MU
RID
AE
Mus
mus
culu
sLC
LCN
RO
DEN
TIA
MU
RID
AE
Mus
spr
etus
LCLC
NR
OD
ENTI
AM
UR
IDA
EM
us s
pici
legu
sLC
LCY
RO
DEN
TIA
MU
RID
AE
Rattu
s ra
ttus
LCLC
NR
OD
ENTI
ASC
IUR
IDA
EM
arm
ota
mar
mot
aLC
LCY
RO
DEN
TIA
SCIU
RID
AE
Mar
mot
a bo
bak
LCN
EN
263
Ord
erFa
mily
Spec
ies
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(Eur
ope)
IUC
N R
ed L
ist
Crit
eria
(E
urop
e)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(EU
25)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t Crit
eria
(E
U 2
5)
Ende
mic
to
Eu
rope
? (Y
/N)
RO
DEN
TIA
SCIU
RID
AE
Pter
omys
vol
ans
DD
NT
NR
OD
ENTI
ASC
IUR
IDA
ESc
iuru
s vu
lgar
isLC
LCN
RO
DEN
TIA
SCIU
RID
AE
Sper
mop
hilu
s ci
tellu
sV
UA
2bc
VU
A2b
cY
RO
DEN
TIA
SCIU
RID
AE
Sper
mop
hilu
s su
slic
usN
TN
AY
RO
DEN
TIA
SCIU
RID
AE
Sper
mop
hilu
s py
gmae
usLC
NE
NR
OD
ENTI
ASC
IUR
IDA
ESp
erm
ophi
lus
maj
orLC
NE
NR
OD
ENTI
ASC
IUR
IDA
ESp
erm
ophi
lus
fulv
usLC
NE
NR
OD
ENTI
ASC
IUR
IDA
ETa
mia
s si
biri
cus
LCN
EN
RO
DEN
TIA
SPA
LAC
IDA
ESp
alax
gig
ante
usV
UB
2ab(
iii)
NE
YR
OD
ENTI
ASP
ALA
CID
AE
Spal
ax le
ucod
onLC
LCN
RO
DEN
TIA
SPA
LAC
IDA
ESp
alax
zem
niV
UB
2ab(
ii,iii
)N
EY
RO
DEN
TIA
SPA
LAC
IDA
ESp
alax
mic
roph
thal
mus
LCN
EY
RO
DEN
TIA
SPA
LAC
IDA
ESp
alax
gra
ecus
NT
D2
NE
Y
RO
DEN
TIA
SPA
LAC
IDA
ESp
alax
are
nari
usEN
B1a
b(ii,
iii)+
2ab(
ii,iii
)N
EN
PRIM
ATES
CER
CO
PITH
ECID
AE
Mac
aca
sylv
anus
NA
NA
N
ERIN
AC
EOM
OR
PHA
ERIN
AC
EID
AE
Atel
erix
alg
irus
LCLC
NER
INA
CEO
MO
RPH
AER
INA
CEI
DA
EEr
inac
eus
euro
paeu
sLC
LCY
ERIN
AC
EOM
OR
PHA
ERIN
AC
EID
AE
Erin
aceu
s ro
uman
icus
LCLC
NER
INA
CEO
MO
RPH
AER
INA
CEI
DA
EH
emie
chin
us a
uritu
sLC
NE
N
SOR
ICO
MO
RPH
ASO
RIC
IDA
EC
roci
dura
rus
sula
LCLC
NSO
RIC
OM
OR
PHA
SOR
ICID
AE
Cro
cidu
ra ic
hnus
aeD
DD
DN
SOR
ICO
MO
RPH
ASO
RIC
IDA
EC
roci
dura
can
arie
nsis
ENB
1ab(
ii,iii
)EN
B1a
b(ii
,iii)
Y
264
Ord
erFa
mily
Spec
ies
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(Eur
ope)
IUC
N R
ed L
ist
Crit
eria
(E
urop
e)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(EU
25)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t Crit
eria
(E
U 2
5)
Ende
mic
to
Eu
rope
? (Y
/N)
SOR
ICO
MO
RPH
ASO
RIC
IDA
EC
roci
dura
zim
mer
