DOCSLIB.ORG

Guidelines for the Application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guidelines for the Application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria Guidelines for the Application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria Edited by L.M. Bland, D.A. Keith, N.J. Murray and J.P. Rodríguez Version 1.0 INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE Guidelines for the Application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria Edited by L.M. Bland, D.A. Keith, N.J. Murray and J.P. Rodríguez Version 1.0 The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN. Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Copyright: © 2015 IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources The Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria is an open access publication licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial uses is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Citation: IUCN (2015). Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria, Version 1.0. Bland, L.M., Keith, D.A., Murray, N.J., and Rodríguez, J.P. (eds.). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. ix + 93 pp. This document will be subject to formatting and minor changes may occur. Cover photos: © R Ferrari Legorreta, © RM Miller, © NJ Murray All photographs used in this publication remain the property of the original copyright holder. Photographs should not be reproduced or used in other contexts without written permission from the copyright holder. Available from: IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Global Ecosystem Management Programme Commission on Ecosystem Management Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland Switzerland Tel +41 22 999 0000 Fax +41 22 999 0002 www.iucn.org/publications These guidelines are also freely available online on https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/45794 and the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems website (www.iucnredlistofecosystems.org). The guidelines are conceived as a ‘living document’ and will be updated periodically. Please submit your comments and suggestions to www.iucnredlistofecosystems.org/contact-us. Numerous experts from around the world participated in the development of these guidelines. The complete list of contributors is located in Appendix 1. Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. v Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................................vi Acronyms ............................................................................................................................ viii Glossary................................................................................................................................ix 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Objectives of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems .......................................................... 1 1.2 Development of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems ...................................................... 2 1.3 Governance of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems ....................................................... 3 1.3.1 The Steering Committee ....................................................................................... 3 1.3.2 The Committee for Scientific Standards ................................................................ 4 1.4 Structure of the Guidelines .......................................................................................... 5 2. Categories of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems ............................................................... 6 3. Scientific foundations ........................................................................................................ 8 3.1 Ecosystem types: the units of assessment .................................................................. 8 3.1.1 Ecosystem typologies ........................................................................................... 8 3.1.2 The influence of scale ........................................................................................... 9 3.2 Ecosystem collapse ................................................................................................... 12 3.2.1 Defining ecosystem collapse ............................................................................... 12 3.2.2 Uncertainties in the endpoints for risk assessment .............................................. 15 3.3 Risk assessment protocol .......................................................................................... 18 3.3.1 Time frames ........................................................................................................ 19 3.3.2 Decline thresholds ............................................................................................... 20 3.3.3 Standards of evidence and dealing with uncertainty ............................................ 21 4. Assessment process ....................................................................................................... 24 4.1 Area of assessment ................................................................................................... 25 4.2 Describing the unit of assessment ............................................................................. 26 4.2.1 Classification ....................................................................................................... 27 4.2.2 Spatial distribution ............................................................................................... 28 4.2.3 Characteristic native biota ................................................................................... 28 4.2.4 Abiotic environment ............................................................................................. 30 4.2.5 Processes and interactions ................................................................................. 31 4.2.6 Threats ................................................................................................................ 35 4.2.7 Describing collapsed states ................................................................................. 38 4.3 Evaluating the criteria ................................................................................................ 38 4.4 Assessment outcome ................................................................................................ 39 4.4.1 Dealing with uncertainty ...................................................................................... 41 4.5 Documentation .......................................................................................................... 41 5. Criteria and thresholds .................................................................................................... 42 5.1 Criterion A. Reduction in geographic distribution ....................................................... 42 5.1.1 Theory ................................................................................................................. 42 5.1.2 Thresholds and subcriteria .................................................................................. 42 iii | IUCN Red List of Ecosystems 5.1.3 Application .......................................................................................................... 43 5.2 Criterion B. Restricted geographic distribution ........................................................... 49 5.2.1 Theory ................................................................................................................. 49 5.2.2 Thresholds and subcriteria .................................................................................. 49 5.2.3 Application .......................................................................................................... 50 5.3 Criterion C. Environmental degradation ..................................................................... 55 5.3.1 Theory ................................................................................................................. 55 5.3.2 Thresholds and subcriteria .................................................................................. 55 5.3.3 Application .......................................................................................................... 55 5.4 Criterion D. Disruption of biotic processes and interactions ....................................... 63 5.4.1 Theory ................................................................................................................. 63 5.4.2 Thresholds and subcriteria .................................................................................. 63 5.4.3 Application .......................................................................................................... 64 5.5 Criterion E. Quantitative risk analysis ........................................................................ 69 5.5.1
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Viability of Ground Beetle Populations in Fragmented Heathlands
    Viability of ground beetle populations in fragmented heathlands Henk de Vries Promotoren: Dr. L. Brussaard Hoogleraar in de Bodembiologie Dr. W. van Delden Hoogleraar in de Populatiegenetica Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Co-promotor: Dr. Th. S. van Dijk Universitair docent Biologisch Station Wijster Viability of ground beetle populations in fragmented heathlands H. H. de Vries Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor op gezag van de rector magnificus van de Landbouwuniversiteit Wageningen, Dr. C. M. Karssen, in het openbaar te verdedigen op woensdag 30 oktober 1996 des namiddags te vier uur in de Aula. t/)H cs"ic>zy>b LANDïîOUVV UXI VERSIT3T T ISBN 90-5485-586-X Printed on Challenger, 100% recycled paper This thesis has been accomplished at: Biological Station Wijster Wageningen Agricultural University Kampsweg 27 9418 PD Wijster The Netherlands Abstract Numbers of ground beetle species that are characteristic for heathlands were negatively associated with area, whereas this relationship was not found for the total number of ground beetle species or for unspecialised ground beetle species. In particular the number of heathland species with low dispersal ability was strongly related to area. Transplant experiments showed that some heathland species with low dispersal ability experienced reduced habitat quality in small habitats, whereas for others at least part of the unoccupied areas were of sufficient quality for successful reproduction. From the presence of occupied as well as unoccupied habitats and from knowledge on its possibilities for dispersal, it is inferred that Pterostichus lepidus lives in metapopulations with continuously and discontinuously occupied patches. Using allozymes, high levels of genetic variation were found in P.
    [Show full text]
  • SDG Indicator Metadata (Harmonized Metadata Template - Format Version 1.0)
    Last updated: 4 January 2021 SDG indicator metadata (Harmonized metadata template - format version 1.0) 0. Indicator information 0.a. Goal Goal 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss 0.b. Target Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species 0.c. Indicator Indicator 15.5.1: Red List Index 0.d. Series 0.e. Metadata update 4 January 2021 0.f. Related indicators Disaggregations of the Red List Index are also of particular relevance as indicators towards the following SDG targets (Brooks et al. 2015): SDG 2.4 Red List Index (species used for food and medicine); SDG 2.5 Red List Index (wild relatives and local breeds); SDG 12.2 Red List Index (impacts of utilisation) (Butchart 2008); SDG 12.4 Red List Index (impacts of pollution); SDG 13.1 Red List Index (impacts of climate change); SDG 14.1 Red List Index (impacts of pollution on marine species); SDG 14.2 Red List Index (marine species); SDG 14.3 Red List Index (reef-building coral species) (Carpenter et al. 2008); SDG 14.4 Red List Index (impacts of utilisation on marine species); SDG 15.1 Red List Index (terrestrial & freshwater species); SDG 15.2 Red List Index (forest-specialist species); SDG 15.4 Red List Index (mountain species); SDG 15.7 Red List Index (impacts of utilisation) (Butchart 2008); and SDG 15.8 Red List Index (impacts of invasive alien species) (Butchart 2008, McGeoch et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Critically Endangered - Wikipedia
    Critically endangered - Wikipedia Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Article Talk Read Edit View history Critically endangered From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Main page Contents This article is about the conservation designation itself. For lists of critically endangered species, see Lists of IUCN Red List Critically Endangered Featured content species. Current events A critically endangered (CR) species is one which has been categorized by the International Union for Random article Conservation status Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.[1] Donate to Wikipedia by IUCN Red List category Wikipedia store As of 2014, there are 2464 animal and 2104 plant species with this assessment, compared with 1998 levels of 854 and 909, respectively.[2] Interaction Help As the IUCN Red List does not consider a species extinct until extensive, targeted surveys have been About Wikipedia conducted, species which are possibly extinct are still listed as critically endangered. IUCN maintains a list[3] Community portal of "possibly extinct" CR(PE) and "possibly extinct in the wild" CR(PEW) species, modelled on categories used Recent changes by BirdLife International to categorize these taxa. Contact page Contents Tools Extinct 1 International Union for Conservation of Nature definition What links here Extinct (EX) (list) 2 See also Related changes Extinct in the Wild (EW) (list) 3 Notes Upload file Threatened Special pages 4 References Critically Endangered (CR) (list) Permanent
    [Show full text]
  • Key Factors Affecting the Diversity of Sphagnum Cover Inhabitants with the Focus on Ground Beetle Assemblages in Central-Eastern European Peat Bogs
    COMMUNITY ECOLOGY 20(1): 45-52, 2019 1585-8553 © AKADÉMIAI KIADÓ, BUDAPEST DOI: 10.1556/168.2019.20.1.5 Key factors affecting the diversity of Sphagnum cover inhabitants with the focus on ground beetle assemblages in Central-Eastern European peat bogs G. Sushko Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection, Vitebsk State University P. M. Masherov, Moskovski Ave. 33, 21008 Vitebsk, Belarus. E-mail: [email protected] Keywords: Belarus, Carabidae, diversity, environmental factors, Sphagnum dwellers. Abstract. A key structural component in peat bog formation is Sphagnum spp., which determines very specific associated envi- ronmental conditions. The aim of this study was to characterise some of the key factors affecting the diversity, species richness and abundance of sphagnum inhabiting ground beetles and to examine the maintenance of stable populations of cold adapted specialised peat bog species. A total of 52 carabid species were recorded by pitfall traps along six main habitats, such as the lagg zone, pine bog, hollows, hummock open bog and dome. The results are characterised by a low diversity, which vary significantly among habitat types, and include a high abundance of a few carabid species. Among the variables influencing carabid species richness and abundance were plant cover, pH and the conductivity of the Sphagnum mat water. Vascular plant cover was a key factor shaping carabid beetle assemblages in the slope and the dome, while electric conductivity affected carabid beetle assem- blage in the lagg. Whereas, the water level was the most important factor for the hollows. At the same time, peat bog specialists showed low sensitivity to the gradient of the analysed variables.
    [Show full text]
  • Methods and Work Profile
    REVIEW OF THE KNOWN AND POTENTIAL BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS OF PHYTOPHTHORA AND THE LIKELY IMPACT ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES JANUARY 2011 Simon Conyers Kate Somerwill Carmel Ramwell John Hughes Ruth Laybourn Naomi Jones Food and Environment Research Agency Sand Hutton, York, YO41 1LZ 2 CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 8 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 13 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 13 1.2 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 15 2. Review of the potential impacts on species of higher trophic groups .................... 16 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 16 2.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.3 Results ............................................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 44 3. Review of the potential impacts on ecosystem services .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Table 5: Threatened Species in Each Country (Totals by Taxonomic Group)
    IUCN Red List version 2020-1: Table 5 Last updated: 19 March 2020 Table 5: Threatened species in each country (totals by taxonomic group) * Reptiles, fishes, molluscs, other invertebrates, plants, fungi & protists: please note that for these groups, there are still many species that have not yet been assessed for the IUCN Red List and therefore their status is not known (i.e., these groups have not yet been completely assessed). Therefore the figures presented below for these groups should be interpreted as the number of species known to be threatened within those species that have been assessed to date, and not as the overall total number of threatened species for each group. AFRICA Other Fungi & North Africa Mammals Birds Reptiles* Amphibians Fishes* Molluscs* Plants* Total* Inverts* Protists* Algeria 14 15 8 3 45 12 30 26 2 155 Egypt 18 14 13 0 62 1 56 8 0 172 Libya 10 8 6 0 38 1 4 8 0 75 Morocco 18 18 13 2 55 38 33 56 5 238 Tunisia 14 11 6 1 42 8 13 10 2 107 Western Sahara 10 5 1 0 39 2 1 0 0 58 Other Fungi & Sub-Saharan Africa Mammals Birds Reptiles* Amphibians Fishes* Molluscs* Plants* Total* Inverts* Protists* Angola 22 33 7 0 55 7 4 43 0 171 Benin 16 12 7 1 46 2 1 21 0 106 Botswana 11 16 1 0 2 0 0 3 0 33 Burkina Faso 11 12 3 0 4 1 0 5 0 36 Burundi 16 14 0 1 17 3 3 134 0 188 Cabo Verde 4 7 6 0 38 13 0 51 0 119 Cameroon 47 29 13 57 126 13 13 592 0 890 Central African Republic 19 16 5 0 4 0 0 29 0 73 Chad 16 16 5 0 1 4 0 6 0 48 Comoros 5 14 5 0 17 0 77 9 0 127 Congo 18 7 6 1 60 7 0 56 0 155 Congo, The Democratic Republic of the 42
    [Show full text]
  • The Compositional and Configurational Heterogeneity of Matrix Habitats Shape Woodland Carabid Communities in Wooded-Agricultural Landscapes
    The compositional and configurational heterogeneity of matrix habitats shape woodland carabid communities in wooded-agricultural landscapes Article Accepted Version Neumann, J. L., Griffiths, G. H., Hoodless, A. and Holloway, G. J. (2016) The compositional and configurational heterogeneity of matrix habitats shape woodland carabid communities in wooded-agricultural landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 31 (2). pp. 301-315. ISSN 0921-2973 doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0244-y Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/46912/ It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. See Guidance on citing . To link to this article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0244-y Publisher: Springer All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the End User Agreement . www.reading.ac.uk/centaur CentAUR Central Archive at the University of Reading Reading’s research outputs online The compositional and configurational heterogeneity of matrix habitats shape woodland carabid communities in wooded- agricultural landscapes. Jessica L. Neumann1,3*, Geoffrey H. Griffiths1, Andrew Hoodless2 and Graham J. Holloway3 1 Department of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Reading, UK 2 Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, Fordingbridge, Hampshire, UK 3 Centre for Wildlife Assessment and Conservation, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK Abstract Context Landscape heterogeneity (the composition and configuration of matrix habitats) plays a major role in shaping species communities in wooded-agricultural landscapes.
    [Show full text]
  • Lagenodelphis Hosei – Fraser's Dolphin
    Lagenodelphis hosei – Fraser’s Dolphin Assessment Rationale The species is suspected to be widespread and abundant and there have been no reported population declines or major threats identified that could cause a range-wide decline. Globally, it has been listed as Least Concern and, within the assessment region, it is not a conservation priority and therefore, the regional change from Data Deficient to Least Concern reflects the lack of major threats to the species. The most prominent threat to this species globally may be incidental capture in fishing gear and, although this is not considered a major threat to this species in the assessment region, Fraser’s Dolphins have become entangled in anti-shark nets off South Africa’s east coast. This threat should be monitored. Regional Red List status (2016) Least Concern Regional population effects: Fraser’s Dolphin has a widespread, pantropical distribution, and although its National Red List status (2004) Data Deficient seasonal migration patterns in southern Africa remain Reasons for change Non-genuine change: inconclusive, no barriers to dispersal have been New information recognised, thus rescue effects are possible. Global Red List status (2012) Least Concern TOPS listing (NEMBA) (2007) None Distribution The distribution of L. hosei is suggested to be pantropical CITES listing (2003) Appendix II (Robison & Craddock 1983), and is widespread across the Endemic No Pacific and Atlantic Oceans (Ross 1984), and the species has been documented in the Indian Ocean off South This species is occasionally Africa’s east coast (Perrin et al. 1973), in Sri Lanka misidentified as the Striped Dolphin (Stenella (Leatherwood & Reeves 1989), Madagascar (Perrin et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Rubus Arcticus Ssp. Acaulis Is Also Appreciated
    Rubus arcticus L. ssp. acaulis (Michaux) Focke (dwarf raspberry): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project October 18, 2006 Juanita A. R. Ladyman, Ph.D. JnJ Associates LLC 6760 S. Kit Carson Cir E. Centennial, CO 80122 Peer Review Administered by Society for Conservation Biology Ladyman, J.A.R. (2006, October 18). Rubus arcticus L. ssp. acaulis (Michaux) Focke (dwarf raspberry): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http:// www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rubusarcticussspacaulis.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The time spent and help given by all the people and institutions mentioned in the reference section are gratefully acknowledged. I would also like to thank the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, in particular Bonnie Heidel, and the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, in particular David Anderson, for their generosity in making their records available. The data provided by Lynn Black of the DAO Herbarium and National Vascular Plant Identification Service in Ontario, Marta Donovan and Jenifer Penny of the British Columbia Conservation Data Center, Jane Bowles of University of Western Ontario Herbarium, Dr. Kadri Karp of the Aianduse Instituut in Tartu, Greg Karow of the Bighorn National Forest, Cathy Seibert of the University of Montana Herbarium, Dr. Anita Cholewa of the University of Minnesota Herbarium, Dr. Debra Trock of the Michigan State University Herbarium, John Rintoul of the Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre, and Prof. Ron Hartman and Joy Handley of the Rocky Mountain Herbarium at Laramie, were all very valuable in producing this assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera of a Raised Bog and Adjacent Forest in Lithuania
    Eur. J. Entomol. 101: 63–67, 2004 ISSN 1210-5759 Lepidoptera of a raised bog and adjacent forest in Lithuania DALIUS DAPKUS Department of Zoology, Vilnius Pedagogical University, Studentų 39, LT–2004 Vilnius, Lithuania; e-mail: [email protected] Key words. Lepidoptera, tyrphobiontic and tyrphophilous species, communities, raised bog, wet forest, Lithuania Abstract. Studies on nocturnal Lepidoptera were carried out on the Laukėnai raised bog and the adjacent wet forest in 2001. Species composition and abundance were evaluated and compared. The species richness was much higher in the forest than at the bog. The core of each lepidopteran community was composed of 22 species with an abundance of higher than 1.0% of the total catch. Tyrpho- philous Hypenodes humidalis (22.0% of all individuals) and Nola aerugula (13.0%) were the dominant species in the raised bog community, while tyrphoneutral Pelosia muscerda (13.6%) and Eilema griseola (8.3%) were the most abundant species at the forest site. Five tyrphobiotic and nine tyrphophilous species made up 43.4% of the total catch on the bog, and three and seven species, respectively, at the forest site, where they made up 9.2% of all individuals. 59% of lepidopteran species recorded on the bog and 36% at the forest site were represented by less than five individuals. The species compositions of these communities showed a weak similarity. Habitat preferences of the tyrphobiontic and tyrphophilous species and dispersal of some of the species between the habi- tats are discussed. INTRODUCTION (1996). Ecological terminology is that of Mikkola & Spitzer (1983), Spitzer & Jaroš (1993), Spitzer (1994): tyrphobiontic The insect fauna of isolated raised bogs in Europe is species are species that are strongly associated with peat bogs, unique in having a considerable portion of relict boreal while tyrphophilous taxa are more abundant on bogs than in and subarctic species (Mikkola & Spitzer, 1983; Spitzer adjacent habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Unifying Research on Social–Ecological Resilience and Collapse Graeme S
    TREE 2271 No. of Pages 19 Review Unifying Research on Social–Ecological Resilience and Collapse Graeme S. Cumming1,* and Garry D. Peterson2 Ecosystems influence human societies, leading people to manage ecosystems Trends for human benefit. Poor environmental management can lead to reduced As social–ecological systems enter a ecological resilience and social–ecological collapse. We review research on period of rapid global change, science resilience and collapse across different systems and propose a unifying social– must predict and explain ‘unthinkable’ – ecological framework based on (i) a clear definition of system identity; (ii) the social, ecological, and social ecologi- cal collapses. use of quantitative thresholds to define collapse; (iii) relating collapse pro- cesses to system structure; and (iv) explicit comparison of alternative hypoth- Existing theories of collapse are weakly fi integrated with resilience theory and eses and models of collapse. Analysis of 17 representative cases identi ed 14 ideas about vulnerability and mechanisms, in five classes, that explain social–ecological collapse. System sustainability. structure influences the kind of collapse a system may experience. Mechanistic Mechanisms of collapse are poorly theories of collapse that unite structure and process can make fundamental understood and often heavily con- contributions to solving global environmental problems. tested. Progress in understanding col- lapse requires greater clarity on system identity and alternative causes of Sustainability Science and Collapse collapse. Ecology and human use of ecosystems meet in sustainability science, which seeks to understand the structure and function of social–ecological systems and to build a sustainable Archaeological theories have focused and equitable future [1]. Sustainability science has been built on three main streams of on a limited range of reasons for sys- tem collapse.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Tenth Forum Herbulot 2018. Integrative Taxonomy, a Multidisciplinary Approach to Answer Compli- Cated Taxonomic Questions
    SPIXIANA 42 2 291-320 München, Dezember 2019 ISSN 0341-8391 Proceedings of the tenth FORUM HERBULOT 2018. Integrative taxonomy, a multidisciplinary approach to answer compli- cated taxonomic questions (Stuttgart, Germany, 11-16 June 2018) Axel Hausmann & Hossein Rajaei (eds) Hausmann, A. & Rajaei, H. (eds) 2019. Proceedings of the tenth FORUM HERBULOT 2018. Integrative taxonomy, a multidisciplinary approach to answer complicated taxonomic questions (Stuttgart, Germany, 11-16 June 2018). Spixiana 42 (2): 291- 320. The tenth International Congress of FORUM HERBULOT on “Integrative taxonomy, a multidisciplinary approach to answer complicated taxonomic questions” took place in the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart (SMNS), from 11.- 16.06.2018, with 77 participants and 52 scientific presentations. The proceedings provide short information on the meeting and the abstracts of the oral presenta- tions. Axel Hausmann (corresponding author), SNSB – ZSM, Bavarian State Collection of Zoology, Münchhausenstr. 21, 81247 Munich, Germany; e-mail: [email protected] Short report and results Axel Hausmann & Hossein Rajaei Hausmann, A. & Rajaei, H. 2019. Short report and results. Pp. 291-292 in: Hausmann, A. & Rajaei, H. (eds). Proceedings of the tenth FORUM HERBULOT 2018. Integrative taxonomy, a multidisciplinary approach to answer complicated taxonomic questions (Stuttgart, Germany, 11-16 June 2018). Spixiana 42 (2). Axel Hausmann (corresponding author), SNSB – ZSM, Bavarian State Collection of Zoology, Münchhausenstr. 21, 81247 Mu- nich, Germany; e-mail: [email protected] The meeting was organized by an organization The conference started with a lecture on the ground- team of the ‘Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde breaking effects of “Willi Hennig and the synthesis of Stuttgart’ (SMNS).
    [Show full text]