# European_Red_List_2017_December

taxonomicNotes:
This taxon was formerly considered a subspecies of the European roe deer Capreolus capreolus. Currently three subspecies are recognised: C. pygargus pygargus Pallas, 1771 (main part of the distribution area), C.p. tianschanicus Satunin, 1906 (southern parts) and C.p. bedfordi Thomas, 1908 (eastern parts).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Not Evaluated (NE)A widespread and common species with no major threats. Assessed as Least Concern.

range:
The Siberian roe deer has a wide distribution in the Palaearctic. It is found in southern parts of Siberia and the Urals (to the Volga River in the west), the Russian Far East, and in the mountains of Middle Asia, Mongolia, and Northern and Eastern China. It has been recorded at altitudes of up to 3,300 m.

population:
It is generally widespread and common across the whole distribution area. The population is stable; the species is a game animal.

habitat:
Inhabits different types of deciduous and mixed forests and forest-steppes. In summer it is solitary whereas in winter it aggregates into groups of up to 20-30 individuals. During the seasonal nomadic period it forms herds of up to 500 individuals. Polygamous, but does not form harems. Heat usually occurs from mid-July to mid-September; during this period males are territorial. Young are born in May-June; females give birth to one or two calves (rarely up to four).

threats:
There are no major threats to whole population. However, poaching might be a threat to the isolated population in the Cis-Caucasus.

conservationAction:
The main conservation measures are regulation of hunting and maintenance of suitable habitats on hunting grounds. The majority of the Cis-caucasian population inhabits protected areas.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)Listed as Least Concern as the species is still very widespread and extremely abundant despite fairly intense hunting pressures in parts of its range. It is expanding its range in places and is tolerant of secondary habitat.

range:
Alces alces has a large range extending from Norway through northern and central Europe, northern Russia, Alaska, and Canada to Newfoundland (Canada) and Maine (USA) (Corbet 1978, Bauer and Nygrén 1999, Wilson and Ruff 1999). In Europe, it has a continuous distribution extending through Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, the Baltic states, Belarus, Poland and northern Ukraine. There was a small population in northern Austria which is now extinct (although there may still be occasional migrants). There are three isolated subpopulations in southern Czech Republic, and the species is occasionally recorded in Germany, Croatia, Hungary and Romania. It has been extending its range southwards along the rivers into the northern Caucasus lowlands. It ranges from sea level up to at least 1,500 m in Europe (H. Henttonen pers. comm. 2006), and up to 2,500m in the Altai mountains of Central Asia (Nygrén 1986).

population:
It is a widespread and abundant species. Numbers have increased markedy in Scandinavia in recent decades, and the range is expanding in the Caucasus (EMA Workshop 2006). The global population is in the region of 1.5 million individuals, and the European population is in the order of 0.5 million. European populations show fluctuations over a multi-year cycle (Bauer and Nygrén 1999). Population estimates for European countries include the following: Czech Republic - maximum of 50 animals, Estonia - 10,000 individuals, Finland - at least 110,000 individuals (60-80,000 shot annually), Poland - 2,800 individuals, Sweden - 340,000 individuals (EMA workshop 2006, Ruusila and Kojola in press).

habitat:
Alces alces is found in a range of woodland habitats, both coniferous and broadleaved, from the tundra and taiga southwards through boreal to temperate zones. It tends to prefer damp, marshy habitats and areas in close proximity to water. It is also found in open country in the lowlands and mountains, including farmland, if there is forest nearby. It thrives in secondary growth, and its population expansion in Scandinavia has been linked to the replacement of natural taiga forest by secondary woodland after logging (Bauer and Nygrén 1999). It feeds on vegetative parts of trees, shrubs, dwarf shrubs, herbs, and aquatic plants, and is a pest of agriculture and forestry in at least parts of its range (Ruusila and Kojola in press). The species has seasonal movements in parts of its range, particularly in northern Europe.

threats:
There are no major threats to this species at present. A wasting disease has been reported, and its causes remain poorly understood (Frank 2004), but it is not considered to be a serious problem for the species. Overexploitation caused significant population declines and range contractions in the 18th and 19th centuries, but since then populations have recovered (Ruusila and Kojola in press, Bauer and Nygrén 1999). In most European range states, populations are controlled to prevent damage to forestry and arable crops (Bauer and Nygrén 1999).

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention. It occurs in a large number of protected areas across its range (Wemmer 1998, EMA Workshop 2006). The species is subject to intense management in some countries through hunting quotas (e.g. in Finland: Ruusila and Kojola in press). It is protected under national legislation in a number of countries (e.g. Germany).

redListAssessors:
Heikki Henttonen, Andreas Kranz, Michael Stubbe, Tiit Maran, Alexei Tikhonov


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)A widespread and common species with no major threats. It is listed as Least Concern. However, subspecies C. c. italicus is rare (<10,000 mature individuals) and faces serious threats.

range:
The roe deer has a large range in the Palaearctic. It is found throughout most of Europe (with the exception of Ireland, Cyprus, Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, and most of the smaller islands), including western Russia (Stubbe 1999). Outside Europe, it occurs in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and the Caucasus (Wilson and Reeder 2005). It is extinct in Israel and Lebanon (Wilson and Reeder 2005). It occurs from sea level to 2,400 m in the Alps (von Lehmann and Sägesser 1986).

population:
It is widespread and common, and is expanding in many areas. Densities in the northern and southern parts of the range tend to be lower than in the central parts of the range. The central European population is estimated to number c.15 million individuals (EMA Workshop 2006). However, the endemic Italian subspecies C. c. italicus, which is largely restricted to southern Tuscany, probably numbers no more than 10,000 individuals and is at risk from hybridisation with introduced C. c. capreolus (Lorenzini et al. 2002)

habitat:
It occupies a wide variety of habitats, including deciduous, mixed or coniferous forests, moorland, pastures, arable land, and suburban areas with large gardens. It prefers landscapes with a mosaic of woodland and farmland (Stubbe 1999). Roe deer are well adapted to modern agricultural landscapes (Sempéré et al. 1996).

threats:
The main threat in Europe is the increased mixing of various genetic stocks as a result of translocations. This may be a particular threat to genetically distinct peripheral populations, such as those in northern Portugal, the southern Italian Apennines, and Greece (Randi et al. 2004, Lorenzini and Lovari 2006). Molecular studies show that roe deer in central and southern Europe are mainly admixed (Lorenzini et al. 2002, Randi et al. 2004), indicating that human manipulation has greatly affected the natural genetic structure of populations. The small remaining population of C. c. italicus is also threatened by poaching and predation by feral dogs (Lorenzini et al. 2002)

conservationAction:
The species is listed on the Bern Convention (Appendix III), and occurs in a large number of protected areas across its range. To protect remnant populations of the Italian roe deer C. c. italicus, Lorenzini et al. (2002) recommend the following measures: (1) Conduct research to determine the genetic struture of Italian roe deer, (2) Map extant populations of Italian roe deer, with indications of their genetic purity, (3) Prohibit translocations of roe deer from northern stocks to central and southern Italy, and vice versa, (4) Facilitate the expansion of remaining populations by reducing poaching and eliminating feral dogs, and (5) Establish a reintroduction plan for southern Italy. Similar actions are recommended to protect genetically distinct peripheral populations in Portugal and Greece. In general, any translocations of roe deer should respect the genetic integrity of populations at the destination site.

redListAssessors:
Juan Herrero, Jim Conroy, Tiit Maran, Giorgos Giannatos, Michael Stubbe, Stéphane Aulagnier


taxonomicNotes:
Two subspecies; Dama dama dama (original range includes Turkey and possibly parts of south-eastern Europe, widely introduced) and D. d. mesopotamica (formerly found in Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Iran and Iraq; now restricted to Iran, possibly Iraq, and Israel where it recently has been reintroduced) (Wemmer 1998, Bar-David et al. 2005).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)As a result of introductions by the Phoenicians, Romans, and Normans, it is a widespread and abundant species in Europe. Classed as Least Concern at the regional level. However, in its non-European native range this species is under serious threat.

range:
A western Palaearctic species. Its original range includes the Near and Middle East and possibly parts of south-eastern Europe. It was introduced to the western Mediterranean by the Phoenicians, and to central and northern Europe by the Romans and Normans. More recently, it has been introduced to many countries worldwide (e.g. New Zealand, where it is considered a pest) (Apollonio 1999). In Portugal most of the specimens occur within confined areas, such as parks and private hunting areas, and apart from a few scattered individuals there is no wild population (Cabral et al. 2005).

population:
Most introduced populations in Europe are stable (Apollonio 1999). However, in its native range outside Europe, this species has suffered severe declines and has disappeared from a number of countries where it was formerly found (Wemmer 1998).

habitat:
A highly adaptable species that can survive in a wide range of habitats.

threats:
There are no major threats to this species in Europe. In the species' native range outside Europe, hunting and habitat conversion for agriculture caused massive declines in the past, and habitat degradation continues to be a serious threat (Wemmer 1998).

conservationAction:
Listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention. Subspecies mesopotamica is listed on CITES Appendix I (as D. mesopotamica). Occurs in a number of protected areas.


taxonomicNotes:
There are three subspecies: Finnish forest reindeer (Rangifer tarandus fennicus), Mountain reindeer (R.t. tarandus) and Svalbard reindeer (R.t. platyrhynchus). 

Populations of Snohetta, Rondane, Knutsho and Solnketten in Southern Norway represent the original wild mountain reindeer in reasonably pure form (Bevanger and Jordhoy 2004, Bevanger pers. comm. to W. Frey) These populations have had little contact with domestic reindeer whilst mixing of both forms has occurred to a larger extend in the populations of the Hardangervidda and others. Genetic investigations did not indicate any inflow of domestic genes into the four populations in question (Roed 1997, Roed pers. comm. to W. Frey). There are also populations of free roaming reindeer in Southern Norway that have been founded with domestic individuals. Unfortunately three of these – Ottadalsomrädet, Forollhogna and Solnkletten – are adjacent to the pure populations, thus constituting a permanent danger to their genetic integrity.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)The species is Least Concern at the European level. It is still fairly widespread and abundant in Norway, although there have been marked declines in the Russian, and parts of the Finnish, portions of the range. The only EU country that the reindeer occurs in is Finland. Although the Finnish population is small (c.2,200 individuals), and although there have been recent declines in the western subpopulation, overall numbers are increasing. Consequently the species is classed as Least Concern. Wild reindeer went extinct in Finland last century, and ongoing conservation action is required to ensure continuing recovery.The Novaya Zemlya subspecies pearsoni is Endangered under C2a(ii). The population is less than 1,000 mature individuals, found on a single subpopulation on an isolated island, which is undergoing continuing decline (the reason for which is currently unknown). The Svalbard subspecies platyrhynchus is Least Concern. Although it has a small population of c.10,000, it is not declining and there are no major threats.

range:
The reindeer has a circumpolar distribution in the tundra and taiga zones of northern Europe, Siberia, and North America (Corbet 1978, Hall 1981, Koubek and Zima 1999, Wilson and Ruff 1999). In Europe, wild populations have a fragmented distribution in Norway (including the island of Svalbard, where there is a separate subspecies R. t. platyrhynchus), Finland, and Russia (including the island of Novaya Zemlya, which also has an endemic subpecies R. t. pearsoni) (Herre 1986, Koubek and Zima 1999). In Finland, wild reindeer occur in two isolated subpopulations, one in the west and one in the east. Semi-domesticated reindeer are widespread in Lappland, and a feral population has historically become established on Iceland (Koubek and Zima 1999); these populations are not shown on the distribution map. It occurs from sea level to at least 2,000 m in Norway (Herre 1986).

population:
There are approximately 30,000 wild reindeer in southern Norway and 10,000 in Svalbard (Andersen and Hustad 2004). The population trend in Norway is believed to be stable, and hunting is controlled. In Finland, forest reindeer (subspecies R. t. fennicus) were driven extinct in the early 1900s, but are now starting to recover as a result of animals moving in from Karelia in Russia and from some captive bred stock that were released (Ruusila and Kojola in press). Forest Reindeer remain very rare in Finland (about 1,200 in the eastern subpopulation and 1,000 individuals in the western subpopulation). The Finnish population trend is difficult to determine, as the population in eastern Finland has expanded rapidly from c. 40 reintroduced individuals in 1980 to c.1,200 today, whereas the western subpopulation has declined from c.1,800 to c.1,000 during 2001-2006 (although in the last few years prior to 2001 it had been increasing) (H. Henttonen pers. comm. 2006, Ruusila and Kojola in press). Overall, the current Finnish population trend is one of growth rather than decline. Numbers in European Russia are very low with presumed ongoing declines, and the reindeer is now absent from large tracts of tundra and taiga. It is not known whether the small Kola Peninsula population in Russia is derived from autochthonous wild reindeer or from semidomesticated animals (A. Tikhonov pers. comm. 2006). The Novaya Zemlya subspecies pearsoni  has a small population (less than 1,000 mature individuals), which is undergoing continuing decline (A. Tikhonov pers. comm. 2006). The reindeer's status in Asia is poorly known, although it is significantly more abundant there than in Europe, with a population estimated at 400,000 in the 1950s (Koubek and Zima 1999). There are also large numbers of reindeer (locally known as caribou) in North America. The feral population in Iceland numbers c.1000, and there are approximately 0.5 million semi-domesticated reindeer in Lappland (H. Henttonen pers. comm. 2006).

habitat:
It inhabits arctic and subarctic tundra, open montane habitats, and open woodland, where it feeds on lichens, mosses, grasses, and shoots and leaves of deciduous shrubs and trees (especially willow Salix spp. and birch Betula spp.). In North America it is a migratory species, making seasonal movements from the coast in summer to the interior in winter, but in Europe reindeer are more sedentary (Herre 1986).

threats:
Poaching is a major threat in the Russian Federation (A. Tikhonov pers. comm. 2006). The causes of decline of the Novaya Zemlya subspecies pearsoni are not known (A. Tikhonov pers. comm. 2006). Loss of habitat in Finland (through logging) may pose problems, and there is increased disturbance to the species in some areas due to winter sporting activities. Hybridization with semidomesticated reindeer is a potential problem for some subspecies and subpopulations (H. Henttonen pers. comm. 2006, Ruusila and Kojola in press).

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention. Subspecies R. t. fennicus is strictly protected under Annex II of the EU Habitats and Species Directive. In eastern parts of Russia there are strict anti-hunting measures in place, but there is continued poaching (A. Tikhonov pers. comm. 2006). Hunting in Norway is also strictly controlled. In Finland, a large fence has been constructed between areas occupied by semidomesticated reindeer and forest reindeer, to prevent hybridisation (Koubek and Zima 1999, H. Henttonen pers. comm. 2006). Research is urgently required to determine the causes of population decline of R. t. pearsoni on Novaya Zemlya, and to identify appropriate conservation actions.


taxonomicNotes:
In North America, wapiti Cervus elaphus are sometimes called elk. However, in Europe the name elk refers to Alces alces (known in North America as moose). 

Genetic studies suggest that populations on Sardinia and Corsica are closely related to the north African subspecies C. e. barbarus (Ludt et al. 2004, Pitra et al. 2004), and some authors have suggested that C. e. barbarus should be treated as a distinct species (Pitra et al. 2004). These island populations may have been introduced by man in Holocene times (Hmwe et al. 2006).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)This species has a wide range. Population size has not been quantified, but it is not believed to approach the thresholds for the population size criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. less than 10,000 mature individuals in conjunction with appropriate decline rates and subpopulation qualifiers), as the species is described as common in at least parts of its range. There have been range contractions and presumably population declines in some parts of the species' European range, but it is not believed to approach the threshold for the population decline criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. declining more than 30% in ten years or three generations). For these reasons, it is evaluated as Least Concern. However, genetic mixing as a result of introductions of deer from different areas is a problem that should be addressed.

range:
The red deer has a large global distribution extending from Europe and North Africa through central Asia, Siberia, the Far East and North America (Corbet 1978, Koubek and Zima 1999, Wilson and Ruff 1999). It is widely but somewhat patchily distributed throughout most of continental Europe, although it is absent from northern Fennoscandia and most of European Russia. It is present on a number of islands, including the British Isles and Sardinia. It is extinct in Albania. There are several small introduced subpopulations in Russia (all introduced into nature reserves for hunting) of unknown origin. There may be a small natural subpopulation at Kaliningrad in Russia just across the Polish border (A. Tikhonov pers. comm. 2006). In Greece, the small isolated subpopulations are the result of reintroductions into areas where it previously occurred. Likewise in Portugal all populations result from reintroduction or natural expansion from transborder Spanish populations which in turn were reintroduced. It occurs from sea level to above the tree line (c.2,500 m) in the Alps. The distribution is much more patchy and fragmented than the apparent continuity suggested by the distribution map.

population:
It is a widespread and abundant species, although there is increasing fragmentation of populations in central Europe, and the species has been lost from some areas (EMA Workshop 2006). Typical population densities range from 2 to 10 individuals per km2 (up to c.25 per km2, higher figures in the literature almost certainly refer to fed populations: S. Lovari pers. comm. 2006). It is sufficiently abundant in some areas to be considered a pest in forestry plantations. In Germany there are reports of 60,000 animals hunted per year. The most recent records indicate a population size of 150,000-180,000 in Germany (M. Stubbe pers. comm. 2006). Subspecies C. e corsicanus, endemic to the islands of Sardinia and Corsica, is relatively rare but its numbers are increasing. It was reintroduced to Corsica in the 1970s and is found in three small subpopulations, estimated in 2005 to number no fewer than 5,000 individuals (S. Lovari in litt. 2006).

habitat:
It inhabits open deciduous woodland, upland moors and open mountainous areas (sometimes above the treeline), natural grasslands, pastures and meadows (Koubek and Zima 1999). In woodland, its diet consists mainly of shrub and tree shoots, but in other habitats it also consumes grasses, sedges and shrubs.

threats:
The main threat is the intermixing of the various subspecies, including subspecies from North America (wapiti) and Asia, as well as hybridisation with sika deer Cervus nippon (Koubek and Zima 1999, EMA Workshop 2006). The introduction of animals from North America has also resulted in the spread of parasites and diseases to previously unaffected subpopulations (e.g. liver worms). Overhunting and habitat loss as a result of agricultural intensification and urbanisation are other pressures (Wemmer 1998), but they are not thought to pose a major threat to the species at present (EMA Workshop 2006).

conservationAction:
It is protected under Appendix III of the Bern Covention. Subspecies C. e. corsicanus is strictly protected under Appendix II of the Bern Convention and Annexes II* and IV of the EU Habitats and Species Directive. It occurs in numerous protected areas across its range and also in protected areas outside its range where it has been introduced. To preserve the genetic integrity of local populations, it is important that the introduction of red deer from other areas is stopped, unless there is evidence that they belong to the same taxon (subspecies).Red deer in Europe have been affected to a large extent by translocations not only between far distant populations and different subspecies within the continent, but also by imported conspecifics from Central Asia and North America, and introduced Sika deer. As a result, most of the present deer populations of Europe are either known hybrids on a subspecific or even specific level or their breeding background is insufficiently known for excluding such a possibility. Systematic investigation into the history and the genetics of all European red deer populations is therefore needed as a base for establishing a European Red Deer Managment Plan. Part of this plan should be the identification of unpolluted autochthonous populations of this species and protection of their genetic integrity, thus preserving as much as possible of what is left of its natural variation. In this respect the following populations are important and should be given a high priority for conservation and research:Swedish Red Deer (C. e. elaphus)Red deer population of Skåne, Southern SwedenSubspecies C. e. elaphus with original distribution in central Europe and southern Scandinavia has its only remaining free-living population that is free from hybridization in Skåne, Sweden (Ahlén 1965, I. Ahlén pers. comm. 2007). Genetic studies have confirmed that there is no mixing with eastern European or wapiti genes that has affected all other populations in central Europe, Denmark and other parts of Sweden. In the official Swedish Red List produced in 2005 this subspecies was classified as VU (D1) (Gärdenfors 2005). Norwegian Red Deer (C. e. atlanticus)All red deer occurring in Norway still represent pure C.e. atlanticus, with the only exception being the isolated population on the Island of Otteroy, which has experienced an inflow of genes from introduced red deer from Germany (Ahlén 1965, Trense CIC pers. comm. to W. Frey).Scottish Red Deer (C. e. scoticus)Otago Mountains Red deer population, New ZealandThe red deer population of the Otago Mountains was established in 1871 with animals from Invermark Forest, Scotland, long before these could have been polluted through introductions from other sources. Unfortunately there are deer farms now all around the periphery of the Otago Mountains, from which animals escape from time to time. Red deer from the central sections of the range land however are still pure C.e. scoticus. This has been supported by the results of genetic investigations (Banwell pers. comm. to W. Frey). Banwell recommends that some of these animals pure bred animals should be removed before it is too late, and Frey suggested that an isolated population should be established in Great Britain with animals from this source, as according to Carne (2000) there is no red deer population left in Great Britain and Ireland that reliably represents pure C.e. scoticus (W. Frey pers. comm. 2006). Central European Red Deer (C. e. hippelaphus)Western populationsVosges Red deer populationThe population of the Vosges, presently numbering c.15,000 individuals, derives from an autochthonous relict population of some 200 head. Recent contacts to the neighbouring non-autochthonous population in Germany cannot be excluded. However if gene flow between both populations has already occurred, it is believed that this should have been in one direction only: from the Vosges population to the German population (Riffel pers. comm. to W. Frey). This assumption was strongly supported by extensive genetic investigations of the Vosges population (Hartl et al. 1991, Hartl pers. comm. to W. Frey). The genetic integrity of the Vosges population however is threatened in the longer term, if a pure transplant population is not established.Eastern populationsRed deer populations of Greece, Bulgaria and the European part of TurkeyThe red deer populations of Greece and Bulgaria have remained free from admixtures of foreign genes (Trense CIC pers. comm. to W. Frey), as has the population of the Belgrad Forest in Turkey (Can pers. comm. to W. Frey)  Whilst there are about 29,000 red deer in Bulgaria (Chassovnikarova et al. 2003) very little is known about the status of the species in Greece, with the exception that the total number of individuals cannot be high and is concentrated in a few isolated populations. Clutton-Brock and Gill (1989) mentioned with reference to Papageorgiou that the red deer occurring on the Sithonia peninsula is in need of better protection and may deserve examination for possible sub-specific status.Red deer of the Italian peninsulaMesola Red Deer The Gran Bosco della Mesola Natural Reserve harbours the only autochthonous unmixed population of red deer in the Italian peninsula. The population size dropped to the historically lowest level of 10 animals in 1945-1947. In spring 1998 there were 59 individuals. Considering zoogeographical factors, this indigenous red deer may represent a separate subspecies (Mattioli 1990, Hmwe et al. 2006).Sardinian Red Deer (Cervus elaphus corsicanus)It is possible that the red deer of Sardinia and Corsica is descended from deer from mainland Italy that reached the island naturally during the Pleistocene. It is also possible that it was introduced by man in Holocene times (Hmwe et al. 2006). Genetic studies suggest that populations on Sardinia and Corsica are closely related to the north African subspecies C. e. barbarus (Ludt et al. 2004, Pitra et al. 2004). Iberian Red Deer (Cervus elaphus hispanicus)Iberian subspecies C.e. hispanicus might represent a relict of the red deer populations before the last Ice Age. The Coto Doñana red deer population represents pure C.e. hispanicus (Riffel pers. comm. to W. Frey), and there are probably more unmixed populations left of this subspecies (W. Frey pers. comm. 2006). Nevertheless, it is considered to be threatened by genetic introgression from introduced animals from other parts of Europe. There have been many introductions of allochthonous red deer by private landowners seeking to "improve" the antlers, only some of which have been documented. (Carranza et al. 2003).

redListAssessors:
Sandro Lovari, Juan Herrero, Jim Conroy, Tiit Maran, Giorgos Giannatos, Michael Stubbe, Stéphane Aulagnier


redListCategoryRationale:
Risso’s dolphin is widely distributed in temperate and tropical waters worldwide but little is known about the species. Estimates of abundance are available for only a few regions and details of distribution are generally lacking. Population trend data for this species are unavailable. Primary threats that could cause widespread declines include entanglement in fisheries and competition with squid fisheries. The combination of potential declines driven by competition with fisheries for squid and bycatch in fisheries is believed sufficient that a 30% global reduction over three generations or in this case 60 years could not be ruled out. Therefore, the species is classed as Data Deficient. The Mediterranean population was also recently assessed as Data Deficient (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).

range:
This is a widely-distributed species, inhabiting primarily deep waters of the continental slope and outer shelf (especially with steep bottom topography), from the tropics through the temperate regions in both hemispheres (Kruse et al. 1999). They also occur in some oceanic areas, beyond the continental slope, such as in the eastern tropical Pacific. They are found from Newfoundland, Norway, the Kamchatka Peninsula, and Gulf of Alaska in the north to the tips of South America and South Africa, southern Australia, and southern New Zealand in the south. Their range includes many semi-enclosed bodies of water, such as the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of California, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Sea of Japan, and Mediterranean Sea.

population:
There are no regional estimates of abundance for this species. Although Risso’s dolphins are regularly sighted in the western Mediterranean, they are considered scarce (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006). Line-transect abundance estimates for the western central Mediterranean in 2001-03 gave 493 Risso’s dolphins (95% C.I. 162-1,498) in an area of 32,270 km2 (Gómez de Segura et al. 2006).

habitat:
Risso’s dolphins inhabit deep oceanic and continental slope waters, generally 400-1000 m deep (Jefferson et al. 1993, Baird 2002), mostly occurring seaward of the continental slope. They frequent subsurface seamounts and escarpments, where they are thought to feed on vertically migrant and mesopelagic cephalopods. Currents and upwelling causing local increases in marine productivity may enhance feeding opportunities, resulting in the patchy distribution and local abundance of this species worldwide (Kruse et al. 1999). Most records of this species in Britain and Ireland are within 11 km of the coast. Risso's dolphins feed on crustaceans and cephalopods, but seem to prefer squid. Squid bites may be the cause of at least some of the scars found on the bodies of these animals. In the few areas where feeding habits have been studied, they appear to feed mainly at night.

threats:
In the Mediterranean Sea, Risso’s dolphins are among the cetacean species frequently found entangled infishing nets. Bycatches in longlines and gillnets have been reported in Spain (Valeiras and Camiñas 2001) and Italy (Notarbartolo di Sciara 1990). Sound pollution is a threat to deep-diving pelagic cetaceans, including Risso’s dolphins. Evidence consistent with a syndrome related to exposure to high-intensity sonar has been described in this species in the UK (Jepson et al. 2005). Risso’s dolphins in the Mediterranean have been found to carry substantial contaminant burdens (see references in Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).

conservationAction:
The North and Baltic Sea subpopulations are included in Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species.


redListCategoryRationale:
The species is widespread and abundant and there have been no reported population declines, therefore the Atlantic white-sided dolphin is currently considered to be of Least Concern.

range:
Atlantic white-sided dolphins are found in cold temperate to subpolar waters of the North Atlantic, from about 38°N (south of Cape Cod) in the west and the Brittany coast of France in the east, north to southern Greenland, Iceland, and southern Svalbard (Reeves et al. 1999, Cipriano 2002). The range includes the U.K. and the northern coasts of Scandinavia, although they rarely enter the Baltic Sea. They also sometimes move quite far up the Saint Lawrence River of eastern Canada, and they have been seen as far south as Strait of Gibraltar (Hashmi and Adloff 1991, 1992).

population:
This species is quite abundant throughout its range.There are an estimated 51,640 (CV=38%) Atlantic white-sided dolphins off the eastern North American shoreline (Waring et al. 2006), and about 96,000 (CV=54%) off the west coast of Scotland (MacLeod 2004). There is currently little evidence for separate subpopulations (Mikkelsen and Lund 1994).

habitat:
Atlantic white-sided dolphins are found primarily in waters of the continental shelf and slope, but they also occur in oceanic waters across the North Atlantic. Along the continental slope of North America, they seem to associate with high sea-bed relief along the continental shelf (Palka et al. 1997). Calves are born over an extended period around the summer season, with apparent peaks in June and July. These dolphins often associate and feed with large baleen whales (fin and humpback whales), and are known to form mixed groups with pilot whales and a number of other dolphin species (including bottlenose and white-beaked dolphins). Atlantic white-sided dolphins feed mostly on small schooling fish (such as herring, mackerel, cod, smelt, hake, and sandlance), shrimp, and squid.

threats:
Some hunting for this species occurred in the past, especially in Norway. Some dolphins are still taken in Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and eastern Canada (Jefferson et al. 1993, Reeves et al. 1999). Recent catches in Faroe Islands were 333 and 310 in 2004 and 2005, respectively (NAMMCO Annual Report 2005). Incidental mortality in fishing gear has been documented off Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and Ireland. Gaskin (1992) judged Atlantic white-sided dolphins to be less vulnerable to capture in pelagic near-surface drift nets and fixed groundfish gill nets than are many other small cetaceans. They may, however, be especially susceptible to capture in midwater trawl nets (Addink et al. 1997). Substantial numbers have been bycaught in pelagic trawl fisheries for horse mackerel and mackerel south-west of Ireland (Reeves et al. 1999). Like other North Atlantic marine mammals, Atlantic white-sided dolphins are contaminated by organochlorines, other anthropogenic compounds and heavy metals (Reeves et al. 1999); although the effects of pollutants are not well understood in this species, they may affect reproduction or render them susceptible to other mortality factors

conservationAction:
Existing direct takes are currently not regulated by any hunting quotas. Operational difficulties in observing bycatch and potentially significant annual fluctuation in catch rates warrant further observer studies of these and other trawl fisheries (Morizur et al. 1999, NMFS Stock Assessment Report: Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico). The impact of combined anthropogenic removals should be assessed.


taxonomicNotes:
All bottlenose dolphins around the world were previously recognized as T. truncatus, but recently the genus has been split into two species: T. truncatus and T. aduncus (the smaller Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin: Wang et al. 1999, 2000a,b). However, the taxonomy of bottlenose dolphins is confused, due to geographical variation, and it is very possible that additional species will be recognized in the future. For example, two forms in the North Atlantic, an offshore and a coastal form, are distinguishable on the basis of morphology and ecological markers (e.g. Mead and Potter 1995), have fixed genetic differences and, therefore, eventually may be assigned to different species (Leduc and Curry 1997, Hoelzel et al. 1998, Reeves et al. 2003).