man
niV
UB
1ab(
i,ii,v
)+2a
b(i,i
i,v)
VU
B1a
b(i,i
i,v)+
2ab(
i,ii,v
)Y
SOR
ICO
MO
RPH
ASO
RIC
IDA
EC
roci
dura
leuc
odon
LCLC
NSO
RIC
OM
OR
PHA
SOR
ICID
AE
Cro
cidu
ra s
icul
aLC
LCY
SOR
ICO
MO
RPH
ASO
RIC
IDA
EC
roci
dura
sua
veol
ens
LCLC
NSO
RIC
OM
OR
PHA
SOR
ICID
AE
Dip
lom
esod
on p
ulch
ellu
mN
AN
EN
SOR
ICO
MO
RPH
ASO
RIC
IDA
EN
eom
ys a
nom
alus
LCLC
NSO
RIC
OM
OR
PHA
SOR
ICID
AE
Neo
mys
fodi
ens
LCLC
NSO
RIC
OM
OR
PHA
SOR
ICID
AE
Sore
x ca
ecut
iens
LCLC
NSO
RIC
OM
OR
PHA
SOR
ICID
AE
Sore
x co
rona
tus
LCLC
YSO
RIC
OM
OR
PHA
SOR
ICID
AE
Sore
x tu
ndre
nsis
LCN
EN
SOR
ICO
MO
RPH
ASO
RIC
IDA
ESo
rex
alpi
nus
NT
NT
YSO
RIC
OM
OR
PHA
SOR
ICID
AE
Sore
x sa
mni
ticus
LCLC
YSO
RIC
OM
OR
PHA
SOR
ICID
AE
Sore
x is
odon
LCLC
NSO
RIC
OM
OR
PHA
SOR
ICID
AE
Sore
x m
inut
issi
mus
LCLC
NSO
RIC
OM
OR
PHA
SOR
ICID
AE
Sore
x m
inut
usLC
LCN
SOR
ICO
MO
RPH
ASO
RIC
IDA
ESo
rex
aran
eus
LCLC
NSO
RIC
OM
OR
PHA
SOR
ICID
AE
Sore
x gr
anar
ius
DD
DD
YSO
RIC
OM
OR
PHA
SOR
ICID
AE
Sore
x an
tinor
iiD
DD
DY
SOR
ICO
MO
RPH
ASO
RIC
IDA
ESo
rex
arun
chi
DD
DD
YSO
RIC
OM
OR
PHA
SOR
ICID
AE
Sunc
us e
trus
cus
LCLC
NSO
RIC
OM
OR
PHA
TALP
IDA
ED
esm
ana
mos
chat
aV
UA
2bc+
4bc
NE
NSO
RIC
OM
OR
PHA
TALP
IDA
EG
alem
ys p
yren
aicu
sN
T(V
U)*
NT(
VU
)*Y
SOR
ICO
MO
RPH
ATA
LPID
AE
Talp
a ro
man
aLC
LCY
SOR
ICO
MO
RPH
ATA
LPID
AE
Talp
a st
anko
vici
LCLC
YSO
RIC
OM
OR
PHA
TALP
IDA
ETa
lpa
occi
dent
alis
LCLC
YSO
RIC
OM
OR
PHA
TALP
IDA
ETa
lpa
caec
aLC
LCY
SOR
ICO
MO
RPH
ATA
LPID
AE
Talp
a eu
ropa
eaLC
LCN
265
Ord
erFa
mily
Spec
ies
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(Eur
ope)
IUC
N R
ed L
ist
Crit
eria
(E
urop
e)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(EU
25)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t Crit
eria
(E
U 2
5)
Ende
mic
to
Eu
rope
? (Y
/N)
SOR
ICO
MO
RPH
ATA
LPID
AE
Talp
a le
vant
isLC
NE
N
CH
IRO
PTER
AM
OLO
SSID
AE
Tada
rida
teni
otis
LCLC
NC
HIR
OPT
ERA
RH
INO
LOPH
IDA
ERh
inol
ophu
s fe
rrum
equi
num
NT
NT
NC
HIR
OPT
ERA
RH
INO
LOPH
IDA
ERh
inol
ophu
s hi
ppos
ider
osN
TN
TN
CH
IRO
PTER
AR
HIN
OLO
PHID
AE
Rhin
olop
hus
meh
elyi
VU
A4c
VU
A4c
NC
HIR
OPT
ERA
RH
INO
LOPH
IDA
ERh
inol
ophu
s eu
ryal
eV
UA
2cV
UA
2cN
CH
IRO
PTER
AR
HIN
