See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289506984

Conservation of European dragonflies and damselflies

Chapter · December 2015

CITATIONS READS 4 151

3 authors:

Geert De Knijf Tim Termaat Research Institute for Nature and Forest Dutch Butterfly Conservation / De Vlinderstichting, Wageningen,

183 PUBLICATIONS 923 CITATIONS 29 PUBLICATIONS 488 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Juergen Ott L.U.P.O. GmbH

29 PUBLICATIONS 1,178 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Diversity and Conservation of in Europe and the Mediterranean View project

Monitoring for Natura2000 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Geert De Knijf on 30 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Conservalion G. Oe Knijf, T. Termaat fr J. Ott

Bern Convention in 1982, incorporating it in 1992 in "Although it is species themselves that typically have the the Directive which came inro force in 1994 greater impact on public consciousness when they are and was updated several times following the ioclusion threatened with extinction, it is their habitats, and the of additional countries into the European Communiry. ecosystems and biotopes that contain those habitats, This Directive has several implications and resulted in that must constitute the primary targets tor protection, a list of species proteered in all member srates of the because no species can persist tor long without a suita ­ European Union, either directly or through rheir habi­ ble place in which to live" tat(s) . Besides, in several countries of Western and Cen­ (Corbet 1999) tral Europe some or even all species and their babirats are officiallv proteered by narional legislarion. Introduetion An overview of these different legislations is given Efforts to proteet and conserve dragooflies need to below and their impli cations for rhe conservation of focus on the protection, conservation and management and their babirats are discussed. of their habitats, particularly the aquatic babirats where they reproduce. That of course does oot meao The Ramsar Convention that actions should notsametimes be directed at specif­ The Convention on Wetlands of Internati onal lmpor­ ic species, especially those less mobile, rare or endemie tance, known as the Ramsar Convention, is an inter­ to limited areas. governmenral treaty that provides the framework for On a global scale, the most urgent need is to conserve national action and international cooperation for rhe a wide range of habitats in nature reserves, giving pri­ conserva:ion of wetlands. lt is the only global treaty ority to streams in rainforest and surviving lowland that deals with a particular ecosystem. An assignment marshes (Moore 1991d in Corbet 1999). Biotopes for as a Ramsar site is mostly based on the prese11ee of dragonilies, terrestrial as wel! as aquatic ecosystems, (water) birds, often called rhe 1 ° o rulc of the total are being lost or degraded all over the world at an population of a species \Vhich is present. The criteria accelerating rare (Corbet 1999). On regional and local for identifying wetlands of International importance scales, conservation efforts should be focused on the are not only applicable to birds but also roother taxo­ most valuable and threatened habitats. In most parrs of nomie groups although this has to our knowledge Europe the large variation in biomes in combination neve r been applied to dragonflies. The following rhree with human pressure on many habitats makes conset­ official criteria used in the Ramsar Convention could vation planning a complex matter. Hence it is an be applied to dragonflics : impossible task to propose general conservation meas­ • A wetland should be considered internationally ures for all European species (Sa hlén et al. 2004). Each importantifit supports vulnerable, endangered, or region must look at the species pool present and take critically endangered species. appropriate measures. • A wetland should be considered internationally The fust plea for the proteetion of ome European important if it supports popularions of plant and/or dragooflies goes back to the early seventies, when species important for maintaining rh e biolog­ Durnoot (1971) drew attention totheneed for protee­ ica] diversiry of a particular biogeographic region . tion of six species in Europe. Forty yea rs later, the li st • A wetland should be considered internarionally of proteered species has expanded to sixteen through important if it regularl~ · supports 1 % of the indi­ the European Habitats Directive in its last version, and viduals in a popularion of one species or subspecies an assessment was made of all European dragonfly spe­ of wetland-dependent non-avian animal species. cies, resulting in the first European Red List of dragoo­ flies (Kalkman et al. 2010). This means rhat localiri es which harbour populations of (nearly) endemie European species such as Pyrrhosoma Legislation and Legal Proteetion elisabethae (A lbania, ), Boyeria eretensis (Crere Species of dragooflies and their habitatscan be proteer­ - Greece), Somatochfora borisii (B ul ga ria , Greece, Tur­ ed on a global, European and nationallevel. The oldest key) and splendens (, , ) and at the same time the only global treaty of impar­ could be incorporated into thi s internationally proreered tanee related to dragooflies is the Ramsar Convention. nen.vork. Also the localities of ve ry rare species within a lt is seldom taken into account when it comes to pro­ specific biogeographic region could be included. This is teetion of dragooflies but is nonetheless very important rhe case, among orhers, for hylas in rh e for the conservation of wetlands and the species they Alpine region, Somatochfora sahlbergi in the Boreal host. The only pan-European treaty is the Convention region, caerulea in rhe Atlantic region in Scat­ of Bern, which aims to proteet European wildlife and land and the large populations of peeto­ natura! habitats. The European Union (EU) ratified the ralis in rhe Ariamie Biogeographic region.

Conservation ------27 The Bern Convention cies, including migratory species. This convention The Convention on the Conservation of European included annexes listing plantand animal species requir­ Wildlife and Natura! Habitats, called the Bern Conven­ ing proteetion but does not refer to networks of proteer­ tion, is a binding international legal in strument in the ed areas. A total of 16 dragonfly species are listed, 14 of field of nature conservation that aims toproteet the nat­ them being also included in the Habitats Directive ura! heritage in Europe (including the Russian Federa­ (Table 5). Only Calopteryx syriaca and Brachythemis tion, Georgia, Armenia and ). lts aims are to con­ fuscopaliata were not considered for the Habitats Direc­ serve wild flora and fauna and their natura! habitats and tive, as these two do not occur in Europe. In the Euro­ to promate European cooperation in that field. lt places pean Union member states, the Bern Convention has particular importance on the need to proteet endan­ been implemented by means of the Habitats Directive gered natura! habitats and endangered vulnerable spe- which has effectively replaced the Bern Convention.

Table 5. Dragantlies which are either mentioned in the Bern Convention, or listed in Annexes 11 or IV of the Habitats Directive, or which are endemie to Europe or threatened in Europe or the EU27. '' The three subspecies of Cordulegoster hellodico have been each assessed and were classified as Critica! Endangered (ssp. kostolio) or Endangered (ssp. hellodico and ssp. buchhofll).

28 ------Atlas of the European dragantlies and Outside the EU member states, the Bern Convention has andrepresent western Europe disproportionately. With not been fully implemenred in national legislation and the extending of the EU in 2004 ro include most coun­ therefore has not resulted in better proteetion of drag­ tries of Eastern Europe, only a few species were added onflies and their habitats. to the H abitats Directive species li st. In addition, many of the species threatened in the 1980s have recovered, Habitats Directive partly due to proteetion afforded by the Directive, and Since its implementation in 1994, the Habitats Direc­ are no Jonger considered to be strongly threatened, tive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation although they are still good indicators of habitats need­ of natura! habitats and of wild fauna and flora ) has ing protection. Camparing the li st of Annex species become a fundamental and increasingly important way with the list of threatened species in Europe (Kalkman of implemenring nature conservation within the Euro­ et al. 2010), it is clear that species in needof proteetion pean Union. This measure and the Birds Directive at a Europea n scale are not covered by the H abitats (1979) rogether provide the main pieces of legislation Directive (Ca rdoso 2011). Therefore fo r adequate pro­ ensuring the proteetion of nature in Europe. One of the teetion of dragonfli es in Europe rhe se lection of ~ p ecies regulations of the Habitats Directive is that member li sred in the H abitats Directive should be updated. states must designare SpecialAreasof Conservation for some 220 specific types of habitats (Annex I) and some Nationallegislation and proteetion hundred species mentioned in Annex II. Species of The H abitats Directi ve (HD) is by far the most impor­ community mterest in need of strict proteetion are lisr­ tant legislation fo r the proreeti on of species in rhe ed in Annex IV. For species in Annex II, Special Areas memher states, but most European countries have in of Conservation must be designated, whereas for the addition a nati onal legislati on whic h often proteers a Annex IV species, measures must be taken in order ro different set of species. The aim of these nati onal legis­ ensure the continuing conservation of populations in lations and the enforcement varies grea tl y between respective countries. Altogether 16 dragonfly species countries, making comparisons difficult. In many cases are now mentioned in either or both Annexes (Table 5 ). the proteetion prohibirs the carehing and colleering of Eleven are lisred in Annex II, and for these species dragooflies which is , from a conservation point of Yiew, memher states must designare Special Areas of Conser­ a useless measure. A summary of lega l proteetion of vation. Thirteen are lisred in Annex rv, meaning that dragoofli es (status as in January 2012) in each Europe­ they are proteered in the 28 member states, rogether an country is given in table 6. We werc not able ro with their habitats. The Special Areas of Conservation obtain in formarion for Albania and or for the form, rogether with the Special Proteetion Areas under so-called micro-stares (A ndorra, Li echtenstein , ~lona­ the Birds Directive, the Natura 2000 network of pro­ co, San Marin o, Vatican). As dragon fli es, except the teered sites across the European Union. One of the wandering Anax efJhippiger, do nor occur in Iccland, main disadvantages of the species lists in the va rious rhey have no proteeri on status there. Elsewhere, at one Annexes is that they are based on scientific knowledge end of the spectrum, dragonfli es receive no lega l pro­ at the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s, teetion at all in Bosnia & Herzegovin a, , Malta,

All spedes and their habitats lonly spe

Table 6. Summary of the legal proteetion of dragantlies in Europe (sta tus january 2012).

Conservalion ------29 Montenegro and Moldova. Although Cyprus and tion of which species are considered threatened and/or Malta belang to the EU, none ofthe species of the Hab­ declining in a eertaio country. In most cases they do nat itats Directive occurs on those Mediterranean islands. have any !ega! status, hence species lisred are nat neces­ At the other extreme are Austria, Belgium, Germany, sarily protected. The methods used to make red lists Luxemburg and Spain, where all dragonflies and their vary greatly between countries, and are thus seldom habitats are protected. Nat only is killing dragooflies directly comparable, providing only a limited overview prohibited, but also netring for identification purposes of those species which are threatened tbraughout or sampling larvae is forbidden. These different legisla­ Europe. We were unable to abtaio information on tions aim also to proteet the habitats of dragonflies, Albania, Belarus, Lithuania and the rnicro-states. Nine although in reality this is seldom achieved effectively. European countries do nat have a national Red List of lndeed, it can be argued that the proteetion of all spe­ dragonflies, namely two Mediterranean islands (Cyprus cies is counter-producti ve as it gives a false impression and Malta), four countries from the farmer Yugoslavia of proper conservation. A good example is the contin­ (Bosnia & Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro and uing pollution of many streams and rivers from agri­ Serbia), as well as Portugal, and Iceland. culrure and household sewage (e.g. Belgium), and also More than 70 % of all European dragonfly species are the construction of dams (e .g. Spain). Outside of those mentioned in at least one of the national Red Lists. An five countries half the European odonate fauna (68 spe­ overview of the 10 most lisred species (Red List catego­ cies) receives no proteetion at all. With the exception of ries: Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable) the species lisred in the Habitats Directive, there are is given in table 7. Except for Coenagrio mercuriale, only a few species proteered in more than one country. all nine other species have a clearly narthem and een- Only six species ( dryas, Aeshna isoceles, Aeshna subarctica, Anax imperator, Cordulegaster boltonii DO CR and Epitheca bimaculata) are proteered in four coun­ 3,6% 2,2% tries and all others are proteered in less than three counrries. Several European Red List species (Kalkman et al. 2010) and regionally threatened species remaio entirely wirhout protection.

Fifteen of the species lisred in a threat category on the European Red List (including the Near Threatened) are nat proteered anywhere in Europe. Besides those five countries where al l species are protected, only three spe­ cies lisred in a threat category on the European Red List receive some kind of national legal protection, namely LC Lestes macrostigma (Hungary, Slovenia), Nehalennia 70,1% speciosa (Latvia, , Switzerland) and Sympetrum depressiusculum (Hungary, Slovenia, Switzerland).

National Red Lists National Red Lists give to a eertaio exre::nt an indica- DO CR m 2,2% 2,2%

Spedes Times mentioned in Red List Leucorrhinio peetoralis 17 Neholennio specioso 15 - Ophiogomphus cecilio 14 -- Epitheco bimoculoto 13 Leucorrhinio eaudo/is 13 Coenogrion lunulotum 12 -- -- Coenogrion mercuriale 12 Somatochlom orctica 12 -- Sympetrum depressiusculum 12 eoenognon hostuloturn 11 Aeshno suborctico 11

Table 7. The ten species that are most often listed in the different national Red lists of European countries (n=28) Figure 12. Red list status of dragantlies in Europe (a) and in the (status january 2012). EU27 (b) (Kalkman et al. 2010).

30 ------Atlas of the European dragantlies and damselflies 13 (2) 18 (2) least Concern (LC) 91 (6) Data Deficient (DD) 3 (O) ------of threatened taxa 36 (12) 1 40 (8) --- ->- 137(18) 134 (14) ------~--~------~------5 5 4 143 140

Table 8. Summary of the numbers of dragonfly species within each IUCN category of threat {Kalkman et al. 201 0}. '''Excluding species that are considered Not Applicable tra! European distribution. Surprisingly, only two of pattem is similar: 30 % of the taxa are threatened the 10 species are lisred in a threat category in the (Table 8, Figure 12). Over half the European taxa is European Red List (Kalkman et al. 2010): Sympetrum considered stabie (54 %), a bout a quarrer (24 %) is depressiusculum is Vulnerable in Europe and Nehalen­ declining and 10% is increasing. For the remaining nia speciosa is Vulnerable in EU27 and Near Threat­ 12 %, the available in formati on is insufficient to id enti­ ened in Europe. In addition Coenagrion m ercuriale, C. fy any trend. Most of the threatened species ( 18 of the ornatum and Leucorrhinia caudalis are mentioned as 22) are confined to sourhern Europe (Figure 13). The Near Threatened in Europe or in EU27. These findings exceptions are Coenagrion hylas, fschnura hastata, can be explained by populations decreasing in la rge Nehalennia speciosa and Sympetrwn depressiusculum. parts of Europe, while remaining widespread in many In Mediterranean Europe, there is a very clear concen­ areas to the norrh and east, most notably Fennoscandia tration of threatened species in the Balkan region and and Russia, so that they do not meet the IU CN criteria Crete, with twelve of the 22 threatened European taxa for listing. Many rather common European species are nor occurring in other partsof E.urope. A second con­ on the Red List in countries where they are found at the centrati on of threatened taxa is found in the Iberian edge of their distribution. Only four common species, Peninsula and sourhern France, with four thrcatened , Coenagrion puella, lschnura e/e­ species large ly confined to thi s area. Europeis especiall y gans and Crocothemis erythraea do nor appear in any responsible for the eighteen species th at are endemie to national Red List in Europe. Europe (Table 5). Of these 14 are onl~ · found in the EU27 (Figure 14). Sixteen of the l 8 endemies are eith er European Red List confined ro islands, the Ba lkan Pen in su la or ro a large The status of all native and vagrant dragonfl y species in extent to the lberi an Peninsula and France. Europe (excluding those accidentally introduced) was assessed in 2009, basedon the 'Guidelines for Applica­ Species proteetion tion of IUCN Red List criteria at Regional Le ve ls' Dragonflies are on average nor as severely threatened (IUCN 2003, Kalkman et al. 2010). Assessments were as certain other groups such as amphibians (Te mple & made at two regionat levels: for the 27 then member Cox 2009) but nonetheless some dragonfl y species states of the European Union and for geographical need conservation efforts to prevent nati onal or region­ Europe which, unlike this atlas, excluded the northern al extinction. Many of these threatened species are part of the Caucasus. Although the European Union speci alists throughout their range while others now includes 28 member states, the assessment of con­ are habitat specialists in the periphery of their range servation status was made only for the 27 member but nor in the core of their range. A good example of states in 2010. In total the in this is the Coenagrion hastulatum, which is a Europe of 133 species was assessed. Two of these (Cor­ typical species of soft oligotrophic waters in the west­ dulegaster hel/adica and forcipatus) ern part of its range but inhabits a much wider range of each have three subspecies with a and di stri­ habitats in northeastern Europe (Figure 15). As a con­ bution sufficiently well known to allow each to be sequence, this species is threatened in e.g. the Nether­ assessed separately. Therefore, in total, 137 taxa (spe­ lands (Termaat & Kalkman 2012), Belgium (De Knijf cies and subspecies) were assessed. et al. 2006) and Great Britain (Daguet et al. 2008), At the European geographicallevel, 26 % of the assessed whereas it is fairly common and widesprea d in coun­ (sub)species of dragooflies are threatened, with 2 % tries like Poland and Sweden. Critically Endangered, 4 % Endangered, 9 % Vulnera­ Proteetion programs focused on dragonflies have been ble and 11 % Near Threatened. Within the EU27, the launched in several European countries. They differ in

Conservation ------31 the number of species included, the geographical scale conservation of all central European species was given (national, regional or local) anè the scientific level of by Schorr (1990). A large amount of detailed informa­ the research on which recommendations are based. tion on dragonfly species in genera!, including conser­ Some of the programs have been published as national vation measures, can be found in the hooks on the species proteetion plans (Aeshna viridis - de Jong et al. dragonflies of Baden-Württembergs (Sternberg & 2001, Somatochtora arctica - Ketelaar et al. 2005, Buchwald 1999, 2000) and in Moore (1997). A practi­ Oxygastra curtisii - Ott et al. 2007). Conservation cal guide to the management and restoration of all measures are also mentioned in many other publica­ dragonfly habitats occurring in Switzerland was pro­ tions with a broader scope, such as national or regional vided by Wildermuth & Küry (2009a, b). Much has atlases, local habitat restoration plans, and in a wide been published on the conservation of Coenagrion range of research articles. lt is unrealistic to list all of mercuriale, a species mentioned in the Annex II of the these but some deserve special attention. Probably the Habitats Directive. This included scientific articles on the first overview of the habitat requirements, threats and ecology, genetic variation and dispersal behaviour of this species in the Unired King­ dom and parts of France (e.g. Purse et al. 2003, Rouquette & Thompson 2005, 2007, Watts et al. 2 2005, Lorenzo Carballa 3 et al. 2015). It is perhaps 4 alarming that no species 5 proteetion programs have so far been published for the dragonfly species mentioned in the Europe­ an Red List (Kalkman et al. 2010), although meas­ ures have been carried out on a local scale for a few of them. The threa ts dragooflies face are almost exclusive­ ly caused by quantitative and qualitative loss of habitat. This basically Figure 13. Distribution of threatened dragooflies (CR, EN, VU) in Europe based on records trom means that proteering a both before and after 1990 (Kalkman et al. 201 0). dragonfly speciescan only succeed by proteering its habitat. Water quality improvement, restoring the natura! water regime and water table, the erea­ tion of new water bodies, restoration of running waters and vegeration management are among the most effective conser­ vation measures for drag­ onflies. In this respect a dragonfly species does nor stand alone: other organ­ isms benefit from these measures as well and dragonflies in their turn may benefit from meas­ ures taken for other fresh water species. From a dragonfly's point of view Figure 14. Distribution of endemie dragantlies in Europe. however, it is advisable to

32 ------Atlas of the European dragantlies and damselflies phase the removal of (semi-)aquatic vegeration over impact and many of the species dependent on running time and space. This minimizes the risk of accidently waters have recovered surprisingly ra pidly. Species wiping out a population and reduces the time in which such as Calopteryx splendens, C. virgo, Gomphus dragonfly larvae are able to recolonise the restored vulgatissimus and G. flavipes re populated streams parts of their habitat. where they had been a bsent for decades and even were a ble to co lonise waterways w here they had Threats to and changes in the European never been known. In many countries they reeavered dragonfly fauna to such an extent that they no Jonger qua li lled fo r the Threats to European dragonflies vary regionall y and national o r regiona l Red List (Figure 16). Ir is likely havechangedover time. During most of the twentieth that the recovery o f running water species w iJl contin­ century, large scale land conversion, canalisati on of ri v­ ue due to the implementation of the Water Frame­ ers, water pollution and eutrophication were the main work Directi ve w hi ch wil! proba bl y res ult in a further drivers of decline, especially impacting species depend­ impravement in water quality and the strucrural ent on mesotrophic stagnam or running waters. im egrity of habitats. Recentl y it has a lso become cl ea r Declines were particularly severe in western Europe that species dependent on meso-eutrophic stagnam from the 1950s to the 1980s, resulting in the extincti on waters, such as Aeshna isoceles, Brachytron pratense of several species over large areas. and even more cri tica! species such as Leucorrhinia A few decades ago, severallotic odonate species were caudalis and L. peetoralis are a lso reeavering in large rare and tbreatened, as water quality in European ri v­ areas of Europe. ers and streams was very poor. As a consequence of A remaining concern is the situati on o f species increased water purification in sewage treatmem dependent on oligotrophic ba bi ra ts such as bogs and plants, most rivers and streams have improved in fe ns, as many of these nurrienr-poor waters are still quality since the 1990s. This had a clear positi ve rhreatened in large parts of Europe. In some regions these haoitats are negati ve ly affecred by the still ele­ vated deposition of atmospheric ni trogen w hi ch leads to changes in vegerati on composition . Other facto rs, such as desiccation due to drain age and ground water extracti on, a realso havin g a negative impact in many regions. These ha bitats are la rge ly restricred ro a reas w ith a temperare or boreal el imate and are resrri cred ro the no rthern half of Europe and to hi gher a ltitudes in central and southern Europe. Especiall y in rhe lar­ ter the impact o f eli mate change is expected to be severe. Changes in the pattern of rainfa ll during the last two decades has led to an in crea~e d frequcncy and durati on of dro ughts in spring and summer and this has locall y led to the desiccati on of fens and peat Figure 15. Coenogrion hostuloturn is one of the species which bogs, resulting in the local extincri on of odo nate and is not uncommon in the core of its range but rare and declining other aquatic spec ies. at the margins. Photagraph Fans Peel s. In co ntrast to western and centra l Europe, rhreats ro dragonflies in the Mediterranea n regio n are rapidly increasing. Nor only do the M editerranea n dragon­ flies have generally a smaller disrributiona l range but they also often haveastrong preferenee fo r run­ ning waters which are srrongly impacted by human activity throughout the region. Due to this, 18 of th e 22 dragonflies species currently threatened in Europe occur preferentially in the Mediterranean Ba sin. Mediterranean species a re especially affected by a greater demand for water for agriculture and for the growing (tourist) population, as well as by the increased frequency and duration of hot, dry peri­ ods (Ka lkman et al. 2010). Riverine species are affected by the construction of dams and reservoirs Figure 16. Gomphus flovipes showed a strong decline during as wel! as by desiccation of their habitats. Several of the 201h century and was considered one of the most threatened those species occur in brooks and seepage sysrems European species. lt has however shown a strong recovery since w hi ch can easil y be destroyed by sin gle local evenrs the 19901h and is currently considered of least concern on the such as the extraction of water for local agricu lrure European Red list. Pho tograph Fans Peels. or damestic use.

Conservalion ------33 Throughout Europe many conservation measures two decades starred to colonise large parts of Europe have been undertaken, such a.s the restoration of (Figure 17) . peat-bogs, ponds, gravel pits or brooks and these have had many positive effects on odonates. The ere­ Monitoring of dragonflies ation of several types of navel water-boclies such as In order to determine which dragonfly species need excavation pits and garden ponds has resulted in the proteetion and to evaluate the effects of conservation avail ability of new babirats for many aquatic . · and restoration activities, information is required on As dragooflies are good indicators of environmental trends in dragonfly abundance (population size) . Trend and landscape diversity and quality, and as they have information can be obtained directly from monitoring a short life cycle, they react rapidly to changes in schemes, y.rhich aim to produce population indices. their habitats. They also have a high dispersal capac­ Currently only a fe w monitoring schemes exist for ity and are capable of swift colonisation of new hab­ dragonflies on a national or regional scale and a Euro­ itats. In addition, the effects of elimate change have pean monitoring scheme is yet to be realized. Monitor­ become apparent in the past two decades, with sever­ ing sc hemes typica ll y require searching for species year al southern species showinga northwards expansion. after year using standardized field protoea ls at so­ Best known examples of this are Crocothemis eryth­ called constant study sites. This minimizes the risk of raea which colonised central and northern Europe in variation in observation efforts across years, which the 1990s and several African species, such as otherwise may result in biased trend information. annulata and T. kirbyi, which in the past These strict requirements however complicate the re­ cruitment of sufficient qualified vol nteers and make large-scale monitor­ ing impossible in many countries. Recently a new statistica! methad has be­ .. come available which is less time consuming and which allows the use of oppor­ tunistic presencc-absence data (i.e. observations made without a standard­ • ized field protocol) to de­ termine trends of species. This method, called site­ occupancy modelling, ac­ Fig ure 17. The increased temperatures in southern Europe resulted in a strong expansion of the counts for imperfect data range of Trithemis annulata. The grey dots show its distribution prior to 1990 and the red dots on species dereetion and show the region it colonised since. hence corrects for year­ by-year variability in ob­ servation effort (Kéry et al. 2010, MacKenzie et al. 2006). The methad has been recently successfully

.~ applied in deriving trend :0 0,8 information from oppor­ ..0"' a.0 -- Great Britain tunistic data in various è; 0,6 -- lreland species groups, including c: "'0. birds, bunerflies and drag­ i3 -- France V 0 0,4 onflies (Kéry et al. 2010, -;;; -- Belgium ::::J van Strien et al. 2010, c: c: <( -- Netherlands 2011 ). Since opporrunis­ 0,2 -- Countries tic data on dragonflies are combined and readily available in several weighted 0+-.--.-.-.-~.--.-.-.-.-~-.-.-r-.--r-.-. European countries, it 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 should be possible to de­ Figure 18. Annual occupancy probability of Calopteryx splendens in Great Britain, lreland, France, rive trends in occupied sites Belgium and the Netherlands since 1990, analysed with a dynamic site-occupancy model. The red for those countries as well. line is the combination of these five countries, each being weighted according to their specific Furthermore, van Strien sampling effort. et al. (2013.) showed that

34 ------Atlas of the European dragonflies and damselflies it is possible to combine these national data to pro­ rely on data colleered through citizen projects and ana­ duce supranational occupancy trends (Figure 18). lyse them using site-occupancy models. This would This allows comparison of trends between European allow dragooflies to be included intheSEBI process. As countries and makes it possible to assembie Europe-wide a first step this could be clone for a se lection of com­ trends and multispecies indicators for dragonflies, and mon European species. Other possibilities are rhe thus to initiate a European Dragonfly Monitoring development of a 'Index of southern dragonflies in Network. Central and Northern Europe' and an 'Indicator of running water species'. Future prospects The release of the European Red List of Dragonflies The study of dragonBies in Europe has a long-standing (Kalkman et al. 2010) showed that many threatened tradition and history with many people being involved, species in Europe are not lisred on the Annexes of the resulting in a very good knowledge about the distribu­ Habitats Directive and, therefore, do nor receive the tion, ecology, behaviour and habitat preferences for necessary attention and proteetion in European con­ most European species. The achievemems are innumera­ servation policy. One of the recommendations in the ble: various excellent field guides in several languages, Habitats Directive is that an update of its Annexes is both for adults and exuviae; distribution atlases for needed when new data become available, i.e. when a many countries and regions; a European Red List and European Red Listor a European atlas is published. now at last an atlas for the whole of Europe. All this was Moreover, most of the threatened species are nor cov­ only possible through the collaboration of countless vol­ ered by national legislari ons. A recognition of present umeers who colleered masses of data through citizen sci­ knowledge in European and national legis lations is ence projects. These volumeers are often organised in therefore urgently needed to increase the proteetion of nationaVregional Dragonfly Associations such as in the dragooflies and their habitats. This is especiall y UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Germany, important for rhe proteetion of species in rhe Mediter­ , Croatia, Poland and Cyprus, and many of these ranean region, where most of the European endemie s societies publish their own joumal or newsletter. and threatened species are found. Ir is clear that not Dragonfues and damselflies are very attractive by vir­ only the dragonflies rhemselves should be protected, tue of their beautiful colours, aerobatic flight and but their habitatsas wel!. Also, this proteetion shou ld amazing behaviour, and are among the most poplllar be reinforeed in practice. Species proteetion pro­ groups of stuclied by volunteers. They are also grammes should be established at the European level considered as good indicators for the overall quality of forsome of the most threatened species (e .g. Nehalen­ aquatic habitats. This makes them particularly suita­ nia speciosa and Pyrrhosoma elisabethae). ble as Bagship species in conservation and restoration The data used for this atlas are very suitdble for iden­ projects, and in evaluating Europe's biodiversity. tifying prime areas for dragonfly consen·ati on. Such In 2004, the Strearnlining European Biodiversity Indi­ an analysis, covering the tora! number of :.pccies, cators (SEBI) process was established to monitor pro­ whether they are common, rare or threatened, would gress towards the EU biodiversity strategy 2010, and highlight eentres of biodiversity ('hot spots') within later towards the 2020 Biodiversity Targets. For that Europe, within the different biogeographical regions purpose, 16 'headline indicators' were developed and a and within countries. As a re sult, conservation pro­ provisional set of 26 European biodiversity indicators grammes for the most valuable or threatened areas was proposed by the European Environment Agency. could be developed. The main objectives are 1) to generare infonnation on Finally, capacity building projects :.hould receive biodiversity trends which is useful to decision makers; attention, especia ll y in those countries where nature 2) to eosure that improved global biodiversity indica­ study by volumeers is sti ll undermanned. In countries tors are implemenred and available; and 3) to establish such as Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, very few local links between biodiversity initiatives at the regional people are interested in dragonflies, but their dragon­ and national levels to enable capacity building and to fly fauna is nevertheless relatively wel! investigated imprave the delivery of biodiversity indicators. At the due to the many western odonatologists visiting as moment, no European dragonfly monitoring pro­ tourists. Despite the large amount of data included in gramme exists and as a consequence, dragooflies were this atlas, nearly half of Europe (Belarus, Ukraine and not selected as a SEBI indicator. Monitoring based on especially the European part of Russia) remains large­ standardized field protocols for many European coun­ ly 'terra incognita' due to the absence of local volun­ tries is scarcely feasible. In order to produce sound teers. Improving the knowledge of dragooflies in those trend information of European dragooflies we must countries remains a challenge.

Conservalion ------35

View publication stats