Bottlenose dolphins in the Black Sea are recognized as a subspecies possessing morphological differences from Atlantic and Pacific dolphins (Barabasch-Nikiforov 1960, Geptner et al. 1976). The Black Sea subpopulation is also differentiated genetically from other bottlenose dolphins in the eastern and western Mediterranean and the northeastern Atlantic (Natoli et al. 2005), and the available evidence (Birkun 2006) supports recognition of the subspecies T. t. ponticus.

redListCategoryRationale:
This species has a varying status in different parts of its European range. In the Mediterranean and Black seas there have been substantial population declines; the Mediterranean population was recently assessed as Vulnerable (A2cde), and the Black Sea subspecies T. t. ponticus was classed as Endangered (A2cde)(Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006). However, although there are no estimates of population size or trend from offshore waters of the North Atlantic, the population there is likely to be large and shows no evidence of significant decline. Overall in the European Mammal Assessment region, it is not possible to quantify the population trend because the relative size of the different subpopulations is not known. Consequently the species is assessed as Data Deficient at the European regional level.

range:
Common bottlenose dolphins are distributed worldwide through tropical and temperate inshore, coastal, shelf, and oceanic waters (Leatherwood and Reeves 1990, Wells and Scott 1999, Reynolds et al. 2000). Bottlenose dolphins generally do not range pole-ward of 45° except in northern Europe (as far as the Faroe Islands 62°N 7°W:  Bloch and Mikkelsen 2000). The species is rare in the Baltic Sea (it may best be considered extralimital there), and is vagrant to  Norway (Wells and Scott 1999).

population:
Abundance has been estimated for several parts of the species' range. Summing available estimates, a minimum world-wide estimate of common bottlenose dolphins is 600,000. Total abundance in the Mediterranean is unknown but thought to be in the low 10,000s based on observed densities in areas that have been surveyed (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006). Surveys in the northwestern Mediterranean estimated 7,654 (CV=45%) dolphins (Forcada et al. 2004). An estimated 584 (CV=28%) animals occur in the Alboran Sea (Cañadas and Hammond 2006). Mediterranean bottlenose dolphins exhibit population structure based on toxicology and diet (Borrell et al. 2005) and genetics (Natoli et al. 2005). The total population size in the Black Sea is unknown. However, there are recent abundance estimates for parts of the range suggesting that population size is at least several thousands (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006). Preliminary estimates from the late 1980s indicate about 1,000 dolphins occur around the Faroe Islands (Sigurjónsson et al. 1989, Bloch and Mikkelsen 2000). A wide scale survey in 2005 of western European continental shelf waters including the western Baltic, North Sea and Atlantic margin as far as southern Spain estimated that there were 12,600 bottlenose dolphins in this area (CV=27%, P. Hammond pers. comm.).Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara (2006) estimate generation time in the common bottlenose dolphin to be c.20 years.

habitat:
Common bottlenose dolphins tend to be primarily coastal, but they can also be found in pelagic waters (Wells and Scott 1999). Where distinct ecotypes are known, the inshore form frequents estuaries, bays, lagoons and other shallow coastal regions, occasionally ranging far up into rivers. The offshore form is apparently less restricted in range and movement. Some offshore dolphins are residents around oceanic islands. In many inshore areas bottlenose dolphins maintain definable, long-term multi-generational home ranges, but in some locations near the extremes of the species range, coastal bottlenose dolphins are migratory. Black Sea bottlenose dolphins are common over the continental shelf; they sometimes occur far offshore (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006). Bottlenose dolphins are commonly associated with many other cetaceans, including both large whales and other dolphin species (Wells and Scott 1999). Mixed schools with Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins have been found, for instance off China and Taiwan (J. Wang, pers. comm.).  Spring and summer, spring and fall, or single summer calving peaks are known for most areas where this has been studied (Wilson 1995, Wells and Scott 1999). In general, bottlenose dolphins consume a wide variety of prey species, mostly fish  and squid (Barros and Odell 1990, Barros and Wells 1998, Santos et al. 2001).  They sometimes eat shrimps and other crustaceans.

threats:
Coastal and island-centered populations are especially vulnerable to hunting, incidental catch, and habitat degradation (see Curry and Smith 1997 for a review). Acute conservation problems are known in the Mediterranean and Black seas (IWC 1992, Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006) as well as a number of other areas in the global range (outside Europe). Dolphin catches for bait, human consumption, or to remove competition with fisheries have been reported worldwide (see reviews in Wells and Scott 1999, 2002). The only Mediterranean area with quantitative historical information is the northern Adriatic Sea, where bottlenose dolphins likely have declined by at least 50% over the past 50 years, largely as a consequence of historical killing in extermination campaigns to reduce competition for fish, followed by habitat degradation and overfishing. The extermination campaigns were conducted until the early 1960s (Bearzi et al. 2004, Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).  For the north-western Mediterranean, the available information suggests similar trends (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006). Drive fisheries have been reported from the Faroe Islands and Japan. Up to 308 are taken annually in the Faroe Islands drive fishery (dating back to 1803), often with long finned pilot whales (Reyes 1991). The Black Sea subspecies has had extensive directed takes for commercial products (Kleinenberg 1956, Tomilin 1957, Buckland et al. 1992), including takes of at least 24,000-28,000 during 1946-1983 in the Black Sea off Turkey.  However, the total number of dolphins killed was certainly much greater (probably by tens of thousands) as figures do not include, or only partially include, catch statistics from other Black Sea countries (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).Live-capture removal of Black Sea bottlenose dolphins, including mortality during capture operations, is estimated at 1,000-2,000 since the early 1960s. Live-captures continue in the Russian Federation, with 10-20 animals taken annually from a small area in the Kerch Strait, Russia (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006). According to CITES statistics, at least 92 individuals were removed from the Black Sea region during 1990-1999 (Reeves et al. 2003) and Russia reportedly has exported at least 66 for travelling shows since 1997 (Fisher and Reeves 2005).Incidental catches of common bottlenose dolphins are known from throughout the species’ range, in gillnets, driftnets, purse seines, trawls, long-lines, and on hook-and-line gear used in commercial and recreational fisheries, but numbers of mortalities are often poorly documented (Wells and Scott 1999). Annual Black Sea bottlenose dolphin incidental mortality in bottom-set gillnets from 1946 through the 1980s is roughly estimated in the hundreds. The scale of this mortality almost certainly increased in the 1990s-2000s owing to the rapid expansion of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006). According to Öztürk (1999) at least 200-300 bottlenose dolphins per year may be taken incidentally in Turkish fisheries in a variety of fishing nets, especially bottom-set gill nets.Common bottlenose dolphins in coastal areas are exposed to a wide variety of threats in addition to direct and indirect takes. Threats that are cause for concern include: 1) the toxic effects of xenobiotic chemicals; 2) reduced prey availability caused by environmental degradation and overfishing (Pauly et al. 1998, Jackson et al. 2001); 3) direct and indirect disturbance and harassment (e.g. boat traffic and commercial dolphin watching and interactive programs); 4) marine construction and demolition and 5) other forms of habitat destruction and degradation (including anthropogenic noise). Although these and other threats are technically challenging to quantify by comparison with takes, their cumulative impact is likely to result in longitudinal population declines. Lack of historical data in many cases hampers understanding of long term trends, possibly resulting in shifting baselines. The contribution of anthropogenic factors to an increasing number of Unusual Mortality Events involving bottlenose dolphins remains to be determined (Spradlin et al. 2005).

conservationAction:
The bottlenose dolphin has been afforded special protected status under Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive. Commercial hunting of Black Sea cetaceans including bottlenose dolphins was banned in 1966 in the former USSR, Bulgaria and Romania, and in 1983 in Turkey. Research on population structure, abundance and removals of common bottlenose dolphins is needed so that risks to regional populations can be assessed.


taxonomicNotes:
Currently, all Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins are considered to be part of a single widespread and highly-variable species, Sousa chinensis. Some biologists consider humpback dolphins in the Indo-Pacific to consist of two species: Sousa plumbea in the western Indian Ocean, from South Africa to at least the east coast of India, and Sousa chinensis from the east coast of India to China and Australia.  These two geographic forms differ strongly in morphology and apparently in many ecological characters (see Jefferson and Van Waerebeek 2004 for a partial summary).  Morphometric and genetic studies currently underway may resolve this controversy in the near future, but there is growing evidence that at least these two putative species, and possibly others, may be valid (see Rice 1998, Jefferson and Karczmarski 2001).

redListCategoryRationale:
This species is assessed as Not Applicable as there is only a single record in the European Mammal Assessment region.

range:
Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins of the chinensis-type are found in shallow, coastal waters from both east and west coasts of northern Australia and southern China in the east, through the Indo-Malay Archipelago, and westward around the coastal rim of the Bay of Bengal to at least the Orissa coast of west India (Ross et al. 1994, Jefferson and Karczmarski 2001, Sutaria and Jefferson 2004). The plumbea-type is found in narrow strip of coastal waters from southwest tip of South Africa eastward around the rim of the Indian Ocean to the southeast cost of India (Jefferson and Karczmarski 2001, Ross 2002, IWC 2003). It occurs off Madagascar, Mayotte and the Comoro Islands, in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. There is an extralimital record for Israel, in the Mediterranean Sea (an apparent stray that moved through the Suez Canal from the Red Sea: Kerem et al. 2001).

population:
There has only been a single sighting of this species in the European Mammal Assessment area (Kerem et al. 2001).

habitat:
Humpback dolphins occurs in tropical to warm temperate coastal waters, including open coasts and bays, coastal lagoons, rocky and/or coral reefs, mangrove swamp and estuarine areas (Ross et at. 1994, Jefferson and Karczmarski 2001, Ross 2002); rarely more than a few kilometers from shore. They sometimes enter rivers, but rarely move more than a few kilometers upstream and usually within the tidal range. Their distribution appears to be limited to waters of the continental shelf, and the only places where they range far offshore are those in which the water is shallow (<100m). They appear to be opportunistic feeders, feeding on a wide variety of nearshore, estuarine, and reef fish. They also eat cephalopods in some areas, but crustaceans are rare in the diet (Jefferson and Karczmarski 2001, Ross 2002).

threats:
The majority of humpback dolphins inhabit coastal or estuarine waters of developing nations, countries with limited resources and means for environmental protection. Habitat degradation and habitat loss, and incidental mortality in fishing gear represent the greatest threats to this species (Ross et al. 1994, Jefferson and Karczmarski 2001).

conservationAction:
Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin is a vagrant in the European Mammal Assessment region, so there are no conservation measures for the species in this area.


redListCategoryRationale:
The species is widespread and abundant and there have been no reported population declines or major threats identified; therefore white-beaked dolphin is currently considered to be of Least Concern.

range:
This is the most northerly member of the genus Lagenorhynchus, and it has a wide distribution (Kinze 2002). White-beaked dolphins inhabit cold temperate to subpolar waters of the North Atlantic, from Cape Cod and Portugal, north to central Davis Strait, southern Greenland, Svalbard, and east to Novaya Zemlya.  The range includes Iceland, Faroe Islands, the U.K., and most Scandinavian waters (but apparently does not include the Baltic Sea, although there are a few extralimital records there).

population:
Lagenorhynchus albirostris is reasonably abundant. There are few actual estimates of abundance, but there may be a hundred thousand or more throughout their range (Øien 1996, Reeves et al. 1999).At least a few thousand white-beaked dolphins inhabit Icelandic waters and up to 100,000 are found in the northeastern Atlantic including the Barents Sea, the eastern part of the Norwegian Sea and the North Sea north of 56°N (Øien 1996). A survey of the North Sea and adjacent waters in 1994 provided an estimate of 7,856 (CV=0.30) white-beaked dolphins (Hammond et al. 2002). In 2005 there were an estimated 22,700 (CV=0.42) in the European Atlantic continental shelf waters, including 10,600 (CV=0.29) in the same area surveyed in 1994 (P. Hammond pers. comm. 2007). Kinze et al. (1997) maintained that the white-beaked dolphin is much more common in the North and Baltic Seas than its relative, the Atlantic white-sided dolphin and Northridge et al. (1997) found that white-beaked dolphins are relatively common in European waters compared with white-sided dolphins, or compared with US waters.

habitat:
White-beaked dolphins inhabit continental shelf and offshore waters of the cold temperate to subpolar zones, although there is evidence suggesting that their primary habitat is in waters less than 200 m deep. The species is found widely over the continental shelf, but especially along the shelf edge. A change in habitat use has been documented in U.S. waters, where white-beaked dolphins were observed primarily on the continental shelf prior to the 1970s, but mainly occurred over slope waters during the 1970s. This shift was associated with changes in finfish abundance and a shift in the distribution of Atlantic white-sided dolphins, L. acutus (Katona et al. 1993, Kenney et al. 1996). The ecology of white-beaked dolphins has received little detailed study (Kinze 2002).  Calving peaks in summer to early autumn (May to September), but not much else is known about reproduction in this species (Reeves et al. 1999). White-beaked dolphins feed on variety of small pelagic schooling fishes, but also demersal species (such as cod, haddock, poorcod, bib, hake, and whiting), squid, and crustaceans (for review, see Reeves et al. 1999). They sometimes associate, while feeding, with large whales (such as fin and humpback whales), and are known to form mixed groups with a number of other dolphin species (including bottlenose and Atlantic white-sided dolphins) (Reeves et al. 1999).

threats:
Although not a target of any large commercial fisheries, there has been a long history of small-scale hunting for white-beaked dolphins in some countries, such as Norway, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland, and Labrador, mostly for food (Reeves et al. 1999); hunting in some areas continues today (Jefferson et al. 1993), e.g. some hunting continues off the south-west coast of Greenland (Kinze 2002) and opportunistically off the coast of Canada (Lien et al. 2001). During the early 1980s an estimated 366 white-beaked dolphins were taken annually by the residents of 12 Labrador harbours (Alling and Whitehead 1987). White-beaked dolphins are known to be taken in a range of fishing gear throughout the range of the species (Dong et al. 1996, Reeves et al. 1999). In Norwegian waters where the species is abundant and fishery effort is high, bycatches of white-beaked dolphins are too rare to be detected in fishery operations monitored for marine mammal bycatches (A. Bjørge pers. comm. 2006). In the UK bycatch observer programme, no white-beaked dolphins have been recorded (S. Northridge pers. comm. 2006). Thus, recent bycatch monitoring programmes support the conclusion of Jefferson et al. (1993) that although known to be occurring, incidental catches are not thought to be high enough to represent a serious threat to this species.Like other North Atlantic marine mammals, white-beaked dolphins are contaminated by organochlorines, other anthropogenic compounds and heavy metals (Reeves et al. 1999); although the effects of pollutants are not well understood in this species, they may affect reproduction or render them susceptible to other mortality factors.

conservationAction:
Existing direct takes are currently not regulated by any hunting quotas. Although known to occur, bycatch rates seem to be poorly documented and warrant more intensive research. The impact of combined anthropogenic removals should be assessed.


redListCategoryRationale:
This species is widespread (thus not qualifying as threatened under criterion B) and relatively abundant (above the thresholds for criteria C and D). Population trend data for this species are unavailable. Primary threats that could cause widespread declines include entanglement in fisheries and competition with squid fisheries. The combination of potential declines driven by competition with fisheries for squid and bycatch in fisheries is believed sufficient that a 30% global reduction over three generations or in this case 60 years could not be ruled out. Therefore, the species is classed as Data Deficient. The Mediterranean population was also recently assessed as Data Deficient (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).

range:
Long-finned pilot whales occur in temperate and subpolar zones (Olson and Reilly 2002). They are found in oceanic waters and some coastal waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, including the Mediterranean Sea and North Sea. In the North Atlantic, the species occurs in deep offshore waters, including those inside the western Mediterranean Sea (where is thought to be the only species of pilot whale found there), North Sea, and Gulf of St. Lawrence (Abend and Smith 1999). Long-finned pilot whales tend to follow their prey (squid and mackerel) inshore and into continental shelf waters during the summer and autumn (Reeves et al. 2003). In the western North Atlantic, they occur in high densities over the continental slope in winter and spring months.  In summer and autumn months, they move over the shelf.  Long-finned pilot whales were previously found in the western North Pacific as well, but appear to be absent there today.  The circum-antarctic subpopulation(s) in the Southern Hemisphere occur as far south as the Antarctic Convergence, sometimes to 68°S.  They are apparently isolated from those of the Northern Hemisphere (Bernard and Reilly 1999).

population:
There is little information on stocks within the species (Donovan et al. 1993). In the north-eastern Atlantic the number of pilot whales inhabiting the area between East Greenland, Iceland, Jan Mayen, Faroe Islands and off the western coasts of the British Islands and Ireland was estimated at around 778,000 (CV=30%) by Buckland et al. (1993). The removals by drive hunting at the Faroes (see below) have therefore been considered sustainable (NAMMCO 2000, Reeves et al. 2003).

habitat:
Long-finned pilot whales are highly social; they are generally found in pods of about 20-100, but some groups contain over 1,000 individuals. These large pods are generally dispersed in smaller subgroups of 10-20.  Based on photo-identification and genetic work, pilot whales appear to live in relatively stable, maternally-based pods like those of killer whales, and not in the fluid groups characteristic of many smaller dolphins.This is one of the species most often involved in mass strandings (Olson and Reilly 2002).  Strandings are fairly frequent, for instance, on Cape Cod (Massachusetts, USA) beaches from October to January.  Their tight social structure also makes pilot whales vulnerable to herding, and this has been taken advantage of by whalers in drive fisheries off Newfoundland, the Faroe Islands, and elsewhere.  Primarily squid eaters, pilot whales will also take small medium-sized fish, such as mackerel, when available (Gannon et al. 1997).  Other fish species taken include cod, turbot, herring hake, and dogfish.  They will sometimes also ingest shrimp.  Pilot whales are deep divers, most feeding appears to take place at depths of 200-500 m.

threats:
Drive fisheries for long-finned pilot whales in the Faroe Islands date back to the Norse settlement in the 9th century. Catch statistics exist from the Faroes since 1584, unbroken from 1709-today, show an annual average catch of 850 pilot whales (range: 0 - 4,480) with a cyclic variation according to the North-Atlantic climatic variations (Bloch and Lastein 1995). This level of offtake has been considered sustainable (NAMMCO 2000, Reeves et al. 2003).Incidental catches are reported from Newfoundland, the Mediterranean and the Atlantic coast of France. In British waters, long-finned pilot whales are accidentally caught in gillnets, purse seines and in trawl fisheries. A 1990 workshop to review mortality of cetaceans in passive nets and traps documented an annual kill of 50-100 G. melas off the Atlantic coast of France. Furthermore, pilot whales are also known to be taken incidentally in swordfish driftnets in the Mediterranean (Olson and Reilly 2002).  Although there is considerable controversy regarding the absolute level of declines, there is good evidence of  large-scale reductions in many predatory fish populations (e.g. Baum et al. 2003, 2005; Sibert et al. 2006; Polacheck 2006) and over-fishing and collapse of several important “prey” fish stocks world-wide (e.g. Jackson et al. 2001). The effects of such fish population reductions and subsequent ecosystem changes on world-wide populations of long-finned pilot whales are unknown but could result in population declines. Commercial fisheries for squids are widespread in the western North Atlantic. Target species for these fisheries are squids eaten by pilot whales, again raising the possibility of prey depletion. Long-finned pilot whales off the Faroes, France, UK and the eastern USA appear to have high levels of DDT and PCB in their tissues. Heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury also have been found in pilot whales from the Faroes. Because these contaminants accumulate in tissues over time, older animals and especially adult males tend to have the highest concentrations (Caurant and Amiard-Triquet 1995). Evidence from stranded individuals of several similar species of beaked whales indicates that they have swallowed discarded plastic items. Sometimes this may happen when animals are already ill and incapable of finding/catching normal prey (e.g. Gomercic et al. 2006), or they may be healthy and eat it by accident and it then contributes to blockage of the digestive tract and eventual death (e.g. Scott et al. 2001). Globicephala melas may also be at risk.While impacts of high levels of anthropogenic sound have been well documented for beaked whales (Simmonds and Lopez-Jurado 1991, Frantzis 1998, Balcomb and Claridge 2001, US Dept of Commerce and US Navy 2001, Jepson et al. 2003, Fernandez et al. 2005), there are examples for a number of other species of odontocetes of potential impacts. While conclusive evidence of cause and effect are often lacking, strong avoidance reactions, embayments or mass stranding events have been spatially and temporally associated with high levels of anthropogenic sound for short-finned pilot whales (Hohn et al. 2006), killer whales, melon-headed whales (Southall et al. 2006), Atlantic spotted dolphin (Balcomb and Claridge 2001), striped dolphins, dwarf sperm whales (Hohn et al. 2006), pygmy sperm whales, and Dall’s porpoise (Balcomb pers. comm.). As such, it should be recognized that high levels of anthropogenic sound have the potential to impact other deep diving odontocete species. Predicted impacts of global climate change on the marine environment may affect long-finned pilot whales, and may induce changes in the species’ range, abundance and/or migration patterns (Learmonth et al. 2006).

conservationAction:
The North and Baltic Sea subpopulations have been listed in Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species. One of the areas with regular confirmed presence of long-finned pilot whales in the Mediterranean, the western section of the Ligurian Sea, is included within the marine Sanctuary dedicated to cetaceans in the Corso-Ligurian Basin, created by the Governments of Italy, France and Monaco (Pelagos Sanctuary, SPAMI). No management or conservation measures have been taken as yet specifically for the conservation of this species.A SPAMI (Specially Protected Area of Mediterranean Importance) under the Barcelona Convention has been proposed for the northern half of the Alborán Sea and Gulf of Vera in southern Spain (Cañadas et al. 2005), but it has not yet been designated or even evaluated by the Spanish administration. This proposed area includes the “hot-spots” for long-finned pilot whales in the Mediterranean.


redListCategoryRationale:
This species is assessed as Not Applicable as it is a vagrant in the European Mammal Assessment region.

range:
The exact distribution of this species is poorly known. Fraser's dolphin has a pantropical distribution, largely between 30°N and 30°S in all three major oceans (Jefferson and Leatherwood 1994, Dolar 2002).  Strandings in temperate areas may represent extralimital forays connected with temporary oceanographic anomalies such as the world-wide El Niño phenomenon in 1983-84, during which a mass stranding occurred in France (Perrin et al. 1994). Bones et al. (1998) reported on a stranding on the coast of Scotland.

population:
This species does not appear to be particularly abundant anywhere (with the possible exception of some areas in the Philippines).

habitat:
It is an oceanic species that prefers deep offshore waters, but it can be seen near shore in some areas where deep water approaches the coast (Perrin et al. 1994). Fraser's dolphins feed on midwater fish (especially myctophids), squid, and crustaceans (Dolar et al. 2003). Physiological studies indicate that Fraser’s are capable of quite deep diving (and it is thought that they do most of their feeding deep in the water column in waters up to 600 m deep), but they have been observed to feed near the surface as well (Watkins et al. 1994).

threats:
This species very seldom occurs in European waters, and there are no known major threats in the region.

conservationAction:
There are no conservation measures for this species in the European region.


range:
False killer whales are found in tropical to warm temperate zones, generally in relatively deep, offshore waters of all three major oceans. In addition to deep, oceanic areas, they do sometimes occur over the continental shelf and appear to move into very shallow waters on occasion. They do not generally range poleward of about 50° in either hemisphere. However, some animals occasionally move into higher latitude waters.  They are found in many semi-enclosed seas and bays (including the Sea of Japan, Bohai/Yellow Sea, Red Sea, and Persian Gulf), but they only occasionally occur in the Mediterranean Sea (Leatherwood et al. 1989).  There are a few records for the Baltic Sea, which are considered extralimital.

population:
There are few estimates of abundance, and none for the global population size. Abundance estimates, even for large oceanic regions such as the eastern tropical Pacific, are only in the low tens of thousands (39,800, CV=64%: Wade and Gerrodette 1993). There is no information on population trends.

habitat:
As is the case for most of the tropical oceanic delphinids, this species is rather poorly-known (see Baird 2002). This species is considered to be extremely social.  Groups of 10-60 are typical, though much larger groups are known.  Some groups are very tight-knit, while others may be spread over a kilometer or more of ocean. This is one of the most common species involved in cetacean mass strandings, and in one case, over 800 stranded together.  The false killer whale is a lively, fast-swimming cetacean, and occasionally rides bow waves of vessels.  False killer whales are known to behave aggressively toward other small cetaceans, and have even been seen chasing and attacking dolphins (in particular, dolphins just released from tuna purse seines) and some large whales.False killer whales occur in tropical and temperate waters worldwide (Stacey et al. 1994, Odell and McClune 1999), generally in relatively deep, offshore waters. However, some animals may move into shallow and  higher latitude waters, on occasion (including some semi-enclosed seas such as the Red Sea and the Mediterranean). It seems to prefer warmer water temperatures. Although false killer whales eat primarily fish and cephalopods, they also have been known to attack small cetaceans, humpback whales, and sperm whales.  They eat some large species of fish, such as mahi-mahi (also called dorado or dolphinfish), tunas (see Alonso et al. 1999) and sailfish.

threats:
Potential threats include decline in prey base, incidental mortality in fishing gear, and noise pollution.

conservationAction:
This is a relatively poorly-known species which, although mostly observed over deep water, is known to strand from many coasts. Abundance estimates as well as by-catch data do not exist for most areas, nor are there detailed accounts on migratory behaviour. Clearly, more research is needed.


range:
Melon-headed whales have a pantropical distribution (Perryman 2002). The distribution coincides almost exactly with that of the pygmy killer whale in tropical/subtropical oceanic waters between about 40°N and 35°S (Jefferson and Barros 1997). A few high-latitude strandings are thought to be extralimital records, and are generally associated with incursions of warm water. These include specimens from Cornwall in England, Cape Province in South Africa, and Maryland, USA (Perryman et al. 1994, Rice 1998).

population:
This species is relatively common in some areas of its range, although few abundance estimates are available.

habitat:
Melon-headed whales usually occur in groups of 100-500 (with a known maximum of 2,000 individuals). Melon-headed whales are highly social. This species is sometimes involved in mass strandings, generally containing many dozens or even hundreds of animals. The largest ones known have included about 250 animals.Most sightings are from the continental shelf seaward, and around oceanic islands; they are rarely found in temperate waters. However, they do occur nearshore in some areas where deep water approaches the coast (see Watkins et al. 1997, Wang et al. 2001).  In the eastern tropical Pacific, the distribution of reported sightings suggests that the oceanic habitat of this species is primarily in the upwelling modified and equatorial waters (Perryman et al. 1994).Little is known of the diet of this species, though they are known to feed on several species of squid, shrimp and small fish.

threats:
Threats include declines in prey species, incidental mortality in fishing gear, and noise pollution.

conservationAction:
The melon-headed whale does not regularly occur in the European Mammal Assessment region, so there are no conservation measures for the species in this area.


taxonomicNotes:
Killer whales are presently considered to form a single cosmopolitan species, Orcinus orca (Rice 1998). Separate species status has been suggested for different morphological forms found in the southern Ocean (Mikhalev et al. 1981, Berzin and Vladimirov 1983, Pitman and Ensor 2003). Pitman et al. (2007) describe one of these as a dwarf form of killer whale. Killer whales in the eastern North Pacific are known to consist of at least two and maybe three distinct forms, colloquially known as ‘resident’, ‘transient’ and ‘offshore’ killer whales (Ford et al. 1994). Separate species status has also been suggested for at least two of these different forms, based on color pattern, diet, and morphological traits (Baird 1994, Baird et al. 1999). Genetic differences are found among these forms, with particularly marked differences between resident and transient forms (Stevens et al. 1989, Hoelzel and Dover 1991, Hoelzel et al. 1998, Barrett-Lennard 2000). The taxonomy of this genus is clearly in need of review, and it is likely that O. orca will be split into a number of different species or at least subspecies over the next few years (Reeves et al. 2004).

redListCategoryRationale:
Orcinus orca is widespread and fairly abundant. Population trend data for this species are unavailable. Primary threats that could cause widespread declines include depletion of prey resources and contamination with persistent organic pollutants. Live-capture removals and direct takes are localized and do not appear to have had a high impact on the status of the species globally. Current threats for killer whales appear most serious in nearshore waters. The combination of potential declines driven by depletion of prey resources and the effects of pollutants is believed sufficient that a 30% global reduction over three generations or in this case 78 years could not be ruled out. Therefore, the species is currently considered to be Data Deficient.Additionally, regional subpopulations of killer whales can be small and highly specialized, and therefore vulnerable to over-exploitation and habitat deterioration. Several small subpopulations have already been recognized as having a high risk of extinction, including the Strait of Gibraltar subpopulation, which was provisionally assessed in 2006 as Critically Endangered (C2a(i,ii); D)(Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).

range:
The killer whale is the most cosmopolitan of all cetaceans, and may be the second most widely-ranging mammal species on the planet, after humans. Killer whales can be seen in virtually any marine region, from the equator to polar waters. Although they are generally more common in nearshore areas and in higher productivity areas and/or higher latitudes, there appear to be no hard and fast restrictions of water temperature or depth on their range. The distribution extends to many enclosed or partially-enclosed seas, such as the Mediterranean Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, Gulf of California, Gulf of Mexico, Red Sea, and Persian Gulf. However, there are only extralimital records from the Baltic Sea and no records from the Black Sea.

population:
Although killer whales occur worldwide, densities increase by 1-2 orders of magnitude between the tropics and the highest sampled latitudes in the Arctic and Antarctic (Forney and Wade 2006). Killer whales tend to be more common along continental margins; however, there is some variation in this general pattern that appears linked to ocean productivity. Killer whales appear to be less common in western boundary currents such as the Gulf Stream, than in more productive eastern boundary currents such as the California Current. Line-transect surveys have resulted in estimates of abundance in several regions in the North Atlantic, including an abundance estimate of 3,100 (CV=63%) killer whales in Norwegian waters (Øien 1990), and an estimate of 6,618 (CV=32%) whales in Iceland and Faroes Islands waters (Sigurjónsson et al. 1989, Gunnlaugsson and Sigurjónsson 1990).

habitat:
Killer whales may occur in virtually any marine or estuarine habitat, but are most common in areas of high marine productivity, particularly at higher latitudes and near shore (Dahlheim and Heyning 1999, Forney and Wade 2006). Sightings range from the surf zone to the open sea. Although they do not migrate, movements can be extensive; for instance, some killer whales have been documented to have moved between Alaska and central California, a distance of more than 2000 km. In the Antarctic, they readily enter areas of floe ice in search of prey (Pitman and Ensor 2003). Killer whales in some areas congregate seasonally in coastal channels to forage and occasionally enter river mouths. Killer whales are known to feed on a wide array of prey types, including most marine mammal species (except river dolphins and manatees), seabirds, sea turtles, many species of fishes (including sharks and rays) and cephalopods (Dahlheim and Heyning 1999, Ford and Ellis 1999, Ford 2002). Killer whales have a diversity of foraging tactics, including intentional beaching to gain access to seals onshore. They are known to use cooperative techniques to herd fish and to attack large prey (Dahlheim and Heyning 1999, Baird 2000).  Although a generalist as a species, at least some subpopulations specialize on particular types of prey (Bigg et al. 1990, Baird 2000). Studies in coastal waters of the eastern North Pacific, from California to Alaska, have described three distinct ecotypes of killer whales, referred to as residents, transients, and offshores.  Although distinguished by ecological differences, there are also differences in coloration, external morphology, behavior and acoustics.  The three ecotypes maintain social isolation from each other despite overlapping ranges.

