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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Red Lists provide information on the extinction risk of species in a given region (IUCN 2013) and have become well-established tools in nature conservation (e.g. Keller and Bollmann 2004; Butchart et al. 2005; Rodrigues et al. 2006; Fitzpatrick et al. 2007). Regional IUCN criteria (Gärdenfors et al. 2001; IUCN 2012) are increasingly used at the (sub-)national level, although some countries use specific regional/national criteria or local expert judgements to produce Red Lists. There are, however, numerous approaches for compiling Red Lists. Most Red List assessments in Europe or other areas of biodiversity importance (e.g. the Mediterranean region—Numa et al. 2016) use the IUCN Red List categories and criteria (e.g. amphibians—Temple and Cox 2009; vascular plants—Bilz et al. 2011; Orthoptera—Hochkirch et al. 2016). The use of IUCN criteria makes it possible to compare Red Lists more easily among countries but also among taxonomic groups and habitat types (Juslén et al. 2016). Although criticized by some, Red Lists are often used to prioritise conservation actions for threatened species (Possingham et al. 2002), with species in the highest Red List category usually receiving higher resource allocation for conservation (but see Neeson et al. 2018). We explore using national and continental Red Lists in relation to existing legislation such as the European Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and endemism as complementary tools to classify species of conservation importance. An integrated comparison of national Red Lists and the European Red List makes it possible to identify species that show a mismatch between both scales (Brito et al. 2010).
The IUCN uses five criteria to classify species in Red List categories (IUCN 2001): (a) population size reduction, (b) restricted geographic range size, (c) small population size and decline, (d) very small population or restricted distribution and (e) quantitative analysis of extinction risk. The application of these criteria results in classification of a species within 11 possible IUCN categories at the regional level (Gärdenfors et al. 2001). Regional IUCN criteria use the same quantitative criteria as those applied to global Red Lists with an additional criterion for downgrading the Red List category when a rescue effect is possible from neighbouring countries or regions or upgrading when the neighbouring populations are a sink (Gärdenfors et al. 2001). During a Red List assessment, species are assessed against all possible IUCN criteria and the Red List category resulting in the highest level of extinction risk being assigned to the species.
To test the difference between a supra-national integration of Red Lists of European countries and the European Red List, we used butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) as a model group. This is because they are among the best studied invertebrates in Europe (Settele et al. 2009). Despite large differences in data availability on distribution and/or trend data (Maes et al. 2015), many countries have compiled national or even regional Red Lists for this taxonomic group. Also at the European level, the IUCN Red List for butterflies is available (van Swaay et al. 2010). Especially for invertebrates, the applicability of IUCN criteria for national or regional Red Lists has been criticised by some as inappropriate (Cardoso et al. 2011; van Swaay et al. 2011), but defended by others (Collen and Böhm 2012). Here, we propose an alternative method to overcome the differences in Red List approaches among countries and to complement the present European IUCN Red List (van Swaay et al. 2010).
In this paper, we first compiled the most up to date information for all the European countries into an open access database published on the global biodiversity information facility (GBIF) platform using the most recent information on taxonomy and distribution. Second, we gathered the most recent national Red Lists from as many European countries as possible. With these data, we subsequently calculated a weighted species Red List Value (wsRLV) for all European butterflies by attributing numerical values proportionate to the threat statuses in the different national Red List categories in the different European countries. We compared this wsRLV with the Red List status in the European Red List of butterflies (van Swaay et al. 2010) to determine possible mismatches between both approaches (i.e. are we overlooking species on a European scale, that are threatened in a large part of Europe?). We discuss how our approach could additionally rank priorities for conservation actions for butterflies in Europe, complementary to the already existing ones such as the European Habitats Directive and the European Red List.
Materials and methods
For the purposes of the present work, we used the same delineation for Europe as in the Red List of European butterflies (van Swaay et al. 2010—Fig. 1) and Fauna Europaea (https://fauna-eu.org/data-handling): European mainland (Western Palearctic), including the Macaronesian archipelagos (excluding Cape Verde Islands), Cyprus, Franz Josef Land and Novaya Zemlya, but excluding the Western Kazakhstan. The European part of Russia (west of the Ural Mountains) and the Crimea are also included, but in contrast to Fauna Europaea European Turkey is excluded. This comprises 42 countries (excluding small countries such as Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City—Table 1). The Macaronesian archipelagos (Azores, Madeira and Canary Islands), which administratively belong to European countries (Portugal or Spain) were treated as separate “countries” because of their distinct biogeographical positions.
