Advertisement

Integrating national Red Lists for prioritising conservation actions for European butterflies

  • Dirk MaesEmail author
  • Rudi Verovnik
  • Martin Wiemers
  • Dimitri Brosens
  • Stoyan Beshkov
  • Simona Bonelli
  • Jaroslaw Buszko
  • Lisette Cantú-Salazar
  • Louis-Francis Cassar
  • Sue Collins
  • Vlad Dincă
  • Milan Djuric
  • Goran Dušej
  • Hallvard Elven
  • Filip Franeta
  • Patricia Garcia-Pereira
  • Yurii Geryak
  • Philippe Goffart
  • Ádám Gór
  • Ulrich Hiermann
  • Helmut Höttinger
  • Peter Huemer
  • Predrag Jakšić
  • Eddie John
  • Henrik Kalivoda
  • Vassiliki Kati
  • Paul Kirkland
  • Benjamin Komac
  • Ádám Kőrösi
  • Anatolij Kulak
  • Mikko Kuussaari
  • Lionel L’Hoste
  • Suvad Lelo
  • Xavier Mestdagh
  • Nikola Micevski
  • Iva Mihoci
  • Sergiu Mihut
  • Yeray Monasterio-León
  • Dmitry V. Morgun
  • Miguel L. Munguira
  • Tomás Murray
  • Per Stadel Nielsen
  • Erling Ólafsson
  • Erki Õunap
  • Lazaros N. Pamperis
  • Alois Pavlíčko
  • Lars B. Pettersson
  • Serhiy Popov
  • Miloš Popović
  • Juha Pöyry
  • Mike Prentice
  • Lien Reyserhove
  • Nils Ryrholm
  • Martina Šašić
  • Nikolay Savenkov
  • Josef Settele
  • Marcin Sielezniew
  • Sergey Sinev
  • Constanti Stefanescu
  • Giedrius Švitra
  • Toomas Tammaru
  • Anu Tiitsaar
  • Elli Tzirkalli
  • Olga Tzortzakaki
  • Chris A. M. van Swaay
  • Arne Lykke Viborg
  • Irma Wynhoff
  • Konstantina Zografou
  • Martin S. Warren
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

Red Lists are very valuable tools in nature conservation at global, continental and (sub-) national scales. In an attempt to prioritise conservation actions for European butterflies, we compiled a database with species lists and Red Lists of all European countries, including the Macaronesian archipelagos (Azores, Madeira and Canary Islands). In total, we compiled national species lists for 42 countries and national Red Lists for 34 of these. The most species-rich countries in Europe are Italy, Russia and France with more than 250 species each. Endemic species are mainly found on the Macaronesian archipelagos and on the Mediterranean islands. By attributing numerical values proportionate to the threat statuses in the different national Red List categories, we calculated a mean Red List value for every country (cRLV) and a weighted Red List value for every species (wsRLV) using the square root of the country’s area as a weighting factor. Countries with the highest cRLV were industrialised (NW) European countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Denmark, whereas large Mediterranean countries such as Spain and Italy had the lowest cRLV. Species for which a Red List assessment was available in at least two European countries and with a relatively high wsRLV (≥ 50) are Colias myrmidone, Pseudochazara orestes, Tomares nogelii, Colias chrysotheme and Coenonympha oedippus. We compared these wsRLVs with the species statuses on the European Red List to identify possible mismatches. We discuss how this complementary method can help to prioritise butterfly conservation on the continental and/or the (sub-)national scale.

Keywords

Policy Management Threatened species Habitats directive IUCN Biogeography Lepidoptera 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all volunteers in the different European countries for their help in the compilation of national species check lists. Hans Van Calster was very helpful with statistical analyses. Marc Pollet and two reviewers gave very useful comments on a previous version of the manuscript. Peter Desmet is kindly thanked for his help with the open data publishing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aarvik L et al (2017) Nordic-Baltic checklist of Lepidoptera. Nor J Entomol Suppl 3:1–236. http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-66719
  2. Ahrné K et al (2015) Rödlistade fjärilar, Redlisted Butterflies and Moths (Lepidoptera) i “Rödlistade arter i Sverige 2015”. In: Westling A (ed) Rödlistade arter i Sverige 2015. ArtDatabanken, Uppsala, pp 98–112Google Scholar
  3. Aistleitner E, Aistleitner U (1996) Die Tagfalter des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea und Hesperioidea) vol 16. Naturkundliche Forschung im Fürstentum Liechtenstein. Regierung des Fürstentums Liechtenstein, VaduzGoogle Scholar
  4. Anonymous (2002) Rules on the inclusion of endangered plant and animal species on the Red List, Annex 16. In: Official gazette of RS, Ur. l. Rep. Slo, vol No. 82/02. Regulations 82: 8893–8975Google Scholar
  5. Anonymous (2013) Red List of wild flora and fauna, AlbaniaGoogle Scholar
  6. Báez M, Oromí P (2010) Lepidoptera. In: Arechavaleta M, Rodríguez S, Zurita N, García A (eds) Lista de especies silvestres de Canarias. Hongos, plantas y animales terrestres. 2009. Gobierno de Canarias, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, pp 302–318Google Scholar
  7. Balletto E, Cassulo LA, Bonelli S (2014) An annotated checklist of the Italian butterflies and skippers (Papilionoidea, Hesperiioidea). Zootaxa 3853:1–114.  https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3853.1.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Beneš J, Konvička M (2017) Hesperioidea a Papilionoidea (denní motýli). In: Hejda R, Farkač J, Chobot K (eds) Červený seznam ohrožených druhů České republiky. Bezobratlí [Red List of threatened species of the Czech Republic. Invertebrates], vol 36. Příroda, Praha, pp 177–234Google Scholar
