Biodiversity and Conservation

, 17:3383 | Cite as

Necessity and reality of monitoring threatened European vascular plants

  • Tiiu Kull
  • Marek Sammul
  • Kalevi Kull
  • Kaire LannoEmail author
  • Kadri Tali
  • Bernd Gruber
  • Dirk Schmeller
  • Klaus Henle
Original Paper


Species monitoring is the regular observation and recording of changes in status and trend of species in a certain territory. The primary purpose of monitoring is to collect information that can be used to examine the outcomes of management actions and to guide management decisions. Here, we analyze plant species monitoring to provide a first overview on efforts made to monitor trends in vascular plant biodiversity in Europe. Our study is based on an assessment of 63 plant monitoring schemes from Europe (collected into a database “DaEuMon”), and 33 schemes found with literature screening. Altogether, the monitoring schemes cover 354 vascular plant species, of which 69 are listed in Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive (= EU protected species; Annex II includes 420 species). In most cases, an EU protected plant species occurs in 3 countries but is monitored in only 1 country. Scientific interest was the main reason for launching a monitoring scheme in 21% of the schemes from the database, but in 58% of the schemes from the literature survey. The current schemes collect insufficient data particularly on the dynamics of the extent and distribution pattern of species. We conclude that planning to publish monitoring data when designing a scheme would improve the quality and general effect of monitoring programs. The needs to cover the taxonomic diversity and the integration of different scales, as well as the inclusion of monitoring in the context of different types of sustainable management would require a strong emphasis in the development of monitoring schemes.


Plants Monitoring Review EU Habitats Directive 



This study is based on research financed by EU FP6 project EuMon (, target financing project no 0362481s03, grant no P6062PKPK06 from Estonian University of Life Sciences, and grants no 6044 and 6048 from Estonian Science Foundation. We would like to thank other EuMon-colleagues for helping in getting data entries, and all those who took the trouble to fill in the questionnaire.