threats:
Killer whales have been exploited at low levels in several regions world-wide (Jefferson et al. 1993). Norwegian whalers in the eastern North Atlantic took an average of 56 whales per year from 1938 to 1981. Fishermen in many areas see killer whales as competitors, and intentional shooting of whales is known to occur. This problem is especially serious in Alaska, where depredation of longline fisheries is extensive (Jefferson et al. 1993).  Killer whales are still taken in small numbers in coastal fisheries in Japan, Greenland, Indonesia, and the Caribbean islands (Reeves et al. 2003).After 1976, Iceland has been involved in live-captures of killer whales for export. During the period 1976-1988, 59 whales were collected, of which 8 were released, 3 died and 48 (an average 3.7 per year) were exported (Reyes 1991 and ref. therein). In 1991, the lcelandic government announced that once current permits for live-capture expire, no new ones would be issued (Jefferson et al. 1993).  Bycatch in trawl and driftnet fishing operations occur, but are considered rare (Dahlheim and Heyning 1999). Persistant, bioaccumulating contaminants have recently been found to present a serious potential risk to some killer whale subpopulations. Large-scale catastrophic oil spills have the potential to cause significant mortality of killer whales. Oil spills may also have an indirect effect by reducing prey abundance.Disturbance may be a matter for concern in areas inhabited by killer whales and supporting whale-watching industries (Reyes 1991).  Moving boats can disrupt activities such as foraging and resting, and underwater boat noise could affect social and echolocation signals of the whales or otherwise interfere with foraging (Erbe 2002, Williams et al. 2002).  For example, close approaches by whale-watching vessels have been shown to result in avoidance responses by resident killer whales in British Columbia, which may have energetic costs for whales frequently subjected to whale watching activity (Williams et al. 2002, 2006).  Fast-moving boats in the proximity of killer whales also present a risk of collision or injury from propellers.  Visser (1999) reported propeller scars observed on killer whales in New Zealand.  There have been large-scale reductions in predatory fish populations (Myers and Worm 2003, Baum et al. 2003) and over-fishing and collapse of several important “prey” fish stocks world-wide (Jackson et al. 2001). The effects on killer whales of reductions in fish populations due to overexploitation are unknown. In some areas, populations could be vulnerable owing to dietary specialization. The depletion of the Mediterranean bluefin tuna stock is considered a source of concern for the survival of the Gibraltar killer whales (Cañadas and de Stephanis 2006).Predicted impacts of global climate change on the marine environment may affect killer whales, and may affect some subpopulations more than others through changes in prey availability.

conservationAction:
The eastern North Atlantic subpopulation is included in Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species. The proposal to list all subpopulations of the killer whale in Appendix II was endorsed in 2002 by the Working Group of the CMS in Bonn (see Proceedings), as all the subpopulations were migratory and could profit from cooperative protective measures. Because killer whales are cosmopolitan in distribution, they may be present in virtually any marine protected area worldwide. Further studies on subpopulation structure, abundance and life history are needed.


taxonomicNotes:
Until 1994, all common dolphins around the world were classified as a single species, Delphinus delphis. However, it is now known that at least two species exist within the genus: the short-beaked (D. delphis) and long-beaked (D. capensis) common dolphins (Heyning and Perrin 1994).  There is also a distinct short-beaked form in the Black Sea, the taxonomic status of which has not been adequately clarified (although it is currently thought to be a subspecies, D. delphis ponticus: Amaha 1994).

redListCategoryRationale:
This species has a varying status in different parts of its European range. In the Mediterranean and Black seas there have been substantial population declines; the Mediterranean population was recently assessed as Endangered (A2abc), and the Black Sea subspecies D. d. ponticus was also classed as Endangered (A1d)(Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006). However in the eastern North Atlantic there are very large populations that show no evidence of significant decline, and the species is Least Concern in this area. Overall in the European Mammal Assessment region, it is not possible to quantify the population trend because the relative size of the different subpopulations is not known. Consequently the species is assessed as Data Deficient at the European regional level.

range:
The short-beaked common dolphin is an oceanic species that is widely distributed in tropical to cool temperate waters of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans (Perrin 2002), from nearshore waters to thousands of kilometers offshore. It regularly occurs in some enclosed seas, such as the Okhotsk Sea and Sea of Japan, and separate subpopulations apparently exist in the Mediterranean and Black seas. Short-beaked common dolphins may occur in parts of the Indian Ocean around southeast Africa and southern Australia, but previous records of this species in other parts of the Indian Ocean and in waters of Taiwan and are now thought to have been long-beaked common dolphins D. capensis (Jefferson and Van Waerebeek 2002).

population:
This is a very abundant species, with many available estimates for the various areas where it occurs. In the Atlantic, abundance in European continental shelf waters was estimated at 63,400 (95%CI=27,000-149,000) in 2005 (SCANS-II project: P. Hammond pers. comm. 2007). Offshore, abundance in a block bounded by 53-57ºN and 18-29ºW has been estimated at 273,000 (95%CI=153,000-435,000) in 1995 (Cañadas et al. in press). West of the Bay of Biscay, 62,000 common dolphins were estimated in the fishing grounds of the albacore tuna driftnet fishery in 1993 (Goujon 1996).  In the western North Atlantic, 121,000 (CV=0.23) were estimated (Waring et al. 2006).In the western Mediterranean, abundance has been estimated at 19,400 (95%CI=15,300-22,800) in the northern Alborán Sea between 2000 and 2004 (Cañadas 2006). Once one of the most common species in the Mediterranean Sea, the short-beaked common dolphin has experienced a generalized and major decline during the last 30-40 years (Bearzi et al. 2003).  Dramatic negative trends were recorded in portions of the central Mediterranean, particularly in the northern Adriatic Sea and in the eastern Ionian Sea (Bearzi et al. 2004, 2006). Recent genetic studies indicate that population structure within the Mediterranean reflects differences in distribution pattern and habitat use by short-beaked common dolphins in the eastern (where the species is predominantly coastal) and western (where it is predominantly pelagic) portions of the basin (Natoli 2004).  Genetic exchange between short-beaked common dolphins from the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean, to the extent that it occurs, appears to involve predominantly animals from the Alborán Sea (Natoli 2004). The population size in the Black Sea is unknown. Line transect surveys have been conducted recently to estimate common dolphin abundance in a few parts of the range.  The survey areas are small relative to the total range of the subspecies. Results suggest that current population size is at least several 10,000s, and possibly 100,000 or more (Birkun 2006).  By the mid 1960s, the Black Sea subpopulation collapsed due to long-running overexploitation and a reduction of 70% was inferred. However, directed takes continued until 1983 when cetacean hunting finally ceased.  The population has not recovered (Birkun 2006).

habitat:
Short-beaked common dolphins appear to have a preference for upwelling-modified waters, areas with steep sea floor relief, and extensive shelf areas, but they are widespread in warm temperate and tropical waters (see Evans 1994). In the eastern tropical Pacific, they prefer equatorial and subtropical waters with a shallow thermocline, relatively large seasonal changes in surface temperature, and seasonal upwelling (Reilly 1990, Fiedler and Reilly 1994). Mediterranean common dolphins frequent coastal and upper slope waters (Bearzi et al. 2003).  In the Black Sea, common dolphins are distributed mainly offshore and visit shallow coastal waters following seasonal aggregations and regular mass migrations of small pelagic fishes such as anchovy and sprat (Birkun 2006).  Black Sea common dolphins avoid waters with low salinity, and this may explain why they do not occur in the Sea of Azov and in the Kerch Strait. Associations with other marine mammal species are common. Mixed-species groups of common dolphins, striped dolphins (Stenella coeruleoalba) and Risso's dolphins (Grampus griseus) have been observed frequently in the pelagic waters of the Gulf of Corinth, Greece (Frantzis and Herzing 2002). The prey of common dolphins consists largely of small schooling fishes and squids (Perrin 2002). Reproduction is seasonal, with the exception of the Central population in the eastern tropical Pacific, which breeds throughout the year (Danil and Chivers 2007).

threats:
The common dolphin is one of the most prominent by-catches of pelagic purse-seine and driftnet, and trawl fisheries. Incidental capture of common dolphins in European Atlantic fisheries has been well studied in recent years, and as a result of recent EU legislation, on-board observer programmes are being carried out in most of the fisheries considered to have a potentially significant bycatch of common dolphins. Northridge (2006) showed that bycatches of common dolphins in European pelagic trawl fisheries probably total around 800 animals per year in UK and French pelagic trawl fisheries for sea bass. Annual catch rates in the UK sector of this fishery have been falling in recent years (Northridge 2006) and the annual average total mortality (2000-2006) is 170 animals in this sector.  Other bycatches in the same area are known to occur in gill nets, tangle nets and possibly other fisheries (Northridge 2006). The main factors thought to have contributed, singly or in synergy, to the decline of Mediterranean short-beaked common dolphins include: 1) incidental mortality in fishing gear, especially driftnets, 2) reduced availability of prey caused by overfishing and habitat degradation, 3) contamination by xenobiotic chemicals resulting in immunosuppression and reproductive impairment, and 4) environmental changes such as increased water temperatures affecting ecosystem dynamics (Bearzi et al. 2003, 2006).  A recent survey focusing on the Moroccan driftnet fishing fleet estimated that about 12,000-15,000 dolphins are killed annually around the Strait of Gibraltar (Tudela et al. 2005).At least 840,000 dolphins were taken from the Black Sea from 1946 until a ban of small cetacean hunting was declared in Turkey in 1983.  The take was certainly much greater because that value did not incorporate catch statistics from Romania (whole period), Turkey (before 1976 and after 1981) and Bulgaria (before 1958) (Birkun 2006). Reduced prey availability is considered to be a major ongoing threat to Black Sea common dolphins (Bushuyev 2000).  Of two mass mortality events that killed an unknown but certainly large number of common dolphins in 1990 and 1994 (Krivokhizhin and Birkun 1999), the latter was recognised as the result of a morbillivirus epizootic.  However, both die-offs coincided with a drastic (8 to 12 fold) decline in the abundance of the two main common dolphin prey species, anchovy and sprat.  Such a reduction was caused by a combination of overfishing, eutrophication and the explosive increase of the introduced ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi.  Correlation between large die-offs of Black Sea common dolphins and prey scarcity suggests that reduced prey availability increases susceptibility to viral infection (Birkun 2006).

conservationAction:
The common dolphin is included in EC Directive No.92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats of wild fauna and flora; D. delphis is listed on Annex IV (Animal and Plant Species of Community Interest in Need of Strict Protection).MediterraneanA large Marine Sanctuary for cetaceans in the Corso-Ligurian Basin has been declared by the Governments of Italy, France and Monaco. Other smaller marine protected areas exist or have been proposed throughout the Mediterranean Sea (Bearzi et al. 2003). While these types of designations may benefit common dolphins at least indirectly, measures to provide direct benefits, e.g., area-, season-, or fishery-specific reductions in fishing effort, curtailment of inputs of particular pollutants, etc., remain to be identified and implemented. The Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS 2002) considers the Mediterranean common dolphin as an endangered population. It is expected that efforts to increase understanding of ongoing threats, monitor status, and provide needed protective measures on behalf of the dolphins and their habitat will be organized and implemented through ACCOBAMS. The current ban on driftnet fishing in the Mediterranean should be implemented and enforced as a matter of priority.Black SeaCommercial killing of Black Sea common dolphins, as well as other Black Sea cetaceans, was banned in 1966 in the former USSR, Bulgaria and Romania, and in 1983 in Turkey. The Strategic Action Plan for the Rehabilitation and Protection of the Black Sea (1996) envisages some special cetacean-oriented conservation and research actions, and a regional Conservation Plan for Cetaceans in the Black Sea has been drafted in accordance with the ACCOBAMS International Implementation Priorities for 2002-2006 (Notarbartolo di Sciara 2002). On a national level, Black Sea cetaceans, including common dolphins, are protected by environmental legislation and governmental decrees. Action plans for the conservation of Black Sea cetaceans were produced in Ukraine (2001) and Romania (2003) but they have no legal effect at present (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).


taxonomicNotes:
Recent genetic work suggests that the genus Stenella is paraphyletic, and it is likely that it will be restructured in coming years. This species may move to a different genus (LeDuc et al. 1999).

redListCategoryRationale:
This species has a varying status in different parts of its European range. In the Mediterranean there have been population declines, and the regional population was recently assessed as Vulnerable (A4de)(Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006). However in the eastern North Atlantic there are large populations that show no evidence of significant decline, although population trends have not been quantified. Overall in the European Mammal Assessment region, it is not possible to quantify the population trend because the relative size of the different subpopulations is not known. Consequently the species is assessed as Data Deficient at the European regional level.

range:
This is a widely-distributed species, found tropical and warm-temperate waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans, as well as many adjacent seas, including the Mediterranean. Northern and southern range limits are about 50°N and 40°S, although there are extra-limital records from the Kamchatka Peninsula, southern Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and the Prince Edward Islands. They are uncommon in the Sea of Japan, East China Sea, off eastern Taiwan and Ryukyuan waters, and a few extra-limital records are known from the Persian Gulf and Red Sea.

population:
Striped dolphins are the most abundant cetacean species in the Mediterranean. The population in the western Mediterranean excluding the Tyrrhenian Sea was estimated in 1991 to be 117,880 dolphins (95%CI=68,379-214,800) (Forcada et al. 1994). There is no estimate for the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Goujon (1996) conducted a sighting survey in 1993 in the fishing grounds of the albacore tuna driftnet fishery in the Bay of Biscay and estimated the abundance of striped dolphins as 74,000 individuals. Morphological and genetic studies strongly suggest that the Mediterranean and eastern North Atlantic populations are isolated from each other, with little or no gene flow across the Strait of Gibraltar (Calzada and Aguilar 1995, García-Martínez et al. 1995, Archer 1997,  Gaspari 2004). Within the Mediterranean there is some evidence of population structure based on restriction in gene flow between areas and significant differences in tissue pollutant levels (Calzada and Aguilar 1995, Monaci et al. 1998, Gaspari 2004).

habitat:
Striped dolphins are primarily found in warm temperate and tropical oceanic regions and are seen close to shore only where deep water approaches the coast (Van Waerebeek et al. 1999). In the Strait of Gibraltar, they are found in waters of 600 m or more depth (Hashmi 1990). In the Mediterranean, striped dolphins are associated with highly productive, oceanic waters beyond the continental shelf (Notarbartolo di Sciara et al. 1993, Forcada et al. 1994, Frantzis et al. 2003, Gannier 2005). The diet of striped dolphins consists primarily of a wide variety of small, midwater and pelagic or benthopelagic fish, especially lanternfish, cod, and squids (Wurtz and Marrale 1993, Hassani et al. 1997, Archer 2002). Striped dolphins apparently feed in pelagic to benthopelagic zones, to depths as deep as 200-700m, in continental slope or oceanic regions.

threats:
In the Mediterranean small numbers were taken in Spain, France and Italy for human consumption. They were also hunted for use as bait for shrimp traps and longlines. Despite being illegal, catches continue in southern Spain and probably in other areas (SGFEN 2001, Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006). In the Northeast Atlantic, striped dolphins were harpooned to supply food for consumption on board or to scare them away from tuna trolling lines. It is difficult to ascertain the number of dolphins taken in this way, but it has been estimated in the thousands (Reyes 1991).Incidental catches occur throughout the range in various types of fishing gear, especially purse seines and gillnets. The high-seas drift gillnet fisheries, which operated throughout the central and western North Pacific between about  35˚N and 47˚N, increased during the 1970s, and peaked during the 1980s before a United Nations moratorium went into effect in January 1993.  Bycatch estimates are only available for 1990, when about 3,000 striped dolphins were estimated killed (Hobbs and Jones 1993).  During the 1970s and 1980s, the combined high-seas driftnet fisheries likely killed tens of thousands of striped dolphins, but this level would not have been high enough to cause population declines (Hobbs and Jones 1993).Incidental captures in pelagic driftnets have been a major source of mortality all over the western Mediterranean in the past. These nets are still being illegally used, e.g. by Moroccan, French, Italian and Turkish vessels, resulting in extensive dolphin mortality. The Spanish driftnet fishery in the Alborán Sea reportedly killed 145-183 striped dolphins per season in the early 1990s (Silvani et al. 1999); this fishery was halted in 1995 but the nets were transferred to Moroccan boats, which continue operating and are estimated to kill in the order of 1,555-2,092 striped dolphins per year (Tudela et al. 2005). The Italian driftnet fishery has been reported to kill 5,000-15,000 dolphins, mostly striped dolphins, per year (Di Natale 1992). The French thonaille driftnet fishery has been estimated to take about 180-472 striped dolphins per season (Imbert et al. 2001). Reports from other fishing activities are sparse and collected non-systematically, but they indicate that striped dolphin mortality in at least pelagic purse-seines, longlines and gillnets is widespread and likely significant (Di Natale and Notarbartolo di Sciara 1994). Large incidental kills in pelagic trawl and driftnet fisheries off western Europe are also a source of concern (IWC 1998, Tregenza and Collet 1998). Antoine et al. (2001) found that by-catch rates in the tuna drift-net fishery in the northeastern Atlantic were 90% composed of Delphinus delphis and Stenella coeruleoalba. Mean catch rate by trip in 1992-1993 years were 4.7 striped dolphins per km of net and per day. Such rates are similar to those estimated in other driftnet fisheries. Goujon (1996) estimated the annual additional mortality linked to driftnets in the Bay of Biscay albacore tuna fishery to 1.8% for the striped dolphin (this estimate must be increased by 30% in order to take into account the whole European albacore tuna driftnet fishery). Tissue levels of organochlorine compounds, some heavy metals and selenium in Mediterranean striped dolphins are high and exceed threshold levels above which detrimental effects commonly appear in mammals (Monaci et al. 1998, Aguilar 2000, Cardellicchio et al. 2000). Organochlorine pollutants, in particular, are found at levels that greatly exceed thresholds of reproductive impairment in bottlenose dolphins elsewhere (Aguilar 2006). Blubber concentrations of DDT (an agricultural pesticide) and PCB, the two main organochlorine pollutants, have been slowly declining in the last two decades (Aguilar and Borrell 2005) but are still high. High PCB levels have the potential to depress reproductive rates in striped dolphins (Munson et al. 1988).The 1990-92 epizootic devastated the whole Mediterranean population of striped dolphins, producing many thousands of deaths (Bortolotto et al. 1992, Aguilar and Raga 1993). Immediately after the event, the mean school size was found to be less than one third of prior levels, which may be interpreted as indicating a proportional reduction in overall population size (Forcada et al. 1994).  The primary cause of the die-off was a morbillivirus infection (Domingo et al. 1990) but PCBs and other organochlorine pollutants with potential for immunosuppressive effects may have triggered the event or enhanced its spread and lethality (Aguilar and Borrell 1994). Commercially exploited fish and cephalopod species are important components of striped dolphin diet in the Mediterranean (Blanco et al. 1995). As many stocks of important striped dolphin prey (e.g. the European anchovy) are known to have been depleted, reduced prey availability resulting from conflict with commercial fisheries is considered a potentially important threat (Reyes 1991, Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006) and may have contributed to the 1990-1992 epizootic (Aguilar 2000).

conservationAction:
The western Mediterranean subpopulation is included in Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species. Further research should be focused on stock identity and abundance, the effects of direct and incidental mortality, and the effects of pollutants and other sources of habitat disturbance on dolphin subpopulations, in particular in the western Mediterranean (Reyes 1991).


range:
The rough-toothed dolphin is a tropical to subtropical species, which generally inhabits deep, oceanic waters of all three major oceans, rarely ranging north of 40°N or south of 35°S (Jefferson 2002). However in some areas (such as off the coast of Brazil and West Africa), rough-toothed dolphins may occur in more shallow coastal waters.  They are found in many semi-enclosed bodies of water (such as the Gulf of Thailand, Red Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of California), but they are regarded as visitors in the Mediterranean Sea (Watkins et al. 1987, Miyazaki and Perrin 1994, Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).

population:
This species is of marginal occurrence in the European Mammal Assessment region. Globally, there are few estimates of abundance for this species.

habitat:
Most often, Steno bredanensis is found in deep water far offshore, usually beyond the continental shelf (Maigret 1994), but may be seen close inshore in areas of steep bottom relief (Ritter 2002). Rough-toothed dolphins appear to be widespread in warm temperate and tropical waters around the world. In the eastern tropical Pacific, they tend to associate with other cetaceans (especially pilot whales and Fraser’s dolphins) (Miyazaki and Perrin 1994). Rough-toothed dolphins feed on cephalopods and fish, including large fish such as Coryphaena hippurus (Pitman and Stinchcomb 2002).

threats:
No fisheries are known to specifically target this species, but small numbers are taken in drive fisheries in parts of the global range (outside Europe). Incidental mortality in gill nets, drift nets and pelagic long-lines has been recorded.

conservationAction:
The biology, life history, population size, and separation into subpopulations, as well as migratory behaviour are insufficiently known. Research on this species should be encouraged.


redListCategoryRationale:
The gray whale has been Regionally Extinct since the 1700s or earlier.

range:
The gray whale was once found in the North Atlantic. Sub-fossil remains, the most recent dated at around 1675, have been found on the eastern seaboard of North America from Florida to new Jersey, and on the coasts of the English Channel and the North and Baltic seas. There are historical accounts of living gray whales from Iceland in the early 1600s and possibly off New England in the early 1700s (Rice 1998). Gray whales are now only found in the North Pacific and adjacent waters.

population:
This species is extinct in the North Atlantic. In the North Pacific, the eastern stock has recovered strongly from past over-exploitation, and the most recent population estimate is 15,000-22,000 for 2001/02. The western Pacific stock remains at a small fraction of past levels and is estimated to number about 100 individuals, of which 20-30 are mature females (Reeves et al. 2005). It is considered Critically Endangered.

habitat:
Gray whales are primarily bottom feeders and are thus restricted to shallow continental shelf waters for feeding. They are largely coastal although they do feed at greater distances from shore on the shallow flats of the Bering and Chukchi seas. Gray whales feed primarily on swarming mysids, tube-dwelling amphipods, and polychaete tube worms in the northern parts of their range, but are also known to take red crabs, baitfish, and other food (crab larvae, mobile amphipods, herring eggs and larvae, cephalopods, and megalops) opportunistically or off the main feeding grounds.Most groups are small, often with no more than three individuals, but gray whales do sometimes migrate in pods of up 16, and larger aggregations are common on the feeding and breeding grounds. ‘Aerial’ behaviour such as breaching and spyhopping are common, especially during migration, and in and near the breeding lagoons of Baja California and mainland Mexico.

threats:
Gray whales have been subject to hunting since prehistoric times, due to their slow swimming speeds and coastal distribution. The North Atlantic population was extinct by the early 1700s although the causes are unclear. Overexploitation was though to have caused the extinction of the western gray whale until Soviet scientists in the 1980s reported a small remnant group summering off Sakhalin Island, Russia. The eastern North Pacific population had reached such low numbers by the end of the 19th century that commercial whaling ceased, but has now recovered to at or near carrying capacity, its abundance showing some fluctuation in response to environmental conditions. The eastern North Pacific population is subject to anthropogenic threats such as entanglements in fishing gear (Baird et al. 2002), disturbance by vessels and other noise, collisions, and possibly petroleum-related and other contaminants (Moore and Clarke 2002). However, these do not appear to be important for the demography of the population.

conservationAction:
The gray whale is regionally extinct in European waters, so there are no conservation measures for this species in the region. Gray whales have been protected from commercial whaling by the International Whaling Commission since its establishment in the 1946. Limited aboriginal subsistence whaling is permitted by the IWC for the eastern gray whale and catch limits have been set since the 1970s on the basis of advice from its Scientific Committee.


range:
Narwhals primarily inhabit the Atlantic sector of the Arctic and are rare in the Pacific sector. The principal distribution is from the central Canadian Arctic (Peel Sound – Prince Regent Inlet and northern Hudson Bay), eastward to Greenland and into the eastern Russian Arctic (around 180°E). They are rarely observed in the far eastern Russian Arctic, Alaska, or the western Canadian Arctic. In summer, narwhals spend approximately two months in high Arctic ice-free shallow bays and fjords and overwinter in offshore, deep, ice-covered habitats along the continental slope (Heide-Jørgensen and Dietz 1995). These disjunct seasonal distributions are connected by extensive annual migrations (over 1,000 km) which last approximately two months (Koski and Davis 1994, Dietz et al. 2001, Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2002, Innes et al. 2002, Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2003).

population:
The global population is probably in excess of 80,000 animals. The narwhals that summer in the Canadian High Arctic constitute the largest fraction, probably in excess of 70,000 animals (Innes et al. 2002, NAMMCO/JCNB 2005).

habitat:
In all areas of their occurrence, narwhals prefer deep or offshore waters (Hay and Mansfield 1989). Narwhals from Canada and West Greenland have high site fidelity to the winter pack ice of Davis Strait and Baffin Bay in regions along the continental slope with high gradients in bottom temperatures, predictable open water (< 5%), and relatively high densities of Greenland halibut (Laidre et al. 2004). Fish, squid, and shrimp make up most of the narwhal diet (Hay and Mansfield 1989, Heide-Jørgensen 2002), especially Arctic fish species, such as Greenland halibut, Arctic cod, and polar cod (the latter of which are often associated with undersides of ice) (Laidre and Heide-Jørgensen 2005).  Narwhals feed at times in deep water and possibly at or near the bottom.  Dives of up to nearly 1,500 m and 25 minutes are documented (Laidre et al. 2003), and there are some seasonal differences in the depth and intensity of diving (Laidre et al. 2002, Laidre et al. 2003).

threats:
Narwhal populations may be limited or threatened by hunting, climate change, and industrial activities such as commercial fishing and oil exploration. Narwhals were never the targets of large-scale commercial hunting except for a brief period of perhaps several decades of the early 20th century in the eastern Canadian Arctic (Mitchell and Reeves 1981). They were hunted opportunistically by commercial whalers, explorers and adventurers in many areas. Narwhals have been hunted by the Inuit for human food, dog food and tusk ivory (Born et al. 1994). The mattak (skin and adhering blubber) is highly prized as food and provides a strong incentive for the hunt (Reeves 1993, Heide-Jørgensen 1994). The effects of climate change on narwhals are uncertain. Narwhals are well adapted to a life in the pack ice as indicated by the fact that there is very little open water in their winter habitat (Laidre and Heide-Jørgensen 2005).  Narwhals spend much of their time in heavy ice and are vulnerable to events called ice entrapments where hundreds of whales become trapped in a small opening in the sea ice and die.  This occurs when sudden changes in weather conditions (such as shifts in wind or quick drops in temperature) freeze shut leads and cracks they were using.  When live entrapped whales are discovered by Inuit hunters, they normally take advantage of the event by killing the animals. A recent assessment of the sensitivity of all Arctic marine mammals to climate change ranked the narwhal as one of the three most sensitive species, primarily due to its narrow geographic distribution, specialized feeding and habitat choice, and high site fidelity (Laidre et al. in press).

conservationAction:
The narwhal is actively hunted only in Canada and Greenland. In Canada, the quota system that had been in place since the 1970s was replaced by a community-based management system implemented in the late 1990s and early 2000s (COSEWIC 2004). The hunt is managed by local hunter and trapper organizations with harvest limits established in some communities. Compliance has been questionable (COSEWIC 2004). Under this system, removals from some summering aggregations are probably sustainable, however there is concern that removals from other summering aggregations may not be (NAMMCO/JCNB 2005). In Greenland, a quota system was introduced in 2004 by the Greenland Ministry of Fisheries and Wildlife. The quota was set at 300 narwhals (of which 294 were taken), divided among municipalities of West Greenland. Compliance has reportedly been good (NAMMCO/JCNB 2005). Narwhals are legally protected in Russia and Norway. The species is listed in Appendix II of CMS.


taxonomicNotes:
Specimens that appear to be hybrids between narwhals and belugas have been described from nature (Heide-Jørgensen and Reeves 1993).

range:
Beluga whales are distributed in high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere from the west coast of Greenland westwards to Svalbard (Stewart and Stewart 1989, O'Corry-Crowe 2002). Records from the Sea of Japan and Baltic Sea are considered extralimital but resident populations occur in cold temperate latitudes in Cook Inlet (Alaska) and the St. Lawrence River system (Canada).

population:
The global population consists of numerous subpopulations with varying degrees of differentiation. The IWC organized information on the basis of 29 management stocks and recognized that these were provisional (IWC 2000). Some of the stock boundaries overlap spatially and seasonally, complicating assessment. Many of the sub-populations or stocks maintain distinct or contiguous geographical ranges during the summer months and mix during the spring and autumn migrations and share common wintering quarters. While good abundance estimates are available for some beluga sub-populations/stocks, the size of others is virtually unknown. Total numbers worldwide are well above 150,000 animals.

habitat:
Belugas occupy estuaries, continental shelf and slope waters, and deep ocean basins in conditions of open water, loose ice, and heavy pack ice. Belugas occur seasonally (mainly in summer) in coastal waters as shallow as 1-3 m deep but also in deep offshore waters (>800 m). They typically enter estuaries and sometimes move upstream into rivers; there are records of individuals or small groups ranging hundreds of kilometers from the sea.

threats:
Direct hunting by aboriginal people for food is the biggest known threat to belugas across certain portions of their range. The most immediate concerns relate to continuing harvests from small and depleted subpopulations (IWC 2000). The strong philopatry of belugas, which causes them to return to the same estuaries year after year, makes them highly vulnerable to overexploitation. This behavioural trait is undoubtedly the most important natural factor which has led to the extirpation of belugas from some parts of their range (e.g. southwest Greenland, some river mouths in Ungava Bay, Canada) by a combination of commercial and subsistence hunting. Another threat is Arctic climate change. As recent decreases in ice coverage have been more extensive in the Arctic belugas may experience climate-induced geographic shifts or altered reproductive capacity due to persistent changes in ice extent. Changes in sea ice extent and concentration thus have the potential to alter the distribution, range and migration patterns of cetaceans associated with ice habitats, and thus indirectly affect nutritional status, reproductive success, and ultimately the abundance and stock structure of these species (Tynan and DeMaster 1997, Laidre et al. in press). Belugas are also susceptible to sassats or ice entrapments when sea ice conditions rapidly change.Other known or potential threats include a wide variety of human activities: oil and gas development, expansion of fisheries (with possible implications for bycatch and resource depletion), and industrial and urban pollution.

conservationAction:
Local and regional management bodies exist in Canada, Greenland, and the United States (Alaska), with the expectation that they will ensure the conservation of belugas. These include the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee (United States) and JCNB/NAMMCO (Canada/Greenland) and generally set harvest limits or recommend harvest limits for beluga populations within countries of interest. Harvest levels from sub-populations range anywhere from <10 to a few hundred animals per year. Removals from some subpopulations/stocks are considered sustainable, however there is concern and evidence that removals from other subpopulations/stocks are not (e.g. Eastern Hudson Bay and West Greenland) (Alvarez and Heide-Jørgensen 2004). In the Russian Federation, there is little to no population assessment.


taxonomicNotes:
Four subspecies are recognized: P. p. phocoena in the North Atlantic, P. p. vomerina in the eastern North Pacific, an un-named subspecies in the western North Pacific (Rice 1998) and P.p. relicta in the Black Sea (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).

