Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 569–585 | Cite as

Application of the Red List Index as an indicator of habitat change

  • Aino Juslén
  • Juha Pykälä
  • Saija Kuusela
  • Lauri Kaila
  • Jaakko Kullberg
  • Jaakko Mattila
  • Jyrki Muona
  • Sanna Saari
  • Pedro Cardoso
Original Paper

Abstract

For the first time ever, the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List Index for habitat types was calculated for an entire country, Finland. The RLIs were based on species threat assessments from 2000 and 2010 and included habitat definitions for all 10,131 species of 12 organism groups. The RLIs were bootstrapped to track statistically significant changes. The RLI changes of species grouped by habitats were negative for all habitat types except for forests and rural biotopes which showed a stable trend. Trends of beetles and true bugs were positive in rural and forest habitats. Other 16 observed trends of species group and habitat combinations were negative. Several trends observed were in accordance with studies focusing on particular taxa and habitats, and drivers for their change. This study demonstrates the usefulness of the RLI as a tool for observing habitat change based on species threat assessment data.

Keywords

Biodiversity indicator Biodiversity loss Habitat Finland RLI Threatened species 

Supplementary material

10531_2016_1075_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (452 kb)
Supplementary material Appendix 1 The species included in the study, their main habitats and the IUCN threat classification in 2000 (backcasted) and 2010
10531_2016_1075_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (231 kb)
Supplementary material Appendix 2 RLI values for all combinations of taxonomic groups and habitat types (Appendix) are available online. The authors are solely responsible for the content and functionality of these materials. Queries (other than absence of the material) should be directed to the corresponding author