  9. Bilz M, Kell SP, Maxted N, Lansdown RV (2011) European Red List of vascular plants. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  10. Bland LM, Keith DA, Miller RM, Murray NJ, Rodríguez JP (2016) Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria, Version 1.0. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.  https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.RLE.1.en
  11. Bonelli S et al (2018) The first red list of Italian butterflies. Insect Conserv Diver 11:506–5821.  https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bos F, Bosveld M, Groenendijk D, van Swaay CAM, Wynhoff I De Vlinderstichting A (2006) De dagvlinders van Nederland. Verspreiding en bescherming (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea, Papilionoidea), vol 7. Nederlandse Fauna. Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum Naturalis; KNNV Uitgeverij; European Invertebrate Survey, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  13. Brito D et al (2010) How similar are national red lists and the IUCN Red List?. Biol Conserv 143:1154–1158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buszko J, Masłowski J (2015) Motyle dzienne Polski. Koliber, Nowy Sącz, PolandGoogle Scholar
  15. Buszko J, Nowacki J (2002) Lepidoptera—motyle. In: Głowaciński Z (ed) Red List of threatened animals in Poland. Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Nature Conservation, Cracow, pp 80–87Google Scholar
  16. Butchart SHM et al (2005) Using Red List indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond. Philos Trans Royal Soc B-Biol Sci 360:255–268.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cardoso P (2012) Habitats directive species lists: urgent need of revision. Insect Conserv Diver 5:169–174.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2011.00140.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cardoso P, Borges PAV, Triantis KA, Ferrández MA, Martín JL (2011) Adapting the IUCN Red List criteria for invertebrates. Biol Conserv 144:2432–2440.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.06.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cardoso P, Borges PAV, Triantis KA, Ferrández MA, Martín JL (2012) The underrepresentation and misinterpretation of invertebrates in the IUCN Red List. Biol Conserv 149:147–148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.02.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cassar LF (2018) A revision of the butterfly fauna (Lepidoptera-Rhopalocera) of the Maltese Islands. Il Nat Sicil 42:3–19Google Scholar
  21. Cassel-Lundhagen A, Sjögren-Gulve P, Berglind S (2008) Effects of patch characteristics and isolation on relative abundance of the scarce heath butterfly Coenonympha hero (Nymphalidae). J Insect Conserv 12:477–482.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-007-9083-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Čelik T, Vres B, Seliskar A (2009) Determinants of within-patch microdistribution and movements of endangered butterfly Coenonympha oedippus (Fabricius, 1787) (Nymphalidae: Satyrinae). Hacquetia 8:115–128.  https://doi.org/10.2478/v10028-009-0007-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Čelik T et al (2015) Winter-green host-plants, litter quantity and vegetation structure are key determinants of habitat quality for Coenonympha oedippus in Europe. J Insect Conserv 19:359–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Collen B, Böhm M (2012) The growing availability of invertebrate extinction risk assessments—a response to Cardoso et al. (October 2012): adapting the IUCN Red List criteria to invertebrates. Biol Conserv 149:145–146.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-014-9736-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Coutsis JG, Bozano GC (2017) The true identity of butterflies originally recorded as Hipparchia (Porahipparchia) pellucida (Stauder, L923) from the Eastern Aegean Greek islands of Lézvos and lkaría (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae, Satyrinae). Phegea 45:106–109Google Scholar
  26. Cuvelier S, Parmentier L, Paparisto A, Couckuyt J (2018) Butterflies of Albania—Fluturat e Shqipërisë. New surveys, new species and a new checklist (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). Phegea 46:48–69Google Scholar
  27. Danilov-Danilian VI (2001) Red data book of the Russian Federation: animals. AST & Astrel Publ, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  28. Dantart J, Jubany J (2012) Les Papallones Diürnes d’Andorra [the butterflies of Andorra]. Centre d’Estudis de la Neu i de la Muntanya d’Andorra, AndorraGoogle Scholar
  29. de Iongh HH, Bal D (2007) Harmonization of Red Lists in Europe: some lessons learned in the Netherlands when applying the new IUCN Red List categories and criteria version 3.1. Endang Species Res 3:53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Devictor V et al (2012) Differences in the climatic debt of birds and butterflies at a continental scale. Nat Clim Change 2:121–124.  https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dise NB et al (2011) Nitrogen as a threat to European terrestrial biodiversity. In: Sutton MA et al (eds) The European nitrogen assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 463–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dolek M, Freese A, Geyer A, Stetter H (2005) The decline of Colias myrmidone at the western edge of its range and notes on its habitat requirements. Biologia 60:607–610Google Scholar
  33. Đug S (2013) Knjiga 3—Crvena Lista Faune Federacije Bosne I Hercegovine. EU Greenway, SarajevoGoogle Scholar
