Achievements and problems of the Red Data Book of the Republic of Karelia (2007) : events during the last 7 years (2008-2014) Alexey V. Kravchenko, Anatoliy.

Presentation on theme: "Achievements and problems of the Red Data Book of the Republic of Karelia (2007) : events during the last 7 years (2008-2014) Alexey V. Kravchenko, Anatoliy."— Presentation transcript:

1 Achievements and problems of the Red Data Book of the Republic of Karelia (2007) : events during the last 7 years (2008-2014) Alexey V. Kravchenko, Anatoliy I. Maksimov & Margarita A. Fadeeva Karelian Research Centre, Institute of Forestry & Institute of Biology, Petrozavodsk kravchenko@ krc.karelia.ru; maksimov_tolya@mail.ru

2 Customer: The Ministry of Nature Management and Ecology of the Republic of Karelia Customer: The Ministry of Nature Management and Ecology of the Republic of Karelia  3 projects were conducted:  2012 «Estimation of the state of objects of the plant and animal kingdom, listened in the Red Data Book of the Republic of Karelia» (2 projects)  2013 г. «Estimation of the state of selected objects of the plant (and fungi) kingdom, simultaneously listened in the Red Data Book of the Republic of Karelia and the Red Data Book of the Russian Federation»

3 Vascular plants The followings changes are offered: 2 species must be excluded, one of which – Cotoneaster integerrimus Medik.) does not occur in Karelia, and was reported instead of Cotoneaster antoninae; second species - Schedonorus giganteus (L.) Soreng. & Tzvel. =Festuca gigantea L.) is known only as a introduced plant, therefore can not be listed in the RDB. 1 species must be included - Festuca altissima All.=Drymochloa sylvatica (Poll.) Holub, which was recently discovered in two isolated localities ca 450 N from the main area of distribution To change the category for 12 species To change the category for all species under the category LC used erroniously in the RDB of 2007. In spite of the fact that IUCN categories are not obligatory to implement in the RDB of Russian Federation and subjects of Russian Federation, they are usually specified almost in all regional Red Data Books of subjects of Russian Federation published in the last decade, including Karelia. For all 59 species with a «illegitimate» category LC than category was changed : 9 species were got category 3 (NT), and other 50 species were included in the next «illegitimate» group of species named «need of monitoring»

4 Red-listed mosses  Red Data Book of Karelia’ (2007) has 89 mosses, 52 liverworts and 1 hornwort.  Regionally Extinct (RE) – 2 species (Schistidium flaccidum, Pleuridium subulatum).  Critically Endangered (CR) – 8 species (Conardia compacta, Bryum knowltonii, Encalypta mutica, Orthotrichum urnigerum, Plasteurhynchium striatulum, Sepoleskea confervoides, Tayloria splachnoides, Timmia bavarica)  Endangered (EN) – 25 species (Amblyodon dealbatus, Andreaea crassinervia, Antitrichia curtipendula, Orthotrichum urnigerum, Seligeria subimmersa etc.) Neckera pennata

5  Vulnerable (VU) – 17 species (Conardia compacta, Coscinodon cribrosus, Dicranodontium denudatum, Eurhynchium angustirete, Gymnostomum boreale, Myrinia pulvinata, Paraleucobryum sauteri, Sphagnum affine, S.molle, S.palustre, Timmia bavarica, Zygodon rupestris etc.).  Near Threatened (NT) – 34 species (Aulacomnium turgidum, Bryum arcticum, Bucklandiella heterosticha, Campyliadelphus elodes, Campylophyllum halleri, Didymodon icmadophilus, Polytrichum hyperboreum, Pseudephemerum nitidum etc.).  Least concern (LC) – 5 species (Grimmia icurva, Herzogiella striatella, Neckera pennata, Plagiomnium drummondii, Tayloria lingulata). Eurhynchium angustirete Neckera crispa Ctenidium molluscum

6  Currently the new edition of ’Red Data Book of Republic of Karelia’ is preparing. The recent moss species list was revised, 1 moss species was excluded while 1 liverwort sp and 11 rare moss spp were added to the list on the base of recent studies. Therefore the list including 1 hornwort, 53 liverworts and 96 mosses were proposed for enlisting into the new edition of ’Red Data Book of Republic of Karelia’.

7 The list of the mosses which are offered for including in the Red Data Book of the Republic of Karelia Species Categories by data for 2012 Last records Dichoton integerrimum (Lindb.) H.Buch2/EN? Dicranum acutifolium (Lindb. & Arnell) C.E.O. Jensen3/NT1997 Didymodon ferrugineus (Schimp. ex Besch.) M.O. Hill3/NT2000 Encalypta procera Bruch3/NT1997 E. spathulata C. Müll.1/СR1936 Plagiothecium latebricola B.S.G.3/NT1977 Schistidium canadense (Dupr.) Ignatova et H.H. Blom2/EN1999 Schistidium confusum H.H. Blom2/EN1997 S. frisvollianum H.H. Blom.3/VU2000 S. subjulaceum H.H. Blom3/VU1988 Timmia comata Lindb. et Arnell3/NT1990 Ulota hutchinsiae (Sm.) Hammar2/EN1990 Total number 12

8 Вид Categories by data for 2012 Categories according to RDBRK (2007) Last records Atrichum flavisetum Mitt.3/VU2/EN2008 Dicranodontium denudatum (Brid.) Britt. 1/CR2/EN1969 Grimmia incurva Schwaegr.3/NT3/LC2003 G. montana Bruch & Schimp.3/VU3/NT1937 G. reflexidens Muell. Hal.3/VU3/NT1990 Herzogiella striatella (Brid.) Iwats.3/NT3/LC2006 Orthotrichum cupulatum Brid.2/EN3/NT1876 Physcomitrium sphaericum (Ludw.) Brid. 1/CR2/EN1937 Seligeria donniana (Sm.) C. Müll.3/VU3/NT1937 S. tristichoides Kindb.3/VU3/NT1938 Serpoleskea confervoides (Brid.) Loeske 2/EN1/CR2000 Sphagnum auriculatum Schimp.3/VU2/EN2006 Splachnum vasculosum Hedw.3/VU3/NT1989 The list of the mosses needing to change the categories Sph..auriculatum

9 SpeciesCategories according to RDBRK (2007) Last records Meesia longiseta Hedw.––? Neckera pennata Hedw.3/LC2007 Plagiomnium drummondii (Bruch et Schimp.) T. Kop. 3/LC2014 Tayloria lingulata (Dicks.) Lindb.3/LC1997 Итого:4 The list of the mosses needing in monitoring

10  370 species (74%) of moss flora of Rebublic of Karelia were recorded in the protected areas of Republic. The highest number of red-listed species was found inside Panaajärvi National Park (35 species).  During the last 15 years 49 of 89 species, included in ’Red Data Book of Rebublic of Karelia’ on the base of old records made by Finnish bryologists, were found again. Occurence of the other species needs to be proved. For this purpose it is necessary to visit earlier known places of growing 40 red-listed mosses. Conservation

11 Project 2013 : «Estimation of the state of selected objects of the plant (and fungi) kingdom, simultaneously listened in the Red Data Book of the Republic of Karelia and the Red Data Book of the Russian Federation»  General tasks:  Estimation of the state of objects of the plant kingdom (plants + fungi), included in the Red Data Book of the Republic of Karelia and the Red Data Book of the Russian Federation, on biological criteria;  Determination of meaningfulness of these objects for the maintenance of biological diversity;  Estimation of socio-economic and technological aspects of maintenance of these objects

12 Problems   IUCN Red List Criteria for evaluation of the state of plant species, listened in the regional RDB, and which are based mainly on the population size (number of individuals) and other fitches of population (like population size reduction over the last 10 years or three generations, reduction of number of locations or subpopulations; reduction of number of mature individuals, etc.) have been developed for the animals. Application of many criteria for the evaluation of the state of plants is limited, and sometimes totally impossible.

13 Conclusions Assessment the status of protected plant & fungi species in 2013 shows that according to the majority of criteria features almost all species can be characterized only such way:  -unknown  -not studied  -not evaluated  -data are absent. The main reasons are:  1) needed researches have not been conducted in the Republic of Karelia so far ;  2) those criteria hardly be applied to plant & fungi

14 How to change the situation?  It is clear that it is necessary to start the work on the monitoring of red-listed species.  For the beginning at least one population /subpopulation of each protected species should be chosen  For every population/subpopulation the standard pull of characteristics like size (total and the separate loci), spatial structure, age structure, etc. must be recorded  Only after obtaining such kind of information we could start to use the IUCN criteria properly

15 Thank you for your attention!