Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 517–526 | Cite as

How threatened are alpine environments? a cross taxonomic study

  • Markus Franzén
  • Mikael Molander
Original Paper

Abstract

Cold-adapted ecosystems are often considered to be stable, species poor, and well protected. However, such ecosystems have been identified as being especially sensitive to threats from global warming. Despite this, recent studies have found low proportions of Red Listed species in these systems. In this study we explored the number of alpine species (dependent on alpine habitats for their survival) and their Red List status in Sweden. We determined the proportion of Red Listed species and explored discrepancies among different groups of organisms in terms of the proportion of Red Listed species and the criteria used for Red Listing. We found a total of 389 alpine species in twelve analyzed species groups. The overall proportion of Red Listed species was 29%, with 15% regarded as threatened. There were substantial differences among taxonomic groups with respect to the proportion of Red Listed species. Among mammals 75% of the species are Red Listed, along with 63% of butterflies and 50% of birds. In addition the single alpine dragonfly species and all three alpine stinging wasp species are also Red Listed. Although beetles, bumblebees and grasshoppers are represented by a total of 17 alpine species, none are Red Listed. In contrast to previous studies, our results show that the proportion of Red Listed species is high in alpine environments, indicating that ecosystems found above the tree line are indeed threatened. No species in Sweden have been Red Listed on the basis of the IUCN criterion E (unfavorable quantitative analysis), this is surprising since entire cold-adapted ecosystems are likely to disappear in the future. We highlight the need for a better and more coordinated application of the IUCN criteria, as well as a more stringent strategy to assess the extinction risks for alpine species, thus maintaining reliable Red Lists.

Keywords

Biodiversity Climate change High altitude Red List Threatened species 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the following persons for help with identifying alpine species within different organism groups: B. Andersson, M. Aronsson, B.-Å. Bengtsson, R. Franzén, B. Gullefors, A. Knöppel, L. A. Nilsson, B. Cederberg, T. Hallingbäck, N. Cronberg, E. Öckinger and M. Olofsson. T. Ranius, S. Nakasian and M. Kutzer gave valuable comments on earlier manuscripts. This study supported by FORMAS, Stiftelsen Olle Engkvist Byggmästare and from the European Commission Framework Programme (FP) 7 via the STEP (grant 244090).

Supplementary material

10531_2011_197_MOESM1_ESM.doc (40 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 40 kb)
10531_2011_197_MOESM2_ESM.doc (35 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 35 kb)

References

  1. Anonymous (2008) Land use in Sweden, 5 edn. SCB, Statistics Sweden, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  2. Brito D, Ambal RG, Brooks T, De Silva N, Foster M, Hao W, Hilton-Taylor C, Paglia A, Rodriguez JP, Rodriguez JV (2010) How similar are national red lists and the IUCN Red List? Biol Conserv 143:1154–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christian K, Isabelle L, Frederic J, Vincent D (2009) More species, fewer specialists: 100 years of changes in community composition in an island biogeographical study. Divers Distrib 15:641–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dirnböck T, Essl F, Rabitsch W (2011) Disproportional risk for habitat loss of high-altitude endemic species under climate change. Glob Change Biol 17:990–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eide W, Aronsson M (2010) The Swedish mountains. In: Gärdenfors U (ed) The 2010 Red List of Swedish species. The Swedish Species Information Centre, SLU, Uppsala, pp 106–112Google Scholar
  6. Gärdenfors U (2010a) Barometer of life: national red lists. Science 329:140pPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gärdenfors U (ed) (2010b) The 2010 Red List of Swedish species. The Swedish Species Information Centre, SLU, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  8. Hallingbäck T (2007) Working with Swedish cryptogam conservation. Biol Conserv 135:334–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ims RA, Henden JA, Killengreen ST (2008) Collapsing population cycles. Trends Ecol Evol 23:79–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. IUCN (2003) Guidelines for application of IUCN Red list criteria at regional levels: version 3.0. Species survival commission, IUCN, Gland. Switzerland and Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. IUCN (2010) IUCN Standards and Petitions Working Group. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 8.1. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee in March 2010, IUCN, Gland. Switzerland and Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. Kålås JA, Viken Å, Henriksen S, Skjelseth S (eds) (2010) The 2010 Norwegian Red List for Species. Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  13. Korpimäki E, Brown PR, Jacob J, Pech RP (2004) The puzzles of population cycles and outbreaks of small mammals solved? Bioscience 54:1071–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kotiaho J, Kaitala V, Komonen A, Päivinen J (2005) Predicting the risk of extinction from shared ecological characteristics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:1963–1967PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kullman L (2010) A richer, greener and smaller alpine world: review and projection of warming-induced plant cover change in the Swedish Scandes. Ambio 39:159–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lamoreux J, Akcakaya HR, Bennun L, Collar NJ, Boitani L, Brackett D, Brautigam A, Brooks TM, de Fonseca GAB, Mittermeier RA, Rylands AB, Gärdenfors U, Hilton-Taylor C, Mace G, Stein BA, Stuart S (2003) Value of the IUCN red list. Trends Ecol Evol 18:214–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lindström Å, Green M, Ottvall R, Svensson S (2008) Övervakning av fåglarnas populationsutveckling. Årsrapport för 2007. Department of Animal Ecology, Lund University, LundGoogle Scholar
  18. Löbell S, Snäll T, Rydin H (2009) Mating system, reproduction mode and diaspore size affect metacommunity diversity. J Ecol 97:176–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mace GM, Collar NJ, Gaston KJ (2008) Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species. Conserv Biol 22:1424–1442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin-Lopez B, Gonzalez JA, Montes C (2011) The pitfall-trap of species conservation priority setting. Biodiv Conserv 20:663–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miller RM, Rodriguez JP, Aniskowicz-Fowler T (2006) Extinction risk and conservation priorities. Science 313:441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Post E, Forchhammer MC, Bret-Harte MS, Callaghan TV, Christensen TR, Elberling B, Fox AD, Gilg O, Hik DS, Hoye TT, Ims RA, Jeppesen E, Klein DR, Madsen J, McGuire AD, Rysgaard S, Schindler DE, Stirling I, Tamstorf MP, Tyler Nicholas JC, van der Wal R, Welker J, Wookey PA, Schmidt NM, Aastrup P (2009) Ecological dynamics across the arctic associated with recent climate change. Science 325:1355–1358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rassi P, Hyvärinen E, Juslén A, Mannerkoski I (2010) The 2010 Red List of Finnish species. Edita Prima Oy, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  25. Ronquist F, Gärdenfors U (2003) Taxonomy and biodiversity inventories: time to deliver. Trends Ecol Evol 18:269–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Saetersdal M, Birks HJB, Peglar SM (1998) Predicting changes in Fennoscandian vascular plant species richness as a result of future climatic change. J Biogeogr 25:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Serreze MC, Walsh JE, Chapin FS, Osterkamp T, Dyurgerov M, Romanovsky V, Oechel WC, Morison J, Zhang T, Barry RG (2000) Observational evidence of recent change in the northern high-latitude environment. Clim Change 46:159–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Settele J, Kudrna O, Harpke A, Kühn I, van Swaay C, Verovnik R, Warren MS, Wiemers M, Hanspach J, Hickler T, Kühn E, van Halder I, Veling K, Vliegenthart A, Wynhoff I, Schweiger O (2008) Climatic risk atlas of European butterflies. Biorisk 1:1–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van Swaay C, Maes D, Collins S, Munguira ML, Sasic M, Settele J, Verovnik R, Warren M, Wiemers M, Wynhoff I, Cuttelod A (2011) Applying IUCN criteria to invertebrates: how red is the red list of European butterflies? Biol Conserv 144:470–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Walther-Hellwig K, Frankl R (2000) Foraging habitats and foraging distances of bumblebees, Bombus spp. (Hym., Apidae), in an agricultural landscape. J Appl Entomol-Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Entomologie 124:299–306Google Scholar
  31. Xu JC, Grumbine RE, Shrestha A, Eriksson M, Yang XF, Wang Y, Wilkes A (2009) The melting Himalayas: cascading effects of climate change on water, biodiversity, and livelihoods. Conserv Biol 23:520–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zamin TJ, Baillie JEM, Miller RM, Rodriguez JP, Ardid A, Collen B (2010) National red listing beyond the 2010 target. Conserv Biol 24:1012–1020PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Community EcologyUFZ—Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental ResearchHalleGermany
  2. 2.SjöboSweden

Personalised recommendations