OLO
PHID
AE
Rhin
olop
hus
blas
iiV
UA
4cD
DN
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EBa
rbas
tella
bar
bast
ellu
sV
UA
3c+4
cV
UA
3c+4
cN
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EEp
tesi
cus
nils
soni
iLC
LCN
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EEp
tesi
cus
sero
tinus
LCLC
NC
HIR
OPT
ERA
VES
PERT
ILIO
NID
AE
Hyp
sugo
sav
iiLC
LCN
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EM
inio
pter
us s
chre
iber
sii
NT
NT
NC
HIR
OPT
ERA
VES
PERT
ILIO
NID
AE
Myo
tis n
atte
reri
LCLC
NC
HIR
OPT
ERA
VES
PERT
ILIO
NID
AE
Myo
tis b
lyth
iiN
TN
TN
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EM
yotis
myo
tisLC
LCN
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EM
yotis
bra
ndtii
LCLC
NC
HIR
OPT
ERA
VES
PERT
ILIO
NID
AE
Myo
tis c
apac
cini
iV
UA
4bce
VU
A4b
ceN
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EM
yotis
das
ycne
me
NT
NT
NC
HIR
OPT
ERA
VES
PERT
ILIO
NID
AE
Myo
tis d
aube
nton
iiLC
LCN
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EM
yotis
em
argi
natu
sLC
LCN
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EM
yotis
pun
icus
NT
NT
NC
HIR
OPT
ERA
VES
PERT
ILIO
NID
AE
Myo
tis m
ysta
cinu
sLC
LCN
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EM
yotis
bec
hste
inii
VU
A4c
VU
A4c
NC
HIR
OPT
ERA
VES
PERT
ILIO
NID
AE
Myo
tis a
lcat
hoe
DD
DD
YC
HIR
OPT
ERA
VES
PERT
ILIO
NID
AE
Myo
tis a
uras
cens
LCLC
NC
HIR
OPT
ERA
VES
PERT
ILIO
NID
AE
Nyc
talu
s la
siop
teru
sD
DD
DN
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EN
ycta
lus
azor
eum
ENB
1ab(
iii)
ENB
1ab(
iii)
Y
266
Ord
erFa
mily
Spec
ies
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(Eur
ope)
IUC
N R
ed L
ist
Crit
eria
(E
urop
e)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(EU
25)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t Crit
eria
(E
U 2
5)
Ende
mic
to
Eu
rope
? (Y
/N)
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EN
ycta
lus
noct
ula
LCLC
NC
HIR
OPT
ERA
VES
PERT
ILIO
NID
AE
Nyc
talu
s le
isle
riLC
LCN
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EPi
pist
rellu
s pi
pist
rellu
sLC
LCN
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EPi
pist
rellu
s na
thus
iiLC
LCN
