Methodology for Drawing up a Red List of Threatened Freshwater Fish In

Home , Cottus petiti, Freshwater blenny, Spanish toothcarp, Thymallus thymallus, Valencia toothcarp, Zingel asper

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]

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). The first criterion is the size of the species’ area of occupancy in France (only in fresh water for diadromous species); it matches the B criterion (concerning the distribution area of the species) in the categories CR, EN, and VU of the IUCN (1995) (appendix) and is defined by the IUCN in square kilometres. Counting the number of rectangles where the species is found gives a good idea of the size of its range since one 0.2 0.2 grades rectangle (as defined in the atlas, 0.9 grades=1 degree) represents a stretch of 20 km by 14 km, that is an area covering 280 km2 (the whole surface of France is covered by 2181 rectangles of 0.2 0.2 grades). Thus, the sum of rectangles gives an idea of the size of the species’ range. However, the upper limits used by the IUCN (CR: 5100 km2, EN: 100–5000 km2, and VU: >5000– 20 000 km2) are not suited to fish species living along a length of waterways, the surface area representing the catchment basins. In order to counter this bias, we suggest that these levels be raised for fish species. The number of rectangles has therefore been determined compared with those of the sturgeon and the apron, two species known to be on the brink of extinction in France and whose ranges (in river length and catchment area in square kilometres) are as well known as their numbers. (Perrin, 1988; Rochard et al., 1990; Keith et al., 1992; Williot et al., 1997). This method gives the following values: CR: 525 rectangles (57000 km2); EN from 25 to 50 rectangles (7000–14 000 km2); VU from >50 to 100 rectangles (14 000–28 000 km2).

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 12: 169–179 (2002) METHODOLOGY FOR DRAWING UP A RED LIST 173

The correlation between the number of rectangles and the number of records in the atlas has been checked to account for the species’ rarity. When a straight regression line is drawn between the number of records and the number of rectangles for each species, a strong correlation is found between the two: the correlation coefficient r2 ¼ 0:956 (P50:05); this allows calculations to be made on the threat criteria. All fish inventories carried out in France by the body in charge of managing fish populations and rivers have a set format so as to standardize the collection of data and to minimize sampling bias (Keith, 1998). The sites surveyed are referenced through their geographic co-ordinates, the name of the water body concerned, the name of the district, and the code for the catchment basin. They are then validated and computerized by scientists of the Museeum! National d’Histoire Naturelle according to a standard protocol developed for all inventories relating to species distribution. This protocol checks coherence between administrative and geographical co-ordinates, detecting mistakes in coding the species, and homogenizing all codes. On the other hand, the sampling is rather random, with no targeting of specified taxa, unlike inventories of other vertebrate groups. Some fish species behave in ways that increase or reduce the probability of their being caught. In addition, some habitats are investigated less often than others (ditches, ponds, etc.) and the capture of a rare species is often better reported than that of a common species. Using the number of rectangles is a way of counterbalancing these biases by smoothing data gathering: bringing together species with similar status while maintaining gaps between extreme species (Keith, 1998). A priori, using only criterion 1 will not be sufficient to help distinguish species that are widely distributed but whose numbers are declining or whose range is diminishing, from species with large populations but with a small area of occupancy. Additional criteria are therefore required. The second criterion is the fluctuations in the area of occupancy compared with the chosen reference state. Information available in current or past literature provided all the data necessary for evaluating a number of species. The third criterion (adult population size (old enough to reproduce); criterion C in the CR, EN and VU categories) and the fourth criterion (fluctuations in the size of the population over the last 50 years or the last 10 generations, criterion A (concerning the reduction in population size) in the CR, EN and VU categories) are based on recent studies carried out on fish species or found in past literature. Here again, the IUCN (1995) upper limits are not suitable to fish fecundity, and assessing the size of aquatic populations is often difficult. These limits were therefore adjusted to suit fish populations according to studies on endangered fish from Debus (1996), Geertz-Hansen and Jrgensen (1996), Kirchhofer (1996), Kouril et al. (1996), Planelles and Reyna (1996), Persat et al. (1996) and Keith et al. (2001) (Table 1). The fifth criterion is the species’ reproductive potential which provides an indication of the ability of the taxon or population to recover and reach its original level. Two parameters are taken into account: mean number of eggs per female per year, and the minimum age of a female when first breeding. The sixth criterion is the ecological specialization of the taxon, indicating its level of dependence on specific habitat conditions. As with the other criteria, the maximum score is 10. This criterion was divided into three sub-criteria (reproduction, diet, and others), as recommended by Millsap et al. (1990) (the maximum score is therefore 3.3 for each criterion). This sixth criterion deals with the conditions needed by the taxon to complete its biological cycle (with no alternative possible) and thus adding to its fragility: special spawning grounds (pike, salmon, sturgeon, etc.), restricted breeding range (Lez bullhead), dependence on a host species when spawning (bitterling), biological cycle requiring elaborate stages (eel). The parameters for the fifth and sixth criteria are principally the result of syntheses such as those of Spillmann (1961), Scott and Crossmann (1974), Maitland and Lyle (1990), Allardi and Keith (1991), Bless (1996), Debus (1996), Geertz-Hansen and Jorgensen (1996), Kirchhofer (1996), Kouril et al. (1996), Planelles and Reyna (1996), Persat (1996), Persat et al. (1996), and Keith et al. (2001). These two last criteria could be slightly influenced by ‘expert opinion’.

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 12: 169–179 (2002) 174 P. KEITH AND L. MARION

RESULTS

Table 2 gives a synthesis of the scores assigned at a national scale for each criterion, and the total score for each species. When a criterion 1 reaches a score >5 and is associated with a criterion 2 score other than zero, an IUCN category is recommended for the species (IUCN, 1995). When more than one category is recommended for one species because of the scores obtained for the various criteria, the highest category will be selected because, according to the IUCN (1995) definitions, testing positive for one criterion is enough to enter the category concerned. Extinct species (Spanish toothcarp, Valencia toothcarp, houting) do not appear in Table 2; they have been listed under the extinct (EX) category. Adding other criterion to the size of the area of occupancy (criterion 1) allows a distinction to be made between those species with a wide range but declining in some sectors, and those with declining numbers of breeding individuals (e.g. eel, pike) which could not be separated by range size. In the same way, the additional criteria made it possible to downgrade some species with small but stable ranges into the lower risk (LR) category (e.g. toxostome, barbeau meeridional).! With this method there are no species in the not evaluated (NE) category, nor are any listed in the data deficient (DD) category. These results enable a red list of French freshwater fish to be proposed (Table 3). It lists 27 species, 54% of the French indigenous 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). Among those listed, nine species are threatened or extinct (EX, CR, EN)}that is, 18% of the indigenous French fauna. Those species which obtained scores higher than the lowest one for the species listed for CR, EN, or VU status (i.e. burbot (VU, score 7)) but which could not be assigned to CR, EN or VU categories according to the IUCN standards, were given LR/nt status (lower risk, near threatened).

DISCUSSION

Amongst those countries that publish red lists of threatened freshwater fish based mainly on ‘expert opinion’, very few have tried to draw up a more accurate system. The most interesting experience comes from Florida, where those species liable to benefit from conservation measures were selected using the Millsap et al. (1990) test. However, this test had been drawn up for all animal groups, from mammals to fish, and it was mainly based on higher vertebrates. Criteria based on fecundity or numbers therefore appeared poorly adapted to fish. This became obvious in their results, when these authors found few threatened fish species, except for some highly distinctive species, such as the sturgeon, which differs from most because of its reproductive cycle and the age for first breeding. Furthermore, their test was incompatible with the otherwise vague IUCN (1990) definitions applying at the time, which were also drawn up from higher vertebrates, birds in particular. Finding a link between the two methods was no easy task. The scoring system in the present study of French fish species has many advantages: on the one hand, it is based on work over more than a decade of collating distribution data covering 86% of the country; it also allows the comparison of these data with information on the reference populations as defined by Persat and Keith (1997) and Keith (1998), and with the fluctuations reported in other publications; it takes into account the species’ biological and ecological characteristics that are important factors when assessing its ability for re-establishment in its habitat. On the other hand, this system is mirroring the main IUCN (1995) criteria (criterion 1 (size of the area of occupancy), 3 and 4 (size and fluctuations in the population) in order to maintain a degree of standardization when attributing a status to the species. Finally, it allows the taxa to be organized into a hierarchy, defining priorities for conservation. For example, the scores can be very different within the vulnerable category. Some species are closer to endangered or lower risk. Scores

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 12: 169–179 (2002) METHODOLOGY FOR DRAWING UP A RED LIST 175

Table 2. Scores obtained by each native species for each criterion and at the national levela Native species Final score C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Eggs Age Repro-Diet-Other Lampetra planeri 4000031000 Salmo trutta fario 4000031000 Salvelinus alpinus 11 5 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 Coregonus lavaretus 12 8 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 Thymallus thymallus 10-VU 2 2 0 2-VU 3 1 0 0 0 Esox lucius 9.3-VU 0 0 0 2-VU 3 1 3.3 0 0 Alburnus alburnus 3000030000 Leucaspius delineatus 5200030000 Leuciscus leuciscus 2000011000 Leuciscus cephalus 2000011000 Telestes soufia 8-VU 2 0 0 2-VU 3 1 0 0 0 Phoxinus phoxinus 4000031000 Chondrostoma nasus 2000011000 Chondrostoma toxostoma 8220031000 Alburnoides bipunctatus 4000031000 Blicca bjoerkna 2000011000 Abramis brama 2000011000 Rhodeus amarus 13.3-VU 2 0 0 2-VU 5 1 0 0 3.3 Rutilus rutilus 2000011000 Scardinius erythrophtalmus 2000011000 Gobio gobio 3000030000 Tinca tinca 1000001000 Barbus barbus 6000033000 Barbus meridionalis 11 5 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 Barbatula barbatula 2000011000 Cobitis taenia 11-VU 2 2 0 5-VU 1 1 0 0 0 Misgurnus fossilis 29-EN 10 2 5 8-EN 1 3 0 0 0 Lota lota 7-VU 2 2 0 2-VU 0 1 0 0 0 Perca fluviatilis 2000011000 Gymnocephalus cernuus 4000031000 Zingel asper 44-CR 10-CR 10 10-EN 10-CR 3 1 0 0 0 Blennius fluviatilis 16-VU 8 0 0 2-VU 5 1 0 0 0 Cottus gobio 6000051000 Cottus petiti 31.3-CR 10-CR 2 8-VU 2-VU 5 1 3.3 0 0 Petromyzon marinus 9-VU 2 2 0 2-VU 0 3 0 0 0 Lampetra fluviatilis 13-VU 5-VU 2 0 2-VU 1 3 0 0 0 Acipenser sturio 48.3-CR 10-CR 10 10-EN 10-CR 0 5 3.3 0 0 Salmo trutta trutta 21.3-VU 2 2 8-VU 2-VU 3 1 3.3 0 0 Salmo salar 30.3-EN 2 5 8-VU 8-EN 3 1 3.3 0 0 Alosa alosa 18-VU 5-VU 5 0 5-VU 0 3 0 0 0 Alosa fallax 15-VU 5-VU 2 0 5-VU 0 3 0 0 0 Aphanius fasciatus 22-VU 10 5 0 2-VU 5 0 0 0 0 Anguilla anguilla 15.3-VU 0 2 0 5-VU 0 5 0 0 3.3 Pungitus pungitus 5000050000 Gasterosteus aculeatus 5000050000 Salmo trutta macrostigma 31-CR 10-CR 2 10-EN 5-EN 3 1 0 0 0 a C1: size of the area of occupancy; C2: fluctuations in the area of occupancy; C3: population size; C4: fluctuations in population size; C5: reproductive potential; C6: specialization (Repro: reproduction). CR: critically endangered; EN: endangered; VU: vulnerable (IUCN, 1995).

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 12: 169–179 (2002) 176 P. KEITH AND L. MARION

Table 3. Red list of French freshwater ﬁsh showing each species’ score (in brackets after the common name) Status Common name Scientiﬁc name Extinct (EX) Spanish toothcarp Aphanius iberus (C. & Val., 1846) Valencia toothcarp Valencia hispanica (C. & Val., 1846) Houting Coregonus oxyrhynchus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Critically endangered (CR) Sturgeon (48.3) Acipenser sturio Linnaeus, 1758 Apron (44) Zingel asper (Linnaeus, 1758) Lez bullhead (31.3) Cottus petiti Bacescu & Bacescu-Mester, 1964 Corsican trout (31) Salmo trutta macrostigma (Dumeeril,! 1858)

Endangered (EN) Salmon (30.3) Salmo salar Linnaeus, 1758 Weatherﬁsh (29) Misgurnus fossilis (Linnaeus, 1758)

Vulnerable (VU) South European toothcarp (22) Aphanius fasciatus (C. & Val., 1821) Sea trout (21.3) Salmo trutta trutta (Linnaeus, 1758) Allis shad (18) Alosa alosa (Linnaeus, 1758) Freshwater blenny (16) Blennius fluviatilis Asso, 1801 Eel (15.3) Anguilla anguilla (Linnaeus, 1758) Twaite shad (15) Alosa fallax Duhamel, 1772 Bitterling (13.3) Rhodeus amarus (Bloch, 1785) River lamprey (13) Lampetra fluviatilis (Linnaeus, 1758) Spined loach (11) Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 Grayling (10) Thymallus thymallus (Linnaeus, 1758) Pike (9.3) Esox lucius Linnaeus, 1758 Sea lamprey (9) Petromyzon marinus Linnaeus, 1758 Soufie (9) Leuciscus soufia (Risso, 1826) Burbot (7) Lota lota (Linnaeus, 1758)

Lower risk (LR) Arctic charr (11) Salvelinus alpinus (Linnaeus, 1758) Barbeau meeridional! (11) Barbus meridionalis Risso, 1826 Toxostome (8) Chondrostoma toxostoma (Vallot, 1837) Lavaret (8) Coregonus lavaretus (Linnaeus, 1758)

increase accuracy and this can be important when listing priorities amongst the species and amongst proposed conservation measures. The authors believe that adding criteria 2 (fluctuations in area of occupancy), 5 (reproductive potential), and 6 (ecological specialization) to the IUCN definitions would bring increased accuracy to the red list approach. This method can easily be applied in countries where both distribution atlases and specific studies are available. Some countries, however, have more or less rectangles, and in order to adapt this scoring system to different countries the authors suggest that the number of rectangles relating categories to scale should be determined and compared with the total number of rectangles in the country, and with those of critically endangered species known to be on the brink of extinction and whose ranges (in river length and catchment area in square kilometres) are as well known as their numbers. This approach should also be applied at a regional scale. It is interesting to note that the results obtained in this study differ from those published in 1992 by Keith et al., based on ‘expert opinion’. The red list now contains 27 species, compared with only 24 at the time. The Corsican trout and the Lez bullhead have joined the ranks of the critically endangered (they were ‘rare’ in the previous list); the salmon and the weatherfish move from ‘vulnerable’ for the first and ‘indeterminate’ for the second to ‘endangered’. The houting is added to the ‘extinct’ species but, at the time, it was not considered as belonging to the French fauna. Two species (Arctic charr, toxostome) move from ‘vulnerable’

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 12: 169–179 (2002) METHODOLOGY FOR DRAWING UP A RED LIST 177 to ‘lower risk’; the rain bleak, ‘indeterminate’ on the previous list, is not on the new list, and finally, the lavaret, which is not on the previous list, is now ‘lower risk’. The red list thus obtained is based on sounder scientific work and makes it easier to explain why one species is listed under one category and not the next, when in discussion with government agencies, with the public or with anglers, which was not the case in 1992. Projects are already being drawn up for extending this method to produce red lists for all the major drainage basins in France. Very few attempts have been made at a European or a global scale to compile such lists for individual drainage basins (Maitland, 1995; Moyle, 1995). However, a few have been drawn up at a regional scale (Millsap et al., 1990; Lyle and Maitland, 1992; Maitland and Lyle, 1992). Lists for individual basins should help administrators take into account the characteristic features of each catchment area when deciding on conservation measures. This approach would increase accuracy when managing threatened species and help in formulating real action plans. If management and conservation measures are to be implemented for these species, efforts should first and most urgently be channelled towards the EN and CR categories. The percentages of species considered to be threatened vary in different parts of Europe. Either these percentages depict reality, or the discrepancies can be explained by differences in calculation methods. A harmonization of the assessment methods as advocated here for fish would probably help clarify the status of some species and simplify comparisons between the various lists. In particular it would enable a global description of the status of the species throughout their range. The authors suggest that this scoring system could be the basis for a European or an international scheme, but this would require collaboration with experts from other countries. The percentage of threatened species is at present 22% in Great Britain (Maitland and Lyle, 1996), 27.9% in Hungary (Keresztessy, 1996), 41.7% in Ireland (Quigley and Flannery, 1996), 54.9% in Spain (Elvira, 1996), 55.2% in the Danube basin (Povz, 1996), 62.7% in Slovakia (Holcik, 1996), and 73.7% in the Czech Republic (Lusk, 1996). At 54%, France has one of the highest proportions of threatened species. Concurrent with studies on the impact of French protected areas on fish conservation (Keith, 2000), the Ministry of the Environment and the French Fisheries Council will gradually have to implement suitable conservation plans for each of the species listed.

REFERENCES Allardi J, Keith P. (eds). 1991. Atlas preeliminaire! des poissons d’eau douce de France. Patrimoines Naturels 4: 1–234. Allardi J, Keith P, Maurin H. 1997. Les inventaires de poissons d’eau douce en France. Meethodes! et reesultats.! Cybium supplement 21: 17–25. Beaufort F de (eds). 1983. Le livre rouge des espeeces" menaceees! de France. Tome 1, verteebr! ees.! Inventaire de faune et de flore 19: 1–236. Beaufort F de, Lacaze JC (eds). 1987. Le livre rouge des espeeces" menaceees! de France. Tome 2, espeeces" marines et littorales. Inventaire de faune et de flore 43: 1–356. Bless R. 1996. Reproduction and habitat preference of the threatened spirlin (Alburnoides bipunctatus Bloch) and soufie (Leuciscus soufia Risso) under laboratory conditions (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). In Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe, Kirchhofer A, Hefti D (eds). Advances in Life Sciences. Birkhaauser. verlag: Basel; 249–258. Debus L. 1996. The decline of the European sturgeon Acipenser sturio in the Baltic and North Sea. In Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe, Kirchhofer A, Hefti D (eds). Advances in Life Sciences. Birkhaauser. verlag: Basel; 147–157. Elvira B. 1996. Endangered freshwater fish of Spain. In Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe, Kirchhofer A, Hefti D (eds). Advances in Life Sciences. Birkhaauser. verlag: Basel; 55–62. Geertz-Hansen P, Jrgensen J. 1996. Rehabilitation of salmon (Salmo salar L.) in Denmark; state, objectives and methods. In Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe, Kirchhofer A, Hefti D (eds). Advances in Life Sciences. Birkhaauser. verlag: Basel; 171–180. Holcik J. 1996. Vanishing freshwater fish species of Slovakia. In Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe, Kirchhofer A, Hefti D (eds). Advances in Life Sciences. Birkhaauser. verlag: Basel; 79–88.

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 12: 169–179 (2002) 178 P. KEITH AND L. MARION

IUCN. 1990. IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources: Gland. IUCN. 1995. Cate!gories de l’IUCN pour les listes rouges. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources: Gland. Jurajda P, Pen*aaz! P. 1996. Endangered fishes of the River Morava (Czech Republic). In Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe, Kirchhofer A, Hefti D (eds). Advances in Life Sciences. Birkhaauser. verlag: Basel; 99–111. Keith P. 1998. Evolution des peuplements ichtyologiques de France et strateegies! de conservation. PhD Thesis, Universite! de Rennes I. Keith P. 2000. The part played by protected areas in the conservation of threatened French freshwater fishes. Biological Conservation 92: 265–273. Keith P, Allardi J. 1996. Endangered freshwater fish: the situation in France. In Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe, Kirchhofer A, Hefti D (eds). Advances in Life Sciences. Birkhaauser. verlag: Basel; 35–55. Keith P, Allardi J, Crivelli A. 2001. Atlas des poissons d’eau douce de France. Patrimoines naturels, in press. Keith P, Allardi J, Moutou B. 1992. Livre rouge des espeeces" menaceees! de poissons d’eau douce de France et bilan des introductions. Patrimoines Naturels 10: 1–111. Keresztessy K. 1996. Threatened freshwater fish in Hungary. In Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe, Kirchhofer A, Hefti D (eds). Advances in Life Sciences. Birkhaauser. verlag: Basel; 73–78. Kirchhofer A. 1996. Fish conservation in Switzerland } three case-studies. In Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe, Kirchhofer A, Hefti D (eds). Advances in Life Sciences. Birkhaauser. verlag: Basel; 135–146. Kirchhofer A, Hefti D (eds). 1996. Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe. Advances in Life Sciences. Birkhaauser. verlag: Basel. Kouril J, Hamaackov! aaJ,Ad! aamek! Z, Sukop I, Stibranyiova! I, Vachta R. 1996. The artificial propagation and culture of young weatherfish (Misgurnus fossilis L.). In Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe, Kirchhofer A, Hefti D (eds). Advances in Life Sciences. Birkhaauser. verlag: Basel; 305–310. Lelek A. 1987. The Freshwater Fishes of Europe. Vol. 9. Threatened Fishes of Europe. Aula-verlag: Wiesbaden. Lusk S. 1996. The status of the fish fauna in the Czech Republic. In Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe, Kirchhofer A, Hefti D (eds). Advances in Life Sciences. Birkhaauser. verlag: Basel; 89–98. Lyle AA, Maitland PS. 1992. Conservation of freshwater fish in the British Isles: the status of fish in National Nature Reserves. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 2: 19–34. Maitland PS. 1995. The conservation of freshwater fish: past and present experience. Biological Conservation 72: 259–270. Maitland PS, Lyle AA. 1990. Practical conservation of British fishes: current action on six declining species. Journal of Fish Biology 37A (Supplement): 255–276. Maitland PS, Lyle AA. 1991. Conservation of freshwater fish in the British Isles: the status and biology of threatened species. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 1: 25–54. Maitland PS, Lyle AA. 1992. Conservation of freshwater fish in the British Isles. Proposals for management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 2: 166–183. Maitland PS, Lyle AA. 1996. Threatened freshwater fishes of Great Britain. In Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe, Kirchhofer A, Hefti D (eds). Advances in Life Sciences. Birkhaauser. verlag: Basel; 9–21. Millsap B, Gore J, Runde D, Cerulean S. 1990. Setting priorities for the conservation of fish and wildlife species in Florida. Wildlife Monograph 111, supplement Journal of Wildlife Management 54: 1–57. Moyle PB. 1995. Conservation of native freshwater fishes in the mediterranean type climate of California, USA: a review. Biological Conservation 72: 271–279. Perrin JF. 1988. Maintien en aquarium de l’apron du Rhoone,# Zingel asper (L.), espeece" menaceee! d’extinction. Revue Franccaise- d’Aquariologie 15: 17–20. Persat H, Keith P. 1997. La reepartition! geeographique! des poissons d’eau douce de France, qui est autochtone et qui ne l’est pas? Bulletin Franccais- de Peeche# Pisciculture 344–345: 15–32. Persat H. 1996. Threatened populations and conservation of the European grayling, Thymallus thymallus (L. 1758). In Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe, Kirchhofer A, Hefti D (eds). Advances in Life Sciences. Birkhaauser. verlag: Basel; 233–248. Persat H, Beaudou D, Freyhof J. 1996. The sculpin of the Lez spring (South France), Cottus petiti (Bacescu et Bacescu- Meyer 1964) one of the most threatened fish species in Europe. In Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe, Kirchhofer A, Hefti D (eds). Advances in Life Sciences. Birkhaauser. verlag: Basel; 321–329. Planelles M, Reyna S. 1996. Conservation of samaruc, Valencia hispanica (Val., 1846), an endemic and endangered species in the community of Valencia (east Spain). In Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe, Kirchhofer A, Hefti D (eds). Advances in Life Sciences. Birkhaauser. verlag: Basel; 329–336.

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 12: 169–179 (2002) METHODOLOGY FOR DRAWING UP A RED LIST 179

Povz M. 1996. The Red Data List of the freshwater lampreys (Cyclostomata) and fishes (Pisces) of Slovenia. In Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe, Kirchhofer A, Hefti D (eds). Advances in Life Sciences. Birkhaauser. verlag: Basel; 63–72. Quigley DTG, Flannery K. 1996. Endangered freshwater fish in Ireland. In Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe, Kirchhofer A, Hefti D (eds). Advances in Life Sciences. Birkhaauser. verlag: Basel; 27–34. Rochard E, Castelnaud G, Lepage M. 1990. Sturgeons (Pisces Acipenseridae): threats and prospect. Journal of Fish Biology 37(A): 123–132. Scott WB, Crossman EJ. 1974. Poissons d’eau douce du Canada. Ministry of the Environment of Canada: Ottawa. Spillmann CJ. 1961. Faune de France, poissons d’eau douce, vol. 65. Paul Lechevalier, Paris. Sweetman KE, Maitland PS, Lyle AA. 1996. Scottish natural heritage and fish conservation in Scotland. In Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe, Kirchhofer A, Hefti D (eds). Advances in Life Sciences. Birkhaauser. verlag: Basel; 23–26. Williot P, Rochard E, Castelnaud G, Rouault T, Brun R, Lepage M, Elie P. 1997. Biological characteristics of European Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser sturio as the basis for a restoration program in France. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48: 359–370. Witkowski A. 1992. Threats and protection of freshwater fishes in Poland. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 42: 243–259.