  34. Eaton MA et al (2005) Regional IUCN red listing: the process as applied to birds in the United Kingdom. Conserv Biol 19:1557–1570.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00213.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fichefet V, Barbier Y, Baugnée JY, Dufrêne M, Goffart P, Maes D, Van Dyck H (2008) Papillons de jour de Wallonie (1985–2007). Faune-Flore-Habitats, vol n° 4. Groupe de Travail Lépidoptères Lycaena, Département de l’Etude du Milieu Naturel et Agricole (SPW/DGARNE), GemblouxGoogle Scholar
  36. Fitzpatrick U, Murray TE, Paxton RJ, Brown MJF (2007) Building on IUCN regional red lists to produce lists of species of conservation priority: a model with Irish bees. Conserv Biol 21:1324–1332.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00782.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Fox R, Warren MS, Brereton TM, Roy DB, Robinson A (2011) A new Red List of British butterflies. Insect Conserv Diver 4:159–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Franeta F (2018) Checklist of the butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of Montenegro. Zootaxa 4392:128–148.  https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4392.1.6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. García-Barros E, Munguira ML, Stefanescu C, Vives Moreno A (2013) Lepidoptera Papilionoidea. In: Ramos Sánchez MA (ed) Fauna Iberica, vol 37. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC, MadridGoogle Scholar
  40. Garcia-Pereira P, García-Barros E, Munguira ML (2003) Patrones de distribución de las mariposas diurnas en Portugal (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea, Hesperiidae, Zygaenidae). Graellsia 59:259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gärdenfors U, Hilton-Taylor C, Mace GM, Rodríguez JP (2001) The application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels. Conserv Biol 15:1206–1212.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2001.00112.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gergely P, Gór Á, Hudák T, Ilonczai Z, Szombathelyi E (2017) Nappali lepkéink — Határozó terepre és természetfotókhoz / A Field Guide to the Butterflies of Hungary. Kitaibel Kiadó, BiatorbágyGoogle Scholar
  43. Habel JC, Schmitt T, Meyer M, Finger A, Rodder D, Assmann T, Zachos FE (2010) Biogeography meets conservation: the genetic structure of the endangered lycaenid butterfly Lycaena helle (Denis & Schiffermuller, 1775). Biol J Linn Soc 101:155–168.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01471.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Henriksen S, Hilmo O (2015) Kunnskapsgrunnlaget. Norsk rødliste for arter 2015. Artsdatabanken. http://www.artsdatabanken.no/Rodliste/Kunnskapsgrunnlaget. Accessed 2017
  45. Hill JK, Thomas CD, Fox R, Telfer MG, Willis SG, Asher J, Huntley B (2002) Responses of butterflies to twentieth century climate warming: implications for future ranges. Proc Royal Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 269:2163–2171.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hochkirch A et al (2013) Europe needs a new vision for a Natura 2020 network. Conserv Lett 6:462–467.  https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hochkirch A et al (2016) European Red List of grasshoppers, crickets and bush-crickets. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.  https://doi.org/10.2779/60944 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Höttinger H, Pennerstorfer J (2005) Rote Liste der Tagschmetterlinge Österreichs (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea & Hesperioidea). In: Zulka KP (ed) Rote Listen gefährdeter Tiere Österreichs. Checklisten, Gefährdungsanalysen, Handlungsbedarf. Teil 1: Säugetiere, Vögel, Heuschrecken, Wasserkäfer, Netzflügler, Schnabelfliegen, Tagfalter, vol 14/1. Grüne Reihe des Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft. Bundesministeriums für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft. Gesamtherausgeberin Ruth Wallner, Wien, pp 313–354Google Scholar
  49. Hristova HO, Beshkov SV (2017) Checklist of the superfamilies Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea (Insecta: Lepidoptera) of Bulgaria, with Application of the IUCN Red List criteria at national level. Acta Zool Bulgar 69:105–114Google Scholar
  50. Huemer P (2013) Die Schmetterlinge Österreichs (Lepidoptera). Systematische und faunistische Checkliste, vol 12. Studiohefte. Tiroler Landesmuseen, InnsbruckGoogle Scholar
  51. Huemer P, Wiesmair B (2017) DNA-Barcoding der Tagfalter (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea)—Unbekannte genetische Vielfalt im Zentrum Europas. In: Meighörner W (ed) Wissenschaftliches Jahrbuch der Tiroler Landesmuseen 2017. Tiroler Landes museum, Innsbruck, pp 9–33Google Scholar
  52. Iliashenko VY, Iliashenko EI (2000) Krasnaya kniga Rossii: pravovye akty [Red Data Book of Russia: legislative acts]. State committee of the Russian Federation for Environmental Protection, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  53. IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List categories and criteria: version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. IUCN (2003) Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels: Version 3.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  55. IUCN (2012) Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional and national levels: Version 4.0. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. IUCN (2013) Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List categories and criteria. Version 10. Prepared by the standards and petitions subcommittee. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  57. Jakšić P (2003) Red data book of Serbian butterflies. Lepidoptera : Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea. Institute for Nature Conservation of Serbia, BelgradeGoogle Scholar