Mean Red List value (cRLV) per European country (country abbreviations are the same as in Table 1). Red = cRLV ≥ 30, Orange = cRLV 20–30, Yellow = cRLV 10–20, Light green = cRLV 5–10, Dark green = cRLV ≤ 5, Grey = no Red List available. Inset: Macaronesian archipelagos. (Color figure online)
For each of the 42 European countries, national species lists were compiled using the most recent literature and/or websites. These lists were checked by national experts (all co-authors) of the Butterfly Conservation Europe (BCE) consortium, a partnership organisation focused on the conservation of butterflies, moths and their habitats throughout Europe (http://www.bc-europe.eu/). The species list of the Macaronesian islands (Tennent 2005) was updated using Vieira and Karsholt (2010) and Vieira (2017) for the Azores, and Báez and Oromí (2010) and Monasterio León et al. (2017) for the Canary Islands. We used locally published species lists and matched them with the most recent taxonomical knowledge and species distribution information as used in the newly updated list of European butterflies. In total, 496 species were considered as being part of the European butterfly fauna, including the Macaronesian archipelagos (Wiemers et al. 2018). 148 (30%) of these species are endemic to the European continent. Cacyreus marshalli Butler, 1897 was accidentally introduced from South Africa into southern Europe in 1988 and is now well established in many Mediterranean countries (Paradiso et al. 2019). We considered it as being part of the national fauna in those countries where it is able to overwinter naturally, but excluded it from countries where it can only survive in greenhouses or where it is occasionally introduced with Pelargonium plants. Species for which the presence in a country needs confirmation were excluded from the analysis. For 54 species (11%), Europe lies at the (northern or western) edge of their distribution range. A species was considered as edge species when its population has less than 5% of its total range in Europe.
Apart from national species lists, we also compiled all available information regarding national Red Lists. Such lists were available for 34 out of the 42 European countries (81%—Table 1). Some countries such as Germany, Russia and Spain also have Red Lists at sub-national level (i.e. Länder, provinces, counties), but when a national Red List was available, we used the latter for further analysis. Belgium has separate Red Lists for the two administrative regions that are responsible for nature conservation: Flanders (northern Belgium; Maes et al. 2012) and Wallonia (southern Belgium; Fichefet et al. 2008) and does not have a national Red List for the whole country. Therefore, we combined the regional Red Lists into a Belgian Red List by (conservatively) taking the lowest extinction risk category of the two regions as the Belgian Red List category. Russia has a relatively old national Red List (Iliashenko and Iliashenko 2000; Danilov-Danilian 2001), but only four butterfly species are assessed as declining. We only used relatively recent Red Lists (≥ 2005), which excluded Russia (2001), reducing the number of Red Lists to 33 for this analysis.
For further analyses, we first attributed numerical values to the different Red List categories in the European countries: regionally extinct = 100; critically endangered = 80; endangered = 50; vulnerable = 30; near threatened = 20; least concern = 1; data deficient = 1; unknown = 1—i.e. there is a Red List for butterflies in the country and the species is present in the country, but it is not mentioned on the Red List (cf. Maes et al. 2012). These values are based upon the thresholds of decline for classifying species in the respective Red List categories (> 80% decline = critically endangered, > 50% decline = endangered, > 30% decline = vulnerable, etc.). Next, we calculated a mean Red List value per country (cRLV) and a weighted Red List value per species (wsRLV) using the square root of the area (instead of the area as such) of the countries in which each species was assessed as a weighting factor (i.e. the Red List value divided by the square root of the countries’ area). The square root of the area of the country was used to reduce the impact of very large countries on the wsRLV. Some of the countries did not use IUCN criteria, but had a similar classification as the one used by the IUCN. For these countries, the numerical values were attributed in the same way as for the countries that used IUCN criteria. Some countries (Bulgaria, Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Slovakia), however, used a lower number of categories (usually lumping the “Critically Endangered” category and the “Endangered” category). In those cases, an intermediate value of 65 (the mean of 80 and 50) was given as a numerical Red List Value to the nationally used category “Endangered”.
Results
Twenty-three out of 33 European countries (70%) used IUCN criteria to assess the Red List status of butterflies, seven (21%) used expert judgement (Belarus, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Ukraine) and three (9%) used national criteria (Austria—Zulka et al. 2003; Germany—Ludwig et al. 2006, 2009; the Netherlands—de Iongh and Bal 2007; Table 1).
The most species-rich countries in Europe are Italy (272 species), Russia (258) and France (255—Table 1) followed by some of the Mediterranean (Greece and Spain), Balkan Peninsula (Bulgaria, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania), Alpine countries (Austria and Switzerland) and the Ukraine with more than 200 butterfly species. Countries with relatively low species-richness are island states such as Iceland (only the two migrant species Vanessa atalanta and V. cardui), Malta (23 species), Ireland (35 species) and Cyprus (48 species). In Europe (excluding the Macaronesian archipelagos), 35 species are considered as endemic on a national scale, with the highest endemism situated in the Mediterranean (Table 1): Spain (13 endemics), Italy (9, of which 4 on the mainland, 2 on Sardinia and 1 each on Sicily, the Aeolian Islands and the Pontine Islands) and Greece (8, of which 2 on the mainland, 4 on Crete and 1 each on the islands of Chios and Karpathos) and Cyprus (3). Two other European countries each have 1 endemic butterfly species: the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Pseudochazara cingovskii) and Ukraine (Pseudochazara euxina).