References

  1. Albrecht A, Mattila K, Rinne V, Rintala T, Söderman G (2010) Hemiptera. In: Rassi P, Hyvärinen E, Juslén A, Mannerkoski I (eds) The 2010 red list of Finnish species. Ympäristöministeriö and Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki, pp 397–416Google Scholar
  2. Baillie JEM, Collen B, Amin R, Akçakaya HR, Butchart SHM, Brummitt NA, Meagher TR, Ram M, Hilton-Taylor C, Mace GM (2008) Toward monitoring global biodiversity. Conserv Lett 1:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brommer J, Lehikoinen A, Valkama J (2012) The breeding ranges of central European and Arctic bird species move poleward. PloS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043648 Google Scholar
  4. Brummitt N, Bachman SP, Aletrari E, Chadburn H, Griffiths-Lee J, Lutz M, Moat J, Rivers MC, Syfert MM, Nic Lughadha EM (2015) The sampled red list index for plants, phase II: ground-truthing specimen-based conservation assessments. Philos T Roy Soc B. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0015 Google Scholar
  5. Bubb PJ, Butchart SHM, Collen B, Dublin H, Kapos V, Pollock C, Stuart SN, Vié JC (2009) IUCN Red List index—guidance for national and regional use. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  6. Butchart SHM, Stattersfield AJ, Bennun LA, Shutes SM, Akçakaya HR, Baillie JEM, Stuart SN, Hilton-Taylor C, Mace GM (2004) easuring global trends in the status of biodiversity: Red List Indices for birds. PloS Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020383 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Butchart SHM, Akçakaya HR, Chanson J, Baillie JEM, Collen B, Quader S, Turner WR, Amin R, Stuart SN, Hilton-Taylor C (2007) Improvements to the Red List index. PloS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000140 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Butchart SHM et al (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cardoso P, Borges PAV, Triantis KA, Ferrández MA, Martín JL (2011) Adapting the IUCN Red List criteria for invertebrates. Biol Conserv 144:2432–2440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cardoso P, Borges PAV, Triantis KA, Ferrández MA, Martín JL (2012) The underrepresentation and misrepresentation of invertebrates in the IUCN Red List. Biol Conserv 149:147–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clausnitzer V et al (2009) Odonata enter the biodiversity crisis debate: the first global assessment of an insect group. Biol Conserv 142:1864–1869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collen B, Loh J, McRae L, Whitmee S, Amin R, Baillie JEM (2009) Monitoring change in vertebrate abundance: the Living Planet Index. Conserv Biol 23:317–327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fedrowitz K, Kuusinen M, Snäll T (2012) Metapopulation dynamics and future persistence of epiphytic cyanolichens in a European boreal forest ecosystem. J Appl Ecol 49:493–502CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Finlands national strategy on invasive alien species (2012) Ministry of agriculture and forestry in Finland. http://mmm.fi/documents/1410837/1894125/Finlands_national_strategy_on_invasive_alien_species.pdf/61137cdf-92ad-4ac8-8b6d-0feaeaedfe74
  15. Gärdenfors U (ed) (2010) Rödlistade arter i Sverige 2010—the 2010 red list of Swedish species. ArtDatabanken, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  16. Hämet-Ahti L, Suominen J, Ulvinen T, Uotila P (eds) (1998) Retkeilykasvio, 4. uudistettu painos, Luonnontieteellisen keskusmuseon kasvimuseo, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanski I (2000) Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation. Ann Zool Fenn 37:271–280Google Scholar
  18. Hanski I (2005) The shrinking world: Ecological consequences of habitat loss. International Ecology Institute, OldendorfGoogle Scholar
  19. Hautala H, Laaka-Lindberg S, Vanha-Majamaa I (2011) Effects of retention felling on epixylic species in boreal spruce forests in southern Finland. Restor Ecol 19:418–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hedenås H, Hedström P (2007) Conservation of epiphytic lichens: significance of remnant aspen (Populus tremula) trees in clear-cuts. Biol Conserv 135:388–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heino J, Virtanen R, Vuori KM, Saastamoinen J, Ohtonen A, Muotka T (2005) Spring bryophytes in forested landscapes: land use effects on bryophyte species richness, community structure and persistence. Biol Conserv 124:539–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoffman M et al (2010) The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science 330:1503–1509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoffman M, Belant JL, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Lamoreux J, Rodrigues ASL, Schipper J, Stuart SN (2011) The changing fates of the world’s mammals. Philos T Roy Soc B 366:2598–2610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hyönteistietokanta (2015) (http://hyonteiset.luomus.fi/insects/main/EntDatabase.html) [Entomological database]. Finnish Museum of Natural History, Helsinki, 27.10.2015