  58. John E, Skule B (2016) Chap. 15: Lepidoptera. In: Sparrow DJ, John E (eds) An introduction to the wildlife of Cyprus. Terra Cypria, Cyprus, pp 268–385Google Scholar
  59. Juslén A, Hyvärinen E, Virtanen LK (2013) Application of the Red-List index at a national level for multiple species groups. Conserv Biol 27:398–406.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Juslén A et al (2016) Application of the Red List index as an indicator of habitat change. Biodivers Conserv 25:569–585.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1075-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kaitila JP, Nupponen K, Kullberg J, Laasonen E (2010) Perhoset—butterflies and moths—Lepidoptera. In: Rassi P, Hyvärinen E, Juslén A, Mannerkoski I (eds) The 2010 Red List of finnish species. Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki, pp 430–470Google Scholar
  62. Keller V, Bollmann K (2004) From red lists to species of conservation concern. Conserv Biol 18:1636–1644.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00464.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kolev Z (2017) Rubrapterus bavius (Eversmann, 1832), a butterfly genus and species new to Bulgaria (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). ZooNotes 114:1–4Google Scholar
  64. Kolev Z, Shtinkov N (2016) The Pygmy Skipper Gegenes pumilio: a new species to Bulgaria, and a confirmation of its occurrence in the eastern Balkan Peninsula (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Phegea 44(1):16–22Google Scholar
  65. Kolev Z, Tsvetanov T (2018) Clarifications and new data on the distribution of Cacyreus marshalli Butler, 1898 in Bulgaria (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). ZooNotes 122:1–4Google Scholar
  66. Konvička M, Fric Z, Beneš J (2006) Butterfly extinctions in European states: do socioeconomic conditions matter more than physical geography? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:82–92.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-822X.2006.00188.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Konvička M, Beneš J, Cizek O, Kopecek F, Konvička O, Vitaz L (2008) How too much care kills species: grassland reserves, agri-environmental schemes and extinction of Colias myrmidone (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) from its former stronghold. J Insect Conserv 12:519–525.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-007-9092-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Korb SK, Bolshakov LV (2016) A systematic catalogue of butterflies of the former Soviet Union (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lituania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan) with special account to their type specimens (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea, Papilionoidea). Zootaxa 4160:1–324.  https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4160.1.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Koren T, Kulijer D (2016) New or interesting records of three butterfly (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea & Hesperioidea) species from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. Nat Croat 25:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Krpač VT, Darcemont C (2011) Red List of butterflies (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea & Papilionoidea) for Republic of Macedonia. Revue d’écologie-la Terre et la Vie 67:117–122Google Scholar
  71. Kuchlein JH, de Vos R (1999) Geannoteerde naamlijst van de Nederlandse vlinders—annotated checklist of the Dutch Lepidoptera. Backhuys, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  72. Kulak AV, Yakovlev RV (2018) Sozological analysis of the butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea) of upper bogs in Belarus. Ukr J Ecol 8:174–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Kuussaari M, Heikkinen RK, Heliölä J, Luoto M, Mayer M, Rytteri S, von Bagh P (2015) Successful translocation of the threatened clouded apollo butterfly (Parnassius mnemosyne) and metapopulation establishment in southern Finland. Biol Conserv 190:51–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.05.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lafranchis T, Jutzeler D, Guillosson J-Y, Kan P, Kan B (2015) La vie des papillons. Ecologie, Biologie et Comportement des Rhopalocères de France. Diatheo, MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  75. Langourov M, Simov N (2014) Cacyreus marshalli Butler, 1898 (Lep.: Lycaenidae), a new species for Bulgaria. Entomol Rec J Var 26:190–192Google Scholar
  76. Legakis A, Maragou P (2009) The Red Book of threatened animals of Greece ([in Greek]. Hellenic Zoological Society, AthensGoogle Scholar
  77. Lelo S (2016) Četvrta revizija popisa dnevnih leptira (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea i Papilionoidea) Bosne i Hercegovine. Broj Stranica 12:49–59Google Scholar
  78. Lewis OT, Senior MJM (2011) Assessing conservation status and trends for the world’s butterflies: the sampled Red List index approach. J Insect Conserv 15:121–128.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-010-9329-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ludwig G, Haupt H, Gruttke H, Binot-Hafke M (2006) Methodische Anleitung zur Erstellung Roter Listen gefährdeter Tiere, Pflanzen und Pilze, vol 191. BfN-Skripten. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn-Bad GodesbergGoogle Scholar
  80. Ludwig G, Haupt H, Gruttke H, Binot-Hafke M (2009) Methodik der gefährdungsanalyse für rote listen. Nat Biol Vielfalt 70:23–71Google Scholar