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EPi
pist
rellu
s m
ader
ensi
sEN
B1a
b(iii
,v)
ENB
1ab(
iii,v
)Y
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EPi
pist
rellu
s ku
hlii
LCLC
NC
HIR
OPT
ERA
VES
PERT
ILIO
NID
AE
Pipi
stre
llus
pygm
aeus
LCLC
NC
HIR
OPT
ERA
VES
PERT
ILIO
NID
AE
Plec
otus
kol
omba
tovi
ciN
TN
TN
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EPl
ecot
us a
uritu
sLC
LCY
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EPl
ecot
us a
ustr
iacu
sLC
LCY
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EPl
ecot
us m
acro
bulla
ris
NT
VU
B2a
b(iii
)N
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EPl
ecot
us s
ardu
sV
UB
2ab(
iii)
VU
B2a
b(iii
)Y
CH
IRO
PTER
AV
ESPE
RTIL
ION
IDA
EPl
ecot
us te
neri
ffae
ENB
1ab(
iii,v
)EN
B1a
b(iii
,v)
YC
HIR
OPT
ERA
VES
PERT
ILIO
NID
AE
Vesp
ertil
io m
urin
usLC
LCN
ART
IOD
AC
TYLA
BO
VID
AE
Biso
n bo
nasu
sV
UD
1V
UD
1N
ART
IOD
AC
TYLA
BO
VID
AE
Bos
prim
igen
ius
EXEX
NA
RTIO
DA
CTY
LAB
OV
IDA
EC
apra
ibex
LCLC
YA
RTIO
DA
CTY
LAB
OV
IDA
EC
apra
pyr
enai
caLC
LCY
ART
IOD
AC
TYLA
BO
VID
AE
Cap
ra h
ircus
NA
NA
NA
RTIO
DA
CTY
LAB
OV
IDA
EO
vis
arie
sN
AN
AN
ART
IOD
AC
TYLA
BO
VID
AE
Rupi
capr
a py
rena
ica
LCLC
YA
RTIO
DA
CTY
LAB
OV
IDA
ERu
pica
pra
rupi
capr
aLC
LCN
ART
IOD
AC
TYLA
BO
VID
AE
Saig
a ta
tari
caC
RA
2aN
EN
ART
IOD
AC
TYLA
CER
VID
AE
Alce
s al
ces
LCLC
NA
RTIO
DA
CTY
LAC
ERV
IDA
EC
apre
olus
pyg
argu
sLC
NE
NA
RTIO
DA
CTY
LAC
ERV
IDA
EC
apre
olus
cap
reol
usLC
LCN
ART
IOD
AC
TYLA
CER
VID
AE
Cer
vus
elap
hus
LCLC
N
267
Ord
erFa
mily
Spec
ies
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(Eur
ope)
IUC
N R
ed L
ist
Crit
eria
(E
urop
e)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(EU
25)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t Crit
eria
(E
U 2
5)
Ende
mic
to
Eu
rope
? (Y
/N)
ART
IOD
AC
TYLA
CER
VID
AE
Dam
a da
ma
LCLC
NA
RTIO
DA
CTY
LAC
ERV
IDA
ERa
ngife
r ta
rand
usLC
LCN
ART
IOD
AC
TYLA
SUID
AE
Sus
scro
faLC
LCN
CET
AC
EAB
ALA
ENID
AE
Bala
ena
mys
ticet
usN
AN
AN
CET
AC
EAB
ALA
ENID
AE
Euba
laen
a gl
acia
lisC
RD
CR
DN
CET
AC
EAB
ALA
ENO
PTER
IDA
EBa
laen
opte
ra b
orea
lisEN
DEN
DN
CET
AC
EAB
ALA
ENO
PTER
IDA
EBa
laen
opte
ra a
cuto
rost
rata
