A miniature world in decline: European Red List of Mosses, Liverworts and Hornworts

AimThis Red List is a summary of the conservation status of the European species of mosses, liverworts and hornworts, collectively known as bryophytes, evaluated according to IUCN’s Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Level. It provides the first comprehensive, region-wide assessment of bryophytes and it identifies those species that are threatened with extinction at a European level, so that appropriate policy measures and conservation actions, based on the best available evidence, can be taken to improve their status.ScopeAll bryophytes native to or naturalised in Europe (a total of 1,817 species), have been included in this Red List. In Europe, 1,796 species were assessed, with the remaining 21 species considered Not Applicable (NA). For the EU 28, 1,728 species were assessed, with a remaining 20 species considered NA and 69 species considered Not Evaluated (NE). The geographical scope is continentwide, extending from Iceland in the west to the Urals in the east, and from Franz Josef Land in the north to theCanary Islands in the south. The Caucasus region is not included. Red List assessments were made at two regional levels: for geographical Europe and for the 28 Member States of the European Union.ResultsOverall, 22.5% of European bryophyte species assessed in this study are considered threatened in Europe, with two species classified as Extinct and six assessed as Regionally Extinct (RE). A further 9.6% (173 species) are considered Near Threatened and 63.5% (1,140 species) are assessed as Least Concern. For 93 species (5.3%), there was insufficient information available to be able to evaluate their risk of extinction and thus they were classified as Data Deficient (DD). The main threats identified were natural system modifications (i.e., dam construction, increases in fire frequency/intensity, and water management/use), climate change (mainly increasing frequency of droughts and temperature extremes), agriculture (including pollution from agricultural effluents) and aquaculture.RecommendationsPolicy measures• Use the European Red List as the scientific basis to inform regional/national lists of rare and threatened species and to identify priorities for conservation action in addition to the requirements of the Habitats Directive, thereby highlighting the conservation status of bryophytes at the regional/local level.• Use the European Red List to support the integration of conservation policy with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and other national and international policies. For example, CAP Strategic Plans should include biodiversity recovery commitments that could anticipate, among others, the creation of Important Bryophyte Areas. An increased involvement of national environmental agencies in the preparation of these strategic plans, and more broadly in ongoing discussions on the Future CAP Green Architecture, would likely also ensure the design of conservation measures better tailored to conserve bryophytes in agricultural landscapes.• Update the European Red List every decade to ensure that the data remains current and relevant.• Develop Key Biodiversity Areas for bryophytes in Europe with a view to ensuring adequate site-based protection for bryophytes.Research and monitoring• Use the European Red List as a basis for future targeted fieldwork on possibly extinct and understudied species.• Establish a monitoring programme for targeted species (for example, threatened species and/or arable bryophytes).• Use the European Red List to obtain funding for research into the biology and ecology of key targeted species.Action on the ground• Use the European Red List as evidence to support multi-scale conservation initiatives, including designation of protected areas, reform of agricultural practices and land management, habitat restoration and rewilding, and pollution reduction measures.• Use the European Red List as a tool to target species that would benefit the most from the widespread implementation of the solutions offered by the 1991 Nitrates Directive (Council Directive 91/676/EEC), including the application of correct amounts of nutrients for each crop, only in periods of crop growth under suitable climatic conditions and never during periods of heavy rainfall or on frozen ground, and the creation of buffer zones to protect waters from run-off from the application of fertilizers.Ex situ conservation• Undertake ex situ conservation of species of conservation concern in botanic gardens and spore and gene banks, with a view to reintroduction where appropriate.</p

Effects of altitude and topography on species richness of vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens in alpine communities

Question: What is the relationship between species richness of vascular plants, bryophytes and macrolichens, and two important gradients in the alpine environment, altitude and local topography? Location: Northernmost Fennoscandia, 250–1525 m a.s.l. corresponding to the range between timberline and mountain top. Methods: The vegetation was sampled in six mountain areas. For each 25 vertical metres, the local topographic gradient from wind-blown ridge to snowbed was sampled in quadrats of 0.8 m × 0.8 m. Patterns in species richness were explored using Poisson regression (Generalized Linear Models). Functional groups of species, i.e. evergreen and deciduous dwarf-shrubs, forbs, graminoids, mosses, hepatics and lichens were investigated separately. Results: Functional groups showed markedly different patterns with respect to both altitude and topography. Species richness of all vascular plants showed a unimodal relationship with altitude. The same was true for graminoids, forbs and lichens analysed separately, but forb richness peaked at much higher altitudes than total richness. The richness of dwarf-shrubs decreased monotonically with altitude, whereas richness of mosses and liverworts showed an increasing trend. Significant interactions between altitude and local topography were present for several groups. The unimodal pattern for total plant species richness was interpreted in terms of local productivity, physical disturbance, trophic interactions, and in terms of species pool effects. Conclusions: Patterns in local species richness result from the action of two opposing forces: declining species pool and decreasing intensity of competition with altitude

Open tundra persist, but arctic features decline:vegetation changes in the warming Fennoscandian tundra

Abstract In the forest‐tundra ecotone of the North Fennoscandian inland, summer and winter temperatures have increased by two to three centigrades since 1965, which is expected to result in major vegetation changes. To document the expected expansion of woodlands and scrublands and its impact on the arctic vegetation, we repeated a vegetation transect study conducted in 1976 in the Darju, spanning from woodland to a summit, 200 m above the tree line. Contrary to our expectations, tree line movement was not detected, and there was no increase in willows or shrubby mountain birches, either. Nevertheless, the stability of tundra was apparent. Small‐sized, poorly competing arctic species had declined, lichen cover had decreased, and vascular plants, especially evergreen ericoid dwarf shrubs, had gained ground. The novel climate seems to favour competitive clonal species and species thriving in closed vegetation, creating a community hostile for seedling establishment, but equally hostile for many arctic species, too. Preventing trees and shrubs from invading the tundra is thus not sufficient for conserving arctic biota in the changing climate. The only dependable cure is to stop the global warming