  1. Arnold C, Schnitzler A, Douard A, Peter R, Gillet F (2005) Is there a future for wild grapevine (Vitis vinifera subsp. silvestris) in the Rhine Valley? Biodivers Conserv 14:1507–1523. doi: 10.1007/s10531-004-9789-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baillie J, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN (2004) IUCN red list of threatened species: a global species assessment, international union for conservation of nature and natural resources red list, programme, World Conservation Union Species Survival, Commission, IUCN, The World Conservation UnionGoogle Scholar
  3. Bednorz L (2003) Population dynamics of Liparis loeselii (L) L. C. Rich. in the nature reserve ‘Mielno’––some results from a 8 year study. EJPAU Biology 6(2)Google Scholar
  4. Bengtsson K (2000) Long-term demographic variation in range-margin populations of Gypsophila fastigiata. Folia Geobot 35:143–160. doi: 10.1007/BF02803093 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BirdLife International (2004) Birds in the European Union: a status assessment. BirdLife International, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  6. Brys R, Jacquemyn H, Endels P, de Blust G, Hermy M (2004) The effects of grassland management on plant performance and demography in the perennial herb Primula veris. J Appl Ecol 41:1080–1091. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00981.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brzosko E (2002) Dynamics of island populations of Cypripedium calceolus in the Biebrza river valley (north-east Poland). Bot J Linn Soc 139:67–77. doi: 10.1046/j.1095-8339.2002.00049.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brzosko E (2003) The dynamics of island populations of Platanthera bifolia in the Biebrza National Park (NE Poland). Ann Bot Fenn 40:243–253Google Scholar
  9. Campbell SP, Clark JA, Crampton LH, Guerry AD, Hatch LT, Hosseini PR et al (2002) An assessment of monitoring efforts in endangered species recovery plans. Ecol Appl 12:674–681. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0674:AAOMEI]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlsson BÅ, Callaghan TV (1990) Effects of flowering on the shoot dynamics of Carex bigelowii along an altitudinal gradient in Swedish Lapland. J Ecol 78:152–165. doi: 10.2307/2261042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Heer M, Kapos V, ter Brink BJ (2005) Biodiversity trends in Europe: development and testing of a species trend indicator for evaluating progress towards the 2010 target. Philos Trans R Soc Lond, B 360:297–308. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1587 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diaz-Almela E, Marbá N, Álvarez E, Balestri E, Ruiz-Fernández JM, Duarte CM (2006) Patterns of seagrass (Posidonia oceanica) flowering in the Western Mediterranean. Mar Biol (Berl) 148:723–742. doi: 10.1007/s00227-005-0127-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diemer M (2002) Population stasis in a high-elevation herbaceous plant under moderate climate warming. Basic Appl Ecol 3:77–83. doi: 10.1078/1439-1791-00079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dinerstein E et al (2007) The fate of wild tigers. Bioscience 57:508–514. doi: 10.1641/B570608 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eriksson Å, Eriksson O (2000) Population dynamics of the perennial Plantago media in semi-natural grasslands. J Veg Sci 11:245–252. doi: 10.2307/3236803 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freckleton RP, Watkinson AR (2002) Large-scale spatial dynamics of plants: metapopulations, regional ensembles and patchy populations. J Ecol 90:419–434. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2745.2002.00692.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freville H, Colas B, Riba M, Caswell H, Mignot A, Imbert E et al (2004) Spatial and temporal demographic variability in the endemic plant species Centaurea corymbosa (Asteraceae). Ecology 85:694–703. doi: 10.1890/03-0119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaines WL, Harrod RJ, Lehmkuhl JF (1999) Monitoring biodiversity: quantification and interpretation. General technical report PNW-GTR-443, USA Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
  19. Garcia MB (2003) Demographic viability of a relict population of the critically endangered plant Borderea chouardii. Conserv Biol 17:1672–1680. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00030.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garcia MB, Guzman D, Goñi D (2002) An evaluation of the status of five threatened plant species in the Pyrenees. Biol Conserv 103:151–161. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00113-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gillman MP, Dodd ME (1998) The variability of orchid population size. Bot J Linn Soc 126:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Göteborg European Council–Presidency Conclusions (2001) Available at:
  23. Gregory RD, van Strien A, Vorisek P, Meyling AWG, Noble DG, Foppen RPB et al (2005) Developing indicators for European birds. Philos Trans R Soc B 360:269–288. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1602 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guralnick RP, Hill AW, Lane M (2007) Towards a collaborative, global infrastructure for biodiversity assessment. Ecol Lett 10:663–672. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01063.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hutchings MJ (1987) The population biology of the early spider orchid, Ophrys sphegodes mill. I. A demographic study from 1975 to 1984. J Ecol 75:711–727. doi: 10.2307/2260201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hutchings MJ, Mendoza A, Havers W (1998) Demographic properties of an outlier population of Orchis militaris L. (Orchidaceae) in England. Bot J Linn Soc 126:95–107Google Scholar
  27. Inghe O (2001) The Swedish landscape monitoring programme: current status and prospects for the near future. In: Groom G, Reed T (eds) Strategic landscape monitoring for the Nordic countries (TemaNord 2001:523) Copenhagen, Nordic Council of Ministers, pp 61–67Google Scholar
  28. Jacquemyn H, Brys R, Hermy M, Willems JH (2005) Are non-rewarding orchids more extinction-prone than rewarding species? An assessment using historical records from Belgium and the Netherlands. Biol Conserv 121:257–263. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jäkäläniemi A, Tuomi J, Siikamäki P (2006) Conservation of species in dynamic landscapes: divergent fates of Silene tatarica populations in riparian habitats. Conserv Biol 20:844–852. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00348.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Janečková P, Wotavová K, Schödelbauerová I, Jersáková J, Kindlmann P (2006) Relative effects of management and environmental conditions on performance and survival of populations of a terrestrial orchid, Dactylorhiza majalis. Biol Conserv 129:40–49. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones PS (1998) Aspects of the population biology of Liparis loeselii (L.) Rich. var. ovata Ridd. ex Godfery (Orchidaceae) in the dune slacks of South Wales, UK. Bot J Linn Soc 126:123–139Google Scholar