A total of 44 species are present (including the irregular vagrant Hypolimnas misippus) on the Macaronesian archipelagos (including 20 endemics) of which 33 are resident on the Canary Islands (13 endemics), 15 on the Madeira Islands (4 endemics, including the globally extinct Pieris wollastoni) and 8 on the Azores (2 endemics—Table 2). Vanessa vulcania is present in both Madeira and the Canary Islands. There are no Red Lists available for the Macaronesian archipelagos, but seven of the endemic species on the Macaronesian archipelagos were assessed as being threatened in Europe: Pieris wollastoni, Pararge xiphia and Gonepteryx maderensis on the Madeira islands and Gonepteryx cleobule, Hipparchia bacchus, Hipparchia tilosi and Pieris cheiranthi on the Canary islands (van Swaay et al. 2010; Table 2).
The countries with a mean Red List Value (cRLV) ≥ 30 are the Netherlands, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Denmark (Table 1). The spatial distribution of the mean Red List Value is highest in NW Europe and more or less decreases concentrically towards the edges of Europe with the lowest mean Red List Values in the Mediterranean region, e.g. Spain, France and Italy (Figs. 1, 2).
Mean Red List value per country (cRLV) with 95% confidence intervals. Country codes are the same as in Table 1. Horizontal lines indicate the values 50 (solid line), 30 (dashed line) and 20 (dotted line)
Regarding the weighted Red List Value (wsRLV) per species, five species that were assessed in more than one country had a weighted Red List value ≥ 50 (i.e. would qualify for the Red List category Endangered; Table 3): Colias myrmidone, Pseudochazara orestes, Tomares nogelii, Colias chrysotheme and Coenonympha oedippus (in decreasing order of wsRLV). Apart from these five species, 13 species also had a wsRLV ≥ 50, but were only assessed in a single country (Table 3). Two of these species were classified as being of Least Concern on the European Red List of butterflies (Oeneis tarpeia—Regionally Extinct in the Ukraine and Tomares callimachus—Endangered in the Ukraine; van Swaay et al. 2010). These two species are also present in Russia, where no recent Red List status is available. Three of the species that were only assessed in a single country were classified as Endangered (Turanana taygetica, Agriades zullichi and Polyommatus humedasae) and one as Vulnerable (Polyommatus golgus) on the European Red List of butterflies (van Swaay et al. 2010). Of the species that are considered as Least Concern on the European Red List of butterflies (van Swaay et al. 2010) and that were assessed in more than one country, 17 species had a weighted Red List Value between 30 and 50 (i.e. would qualify as Vulnerable): Nymphalis vaualbum, Neolysandra coelestina, Muschampia tessellum, Freyeria trochylus, Pseudophilotes baton, Pseudochazara geyeri, Phengaris alcon, Pseudophilotes bavius, Kirinia climene, Pontia chloridice, Erebia rhodopensis, Polyommatus admetus, Boloria aquilonaris, Pyrgus onopordi, Polygonia egea, Euphydryas aurinia and Euchloe penia (Tables 2, 3). Four more Least Concern species on the European Red List had a wsRLV between 30 and 50, but were only assessed in one country: Chazara persephone, Neolycaena rhymnus and Satyrus virbius (Vulnerable) in the Ukraine but they also occur in Russia where no Red List status is available and Hipparchia christenseni which is a Vulnerable endemic in Greece (Table 3).
When looking at the species in the European Union, 24 species had a weighted Red List value ≥ 50 (Table 3), of which ten were assessed in more than one country: Colias myrmidone, Nymphalis vaualbum, Pseudochazara orestes, Colias chrysotheme, Lycaena helle, Coenonympha hero, Coenonympha oedippus, Muschampia tessellum, Agriades dardanus and Polyommatus orphicus. Thirteen more species had a weighted Red List value ≥ 50, but were only assessed in a single country (Tables 2, 3).
Four species with a wsRLV ≥ 50 were assessed as being of Least Concern in the European Union: Lycaena helle, Coenonympha oedippus, Muschampia tessellum, and Pseudochazara geyeri. Among the species of the Habitats Directive, six had a weighted Red List value ≥ 30 (i.e. the threshold for being classified as Vulnerable) but were classified as being of Least Concern in the European Union (van Swaay et al. 2010): Lycaena helle, Coenonympha oedippus, Pseudophilotes bavius, Euphydryas maturna, Agriades aquilo and Euphydryas aurinia (Tables 2, 3).