  81. Maes D, Van Dyck H (2001) Butterfly diversity loss in Flanders (north Belgium): Europe’s worst case scenario? Biol Conserv 99:263–276.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00182-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Maes D, Vanreusel W, Jacobs I, Berwaerts K, Van Dyck H (2012) Applying IUCN Red List criteria at a small regional level: a test case with butterflies in Flanders (north Belgium). Biol Conserv 145:258–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Maes D et al (2013) Not the right time to amend the annexes of the European habitats directive. Conserv Lett 6:468–469.  https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Maes D, Isaac NB, Harrower C, Collen B, van Strien A, Roy DB (2015) The use of opportunistic data for IUCN Red List assessments. Biol J Linn Soc 115:690–706.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12530 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Marabuto E, Maravalhas ES (2008) Contribuição para o conhecimento dos lepidopteros do sitio Natura-2000 “Montesinho-Nogueira”, Trás-Os-Montes, Portugal (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Bol Soc Entomol Aragon 43:145–151Google Scholar
  86. Mestdagh X, L’Hoste L, Cantú-Salazar L (in press) Butterflies of Luxembourg—distribution, conservation and Red List. Ferrantia. Musée National d’histoire Naturelle, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  87. Micevski N, Micevski B (2017) Cacyreus marshalli. (Butler, 1898) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) confirmed for the Republic of Macedonia. Bull Nat Hist Mus-Plovdiv 2:17–20Google Scholar
  88. Micevski N, Franeta F, Gascoigne-Pees M, Micevski B, Verovnik R (2015) Butterfly surveys in Albania during 2014 including the discovery of two new species for the country. Ecol Monten 3:1–12. https://www.biotaxa.org/em/article/view/13261
  89. Miller RM et al (2007) National threatened species listing based on IUCN criteria and regional guidelines: current status and future perspectives. Conserv Biol 21:684–696.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00656.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Mølgaard MS (2017) New distributional data regarding the butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of the Republic of Moldova. Phegea 45:65–74Google Scholar
  91. Monasterio León Y et al (2017) Propuesta actualizada de nombres comunes en castellano para las mariposas de la península ibérica y Baleares (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). Bol de la Soc Entomol Aragon 60:463–483Google Scholar
  92. Munguira ML, Barea-Azcon JM, Castro-Cobo S, Garcia-Barros E, Miteva S, Olivares J, Romo H (2017) Ecology and recovery plans for the four Spanish endangered endemic butterfly species. J Insect Conserv 21:423–437.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-016-9949-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Nabielec J, Nowicki P (2015) Drivers of local densities of endangered Lycaena helle butterflies in a fragmented landscape. Popul Ecol 57:649–656.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-015-0507-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Neeson TM et al (2018) Conserving rare species can have high opportunity costs for common species. Glob Change Biol 24:3862–3872.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Nekrutenko Y, Tshikolovets V (2005) The Butterflies of Ukraine. Tshikolovets Publications, TotnesGoogle Scholar
  96. Newland D, Still R, Swash A, Tomlinson D (2015) Britain’s butterflies. A field guide to the butterflies of Britain and Ireland, 3rd edn. Princeton University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  97. Nieto A et al (2014) European Red List of bees. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.  https://doi.org/10.2779/77003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Numa C et al (2016) The status and distribution of Mediterrranean butterflies. IUCN, Malaga. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/46183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Õunap E, Tartes U (2014) Eesti päevaliblikad [butterflies of Estonia]. Roheline Eesti. Varrak, TallinnGoogle Scholar
  100. Pamperis LN (2009) The Butterflies of Greece, 2nd edn. PAMPERIS Editions, AthensGoogle Scholar
  101. Paradiso F et al (2019) From Africa to the Alps: risk assessment on an invasion by Cacyreus marshalli (Butler, 1898). J Insect Conserv.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-018-00124-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Pastorális G, Kalivoda H, Panigaj L (2013) Zoznam motýľov (Lepidoptera) zistených na Slovensku [Checklist of Lepidoptera recorded in Slovakia]. Folia Faun Slovaca 18:101–232Google Scholar
  103. Popović M, Verovnik R (2018) Revised checklist of the butterflies of Serbia (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). Zootaxa 4438:501–527.  https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4438.3.5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Popović M, Šašić M, Verovnik R (2017) Using limited data to create a preliminary Red List of Serbian butterflies. Paper presented at the 20th European Congress of Lepidopterology, Podgora-CroatiaGoogle Scholar
  105. Possingham HP, Andelman SJ, Burgman MA, Medelln RA, Master LL, Keith DA (2002) Limits to the use of threatened species lists. Trends Ecol Evol 17:503–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Pöyry J et al (2017) The effects of soil eutrophication propagate to higher trophic levels. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 26:18–30.  https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12521 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Rákosy L (2013) The butterflies of Romania. Knowledge, protection, conservation [in Romanian]. Editura Mega, Cluj-NapocaGoogle Scholar