LCLC
NC
ETA
CEA
BA
LAEN
OPT
ERID
AE
Bala
enop
tera
phy
salu
sN
TN
TN
CET
AC
EAB
ALA
ENO
PTER
IDA
EBa
laen
opte
ra m
uscu
lus
END
END
NC
ETA
CEA
BA
LAEN
OPT
ERID
AE
Meg
apte
ra n
ovae
angl
iae
LCLC
NC
ETA
CEA
DEL
PHIN
IDA
ED
elph
inus
del
phis
DD
DD
NC
ETA
CEA
DEL
PHIN
IDA
EG
lobi
ceph
ala
mel
asD
DD
DN
CET
AC
EAD
ELPH
INID
AE
Gra
mpu
s gr
iseu
sD
DD
DN
CET
AC
EAD
ELPH
INID
AE
Lage
node
lphi
s ho
sei
NA
NA
NC
ETA
CEA
DEL
PHIN
IDA
ELa
geno
rhyn
chus
acu
tus
LCLC
NC
ETA
CEA
DEL
PHIN
IDA
ELa
geno
rhyn
chus
alb
irost
ris
LCLC
NC
ETA
CEA
DEL
PHIN
IDA
EO
rcin
us o
rca
DD
DD
NC
ETA
CEA
DEL
PHIN
IDA
EPe
pono
ceph
ala
elec
tra
NA
NA
NC
ETA
CEA
DEL
PHIN
IDA
EPs
eudo
rca
cras
side
nsN
AN
AN
CET
AC
EAD
ELPH
INID
AE
Sous
a ch
inen
sis
NA
NA
NC
ETA
CEA
DEL
PHIN
IDA
ESt
enel
la c
oeru
leoa
lba
DD
DD
NC
ETA
CEA
DEL
PHIN
IDA
ESt
eno
bred
anen
sis
NA
NA
NC
ETA
CEA
DEL
PHIN
IDA
ETu
rsio
ps tr
unca
tus
DD
DD
NC
ETA
CEA
ESC
HR
ICH
TIID
AE
Esch
rich
tius
robu
stus
RE
RE
NC
ETA
CEA
MO
NO
DO
NTI
DA
ED
elph
inap
teru
s le
ucas
NA
NA
NC
ETA
CEA
MO
NO
DO
NTI
DA
EM
onod
on m
onoc
eros
NA
NA
NC
ETA
CEA
PHO
CO
ENID
AE
Phoc
oena
pho
coen
aV
UA
2cde
VU
A2c
deN
268
Ord
erFa
mily
Spec
ies
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(Eur
ope)
IUC
N R
ed L
ist
Crit
eria
(E
urop
e)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(EU
25)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t Crit
eria
(E
U 2
5)
Ende
mic
to
Eu
rope
? (Y
/N)
CET
AC
EAPH
YSE
TER
IDA
EK
ogia
bre
vice
psN
AN
AN
CET
AC
EAPH
YSE
TER
IDA
EK
ogia
sim
aN
AN
AN
CET
AC
EAPH
YSE
TER
IDA
EPh
yset
er c
atod
onV
UA
1dV
UA
1dN
CET
AC
EAZI
PHII
DA
EH
yper
oodo
n am
pulla
tus
DD
DD
NC
ETA
CEA
ZIPH
IID
AE
Mes
oplo
don
euro
paeu
sD
DD
DN
CET
AC
EAZI
PHII
DA
EM
esop
lodo
n de
nsiro
stri
sD
DD
DN
CET
AC
EAZI
PHII
DA
EM
esop
lodo
n bi
dens
DD
DD
NC
ETA
CEA
ZIPH
IID
AE
Mes
oplo
don
mir
usD
DD
DN
CET
AC
EAZI
PHII
DA
EZi
phiu
s ca
viro
stri
sD
DD
DN
CA
RN
IVO
RA
CA
NID
AE
Alop
ex la
gopu
sLC
CR
D1,
C2a
(i)N
CA
RN
IVO
RA
CA
NID
AE
Can
is a
ureu
sLC
NT
NC
AR
NIV
OR
AC
AN
IDA
EC
anis
lupu
sLC
LCN
CA
RN
IVO
RA
CA
NID
AE
Vulp
es v
ulpe
sLC
LCN
CA
RN
IVO
RA
CA
NID
AE
Vulp
es c
orsa
cLC
NE
NC
AR
NIV
OR
AFE
LID
AE
Felis
cha
usN
AN
EN