  32. Kirchner F, Robert A, Colas B (2006) Modelling the dynamics of introduced populations in the narrow-endemic Centaurea corymbosa: a demo-genetic integration. J Appl Ecol 43:1011–1021. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01179.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kukk T, Kull T (eds) (2005) Atlas of the Estonian flora. Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences of the Estonian University of Life Sciences, TartuGoogle Scholar
  34. Kull T (1998) Fruit-set and recruitment in populations of Cypripedium calceolus L. in Estonia. Bot J Linn Soc 126:27–38Google Scholar
  35. Kull T (1999) Estonian biodiversity strategy and action plan Keskkonnaministeerium, ÜRO Keskkonnakaitseprogramm (UNEP). EPMÜ Keskkonnakaitse Instituut, Tallinn-TartuGoogle Scholar
  36. Kull T, Hutchings MJ (2006) A comparative analysis of decline in the distribution ranges of orchid species in Estonia and the United Kingdom. Biol Conserv 129:31–39. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kullman L (1983) Short-term population trends of isolated tree-limit stands of Pinus sylvestris L. in central Sweden. Arct Alp Res 15:369–382. doi: 10.2307/1550832 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF (2002) Conserving forest biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscaled approach. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Mace GM (2005) Biodiversity––an index of intactness. Nature 434:32–33. doi: 10.1038/434032a PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Niemelä J (2000) Biodiversity monitoring for decision-making. Ann Zool Fenn 37:307–317Google Scholar
  41. Nimis PL, Scheidegger C, Wolseley PA (eds) (2002) Monitoring with lichens: monitoring lichens. NATO Science Series, IV Earth and Environmental Sciences, vol 7. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 408 ppGoogle Scholar
  42. Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4:355–364. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00309.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pereira HM, Cooper HD (2006) Towards the global monitoring of biodiversity change. Trends Ecol Evol 21:123–129. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.015 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pfeifer M, Wiegand K, Heinrich W, Jetschke G (2006) Long-term demographic fluctuations in an orchid species driven by weather: implications for conservation planning. J Appl Ecol 43:313–324. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01148.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Plattner M, Birrer S, Weber D (2004) Data quality in monitoring plant species richness in Switzerland. Community Ecol 5(9):135–143. doi: 10.1556/ComEc.5.2004.1.13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Preston CD, Pearman DA, Dines TD (2002) New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Quayle JF, Ramsay LR (2005) Conservation status as a biodiversity trend indicator: recommendations from a decade of listing species at risk in British Columbia. Conserv Biol 19:1306–1311. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00083.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ramsay MM, Stewart J (1998) Re-establishment of the lady`s slipper orchid (Cypripedium calceolus L.) in Britain. Bot J Linn Soc 126:173–181Google Scholar
  49. Riba M, Picó FX, Mayol M (2002) Effects of regional climate and small-scale habitat quality on performance in the relict species Ramonda myconi. J Veg Sci 13:259–268. doi: 10.1658/1100-9233(2002)013[0259:EORCAS]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rich TCG, Woodruff ER (1996) Changes in the vascular plant floras of England and Scotland between 1930–1960 and 1987–1988: the BSBI monitoring scheme. Biol Conserv 75:217–229. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(95)00077-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rose RJ, Clarke RT, Chapman CB (1998) Individual variation and the effects of weather, age and flowering history on survival and flowering of the long-lived perennial Gentiana pneumonanthe. Ecography 21:317–326. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.1998.tb00569.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ryttari T (1997) Monitoring of threatened vascular plants in Finland: development of methodology. In: Kanerva T, Kemppainen E (eds) Conservation, monitoring and management of threatened vascular plants and their habitats. VantaaGoogle Scholar
  53. Ryttäri T, Kukk Ü, Kull T, Jäkäläniemi A, Reitalu M (eds) (2003) Monitoring of threatened vascular plants in Estonia and Finland––methods and experiences. The Finnish Environment 659, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  54. Sala OE, van Vuuren DP, Pereira P, Lodge D, Alder J, Cumming G et al (2006) Biodiversity across scenarios. In: Carpenter S, Pingali P (eds) Ecosystems and human well-being: scenarios. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  55. Sammul M, Kull T, Lanno K, Otsus M, Mägi M, Kana S (2008) Habitat preferences and distribution characteristics are indicative of species long-term persistence in the Estonian flora. Biodivers Conserv (this volume) (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  56. Southwood TRE, Henderson PA, Woiwod IP (2003) Stability and change over 67 years - the community of Heteroptera as caught in a light-trap at Rothamsted, UK. Eur J Entomol 100:557–561Google Scholar
  57. Svensson BM, Carlsson BÅ, Karlsson PS, Nordell KO (1993) Comparative long-term demography of three species of Pinguicula. J Ecol 81:635–645. doi: 10.2307/2261662 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Waite S, Farrell L (1998) Population biology of the rare military orchid (Orchis militaris L.) at an established site in Suffolk, England. Bot J Linn Soc 126:109–121Google Scholar
  59. Watkinson AR (1990) The population dynamics of Vulpia fasciculata: a nine-year study. J Ecol 78:196–209. doi: 10.2307/2261045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weaver JC (1995) Indicator species and scale of observation. Conserv Biol 9:939–942. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.09040939.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wells TCE, Rothery P, Cox R, Bamford S (1998) Flowering dynamics of Orchis morio L. and Herminium monorchis (L.) R.Br. at two sites in eastern England. Bot J Linn Soc 126:39–48Google Scholar
  62. Wheeler BD, Lambley PW, Geeson J (1998) Liparis loeselii (L.) Rich. in eastern England: constraints on distribution and population development. Bot J Linn Soc 126:141–158Google Scholar
  63. Willems JH, Melser C (1998) Population dynamics and life-history of Coeloglossum viride (L.) Hartm: an endangered orchid species in The Netherlands. Bot J Linn Soc 126:83–93Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tiiu Kull
    • 1
  • Marek Sammul
    • 1
  • Kalevi Kull
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kaire Lanno
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kadri Tali
    • 1
  • Bernd Gruber
    • 3
  • Dirk Schmeller
    • 3
    • 4
  • Klaus Henle
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Botany, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental SciencesEstonian University of Life SciencesTartuEstonia
  2. 2.Institute of Philosophy and SemioticsUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia
  3. 3.Department of Conservation BiologyUFZ—Helmholtz Centre for Environmental ResearchLeipzigGermany
  4. 4.Station d’Ecologie Expérimentale du CNRSSaint GironsFrance

Personalised recommendations