  108. Rašomavičius V (2007) Red data book of the Republic of Lithuania. Ministry of environment of the Republic of Lithuania. Institute of Botany, Institute of Ecology of Vilnius University, KaunasGoogle Scholar
  109. Regan EC et al (2010) Ireland Red List no. 4—butterflies. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  110. Reinhardt R, Bolz R (2011) Rote Liste und Gesamtartenliste der Tagfalter (Rhopalocera) (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea et Hesperioidea) Deutschlands. – In: Binot-Hafke M, Balzer S, Becker N, Gruttke H, Haupt H, Hofbauer N, Ludwig G, Matzke-Hajek G, Strauch M (eds) Rote Liste gefährdeter Tiere, Pflanzen und Pilze Deutschlands. Vol. 3: Wirbellose Tiere (Part 1). Landwirtschaftsverlag, Münster. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 70:167–194Google Scholar
  111. Roberts RL, Donald PF, Green RE (2007) Using simple species lists to monitor trends in animal populations: new methods and a comparison with independent data. Anim Conserv 10:332–339.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2007.00117.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Rodrigues ASL, Pilgrim JD, Lamoreux JF, Hoffmann M, Brooks TM (2006) The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21:71–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. Saarinen K, Jantunen J (2013) Päiväperhoset matkalla pohjoiseen. Hyönteistarvike TIBIALE Oy, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  114. Sáfián S et al (2012) Butterfly Atlas Őrség-Goricko. Őrségi Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság, ŐriszentpéterGoogle Scholar
  115. Sammut PM (2000) Il-Lepidoptera. Kullana Kulturali. PIN. Il-Pieta, MaltaGoogle Scholar
  116. Šašić M, Mihoci I (2011) Annotated checklist of Croatian butterflies with vernacular names. Nat Croat 20:425–436Google Scholar
  117. Šašić M, Mihoci I, Kučinić M (2015a) Red book of butterflies in Croatia. Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection, State Institute for Nature Protection, Croatian Natural History Museum, ZagrebGoogle Scholar
  118. Šašić M et al (2015b) Contribution to the knowledge of the butterfly fauna of southern Albania. Nota Lepidopterol 38:29–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Schembri SP (1968) A review of the Lepidoptera (Papilionoidea) of the Maltese Islands vol Supplement. Lepidoptera Group of 1968, BirkirkaraGoogle Scholar
  120. Schmitt T, Louy D, Zimmermann E, Habel JC (2016) Species radiation in the Alps: multiple range shifts caused diversification in Ringlet butterflies in the European high mountains. Org Divers Evol 16:791–808.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-016-0282-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Settele J et al (2008) Climatic risk atlas of European butterflies. BioRisk 1:1–710.  https://doi.org/10.3897/biorisk.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Settele J, Shreeve TG, Konvička M, Van Dyck H (2009) Ecology of butterflies in Europe. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  123. Sielezniew M, Nowicki P (2017) Adult demography of an isolated population of the threatened butterfly Scarce Heath Coenonympha hero and its conservation implications. J Insect Conserv 21:737–742.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-017-0014-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Sielezniew M, Deoniziak K, Dziekańska I, Nowicki P (2019) Dispersal in the metapopulation of the critically endangered Danube Clouded Yellow butterfly Colias myrmidone: implications for conservation. J Insect Conserv.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-019-00126-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Sonderegger P (2005) Die Erebien der Schweiz. Verlag Peter Sonderegger, Brügg bei BielGoogle Scholar
  126. Švara V, Zakšek B, Verovnik R (2015) Contribution to the knowledge of the butterfly fauna of Montenegro (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). Acta Entomol Sloven 23:37–48Google Scholar
  127. SwissLepTeam (2010) Die Schmetterlinge (Lepidoptera) der Schweiz: Eine kommentierte, systematisch-faunistische Liste, vol 25. Fauna helvetica. CSCF & SEG, NeuchâtelGoogle Scholar
  128. Székely L (2008) The butterflies of Romania—Fluturii de zi din Romania. Brașov County History Museum, BrașovGoogle Scholar
  129. Szentirmai I, Mesterházy A, Varga I, Schubert Z, Sándor LC, Ábrahám L, Kőrösi A (2014) Habitat use and population biology of the Danube clouded yellow butterfly Colias myrmidone (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) in Romania. J Insect Conserv 18:417–425.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-014-9651-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Tatarinov AG, Gorbunov PY (2014) The structure and spatial organization of the butterfly fauna (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera) of the Ural Mountains. Entomol Rev 94:541–561.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S0013873814040083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Temple HJ, Cox NA (2009) European Red List of amphibians. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  132. Tennent WJ (2005) A check-list of the butterflies of Macaronesia (Canary Islands, Madeira, Azores). Entomol Gaz 56:133–138Google Scholar