  25. Hyvärinen E, Kouki J, Martikainen P (2006) Fire and green-tree retention in conservation of red-listed and rare deadwood-dependent beetles in Finnish boreal forests. Conserv Biol 20:1710–1719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ikonen I (2011) Integrated coastal planning and management in southwest Finland. In: Reihmanis J (ed) Nordic-Baltic-Belarus solutions in farming for biodiversity. Latvijas Dabas Fonds, Riga, pp 34–41Google Scholar
  27. Ilmonen J, Leka J, Kokko A, Lammi A, Lampolahti J, Muotka T, Rintanen T, Sojakka P, Teppo A, Toivonen H, Urho L, Vuorio K-M, Vuoristo H (2008) Sisävedet ja rannat. In: Raunio A, Schulman A, Kontula T (eds) Assessment of threatened habitat types in Finland – part 1: results and basis for assessment (in Finnish). Suomen ympäristö 8, pp 55–74Google Scholar
  28. Ilmonen J, Mykrä H, Virtanen R, Paasivirta L, Muotka T (2012) Responses of spring macroinvertebrate and bryophyte communities to habitat modification: community composition, species richness, and red-listed species. Freshw Sci 31:657–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johansson P (2008) Consequences of disturbance on epiphytic lichens in boreal and near boreal forests. Biol Conserv 141:1933–1944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Juslén A, Hyvärinen E, Virtanen LK (2013) Application of the Red-List Index at a national level for multiple species groups. Conserv Biol 27:398–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Jutila H (2001) How does grazing by cattle modify the vegetation of coastal grasslands along the Baltic Sea? Ann Bot Fenn 38:181–200Google Scholar
  32. Kaakinen E, Kokko A, Aapala K (2012) Assessment of threatened mire habitats in Finland. In: Lindholm T, Heikkilä R (eds) Mires from pole to pole. Suomen ympäristö 38/2012, pp 181–196Google Scholar
  33. Kallio M, Aapala K (2001) Suoluonnon alueellisen rakenteen muutos ja suojelualueverkon merkitys. [Changes in the spatial structure of the mire landscape and the importance of the nature reserve network]. In: Aapala K (ed) Soidensuojelualueverkon arviointi [Abstract: Assessment of the network of protected mires in Finland]. Suomen ympäristö 490, pp 5–44Google Scholar
  34. Koch K (1989a) Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Ökologie. Band 1. Goecke & Evers, KrefeldGoogle Scholar
  35. Koch K (1989b) Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Ökologie. Band 2. Goecke & Evers, KrefeldGoogle Scholar
  36. Koch K (1992) Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Ökologie. Band 3. Goecke & Evers, KrefeldGoogle Scholar
  37. Kontula T, Raunio A (2009) New method and criteria for national assessments of threatened habitat types. Biodivers Conserv 18:3861–3876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kouki J, Arnold K, Martikainen P (2004) Long-term persistence of aspen—a key host for many threatened species—is endangered in old-growth conservation areas in Finland. J Nat Conserv 12:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laaksonen T, Lehikoinen A (2013) Population trends in boreal birds: continuing declines in agricultural, northern, and long-distance migrant species. Biol Conserv 168:99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lanta V, Hyvönen T, Norrdahl K (2013) Non-native and native shrubs have differing impacts on species diversity and composition of associated plant communities. Plant Ecol 214:1517–1528Google Scholar
  41. Lewis OT, Senior MJM (2011) Assessing conservation status and trends for the world’s butterflies: the Sampled Red List Index approach. J Insect Conserv 15:121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Loh J, Green RE, Ricketts T, Lamoreux JF, Jenkins M et al (2005) The Living Planet Index: using species population time series to track trends in biodiversity. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 360:289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lopez L (2011) Estado de las Aves del Paraguay. Guyra Paraguay, BirdLife International, AsunciónGoogle Scholar
  44. Mace GM, Collar NJ, Gaston KJ, Hilton-Taylor C, Akçakaya HR, Leader-Williams N, Milner-Gulland EJ, Stuart SN (2008) Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species. Conserv Biol 22:1424–1442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Martikainen P (2001) Conservation of threatened saproxylic beetles: significance of retained aspen Populus tremula on clearcut areas. Ecol Bull 49:205–218Google Scholar
  46. Moreno Saiz JC, Domínguez Lozano F, Marrero Gómez M, Bañares Baudet Á (2015) Application of the Red List Index for conservation assessment of Spanish vascular plants. Conserv Biol 29:910–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Olofsson J, Oksanen L (2005) Effects of reindeer density on vascular plant diversity on North Scandinavian mountains. Rangifer 25:5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Penttilä R, Siitonen J, Kuusinen M (2004) Polypore diversity in a managed and old-growth boreal Picea abies forests in southern Finland. Biol Conserv 117:271–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pitkänen H, Peuraniemi M, Westerbom M, Kilpi M, von Numers M (2013) Long-term changes in distribution and frequency of aquatic vascular plants and charophytes in an estuary in the Baltic Sea. Ann Bot Fennici 50(Suppl A):1–54Google Scholar