Discussion
By compiling 42 national butterfly species lists and 33 recent Red Lists of European countries, we were able to apply an alternative way of ranking both the countries (using the mean Red List value) and the species of European conservation concern (using a weighted Red List value). Countries with the highest mean Red List value are mainly situated in NW and Central Europe. Of the species that were assessed in more than one country, 14 species have relatively high weighted Red List values (≥ 30, i.e. the threshold value to qualify for Vulnerable) but are not classified as threatened on the European Red List (van Swaay et al. 2010) and are not listed in the annexes of the European Habitats Directive.
Thirty-three out of 42 European countries (79%) have a recent (i.e. ≥ 2005) national Red List of butterflies. The majority of them (28 out of 33, i.e. 85%) date from after the compilation of the most recent European Red List of butterflies (van Swaay et al. 2010). This updated knowledge on national butterfly status will be very useful for the next European Red List assessment, especially because most of the European countries used regional IUCN criteria and/or categories for the national Red Lists assessments (Table 1). Three countries used their own national criteria and seven countries used expert judgement to classify species in Red List categories (Table 1). In the Netherlands, for example, the legally binding Red List (van Swaay 2006) was compiled using national criteria (de Iongh and Bal 2007). To compare the outcome with the use of IUCN criteria, however, a second Red List was made using the IUCN criteria for regional use resulting sometimes in different classifications for a number of species (van Swaay 2006). In other countries and for other species, however, such comparisons between national and IUCN criteria resulted in similar Red List classifications (e.g. Eaton et al. 2005 for birds in the UK). The suitability of IUCN criteria for Red List assessments of invertebrates has been criticised because of a supposed lack of data to apply the IUCN criteria correctly (Cardoso et al. 2011, 2012). For butterflies, however, both trend and distribution data are becoming increasingly available in many European countries. Depending on the availability, however, countries use either abundance data (monitoring data—van Swaay et al. 2016) or distribution data (often opportunistic data—Maes et al. 2015) to calculate “population” trends (i.e. criterion A for the IUCN Red List assessments). For comparisons among countries, it is recommended that similar methods are used for the trend calculations in Red List assessments.
Although IUCN Red List criteria are largely quantitative, the interpretation of the criteria and the data availability still differs strongly among European countries. The previous European Red List of butterflies, for example, was mainly based on expert judgement in the respective countries (van Swaay et al. 2010). Compared with other taxonomic groups for which European Red Lists have been compiled, a relatively low number of butterflies (38 out of 435 assessed species or 9%) were classified as threatened (Regionally extinct, Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable—van Swaay et al. 2011). Only bees have a lower proportion of threatened species on the European Red List, but that is mainly due to the large number of Data Deficient species (Nieto et al. 2014).
The open access availability of the national Red List statuses of butterflies throughout Europe would be very helpful when applying the rescue criterion used in regional Red Lists (IUCN 2012), where a Red List category could be lowered (depending on the species’ mobility) when a species is not threatened in the neighbouring countries or regions or upgraded when the neighbouring populations are considered as sinks. In countries where nature conservation legislation is regionalised (e.g. Belgium, Germany, Spain), it remains more appropriate to compile Red Lists on a sub-national level (cf. Maes et al. 2012). We also encourage local authorities or authors to make national or regional Red Lists available via open access platforms such as GBIF and, if possible, to publish regional Red Lists as a data paper, preferentially in an open access journal.
The weighted Red List value must be interpreted with care since not all countries have (up-to-date) national Red Lists (e.g. Russia, Portugal). Especially large countries such as Russia could have a big impact on the wsRLV since the Red List status is weighted using the area of the country as was done in the European Red List of butterflies (van Swaay et al. 2010). When such large countries publish a new Red List, it might change the wsRLV considerably. When the area as such is used as weighting factor, for Colias myrmidone, for example, if it would be classified as LC, NT, VU, EN or CR in Russia, its wsRLV would change from 78.3 without Russia, to 25.8, 38.6, 45.3, 58.7, 78.8, respectively with Russia. By using the square root of the country’s area, however, the wsRLVs would be 53.3, 59.4, 62.7, 69.1, 78.8, respectively. Another example is Oeneis tarpeia which occurred marginally in the Ukraine and is more widespread in Russia. Its highest possible wsRLV (100) is explained by the fact that only Ukraine has a Red List status for the species (regionally extinct) while Russia has none. If Russia were to classify it as Least Concern, its wsRLV would drop from 100 to 28.77.