Several genetic and morphometric studies have concluded that the Baltic porpoises are a separate population distinct from those living in Kattegat, Skagerrak and North Sea (Tiedeman et al. 1996, Huggenberger 1997, Huggenberger et al. 2002). A recent genetic study found no statistically significant differences that would justify a separate Baltic population (Palme et al. 2004). However, it is precautionary to consider Baltic porpoises as a distinct subpopulation.

redListCategoryRationale:
This species has suffered major declines in the Baltic and Black Seas, although large and apparently stable populations persist elsewhere in the European region. Overall, it is estimated that population reduction has exceeded 30% over the last 30 years (= 3 generations). This population decline is driven almost entirely by trends in the Black Sea population (a separate subspecies), which is completely isolated from the North Atlantic population. Consequently at the European regional level the species is classed as Vulnerable (A2cde).The Baltic Sea subpopulation is assessed separately as Critically Endangered (C2a(ii)). The current information on abundance provides evidence for a population size of fewer than 250 mature animals, and a continuing decline can be inferred based on the current information on bycatches. All individuals in the Baltic Sea population belong to one subpopulation.The Black Sea subspecies P. p. relicta was assessed in 2006 as Endangered (A2d+A4cde)(Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).The North Atlantic population of this species is large, and there is no evidence to suggest that any significant declines have occurred (although the population trend has not been quantified). This part of the European population should be considered Least Concern.

range:
Harbor porpoises are found in cold temperate to sub-polar waters of the Northern Hemisphere (Gaskin 1992, Read 1999). They are usually found in continental shelf waters, although they occasionally travel over deeper offshore waters. In the North Pacific, they range from central California and northern Honshu to the southern Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (including the Bering and Okhotsk Seas, and Sea of Japan). In the North Atlantic, they are found from the southeastern United States to southern Baffin Island (they apparently do not enter Hudson Bay) in the west, and from Senegal to Novaya Zemlya in the east. They also occur around southeast and western Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands, and this is the only cetacean species that currently regularly occupies the Baltic Sea. The species occurs in the Black Sea, Marmara Sea, and Sea of Azov, but with the exception of the adjacent northern Aegean Sea, they do not regularly occur in the Mediterranean Sea.

population:
In the North Atlantic Ocean (including the Black and Azov seas), fourteen population units have been proposed (Donovan and Bjørge 1995), and in the North Pacific, several population units have been identified based on genetic studies (Chivers et al. 2002). There are no synoptic surveys covering the entire range within ocean basins, but abundance has been estimated for selected portions of the species’ range.  Abundance estimates have been summarised by Read 1999 (see updates in Angliss and Outlaw 2005, Carretta et al. 2006, Waring et al. 2006). In the waters of the European Atlantic, abundance in 2005 was estimated at 385,600 [CV=0.20] (SCANS-II P.S. Hammond pers. comm.), of which about 335,000 [CV=0.21] were estimated in the North Sea and adjacent waters, where abundance was estimated at 341,000 [CV=0.14] in 1994 (Hammond et al. 2002). The abundance of the Baltic Sea stock has been estimated at 599 (CV=57%; 95% confidence interval = 200-3,300) (Hiby and Lovell 1995), of which about 50% or 300 would likely be mature (Taylor et al. 2007). Using a precautionary approach (Wade 1998), a minimum abundance estimate of mature animals would be the lower 20th percentile of the abundance estimate of mature individuals, equal to 192. Line transect surveys have been conducted recently (since 2001) to estimate harbour porpoise abundance in different portions of the Black Sea suggesting that total population size in the region may be at least several thousand and perhaps as much as 10,000-12,000 (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).There is evidence of decline in abundance in some areas, for example in the Black Sea (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006) and the Baltic Sea. Although there are no reliable estimates of pre-exploitation subpopulation size, harbour porpoises were once numerous in the Baltic proper (see citations in Kinze 1995).

habitat:
Throughout its range, P. phocoena is largely limited to continental shelf waters. They frequent relatively shallow bays, estuaries, and tidal channels less than about 200 m in depth. Harbor porpoises eat a wide variety of fish and cephalopods, and the main prey items vary regionally. Although small schooling fish (e.g. herring) are important, demersal foraging is characteristic in many areas. The ecology of Black Sea harbour porpoises may be unusual reflecting the high degree of geographic isolation of their habitat.Surveys in 1994 and 2005 in the North Sea and adjacent waters have shown a major shift in distribution from northern to southern areas (Hammond et al. 2002, P.S. Hammond pers. comm. 2007), a change that is reflect by increased in shore-based sightings (Camphuysen 2004, Thomsen et al. 2006).

threats:
The harbor porpoise has been hunted in many areas of its range, including some European waters. Many of these fisheries are now closed, but hunting of harbour porpoises still occurs in Greenland. In the Black Sea, large directed takes occurred during 1976-1983 before being banned by Turkey in 1983. Within that period, the total number of harbour porpoises killed was at least 163,000-211,000. Illegal direct killing of unknown numbers continued in some parts of the Black Sea until 1991 (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).Today, the most significant threat in most areas is incidental catches in fishing gear, primarily gill nets. Incidental mortality in fishing gear is likely to occur throughout the range of the species, but in European waters substantial incidental takes have been documented (summarized in Donovan and Bjørge 1995) for the North Sea (4,600/year) and the Celtic Shelf (1,500/year). More recent monitoring programmes of Danish set-net fisheries in the North Sea revealed an average of 5,591 porpoises taken annually in the period 1987-2001 (Vinther and Larsen 2002). However, most North Sea gillnet fisheries were not monitored for marine mammal bycatch (ICES 2002). In the Black Sea incidental mortality in bottom-set gillnets is estimated to have been in the thousands annually through the 1980s (e.g. Birkun 2002). Almost all (>99%) of the porpoises are caught in bottom-set gillnets. The scale of this mortality almost certainly increased in recent times owing to the rapid expansion of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in the Black Sea.Other types of threats include chemical pollution, vessel traffic, noise, and depletion of prey by overfishing. Due to its near shore distribution, the harbour porpoise is exposed to coastal sources of pollution throughout most of its range. Chemical pollution (PCBs) has been described as having adverse effects, especially in the Baltic. Porpoises from the Baltic Sea have up to 254% higher mean levels of PCBs than corresponding samples from the adjacent Kattegat and Skagerrak (Berggren et al. 1999, Bruhn et al. 1999), and a number of lesions and pathological changes have been reported from the Baltic Sea porpoises (Clausen and Andersen 1988).

conservationAction:
The European Union adopted a Council Regulation 812/2004 entering into force in July 2004. This regulation is aimed at reducing the incidental catch of small cetaceans in fisheries in European Union waters. The regulation includes measures restricting Baltic Sea drift net fisheries, providing for mandatory use of acoustic deterrent devices (pingers) in some EU gillnet fisheries in the Baltic Seas, and the use of onboard observers on vessels of over 15 m in length. Immediate actions to reduce the magnitude of bycatches are necessary. A review of the progress of implementing the regulation is scheduled for 2007. Commercial hunting of Black Sea cetaceans, including harbour porpoises, was banned in 1966 in the former USSR (present Georgia, Russia and Ukraine), Bulgaria and Romania, and in 1983 in Turkey. In the North Sea incidental takes have been determined to be above the advised maximum level of removals.Under the aegis of the ASCOBANS Secretariat, a special working group composed of representatives of international conventions, government ministries, fishermen and environmental groups has developed a recovery plan for the Baltic Harbour porpoise (Jastarnia Plan), which recommends a programme for bycatch reduction, research and monitoring, marine protected area establishment and an increase of public awareness. The overall aim is to restore the Baltic population of harbour porpoises to at least 80% of the Baltic’s carrying-capacity. A change in fishing methods and a reduction of fishing effort could significantly contribute to a lower bycatch rate.


taxonomicNotes:
Also known as Physeter catodon Linnaeus, 1758.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Vulnerable. The population and range are large enough that Criteria B and D do not apply. Does not meet Criterion C because there is no evidence of continuing decline. There are no estimates of historical or pre-exploitation abundance for the marine area covered by the European Mammal Assessment, but populations were undoubtedly depleted by commercial whaling. It is suspected that, by comparison with population levels 82 years (3 generations) ago, the population is currently >50% lower. This is a precautionary assessment that is not based on quantitative data, and it is strongly recommended that further surveys and modelling studies are carried out to better determine current and historic population size and trends.The Mediterranean subpopulation, which is genetically distinct, is assessed as Endangered C2a(ii). It contains fewer than 2,500 mature individuals, there is a continuing decline, and all mature individuals are in one undivided subpopulation. The Mediterranean subpopulation is subject to a number of threats that can result in direct mortality, including bycatches in fishing gear (especially drift gillnets) and ship strikes. In addition, the subpopulation may be affected by disturbance, particularly related to intense maritime traffic (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).

range:
The sperm whale has a large geographic range (Rice 1989). Sperm whales can be seen in nearly all marine regions, from the equator to high latitudes, but they are generally found in continental slopes or deeper water. The distribution extends through many enclosed or partially enclosed seas, such as the Mediterranean Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, Gulf of California, and Gulf of Mexico.

population:
The only recent quantitative analysis of sperm whale population trends (Whitehead 2002) suggests that a pre-whaling global population of about 1,100,000 had been reduced by about 29% by 1880 through “open-boat” whaling, and then to approximately 360,000 by the 1990s through modern whaling, although much uncertainty is associated with all these estimates. There is no direct evidence that any part of the population has increased since the end of large-scale whaling in about 1980 although, for most areas, there is also no direct evidence that they have not. In some areas there is concern that populations are continuing to decline (e.g. the Mediterranean).

habitat:
The habitat of the sperm whale is the open sea. More specifically, sperm whales can be found in almost all marine waters deeper than 1,000m that are not covered by ice, except in the Black Sea and possibly the Red Sea (Rice 1989, Whitehead 2003). In some areas, particularly in the western North Atlantic, sperm whales, and especially males, can occur in shallower waters (e.g. Scott and Sadove 1997). Sperm whales are generally more numerous in areas of relatively high primary productivity (Jaquet et al. 1996), although there are some exceptions, such as the Sargasso Sea.The sperm whale is an animal of extremes, in size (up to 18m), sexual dimorphism (mature males have three times the mass of mature females), ecological imprint (sperm whales take roughly the same amount of biomass from the oceans as humans), and many other attributes (Whitehead 2003).  The commercial value of the animal (a function of its size and the quality of sperm whale oil) drove two massive worldwide hunts: the technologically primitive “open-boat” hunt from 1712-c.1920 (Starbuck 1878, Best 1983), and modern whaling using engine-driven whaling ships and harpoon guns from c.1910-1988 (Tønnessen and Johnsen 1982). The complex social structure of sperm whales may have been affected by whaling, lowering potential population growth rates, which are very low anyway (Whitehead 2003).  On the positive side, sperm whales are very widely distributed (see above), and their primary food, deep-water squid, are not yet major targets of fisheries. The generation time (mean age of mothers) for sperm whales can be calculated if one assumes a set of population parameters, specifically age at first birth, mortality rate of mature females, and reproductive rate of mature females.  There is uncertainty about these parameters, so two calculations were made using different assumptions:a) Applying the population parameters most recently used for sperm whales by the International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee (International Whaling Commission 1982: age at first birth = 10 years; female reproductive rate in unexploited population = 0.20/year; female adult mortality = 0.055/yr): generation time = 27.3 years.b) The estimates of mortality used by the International Whaling Commission are particularly problematic, and sperm whales likely have age-specific survival and reproductive rates.  Thus it may be more realistic (Whitehead 2002) to use the well-established mortality schedule of killer whales (Orcinus orca; Olesiuk et al. 1990) and an age-specific pregnancy rate taken from the sperm whale data presented by Best et al. (1984; pregnancy rate for mature females = 0.257-0.0038xAge in years): generation time = 27.5These estimates are consistent and suggest a generation time of 27.4yr for sperm whales.

threats:
Sperm whales have had a long history of local whaling going back at least to the 1500s (Mesnick pers. comm.), and intense whaling, beginning around 1712, and continuing to 1988. The “modern” highly mechanised phase was particularly intense around 1950, and at its peak killed around 25,000 whales per year, dramatically depleting the global population. Currently, some tens of whales are taken each year from small boats in Indonesia, and 10 are taken annually by Japan under IWC Special Permit (Clapham et al. 2003).Entanglement in fishing gear, particularly gillnets, has been a particular problem in the Mediterranean Sea (see Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006) but sperm whales die from entanglement in nets and lines in many other areas and in a variety of fisheries as well (e.g. Haase and Félix 1994, Barlow and Cameron 2003, Caretta et al. 2005). Sperm whales sometimes take fish off fishing gear (most often demersal long-line gear), an activity known as depredation. Depredation of long-line catches appears to be a recent and increasing phenomenon, and now occurs in many regions (e.g. South East Alaska, Chile, South Georgia and several other southern ocean island areas, North Atlantic). This interaction has resulted in a few reported entanglements and deaths (e.g. Salas 1987, Hucke-Gaete et al. 2004), and has incurred hostility from some fishermen (National Marine Fisheries Service 1998, Donoghue et al. 2003), including shooting of whales (González and Olivarría 2002).Sperm whale tissues have high levels of some contaminants (O'Shea 1999, Nielsen et al. 2000), though any population-level effects on health are unknown. The effects of noise on sperm whales are also uncertain. Some evidence suggests that they are highly sensitive to noise (e.g. Watkins et al. 1985, Bowles et al. 1994) while other studies have found little or no effect (e.g. Madsen and Møhl 2000, Madsen et al. 2002).  To date, all published studies of sperm whales and noise focus on short-term behavioural effects. Avoidance of sonar (Dawson pers. comm.) and seismic surveys (Mate et al. 1994; but see Madsen et al. 2002) has been observed but no mortality has been documented.Whaling on sperm whales has at various times focussed almost exclusively on one sex or the other. Removals of large numbers of males may have had lingering effects on pregnancy rates in some subpopulations (Best 1979, Clarke et al. 1980, Whitehead et al. 1997) and large males are noticeably uncommon on some breeding grounds (see Whitehead 2003). The removal of large numbers of females from social groups, and of older females in particular, may have lingering, socially disruptive effects. Further, recovery might be inhibited via temporary or permanent loss of social cohesion and of socio-ecological knowledge such as is known to occur in other large-brained, long-lived social mammals (e.g. elephants, Poole and Thomsen 1989).  Maximum rates of increase for sperm whale populations are very low, possibly on the order of 1% per year (Whitehead 2002). Population recovery will be slow.The extraordinarily wide distribution of sperm whales buffers the species to some extent from competition with fisheries. However, it should be noted that in some areas, stocks of squid and fish species known to be used by sperm whales are heavily exploited.Sperm whales face other threats at a more regional level. These include collisions with ships (Laist et al. 2001), for instance off the Canary Islands (André and Potter 2000) and in the Mediterranean (Pesante et al. 2002), and ingestion of marine debris in the Mediterranean (e.g. Viale et al. 1992).

conservationAction:
Management plans need both development and implementation. The International Whaling Commission manages sperm whale populations under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, and lists sperm whale seasons, sperm whale size limits and sperm whale catch limits (0 at present), as well as sanctuaries for all species in the Indian and Southern Oceans. However, no scheme for managing sperm whale populations is in place. Moreover, many range states are not members of the International Whaling Commission.


taxonomicNotes:
This taxonomic unit is treated as one species even though there is genetic evidence to suggest that there may be two separate species of dwarf sperm whales, one in the Atlantic and one in the Indo-Pacific (Chivers et al. 2005). However, this remains to be confirmed with additional work.

range:
The dwarf sperm whale, like the pygmy sperm whale, is known mostly from strandings (Nagorsen 1985, Caldwell and Caldwell 1989, McAlpine 2002). It is generally not a commonly-seen species at sea, although this may have more to do with its cryptic appearance than actual rarity. It appears to be distributed widely in tropical to warm temperate zones, apparently largely offshore. Their distribution shows somewhat more of a preference for warmer waters than does that of the pygmy sperm whale, and this species probably does not range as far into high-latitude waters.  There is no evidence of migrations.  A single record exists for the Mediterranean, and this is considered extralimital.

habitat:
There is very little known of the ecology of this species (Caldwell and Caldwell 1989, McAlpine 2002). Much of what is known comes from records of strandings. Group sizes tend to be small, most often less than about six individuals (although groups of up to 10 have been recorded). Dwarf sperm whales appear to feed primarily on deep-water cephalopods, but also take other prey types (see dos Santos and Haimovici 2001).

threats:
Primary threats that could cause widespread declines include vulnerability to high-level anthropogenic sound sources, especially military sonar and seismic surveys, and bycatch. Hunting is localized and has not had a high impact on the status of the species globally.

conservationAction:
This species seldom occurs in European waters and thus there are no specific conservation measures at the regional level.


range:
Pygmy sperm whales are known from deep waters (outer continental shelf and beyond) in tropical to warm temperate zones of all oceans (McAlpine 2002). They appear to be especially common over and near the continental slope, although they also occur in very deep oceanic regions.  This species appears to prefer somewhat more temperate waters than does the dwarf sperm whale.  The range of Kogia breviceps is poorly known, though a lack of records of live animals may be more due to inconspicuous behaviour rather than rarity. Most information stems from strandings (especially females with calves), which may give an inaccurate picture of the actual distribution at sea (Culik 2004). There are very few records of this species from European waters (Reid et al. 2003)

population:
There are no estimates of global abundance for pygmy sperm whales. The frequency with which they strand in some areas (such as Florida and South Africa) suggests that they may not always be as uncommon as sightings would suggest. Abundance is often underestimated using visual survey methods because they dive for long periods and are inconspicuous when they surface (Barlow 1999).

habitat:
Kogia breviceps has records from nearly all temperate, subtropical, and tropical seas. It is rarely seen at sea; it tends to live a long distance from shore and has inconspicuous habits. According to Caldwell and Caldwell (1989) K. breviceps lives in oceanic waters beyond the edge of the continental shelf while K. sima lives over or near the edge of the shelf. However, this separation of both species was not apparent in the study of Mullin et al. (1994) who, by aerial observation, found both species over water depths of 400-600m in the north-central Gulf of Mexico.

threats:
Although they have never been taken in large numbers and have never been hunted commercially, small numbers have been taken in coastal whaling operations off Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan, the Lesser Antilles, and Sri Lanka (Jefferson et al. 1993). Perez et al. (2001) reported occasional bycatch in fisheries in the northeast Atlantic (mostly gillnet and purse seine operations). Noise pollution may also be a problem.


redListCategoryRationale:
The species is widespread, extremely abundant and facing no major threats.

range:
The wild boar has a large global distribution extending from western Europe and North Africa eastwards through the Middle East and central and south-east Asia, reaching its south-eastern limit at the Greater Sunda Islands. In Europe, it is widespread in most continental areas, with the exception of northern Fennoscandia and European Russia. It disappeared from the British Isles and Scandinavia in the 17th century, although it has now been reintroduced to Sweden and escaped animals have established themselves in the wild in Britain (Spitz 1999). It is native to Corsica and Sardinia, but the population in Sicily was introduced (Spitz 1999). Animals have escaped from captivity in the UK and have established themselves in the wild. There are at least three small wild populations in England, on the Kent/East Sussex border, in Dorset, and in Hereford (Battersby 2005). In Europe it is found from sea level to 2,400 in the Pyrenees (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

population:
Wild boar populations in Europe increased markedly during the latter part of the 20th century (Spitz 1999), but are now thought to be stable in most areas (EMA Workshop 2006). Populations in England, southern Sweden and Finland may still be increasing (Battersby 2005, EMA Workshop 2006).

habitat:
It is found in a variety of temperate and tropical habitats. It prefers broadleaved forests and especially evergreen oak forests, but may also be found in more open habitats such as steppe, mediterranean shrubland, and farmland, so long as there is water and tree cover nearby (Spitz 1999). It has an omnivorous diet, consuming vegetable matter (e.g. beech mast, acorns, green plants, tubers), carrion, and live animal prey (earthworms, insect larvae, small vertebrates) (Herre 1986, Oliver 1993).

threats:
There are no major threats to the species. It is considered a pest in parts of its range (Oliver 1993, Battersby 2005). Tuberculosis may be an issue in some areas, especially in managed populations. The disease does not kill the animals, but it is becoming increasingly prevalent (EMA Workshop 2006). Occasionally there are outbreaks of swine fever and African swine fever which cause local mortality, but populations recover rapidly (Oliver 1993). Habitat destruction, hunting (for food and sport), and persecution (often in reprisal for crop damage) may cause local declines in parts of the range (Oliver 1993).

conservationAction:
It occurs in a large number of protected areas across its range. No specific conservation actions are recommended in Europe, except perhaps measures to control the population in certain places (EMA Workshop 2006).

redListAssessors:
Juan Herrero, Giorgos Giannatos, Andreas Kranz, Jim Conroy


taxonomicNotes:
Recent genetic analysis confirmed that this genus is monotypic (Dalebout et al. 2005).

redListCategoryRationale:
The range of this species does not qualify as threatened under criterion B. It cannot be ruled out that the regional population of this species is small enough to warrant listing under criterion C. Population trend or abundance data for this species are unavailable. As with other beaked whales, threats that could cause widespread declines include high levels of anthropogenic sound, especially military sonar and seismic surveys, and bycatch. The combination of possible declines driven by vulnerability to high-level anthropogenic sound sources and bycatch is believed sufficient that a 30% reduction over three generations could not be ruled out. Therefore, the species is currently considered to be Data Deficient.

range:
Cuvier's beaked whales may have the most extensive range of any beaked whale species (Heyning 1989, 2002).  They are widely distributed in offshore waters of all oceans, from the topics to the polar regions in both hemispheres.  Their range covers most marine waters of the world, with the exception of shallow water areas, and very high-latitude polar regions. They are found in many enclosed seas, such as the Gulf of California, Gulf of Mexico, Carribean Sea, Sea of Japan, and the Sea of Okhotsk (but not in the Baltic or Black seas). This is the only species of beaked whale regularly found in the Mediterranean Sea, where it is quite common (Podesta et al. 2006).

population:
Global abundance has not been estimated for Cuvier’s beaked whales, but abundance has been estimated for several study areas (not in European waters). Abundance is often underestimated using visual survey methods because they dive for long periods and are often inconspicuous when they surface (Barlow et al. 2006). They are undoubtedly among the most common and abundant of all the beaked whales. However, it should be noted that there are no trend data, and the large uncertainty in abundance estimates makes the detection of population change extremely unlikely.This is the only widely-distributed beaked whale species for which a global assessment of genetic diversity has been conducted.  The results of this study suggest that there is probably little movement of Cuvier’s beaked whales among different ocean basins, and that there may even be a distinct subpopulation in the Mediterranean Sea (Dalebout et al. 2005).

habitat:
Due to their widespread distribution and relatively frequent stranding, Cuvier's beaked whale may be one of the most familiar of the beaked whales (Heyning 1989, 2002). They are found mostly in small groups of 2-7, but are not uncommonly seen alone. Strandings are usually of singletons or cow-calf pairs. A typical mass strandings of larger numbers of animals have been strongly linked acoustic trauma resulting from navy sonar or seismic exploration activities in the vicinity (e.g. Frantzis 1998).  Their behavior tends to be rather elusive, and they can be difficult to approach.  However, they have been seen breaching on a number of occasions. Dives of up to 40 minutes have been documented.Although Cuvier’s beaked whales can be found nearly anywhere in deep (>200 m) waters, they seem to prefer waters near the continental slope, especially those with a steep sea bottom. The species is known around many oceanic islands, and in some enclosed seas. It is rarely found close to mainland shores, except in submarine canyons or in areas where the continental shelf is narrow and coastal waters are deep (Heyning 1989, 2002) and is mostly a pelagic species that appears to be confined by the 10° C isotherm and the 1000 m bathymetric contour (Houston 1991, Robineau and di Natale 1995).Cuvier's beaked whales, like all beaked whales, appear to prefer deep waters for feeding. Although few stomach contents have been examined, they appear to feed mostly on deep-sea squid, but also sometimes take fish and some crustaceans (MacLeod et al. 2003). They apparently feed both near the bottom and in the water column. As with other beaked whales, suction appears to be used to draw prey items into the mouth at close range (Heyning and Mead 1996). They may sometimes incidentally ingest non-food items.

threats:
Never the main target of commercial whalers, Cuvier’s beaked whales have sometimes been taken in other direct fisheries outside Europe (Heyning 1989, Jefferson et al. 1993). Bycatch of Cuvier’s beaked whales has been reported in several fisheries, including the Italian swordfish fishery (Notarbartolo di Sciara 1990). Mignucci et al. (1999) conducted an assessment of cetacean strandings in waters off Puerto Rico, the United States and the British Virgin Islands to identify the factors associated with reported mortality events between 1867 and 1995. Cuvier's beaked whale was the second most common species. An increase in the number of strandings is evident over the past 20 years, averaging 63.1% per year. Between 1990 and 1995, the average number of cases per year increased from 2.1 to 8.2. The seasonal pattern of strandings was not found to be uniform, with a high number of strandings occurring in the winter and spring. The most common human-related cause categories observed were entanglement and accidental captures, followed by animals being shot or speared. Evidence from stranded individuals of several similar species of beaked whales indicates that they have swallowed discarded plastic items. Sometimes this may happen when animals are already ill and incapable of finding/catching normal prey (e.g. Gomercic et al. 2006), or they may be healthy and eat it by accident and it then contributes to blockage of the digestive tract and eventual death (e.g. Scott et al. 2001). Therefore Ziphuis cavirostris may also be at risk.In recent years, there has been increasing concern that loud underwater sounds, such as active sonar and seismic operations, may be harmful to beaked whales (Malakoff 2002). The use of active sonar from military vessels has been implicated in a number of mass strandings of Cuvier’s beaked whales, including in the Mediterranean Sea during 1996 (Frantzis 1998), the Bahamas during 2000 (Balcomb and Claridge 2001), the Madeira Islands in 2000 (Freitas 2004) and the Canary Islands in 2002 (Jepson et al. 2003). The mechanistic cause of the strandings is not well understood, but gas bubble formation (Fernandez et al. 2005) from a behaviorally mediated response to sound has been proposed (Cox et al. 2006).

conservationAction:
Very little is known about this species. However, mass strandings after military sonar tests are a matter of serious concern and should be further investigated. The global effects of bycatches in fisheries cannot be evaluated. Bycatch of Cuvier’s beaked whales may have been unsustainable in the California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery in the early 1990s (Barlow et al. 1995), however, the observed bycatch of Cuvier’s and other beaked whales dropped to zero after pingers were required to reduce cetacean mortality (Barlow and Gisiner 2006). Given this success, pingers might be useful in mitigating fishery bycatch in other locations.  Because they dive for such long periods and are so difficult to see at the surface, mitigation methods that depend on visually detecting them are not likely to reduce the impacts of acute sound impacts (such as military sonar or seismic surveys) (Barlow and Gisiner 2006). Areas of higher than average abundance can be identified (Ferguson et al. 2006, MacLeod and Mitchell 2006), and avoiding such areas may be a helpful mitigation method.


redListCategoryRationale:
The range of this species does not qualify as threatened under criterion B. It cannot be ruled out that the regional population of this species is small enough to warrant listing under criteria C-D. Population trend or abundance data for this species are unavailable. As with other beaked whales, threats that could cause widespread declines include high levels of anthropogenic sound, especially military sonar and seismic surveys, and bycatch. The combination of possible declines driven by vulnerability to high-level anthropogenic sound sources and bycatch is believed sufficient that a 30% reduction over three generations could not be ruled out. Therefore, the species is currently considered to be Data Deficient.

range:
True's beaked whales appear to have a disjunct, antitropical distribution (Mead 1989, MacLeod et al. 2006). In the Northern Hemisphere, they are known only in the North Atlantic, from records in eastern North America (Nova Scotia to Florida), Bermuda, Europe to the Canary Islands, the Bay of Biscay, and the Azores. They also occur at least in the southern Indian Ocean, from South Africa, Madagascar, southern Australia and the Atlantic coast of Brazil (MacLeod et al. 2006). The species does not generally occur within 30° north or south of the equator, which may indicate that the northern and the southern subpopulations are isolated from one another. This is supported by morphological and coloration differences (Ross 1969, Ross 1984). This peculiar disparate distribution pattern suggests that there may actually be separate species or subspecies in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres; however, this is not confirmed.

population:
Until recent years, True’s beaked whales had been only rarely identified at sea, and there are no estimates of abundance. The species is not rare, however, at least in the North Atlantic. Abundance of beaked whales is often underestimated using visual survey methods because they dive for long periods and are inconspicuous when they surface (Barlow 1999).

habitat:
Since True’s beaked whale has rarely been identified alive in the wild, and is not one of the most commonly-stranded species, there is little information available on its natural history (see Pitman 2002). Groups observed at sea have consisted of up to three individuals. They may show their beaks when surfacing. Known mainly from stranded specimens, M. mirus is probably a deep water pelagic species, like other ziphiids (Houston 1990). Like other members of the genus, stranded animals have had squid (mostly Loligo spp.) in their stomachs. They may also take fish, at least occasionally. Stable isotope analysis has found that this species feeds at a similar trophic level to other Mesoplodon species with which it is sympatric, but at lower trophic level than Cuvier’s beaked whale and  the northern bottlenose whales which suggests that it feeds on smaller prey than these latter species (MacLeod 2005).