  50. Pöyry J, Luoto M, Heikkinen RK, Kuussaari M, Saarinen K (2009) Species traits explain recent range shifts of Finnish butterflies. Glob Change Biol 15:732–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pöysä H, Rintala J, Lehikoinen A, Väisänen RA (2012) The importance of hunting pressure, habitat preference and life history for populations trends of breeding waterbirds in Finland. Eur J Wildlife Res 59:245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pykälä J (2000) Mitigating human effects on European biodiversity through traditional animal husbandry. Conserv Biol 14:705–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pykälä J (2004) Effects of new forestry practices on rare epiphytic macrolichens. Conserv Biol 18:831–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. R Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  55. Raatikainen KM, Heikkinen RK, Pykälä J (2007) Impacts of local and regional factors on vegetation of boreal semi-natural grasslands. Plant Ecol 189:155–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rassi P, Alanen A, Kanerva T, Mannerkoski I (eds) (2001) Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus 2000. Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  57. Rassi P, Hyvärinen E, Juslén A, Mannerkoski I (eds) (2010) Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus—Punainen kirja 2010. The 2010 red list of Finnish species. Ympäristöministeriö ja Suomen ympäristökeskus, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  58. Raunio A, Schulman A, Kontula T (2008) Assessment of threatened habitat types in Finland—part 1: results and basis for assessment (in Finnish). Suomen ympäristö 8:1–264Google Scholar
  59. Reinikainen A, Mäkipää R, Vanha-Majamaa I, Hotanen JP (eds) (2000) Kasvit muuttuvassa metsäluonnossa. Metsäntutkimuslaitos & Kustannusosakeyhtiö Tammi, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  60. Rodrigues ASL, Pilgrim JD, Lamoreux JF, Hoffmann M, Brooks TM (2006) The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21:71–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Rodríguez JP et al (2011) Establishing IUCN Red List criteria for threatened ecosystems. Conserv Biol 25:21–29CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Rondinini C, Battistoni A, Teofili C (2014) Lo stato della Biodiversità in Italia: l’applicazione dell’approccio Sampled Red List e Red List IndexGoogle Scholar
  63. Szabo JK, Butchart SHM, Possingham HP, Garnett ST (2012) Adapting global biodiversity indicators to the national scale: a red list index for Australian birds. Biol Conserv 148:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. The Finnish Expert Group on Coleoptera (2010) The Finnish Expert Group on Coleoptera 2010. Atlas of the Beetles of Finland. http://koivu.luomus.fi/elaintiede/kovakuoriaiset/catlas1.htm
  65. The Millenium Development Goals Report 2015. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  66. Tikkanen OP, Martikainen P, Hyvärinen E, Junninen K, Kouki J (2006) Red-listed boreal forest species of Finland: associations with forest structure, tree species, and decaying wood. Ann Zool Fenn 43:373–383Google Scholar
  67. Tittensor DP et al (2014) A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346:241–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Toivanen T, Kotiaho JS (2007) Mimicking natural disturbances of boreal forests: the effects of controlled burning and creating dead wood on beetle diversity. Biodivers Conserv 16:3193–3211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Virkkala R, Rajasärkkä A (2011) Climate change affects populations of northern birds in boreal protected areas. Biol Lett 7:395–398CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. Virkkala R, Rajasärkkä A (2012) Preserving species populations in the boreal zone in a changing climate: contrasting trends of bird species groups in a protected area network. Nat Conserv 3:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Virkkala R, Korhonen KT, Haapanen R, Aapala K (2000) Protected forests and mires in forest and mire vegetation zones in Finland based on the 8th National Forest Inventory (In Finnish with an English summary). Finn Environ 395:1–49Google Scholar
  72. Virkkala R, Heikkinen RK, Leikola N, Luoto M (2008) Projected large-scale range reductions of northern-boreal land bird species due to climate change. Biol Cons 141:1343–1353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Visconti P et al (2015) Projecting global biodiversity indicators under future development scenarios. Conserv Lett. doi: 10.1111/conl.12159 Google Scholar
  74. Woinarski JCZ, Burbidgec AA, Harrison PL (2015) Ongoing unraveling of a continental fauna: decline and extinction of Australian mammals since European settlement. PNAS 112:4531–4540CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. Young RP, Hudson MA, Terry AMR, Jones CG, Lewis RE, Tatayah V, Zuël N, Butchart SHM (2014) Accounting for conservation: using the IUCN Red List Index to evaluate the impact of a conservation organization. Biol Conserv 180:84–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aino Juslén
    • 1
  • Juha Pykälä
    • 2
  • Saija Kuusela
    • 2
  • Lauri Kaila
    • 1
  • Jaakko Kullberg
    • 1
  • Jaakko Mattila
    • 1
  • Jyrki Muona
    • 1
  • Sanna Saari
    • 1
  • Pedro Cardoso
    • 1
  1. 1.Finnish Museum of Natural HistoryUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Finnish Environment InstituteHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations