Folia Zool. – 58(3): 248–269 (2009)

European : Red List status, trends, and conservation priorities

Helen J. TEMPLE1 and Andrew TERRY2,3

1 IUCN Species Programme, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, U.K.; email: [email protected] 2 IUCN Regional Office for Europe, Boulevard Louis Schmidt 64, Brussels 1040, Belgium 3 Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Les Augrès Manor, La Profonde Rue, Trinity, Jersey JE3 5BP, Channel Islands

Received 31 March 2008; Accepted 15 June 2009

Abstract. The status of mammals in Europe was assessed according to IUCN Red List Criteria and regional Red Listing guidelines. We found that nearly one in six (15%) of Europe’s 231 species were threatened (IUCN categories CR, EN, VU), with a further 9% considered Near Threatened. Marine mammals faced particularly high levels of threat, with 22% of marine species (n=27) versus 14% of terrestrial species (n=204) assessed as threatened. More than a quarter (27%) of mammals had declining populations. A further 32% were stable and 8% increasing; 33% were of unknown population trend. Terrestrial mammal biodiversity was greatest in south-eastern Europe (the Balkan Peninsula, Hungary, and Romania) and in the mountainous regions of Mediterranean and temperate Europe. Habitat loss and degradation was the greatest threat to terrestrial mammals in Europe, although human disturbance, pollution, accidental mortality (e.g., secondary poisoning, vehicle collisions), overexploitation and invasive species were also important. The main threats to marine mammals were accidental mortality (e.g., fisheries bycatch), pollution and overexploitation. EU Member States have committed to halt biodiversity loss by 2010, but the evidence from this study suggests that this target is unlikely to be met and significant actions must take place to halt the decline of mammal biodiversity in Europe. The results presented here provide a baseline against which future progress can be measured.

Key words: IUCN Red List, threatened species, biodiversity, threats

Introduction

The threatened status of plants and is one of the most widely used indicators for assessing the condition of ecosystems and their biodiversity. It also provides an important tool in conservation planning and priority setting at multiple spatial scales, from local to global (Collar 1996, Rodrigues et al. 2004, BirdLife International & C o n s e r v a t i o n I n t e r n a t i o n a l 2005). At the global scale the most comprehensive source of information on the conservation status of plants and animals is the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (R o d r i g u e s et al. 2006). The Red List provides taxonomic, conservation status, and distribution information on taxa that have been evaluated using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1 (IUCN 2001). This system is designed to determine the relative risk of extinction, with the main purpose of cataloguing and highlighting those taxa that are facing a higher risk of extinction (i.e. those listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable). The European Mammal Assessment (EMA), the results of which are presented here, is a comprehensive status assessment of Europe’s mammal species against the IUCN Red

248 List Categories and Criteria. It is the first time that European mammals have been evaluated according to the Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels (I U C N 2003) and as such is an important contribution to our understanding of the threats facing Europe’s mammals, and the action required to improve their status.

Materials and Methods

We assessed the status of all terrestrial and marine European mammals according to the 2001 IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (I U C N 2001) and the IUCN Guidelines for the Application of Red List Criteria at Regional levels (I U C N 2003). The IUCN Red List Categories provide an explicit framework for determining a species’ conservation status, with an emphasis on identifying those at highest risk of extinction. In this context, the term “threatened” refers to those species classified under the Red List Categories Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered. Species are assigned to Red List Categories based on whether or not they meet quantitative criteria. The five Red List Criteria (A-E) were developed following a wide review aimed at detecting risk factors across the broad range of organisms and the diverse life histories they exhibit (M a c e & L a n d e 1991, M a c e et al. 1992, M a c e & S t u a r t 1994). They measure multiple factors related to the likelihood of extinction, such as population size, rate of population reduction, range size, area of habitat occupied, subpopulation structure and fragmentation, and so on. For a species to be listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable, it must meet at least one of the five Criteria at the appropriate level (the quantitative thresholds for listing as Critically Endangered are higher than for Endangered or in turn Vulnerable). Information on each species was compiled by a small team, in collaboration with IUCN Specialist Groups and other experts. For each species there following data were collected: • Species classification • Geographic range (including a distribution map) • Red List Category and Criteria • Population information (size, trend, fluctuations) • Habitat preferences • Major threats • Conservation measures • Species utilization • Other general information • Key literature references Habitat preferences, major threats and conservation measures were coded according to IUCN’s standardized Classification Schemes (see http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/authority_ files for more information). Regional assessments were carried out at an assessment workshop held from 18-22 May 2006 in Illmitz, Austria, and through correspondence with relevant experts. More than 150 mammal experts from over 40 countries in Europe and adjacent regions actively participated in the assessment and review process. The geographical scope of the European Mammal Assessment is shown in Fig. 1. For terrestrial species, Red List assessments were made at two regional levels: geographical Europe, and the EU 25 (the Member States of the European Union when the assessment was initiated in 2005). For marine species, a single assessment was made, which applies to both geographical Europe and the EU. All terrestrial and marine mammal species native to Europe

249 Fig. 1. Regional assessments of terrestrial species were made for two areas – continental Europe and the EU 25. For marine species a single regional assessment was made. or naturalized in Europe before 1500 A.D. were included (see T e m p l e & T e r r y 2007 for a comprehensive list). We used Mammal Species of the World (Wilson & Reeder 2005) as the default for most taxonomic groups, although we departed from this in a few justified cases.

Results

Detailed assessment data for each mammal species covered can be found online (see: http:// ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/ema/index.htm). Here, we present a summary of our key findings (for details see Appendix).

Threatened status and demographic trends

At the European regional level, 14.2% of terrestrial mammals were assessed as threatened, with 1.5% Critically Endangered, 3.4% Endangered, and 9.3% Vulnerable. A further 3.4% were classed as Data Deficient. Within the EU 25, the pattern is similar, with 14.4% of terrestrial mammals threatened, although a higher proportion of species was Critically Endangered (2.4%) (Table 1). A higher proportion of marine species was assessed as threatened: 22.2% in total, evenly split between the threatened categories with 7.4% Critically Endangered, 7.4% Endangered and 7.4% Vulnerable. The true proportion of threatened species may be even higher, as a large proportion of marine mammals (44.4%) was assessed as Data Deficient.

250 Table 1. Summary of numbers of species within each category of threat.

No. species No. species No. species No. species (Europe IUCN Red List categories (Europe (EU 25 (marine) terrestrial terrestrial) terrestrial) and marine) Extinct (EX) 2 2 0 2 Extinct in the Wild (EW) 0 0 0 0 Regionally Extinct (RE) 0 0 1 1 Critically Endangered (CR) 3 4 2 5 Threatened Endangered (EN) 7 5 2 9 categories Vulnerable (VU) 19 15 2 21 Near Threatened (NT) 20 19 1 21 Least Concern (LC) 146 113 7 153 Data Deficient (DD) 7 9 12 19 Total number of species assessed* 204 167 27 231 Total number of extant species* 202 165 26 228

*Excluding species that are considered Not Applicable.

Overall, considering both terrestrial and marine species at the European regional level, 15.2% of species were threatened. A further 9.1% were considered Near Threatened, and 1.3% were already regionally or globally Extinct. A further 51 species were classed as Not Applicable: 22 were introduced after 1500 A.D., 27 are of marginal occurrence in the European region, and two are feral descendants of ancient domesticated animals. More than a quarter (27%) of European mammals were declining in population. A further 32% were stable, and only 8% were increasing. Population trend information was not available for the remaining 33% of species.

Status by taxonomic group

Terrestrial mammals native to Europe belong to eight major groups, or taxonomic orders: Lagomorpha (rabbits, hares and pikas) and Rodentia (), Erinaceomorpha ( and their relatives), ( and moles), Chiroptera (), Artiodactyla

Table 2. Red List Status (European Regional level) by taxonomic order.

% Threatened Order Total* EX EW RE CR EN VU NT LC DD or Extinct Lagomorpha 8 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 0 37.5% Rodentia 85 0 0 0 1 2 4 8 69 1 8.2% Erinaceomorpha 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0% Soricomorpha 30 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 21 4 10% Chiroptera 40 0 0 0 0 3 7 8 20 2 25.0% Artiodactyla 14 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 21.4% Cetacea 23 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 4 12 21.7% Carnivora 27 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 20 0 22.2% Total 231 2 0 1 5 9 21 21 153 19 16.5%

*Does not include species classed as Not Applicable (NA).

251 (even-toed ungulates), Cetacea (whales, dolphins and porpoises), Carnivora (carnivores). Considerable differences were seen among these groups in both species numbers as well as threatened status (Table 2). Rodents, bats, and soricomorphs (shrews and moles) constituted the majority of European mammals. Carnivores, ungulates, bats and lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) were particularly threatened.

Spatial distribution of species

The geographic distribution of mammal species richness in Europe is presented in Fig. 2. The mountainous regions of temperate and Mediterranean Europe (including the Cantabrian mountains, Pyrenees, Massif Central, Alps, Apennines, Carpathians, and the mountains of the Balkan peninsula) clearly stand out as areas of high species richness. The whole Balkan peninsula emerges as a hotspot of mammalian diversity. There is a marked latitudinal gradient in species richness, with southern Europe (especially southeastern Europe) containing a greater diversity of mammal species than the north. In the marine realm, species richness is higher in the open Atlantic ocean than it is in the enclosed Baltic, Mediterranean and Black Seas. A map showing the distribution of threatened mammals in Europe (Fig. 3) reveals somewhat different patterns from depictions of overall species diversity. The greatest concentration of threatened species is found in the Balkan Peninsula, especially Bulgaria. The Mediterranean islands of Corsica and Sardinia are also highlighted as having a high number of threatened mammal species, as well as parts of Iberia, the Pyrenees, and the

Fig. 2. Species richness of European mammals.

252 Fig. 3. Distribution of threatened mammals in Europe. Apennines. The distribution of threatened marine mammals correlates with overall marine mammal species richness – there is a higher number of threatened species in the Atlantic than in the Mediterranean, Black and Baltic Seas.