  133. Tiitsaar A, Kaasik A, Lindman L, Stanevits T, Tammaru T (2016) Host associations of Coenonympha hero (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in northern Europe: microhabitat rather than plant species. J Insect Conserv 20:265–275.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-016-9861-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Trochet A, Schmeller DS (2013) Effectiveness of the natura 2000 network to cover threatened species. Nat Conserv 4:35–53.  https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.4.3626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Tshikolovets V (2011) Butterflies of Europe and the Mediterranean Area. Tshikolovets Publications, PardubiceGoogle Scholar
  136. Tuzov VK (1997) Guide to the butterflies of Russia and adjacent territories, Vol 1. Hesperiidae, Papilionidae, Pieridae, Satyridae. Pensoft Publishers, SofiaGoogle Scholar
  137. Tuzov VK (2000) Guide to the butterflies of Russia and adjacent territories, vol 2. Libytheidae, Danaidae, Nymphalidae, Riodinidae, Lycaenidae. Pensoft Publishers, SofiaGoogle Scholar
  138. UICN France, MNHN, OPIE, SEF (2012) La Liste rouge des espces menaces en France—Chapitre Papillons de jours de France métropolitaine. UICN France, MNHN, OPIE & SEF, ParisGoogle Scholar
  139. Valletta A (1972) The butterflies of the Maltese Islands. Progress Press, MaltaGoogle Scholar
  140. van Strien AJ, van Swaay CAM, Kéry M (2011) Metapopulation dynamics in the butterfly Hipparchia semele changed decades before occupancy declined in the Netherlands. Ecol Appl 21:2510–2520.  https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1786.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  141. van Swaay CAM (2006) Basisrapport rode lijst dagvlinders. De Vlinderstichting, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  142. van Swaay CAM (2018) Basisrapport rode lijst dagvlinders 2019 vol VS2018-002. De Vlinderstichting, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  143. van Swaay CAM et al (2010) European Red List of butterflies. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/9511
  144. van Swaay CAM et al (2011) Applying IUCN criteria to invertebrates: how red is the Red List of European butterflies? Biol Conserv 144:470–478.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.09.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. van Swaay CAM et al (2012) Dos and Don’ts for butterflies of the Habitats Directive of the European Union. Nat Conserv 1:73–153.  https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.1.2786 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. van Swaay CAM et al (2016) The European butterfly indicator for grassland species 1990–2015 vol report VS2016.019. De Vlinderstichting, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  147. Varga Z (2012) Magyarország Nagylepkéi /the Macrolepidoptera of Hungary, 2nd edn. Heterocera Press, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  148. Verdú JR, Galante E (2009) Atlas de los invertebrados amenazados de España (Especies En Peligro Crítico y En Peligro). Dirección general para la biodiversidad. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, MadridGoogle Scholar
  149. Verdú JR, Numa C, Galante E (2011) Atlas y Libro Rojo de los invertebrados amenazados de España (Especies Vulnerables). Dirección general de medio natural y política forestal. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Medio rural y Marino, MadridGoogle Scholar
  150. Verovnik R, Popović M (2013) Annotated checklist of Albanian butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea). Zookeys 323:75–89.  https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.323.5684 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Verovnik R, Rebeušek F, Jež M (2012) Atlas dnevnih metuljev (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) Slovenije, Atlas of butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) of Slovenia. Center za kartografijo favne in flore, Miklavž na Dravskem poljuGoogle Scholar
  152. Verovnik R, Micevski B, Maes D, Wynhoff I, van Swaay CAM, Warren MS (2013) Conserving Europe’s most endangered butterfly: the Macedonian Grayling (Pseudochazara cingovskii). J Insect Conserv 17:941–947.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-013-9576-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Verovnik R, Popović M, Šašić M, Cuvelier S, Maes D (2014) Wanted! Dead or alive—the tale of the Brown’s Grayling (Pseudochazara amymone). J Insect Conserv 18:675–682.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-014-9674-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Vieira V (2017) Vanessa virginiensis (Drury, 1773) in the Azores islands (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). SHILAP Revta Lepid 45:75–81Google Scholar
  155. Vieira V, Karsholt O (2010) Lepidoptera. In: Borges PAV et al (eds) A list of the terrestrial and marine biota from the Azores. Princípia, Cascais, pp 188–192Google Scholar
  156. Vishnevskaya MS, Saifidinova AF, Lukhtanov VA (2016) Karyosystematics and molecular taxonomy of the anomalous blue butterflies (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae) from the Balkan Peninsula. Comp Cytogenet 10:1–85.  https://doi.org/10.3897/CompCytogen.v10i5.10944 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  157. WallisDeVries MF, van Swaay CAM (2017) A nitrogen index to track changes in butterfly species assemblages under nitrogen deposition. Biol Conserv 212:448–453.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Wermeille E, Chittaro Y, Gonseth Y (2014) Liste rouge Papillons diurnes et Zygènes. Papilionoidea, Hesperioidea et Zygaenidae. Espèces menacées en Suisse, état 2012. In: Office fédéral de l’environnement (OFEV) du Département fédéral de l’environnement, des transports, de l’énergie et de la communication. DETEC)/Centre Suisse de Cartographie de la Faune (CSCF), Berne/NeuchâtelGoogle Scholar