threats:
Almost no information is available on the threats and status of this species. It appears never to have been hunted.  Mesoplodonts have been taken occasionally by whalers but are not presently the main targets of any hunt. Entanglement in fishing gear, especially gillnets in deep water (e.g. for billfish and tuna), is probably the most significant threat. Like other beaked whales, this species is likely to be sensitive to disturbance and mortality from loud anthropogenic sounds such as naval sonar exercises (Cox et al. 2006).As a temperate water species, True's beaked whale may be vulnerable to the effects of climate change as ocean warming may result in a shift or contraction of the species range as it tracks the occurrence of its prefered water temperatures (Learmonth et al. 2006).  Finally, all beaked whales seem to be susceptible to the ingestion of plastic bags, which are of widespread occurrence at sea and have been linked to detrimental health effects in several cetacean species.

conservationAction:
No conservation measures for this species are known.


range:
Although sometimes depicted as a North Atlantic endemic, this species is probably continuously distributed in deep waters across the tropical and temperate Atlantic Ocean, both north and south of the equator (Mead 1989, MacLeod et al. 2006). Most records are from the east and Gulf coasts of North America, from New York to Texas, but Gervais' beaked whales are also known from several of the Caribbean islands.  This is the most commonly-stranded beaked whale in the southeastern United States.  In the eastern Atlantic, they are known from Ireland to Guinea-Bissau in West Africa. There is only one record of this species entering the Mediterranean, and it is considered a vagrant there (Podesta et al. 2005).

population:
No specific estimates of abundance exist; however estimates indicate that 106 (CV=41%) mesoplodonts occur in the northern Gulf of Mexico, which are considered to be either M. densirostris or M. europaeus (Waring et al. 2006). Based on the frequency with which they strand, they are presumed to be relatively common in waters along the east coast of North America. Abundance is often underestimated using visual survey methods because they dive for long periods and are inconspicuous when they surface (Barlow 1999).

habitat:
Gervais' beaked whales have only been reliably identified alive in the wild on a few occasions (Pitman 2002), mostly in the eastern Atlantic, although many Mesoplodon sightings in the Gulf of Mexico are thought to have been of this species. Around the Canary Islands, they sometimes lift their heads out of the water upon surfacing.  Live-stranded individuals have been held in captivity for short periods of time.Like other members of the genus, the species prefers deep waters based on the presence of prey from such habitats in stomach contents and a lack of sightings near shore (Mead 1989). Strandings and the few possible sightings suggest that the species prefers tropical and subtropical waters (MacLeod et al. 2006).Like other members of the genus, Gervais’ beaked whales are known to feed primarily on squid, although some fish may be taken as well (Norman and Mead 2001).  Growth layer group counts in the teeth of one specimen suggest they live to at least 48 years of age (Mead 1984).

threats:
Specimens of Gervais’ beaked whale have been entangled and killed in pound nets off New Jersey. Like other beaked whales, this species is highly sensitive to disturbance and mortality from loud anthropogenic sounds such as naval sonar exercises (Cox et al. 2006). Several atypical mass strandings of beaked whales, including Gervais' beaked whales, were associated with naval activities: mid to late 1980s on the Canary Islands (Waring et al. 2006), in March 2000 on the Bahamas (Rowles et al. 2000, Anonymous 2001) and again in September 2002 during a naval NATO maneuver involving low frequency sonar around the Canaries (Vidal pers. comm.).Finally, all beaked whales seem to be susceptible to the ingestion of plastic bags, which are of widespread occurrence at sea and have been linked to detrimental health effects in several cetacean species.

conservationAction:
No specific conservation measures are known for this species.


range:
Blainville's beaked whales occur in temperate and tropical waters of all oceans (Mead 1989). This species has the most extensive distribution of any species of the genus Mesoplodon, and is also the most tropical of the genus (Pitman 2002, MacLeod et al. 2006). Like other beaked whales, they are found mostly offshore in deep waters, but they may sometimes occur reasonably close to shore (MacLeod and Zuur 2005). Sightings are also common around some oceanic archipelagos, like the Hawaiian (USA) and Society Islands (French Polynesia).  They occur in many enclosed seas with deep water, such as the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, and the Sea of Japan.  However, there are only rare records of this species occurring in the Mediterranean, and therefore the species is considered to be a vagrant there.

population:
Overall, the species appears to be fairly common in most tropical seas, and it is one of the most common of all the species of Mesoplodon (Reeves et al. 2003). Estimates of abundance are generally not available for most areas, but there are estimated to be 2,138 (CV=77%) in Hawaiian waters (Carretta et al. 2006). Abundance is often underestimated using visual survey methods because they dive for long periods and are inconspicuous when they surface (Barlow 1999).

habitat:
There is more information available on the behavior and ecology of Blainville’s beaked whale than for any other species of Mesoplodon (Reeves et al. 2003). There is a subpopulation of this species that is being studied in detail in the Bahamas (Balcomb 1981, MacLeod and Zuur 2005). Individual whales have been identified, based on natural marks. This represents only the second case that a beaked whale subpopulation has undergone long-term behavioral and ecological study (the other case is northern bottlenose whales in the Gully). Groups of 3-7 Blainville's beaked whales have most often been recorded, although singles or pairs are most common. In the Bahamas, adults are generally grouped into what appear to be ‘harems’, with a single adult male accompanying several adult females.  Subadults appear to stay in separate groups.  The harems tend of occur in more productive waters over the continental shelf canyon walls, while subadults tend to occur in less productive waters inshore and offshore of these areas.Although there is not a great deal know of habitat preferences for beaked whales, there is more known for this species than for any other in the genus.  A detailed analysis of habitat preferences in the Bahamas, where this species is commonly encountered, indicated that Blainville’s beaked whales were found preferentially in waters of intermediate depth gradients and depths between 200 and 1,000 m (continental slope waters).  These may be areas of increased prey availability caused by interactions of currents and local topography (MacLeod and Zuur 2005).  Observations around Hawaii seem to indicate that animals prefer water depths of 700 - 1000m  (Baird et al. 2006). Dives of up to 1,400 m and over 54 minutes have been recorded in Hawaiian waters (Baird et al. 2006). Squid are apparently the main food items, but some deepwater fish may be taken as well. Like most other ziphiids, they are thought to be suction feeders (Heyning and Mead 1996) .

threats:
No incidental or directed catches of this species have been recorded in European waters, although they have been recorded elsewhere in the species' global range. Like other beaked whales, this species appears to be highly vulnerable to mortality associated with naval sonar exercises (Cox et al. 2006). Subadult whales, found in more offshore waters, may be more susceptible (Anonymous 2001). At least one animal died in September 2002 during a naval exercise conducted around Gran Canaria, Canary Islands (Vidal Martin pers. comm.). Another two specimens live stranded during a naval exercise off the Bahamas in March 2000 (Rowles et al. 2000). High intensity Low Frequency Active Sonar (LFAS) was used by US and NATO vessels in both these areas, respectively, which apparently led to a multi-species mass stranding in the Bahamas, including both M. densirostris and Ziphius cavirostris (Balcomb and Claridge 2001).Concerns regarding the impact of man-made debris in the marine environment are increasing. Pollution in the form of plastic debris has been recently recognised as a major threat to marine wildlife, in terms of ingestion and entanglement. On 27 February 1993, a 419 cm adult female Blainville's beaked whale was found washed ashore in an advanced state of decomposition at Mar Grosso Beach (32°07'S, 52°02'W), Sao Jose do Norte, southern Brazil (Secchi and Zarzur 1999). Stomach analysis revealed the presence of a blueish bundle of plastic threads occupying a large part of the main stomach chamber. Both stomach and intestines were completely free of parasites, as well as food remains and faeces, indicating that the whale had not fed for some time.

conservationAction:
The species is poorly known with respect to abundance, migratory patterns, by-catch and direct catch rates. Range states should be encouraged to conduct more coordinated research efforts.


redListCategoryRationale:
Hyperoodon ampullatus is widespread throughout the north Atlantic region. Population trend data for this species are unavailable. A primary threat that could cause widespread declines is vulnerability to high-level anthropogenic sound sources, especially military sonar and seismic surveys. Although the current population remains depleted from whaling the decline took place more than three generation lengths ago.The combination of possible declines driven by vulnerability to high-level anthropogenic sound sources and bycatch is believed sufficient that a 30% reduction over three generations (in this case 54 years) could not be ruled out. Therefore, the species is currently considered to be Data Deficient.

range:
Northern bottlenose whales are found only in the North Atlantic, from New England, USA to Baffin Island and southern Greenland in the west and from the Strait of Gibraltar to Svalbard in the east (c. 38ºN to 72ºN: Mead 1989, Gowans 2002). There are reports from the Mediterranean Sea, and some extralimital records from the Baltic Sea. Bottlenose whales are occasionally observed off the Azores (Steiner et al. 1998), and have been seen as far south as the Cape Verde Islands (15ºN: Ruud 1937). The pelagic distribution extends from the ice edges south to approximately 30°N. Historic catch distributions indicated the existence of at least six centres of abundance, each potentially representing a separate stock (Benjaminsen 1972): i) the Gully; ii) northern Labrador-Davis Strait; iii) northern Iceland; iv) and v), off Andenes and Møre, Norway, and vi) around Svalbard, Spitzbergen. Anecdotal reports from whalers suggest a north/south seasonal migration could occur in some regions but there is little strong evidence for this. They inhabit the most northerly waters of the Barents and Greenland seas in summer (May to August). The northern bottlenose whale forms an antitropical species pair with the southern bottlenose whale, Hyperoodon planifrons.

population:
Global numbers of northern bottlenose whales are largely unknown. There are estimated to be more than 5,000 in the waters around Iceland and the Faroe Islands. An estimated 40,000 occur in the eastern North Atlantic (NAMMCO Annual Report 1995), including approximately 5,827 (CV=16%) in the high latitudes of the eastern North Atlantic (Gunnlaugsson and Sigurjónsson 1990). Estimates for Icelandic and Faroese waters are 3,142 and 287 whales respectively, although allowance was not made in the surveys for animals not observed because of their long dives (Reyes 1991). Most populations of the species are probably still depleted, due to large kills in the past; over 65,000 animals were killed in a multinations hunt that operated in the North Atlantic from c.1850 to the early 1970s (Mitchell 1977, Reeves et al. 1993). A study by Christensen and Ugland (1983) resulted in an estimated initial (pre-whaling) population size of about 90,000 whales, reduced to some 30,000 by 1914. The population size by the mid 1980s was said to be about 54,000, nearly 60% of the initial stock size.

habitat:
The behavior and ecology of northern bottlenose whales have been better studied than that of any other species in the family Ziphiidae. Most groups contain at least four whales, sometimes with as many as 20, and there is some segregation by age and sex. These deep divers can remain submerged for an hour, possibly as long as two, and can reach depths of well over 1,400 m (Hooker and Baird 1999). They are known for their curiosity, often approaching and swimming around boats for some time, as well as their habit of "standing by" injured companions; these behaviours permitted whalers to kill large numbers of whales at the same site (Gray 1882). Although capable of travelling long distances, their movement patterns are generally quite localized (Hooker et al. 2002, Whitehead et al. 2003). These cold temperate to subarctic whales are found in deep waters, mostly seaward of the continental shelf (and generally over 500-1,000 m deep) and near submarine canyons.  They sometimes travel several kilometres into broken ice fields, but are more common in open water.  Few whales were caught in shallow waters over the continental shelf off Labrador and in waters less than 1000 m deep off the west coast of Norway. In the surrounding waters of Iceland, the whales were sighted in waters with surface temperature between -1.3°C and +0.9°C (Reyes 1991).Northern bottlenose whales occupy a very narrow niche; their primary food source is squid of the genus Gonatus (Hooker et al. 2001, Whitehead et al. 2003) These whales may also occasionally eat fish (such as herring and redfish), sea cucumbers, starfish, and prawns. They do much of their feeding on or near the bottom in very deep water (>800 m, and as deep as 1,400 m: Hooker and Baird 1999). Longevity is at least 37 years, possibly much longer (Christensen 1973).

threats:
This is one of only a few species of beaked whales to be hunted commercially on a large scale. Hunts occurred from the 1850s to the 1970s, and over 65,000 whales were killed (with many more struck but lost: Reeves et al. 1993). By far the major bottlenose whaling nation has been Norway, though some hunting was also done by the UK and Canada. The northern bottlenose was sought after for its oil (including a form of spermaceti oil in the head) and later for pet food. No hunting of this species has been conducted by Norway since 1973 (Jefferson et al. 1993, Reyes 1991). The species has been essentially unexploited for almost 30 years, with only a few animals taken in some years in the Faroe Islands. The aggregate population was certainly reduced by whaling, and the extent of recovery is uncertain (Reeves et al. 2003). Mitchell (1977) considered that the population was severely depleted in both the early and modern whaling periods. Very few incidental catches have been reported (Reyes 1991). Pollutant levels in this species are usually low (Reyes 1991). There are no major fisheries for squid in the Northeast Atlantic, but future developments could represent some threat for subpopulations as heavily depleted as those of the bottlenose whale (Culik 2004). This species, like other beaked whales, is likely to be vulnerable to loud anthropogenic sounds, such as those generated by navy sonar and seismic exploration (Cox et al. 2006).

conservationAction:
The northern bottlenose whale is said to have been twice overexploited by Norwegian hunting, in the periods 1880-1920 and 1938-1973. It was included in the International Whaling Commission schedule in 1977, with recommendations that northern bottlenose whales be granted Protected Stock status with zero catch limit (Klinowska 1991). It is listed in Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species as well as in Appendix I of CITES. Populations or stocks are not defined; this, together with estimates of present abundance as well as present levels of catches (Faroe Islands), should be the focus of future studies (Reyes 1991, Culik 2004, Dalebout et al. 2006).


redListCategoryRationale:
The range of this species does not qualify as threatened under criterion B. It cannot be ruled out that the regional population of this species is small enough to warrant listing under criteria C-D. Population trend or abundance data for this species are unavailable. As with other beaked whales, threats that could cause widespread declines include high levels of anthropogenic sound, especially military sonar and seismic surveys, and bycatch. The relative rarity of this species implied from the existing records makes it potentially vulnerable to low-level threats.The combination of possible declines driven by vulnerability to high-level anthropogenic sound sources and bycatch is believed sufficient that a 30% reduction over three generations could not be ruled out. Therefore, the species is currently considered to be Data Deficient.

range:
Sowerby's beaked whales are known almost exclusively from the colder waters of the North Atlantic, from at least Massachusetts, USA to Labrador, Canada in the west, and from Iceland to Norway in the east (Mead 1989, MacLeod et al. 2006). This is the most northerly distributed of the Atlantic species of Mesoplodon, and most records are north of 30°N.  Based on unconfirmed records, the range may include (probably as a stray) the Mediterranean Sea.  Records from the shallow Baltic Sea are considered extralimital.  The species appears to be more common in the eastern North Atlantic than in the western.  Based on strandings, the area of northern Europe appears to be the center of abundance.  There is a single record from Florida in the Gulf of Mexico, but this appears to represent an extralimital wandering.  As with other members of the genus, they occur almost exclusively in deep waters past the continental shelf edge.

population:
Very little is known of the subpopulation biology of this species, other than the fact that it is not rare. It is one of the most commonly seen mesoplodonts in some parts of its range. Abundance is often underestimated using visual survey methods because they dive for long periods and are inconspicuous when they surface (Barlow 1999).

habitat:
Very little is known of the natural history of this species beyond what has been learned from occasional sightings and strandings (see Pitman 2002), which have generally involved singles and pairs. However, in several sightings observed at sea off Nova Scotia, groups ranged in size from 3-10 and some were of mixed composition.  Mass strandings of up to six individuals of this species have been recorded.  Recorded dives lasted 12-28 minutes (Hooker and Baird 1999).  These whales often bring their heads up out of the water at a 45° angle when surfacing, and often arch their backs relatively high when diving.  Breaching, spy-hopping, and fluke-slapping have been observed in sightings at sea.  There have also been some instances in which the animals approached vessels.Although it is one of the most commonly stranded Mesoplodon species, there have been few sightings at sea, and it is poorly known. De Buffrénil (1995) mentioned that two sightings were north of Scotland and west of the Orkney Islands, in waters several hundred metres deep. Hooker and Baird (1999) observed groups of Sowerby's beaked whales in the Gully, a submarine canyon off eastern Canada, on four occasions. Sightings were in water depths of between 550 and 1500 m. Sowerby's beaked whales feed on squid and small fish, including Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua).  Ostrom et al. (1993) evaluated the diet of Sowerby's beaked whales, based on isotopic comparisons among northwestern Atlantic cetaceans.

threats:
There is little specific information on the status or threats to this species (Reeves et al. 2003). However, some are known to have been incidentally killed by whalers in Newfoundand, Iceland, and in the Barents Sea.  A few entanglements in fishing gear (e.g. driftnets) have been documented. Like other beaked whales, this species is likely to be  susceptible to acoustic trauma caused by loud anthropogenic sounds like those generated by navy sonar exercises (Cox et al. 2006)

conservationAction:
The species is poorly known. However, its distribution spans most of the North Atlantic and strandings do occur on the west and east coasts of the Atlantic ocean. Range states should be encouraged to conduct more coordinated research efforts (Culik 2004).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)The species is widely distributed over a large extent of occurence. lt occurs in urban areas and forages in other modified habitats. Population trends are not known, but are not believed to approach the threshold for the population decline criterion of the IUCN Red List. Consequently it is classed as Least Concern.

range:
It is mainly a western Palaearctic species, although the south-eastern edge of its range extends into the Indomalayan region. It is well known in the Mediterranean basin, occuring from Portugal, Spain, Morocco, and Algeria eastwards through north Africa and southern Europe to Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Bengal (India), and possibly Yunnan (China)(Wilson and Reeder 2005). It is also found on Madeira (Portugal), the Canary Islands (Spain), and a number of Mediterranean islands (Hutson 1999, Wilson and Reeder 2005). It occurs from sea level to 3,100 m.

population:
It is a common species in suitable habitats. Summer and winter colonies typically number 5-100 individuals, although colonies of up to 300-400 animals have been recorded. It is probably sedentary, although seasonal in some areas, e.g. Malta. It is not abundant in the Caucasus, nor is it highly gregarious - large colonies are not known in this region (K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005) There are only six records for Iran, however there have not been extensive survey efforts there (M. Sharifi pers. comm. 2005).

habitat:
It usually forages at 10-50 m above the ground over temperate to sub-desert habitats, although it also occurs humid habitats in some areas (e.g. Turkey: A. Altiparmak pers. comm. 2005) It feeds on aerial drifts of insects including moths and neuropterans. Summer and winter roosts: fissures and hollows in rock outcrops, quarries and cliffs. Common in some urban areas, roosts also in artificial structures, including bridges and buildings, and sometimes in the roof of high caves. The species is probably sedentary (Hutterer et al. 2005).

threats:
It is negatively affected by disturbance and loss of roosts in buildings, and by use of pesticides. It is also potentially threatened by wind farms (European Mammal Assessment workshop 2006), and deforestation affects the species in some parts of its range (Z. Amr pers. comm. 2005). However, none of these are considered to be major threats at present.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states, and receives international legal protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. It is included in Annex IV of EU Habitats and Species Directive, and there is some habitat protection for the species through Natura 2000.

redListAssessors:
Tony Hutson, Friederike Spitzenberger, Javier Juste, Stéphane Aulagnier, Petr Benda


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Not Applicable (NA)EU 25 regional assessment: Not Applicable (NA)Classed as Not Applicable as it is of marginal occurrence in Europe.

range:
Found in "Senegal and Egypt south to South Africa; Cyprus, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, S Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, S Iraq, S. Iran, Pakistan, NW India; islands in the Gulf of Guinea (São Tomé and Príncipe); adjacent small islands" (Wilson and Reeder 2005). Less than 1% of its global range falls within the European Mammal Assessment region.


redListCategoryRationale:
European and EU 25: Near Threatened (approaching A2bc). The species is widespread, but there have been substantial range reductions along the northern edge of the species' distribution in Europe over the past 50 years, and declines are ongoing, albeit perhaps at a reduced rate. The species has gone extinct in the Netherlands, most of Belgium, and western Germany. It relies on continuing conservation initiatives. There is little quantitative data on population trends outside Europe, so it cannot be assumed that there would be a rescue effect from outside the region.

range:
Rhinolophus hipposideros is widely distributed in the western and central Palaearctic. It occurs from sea level to 2,000 m.

population:
An infrequent species in the northern part of its range. In Europe the species forms summer colonies of 10-50 individuals (up to 1,500 animals). Solitary in winter or loose aggregations up to 500 animals per roost. Since the 1950s the northern border of the range in western and central Europe has moved to the south. In the Netherlands, northern Belgium and Germany with the exception of a few colonies in Bavaria, Thüringen, Sachsen and Sachsen-Anhalt the species went extinct (Fairon et al. 1982, Schofield 1999). It disappeared from northern and western parts of Bohemia, and much of Poland where 87% of the hibernating population was lost between 1950 and 1990 (Urbanczyk 1994, Ohlendorf 1997). In Switzerland and Austria the distribution became fragmented, as colonies remained only in higher elevations (>400m) (Stutz and Haffner 1984, Spitzenberger 2002), although in Switzerland at least the population has started to slowly recover over the last 10 years (increasing from 2,200 to 2,500 adults counted in maternity roosts: H. Kraettli pers. comm. 2006). In Spain some colonies have disappeared due to the restoration of buildings, but there are no data on population trend (J. Juste and T. Alcalde pers. comm. 2006), and in France there have been some declines in the north, although large populations in the south are thought to be more stable (EMA Workshop 2006). Overall in Europe there has been a substantial decline over the last 50 years, with a slow decline continuing at present.In the southwest Asian part of the range it gathers in wintering colonies of up to 40 animals, although it is mainly solitary (K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005). In Turkey it is a commonly reported species, and the population is stable (A. Karatash pers. comm. 2005). It is common in Iran although encountered less frequently than R. ferrumequinum (M. Sharifi pers. comm. 2005). It is not known how abundant this species is in Jordan and Syria but it may be more common than the collection reports indicate (Amr 2000).

habitat:
Forages close to ground within and along the edges of broadleaf deciduous woodland, riparian vegetation, Mediterranean and sub-Mediterranean shrubland. Feeds mainly on midges, moths and craneflies. Summer roosts (breeding colonies): natural and artificial underground sites in the southern part of the range, attics and buildings in the northern part. Winter: hibernates in underground sites (including cellars, small caves and burrows). Sedentary, winter and summer roosts usually within 5-10km (longest distance recorded 153 km: Heymer 1964 in Hutterer et al. 2005).

threats:
Threats include disturbance and loss of underground habitats and attics (conversion of attics in human habitat), change of management regime of agricultural areas (loss of tree lines and hedgerows), and fragmentation and isolation of habitats.

conservationAction:
Protected by national legislation in most range states (but not the Russian Federation: K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005). There are international legal obligations for protection through Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. Included in Annex II (and IV) of EU Habitats and Species Directive and hence requiring special measures for conservation including designation of Special Areas for Conservation. Some habitat protection through Natura 2000. Recommended conservation measures include protecting maternity roosting sites and hibernation caves and foraging habitats. One potential method is compensation schemes to give people incentives to keep colonies in their houses (this is happening in one region of Spain at the moment: J. Juste and T. Alcalde pers. comm. 2006).

redListAssessors:
Tony Hutson, Friederike Spitzenberger, Javier Juste, Stéphane Aulagnier, Margarida Fernandes, Juan Tomas Alcaldé


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)EU 25 regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)This species is declining significantly throughout its range, and is close to extinction in some areas. The rate of decline has been estimated as 10% in the last 10 years in Andalucia and is expected to reach 30% in a time window including 20 years in the future. This rate of decline is inferred to be occurring throughout its global range, so no significant rescue effect is expected. Consequently it is classed as Vulnerable.

range:
Rhinolophus mehelyi is largely restricted to the Mediterranean. It has a discontinuous distribution from north Africa and southern Europe through Asia Minor to Transcaucasia and Iran. It is patchily distributed in some large and vulnerable colonies. It occurs up to 2,000 m in High and Saharan Atlas mountains, although it is typically found at lower altitudes in other parts of its range (e.g. in Spain it tends to occur below 700 m).

population:
An infrequent species, which is reported to have declined in all parts of its range for which data are available. In Andalucia (Spain), the rate of decline has been estimated at 10% over the last ten years. The species is close to extinction in France (Rodrigues and Palmeirim 1999), Romania (Botnariuc and Tatole 2005), and north-east Spain (J. Juste and T. Alcalde pers. comm. 2006). In France, only one individual was recorded in 2004 (S. Aulagnier pers. comm. 2006), and in Romania the population was estimated at 5,000 in the 1950s, but now numbers approximately 100 (Dumitrescu et al. 1962-1963, Botnariuc and Tatole 2005). It is also declining in southern Spain (Franco and Rodrigues 2001), Portugal (Rodrigues et al. 2003), the Russian Federation (K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005), Georgia, and Morocco (SW Asia Workshop 2005). In Iran mixed-species colonies including R. mehelyi, which in the 1970s were estimated to be over 10,000 individuals, now only number a few hundred individuals (M. Sharifi pers. obs. 2005). Summer nursery colonies typically number 30-500 individuals (although colonies of up to 3,000 individuals have been recorded, separated in smaller groups within the same cave). Winter clusters consist of up to 5,000 animals.

habitat:
Forages in Mediterranean and dry sub-tropical shrubland and woodland, and in dry steppes. It feeds mainly on moths, but also preys on other insects. Summer roosts are in warm caves, often in karstic regions. Winter hibernacula are in colder underground sites (usually large caves with a constant microclimate). The species only roosts in caves and does not use artifical habitats. Sedentary (longest distance recorded 90km: Palmeirim and Rodrigues 1992).

threats:
The species is affected by disturbance and loss of underground habitats, changes in foraging habitats, and destruction of caves by tourism.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. It is included in Annex II (and IV) of EU Habitats and Species Directive, and hence requires special measures for conservation including designation of Special Areas for Conservation. There is some habitat protection through Natura 2000 (some roosts are already protected by national legislation). An EU-LIFE funded project aims to ensure the long-term conservation of the large populations of cave and forest-dwelling bats, including this species, in Spain.


taxonomicNotes:
Although Thomas (1997, unpublished thesis) found very high divergence in mitochondrial DNA sequences, Csorba et al. 2003 refrained from splitting Japanese greater horseshoe bats (“Rhinolophus nippon”) from Rh. ferrumequinum. Several subspecies are identified over the range, of which two occur in the western Palaearctic: Rh. f. creticus (Crete) and Rh. f. ferrumequinum (rest of western Palaearctic range).

redListCategoryRationale:
European and EU 25: Near Threatened (approaching A2bc). Although population trends vary in different parts of the range, overall the species is suspected to be declining at a rate that approaches 30% over the last three generations. It needs continued conservation action to maintain its status.

range:
Rhinolophus ferrumequinum has a wide range in the Palaearctic encompassing north-west Africa; southern and central Europe from Portugal to Greece and north to southern England, France, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Bulgaria; Turkey, Cyprus, Israel, Jordan and Iraq and Iran; Ukraine, Crimea, and Caucacus regions; Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, southern Kazakhstan, Afganistan, Pakistan, northern India, Nepal, Sikkim, China (Wilson and Reeder 2005), Korea and Japan (Csorba et al. 2003). It usually occurs below 800m, but can be found up to 3,000m in the Caucasus depending on roost availability and humidity (K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005).

population:
The two most widespread Rhinolophus species in Europe, R. ferrumequinum and R. hipposideros, are of particular conservation concern and are the subject of considerable research and monitoring. R. ferrumequinum has shown marked declines in range in northwest Europe within the last 100 years (e.g. United Kingdom, Germany, Austria), and has gone extinct in some countries (e.g. Belgium, Netherlands). However there are signs of stabilisation and/or recovery in some northwest European countries (Hutson et al. 2001). For example, In the UK the species declined massively in the past but is now stable at low population level (around 5,000 individuals) (Ransome and Hutson 2000). However in Austria declines continue, with population reductions of 70% in the last 10 years (from 100 to 30 breeding individuals: Spitzenberger 2002, F. Spitzenberger pers. comm. 2006). In other parts of Europe, trends vary and are generally less well known: in Malta the species has gone extinct, in Portugal and Spain the trend is not known (although some colonies have disappeared in Spain) (Palomo and Gisbert 2002, Cabral et al. 2005), in Croatia the population is thought to be stable (N. Tvrtkovic pers. comm.), and in Romania the population has been slowly increasing since 1989 due to reduced use of pesticides and return to traditional agriculture. In Switzerland the species is very rare (3 maternity roosts with some 200 individuals), but the population trend appears stable (H. Kraettli pers. comm. 2006).It is an infrequent species in most parts of its range, although in at least parts of south-west Asia and the Caucasus it is abundant and widespread (it is the most frequently reported species in Turkey: A. Karatash pers. comm. 2005), with populations in Iran and Turkey considered to be stable (A. Karatash, M. Sharifi and K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005), although it may be decreasing in Russian parts of the Caucasus (S. Kruskop pers. comm. 2005). Summer colonies of c.30-200 individuals (up to 400 animals), and winter clusters of up to 500 animals are typical.

habitat:
It forages in pastures, deciduous temperate woodland, Mediterranean and sub-mediterranean shrubland and woodland. Feeds on beetles and moths at low level in pastures and in trees (by aerial hawking or perch feeding).Summer roosts are located in warm natural and artificial underground sites, and attics in the northern part of the range. Where the species occupies buildings, it requires particular features of the building itself, as well as proximity to good foraging areas and underground sites for torpor at various times of year and for winter hibernation (Hutson et al. 2001). In winter it hibernates in cold underground sites (usually large caves). A sedentary species, distances of 20-30 km between winter and summer roosts are typical (longest distance recorded 180km: de Paz et al. 1986).

threats:
The main threats are fragmentation and isolation of habitats, change of management regime of deciduous forests and agricultural areas, loss of insects due to pesticide use, and disturbance and loss of underground habitats and attics. In northwest Europe, habitat change is likely to have been amongst the major causes of declines, the conversion of woodland and small-field landscape to large-scale agricultural land being particularly damaging. While declines elsewhere, particularly in eastern Europe, may currently not be so marked, the loss of cultural landscapes in those countries as they move towards western-style economies may have significant effects in the near future. The use of pesticides has been a recognized threat to the insect food, particularly where these have been directed against the larvae of favoured food items, such as melolonthid beetles, larvae of noctuid moths or crane-flies. Favoured prey may be affected secondarily by pesticide use, such as the loss of dung fauna from the use of persistent anti-parasitic drugs (avermectins) on cattle. Populations in caves and other underground habitats have suffered from increased disturbance (e.g. by tourist visits), changes of use and the destruction of such sites. In buildings colonies may be affected by human intolerance, renovation work or the application of pesticides, such as some of those used for the remedial treatment of timbers (Hutson et al. 2001).