CA
RN
IVO
RA
FELI
DA
EFe
lis s
ilves
tris
LCN
TN
CA
RN
IVO
RA
FELI
DA
ELy
nx ly
nxLC
NT
NC
AR
NIV
OR
AFE
LID
AE
Lynx
par
dinu
sC
RC
2a(i)
CR
C2a
(i)Y
CA
RN
IVO
RA
HER
PEST
IDA
EH
erpe
stes
ichn
eum
onLC
LCN
CA
RN
IVO
RA
MU
STEL
IDA
EG
ulo
gulo
VU
A2c
d; C
1V
UD
1N
CA
RN
IVO
RA
MU
STEL
IDA
ELu
tra
lutr
aN
TN
TN
CA
RN
IVO
RA
MU
STEL
IDA
EM
arte
s fo
ina
LCLC
NC
AR
NIV
OR
AM
UST
ELID
AE
Mar
tes
mar
tes
LCLC
NC
AR
NIV
OR
AM
UST
ELID
AE
Mar
tes
zibe
llina
NA
NE
NC
AR
NIV
OR
AM
UST
ELID
AE
Mel
es m
eles
LCLC
NC
AR
NIV
OR
AM
UST
ELID
AE
Mus
tela
put
oriu
sLC
NT
NC
AR
NIV
OR
AM
UST
ELID
AE
Mus
tela
sib
iric
aN
AN
EN
269
Ord
erFa
mily
Spec
ies
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(Eur
ope)
IUC
N R
ed L
ist
Crit
eria
(E
urop
e)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t C
ateg
ory
(EU
25)
IUC
N
Red
Lis
t Crit
eria
(E
U 2
5)
Ende
mic
to
Eu
rope
? (Y
/N)
CA
RN
IVO
RA
MU
STEL
IDA
EM
uste
la n
ival
isLC
LCN
CA
RN
IVO
RA
MU
STEL
IDA
EM
uste
la lu
treol
aEN
A2c
eC
RA
2ce
NC
AR
NIV
OR
AM
UST
ELID
AE
Mus
tela
erm
inea
LCLC
NC
AR
NIV
OR
AM
UST
ELID
AE
Mus
tela
eve
rsm
anii
LCEN
C2a
(i)N
CA
RN
IVO
RA
MU
STEL
IDA
EVo
rmel
a pe
regu
sna
VU
A2c
NA
NC
AR
NIV
OR
AO
DO
BEN
IDA
EO
dobe
nus
rosm
arus
NA
NE
NC
AR
NIV
OR
APH
OC
IDA
EC
ysto
phor
a cr
ista
taN
AN
AN
CA
RN
IVO
RA
PHO
CID
AE
Erig
nath
us b
arba
tus
NA
NA
NC
AR
NIV
OR
APH
OC
IDA
EH
alic
hoer
us g
rypu
sLC
LCN
CA
RN
IVO
RA
PHO
CID
AE
Mon
achu
s m
onac
hus
CR
C2a
(ii)
CR
C2a
(ii)
NC
AR
NIV
OR
APH
OC
IDA
EPa
goph
ilus
groe
nlan
dicu
sN
AN
AN
CA
RN
IVO
RA
PHO
CID
AE
Phoc
a vi
tulin
aLC
LCN
CA
RN
IVO
RA
PHO
CID
AE
Pusa
his
pida
LCLC
NC
AR
NIV
OR
AU
RSI
DA
EU
rsus
arc
tos
LCN
TN
CA
RN
IVO
RA
UR
SID
AE
Urs
us m
ariti
mus
VU
A3c
NE
NC
AR
NIV
OR
AV
IVER
RID
AE
Gen
etta
gen
etta
LCLC
N
*Sin
ce th
e Eu
rope
an M
amm
al A
sses
smen
t was
pub
lishe
d in
May
200
7, n
ew in
form
atio
n ha
s be
com
e av
aila
ble
for
Gal
emys
pyr
enai
cus,
Arvi
cola
sap
idus
, and
Din
arom
ys
bogd
anov
i. A
ll th
ree
of th
ese
spec
ies h
ave
been
upl
iste
d fr
om N
ear T
hrea
tene
d to
Vul
nera
ble.
The
ana
lysi
s pre
sent
ed h
ere
uses
the
orig
inal
(NT)
ass
essm
ents
. See
ww
w.re
dlis
t.or
g fo
r the
mos
t up-
to-d
ate
acco
unts
.
