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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

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 397–416

    Google 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 1:18–26

    Article  Google 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, Gland

    Google 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

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Butchart SHM et al (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cardoso P, Borges PAV, Triantis KA, Ferrández MA, Martín JL (2011) Adapting the IUCN Red List criteria for invertebrates. Biol Conserv 144:2432–2440

    Article  Google 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 149:147–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Clausnitzer V et al (2009) Odonata enter the biodiversity crisis debate: the first global assessment of an insect group. Biol Conserv 142:1864–1869

    Article  Google 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 23:317–327

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 49:493–502

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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, Uppsala

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hämet-Ahti L, Suominen J, Ulvinen T, Uotila P (eds) (1998) Retkeilykasvio, 4. uudistettu painos, Luonnontieteellisen keskusmuseon kasvimuseo, Helsinki

  17. Hanski I (2000) Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation. Ann Zool Fenn 37:271–280

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hanski I (2005) The shrinking world: Ecological consequences of habitat loss. International Ecology Institute, Oldendorf

    Google 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 19:418–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hedenås H, Hedström P (2007) Conservation of epiphytic lichens: significance of remnant aspen (Populus tremula) trees in clear-cuts. Biol Conserv 135:388–395

    Article  Google 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 124:539–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hoffman M et al (2010) The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science 330:1503–1509

    Article  Google 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 366:2598–2610

    Article  Google 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 20:1710–1719

    Article  Google 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 34–41

    Google 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 55–74

  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 31:657–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Johansson P (2008) Consequences of disturbance on epiphytic lichens in boreal and near boreal forests. Biol Conserv 141:1933–1944

    Article  Google 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 27:398–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Jutila H (2001) How does grazing by cattle modify the vegetation of coastal grasslands along the Baltic Sea? Ann Bot Fenn 38:181–200

    Google 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 181–196

  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 5–44

  34. Koch K (1989a) Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Ökologie. Band 1. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld

    Google Scholar 

  35. Koch K (1989b) Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Ökologie. Band 2. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld

    Google Scholar 

  36. Koch K (1992) Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Ökologie. Band 3. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kontula T, Raunio A (2009) New method and criteria for national assessments of threatened habitat types. Biodivers Conserv 18:3861–3876

    Article  Google 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 12:41–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Laaksonen T, Lehikoinen A (2013) Population trends in boreal birds: continuing declines in agricultural, northern, and long-distance migrant species. Biol Conserv 168:99–107

    Article  Google 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 214:1517–1528

  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 15:121–128

    Article  Google 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 360:289–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lopez L (2011) Estado de las Aves del Paraguay. Guyra Paraguay, BirdLife International, Asunción

    Google 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 22:1424–1442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Martikainen P (2001) Conservation of threatened saproxylic beetles: significance of retained aspen Populus tremula on clearcut areas. Ecol Bull 49:205–218

    Google 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 29:910–919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Olofsson J, Oksanen L (2005) Effects of reindeer density on vascular plant diversity on North Scandinavian mountains. Rangifer 25:5–18

    Article  Google 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 117:271–273

    Article  Google 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):1–54

  50. Pöyry J, Luoto M, Heikkinen RK, Kuussaari M, Saarinen K (2009) Species traits explain recent range shifts of Finnish butterflies. Glob Change Biol 15:732–743

    Article  Google 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 59:245–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Pykälä J (2000) Mitigating human effects on European biodiversity through traditional animal husbandry. Conserv Biol 14:705–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pykälä J (2004) Effects of new forestry practices on rare epiphytic macrolichens. Conserv Biol 18:831–838

    Article  Google 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 189:155–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Rassi P, Alanen A, Kanerva T, Mannerkoski I (eds) (2001) Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus 2000. Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki

    Google 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, Helsinki

  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 8:1–264

    Google Scholar 

  59. Reinikainen A, Mäkipää R, Vanha-Majamaa I, Hotanen JP (eds) (2000) Kasvit muuttuvassa metsäluonnossa. Metsäntutkimuslaitos & Kustannusosakeyhtiö Tammi, Helsinki

    Google 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 21:71–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Rodríguez JP et al (2011) Establishing IUCN Red List criteria for threatened ecosystems. Conserv Biol 25:21–29

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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 Index

  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 148:61–68

    Article  Google 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 York

  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 43:373–383

    Google Scholar 

  67. Tittensor DP et al (2014) A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346:241–244

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google 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 16:3193–3211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Virkkala R, Rajasärkkä A (2011) Climate change affects populations of northern birds in boreal protected areas. Biol Lett 7:395–398

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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 3:1–20

    Article  Google 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 395:1–49

    Google 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 141:1343–1353

    Article  Google 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 112:4531–4540

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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 180:84–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aino Juslén.

Additional information

Communicated by Neil Brummitt.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Juslén, A., Pykälä, J., Kuusela, S. et al. Application of the Red List Index as an indicator of habitat change. Biodivers Conserv 25, 569–585 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1075-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Biodiversity indicator
  • Biodiversity loss
  • Habitat
  • Finland
  • RLI
  • Threatened species