conservationAction:
The greater horseshoe bat has been the subject of widespread conservation activity, especially in Europe. Until recently, this has concentrated on roosts in buildings and caves. Many buildings used as roosts have management agreements and many underground sites have been protected. Nevertheless, sites continue to be lost or damaged. More recently, attention has turned to identifying more precisely the food and foraging requirements. A European meeting (Germany, May 1995) discussed the status and conservation needs for the species on a pan-European scale. The Bern Convention has commissioned a Europe-wide Species Action Plan under the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (Ransome and Hutson 2000). It is protected by national legislation in most range states (not Russia: K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005). There are international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. It is included in Annex II (and IV) of the EU Habitats and Species Directive, and hence requires special measures for conservation including designation of Special Areas for Conservation. There is some habitat protection through Natura 2000 (and some roosts are already protected by national legislation).


redListCategoryRationale:
European: This species has disappeared from a significant part of its European range during the last 50 years (generation time = 9 years). Some Mediterranean woodlands have disappeared in recent years, but the rate of habitat loss is unknown. Cave disturbance is a further threat to the species. For a closely related species, R. mehelyi, the rate of decline has been estimated as 10% in the last 10 years in Andalucia and is expected to reach 30% in a time window including 20 years in the future for entire range. Although R. blasii does not occur in the Iberian peninsula, it has very similar habitat requirements and may face the same threats. For these reasons, R. blasii is classed as Vulnerable because it is suspected that it will undergo population declines exceeding 30% over the next three generations. It is not anticipated that there would be a significant rescue effect from outside the European region, as populations are considered to be generally declining across the global range.EU 25: In the EU 25, this species is found only in Greece (and some associated islands) and Cyprus. Little information is available on the status of the species in this area. Consequently it is classed as Data Deficient.

range:
Rhinolophus blasii has a large range in the Palaearctic and the Afrotropics, throughout which it is widely but patchily distributed. In Africa, it occurs from north-eastern South Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo to Ethiopia and Somalia, and in North Africa. In Asia, it has a patchy distribution extending from Turkey in the west to Pakistan in the east, and from the Caucasus in the north to Yemen in the south (Wilson and Reeder 2005). It was confirmed in Georgia in 2006 (Z. Nagy pers. obs.). In Europe, it is extinct in northeastern Italy and has not been recorded in Slovenia during the last 50 years (Kryštufek and Dulic 2001). It is now restricted to the Balkan peninsula and to some Mediterranean islands including Crete and Cyprus. There are no recent records in Romania and northern Bulgaria despite intensive work by Christian Dietz (Z. Nagy pers. comm. 2006). Past records from this area are disputed: no specimen has been found in museums in Romania, and the presence of R. euryale in the same area might have caused confusion (Z. Nagy pers. comm. 2006). It occurs from sea level to 2,215 m in Yemen.

population:
A rare or infrequent species, probably the rarest horseshoe bat in Europe (Kryštufek 1999). Summer colonies of ca. 20-30 are typical, although up to 300 females may be found in a single colony. In winter, it congregates in mixed-species clusters with other Rhinolophus species (up to 800 animals in Bulgaria). There are large colonies in Bulgaria and Greece. It is suspected to be declining because of loss of Mediterranean woodlands and cave disturbance, and is considered vulnerable in many range states.

habitat:
In the Mediterranean region it typically forages in shrubland and woodland, although it may penetrate to desert habitat (Amr 2000). Summer roosts are situated in natural and artificial underground sites, with attics also being used in the northern part of the range. In winter, it hibernates in underground sites. This species is considered to be sedentary (Hutterer et al. 2005).

threats:
Threats to the species include loss of Mediterranean woodlands, disturbance and loss of underground habitats, and destruction of roost sites (Kryštufek 1999). In a number of range states the species is disturbed by tourist visits to caves.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in some range states. There are international legal obligations for the protection of this species through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. It is included in Annex II (and Annex IV) of the EU Habitats & Species Directive, and hence requires specific conservation measures, including the designation of Special Areas for Conservation. It receives some habitat protection through Natura 2000. Taxonomic research is needed to clarify the status of African populations. Monitoring and protection of caves is also required.

redListAssessors:
Tony Hutson, Friederike Spitzenberger, Stéphane Aulagnier, Zoltan Nagy


redListCategoryRationale:
European and EU 25: Many European range states have reported that populations have declined and colonies have disappeared over the last 27 years (=3 generations). It is inferred that regional population decline has exceeded 30% over that period, so the species is assessed as Vulnerable (A2bc). It is not expected that there would be a rescue effect from populations outside the region, as these are suspected to be declining too.

range:
Rhinolophus euryale is a western Palaearctic species, occurring in southern Europe, north-west Africa (Morocco to Tunisia), and the Near East. It is widely distributed over its range, and is found from sea level to 1,000 m.

population:
An infrequent species. Summer colonies number ca. 50-500 individuals (formely up to 1,500 animals). Winter clusters typically number up to 2,000 animals. It occurs in large vulnerable colonies, and is considered threatened in many range states. Large population declines have been reported in a number of European countries, including Spain (Palomo and Gisbert 2002) and Slovakia (Ibáñez 1999). In France, the population declined by ca. 70% between 1940 and 1980, although subsequently the trend appears to have stabilised (Brosset et al. 1988, S. Aulagnier pers. comm. 2006). Apart from R. blasii, which may have gone extinct in the country, R. euryale is probably the rarest rhinolophid in Italy, and anecdotal evidence suggests that a number of colonies have declined in the past few decades (D. Russo pers. comm. 2006). From 1960-2000 the species disappeared from a number of sites in Romania, but the trend over the last five years appears to be stable (Z. Nagy pers. comm. 2006). The species has a very small and declining population in Portugal (Rodrigues et al. 2003, Cabral et al. 2005).There is little information on population trends outside Europe, although it is suspected that continuing declines have also occurred in at least parts of the non-European range. For example, in Iran the species is no longer found in caves which 30 years ago held 20,000 individuals of different species (M. Sharifi pers. comm. 2005). It is considered to be declining in North Africa (GMA Africa workshop 2004).

habitat:
It forages in Mediterranean and sub-Mediterranean shrubland and woodland, feeding on moths and other insects. In Italy, preferred foraging habitats are broadleaved woodland and riparian vegetation; coniferous woodland is avoided, and shrubland is rarely used (Russo et al. 2002). Summer roosts are located in natural and artificial underground sites, as well as attics in some part of the range. In winter it hibernates in underground sites (usually large caves with a constant microclimate). It is a sedentary species (the longest recorded distance travelled by an individual is 134 km) (Heymer 1964 in Hutterer et al. 2005).

threats:
Threats include loss of foraging habitat, and disturbance and loss of underground habitats. On a landscape scale, fragmentation and loss of linear elements such as hedgerows and riparian vegetation is a problem because such elements are used for commuting. The species' strong dependence upon caves for roosting makes it particularly sensitive to cave disturbance, such as that from caving or tourism. Tourist disturbance of caves affects the species in a number of range states, including Italy, Iran and Turkey (M. Sharifi and A. Karatash pers. comm. 2005, D. Russo pers. comm. 2006). The use of organochlorine pesticides is believed to have contributed to the earlier dramatic decline of the species in France (Brosset et al. 1988).

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for protection of this species through Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. It is included in Annex II (and IV) of EU Habitats & Species Directive, and hence requires special measures for conservation including designation of Special Areas for Conservation. There is some habitat protection through Natura 2000, and some roosts are already protected by national legislation). The species is directly or indirectly benefiting from EU LIFE-funded projects in France, Spain, Italy, and Romania.


taxonomicNotes:
Unidentified Pipistrellus bats found in the Azores have recently been proposed to belong to this species, but this awaits confirmation.

redListCategoryRationale:
The species is restricted to few islands in the Canaries and the Madeira islands (and possibly the Azores). The extent of occurrence is <5,000 km2, and the population is severely fragmented. It is inferred that the population may be declining as a result of habitat loss, use of agricultural pesticides, and disturbance to roosts. Consequently it is assessed as Endangered.

range:
This species is restricted to Madeira (Madeira, Porto Santo), and the western Canary Islands (La Palma, La Gomera, El Hierro, Tenerife). Pipistrelles found in the Azores (Santa Maria, Flores, Corvo, Graciosa, San Jorge) probably belong to this species. It is found from sea level to 2,150 m in the Canary Islands, although it prefers lowlands on Madeira (Fajardo and Benzal 1999).

population:
On the islands of Madeira it is relatively abundant on Madeira and very rare on Porto Santo. The total population is estimated to number fewer than 1,000 individuals, and trends are unknown (Rainho et al. 2002). On the Canary Islands it is the most reported bat on all islands of occurrence, although no bat is abundant in the islands. Population size and trend have not been quantified (Palomo and Gisbert 2002), although declines are inferred as a result of threats including loss and degradation of habitats, pesticide use, and disturbance and destruction of roosts. On the Azores, Pipistrellus bats are rare or very rare on all islands of occurrence, and the total number of individuals is probably less than 300 (Rainho et al. 2002). The global population is naturally fragmented.

habitat:
It forages over a wide range of habitats, including aquatic habitats, woodland and farmland (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). It feeds on flying insects, including small moths and flies. Breeding colonies have been found in crevices in sea-cliffs and underneath the roofs of houses, as well as in bird boxes (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). Roost sites include rock crevices, bird boxes, and crevices in (often disused) buildings. It is often associated with human settlements.

threats:
Loss of natural habitat may be a threat, although the species is apparently adapted to man-made habitats. The use of agricultural pesticides may be a problem, and disturbance to roosts in buildings may also be of concern.

conservationAction:
The species is protected through Bern Convention, and included in Annex IV of EU Habitats and Species Directive. Rainho and Palmeirim (2002) proposed the following actions: identification, protection and monitoring of roosts; preservation and restoration of natural habitats, reduction of pesticide use; and, study of the species' biology, ecology, genetics, and systematics. Palomo and Gisbert (2002) additionally recommend a public awareness campaign aimed at reducing disturbance of breeding colonies in private houses.

redListAssessors:
Juste, J., Palmeirim, J. & Alcaldé, J.T.


taxonomicNotes:
Wilson and Reeder (2005) consider African and Canary Island populations to belong to a different species, C. hesperidus. The species in Yemen requires taxonomic clarification (D. Kock pers. comm. 2005).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)The species is widespread and abundant, and there is evidence of ongoing population increase. Consequently it is classed as Least Concern.

range:
Pipistrellus kuhlii has a large range extending from Iberia through southern Europe through the Near East and the Caucasus to Kazakhstan, Pakistan, and India. The northern limit of its range in Europe was formerly ca.45°N, but the species has been expanding northwards. It arrived 1994 in Vienna/Austria (48°N), and was more recently recorded to 50°N in France and 51°N in Ukraine. It has been expanding northwards in Russia for the last half century from 46°N to c.53°N, with the highest record made at almost  57°N (S. Kruskop pers. comm. 2006). It occurs from sea level to 2,000 m.

population:
It is a relatively abundant species in the Mediterranean region and Middle East. Summer colonies typically number 30-100 individuals. In Iran and the Caucasus, the species' range is increasing and it is displacing P. pipistrellus (M. Sharifi and K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005). The northern border of the species' range is also expanding.

habitat:
It forages over variety of habitats, including agricultural and urban areas (including around street lights). It feeds on small insects, including Diptera, Psocoptera, and Coleoptera. Summer maternity colonies are located in crevices in buildings. Winter sites include rock crevices and cellars. Kuhl’s pipistrelle is probably a sedentary species (Hutterer et al. 2005).

conservationAction:
It is protected by national law in most European range states. It is also protected under international legislation in parts of its range through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention, and is included in Annex IV of EU Habitats & Species Directive. It is found in a number of protected areas. No specific conservation actions are known.

redListAssessors:
Tony Hutson, Friederike Spitzenberger, Stéphane Aulagnier, Ioan Coroiu


taxonomicNotes:
Nyctalus furvus (Japan) and N. plancyi (eastern China and Taiwan) are now considered as separate species (Wilson and Reeder 2005).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)The species is widespread and abundant, and although there may have been declines in some areas, it is not believed that these approach the threshold for the population decline criterion of the IUCN Red List (30% in 10 years or 3 generations). Consequently it is classed as Least Concern.

range:
Nyctalus noctula has a wide Palaearctic distribution, including Europe and southern Scandinavia to the Urals and Caucasus; Turkey to Israel and Oman; western Turkmenistan, western Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan to south-west Siberia and the Himalayas, south to Myanmar, Vietnam, and western Malaysia. Its occurrence in North Africa is questionable (see below), and a record from Mozambique is considered dubious. With few exceptions, maternity colonies are confined to northeastern Europe (Strelkov 1997a, 1997b). Has been found at 1,900 m in the western Alps during migration (Aellen 1962 in Gebhard and Bogdanowicz 2004)."It is possible that N. noctula occurs in Africa but this needs confirmation. A record from Algeria (two specimens collected from a hollow tree in Cheliff plain) was published by Loche (1858), but these specimens were lost with the rest of Loche's collection. According to Palmeirim (1982), it is possible that these specimens belonged to N. lasiopterus, a species which does occur in North Africa and which was considered to be conspecific with N. noctula by earlier zoologists. There are also some doubts as to the place of origin of some specimens of N. noctula in the BMNH (Palmeirim 1982) and in the RMNH (Jentink 1888). One of these was mentioned by Dobson (1878) as having been bought in Algiers. Kowalski and Rzebik-Kowalska (1991) suggest that all of them were bought from professional dealers, which means that their localities may be unreliable" (M. Happold pers. comm. 2007).

population:
A widespread species, relatively common throughout much of its range. Very abundant, not declining and considered least concern in the Russian Federation (K. Tsytsulina pers. comm.). Common in winter in Austria, with no sign of decline (Spitzenberger 2002 and F. Spitzenberger pers. comm. 2006). However, there have been documented local declines in the Netherlands, and there are suspected to have been substantial declines in the United Kingdom since the 1940s, although the population trend now appears to have stabilised (Bogdanowicz 1999, Battersby 2005). Within its Iranian range and based on very limited information, the species appears to be rare (M. Sharifi pers. comm. 2005).

habitat:
It forages over wetland, woodland and pasture, feeding on larger moths, beetles and flies. Summer colonies are in tree holes, sometimes in buildings. Winter hibernacula are in rock crevices, caves, occasionally artificial structures. Maternity colonies number 20-50 females (occasionally up to 100), but winter groups in rock crevices, caves and artificial structures can be large, to 10,000 in one instance (Germany) (Harrje 1994, Mayer et al. 2002). Tree holes and bat boxes are also used as wintering sites. Seasonal migrations between breeding area and hibernation range which is situated in central and southwest Europe normally cover distances of less than 1,000 km. The longest recorded movement is 1,546 km (Hutterer et al. 2005).

threats:
The species is affected by loss of tree roost holes in northeastern Europe. In Romania and Hungary colonies are being lost due to renovation of buildings and human disturbance in buildings. Local declines in the Netherlands were linked to loss of wetlands (Bogdanowicz 1999). These are not thought to be major threats to the species as a whole at present.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention, in parts of its range where these apply. It is included in Annex IV of EU Habitats & Species Directive, and there is some habitat protection through Natura 2000. The species occurs in a number of protected areas. No specific conservation actions are known.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)The species is widespread and abundant, and there is no evidence of current significant population decline. Consequently it is classed as Least Concern.

range:
Nyctalus leisleri is largely a western Palaearctic species (Europe and north-west Africa), with scattered records in west parts of the eastern Palaearctic (Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Himalayas). It is widely distributed in Europe from Portugal and the British Isles to western Russia. It is present on Madeira and the Canary islands but absent from southwestern Italy and Sicily, eastern Spain, most of Fennoscandia, the northern Baltic and northern Russia. It occurs from sea level to 2,400 m.

population:
It is widespread although patchily distributed in Europe. Common in parts of range (e.g., Ireland), scarce in other parts (Stebbings and Griffith 1986). Local extinctions have been reported for the central part of Russian Federation (K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005), although the species remains common in other parts of Russia and the Caucasus (S. Kruskop pers. comm. 2005). There is no information about trends.

habitat:
It forages over woodland, pasture, and river valleys, where it feeds on flies (including mosquitos), moths and beetles. It is linked to old trees. Summer nursery roosts are located in tree holes, plus buildings and bat boxes. Nursery colonies usually number 20-50 females, occasionally up to 1,000 (e.g., in Ireland: Stebbings and Griffith 1986). In winter it hibernates mainly in tree holes, or occasionally in underground sites or buildings, often in large groups. Females migrate over distances up to 1,567 km (Ohlendorf et al. 2000).

threats:
Threats include disturbance to and destruction of roosts in trees and buildings, and loss or degradation of foraging habitat. However, these are not thought to be major threats at present.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention, in parts of its range where these apply. It is included in Annex IV of EU Habitats & Species Directive, and there is some habitat protection through Natura 2000. It occurs in protected areas throughout its range. No specific conservation actions known, but a review of the species' status and summary of existing knowledge is currently (2006) in preparation.

redListAssessors:
Tony Hutson, Friederike Spitzenberger, Stéphane Aulagnier


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD)EU 25 regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD)This species has a wide range, but it has a patchy distribution and occurs at very low densities, making it very difficult to survey. It has specific habitat requirements (mature forest). Some cases of mortality have been recorded at wind farms, and the number of wind farms is growing. Area of Occupancy and population size are not known, but are not believed to approach the thresholds for IUCN Red List criteria. There are no data available on population trend. Consequently the species is classed as Data Deficient.

range:
Nyctalus lasiopterus has a very scattered distribution through central and southern Europe and north Africa (Morocco, Libya, and possbily Algeria) through Asia Minor to the Caucasus, northern Iran and Kazakhstan. Of the Mediterranean islands, recorded on Sicily. The species is easy to detect with bat detectors, so it is known that the species' distribution in Europe is genuinely extremely patchy. Until 1999, it had been recorded in 120-130 localities in Europe (Benzal 1999). It occurs up to 1,900 m in Switzerland.

population:
The patchy distribution and low population density in most of range suggest a relatively small global population. Breeding colonies are typically small (up to 35 females), and few are known. Only two larger-sized (50-100 females) breeding colonies are known in the world. It is rare throughout the range in the Russian Federation (K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005). There is a strong population in northern Hungary. The species is difficult to survey, and difficult to capture with mist nets as it hunts 10-20 m above the ground (K. Tsytsulina in litt. 2005). The population trend is unknown.

habitat:
It forages over mixed and deciduous forest and wooded river valleys (the latter especially on migration). It is highly dependent on mature forest. It is largely insectivorous, but is also reported to take small passerines in the southern part of the range during migration. In summer it roosts in hollow trees, and occasionally in buildings. Rock crevices may also be used as hibernacula in winter. It sometimes roosts with other species such as N. noctula. Nursery colonies are usually relatively small (up to 35 females). Females give birth to a single pup per litter. It is considered to be migratory in the north-east of its range, but there is very little data. Vagrants have been recorded well outside the normal range (Hutterer et al. 2005). Some areas in the western part of the range appear to be occupied exclusively by males, according to capture results. Its foraging range may be greater than 30 km in a single night.

threats:
Little is known about potential threats, but loss of mature woodland and loss of or disturbance to roost sites (in old trees and buildings) may have a negative impact on the species. Some individuals were found dead in wind farms in Spain (J.T. Alcalde pers. comm. 2006), and all pups were found dead in 2005 at one of the two known colonies in Spain (located in a city park). The cause of these deaths was not known (J.T. Alcalde pers. comm. 2006).

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention, in parts of its range where these apply. It is included in Annex IV of EU Habitats & Species Directive. No specific conservation actions are known. It occurs in a number of national parks and protected areas within its range (K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005). However, in Spain the two known colonies are outside protected areas (J.T. Alcalde pers. comm. 2006). More information is needed on population size and trends, ecology, and potential threats.

redListAssessors:
Tony Hutson, Javier Juste, Juan Tomas Alcaldé


taxonomicNotes:
There is marked genetic differentiation between populations on central and eastern islands in the archipelago, indicating that they have evolved in relative isolation for a long time (Salgueiro et al. 2004).

redListCategoryRationale:
This species is endemic to the Azores, where it has a small population and range. It is suspected to be declining as a result of disturbance and destruction of colonies, loss and degradation of natural and semi-natural habitats and pesticide use. There is no direct information on dispersal between islands, but genetic research suggests that dispersal is restricted, and so the population is precautionarily regarded as being severely fragmented; further research would be required to confirm this. For these reasons, it is assessed as Endangered.

range:
Nyctalus azoreum is restricted to the Azores archipelago (Portugal), where it occurs on Faial, Pico, San Jorge, Graciosa, Terceira, San Miguel and Santa Maria islands, where it occurs from sea level to 600 m (A. Rainho pers. comm. 2006). Its extent of occurrence is estimated at ca.2,200 km2.

population:
Surveys in 2002, 2003 and 2004 found the species quite abundant on San Miguel, Faial, Terceira and San Jorge, but rare on Graciosa and extremely rare on Santa Maria. It is absent from Flores and Corvo. There is no quantitative information on population trend, but it is suspected that the species may be declining as a result of habitat degradation, destruction of or exclusion from roosts (both in trees and buildings), and human persecution. Local environmental groups report that numerous colonies have recently disappeared (A. Rainho pers. comm. 2006). The total population is estimated at 2,000-5,000 individuals, and there are probably fewer than 1,000 individuals on San Miguel, where the species is most abundant (Cabral et al. 2005, J.M. Palmeirim, A. Rainho and L. Rodrigues pers. comm. 2006).

habitat:
It forages over a variety of habitats on the islands, favouring natural and semi-natural habitats. But it frequently feeds around artificial lighting (e.g. streetlamps). Most maternity colonies are probably located in buildings, trees and rock crevices.

threats:
Human persecution, and the destruction of roost sites, are likely to be the main threats (A. Rainho pers. comm. 2006). Habitat loss and degradation, use of pesticides, and the spread of exotic plant species may also have a detrimental effect on the species. It is suspected that the extreme scarcity of the species on Santa Maria is attributable to habitat loss and degradation. This species is particularly vulnerable to persecution because it flies during the day, making colonies obvious and easy to find (A. Rainho pers. comm. 2006).

conservationAction:
There is no specific national legislation. It is protected under Bern Convention and included in Annex IV of EU Habitats and Species Directive. There are proposals for protection and monitoring of roosts, public awareness (with special reference to roosts), reduction of adverse agricultural practices, preservation and restoration of natural habitat, use of lights that attract insects (e.g. mercury), and further studies of the species' biology (Rainho et al. 2002).

redListAssessors:
Hutson, A.M., Aulagnier, S., Rainho, A. & Palmeirim, J.


taxonomicNotes:
Originally described as a subspecies of blythii, but recently shown to lie outside a clade including blythii, myotis, and oxygnathus (Ruedi and Mayer 2001).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT)EU 25 regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT)The population size is estimated at between 6,000 and 8,000 individuals. The species is cave dwelling, only a small number of colonies are known, and those are in touristic areas subject to disturbance. Although the population trend has not been quantified in Corsica, some colonies have been lost, suggesting that declines have occurred. It is assumed that the population trend will be similar on Sardinia as the species faces the same threats there. On Malta, surveys have shown an estimated decline of 50% or more in 3 generations, although this is a small part of the overall population and the trend has now stabilised. It is therefore suspected that the species is declining faster than 10% in 3 generations (generation time for the species is 7-8 years). Because the overall decline rate is suspected rather than estimated, the species qualifies as Near Threatened (approaching C1). There is no evidence that there would be a significant rescue effect from North African populations.

range:
Myotis punicus occurs in North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya) and on the Mediterranean islands of Corsica (to France), Sardinia (to Italy), and Malta.

population:
On Corsica there are around 3,000 individuals in four colonies. The total population size on Corsica, Sardinia and Malta is estimated at between 6,000 and 8,000 individuals. Cave dwelling, therefore there are few colonies. On Malta, over 50% of the population was lost between the latter half of the 1980s and the early 1990s. Numbers appear to have stabilised at 400-450 individuals (Borg 2002, J.J. Borg unpubl. data). The population trend on Corsica is difficult to quantify as surveys before 2000 were very limited, but some colonies have been lost, indicating that there are some threats to the population (S. Aulagnier pers. comm. 2007).

habitat:
This species forages in woodland and shrubland and roosts in underground sites, possibly also in buildings. Bats ringed in Malta were retrapped in Gozo, but there were no indications of longer distance movements (Hutterer et al. 2005).

threats:
Human disturbance is a major threat, as colonies are located in touristic areas, in caves that are well known and popular. Changes in land management and agricultural pollution are also threats.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in its European range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention, in parts of its range where these apply. It is included in Annex IV of the EU Habitats & Species Directive, and there is some habitat protection may be provided through Natura 2000. There is an ongoing project for the conservation of this species. Appropriate conservation measures include fencing cave entrances and obtaining legal protection for the species.

redListAssessors:
Javier Juste, Stéphane Aulagnier, Tony Hutson


taxonomicNotes:
Does not include Myotis schaubi (Armenia and western Iran) and Myotis bombinus (south-eastern Siberia, north-eastern China, Korea, Japan). Two subspecies of M. nattereri are recognized: M. nattereri nattereri (N Africa, Europe, SW Asia Minor, Palestine) and M. n. tschuliensis (Caucasus region, Iraq, Turkmenia). Part of the Iberian population has been described as a a new cryptic species named Myotis escalerae (Ibañez et al. 2006).

range:
Myotis nattereri is a western Palaearctic species. It is widespread in Europe, with the exception of northern Fennoscandia, eastern Ukraine and much of Russia. Also found in Morocco, western and south-western Asia Minor, Levant, Caucasus region (including northern Iraq), Kopetdag Mountains in Turkmenia and Iran, northern Kazakhstan. Its altitudinal range is sea level to 2,000 m.

population:
In Europe it is widespread but everywhere rare (Topál 2001). Colonies can reach 250-300 individuals in Jordan (Z. Amr 2000).

habitat:
It forages in woodland (including Mediterranean pine and oak forest: Amr 2000), shrubland and parkland, sometimes over water, pasture, and road verges. It occurs in humid areas, and in dry areas it is dependant on water bodies. Summer roosts are in hollow trees, buildings and occasionally underground sites. It hibernates in underground habitats (caves, cellars and mines). It is a sedentary species, movements between summer, autumn and winter roosts are up to 120 km (Masing et al. 1999 in Hutterer et al. 2005).

threats:
The species is affected by loss of woodland and other changes in land management and development. Loss of or damage to roost sites in trees, buildings and underground habitats may also be a problem.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention, in parts of its range where these apply. It is included in Annex IV of EU Habitats & Species Directive, and there is some habitat protection through Natura 2000.


taxonomicNotes:
Includes three forms differing in morphological traits: M. mystacinus mystacinus (most of European range), M. mystacinus occidentalis (Iberia and Morocco) and M. mystacinus caucasicus (Caucasus region).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)The species is widespread and abundant, and there are no indications of current significant population decline. Consequently it is classed as Least Concern.

range:
Myotis mystacinus is a western Palaearctic species, occurring in western and central Europe, southern parts of Scandinavia, the British Isles, Morocco, northern parts of eastern Europe, western parts of the Caucasus and the Urals. The occurrence in south-east Europe is questionable but likely. It has been recorded from sea level to 1,920 m (Gerell 1999).

population:
One of the more common species within the regular distribution area.

habitat:
It inhabits forest, woodland edge and shrubland. Summer maternity roosts are typically sited in trees, buildings, and bird and bat boxes. It hibernates in small groups in underground sites (caves, mines, and cellars). It is an occasional migrant, with movements of up to 240 km recorded (Gerell 1999). Movements of up to 625 km have been described, although the longest distance covered by a bat with certain species identification is 165 km (Gaisler et al. 2003 in Hutterer et al. 2005).

threats:
Although not major threats, the species is affected by loss of woodland and other aspects of land management and development. It is also affected by loss of and damage to roost sites in trees, buildings and underground habitats.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. It is included in Annex IV of EU Habitats & Species Directive, and there is some habitat protection through Natura 2000.


taxonomicNotes:
Identified as a new species by genetic analyses, this species combines morphological features of both P. austriacus and P. auritus.

redListCategoryRationale:
This species is considered to be Vulnerable. It is restricted to forest fragments in Sardinia (Italy). Since this species was first identified in 2002, it has been captured in only three localities, two in the same National Park. The population is probably very small, although more localities will probably be discovered in the future. Forests in Sardinia sum up to less than 2,000 km2, and their quality is declining. Further surveys are required to obtain a more accurate understanding of the status of this species, as based just on the known information it could be listed as Endangered.

range:
Plecotus sardus is restricted to the island of Sardinia (Italy). The three known localities are situated near to the coast or at low elevations.

population:
This species was first described in 2002 and is poorly known. It is considered to be rare (known only from five specimens).

habitat:
It occurs in the most wooded areas parts of Sardinia, and roosts in natural caves. Two of the three known localities are situated in karstic areas, one locality lies near the sea coast (Mucedda et al. 2002). Artificial habitats are not used. It is a sedentary species.

threats:
Roost disturbance (as a result of tourism) and habitat loss (caused by forestry management) are the main threats to the species.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. It is included in Annex IV of EU Habitats and Species Directive. Two of the three known localities are in the National Park of Gennargentu and the Orosei Gulf. Recommended research actions include surveys and monitoring to determine distribution, status, and population trend. Protection of roosting and foraging habitat is also recommended.

redListAssessors:
Hutson, A.M., Aulagnier, S., Juste, J., Karataş, A., Palmeirim, J. & Paunović, M.


taxonomicNotes:
Described as subspecies of P. auritus from northern Ossetia, Russia. Its specific status was first recognized for populations of the Alps, which were described as new species: Plecotus alpinus by Kiefer and Veith (2002) and Plecotus microdontus by Spitzenberger et al. (2002). Later it transpired that these names were younger synonyms of P. macrobullaris (Spitzenberger et al. 2003).

redListCategoryRationale:
European: Near Threatened (close to qualifying for B2ab(iii)). Each colony uses around 10 km2 as foraging range. Only 15 colonies are known from the Alps, ten from Croatia, and two from the Pyrenees. This would sum to ca. 300 km2. Even if more colonies are discovered in the remaning part of the range the area of occupancy will not be much larger than 2,000 km2. Roosting habitat is declining because of tourism pressure on caves and transformation of buildings in human settlements in the Alps and Pyrenees. Genetic analysis suggests that there is little interchange between subpopulations, so it is not expected that there will be a rescue effect from outside the region.EU 25: VU B2ab(iii). Taking out Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro and Switzerland from the range, it is estimated that the species' AOO is smaller than 2,000 km2. Roosting habitat is declining because of tourism pressure on caves and transformation of buildings in human settlements in the Alps and Pyrenees. Genetic analysis suggests that there is little interchange between subpopulations, so it is not expected that there will be a rescue effect from outside the region.