Countries and species of European conservation concern
Countries with the highest mean Red List Value are under a very high anthropogenic pressure (e.g. Czech Republic—Konvička et al. 2006) and/or have among the highest nitrogen deposition values in Europe (Dise et al. 2011; e.g. the Netherlands—WallisDeVries and van Swaay 2017; Belgium—Maes and Van Dyck 2001; Maes et al. 2012). Large Mediterranean countries such as Italy (Bonelli et al. 2018) and Spain, in contrast, have the lowest proportion of threatened species. In Spain, this is mainly due to the fact that only 14 species were assessed against the IUCN Red List criteria of which six were considered as threatened (Verdú and Galante 2009; Verdú et al. 2011). On the other hand, in Italy where almost 98% of the species were assessed, the proportion of threatened species is also low. This is due to the low population density and to the ample availability of high quality habitat for butterflies (e.g. the Italian alpine region is not impacted by high anthropogenic pressures and hosts more than 150 species—Bonelli et al. 2018).
The weighted Red List value showed some mismatches between the European Red List category and the threat status in the different European countries (Brito et al. 2010). 128 species have a wsRLV ≥ 20 of which 55 (43%) are considered as threatened (Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable) or Near Threatened on the European Red list. On the other hand, 60 (47%) of these species were classified in the category Least Concern on the European Red list. Nine species that are endemic to Europe with a relatively high wsRLV (≥ 20) are considered of Least Concern on the European Red List (in decreasing order of wsRLV): Pseudophilotes baton, Erebia rhodopensis, Hipparchia christenseni, Satyrus virbius, Carcharodus baeticus, Erebia orientalis, Kretania hesperica, Kretania psylorita, Euchloe bazae and Zerynthia cretica. This wsRLV, in addition to the Habitats Directive, the European Red List of butterflies and the endemism of species (SPECs, i.e. Species of European Conservation Concern—van Swaay et al. 2011), can help to determine for which butterflies conservation action should be undertaken. It can, for example, indicate for which (sub-) national or European species action plans should be compiled or for which species more research is needed to protect them more adequately. The ecology of the species with a high weighted Red List value that are also on the Habitats Directive and the management measures needed for their conservation are discussed in van Swaay et al. (2012). Some of the species with high weighted Red List values have been relatively well-studied recently: Colias myrmidone (e.g. Dolek et al. 2005; Konvička et al. 2008; Szentirmai et al. 2014; Sielezniew et al. 2019), Pseudochazara cingovskii (e.g. Verovnik et al. 2013), Agriades zullichi and Polyommatus violetae (e.g. Munguira et al. 2017), Coenonympha hero (e.g. Cassel-Lundhagen et al. 2008; Tiitsaar et al. 2016; Sielezniew and Nowicki 2017), Coenonympha oedippus (e.g. Čelik et al. 2009, 2015) and Lycaena helle (e.g. Habel et al. 2010; Nabielec and Nowicki 2015). For others, such as Erebia neleus (e.g. Schmitt et al. 2016) and Polyommatus orphicus (Vishnevskaya et al. 2016), research is mainly focusing on genetics in order to determine the species’ taxonomic status.
On the basis of our study, we can determine nine species that are endemic to Europe, that are not on the Habitats Directive, that are classified as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable (or were not assessed or data deficient) on the European Red List of butterflies, that have a wsRLV ≥ 30: Pseudochazara orestes, Agriades zullichi, Polyommatus humedasae, Pyrgus cirsii, Polyommatus orphicus, Pseudochazara amymone (Verovnik et al. 2014), Pseudochazara cingovskii, Pseudochazara euxina and Euchloe bazae (Tables 2, 3). All of these species were also mentioned as Species of European Conservation Concern in a follow-up exercise of the Red List of European butterflies (van Swaay et al. 2011) and are most in need of ecological research and/or monitoring for their conservation in Europe.
Due to a mismatch between the European Red List of butterflies and the species on the Annexes of the Habitats Directive, some authors suggested regular updating of the Habitats Directive (Cardoso 2012; Hochkirch et al. 2013). Maes et al. (2013), however, argued that this would allow member states to weaken the Habitats Directive legislation, which would be counterproductive. The complementary use of different approaches to determine conservation priorities (Habitats Directive, the IUCN European Red List of butterflies, Species of European Conservation Concern, this exercise) for butterflies is, in our opinion, a better approach.
Conservation actions for species with a high wsRLV can be taken both on the (sub-) national and on the continental scale. National legislations could protect sites with threatened butterfly species, for example, in Natura 2000 sites and other nature reserves. Management and restoration measures can help to preserve or create suitable ecological conditions for butterflies (van Swaay et al. 2012). Other measures such as (re)connecting sites with threatened species and/or reintroductions of regionally extinct species can also be taken on the national level (Kuussaari et al. 2015). On a broader, continental scale, actions to reduce nitrogen deposition (Pöyry et al. 2017; WallisDeVries and van Swaay 2017) and/or the effect of climate change (Hill et al. 2002; Devictor et al. 2012) could help to preserve and protect threatened butterflies. For island endemics, measures to prevent the introduction of invasive species are important in addition to habitat conservation measures. Finally, creating a Natura 2000 network beyond national borders could help the exchange of individuals between neighbouring countries (Trochet and Schmeller 2013) and could enable species to track climate change-induced distribution shifts (Settele et al. 2008).
Improving national Red List assessments
Although Red Lists were not explicitly designed to be used in setting conservation priorities, many national and international conservation organisations and/or governmental institutions use them to prioritise actions for threatened species (Rodrigues et al. 2006). The availability of both European and national Red Lists is, therefore, of paramount importance for butterfly conservation. We encourage countries or regions without, or with an outdated Red List, to compile one, preferably using IUCN criteria so that Red Lists become more easily comparable among countries and species (Miller et al. 2007; Collen and Böhm 2012). If a given region is under-surveyed, citizen science can help to augment distribution data (e.g. through tourists that record butterflies while on holidays and enter their data in, for example, Observado or iNaturalist—Maes et al. 2015). This would make it possible to estimate the Area of Occupancy and Extent of Occurrence (the two main figures needed for criterion B of the IUCN criteria—Bland et al. 2016) much more accurately. With the list length method (a systematic list-based monitoring—Roberts et al. 2007), we can also calculate European distribution trends more easily. To collect trend data, establishing national or regional butterfly monitoring schemes in countries without such a scheme at present (as in some of the Mediterranean and Eastern European countries—van Swaay et al. 2016), could be very helpful. Butterfly Conservation Europe and its partners are actively working on extending monitoring schemes to new countries and expand the monitoring in existing countries. One of the initiatives is the eBMS (http://www.butterfly-monitoring.net), in which 12 Butterfly monitoring schemes are already participating. This is also important, since population trends detect declines more rapidly than distribution trends (van Strien et al. 2011). This would allow the calculation of more reliable trends, one of the criteria for regional IUCN Red List assessments (IUCN 2012). All these new developments will make it possible to make use of quantitative data instead of expert judgements and will be a huge step forward for the compilation of the next European Red List of butterflies. Similarly, the compilation of national species distribution data into a European database (cf. LepiDiv) would facilitate the calculation of the continental range of species (criterion B for the IUCN Red List assessment).
If Red Lists are updated regularly, e.g. every 10 years as suggested by the IUCN (cf. IUCN 2013) it would even become possible to make a Red List Index for butterflies at the global or continental (Butchart et al. 2005; Lewis and Senior 2011), next to the (sub-) national scales (e.g. Juslén et al. 2013). We also recommend the publication of the threat status of all species present in a country, not only those that are threatened. This excludes the problem of not knowing whether a species is either absent from the country, is not threatened, or was not assessed.
The use of regional IUCN criteria in smaller countries or regions (e.g. Flanders, northern Belgium—Maes et al. 2012) could lead to the classification of a larger number of species in a relatively high threat category because of the smaller absolute area of occupancy or extent of occurrence (IUCN criterion B) compared with large countries. This does, however, not seem to be the case (Fig. 3; Pearson correlation = − 0.275, p = 0.121), possibly because of the downgrading option in regional Red List assessments (IUCN 2003).
Correlation between the area (sqrtArea) of a country (x-axis) and the mean Red List Value (cRLV—y-axis)
A final recommendation to improve the use of Red List assessments is to publish the distributional data at the highest possible resolution together with the criteria used to compile the national Red List on an open access platform (e.g. GBIF). National or local data are not always known about or accessible to global Red List assessors (Rodrigues et al. 2006) and open access publications could greatly help supra-national Red List comparisons or compilations (Numa et al. 2016).
In conclusion, the database developed together with this paper, i.e. an integrated database with national species inventories and all currently available national Red Lists, allowed us to prioritise conservation actions for European butterflies, in addition to existing tools such as the Habitats Directive, the Red List of European butterflies and information on endemism. Regular updates of this database will allow policy makers and butterfly conservationists to continuously estimate Red List Values for all European butterflies.
Data availability
The basic tables that were used for analysis are available on GitHub (https://github.com/inbo/red-lists-european-butterflies-checklist). The database will be updated regularly (e.g. when a country publishes a new Red List of butterflies) and a new ranking of species (Table 2) can be obtained by running the R Markdown script made available on the same location in GBIF.
References
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
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 98–112
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, Vaduz
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: 8893–8975
Anonymous (2013) Red List of wild flora and fauna, Albania
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 302–318
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
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 177–234
Bilz M, Kell SP, Maxted N, Lansdown RV (2011) European Red List of vascular plants. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
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
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
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, Leiden
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
Buszko J, Masłowski J (2015) Motyle dzienne Polski. Koliber, Nowy Sącz, Poland
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 80–87
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
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
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
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
Cassar LF (2018) A revision of the butterfly fauna (Lepidoptera-Rhopalocera) of the Maltese Islands. Il Nat Sicil 42:3–19
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
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
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 19:359–375
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
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 45:106–109
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 46:48–69
Danilov-Danilian VI (2001) Red data book of the Russian Federation: animals. AST & Astrel Publ, Moscow
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, Andorra
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 3:53–60
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
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 463–494
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 60:607–610
Đug S (2013) Knjiga 3—Crvena Lista Faune Federacije Bosne I Hercegovine. EU Greenway, Sarajevo
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
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), Gembloux
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
Fox R, Warren MS, Brereton TM, Roy DB, Robinson A (2011) A new Red List of British butterflies. Insect Conserv Diver 4:159–172
Franeta F (2018) Checklist of the butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of Montenegro. Zootaxa 4392:128–148. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4392.1.6
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, Madrid
Garcia-Pereira P, García-Barros E, Munguira ML (2003) Patrones de distribución de las mariposas diurnas en Portugal (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea, Hesperiidae, Zygaenidae). Graellsia 59:259–271
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
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, Biatorbágy
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
Henriksen S, Hilmo O (2015) Kunnskapsgrunnlaget. Norsk rødliste for arter 2015. Artsdatabanken. http://www.artsdatabanken.no/Rodliste/Kunnskapsgrunnlaget. Accessed 2017
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
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
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
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 313–354
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 69:105–114
Huemer P (2013) Die Schmetterlinge Österreichs (Lepidoptera). Systematische und faunistische Checkliste, vol 12. Studiohefte. Tiroler Landesmuseen, Innsbruck
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 9–33
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, Moscow
IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List categories and criteria: version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland, Cambridge
IUCN (2003) Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels: Version 3.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge
IUCN (2012) Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional and national levels: Version 4.0. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge
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 Cambridge
Jakšić P (2003) Red data book of Serbian butterflies. Lepidoptera : Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea. Institute for Nature Conservation of Serbia, Belgrade
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 268–385
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
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
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 430–470
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
Kolev Z (2017) Rubrapterus bavius (Eversmann, 1832), a butterfly genus and species new to Bulgaria (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). ZooNotes 114:1–4
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):16–22
Kolev Z, Tsvetanov T (2018) Clarifications and new data on the distribution of Cacyreus marshalli Butler, 1898 in Bulgaria (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). ZooNotes 122:1–4
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
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
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
Koren T, Kulijer D (2016) New or interesting records of three butterfly (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea & Hesperioidea) species from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. Nat Croat 25:321–326
Krpač VT, Darcemont C (2011) Red List of butterflies (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea & Papilionoidea) for Republic of Macedonia. Revue d’écologie-la Terre et la Vie 67:117–122
Kuchlein JH, de Vos R (1999) Geannoteerde naamlijst van de Nederlandse vlinders—annotated checklist of the Dutch Lepidoptera. Backhuys, Leiden
Kulak AV, Yakovlev RV (2018) Sozological analysis of the butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea) of upper bogs in Belarus. Ukr J Ecol 8:174–196
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
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, Montpellier
Langourov M, Simov N (2014) Cacyreus marshalli Butler, 1898 (Lep.: Lycaenidae), a new species for Bulgaria. Entomol Rec J Var 26:190–192
Legakis A, Maragou P (2009) The Red Book of threatened animals of Greece ([in Greek]. Hellenic Zoological Society, Athens
Lelo S (2016) Četvrta revizija popisa dnevnih leptira (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea i Papilionoidea) Bosne i Hercegovine. Broj Stranica 12:49–59
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
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 Godesberg
Ludwig G, Haupt H, Gruttke H, Binot-Hafke M (2009) Methodik der gefährdungsanalyse für rote listen. Nat Biol Vielfalt 70:23–71
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
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 145:258–266
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
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
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 43:145–151
Mestdagh X, L’Hoste L, Cantú-Salazar L (in press) Butterflies of Luxembourg—distribution, conservation and Red List. Ferrantia. Musée National d’histoire Naturelle, Luxembourg
Micevski N, Micevski B (2017) Cacyreus marshalli. (Butler, 1898) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) confirmed for the Republic of Macedonia. Bull Nat Hist Mus-Plovdiv 2:17–20
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
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
Mølgaard MS (2017) New distributional data regarding the butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of the Republic of Moldova. Phegea 45:65–74
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 60:463–483
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
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
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
Nekrutenko Y, Tshikolovets V (2005) The Butterflies of Ukraine. Tshikolovets Publications, Totnes
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, Oxford
Nieto A et al (2014) European Red List of bees. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2779/77003
Numa C et al (2016) The status and distribution of Mediterrranean butterflies. IUCN, Malaga. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/46183
Õunap E, Tartes U (2014) Eesti päevaliblikad [butterflies of Estonia]. Roheline Eesti. Varrak, Tallinn
Pamperis LN (2009) The Butterflies of Greece, 2nd edn. PAMPERIS Editions, Athens
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
Pastorális G, Kalivoda H, Panigaj L (2013) Zoznam motýľov (Lepidoptera) zistených na Slovensku [Checklist of Lepidoptera recorded in Slovakia]. Folia Faun Slovaca 18:101–232
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
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-Croatia
Possingham HP, Andelman SJ, Burgman MA, Medelln RA, Master LL, Keith DA (2002) Limits to the use of threatened species lists. Trends Ecol Evol 17:503–507
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
Rákosy L (2013) The butterflies of Romania. Knowledge, protection, conservation [in Romanian]. Editura Mega, Cluj-Napoca
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, Kaunas
Regan EC et al (2010) Ireland Red List no. 4—butterflies. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Ireland
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 70:167–194
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
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
Saarinen K, Jantunen J (2013) Päiväperhoset matkalla pohjoiseen. Hyönteistarvike TIBIALE Oy, Helsinki
Sáfián S et al (2012) Butterfly Atlas Őrség-Goricko. Őrségi Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság, Őriszentpéter
Sammut PM (2000) Il-Lepidoptera. Kullana Kulturali. PIN. Il-Pieta, Malta
Šašić M, Mihoci I (2011) Annotated checklist of Croatian butterflies with vernacular names. Nat Croat 20:425–436
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, Zagreb
Šašić M et al (2015b) Contribution to the knowledge of the butterfly fauna of southern Albania. Nota Lepidopterol 38:29–45
Schembri SP (1968) A review of the Lepidoptera (Papilionoidea) of the Maltese Islands vol Supplement. Lepidoptera Group of 1968, Birkirkara
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
Settele J et al (2008) Climatic risk atlas of European butterflies. BioRisk 1:1–710. https://doi.org/10.3897/biorisk.1
Settele J, Shreeve TG, Konvička M, Van Dyck H (2009) Ecology of butterflies in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
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
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
Sonderegger P (2005) Die Erebien der Schweiz. Verlag Peter Sonderegger, Brügg bei Biel
Švara V, Zakšek B, Verovnik R (2015) Contribution to the knowledge of the butterfly fauna of Montenegro (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). Acta Entomol Sloven 23:37–48
SwissLepTeam (2010) Die Schmetterlinge (Lepidoptera) der Schweiz: Eine kommentierte, systematisch-faunistische Liste, vol 25. Fauna helvetica. CSCF & SEG, Neuchâtel
Székely L (2008) The butterflies of Romania—Fluturii de zi din Romania. Brașov County History Museum, Brașov
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
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
Temple HJ, Cox NA (2009) European Red List of amphibians. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Tennent WJ (2005) A check-list of the butterflies of Macaronesia (Canary Islands, Madeira, Azores). Entomol Gaz 56:133–138
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
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
Tshikolovets V (2011) Butterflies of Europe and the Mediterranean Area. Tshikolovets Publications, Pardubice
Tuzov VK (1997) Guide to the butterflies of Russia and adjacent territories, Vol 1. Hesperiidae, Papilionidae, Pieridae, Satyridae. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia
Tuzov VK (2000) Guide to the butterflies of Russia and adjacent territories, vol 2. Libytheidae, Danaidae, Nymphalidae, Riodinidae, Lycaenidae. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia
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, Paris
Valletta A (1972) The butterflies of the Maltese Islands. Progress Press, Malta
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
van Swaay CAM (2006) Basisrapport rode lijst dagvlinders. De Vlinderstichting, Wageningen
van Swaay CAM (2018) Basisrapport rode lijst dagvlinders 2019 vol VS2018-002. De Vlinderstichting, Wageningen
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
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
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
van Swaay CAM et al (2016) The European butterfly indicator for grassland species 1990–2015 vol report VS2016.019. De Vlinderstichting, Wageningen
Varga Z (2012) Magyarország Nagylepkéi /the Macrolepidoptera of Hungary, 2nd edn. Heterocera Press, Budapest
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, Madrid
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, Madrid
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
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 polju
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
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
Vieira V (2017) Vanessa virginiensis (Drury, 1773) in the Azores islands (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). SHILAP Revta Lepid 45:75–81
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 188–192
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
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
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/Neuchâtel
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
Wind P, Pihl S (2004) The Danish Red List. The National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University
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 103–110
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maes, D., Verovnik, R., Wiemers, M. et al. Integrating national Red Lists for prioritising conservation actions for European butterflies. J Insect Conserv 23, 301–330 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-019-00127-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-019-00127-z