Major threats

Habitat loss and degradation have by far the largest impact on both threatened and nonthreatened species, affecting 27 of the 29 threatened species, and 94 species in total (Fig. 4). The number of species impacted by habitat loss and degradation was nearly three times greater than the next most common threat, pollution (including global climate change). Human disturbance, accidental mortality (e.g. bycatch or vehicle collisions), invasive alien species and overharvesting were also identified as significant threats. The two most frequently recorded major threats to marine species were accidental mortality (e.g., entanglement in fishing gear and ship strikes) and pollution (see Fig. 5). These threats are particularly severe in the enclosed seas of the continent such as the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, and the Baltic. Although harvesting (e.g., overexploitation through unregulated commercial whaling) only ranked third overall when looking at both threatened and non-threatened species, this study showed it was a highly significant threat to threatened species. All Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered, and Regionally Extinct species had harvesting listed as a major threat. For a number of these species, historic overexploitation is the main reason why they are currently listed as threatened; some species have failed to recover even though their harvest has now ceased.

253 Fig. 4. Major threats to terrestrial mammals in Europe.

Fig. 5. Major threats to marine mammals in Europe.

254 Discussion

Status and population trends of European mammals

Patterns of terrestrial species status were similar at the European and EU 25 level, although there were some notable differences. The proportion of threatened terrestrial mammals was nearly identical for Europe and the EU 25 (14.2% and 14.4% respectively), although in the EU 25 a larger percentage of species were placed in the highest category of threat, Critically Endangered (2.4% in the EU versus 1.5% in Europe as a whole). Two terrestrial mammal species qualified as Critically Endangered at the EU 25 level, although they were considered less threatened at the European regional level. These were the European mink Mustela lutreola (considered CR in the EU 25 but EN in Europe) and the Arctic fox Alopex lagopus (considered CR in the EU 25 but LC in Europe). The European mink qualified as threatened at both levels because of very rapid population declines throughout its range; better information from the eastern part of its range might result in a future uplisting to Critically Endangered at the European regional level too. By contrast, the Arctic fox has a tiny and severely threatened population in the European Union (Sweden and Finland), but is not considered threatened at the European regional level because of the presence of large populations in the Russian Federation that are not believed to be declining at a rate approaching the IUCN Red List thresholds. Birds are the only other taxonomic group that has been subject to a status assessment at both the European and the EU 25 level. A higher proportion of bird species have Unfavourable conservation status at the EU 25 level than at the pan-European level (BirdLife International 2004b, see Temple & Terry 2007 for a discussion of the important differences between Unfavourable conservation status sensu the EU Habitats Directive and threatened status sensu IUCN Red List Criteria). Almost half (48%) of the EU 25’s 448 species were assessed as having Unfavourable conservation status, whereas only 43% of 524 European species had Unfavourable conservation status (B i r d L i f e International 2004b). Marine mammals showed a notably high proportion of Data Deficient species. This was driven in part by the inclusion in the assessment of six species of the family Ziphiidae (beaked whales). These rarely-recorded and inconspicuous deepwater species are the most poorly known of cetaceans; they tend to remain well out to sea, avoid ships, and dive to great depths and are consequently often missed in surveys (B a r l o w 1999, N o w a k 1999). All six of these species were classed as Data Deficient. Data collected on population trends showed that just over a quarter of European mammals are experiencing population decline whereas only one in 12 are increasing. Our findings are approximately comparable with population trends recorded for birds in Europe: from 1990 to 2000, 23% of European bird species showed population declines, 51% were stable, 9% were increasing and 17% were of unknown population trend (B i r d L i f e I n t e r n a t i o n a l 2004a). The status assessment of European bird species benefited from quantitative population trend data from a well established monitoring network covering the majority of species and countries in Europe. By contrast, comprehensive and reliable population trend data are available for very few mammal species. The population trend analysis in this report is based in many cases on survey data from a small and potentially non-representative part of the species’ range, or on a subjective assessment of population trend based on known threats. A task for the future is to strengthen capacity for monitoring mammal populations in Europe, especially those of threatened, Near Threatened and Data Deficient species.

255 The enlarged EU 27

Our research highlights the importance of the new Member States Romania and Bulgaria for species conservation in Europe – both of these countries have notably high mammalian biodiversity, as well as important concentrations of threatened species. The addition of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU in 2007 has brought three new mammal species that did not previously occur in the EU. These three species are the Romanian newtoni and the Balkan mole-rat Spalax graecus (both Near Threatened at the European regional level), as well as the Levant mole levantis (Least Concern). The Romanian hamster and the Balkan mole-rat are both of conservation concern as they have very restricted ranges and are believed to be negatively affected by agricultural intensification. The Balkan mole-rat is not currently listed on Annexes II or IV of the Habitats Directive. One of the main habitats for the Balkan mole-rat is agricultural land, so it is important that changes to agricultural policies and practices implemented as a result of EU accession take into account the needs of this species. Romania and Bulgaria also hold important populations of two species that were previously only of marginal occurrence in the EU. These are the marbled polecat Vormela peregusna (Vulnerable at the European regional level), the grey hamster migratorius (Least Concern at the European regional level). Additionally, Bulgaria holds a significant part of the global distribution of Roach’s mouse-tailed dormouse Myomimus roachi, a species that is considered Endangered at the European level. V. peregusna and M. roachi have been added to Annexes II and IV of the Habitats Directive. The new Member States significantly enrich the European Union’s biodiversity, but ensuring that these wildlife riches are conserved and sustainably managed will be a major challenge for policymakers in the years ahead.

Conservation priorities

Species frequently require a combination of conservation responses to ensure their continued survival. These responses include legislation, monitoring, research, management of populations, land acquisition and management, and even captive breeding and translocations for some of Europe’s most threatened mammal species (e.g., Iberian lynx Lynx pardinus and European mink). For species threatened across their range, limited or local actions are unlikely to be sufficiently strong or coherent to prevent extinction, and coordinated action is required at the regional level. Under the Bern Convention Action Plans have been developed for certain priority species (all large carnivores, European bison, a number of bats), outlining specific conservation measures that are urgently needed (B o i t a n i 2000, L a n d a et al. 2000, L i m p e n s et al. 2000, S w e n s o n et al. 2000, P u c e k et al. 2004). The implementation of Action Plans is an effective means of improving the status of some of Europe’s most threatened species (N a g y & C r o c k f o r d 2004), and measures (including financial incentives) to promote the development and implementation of more Action Plans should be taken. The protection of sites plays a key role in any effective conservation strategy. Several international treaties call for the selection and protection of sites on the basis of their importance for biodiversity. In Europe, the primary mechanism for site protection is the Natura 2000 network of protected areas. This paper identifies a number of areas within Europe that are regionally important for mammalian biodiversity and threatened species richness. The spatial distribution data gathered for individual species as part of the IUCN European Mammal Assessment can be used to inform site selection at a finer scale. In

256 particular, it is very important that Natura 2000 sites are rapidly proposed and adopted in the new Member States of Bulgaria and Romania, to protect the unusually high concentrations of threatened mammals that are found in these countries. Europe is the most urbanized and, together with Asia, the most densely populated continent in the world. Human pressure on the landscape over millennia has produced a mosaic of semi-natural habitats, and today only about 1% of the surface area of Europe can be considered as wilderness, with the old growth forests of Poland, Scandinavia, the Balkans and Russia representing the last pristine areas. As a response to this extensive habitat modification and fragmentation, conservation planners have developed a number of tools to increase connectivity between core areas of habitat for the movement of species. These methods include planning tools such as ecological networks, which aim to identify core areas, species corridors and mixed land use zones (e.g., buffer zones), integration of ecological concerns into spatial land use planning and broader approaches to increase landscape permeability (J o n g m a n & P u n g e t t i 2004, C r o o k s & S a n j a y a n 2006). Providing increased connectivity is a vitally important aspect of mammal conservation in Europe and will provide a key tool to allow species to adapt to current habitat fragmentation and future climate change. Monitoring of endangered wild mammal populations is now a statutory responsibility under EU legislation. However, many European countries have no formal schemes for monitoring even common and widespread species, let alone those that are under threat. National mammal population monitoring schemes have been initiated in some EU Member States, for example in the United Kingdom the Tracking Mammals Partnership www. trackingmammals.org has set up a surveillance and monitoring network that aims to deliver distribution and population trend information on all UK mammals. At the regional level, the European Union must report its progress towards the stated aim of halting biodiversity loss by 2010. If the Red List assessments described in this paper are periodically updated, it will enable the changing status of European mammals to be tracked through time and will provide an indicator of the changing fate of biodiversity to 2010 and beyond (B r o o k s & K e n n e d y 2004, B u t c h a r t et al. 2004, 2005, 2006).

Conclusions

Our research indicates that many mammals are declining in Europe and 15% are threatened with extinction at the regional level. There is a rich diversity of mammals in Europe, ranging from highly secretive and rarely seen species to the charismatic large carnivores that have become flagship species for conservation (L e a d e r - W i l l i a m s & D u b l i n 2000). Although Europe is associated with lower species richness than other regions of the world, it is home to the world’s most threatened cat species and species continue to be newly identified or re-discovered (M u c e d d a et al. 2002, B o n h o m m e et al. 2004, C u c c h i et al. 2006). Conservation of this diversity requires the full implementation of the Natura 2000 network and the development and implementation of Species Action Plans. Essential for many of these species will be the implementation of landscape management approaches integrated with other sectoral policies that allow species to disperse and adapt to habitat fragmentation and climate change. Additional research and monitoring of mammals is required and should be developed as part of coordinated programmes across Europe. The dynamic nature of mammal populations means their numbers can change rapidly over relatively short periods

257 of time. Therefore regular updates on the status of Europe’s mammals are essential – both to assess the effectiveness of conservation efforts and to ensure that the species in most need of attention receive it promptly.

Acknowledgements This research was carried out as part of a service contract with the European Commission (Service Contract No. 070502/2005/414893/MAR/B2). The Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry Environment and Water and Vilda Nature Photography provided additional support. We received extensive expert advice and assistance from many IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Specialist Groups and Working Groups, and more than 150 mammal experts from more than 40 countries in Europe and adjacent regions contributed to the species assessments. For a full list of people and organizations that contributed to the European Mammal Assessment, please see T e m p l e & T e r r y (2007). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission, the Austrian Ministry of the Environment or the World Conservation Union (IUCN).

LITERATURE

Barlow J. 1999: Trackline detection probability for long diving whales. In: Garner G.W. et al. (eds.), Marine mammal survey and assessment methods. Balkema Press, Netherlands: 209–221. Birdlife International 2004a: Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends, and conservation status. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK. Birdlife International 2004b: Birds in the European Union: a status assessment. BirdLife International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Birdlife International and Conservation International 2005: Areas Importantes para la Conservacion de las Aves en los Andes Tropicales: Sitios Prioritarios para la Conservacion de la Biodiversidad. BirdLife International. Boitani L. 2000: Action plan for the conservation of the wolves (Canis lupus) in Europe. Nature and Environment, Council of Europe Publishing 113: 1–86. Bonhomme F., Orth A., Cucchi T., Hadjisterkotis E., Vigne J.-D. & Auffray J.-C. 2004: Découverte d’une nouvelle espèce de souris sur l’île de Chypre. Comptes Rendus Biologies 327: 501–507. Brooks T. & Kennedy E. 2004: Biodiversity barometers. Nature 431: 1046–1049. Butchart S.H.M., Stattersfield A.J., Bennun L.A., Shutes S.M., Akcakaya H.R. et al. 2004: Measuring global trends in the status of biodiversity: Red List Indices for birds. PLoS Biology 2: e383. Butchart S.H.M., Stattersfield A.J., Baillie J.E.M., Bennun L.A., Stuart S.N. et al. 2005: Using Red List Indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London B 360: 255–268. Butchart S.H.M., Akcakaya H.R., Kennedy E. & Hilton-Taylor C. 2006: Biodiversity indicators based on trends in conservation status: strengths of the IUCN Red List Index. Conserv. Biol. 20: 579–581. Collar N.J. 1996: The reasons for Red Data Books. Oryx 30: 121–130. Crooks K.C. & Sanjayan M.A. 2006: Conectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Cucchi T., Orth A., Auffray J.-C, Renaud S., Fabre L., Catalan J., Hadjisterkotis E., Bonhomme F. & Vigne J.-D. 2006: A new endemic species of the subgenus Mus (Rodentia, Mammalia) on the Island of Cyprus. Zootaxa 1241: 1–36. IUCN 2001: IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. IUCN 2003: Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels: Version 3.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Jongman R.H.G. & Punghetti G. 2004: Ecological networks and greenways: Concept, design, implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Landa A., Linden M. & Kojola I. 2000: Action plan for the conservation of wolverines in Europe (Gulo gulo). Council of Europe Nature and Environment 115: 1–45. Leader-Williams N. & Dublin H.T. 2000: Charismatic megafauna as ‘flagship species’. In: Entwistle A. & Dunstone N. (eds.), Priorities for the conservation of mammalian diversity: Has the panda had its day? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 53–84.

258 Limpens H., Lina P.H.C. & Hutson A.M. 2000: Action plan for the conservation of the pond in Europe (Myotis dasycneme). Council of Europe, Nature and Environment Series No. 108. Mace G.M., Collar N., Cooke J., Gaston K.J., Ginsberg J.R., Leader-Williams N., Maunder M. & Milner-Gulland E.J. 1992: The development of new criteria for listing species on the IUCN Red List. Species 19: 16–22. Mace G.M. & Lande R. 1991: Assessing extinction threats: toward a re-evaluation of IUCN threatened species categories. Conserv. Biol. 5: 148–157. Mace G.M. & Stuart S.N. 1994: Draft IUCN Red List Categories, Version 2.2. Species 21–22: 13–24. Muccedda M., Kieffer A., Pidinchedda E. & Veith M. 2002: A new species of long-eared bat (Chiroptera, ) from Sardinia (Italy). Acta Chiropterol. 4: 121–135. Nagy S. & Crockford N. 2004: Implementation in the European Union of species action plans for 23 of Europe’s most threatened birds. BirdLife International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Nowak R.M. 1999: Walker’s mammals of the world. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. Pucek Z. (ed.) 2004: European bison. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Bison Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Rodrigues A.S.L., Akcakaya H.R., Andelman S.J., Bakarr M.I., Boitani L., Brookes T.M., Chanson J.S., Fishpool L.D.C., Da Fonseca G.A.B., Gaston K.J., Hoffmann M., Marquet P.A., Pilgrim J.D., Pressey R.L., Schipper J., Sechrest W., Stuart S.N., Underhill L.G., Waller R.W., Watts M.E.J. & Yan X. 2004: Global gap analysis: priority regions for expanding the global protected-area network. Bioscience 54: 1092–1100. Rodrigues A.S.L., Pilgrim J.D., Lamoreaux J.F., Hoffmann M. & Brooks T.M. 2006: The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21: 71–76. Swenson J.E., Gerstl N., Dahle B. & Zedrosser A. 2000: Action plan for the conservation of the brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Europe. Report to the Council of Europe Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats T-PVS (2000) 24: 1–68. Temple H.J. & Terry A. 2007: The status and distribution of European mammals. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Wilson D.E. & Reeder D.M. (eds.) 2005: Mammal species of the world. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Available online at http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/msw/.

259 to (Y/N) Europe? Endemic Y Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y N N N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y IUCN (EU 25) Red List Criteria A2bcde+3bcde B1ab(iii,v) IUCN (EU 25) Red List Category VU LC LC LC VU LC NT EX LC NE LC NT(VU)* LC NA LC NE DD NE NE LC NE NE NE NE LC Criteria (Europe) IUCN Red List A2bcde+3bcde B1ab(iii,v) IUCN Red List (Europe) Category VU LC LC LC VU LC NT EX LC LC LC NT(VU)* LC LC LC LC NT(VU)* LC LC LC LC LC LC NT LC Species Lepus corsicanus Lepus granatensis Lepus europaeus Lepus capensis Lepus castroviejoi Lepus timidus Oryctolagus cuniculus Prolagus sardus Prolagus Castor fiber eversmanni Arvicola amphibius Arvicola sapidus Chionomys nivalis Cricetulus migratorius Cricetus cricetus Dicrostonyx torquatus Dicrostonyx Dinaromys bogdanovi Dinaromys Ellobius talpinus Lagurus lagurus Lemmus lemmus Lemmus sibiricus Meriones tamariscinus Meriones meridianus Mesocricetus newtoni Microtus duodecimcostatus Microtus Family LEPORIDAE LEPORIDAE LEPORIDAE LEPORIDAE LEPORIDAE LEPORIDAE LEPORIDAE PROLAGIDAE CASTORIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE Red List status of European mammals. Order LAGOMORPHA LAGOMORPHA LAGOMORPHA LAGOMORPHA LAGOMORPHA LAGOMORPHA LAGOMORPHA LAGOMORPHA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA Appendix.

260 to (Y/N) Europe? Endemic Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y N N N Y Y N N Y N N N N N N N N N IUCN (EU 25) Red List Criteria B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) B2ab(ii,iii)c(iv) IUCN (EU 25) Red List Category LC LC LC LC LC LC LC CR LC VU LC LC LC NE LC LC LC NE LC NE LC LC LC LC NE NE NE NE Criteria (Europe) IUCN Red List B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) B2ab(ii,iii)c(iv) IUCN Red List (Europe) Category LC LC LC LC LC LC LC CR LC VU LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NA LC LC LC LC NT LC NA LC Species Microtus tatricus Microtus Microtus lusitanicus Microtus Microtus multiplex Microtus Microtus arvalis Microtus Microtus thomasi Microtus Microtus guentheri Microtus Microtus felteni Microtus Microtus bavaricus Microtus Microtus oeconomus Microtus Microtus cabrerae Microtus Microtus savii Microtus Microtus levis Microtus Microtus agrestis Microtus Microtus gregalis Microtus Microtus liechtensteini Microtus Microtus gerbei Microtus Microtus subterraneus Microtus Microtus socialis Microtus Microtus brachycercus Microtus Microtus middendorffii Microtus Myodes rutilus Myodes rufocanus Myodes glareolus Myopus schisticolor Allactaga major Allactaga elater Dipus sagitta Pygeretmus pumilio Pygeretmus Family CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE CRICETIDAE DIPODIDAE DIPODIDAE DIPODIDAE DIPODIDAE Order RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA

261 to (Y/N) Europe? Endemic Y N N N N N Y N N N N Y Y N N Y N N N N N N N N Y N Y N IUCN (EU 25) Red List Criteria B1ab(iii) IUCN (EU 25) Red List Category NE VU LC NE NE LC NT LC LC DD LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NE Criteria (Europe) IUCN Red List B1ab(ii,iii) IUCN Red List (Europe) Category LC NT LC LC LC LC NT LC LC EN LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC Species Sicista severtzovi Sicista subtilis Sicista betulina Sicista strandi Stylodipus telum Dryomys nitedula Eliomys quercinus Glis glis Muscardinus avellanarius Muscardinus Myomimus roachi Hystrix cristata Acomys minous Apodemus alpicola Apodemus mystacinus Apodemus uralensis Apodemus epimelas Apodemus agrarius Apodemus sylvaticus Apodemus flavicollis Micromys minutus Micromys Mus macedonicus Mus cypriacus Mus musculus Mus spretus Mus spicilegus Rattus rattus Marmota marmota Marmota bobak Family DIPODIDAE DIPODIDAE DIPODIDAE DIPODIDAE DIPODIDAE GLIRIDAE GLIRIDAE GLIRIDAE GLIRIDAE GLIRIDAE HYSTRICIDAE MURIDAE MURIDAE MURIDAE MURIDAE MURIDAE MURIDAE MURIDAE MURIDAE MURIDAE MURIDAE MURIDAE MURIDAE MURIDAE MURIDAE MURIDAE SCIURIDAE SCIURIDAE Order RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA

262 to (Y/N) Europe? Endemic N N Y Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N N Y N N N N Y IUCN (EU 25) Red List Criteria A2bc B1ab (ii,iii) IUCN (EU 25) Red List Category NT LC VU NA NE NE NE NE NE LC NE NE NE NE NA LC LC LC NE LC DD EN Criteria (Europe) IUCN Red List A2bc B2ab(iii) B2ab(ii,iii) D2 B1ab(ii,iii)+ 2ab(ii,iii) B1ab(ii,iii) IUCN Red List (Europe) Category DD LC VU NT LC LC LC LC VU LC VU LC NT EN NA LC LC LC LC LC DD EN Species Pteromys volans Pteromys Sciurus vulgaris Spermophilus citellus Spermophilus suslicus Spermophilus pygmaeus Spermophilus major Spermophilus fulvus Tamias sibiricus Tamias Spalax giganteus Spalax leucodon Spalax zemni Spalax microphthalmus Spalax graecus Spalax arenarius Macaca sylvanus algirus europaeus Erinaceus roumanicus Hemiechinus auritus russula Crocidura Crocidura ichnusae Crocidura Crocidura canariensis Crocidura Family SCIURIDAE SCIURIDAE SCIURIDAE SCIURIDAE SCIURIDAE SCIURIDAE SCIURIDAE SCIURIDAE SPALACIDAE SPALACIDAE SPALACIDAE SPALACIDAE SPALACIDAE SPALACIDAE CERCOPITHECIDAE ERINACEIDAE ERINACEIDAE ERINACEIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE Order RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA RODENTIA PRIMATES ERINACEOMORPHA ERINACEOMORPHA ERINACEOMORPHA ERINACEOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA

263 to (Y/N) Europe? Endemic Y N Y N N N N N Y N Y Y N N N N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N IUCN (EU 25) Red List Criteria B1ab(i,ii,v)+ 2ab(i,ii,v) IUCN (EU 25) Red List Category VU LC LC LC NE LC LC LC LC NE NT LC LC LC LC LC DD DD DD LC NE NT(VU)* LC LC LC LC LC Criteria (Europe) IUCN Red List B1ab(i,ii,v)+ 2ab(i,ii,v) A2bc+4bc IUCN Red List (Europe) Category VU LC LC LC NA LC LC LC LC LC NT LC LC LC LC LC DD DD DD LC VU NT(VU)* LC LC LC LC LC Species Crocidura zimmermanni Crocidura Crocidura leucodon Crocidura Crocidura sicula Crocidura Crocidura suaveolens Crocidura Diplomesodon pulchellum anomalus Neomys fodiens caecutiens Sorex Sorex coronatus Sorex Sorex tundrensis Sorex Sorex alpinus Sorex Sorex samniticus Sorex Sorex isodon Sorex Sorex minutissimus Sorex Sorex minutus Sorex Sorex araneus Sorex Sorex granarius Sorex Sorex antinorii Sorex Sorex arunchi Sorex etruscus Desmana moschata Galemys pyrenaicus Talpa romana Talpa Talpa stankovici Talpa Talpa occidentalis Talpa Talpa caeca Talpa Talpa europaea Talpa Family SORICIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE SORICIDAE TALPIDAE TALPIDAE TALPIDAE TALPIDAE TALPIDAE TALPIDAE Order SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA SORICOMORPHA

264 to (Y/N) Europe? Endemic N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N Y IUCN (EU 25) Red List Criteria A4c A2c A3c+4c A4bce A4c B1ab(iii) IUCN (EU 25) Red List Category NE LC NT NT VU VU DD VU LC LC LC NT LC NT LC LC VU NT LC LC NT LC VU DD LC DD EN Criteria (Europe) IUCN Red List A4c A2c A4c A3c+4c A4bce A4c B1ab(iii) IUCN Red List (Europe) Category LC LC NT NT VU VU VU VU LC LC LC NT LC NT LC LC VU NT LC LC NT LC VU DD LC DD EN Species Talpa levantis Talpa Tadarida teniotis Tadarida Rhinolophus ferrumequinum Rhinolophus hipposideros Rhinolophus mehelyi Rhinolophus euryale Rhinolophus blasii Barbastella barbastellus Eptesicus nilssonii Eptesicus serotinus Hypsugo savii Miniopterus schreibersii Myotis nattereri Myotis blythii Myotis myotis Myotis brandtii Myotis capaccinii Myotis dasycneme Myotis daubentonii Myotis emarginatus Myotis punicus Myotis mystacinus Myotis bechsteinii Myotis alcathoe Myotis aurascens Nyctalus lasiopterus Nyctalus azoreum Family TALPIDAE MOLOSSIDAE RHINOLOPHIDAE RHINOLOPHIDAE RHINOLOPHIDAE RHINOLOPHIDAE RHINOLOPHIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE Order SORICOMORPHA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA

265 to (Y/N) Europe? Endemic N N N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Y N N N Y Y N N Y N N N N N N IUCN (EU 25) Red List Criteria B1ab(iii,v) B2ab(iii) B2ab(iii) B1ab(iii,v) D1 IUCN (EU 25) Red List Category LC LC LC LC EN LC LC NT LC LC VU VU EN LC VU EX LC LC NA NA LC LC NE LC NE LC LC Criteria (Europe) IUCN Red List B1ab(iii,v) B2ab(iii) B1ab(iii,v) D1 A2a IUCN Red List (Europe) Category LC LC LC LC EN LC LC NT LC LC NT VU EN LC VU EX LC LC NA NA LC LC CR LC LC LC LC Species Nyctalus noctula Nyctalus leisleri Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrellus Pipistrellus nathusii Pipistrellus Pipistrellus maderensis Pipistrellus Pipistrellus kuhlii Pipistrellus Pipistrellus pygmaeus Pipistrellus Plecotus kolombatovici Plecotus auritus Plecotus austriacus Plecotus macrobullaris Plecotus sardus Plecotus teneriffae Vespertilio murinus Vespertilio Bison bonasus Bos primigenius Capra ibex Capra pyrenaica Capra hircus Ovis aries Rupicapra pyrenaica Rupicapra rupicapra Saiga tatarica Alces alces Capreolus pygargus Capreolus Capreolus capreolus Capreolus Cervus elaphus Family VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE VESPERTILIONIDAE BOVIDAE BOVIDAE BOVIDAE BOVIDAE BOVIDAE BOVIDAE BOVIDAE BOVIDAE BOVIDAE CERVIDAE CERVIDAE CERVIDAE CERVIDAE Order CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA CHIROPTERA ARTIODACTYLA ARTIODACTYLA ARTIODACTYLA ARTIODACTYLA ARTIODACTYLA ARTIODACTYLA ARTIODACTYLA ARTIODACTYLA ARTIODACTYLA ARTIODACTYLA ARTIODACTYLA ARTIODACTYLA ARTIODACTYLA

266 to (Y/N) Europe? Endemic N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N IUCN (EU 25) Red List Criteria D D D A2cde IUCN (EU 25) Red List Category LC LC LC NA CR EN LC NT EN LC DD DD DD NA LC LC DD NA NA NA DD NA DD RE NA NA VU Criteria (Europe) IUCN Red List D D D A2cde IUCN Red List (Europe) Category LC LC LC NA CR EN LC NT EN LC DD DD DD NA LC LC DD NA NA NA DD NA DD RE NA NA VU Species Dama dama Rangifer tarandus Sus scrofa Balaena mysticetus Eubalaena glacialis Balaenoptera borealis Balaenoptera acutorostrata Balaenoptera physalus Balaenoptera musculus Megaptera novaeangliae Delphinus delphis Globicephala melas Grampus griseus Lagenodelphis hosei Lagenorhynchus Lagenorhynchus acutus Lagenorhynchus Lagenorhynchus albirostris Orcinus orca Orcinus Peponocephala electra Pseudorca crassidens Pseudorca Sousa chinensis Stenella coeruleoalba Steno bredanensis Tursiops truncatus Tursiops Eschrichtius robustus Delphinapterus leucas Monodon monoceros Phocoena phocoena Family CERVIDAE CERVIDAE SUIDAE BALAENIDAE BALAENIDAE BALAENOPTERIDAE BALAENOPTERIDAE BALAENOPTERIDAE BALAENOPTERIDAE BALAENOPTERIDAE DELPHINIDAE DELPHINIDAE DELPHINIDAE DELPHINIDAE DELPHINIDAE DELPHINIDAE DELPHINIDAE DELPHINIDAE DELPHINIDAE DELPHINIDAE DELPHINIDAE DELPHINIDAE DELPHINIDAE ESCHRICHTIIDAE MONODONTIDAE MONODONTIDAE PHOCOENIDAE Order ARTIODACTYLA ARTIODACTYLA ARTIODACTYLA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA

267 to (Y/N) Europe? Endemic N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N IUCN (EU 25) Red List Criteria A1d D1, C2a(i) C2a(i) D1 IUCN (EU 25) Red List Category NA NA VU DD DD DD DD DD DD CR NT LC LC NE NE NT NT CR LC VU NT LC LC NE LC NT NE Criteria (Europe) IUCN Red List A1d C2a(i) A2cd; C1 IUCN Red List (Europe) Category NA NA VU DD DD DD DD DD DD LC LC LC LC LC NA LC LC CR LC VU NT LC LC NA LC LC NA Species Kogia breviceps Kogia sima Physeter catodon Hyperoodon ampullatus Hyperoodon Mesoplodon europaeus Mesoplodon densirostris Mesoplodon bidens Mesoplodon mirus Ziphius cavirostris Alopex lagopus Canis aureus Canis lupus Vulpes vulpes Vulpes Vulpes corsac Vulpes Felis chaus Felis silvestris Lynx lynx Lynx Lynx pardinus Lynx Herpestes ichneumon Gulo gulo Lutra lutra Martes foina Martes martes Martes zibellina Meles meles Mustela putorius Mustela sibirica Family PHYSETERIDAE PHYSETERIDAE PHYSETERIDAE ZIPHIIDAE ZIPHIIDAE ZIPHIIDAE ZIPHIIDAE ZIPHIIDAE ZIPHIIDAE CANIDAE CANIDAE CANIDAE CANIDAE CANIDAE FELIDAE FELIDAE FELIDAE FELIDAE HERPESTIDAE MUSTELIDAE MUSTELIDAE MUSTELIDAE MUSTELIDAE MUSTELIDAE MUSTELIDAE MUSTELIDAE MUSTELIDAE Order CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CETACEA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA

268 to (Y/N) Europe? Endemic Dinaromys Dinaromys N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N IUCN (EU 25) Red List Criteria A2ce C2a(i) C2a(ii) Arvicola sapidus , and IUCN (EU 25) Red List Category LC CR LC EN NA NE NA NA LC CR NA LC LC NT NE LC Galemys pyrenaicus, Criteria (Europe) IUCN Red List A2ce A2c C2a(ii) A3c IUCN Red List (Europe) Category LC EN LC LC VU NA NA NA LC CR NA LC LC LC VU LC Species Mustela nivalis Mustela lutreola Mustela erminea Mustela eversmanii Vormela peregusna Vormela Odobenus rosmarus Cystophora cristata Erignathus barbatus Halichoerus grypus Monachus monachus Pagophilus groenlandicus Phoca vitulina Pusa hispida Ursus arctos Ursus maritimus Genetta genetta Family MUSTELIDAE MUSTELIDAE MUSTELIDAE MUSTELIDAE MUSTELIDAE ODOBENIDAE PHOCIDAE PHOCIDAE PHOCIDAE PHOCIDAE PHOCIDAE PHOCIDAE PHOCIDAE URSIDAE URSIDAE VIVERRIDAE Order CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA CARNIVORA *Since the European Mammal Assessment was published in May 2007, (NT) assessments. See www.redlist. original uses the here presented analysis The new Vulnerable. to Threatened from Near uplisted been have species of these All three information bogdanovi . has become available for org for the most up-to-date accounts.

269