  159. Wiemers M et al (2018) An updated checklist of the European butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). ZooKeys 811:9–45.  https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.811.28712 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Wind P, Pihl S (2004) The Danish Red List. The National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus UniversityGoogle Scholar
  161. Zulka KP, Eder E, Höttinger H, Weigand E (2003) Threat descriptors and extinction risk—the Austrian Red List concept. In: de Iongh HH, Bánki OS, Bergmans W, van der Werff ten Bosch MJ (eds) The harmonization of Red Lists for threatened species in Europe. Proceedings of an international Seminar 27 and 28 November 2002. The Netherlands Commission for International Nature Protection, Leiden, pp 103–110Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Species Diversity GroupResearch Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO)BrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Butterfly Conservation Europe (BCE)WageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Biology, Biotechnical FacultyUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  4. 4.Department of Community EcologyUFZ, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental ResearchHalleGermany
  5. 5.Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO)BrusselsBelgium
  6. 6.Belgian Biodiversity PlatformBrusselsBelgium
  7. 7.National Museum of Natural HistorySofiaBulgaria
  8. 8.Department of Life Sciences and Systems BiologyUniversity of TurinTurinItaly
  9. 9.Nicolaus Copernicus UniversityToruńPoland
  10. 10.Luxembourg Institute of Science and TechnologyEsch-sur-AlzetteLuxembourg
  11. 11.Institute of Earth SystemsUniversity of MaltaMsidaMalta
  12. 12.Department of Ecology and GeneticsUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  13. 13.HabiProtBelgradeSerbia
  14. 14.Swiss Butterfly ConservationRottenschwilSwitzerland
  15. 15.Natural History MuseumUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  16. 16.Institute of Field and Vegetable CropsNovi SadSerbia
  17. 17.Centre of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Change (cE3c) FCULLisbonPortugal
  18. 18.Lviv department of Ukrainian Entomological SocietyLvivUkraine
  19. 19.Département d’Etude du Milieu naturel et agricole (SPW/DEMNA/DNE)Service Public de WallonieGemblouxBelgium
  20. 20.Department of EcologyUniversity of Veterinary MedicineBudapestHungary
  21. 21.RankweilAustria
  22. 22.Department of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity ResearchUniversity of Natural Resources and Live SciencesViennaAustria
  23. 23.Hall in TirolAustria
  24. 24.Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Department of Biology and EcologyUniversity of NišNišSerbia
  25. 25.Cyprus Butterfly Study groupNicosiaCyprus
  26. 26.Institute of Landscape EcologySlovak Academy of SciencesBratislavaSlovakia
  27. 27.Department of Biological Applications & TechnologyUniversity of IoanninaIoanninaGreece
  28. 28.Butterfly ConservationWarehamUK
  29. 29.Centre d’Estudis de la Neu i la Muntanya d’Andorra - Institut d’Estudis Andorrans (CENMA - IEA)Sant Julià de LòriaAndorra
  30. 30.MTA-ELTE-MTM Ecology Research GroupBudapestHungary
  31. 31.Hungarian Lepidopterological SocietyÉrdHungary
  32. 32.The Scientific and Practical Center for Bioresources of NAS of BelarusMinskBelarus
  33. 33.Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)HelsinkiFinland
  34. 34.Department of Biology, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of SarajevoSarajevoBosnia and Herzegovina
  35. 35.Macedonian Entomological Society (ENTOMAK)SkopjeFormer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
  36. 36.Croatian Natural History MuseumZagrebCroatia
  37. 37.Focal Centre for Biodiversity Monitoring and ConservationCluj-NapocaRomania
  38. 38.Asociación Española para la Protección de las Mariposas y su Medio ZERYNTHIALogroñoSpain
  39. 39.Moscow Centre of Environmental EducationRegional Research and TourismMoscowRussia
  40. 40.Departamento de BiologíaUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain
  41. 41.National Biodiversity Data CentreWaterfordIreland
  42. 42.Lepidopterologisk Forening (Lepidopterological Society)KokkedalDenmark
  43. 43.Icelandic Institute of Natural HistoryGarðabaerIceland
  44. 44.Department of Zoology, Institute of Ecology and Earth SciencesUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia
  45. 45.LarissaGreece
  46. 46.Společnost pro ochranu motýlů – SOM (Czech Butterflies Society)PrachaticeCzech Republic
  47. 47.Biodiversity Unit, Department of BiologyLund UniversityLundSweden
  48. 48.Butterfly Monitoring Scheme in the West UkraineUzhhorodUkraine
  49. 49.European Butterflies GroupWarehamUK
  50. 50.University of GävleGävleSweden
  51. 51.Latvian Museum of Natural HistoryRigaLatvia
  52. 52.German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity ResearchLeipzigGermany
  53. 53.Laboratory of Insect Evolutionary Biology and Ecology, Institute of BiologyUniversity of BiałystokBiałystokPoland
  54. 54.Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of SciencesSaint-PetersburgRussia
  55. 55.Museu de Ciències Naturals de GranollersGranollersSpain
  56. 56.Lithuanian Entomological SocietyVilniusLithuania
  57. 57.Department of BiologyUniversity of PatrasPatrasGreece
  58. 58.Dutch Butterfly ConservationWageningenThe Netherlands
  59. 59.Department of BiologyTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations