AQUATIC CONSERVATION: MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 12: 169–179 (2002) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/aqc.502 Methodology for drawing up a Red List of threatened freshwater fish in France P. KEITHa,* and L. MARIONb a Museeum! National d’Histoire Naturelle, 57, rue Cuvier 75231 Paris cedex 05, France b Universite! de Rennes I, Laboratoire d’e!volution des systeemes" naturels et modifiees,! campus de Beaulieu, 35042 Rennes, France ABSTRACT 1. In 1995, the IUCN implemented new definitions to be used when drawing up red lists. However, in addition to being imprecise for fish species, these remain difficult to apply. 2. This paper describes a more exhaustive method under the IUCN (1995) definitions based on six quantitative and qualitative criteria where scientific data are given the greatest possible weight, as compared with ‘expert opinion’. This dual system makes it possible both to allocate an IUCN category to each species, and to rank each species within a particular category according to given scores, so that priorities can be determined. 3. The new Red List for French Freshwater Fish drawn up with this method contains 27 species, or 54% of the French native fauna. Three species are extinct (EX), four are critically endangered (CR), two are endangered (EN), 14 are vulnerable (VU), and four are at lower risk (LR). 4. Based on sounder scientific grounds, this list modifies and replaces the one drawn up in 1992. In effect, it makes it easier to argue for the presence of one species in one category rather than in another. Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. KEY WORDS: evaluation; red list; threatened freshwater fish; conservation; France INTRODUCTION The ‘Red Data Book’ concept appeared in 1966 when the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) published the first ‘International Red Data Book of species threatened with extinction’. Many countries followed by publishing their own red data books or red lists when drawing up their national fauna and flora reports, using the standards established by the IUCN (1990, 1995). Species conservation measures aimed at trying to avoid or reduce loss in biodiversity are usually directed at those species most at risk. This is not only because the risk of extinction is highest, but also because the status of threatened species is often an indicator reflecting the natural quality of its area of occupancy. *Correspondence to: P. Keith, IEGB, Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 57, rue Cuvier 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France. E-mail: [email protected] Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 12 March 2001 Accepted 14 September 2001 170 P. KEITH AND L. MARION Many countries have drawn up red lists of endangered freshwater fish species using IUCN categories: Great Britain (Maitland and Lyle, 1991, 1996), Poland (Witkowski, 1992), Spain (Elvira, 1996), Slovakia (Holcik, 1996), Czech Republic (Jurajda and Pennaz,* 1996; Lusk, 1996), Hungary (Keresztessy, 1996), Ireland (Quigley and Flannery, 1996), Scotland (Sweetman et al., 1996) ...in Kirchhofer and Hefti (1996). In France, the Ministry of the Environment has for the last 15 years supported various red data book projects concerning the country’s main groups of threatened wild species. The National Heritage Department (Service du patrimoine naturel}SPN) within the National Museum of Natural History (Museeum! National d’Histoire Naturelle}MNHN) has been busy publishing thematic red data books, prompting the implementation of species protection and management programmes. In 1983 and in 1987, the SPN published the first red data books on threatened species in France (Beaufort, 1983; Beaufort and Lacaze, 1987). A few fish species were listed at the time, but this section remained poorly developed due to lack of available information on the distribution of the taxa (no atlas had been published) or on their ecology. In 1987, a book on European threatened fish was published for the Council of Europe (Lelek, 1987) where a particular status was assigned to each European species according to the level of threat. Following this, it became necessary to engage in more detailed work in France. In 1992, the National Museum of Natural History, the French Fisheries Council (Conseil Supeerieur! de la Peeche),# the CEMAGREF (French Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering Research), and the Ministry of the Environment joined together to publish a ‘Red Data Book of threatened freshwater fish species in France’ (Keith et al., 1992; Keith and Allardi, 1996) complementing the previous books published in 1983 and 1987. Other red lists were drawn up in various countries but, as in France, there were often insufficient data for many species. These were commendable and pioneering works, but they were limited to whatever information was available at the time, and research had been restricted to a few threatened species (Maitland and Lyle, 1990, 1992; Maitland, 1995; Bless, 1996; Debus, 1996; Geertz-Hansen and Jorgensen, 1996; Kirchhofer, 1996; Kouril et al., 1996; Persat, 1996; Persat et al., 1996; Planelles and Reyna, 1996). Assigning a status was difficult for some species because of lack of information on past and present range, on biology, and on ecology. On the other hand, the relative vagueness of the 1990 IUCN criteria left too much room for ‘expert opinion’. In 1992, the French freshwater fish red data book was mainly established with ‘expert opinion’. In 1995, the IUCN implemented more exhaustive new definitions (appendix), although these apply more easily to birds (with the ecological and biological criteria), for example, than to fish. Faced with this problem, the MNHN suggested a more exhaustive methodology for drawing up a red list of French freshwater fish, based on a collection of quantitative and qualitative criteria. METHODS First, it was decided that introduced species should not be taken into account; a threat status can only be assigned to the 50 indigenous species of freshwater fish in France, as defined by Persat and Keith (1997) and later refined by Keith (1998). In order to determine the level of threat, six criteria were used (Table 1). Some had already been used by Millsap et al. (1990) for the management of one protected area in Florida, and later by Keith (1998) in a study of French populations. Each species is given a score for each criterion, according to specified conditions. The highest score is 10 for each criterion, so the highest score for one species is 60. Each criterion is defined, on the one hand, to best fit within the IUCN (1995) categories used throughout the world, and, on the other hand, to yield a precise assessment of each species’ status compared with the next, with the greatest possible weight given to scientific data rather than expert opinion. Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 12: 169–179 (2002) METHODOLOGY FOR DRAWING UP A RED LIST 171 Table 1. Criteria used and scores given to selected threatened species throughout the countrya Criteria Scores 1}Size of the area of occupancy: Number of rectangles: (a) 525 km2 (CR (B) if crit. 2>or = to 20% ) 10 (b) 25–50 km2 (EN (B) if crit. 2>or = to 20% ) 8 (c) >50–100 km2 (VU (B) if crit. 2>or = to 20% ) 5 (d) >100–300 km2 2 (e) >300 km2 0 2}Fluctuations in the area of occupancy: The range declined: (a) >80–100% 10 (b) >50–80% 8 (c) >20–50% 5 (d) 1–20% or fragmented populations 2 (e) stable or increasing 0 3}Population size: (a) 52500 adults (EN (C)) 10 (b) 2500–10 000 (VU (C)) 8 (c) >10 000–50 000 or size unknown but thought to be small 5 (d) >50 000–100 000 2 (e) >100 000 0 4}Fluctuations in population size over the last 50 years: disappearance of: (a) >80% of the population (CR (A)) 10 (b) >50–80% of the population (EN (A)) 8 (c)>20–50% of the population (VU (A)) 5 (d) 1–20% of the population or suspected decline (VU (A)) 2 (e) population stable or increasing 0 5}Reproductive potential: A}Mean number of eggs/female/year: (a) 5500 5 (b) 500–5000 3 (c) >5000–100 000 1 (d) >100 000 0 B}Minimum age of the female when first breeding: (a) >8 yr 5 (b) >3–8 yr 3 (c) 2–3 yr 1 (d) 52yr 0 6}Ecological specialization of the species A}Breeding (special sites) (a) spawning grounds declining with no possible alternative 3.3 (b) with possible alternative 0 B}Special diet (a) food declining with no possible alternative 3.3 (b) with possible alternative 0 C}Others (behaviour, complexity of the biological cycle) (a) specialized 3.3 (b) non specialized 0 a Ex: extinct; CR: critically endangered; EN: endangered; VU: vulnerable; (A), (B) or (C): criteria A, B or C in categories CR, EN and VU (IUCN, 1995). This dual system allows an IUCN category to be assigned to each species and, as a result of the scoring system, to organise a hierarchy between the species within one category, making it possible to decide on priorities should the need arise. Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 12: 169–179 (2002) 172 P. KEITH AND L. MARION Fig. 1. Surveyed sites in the atlas of freshwater fish in France (Keith, 1998). The first criterion is based on results obtained while working on the computerised atlas of French freshwater fish over the 1991–1997 period (Allardi and Keith, 1991; Allardi et al., 1997), which shows the current distribution of all French species. It contains more than 200 000 records (a record=one species on one site) for more than 15 000 sampling stations distributed throughout the country (Figure 1) (Keith, 1998; Keith et al., 2001).