range:
Pyrenees; Alps from France to Slovenia, Dinaric Alps, Greece incl. Crete; Corsica; from Anatolia through Caucasus to south Iran; Syria (Spitzenberger et al. 2006). Altitudinal distribution from sea level to 2,800 m (Garin 2003, Pavlinić and Tvrtković 2004).

population:
This species was only recognised in 2003, and remains quite poorly known. However, it seems to be generally uncommon, with a fragmented distribution. Individual colonies are composed of few (less that 50) individuals. Fewer than 50 colonies are known, but more are likely to be discovered in the future (Spitzenberger et al. 2003). Molecular analyses have confirmed that subpopulations from different mountain ranges are genetically isolated (Garin et al. 2003).

habitat:
Is known from a wide array of habitats. In Croatia it was found in all altitudinal zones from sea level to mountain tops above the tree line. It occupies Mediterranean oak shrub as well as beech and pine forests (Pavlinić and Tvrtković 2004). The highest record is 2,800 m (Pyrenees: Garin et al. 2003). In the Eastern Alps maternity roosts are located in attics of churches, winter roosts are not known (Spitzenberger 2002), the highest record here is 1,720 m (Spitzenberger 2006).

threats:
In the European part of its range, restoration of old buildings and development of tourism infrastructure is causing habitat loss.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. It is included in Annex IV of EU Habitats & Species Directive, and there is some habitat protection through Natura 2000. It is present in several national parks. Recommended actions include surveys to better understand the species' distribution, molecular studies on distance between populations, and protection of roosting sites.

redListAssessors:
Tony Hutson, Friederike Spitzenberger, Javier Juste, Stéphane Aulagnier, Juan Tomas Alcaldé


taxonomicNotes:
Originally described as a subspecies of austriacus, but clearly distinct; see Mayer and von Helversen (2001) for genetics, Tvrtković et al. (2005) for morphology.

redListCategoryRationale:
European and EU 25: Near Threatened (close to qualifying for VU C1). The population size in Europe and the EU 25 is small and estimated as no more than 10,000 individuals, and the species is found mainly in coastal areas where it is suspected that pressure from tourism is causing population decline approaching 10% over 3 generations. It is not known whether there would be a significant rescue effect from outside Europe so the regional Red List assessment is not adjusted.

range:
The distribution of Plecotus kolombatovici is fragmented into three main parts: southern regions of the Balkans and Asia Minor, Libya (Cyrenaika) and northwest Africa from Morocco to Tunisia; it has been found in Malta and Pantellaria (Spitzenberger et al. 2006). It occurs from sea level to higher altitudes in the Rif and Atlas mountains.

population:
Little is known about population size and trends in this species, although it is regarded as relatively common in North Africa. In Europe, the total population is estimated at fewer than 10,000 mature individuals, and it is suspected that the population may be declining. Summer colonies usually number 10-30 females, although a breeding colony of 120 females was found in a building in Croatia (F. Spitzenberger pers. comm. 2006). Winter clusters are smaller (10 ind.), and the species is often solitary at this time of year (S. Aulagnier pers. comm. 2006). It is possible that European, African and south-west Asian populations are isolated from each other.

habitat:
It forages in a variety of open and semi-closed habitats, mainly steppe but also agricultural landscapes in both lowland and mountain areas. It often forages over small water bodies. It feeds predominantly on moths, but also takes beetles and flies. Summer roosts are primarily rocky cavities, but also dark areas of old monuments, ruins, caverns and buildings. Winter roosts are located in buildings, mines, caves, wells, and trees.

threats:
Pesticides and roost disturbance have a negative impact on the species, but are not thought to be causing significant population declines at the global level. However, in Europe, where this species is largely restricted to coastal areas, disturbance of roost sites by tourists may be a major threat.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. It is included in Annex IV of EU Habitats & Species Directive, and there is some habitat protection through Natura 2000. Recommended actions include monitoring population trends and minimising or preventing disturbance to roost sites in Europe.


taxonomicNotes:
According to new taxonomy it is endemic to Europe (Spitzenberger et al. 2006). The Asian and African populations belong to other species.

redListCategoryRationale:
This species has a large range, within which it is widespread and generally common. Although there is evidence of population decline in parts of the range, the overall rate of decline is not believed to approach the threshold for the population decline criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e., declining more than 30% in ten years or three generations). For these reasons, it is evaluated as Least Concern. However, population trends should be monitored.

range:
Plecotus austriacus is restricted to Europe, excluding northern countries. Widespread south of 52-53°N, from south England to Moldova and the Black Sea Coast southwards to the Mediterranean coast (Spitzenberger et al. 2006). One record in south Sweden. Found on Mediterranean and Atlantic islands: Balearic Islands, Sardinia, Corsica and Sicily and Madeira (Spitzenberger et al. 2006). Highest confirmed record in the Alps 1,390 m (hibernaculum) (Spitzenberger 2002).

population:
It is a common species in the Mediterranean, but relatively rare in the European part of Turkey (A. Karatas pers. comm. 2007). Summer colonies usually consist of 10-30 females. Winter clusters are usually small (2-3 animals), and the species is often solitary in this season. Population declines have been documented in parts of central Europe (Horácek et al. 2004); in Austria this species is listed as Vulnerable (Spitzenberger 2005) and in Croatia it is listed as Endangered (Tvrtkovic 2006). In Portugal there is no evidence of decline. Elsewhere in the range data on population trend is lacking.

habitat:
It forages in lowland valleys and open agricultural landscapes in central Europe, and in a great variety of open and semi-open habitats in southern Europe. It feeds mainly on moths. In summer it typically roosts in buildings (attics, fissures, cavities, old castles), although solitary animals may roost in underground sites. In winter it hibernates in buildings, mines, and caves. It is a sedentary species, and no individual has been recorded to move further than 62 km (Gaisler and Hanák 1969 in Hutterer et al. 2005).

threats:
Some populations are affected by remedial timber treatment (poisoning by wood preserving chemicals) and loss of roost sites. Intensification of agriculture seems to have a negative impact on the species in central Europe, and may be responsible for population declines reported in this region. Agricultural intensification may also affect the species in other parts of the range.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for protection of this species through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. It is included in Annex IV of EU Habitats and Species Directive, and there is some habitat protection through Natura 2000. Recommended actions include monitoring population trends, and improving agricultural habitats by protecting and restoring hedges and scrubby areas and reducing pesticide use.

redListAssessors:
Juste, J., Karataş, A., Palmeirim, J., Paunović, M., Spitzenberger, F. & Hutson, A.M.


taxonomicNotes:
According to new taxonomy this species is endemic to Europe, from Ireland to the Urals (Spitzenberger et al. 2006). The Asian populations have been identified as separate species, P. ognevi and P. sacrimontis. Some Spanish populations were described as subspecies P. auritus begognae (Juste et al. 2004).

redListCategoryRationale:
This species is endemic to Europe, where it is widespread and common, with no major threats.

range:
Plecotus auritus is endemic to Europe, where it is widely distributed south of 65°N and west of the Urals and north of the Caucasus. In the south it is confined to higher elevations. It occurs on the British Isles and in Sardinia. Patchy distribution in Iberia, Italy and the Balkan Peninsula. In the Alps, maternity colonies are found up to 1,920 m asl, hibernacula up to 2,350 m asl (Horácek and Dulic 2004).

population:
A common species in central Europe, but rare in the Mediterranean. Summer colonies usually number 10-50 females, sometimes up to 100. In winter it is generally solitary, although it may occasionally be found in very small clusters (2-3 animals). Nursery colonies of up to 10 (K. Tsytsulina pers. comm.). There have been no recorded population declines throughout most of its range, but it is decreasing in Turkey (A. Karatas pers. comm.).

habitat:
It forages in the vicinity of the roost in deciduous and coniferous woodlands, along hedgerows, and in isolated trees in parks and gardens. It feeds mainly on moths and flies gleaned from foliage. In summer it roosts in colonies in buildings (attics, barns, churches, drainage channels), tree holes, and bat boxes. Solitary animals also roost in underground sites. In winter it hibernates in caves, mines, buildings and occasionally trees. A sedentary species, its longest recorded movement is 88 km (Gaisler et al. 2003).

threats:
Loss of broad-leaved forest and particularly of mature trees is a threat in parts of its Mediterranean range (Balkans, Portugal, Spain and Turkey). It is affected locally by remedial timber treatment and loss of roost sites.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. It is included in Annex IV of EU Habitats and Species Directive, and there is some habitat protection through Natura 2000.Maintenance of natural habitat, especially forests with mature trees is required.

redListAssessors:
Hutson, A.M., Spitzenberger, F., Aulagnier, S., Coroiu, I., Karataş, A., Juste, J., Paunovic, M., Palmeirim, J. & Benda, P.


taxonomicNotes:
There are different lineages in south Iberian populations that may deserve recognition at subspecific level (Ibañez et al. 2006). The taxonomic status of the population of the Canary Islands needs to be revised (J. Juste pers. comm. 2006)

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)The species is widespread and abundant and there is no evidence of population decline. Consequently it is classed as Least Concern.

range:
This species has a wide range in the Palaearctic (and marginally in Indomalaya), extending from southern Europe and north Africa (France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, the Balkan countries, Morocco, Algeria, the Canary Islands and Cape Verde Islands) through the Middle East and the Caucasus to Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, northern India and Burma (Horáček and Benda 2004, Wilson and Reeder 2005). It occurs from sea level to 2,600 m.

population:
It generally occurs at low densities and is restricted by its habitat requirements, but it is abundant in some European areas bordering the Mediterranean. Summer maternity colonies usually number 20-70 females. Range expansion from northern Italy through Austria up to the Czech Republic and Slovakia has recently occurred.

habitat:
It forages over open woodland, pasture and wetlands, and often feeds at lights in rural areas, towns and cities.It roosts in rock crevices, occasionally in fissures in buildings or under bark, rarely in underground habitats. Nothing is known about the migratory behaviour of this species (Hutterer et al. 2005).

threats:
There are probably few threats in its mainland distribution, except when roosting in buildings.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention in parts of its range where these apply. It is included in Annex IV of EU Habitats & Species Directive.


taxonomicNotes:
Includes mediterraneus, formerly regarded by some authorities as a subspecies of pipistrellus (Wilson and Reeder 2005). The genetically and morphologically distinct population of pipistrelle bats belonging to the pygmaeus genetic clade and occurring in the Cyrenaica/Libya was recently described (Benda et al. 2004) as a separate species: Pipistrellus hanaki.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)The species is widespread and abundant, and there is no evidence of current significant population decline. Consequently it is assessed as Least Concern at the European and EU 25 levels.

range:
Pipistrellus pygmaeus was only recently differentiated from P. pipistrellus, and some details of its distribution are still lacking. It is also a western Palaearctic species, occurring from the British Isles through much of Europe (including the islands of Corsica and Sardinina) east to Ukraine and western Russia. Its range may extend much further east, as well as into north Africa (Wilson and Reeder 2005), although it is also possible that the species does not occur outside Europe. It occurs further north in Scandinavia than P. pipistrellus.

population:
It generally appears to be less abundant than P. pipistrellus sensu stricto, although it is nevertheless a widespread and abundant species. Summer colonies may be larger than P. pipistrellus, numbering up to 250 (or occasionally up to 3,000) individuals. It is not known if the species congregates in winter, or what size its winter colonies are.

habitat:
It forages around woodland and wetlands, and is more closely associated with water than P. pipistrellus. It feeds mainly on small Diptera (especially aquatic midges). Maternity colonies are generally located in buildings. No specific data are available on P. pygmaeus winter roost sites, but presumably they are similar to those used by P. pipistrellus.

threats:
As maternity colonies tend to be found in buildings, the species may be vulnerable to anthropogenic factors, such as disturbance, timber treatment and building renovation (Battersby 2005). However, this is not thought to be a major threat.

conservationAction:
Although this species was only recently described, it is apparently widespread and abundant. However, further clarification of its distribution, population size and trend, habitat preferences, and ecology is required.


taxonomicNotes:
A recent genetic study suggests that the south Iberian population may belong to a different species, probably E. isabellinus (Ibañez et al. 2006).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)A very widespread and abundant species. Global and regional population trends are difficult to determine, as the species is decreasing in some range states (sometimes dramatically) whilst increasing in others. Overall, it is not believed to approach the threshold for the population decline criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. declining more than 30% in ten years or three generations). For these reasons, it is evaluated as Least Concern.

range:
Eptesicus serotinus is widely distributed through the Palaearctic from the Atlantic to the Pacific seaboards. It occurs north to about 57ºN in Denmark, south-west to North Africa, and east into northern parts of the Indian subcontinent and south-east Asia. Records from the Canary Islands (Lanzarote) refer to a single vagrant that died shortly after arrival (Trujillo 1991). Its altitudinal range is from sea level to to 1,440 m in the Alps (Spitzenberger 2002).

population:
A very widespread and abundant species, with decreases recorded in some areas and increases in others. It may be increasing in some parts of northern Europe (e.g. Denmark) and decreasing in others, slightly (e.g. UK), or severely (e.g. Austria). In Austria, a 70% decline has been recorded in the eastern part of the country (the former stronghold) over the last 15 years, and the species is now absent from lowland regions with bare arable land (F. Spitzenberger pers. comm. 2006). It is suspected to be declining in the rest of Pannonian basin. It is known from a single locality in European Turkey, and the total population in Turkey is small (A. Karatash pers. comm. 2005). In Iran it is at the edge of the its range, the species occurs in low numbers (M. Sharifi pers. comm. 2005). Summer maternity colony size is generally 10-50 females (occasionally up to 300). It winters singly or in small groups.

habitat:
It forages over open woodland, woodland edge, and pasture, feeding on larger beetles, moths and Diptera.Most summer (maternity) colonies are in buildings (mainly houses) and occasionally tree holes or rock fissures.In winter it roosts singly or in small numbers in buildings and rock crevices, or often in underground habitats in north central Europe. Winter roosts are usually in fairly cold, dry sites. It is a largely sedentary species, with movements to 330 km recorded (Havekost 1960 in Hutterer et al. 2005).

threats:
In some areas it is affected by habitat loss and disturbance and destruction of colonies in houses. Population decline in Austria might be related to food reduction due to large scale mosquito control with the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, used in the Danube and Moravia regions (F. Spitzenberger and I. Coroiu pers. comm. 2006). The species is a host of the rabies-related virus EBLV1. There is increasing interest in the occurrence, risk to humans and epidemiology of this virus (e.g. Stantic-Pavlinic 2005), which could have an effect on the public image of this house-dependent bat.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention in parts of range where these apply. It is included in Annex IV of EU Habitats & Species Directive, and there is some habitat protection through Natura 2000. No specific conservation actions known. Protection of maternity roosts and study of impact of B. thuringiensis on the species are needed at least in Austria (F. Spitzenberger pers. comm. 2006).


taxonomicNotes:
The genus comprises two Palaearctic species with little overlap in range. Some populations described as belonging to B. leucomelas may in fact belong to B. barbastellus (J. Juste pers. comm. 2006). The population from the Canaries is at present regarded as endemic subspecies B. barbastellus guanchae (Trujillo et al. 2002, Juste et al. 2003).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)EU 25 regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)Large range, rare, low density and numbers. Mainly sedentary. Population is fragmented and linked to particular kinds of old forest habitats, which are declining. Does not easily colonise new areas. Declines widely reported in most of its range with a few exceptions for recent years. Status is linked to forestry practices and the decline in the number of old trees (one colony uses up to 30 old trees with holes per season). Has specific habitat and diet requirements. Listed as Vulnerable, as it is suspected that population declines will exceed >30% over a 15 year period including both the past and the future.

range:
Barbastella barbastellus is largely restricted to central and southern Europe, although its range extends into north Africa. It is widely but patchily distributed from England and probably Ireland, Iberia to the Caucasus and from the Mediterranean coast to southern Scandinavia, and it also found in Morocco and the Canary islands. It occurs to 1,800 m in the Alps (Spitzenberger 2002), 1,900 m in the Caucasus and 2,260 m in the Pyrenees (Urbańczyk 1999, K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005).

population:
A rare or infrequent species. Summer colonies, usually c. 30. Winter clusters usually small (often solitary), but can reach 500 and, rarely, up to 1,000 in France, Poland and over 7,000 in Slovakia (Schober 2004). Up to 10 in Caucasus (K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005). Extinct in the Netherlands since 1984. Last recorded in Norway in 1949, and possibly extinct (J. van der Kooij in litt. 2006). Decreases widely reported. Considered threatened in many range states. Very small numbers in large part of the range with large temporary aggregations in areas without natural caves. Populations increasing in the last 5 years in Germany now that insecticide use has been reduced (D. Kock pers. comm. 2005). Relatively frequent in woodlands in western part of Caucasus and without reported decline; rare in Ukraine (S. Kruskop pers. comm. 2005).

habitat:
Forages in mature woodland, woodland edge (and agricultural edge). Feeds on small moths. Summer roosts: usually older mature woodland with maternity sites in trees (occasionally older buildings). Depends on a large number of old trees to roost in a large part of its range, because individuals change their roosts very frequently and colonies need a large number of roost sites for this reason. Winter: Hibernation may start in trees, but later underground sites are preferred. Usually in smaller numbers (up to 50) in natural caves, but in regions where these are missing in large groups in mines and bunkers. Underground habitats may be of any type, but usually very cold sites. Recorded in old mines in winter in the Caucasus (K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005). Movements up to 290 km in Austria (Kepka 1960).

threats:
Loss of old mature woodland and ancient trees with loose bark or wood crevices (reforested areas are not suitable for this species: K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005); disturbance and loss of underground habitats, disturbance and loss of roost sites in older buildings. In Germany, habitat loss and fragmentation (caused by inter alia infrastructure development, forestry, and the renovation or demolition of old buildings used as roost sites), and disturbance (e.g. from cave tourism) are major threats (Schulenberg 2005); accidental mortality (roadkill) is also a problem (Rudolph et al. 2003).

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. It is included in Annex II (as well as Annex IV) of the EU Habitats and Species Directive, and hence requires special measures for conservation including designation of Special Areas for Conservation. Some habitat protection through Natura 2000. Research is underway to establish conservation requirements for this species. Recommendations include adopting forestry practices that maintain old trees in sufficient numbers.


redListCategoryRationale:
The species' range is wide but it is specialised to feeding above water courses and water bodies. Loss and degradation of aquatic habitats may threaten the species. There has been a rapid decline in the past in at least parts of Europe, and although this decline may now have slowed, it is nevertheless suspected to approach 30% over the last 15 years (3 generations). Consequently the species is classed as Near Threatened (approaching A2c) at the European and EU 25 levels.

range:
Myotis dasycneme occurs from north-west Europe (north-western France and southern Scandinavia) south to Serbia and Montenegro, Ukraine, and north Kazakhstan and east to the River Yenisey in central Russia, with few record from China. Historic or subfossil records exist from Switzerland, Austria and the former Yugoslavia. Recorded from sea level to 1,500 m.

population:
It is rarely abundant, and ranks among the rarest bat species in Europe. Summer colonies usually less than 100, but can reach 500. In winter sites, usually roost singly or small groups of up to 10, few sites with more than 200 individuals (maximum 700). Although no quantitative data on population trends are available, the species is reported as seriously declining in much of Europe.

habitat:
This species feeds principally over open calm water, particularly canals, rivers and lakes, on small emerging and emergent insects, often taken from the water surface. It prefers water lined by open rough vegetation without trees. Most of the known summer maternity roosts are in buildings, often in large attics and church steeples, in groups of 40-600. Some tree  and bat box roosts are recorded. It frequently hibernates in underground habitats ranging from natural caves to cellars and bunkers. It is a partial migrant, with winter and summer roosts often separated by more than 100 km (maximum recorded: 350 km), and it may need good habitat links between summer and winter roosts.

threats:
Threatened by habitat change, including renovation and maintenance of buildings with roosts involving the use of chemicals for remedial timber treatment that are toxic to mammals. Few nursery roost sites are known and many of these have been lost, although numbers in hibernation sites have shown a slower decline in the Netherlands. Water pollution may also be a threat; the species already has a relatively restricted foraging habitat of broad, open flat water of canals, rivers and lakes with relatively open banks, with possibly some further seasonal (summer) restriction within utilised habitat. Such restrictions in summer may be opportunistic rather than enforced, and it may be that the requirements for wider dispersal in spring, and possibly autumn, is more of a conservation problem than concentration in summer in good foraging habitat close to the roost. The requirements during migration are not known and may be a constraint (Limpens et al. 2000, Hutson et al. 2001)

conservationAction:
Protected in all European range states, and possibly in most of rest of range. In Europe it is included in Annex II of the EEC Council Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora 1992 (EEC Habitat Directive) requiring full protection and designation of Special Areas of Conservation to maintain it and its habitats. Other international treaties of relevance are the Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe (Bonn Convention 1994), Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (the Bern Convention 1982) and Bern Convention Recommendation 36 (1992, Conservation of Underground Habitats). Most European range states are party to at least one of these treaties. Numbers in underground habitats have increased following site protection. Considerable effort has been applied to the conservation of known maternity roosts, but not always with success in view of requirements for renovation and maintenance of buildings used as roosts. Particularly in the Netherlands the use of bat detectors has more clearly demonstrated the distribution of the species and hence allowed more precise definition of foraging habitat requirements and the need for an adequate network of protected flightpaths between roosts and foraging sites. Under the Agreement on the Conservation of Populations of European Bats, the species is selected  for examination of its migratory behaviour.The Bern Convention has commissioned a Species Action Plan under its obligations to the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (Hutson et al. 2001). Current (2006) research in the Netherlands and Germany focuses on conservation requirements and migration.

redListAssessors:
Tony Hutson, Stéphane Aulagnier, Zoltan Nagy


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Not Applicable (NA)EU 25 regional assessment: Not Applicable (NA)Assessed as Not Applicable as it is of marginal occurrence in Europe.

range:
Found in "Rhodes (Greece), Turkey, Egypt, Yemen, Israel, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, east to Mongolia, NW China, and Pakistan" (Wilson and Reeder 2005). Less than 1% of its global range falls within the European Mammal Assessment region. Altitude: to 2,100 m.

population:
Nothing known, but nowhere common. Seems to be more common in arid regions. Colony size probably small (e.g. to c.20).

habitat:
Forges over open habitats, including disturbed (e.g. agricultural) habitats and around street lights. Roosts in crevices in buildings (including ruins) and rock faces.

threats:
Not known; apparently a species that adapts to artificial habitats.

conservationAction:
Protected through Eurobats (Bonn Convention) and Bern Convention, and included in Annex IV of EU Habitats and Species Directive in parts of range where these apply. No specific conservation actions known.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)The species is widespread and common, and there is no evidence of current significant population decline. Consequently it is classed as Least Concern.

range:
Vespertilio murinus has a wide distribution in the northern Palaearctic, from France and the Netherlands in the west through central, northern, and eastern Europe and Siberia to the Pacific coast. The northern limit is above 60°N in Fennoscandia and ca. 63°N in Russia, and the southern limit of its range passes through the Balkan peninsula, northern Iran, central Asia, Afghanistan, northern Pakistan, and China. The southern records refer to wintering individuals, and the most western records refer to vagrants. Breeding is restricted to the northern part of the range in this migratory species. It occurs from sea level to over 3,000 m.

population:
An abundant species in northern parts of its European range. Summer maternity colonies number 30-50 (exceptionally 200) females; males may also form large colonies in summer. In winter it usually occurs singly or in small groups (although clusters of up to 30 have been recorded). Populations are expanding in some parts of the range, for example Denmark (H. J. Baagøe pers. comm.) and the Netherlands (H.J.G.A. Limpens pers. comm.)

habitat:
It forages in open areas over various habitat types (forest, urban, steppe, agricultural land). It feeds on moths and beetles. Summer roosts tend to be situated in houses or other buildings; also rarely hollow trees, nest boxes, or rock crevices. Winter roost sites include rock fissures, often (as substitute) crevices in tall buildings (including, or especially, in cities), occasionally tree holes or cellars. Winter roosts are usually in colder sites that are exposed to temperature changes. Migrations of up to 1,780 km have been recorded (Markovets et al. 2004), although the species is sedentary in a large part of its range.

threats:
Although not a major threat, the species is affected by loss of or disturbance to roosts in buildings.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention, in parts of its range where these apply. It is included in Annex IV of EU Habitats & Species Directive. No specific conservation actions are known.

redListAssessors:
Tony Hutson, Friederike Spitzenberger, Stéphane Aulagnier, Ioan Coroiu, Michael Stubbe


taxonomicNotes:
The species has recently been separated into two species, P. pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus. Their respective distribution and status are not yet fully clarified (Wilson and Reeder 2005).

range:
Pipistrellus pipistrellus is a widespread western Palaearctic species with a range extending from the British Isles through much of Europe (with the exception of northern Fennoscandia) to the Volga and Caucasus; and through parts of north-western Africa and south-west Asia to central Asia. Its detailed distribution, as distinct from that of the recently-differentiated P. pygmaeus, is still to be established. It occurs from sea level to 2,000 m.

population:
A widespread and abundant species, one of the most common bats in many parts of its range. Summer maternity colonies generally number 25-50 individuals, although colonies of as many as 200 have been recorded. In winter, it tends to occur singly or in small groups, although some very large groups have been recorded (e.g., up to 45,000 in caves in Romania and Slovakia) (Nagy and Szanto 2003). Significant declines have been recorded in some European countries (e.g. Britain), although in Britain at least the trend may now have stabilised (Battersby 2005).

habitat:
It forages in a variety of habitats including open woodland and woodland edges, farmland, rural gardens and urban areas. It feeds on small moths and flies. Summer roosts are mainly found in buildings and trees, and individuals frequently change roost site through the maternity period. Most winter roost sites are located in crevices in buildings, although cracks in cliffs and caves and possibly holes in trees may also be used. It is not especially migratory in most of its range, but movements of up to 1,123 km have been recorded (Buresh 1941 in Hutterer et al. 2005). In at least parts of its range it seems to benefit from urbanisation (M. Sharifi pers. comm. 2005).

threats:
As a high proportion of colonies are found in buildings, the species may be particularly vulnerable to anthropogenic factors, such as disturbance, timber treatment and building renovation (Battersby 2005). However this is not thought to be a major threat to the species at present.

conservationAction:
It is protected under national law in most range states. It is also protected under international law through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention in parts of its range where these apply, and is included in Annex IV of the EU Habitats & Species Directive. It occurs in many protected areas. No specific conservation actions are known.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)The species is widespread and abundant, and there is no evidence of current significant population decline. Consequently the species is classed as Least Concern.

range:
Pipistrellus nathusii is a western Palaearctic migratory species. It is restricted to Europe, Asia Minor and Transcaucasia where it is found at latitudes of up to ca. 37-63°N. In Europe, it is generally widespread although absent from most of Iberia and Fennoscandia. With few exceptions, maternity colonies are confined to northeastern Europe (eastern Germany, Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia: Vierhaus 2004). The first observation of Pipistrellus nathusii breeding in Finland was made in 2006 (H. Henttonen pers. comm. 2006) when a colony of c.10 individuals, including lactating females, was found close to the southern coast some  50-60 km east of Helsinki. The species is typically associated with lowland areas but has been recorded up to 2,200 m in the Alps (Bogdanowicz 1999).

population:
It is abundant in northern parts of its range, and less common but increasingly recorded in southern and western parts of its range. Summer maternity colonies of up to 200 individuals have been recorded, but large winter aggregations are not known.

habitat:
It forages over a range of habitats including woodland edge, wetlands, and open parkland. Summer roosts are located in tree holes, buildings, and bat boxes, mainly in woodland areas. Winter roost sites include crevices in cliffs, buildings and around the entrance of caves, often in relatively cold, dry, and exposed sites. It is a migratory species, with movements of up to 1,905 km recorded (Petersons 2004). Migrations typically follow a NE-SW route (Bogdanowicz 1999).

threats:
Although not major threats, the species is affected by habitat fragmentation on migration routes, loss of and disturbance to roosts in buildings, loss of mature trees with cavities and/or loose bark etc., and water quality changes which may affect food supply.

conservationAction:
It is protected under national law in most range states. It is also protected under international law through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention in parts of its range where these apply, and is included in Annex IV of the EU Habitats & Species Directive. It is regarded as a species of special concern by Eurobats. Proposals for the conservation of the species in Europe (including research requirements) were made by Limpens and Schulte (2000) following a workshop in Germany in 1998. They recommended a Europe-wide census involving assessment of the species' population status and trends, identification of its mating, hibernation and maternity areas, investigation of migration routes, and identification of preferred resting areas on migration routes.


taxonomicNotes:
Two papers by two different teams published in 2004 split the species in three (Appleton et al. 2004, Tian et al. 2004); only one of these taxa is present in the Western Palaeartic.

redListCategoryRationale:
European and EU 25: Classed as Near Threatened. Significant population declines and range contractions have been recorded in a number of range states; overall the rate of population decline is likely to approach 30%.

range:
A southern Palaearctic species; patchily distributed over its range in some huge and vulnerable colonies. It typically occurs at altitudes of up to 1,400m (commuting up to 2,600m).

population:
In southern Europe and Asia Minor it is widely distributed and common, but it has lost the northern parts of its range since the 1960s. Summer breeding colonies typically number 500-10,000 individuals (formerly up to 80,000 animals in Bulgaria and 100,000 in India). It winters in clusters of at least a hundred individuals (exceptionally up to 33,000 animals in Spain and Romania). Population trends vary in different parts of the range: in most of south-east Europe and the Middle East it appears to be stable, whereas very significant recent declines have occurred in northern parts of the European range. In south-west Europe there have been recent mass mortality events.Extinction has occured in Germany and Ukraine. In Switzerland the species has declined since the 1960s and is now close to extinction, and in Austria the hibernating population has declined from 2,500 to 1-2 individuals and all maternity colonies have been lost. In Romania, half of the roosts have disappeared since the 1960s. However, no decline has been recorded in large colonies in Croatia and Bulgaria. In 2002 mass mortalities of this species were reported for populations in France, Spain and Portugal; there are also historical records for such mortalities in Italy and Australia and a possible incidence in Iran. A herpesvirus was found but not identified as the cause of the die offs. Hundreds of individuals were found dead in spring. Mortality up to 60% in one year (2002) was reported in France (Roué and Némoz 2002), and 40% mortality occurred in Spain during the same period including 1,000 dead individuals out of 6,000 in one colony. A number of sites were subsequently deserted. Outside Europe, it is the second most common bat species in Turkey and Iran, with large colonies of thousands of individuals (A. Karatash and M. Sharifi pers. comm. 2005). The population in Iran is probably stable (M. Sharifi pers. comm. 2005). Populations in the Caucasus are considered Near Threatened (K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005).

habitat:
It forages in a variety of open and semi-open natural and artificial habitats, including suburban areas. It feeds mainly on moths, and occasionally on flies and spiders. It is a colonial species that roosts almost exclusively in caves and mines, often in large mixed colonies with other cave-dwelling bat species. Large and warm caves are preferred. Solitary animals and small groups may sometimes occupy other types of shelter. In winter it hibernates in underground sites (usually large caves with a constant microclimate). Schreiber's bat is a migrant species which changes its roosts frequently, long-distance movements occur occasionally (longest recorded distance 833 km: Hutterer et al. 2005).

threats:
Disturbance and loss of underground habitats and pesticide use may threaten this species. In the Caucasus, disturbance caused by tourism in caves is a problem (K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005). The cause of recent mass mortality events is unknown. A meeting was held at the 9th European Bat Conference to discuss these incidents. Veterinary investigations in Spain did not identify any disease as the cause of the die offs, and there is increasing belief that the die offs are caused by bad weather in late winter/early spring.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. It is included in Annex II (and IV) of the EU Habitats and Species Directive, and hence requires special measures for conservation including designation of Special Areas for Conservation. There is some habitat protection through Natura 2000, and some roosts are already protected by national legislation. There have been a number of LIFE-funded projects for this species in Spain, Italy, Romania and Germany.

redListAssessors:
Tony Hutson, Stephane Aulagnier, Petr Benda


taxonomicNotes:
The taxonomic status of the species has been confirmed by Spitzenberger et al. (2006). Here we refer to P. teneriffae as the population on the Canaries. Northwest African populations previously assigned to teneriffae are currently included in kolombatovici, and Balkan populations are assigned to austriacus. 

There are no significant genetic differences between populations on the different islands (Justeet al. 2004).

redListCategoryRationale:
This species has a small range (<3,000 km2) on three, and maybe four, of the Canary Islands (and it is severely fragmented). It is linked to forest habitats that are shrinking, and recent declines have been recorded in the largest known breeding colony. For these reasons, it is assessed as Endangered.

range:
Plecotus teneriffae is endemic to the Canary Islands (Tenerife, La Palma, El Hierro and may also be on La Gomera, but presence there has not yet been confirmed although there is suitable habitat), where its extent of occurrence is less than 3,000 km2. It occurs at elevations between 100 and 2,300 m (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

population:
Summer colonies usually consist of 10-30 females (the maximum number recorded is 37). Winter clusters are usually small (c.10 animals), and the species often roosts solitarily at this time of year. There are only two known breeding colonies (on La Palma and Tenerife respectively). The larger of these two (the La Palma colony) has declined almost 80% in number in recent years (Palomo and Gisbert 2002; J. Juste pers. comm. 2007).The population is estimated to be between 500 and 2,000 individuals (J. Juste pers. comm. 2007, based on information in the Spanish Red Data Book).

habitat:
It is highly associated with woodland habitats (coniferous and mixed), although it occasionally forages in more open and arid areas. Its diet consists primarily of moths. Recorded roost sites include volcanic tubes, caves, and crevices in abandoned buildings (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). Tree holes and bat or bird boxes are never used (Benzal and Fajardo 1999). The La Palma maternity colony is located in a natural cave. This species is considered to be sedentary (Fajardo and Benzal 2002 in Hutterer et al. 2005).

threats:
The population declined in the 1950s after aerial fumigation for pest control. Current threats include use of pesticides on agricultural land near to the forests, loss of woodland habitat, and restoration of buildings that results in the disturbance of colonies and the destruction of roost sites (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). The recent decline of the La Palma maternity colony has been attributed to disturbance, and it is known that at least one individual from this colony has been taken by private collectors (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). Shafts into the mountains to collect water are increasingly being fenced which is detrimental to the survival of the bats.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. It is included in Annex IV of the EU Habitats and Species Directive. A bat protection programme aimed at protecting caves used as roost sites from human disturbance was instigated in 1993 (Mitchell-Jones et al. 1999). Protection of the species' woodland foraging habitat is also recommended (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

redListAssessors:
Aulagnier, S., Juste, J., Palmeirim, J. & Alcaldé, J.T.


taxonomicNotes:
Includes Eptesicus japonensis (synonym of E. nilssonii). Could be a separate form in the southwest Asia region (K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005)

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)The species is widespread and abundant and there is no indication of significant decline at present. Consequently it is classed as Least Concern.

range:
Eptesicus nilssonii is a widespread Palaearctic species that occurs from France and Norway through northern and central Europe and Asia east to the Pacific seaboard and northern Japan. In Europe, it occurs north to well above the Arctic Circle, but is absent or occasional in the west (the Low Countries, UK, western France, Iberia). It occurs from sea level to 2,300 m (van der Kooij in litt. 2006).

population:
A widespread and common species over much of its range, indeed the most abundant bat species in the north (Rydell 1999). Summer maternity colonies usually number 10-100 females.

habitat:
It forages in open areas of diverse habitats, including woodland edge (or above woodland), small-scale farmland, parks and gardens with trees (van der Kooij in litt. 2006), over lakes and rivers and at street lights. In autumn, it forages and displays in high mountains above the tree line (Spitzenberger 2002). Its diet comprises small insects such as Diptera. Summer roosts are located mainly in houses, occasionally in tree holes. It may change roost sites during summer. Winter roosts are found mainly in houses, cellars, and natural and artificial underground habitats. In winter the species roosts singly or in small groups of 2-4 individuals. Long-distance movements of up to 450 km have been recorded by Tress (1994).

threats:
The main threat is likely to be disturbance of colonies in houses (and possibly when hibernating in underground habitats). However this is not thought to be a major threat to the species.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention in parts of range where these apply. It is included in Annex IV of EU Habitats & Species Directive, and there is some habitat protection through Natura 2000. No specific conservation actions are known.


taxonomicNotes:
Formerly included in Myotis mystacinus (Kuhl, 1817); the species was differentiated (von Helversen et al. 2001) on the base of karyological, genetic and echolocation characters.

redListCategoryRationale:
The species has been recently described (2001) and is known from few localities. It is not easy to identify morphologically. More localities are being reported, but insufficient information is currently available on the extent of the range, population size and population trends. Consequently it is assessed as Data Deficient. Based on present knowledge the species is endemic to Europe.

range:
This species was recently described and is poorly known (von Helversen et al. 2001), but current information suggests that it is endemic to central and southern Europe. It is known from Spain, France, Switzerland, Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Montenegro, Romania, Bulgaria, and Greece (Ruedi et al. 2002, Benda et al. 2003, Agirre-Mendi et al. 2004, von Helversen 2004, Helversen et al. 2006, P. Benda in litt. 2006). The species is possibly present for most of Serbia and areas of Montenegro (M. Paunovic pers. comm. 2007).

population:
Its population size and trend is unknown. To date, c.15 localities are recorded in international publications (von Helversen 2001, Benda et al. 2003, von Helversen 2004). However, new localities continue to be found (EMA Workshop 2006, Mediterranean Mammals Workshop 2007).

habitat:
According to present scarce knowledge, it is a tree dwelling and forest foraging species. In parts of the range at least it prefers to hunt in small valleys with deciduous trees and flowing water, which is a threatened habitat. The only breeding colony was found in a tree hollow. It may also occur in rural gardens and urban habitats. It probably occurs in underground habitats in winter.

threats:
Damage to riparian forest is believed be a threat in parts of range (von Helversen et al. 2001). Wider forest and roost tree loss (especially in wet old growth forests) may also be threats.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for the species' protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. It is included in Annex IV of the EU Habitats and Species Directive, and some habitat protection may be provided through Natura 2000. Conservation recommendations include further research on distribution, population status and trends, ecology, habitat requirements, and threats. Measures to increase public awareness of this little-known species are also recommended.

redListAssessors:
Hutson, A.M., Aulagnier, S., Nagy, Z., Karataş, A., Palmeirim, J. & Paunović, M.


taxonomicNotes:
Formerly included in Myotis mystacinus; it was differentiated on the basis of morphology (Benda and Tsytsulina 2000).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)This species has a wide range. Population size has not been quantified, but it is not believed to approach the thresholds for the population size criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. less than 10,000 mature individuals in conjunction with appropriate decline rates and subpopulation qualifiers), as the species is described as common in at least parts of its range. Population trend has not been quantified, but it is not believed to approach the threshold for the population decline criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. declining more than 30% in ten years or three generations). For these reasons, it is evaluated as Least Concern.

range:
Myotis aurascens is a western Palaearctic species; from present knowledge it is distributed in south-east Mediterranean and steppe Europe, and in south-west Asia (from Italy through the Balkans to southern Russia and Transcaucasia). In that area it is the most common of the M. mystacinus group and one of most common bat species (Benda 2004).

population:
Exact details are not known, but it is a widespread and common species.

habitat:
Recorded from forest and scrub (including Mediterranean-type scrub), and likely to occur in underground habitats.

threats:
Potential threats include habitat loss (as a result of infrastructure development and other causes), and disturbance of roost sites in buldings or underground habitats. However, these are not thought to be major threats to the species at present.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for the protection of this species through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. It is included in Annex IV of EU Habitats & Species Directive. Some habitat protection may be provided through Natura 2000. Further research is required on population size and trends, distribution, habitat requirements and ecology, and potential threats to this species. Measures to increase public awareness are also recommended.


taxonomicNotes:
Monotypic form, without taxonomic complexities (Baagøe 2001).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)EU 25 regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)A rare species that occurs at low densities and has specific habitat requirements. Its population is fragmented and its sedentary habits mean that it does not colonise new areas easily. There is very little information on population trends, but it is suspected that the species is declining as a result of the loss and degradation of specific types of old-growth woodland, compounded by other threats such as human disturbance. It is suspected that these threats may result in a population decline of >30% over a 15 year period including both the past and the future. Consequently it is assessed as Vulnerable.

range:
A western Palaearctic species, it occurs in central and southern Europe and temperate south-western Asia (Caucasus region and Asia Minor). It is found on several islands including Bornholm, Corsica, Elba, Capri, Sicily (Baagoe 2001). It has been recorded from sea level to as high as 1,500m in central Spain (Benzal and de Paz 1991).

population:
It is considered rare throughout its range, although in optimal habitat it may be regularly found, and it is a typical member of central European bat communities. In southern Europe and the Caucasus it is rare (K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005), and there has been only one confirmed individual in Iran (Sharifi et al. 2000). There are also few records from Turkey, where it has been found in groups of up to six individuals in six localities (A. Karatash pers. comm. 2005). Breeding colonies are small, numbering up to 10-30 individuals (K. Tsytsulina, J. T. Alcalde, A. Hutson pers. comm. 2006). Populations are fragmented as a result of the loss in historic times of the majority of its forest habitat. There is very little information on recent population trends. However, one of the few colonies known from Spain has disappeared in recent years because of human disturbance (J. T. Alcalde and J. Juste pers. comm. 2006).

habitat:
This species has specialised habitat requirements, and is largely dependent on mature natural forests. In the south-west Asia region it is found in broadleaf forest and sometimes mixed forest (K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005). In Europe, it tends to prefer mature deciduous woodland of beech and oak with a high proportion of old trees. Densities of this species are highest in forests that are managed according to environmental (rather than strictly economic) principles. It is occasionally found in artificial habitats such as pasture, plantations (especially orchards) and rural gardens. In summer it roosts in tree-holes, or occasionally in buildings; bird and bat boxes are fairly readily accepted (Schlapp 1999). In winter it hibernates in underground habitats, and possibly also in hollow trees. It forages in woodland and along woodland edge for Lepidoptera, Diptera, Planipennia, and also non-flying insects. A sedentary species (Hutterer et al. 2005).

threats:
Threats include inappropriate management and development of woodland habitats, intensive agriculture (e.g. use of pesticides on farmland adjacent to woodland occupied by the species) and human disturbance of roost sites. The loss of old trees with hollows is a particular problem. In Germany, infrastructure developments (and associated habitat fragmentation) and forestry are the main threats (Schulenberg 2005).

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. It is included in Annex II (and (IV) of EU Habitats and Species Directive, and hence requires special measures for conservation including designation of Special Areas for Conservation. There is some habitat protection through Natura 2000, and the species is found in protected areas all over its range. It benefits directly or indirectly from a number of LIFE funded projects in Europe, and there are current research projects focussing on the species. Appropriate habitat management involves leaving old trees in sufficient numbers, as each individual colony uses up to 30 trees in the summer. Monitoring is required to determine population trends in this species.


taxonomicNotes:
Based on analyses of sequence data of mitochondrial genes (Ruedi and Mayer 2001), Wilson and Reeder (2005) treated myotis, blythii, oxygnathus and punicus as separate species, an arrangement used also by Spitzenberger (2002). However, the IUCN SSC Chiroptera Specialist Group awaits further details to justify the specific separation of M. blythii and M. oxygnathus. We follow Castella et al. 2000 in treating the populations of North Africa, Corsica, Sardinia and Malta as a species: M. punicus.

redListCategoryRationale:
European and EU 25: Near Threatened. This species has declined in many parts of its range both inside and outside Europe. There is evidence of rapid ongoing decline in at least some areas, although in other areas the trend may be stable. It is suspected that, overall, population declines may approach 30% over the last 21 years (3 generations). Consequently, the species is assessed as Near Threatened (approaching A2b) at the European and EU 25 levels. There is not expected to be any rescue effect from populations outside the region, as these may be declining too.

range:
A south-west Palearctic species, it occurs in southern Europe, southern parts of central Europe, and non-arid parts of southwestern Asia from Asia Minor, the Caucasus region and Palestine to Kashmir, the Altai mountains, Nepal, and parts of China. The subspecies M.b. oxygnathus occurs in Europe and western Anatolia: Portugal, Spain, France, Italy (including Sicily). Switzerland, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine (including Krym), the Balkan Peninsula and parts of Turkey (Topál and Ruedi 2001). In the Caucasus, Turkey, Iran, the Russian Federation and Georgia it is confimed to occur no higher than 1,700m (K. Tsytsulina, M. Sharifi and A. Karatash pers. comm. 2005). However, it is found at altitudes of up to 2,100m in the winter in southern Spain (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

population:
A gregarious species, it congregates in nursery and/or hibernating colonies of up to 500 individuals. There have been large population reductions since the 1950s in several areas, including central Europe, Israel, and central Asia, and there is evidence of ongoing decline in some parts of the range, although in other areas populations appear stable. It remains an abundant species. In Turkey it occurs in large clusters and is the second most common bat species (A. Karatash pers. comm. 2005). In Iran there is evidence of population decline, although it remains one of the most sighted species (M. Sharifi pers. comm. 2005). The Spanish population is estimated to be smaller than 20,000 individuals, and is concentrated in the southern part of the country (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). It is declining, at a rate of one third over the last 10 years in important large colonies in Andalucia (Franco and Rodrigues de los Santos 2001). It is one of the rarest species in Portugal, where its population of c.2,000 individuals is declining (Rodrigues et al. 2003). It is uncommon in the northern part of the range (Austria) but seems stable (Spitzenberger 2002). In France, the population of over 20,000 individuals experienced declines since the 1960s, but may now be stable (S. Aulagnier pers. comm. 2006). In Romania, one well-known colony has declined by 95% as a result of disturbance by speleological tourism (Z. Nagy pers. comm. 2006). It often occurs in mixed colonies with Myotis myotis and identification is sometimes problematic.

habitat:
It forages in scrub and grassland habitats, including farmland and gardens. Maternity colonies are usually found in underground habitats such as caves and mines, and sometimes in attics of buildings (particularly in central Europe).It hibernates in winter in underground sites with a relatively constant temperature of 6-12ºC. The species is an occasional migrant, with movements of up to 488 km recorded (Hutterer et al. 2005; previous reports of 600 km are erroneous).

threats:
Changes in land management, especially agricultural pollution and other agricultural activities, can affect populations of this species. Disturbance to roosts in caves and buildings may also be a problem.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. It is included in Annex II (and IV) of the EU Habitats and Species Directive, and hence requires special measures for conservation including designation of Special Areas for Conservation. There is some habitat protection through Natura 2000. In some countries (including Spain, Portugal, and Italy) several colonies are protected by closing entrances to caves with fences. More colonies should be protected.

redListAssessors:
Tony Hutson, Friederike Spitzenberger, Javier Juste, Stéphane Aulagnier, Juan Tomas Alcaldé, Zoltan Nagy, Ioan Coroiu


taxonomicNotes:
In this assessment we regard M. brandtii as a species consisisting of two forms, M. brandtii brandtii (Europe, Caucasus, Western Siberia), and M. b. gracilis (central and Eastern Siberia, Mongolia, Korea, Manchurea, Japan) (Benda and Tsytsulina 2000, Tsytsulina 2001). K. Tsytsulina has a paper in press which proposes two separate species and revises the distribution. Both the eastern and the western forms are widespread and abundant.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)The species is widespread and abundant, and there is no indication of current significant decline. Consequently it is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Myotis brandtii is a boreal Palaearctic species, distributed from Ireland, central Europe and Fennoscandia through the Russian Federation and central Asia to the northern Far East. It has a scattered distribution in south-east Europe and Anatolia. It occurs from sea level to 1,800 m.

population:
One of the more common species within northern parts of its regular distribution area. It is decreasing in Turkey, at the southern edge of its global range (A. Karatash pers. comm. 2005).

habitat:
It inhabits mixed and broadleaf forest, and sometimes coniferous forest, often in close proximity to water (K. Tsytsulina pers. comm. 2005, Gerell 1999). It is less often found near human habitation than its congener M. mystacinus. Summer roosts are sited in buildings, tree holes, and bird and bat boxes. In winter it hibernates in caves and mines. It is an occasional migrant, with movements of up to 618 km recorded (Hutterer et al. 2005).

threats:
There are no major threats known. Localized possible threats include changes in land-use practices (including woodland loss, infrastructure development and pesticide use). Human disturbance to roosts in builidings and underground habitats may also be a problem. In the eastern Black Sea area, it prefers to roost behind window shutters in older buildings, and these sites are not provided in modern buildings. Another popular roost site in this region is barrels hung in trees for honey bee farming, and when the barrels are removed to check for honey, roosting individuals are disturbed (A. Karatash pers. comm. 2005).


taxonomicNotes:
Most of the recent authors consider M. capaccinii as a monotypic species (Spitzenberger and von Helversen 2001).

redListCategoryRationale:
The species occupies specialised habitat in Mediterranean countries (caves and associated water systems). In the eastern part of the range it congregates in winter in a few sites threatened by human disturbance. It has declined between 30 and 50% in Spain in the last 10 years, and there are indications of decline in other parts of the range. It only hunts on watercourses and is therefore threatened by water pollution and development of touristic infrastructure, which is expected to continue in the future. It is suspected that population declines are underway that will exceed 30% over 18 years (3 generations), and for that reason the species is considered Vulnerable at the European and EU 25 levels.

range:
Myotis capaccinii is sparsely distributed from eastern Iberia through the northern Mediterranean to coastal Asia Minor and Israel, Lebanon and Jordan, and also in Mesopotamia from Turkey to Iran and in north-west Africa. It occurs from sea level to 900 m.

population:
Locally it can be abundant. Generally, the population is fragmented, but these "fragments" may constitute robust parts of the overall population. Declines have been reported in many range states. In Spain, the population has declined by 30-50% in the last 10 years to fewer than 10,000 individuals. Only 30 colonies are known that comprise more than 20 individuals (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). At least six important colonies are threatened by the construction of buildings nearby and five colonies have disappeared over the last 10 years. In France the population has declined to very low numbers (an estimated 3,800 individuals). Colonies have been lost in the western part of the range in the last 15 years (S. Aulagnier pers. comm. 2006). Colonies in central Romania known from the 1960s have disappeared, and the species is now restricted to the south. The species is almost absent in winter and probably hibernates in Bulgaria (Z. Nagy pers. comm. 2006). The Bulgarian population is estimated at c.20,000. In Croatia there are still some large colonies but these are threatened by pollution of karstic water bodies (F. Spitzenberger pers. comm. 2006), and the species is listed as Endangered in the Croatian Red Book of Mammals (Tvrtković 2006). In Turkey it has a decreasing population and is considered vulnerable; it is most often encountered in small groups, very occasionally up to several hundred individuals (A. Karatash pers. comm. 2005). The species is naturally rare in Iran (M. Sharifi pers. comm. 2005) and north Africa (S. Aulagnier pers. comm. 2006). The size of colonies is smaller in the western part of the range (several hundreds of individuals in summer) than in the eastern part (up to several thousands in winter).

habitat:
It forages over wetlands and waterways (including artifical waterbodies, such as canals and reservoirs), also scrub. It generally roosts in underground habitats (principally caves). Movements between summer and winter colonies are mostly within a distance of 50 km (maximum 140 km: Hutterer et al. 2005)

threats:
Threats include changes in water quality through pollution and dam building, and loss of water bodies and watercourses. Damage or disturbance to caves used as roosts may also be a problem.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. It is included in Annex II (and IV) of EU Habitats and Species Directive, and hence requires special measures for conservation including designation of Special Areas for Conservation. Some habitat protection through Natura 2000. In Spain, fences are in place to protect several known colonies. Measures needed include protection of colonies and improvement of water quality.


taxonomicNotes:
This assessment refers to M. daubentonii sensu lato, thus including M. petax from Altai and Siberia which was recently separated as species by Matveev et al. (2005).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)The species is widespread and abundant, and there are indications that its population is currently increasing. Consequently it is classed as Least Concern.

range:
Myotis daubentonii is distributed from Portugal, Ireland and Norway through Europe and northern Asia to the Far East (Korea and Japan). It is absent in Central Asia from the Caspian region to the Altai mountains, and only a few records are known from Asia Minor and the western Caucasus. There are records from sea level to 1,400 m in the Alps (Spitzenberger 2002).

population:
One of the most abundant bats in many parts of its range, and the only European bat species for which continuing population increase from the 1950s to present has been recorded. A very common species in central and eastern Europe and in northern Asia.

habitat:
It forages over natural and artificial water bodies (including fjords), sometimes in woodland or scrub. Summer roosts are in trees, buildings and other artificial structures (e.g. bridges, cellars). It winters in wide range of underground habitats. Seasonal movements between winter and summer roosts are mostly within a distance of 100-150 km (Hutterer et al. 2005). The longest distance covered is 257 km (Tress et al. 2004 in Hutterer et al. 2005).

threats:
Changes in water quality may reduce food supply, and loss of or damage and disturbance to roost sites in trees, buildings, other artificial structures, and underground habitats may cause temporary localised losses. However, these are not thought to be serious threats to the survival of this abundant and expanding species.

conservationAction:
It is protected by national legislation in most range states. There are also international legal obligations for its protection through the Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention in parts of its range where these apply. It is included in Annex IV of EU Habitats & Species Directive, and there is some habitat protection through Natura 2000.


taxonomicNotes:
The population of the western part of the distributional range (NW Africa, Europe, Caucasus and Levantine regions) belongs to the nominotypic subspecies (M. emarginatus emarginatus); in the Asian part of the range two further subspecies are found (M. e. sogdianus and M. e. desertorum).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)The species experienced a significant decline from the 1960s to the 1990s, but now it is expanding in central Europe and is stable or not significantly declining elsewhere. The range is still large and the species is not restricted to a specialized habitat, although it has a very specialized diet.

range:
Myotis emarginatus occurs in southern Europe and southern part of western and central Europe and non-arid parts of south-western Asia from Asia Minor, Caucasus region and Palestine to Oman, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan; also in north-west Africa. It occurs from sea level to 1,800 m, highest records in the Alps are 812 m (maternity colony) and 1,505 m (hibernaculum) (Spitzenberger 2002).

population:
Locally it can be rare or common. The species experienced a significant decline from the 1960s to the 1990s, but more recently the numbers in several regions have increased and the species has spread into new areas. It lives in large colonies (up to 1,200 individuals in Austria in one maternity colony). It is included in the Red List of the Russian Federation as Vulnerable, on the basis of a past population decline of 30% or more inferred from a reduction in range. The species is of marginal occurrence in the Russian Federation.

habitat:
It forages over scrub and grassland. Diet unique in Europe as it mainly feeds on spiders and flies. In summer, it roosts in underground habitats and, in central Europe, in buildings (in loft spaces). Sometimes roosts in summer with Rhinolophus species. It winters in underground sites. In Iran and the Caucasus, the species occurs in a variety of habitats, but in low numbers (M. Sharifi pers. comm. 2005). Mainly a sedentary species, but movements of up to 105 km have been recorded (Schunger et al. 2004 in Hutterer et al. 2005)

threats:
In Europe the species is mainly associated with agricultural landscapes, therefore all agricultural activities can affect populations of this species. Loss of and disturbance to roost sites in buildings and underground sites are also threats.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)The species experienced a significant population reduction in the past but is now stable (at lower densities) or recovering throughout the range. The range is still wide and the population large (tens of thousands of individuals in various countries). Consequently it is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Myotis myotis is a western Palaearctic species; it occurs in western, central and southern Europe (with individual records from southern England and southern Sweden) and in Asia Minor and in the Levant.

population:
A common species in most of its distributional range, populations of several regions are fluctuating in numbers. During the 1980s and 1990s in central Europe there were increases in numbers following major declines in earlier decades. It forms large nursery colonies (tens to thousands of individuals) in caves, in central Europe also in loft spaces. In Austria the population was estimated to be 76,000 individuals in 1999 and is still increasing (Spitzenberger 2002, F. Spitzenberger pers. comm. 2006). In France 37,000 individuals were recorded in summer 1995 (Roué and Groupe Chiroptères 1997); trend data are not available. A small population went extinct in Britain in 1990 (A. Hutson pers. comm. 2006)

habitat:
It forages over woodland edge, scrub, and pasture. It preys on large insects, mainly flightless beetles, gleaned from the ground. It roosts in underground sites all year in much of range, and in buildings (loft-spaces) in summer in northern parts. Occasionally it forms small colonies in trees. It is an occasional migrant; the longest recorded movement is 436 km (Simon et al. 2004).

threats:
In Europe, it is a typical species of agricultural mosaic landscapes, therefore agricultural activities (e.g. pesticide use, intensification that leads to loss of scrubby patches, hedgerows, and small woods) can affect populations of this species. Loss of or damage to roost sites in underground habitats and buildings may also be a threat. However these are not thought to be major threats to the species as a whole at present.

conservationAction:
Protected by national legislation in most range states. Also international legal obligations for protection through Bonn Convention (Eurobats) and Bern Convention. Included in Annex II (and IV) of EU Habitats and Species Directive, and hence requiring special measures for conservation including designation of Special Areas for Conservation. Some habitat protection through Natura 2000.


range:
Found on Rhodes (Greece); also "Asia Minor to Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran; S Caucasus" (Wilson and Reeder 2005). Less than 1% of its global range lies within the European Mammal Assessment region.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)In Europe and the EU, the species is generally rare (although it is common on some small islands) and has a relatively small and fragmented range. There is no evidence at present of population decline, but the status of the species should be monitored, and if declines in population or range occur in the future, uplisting may be warranted.

range:
Atelerix algirus is endemic to the Mediterannean region, being found across north Africa from Morocco to Libya, in Spain, and on a number of islands including the Canary Islands, Djerba, Malta, Majorca, Ibiza and Formentera. It was formerly introduced to France, but is now extinct. Its occurence in continental Europe and on many of the islands within its range may be the result of introductions by man (Lapini 1999). It typically occurs at altitudes of 0 to 400 m, although it can reach altitudes of 900 m in Morocco (Lapini 1999).

population:
It is rare in mainland Europe, and on most of the islands within its range, although it is locally common on the Canary Islands, Malta and Formentera (Lapini 1999, Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

habitat:
It is found in a range of habitats including semi-desert, dry Mediterranean scrub, grasslands, pastures, cultivated fields, and gardens, sometimes in close proximity to human habitation. It is most often found in arid areas (Lapini 1999, Palomo and Gisbert 2002). It forages at night for arthropods, small vertebrates, carrion, and fungi.

threats:
Threats include roadkill. Populations may be limited by the availability of suitable habitat (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). The species is sometimes taken from the wild to keep as a pet (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix II of the Bern Convention and Annex IV of the EU Habitats and Species Directive. Surveys and monitoring are required to determine population trends in this rare species. If there is any evidence of declines, action should be taken to protect the species. Research would be required to determine appropriate conservation measures.


taxonomicNotes:
Formerly included in europaeus, but see Suchentrunk et al. (1998), among others. Subsequently included in concolor, but genetic and morphological data suggest that concolor and roumanicus are two distinct species with parapatric distributions.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)This species is common and abundant throughout its wide range. Consequently it is considered to be Least Concern.

range:
Erinaceus roumanicus has a distribution extending from central and eastern Europe, the Baltic and the Balkan peninsula eastwards through Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia, reaching as far as western Siberia. In the south, its range extends as far as the northern Caucasus and possibly north-western Anatolia (B. Kryštufek pers. comm. 2006). It is recorded from sea level to at least 1,400 m (Lapini 1999).

population:
It is relatively rare in the colder parts of its range, but there is no evidence to suggest a population decline. It is locally common in at least some areas (Lapini 1999).

habitat:
It inhabits farmland, parks and gardens in rural and urban areas, and scrubby habitats at the edge of forests. Like its congener E. europaeus, it is more abundant in artificial than in natural habitats (Lapini 1999).

threats:
Many are killed by collision with cars (Lapini 1999), but this is unlikely to cause widespread population decline.

conservationAction:
It occurs in many protected areas throughout its wide range.


redListCategoryRationale:
This species is common and abundant throughout its wide range. Consequently it is considered to be Least Concern.

range:
Erinaceus europaeus is endemic to Europe (including European Russia), with a global distribution extending from the British Isles and the Iberian peninsula, westwards through much of western to central Europe; and from southern Fennoscandia, and the northern Baltic to north-west Russia. It was introduced recently to the Azores (Portugal); the species was recorded there in the 1990s (R. Hutterer pers. comm. 2007). In the Mediterranean, it occurs in Portugal, France (including Corsica), Spain and Italy (including Sardinia and Sicily but not present on Malta).

population:
This generally is a relatively common and widespread species. It is rare in Sardinia (Italy), where it is hunted with dogs (R. Hutterer pers. comm. 2007). The is no evidence of any population decline in most parts of its range. Many of the island populations have been introduced there from the mainland (R. Hutterer pers. comm. 2007).

habitat:
E. europaeus thrives in a variety of man-made habitats including orchards, vineyards, farmland, parks and gardens, including those in urban areas. It also occurs in deciduous woodland, woodland edge and grasslands, although it is less common in these areas (Lapini 1999). Also occurs in maquis (R. Hutterer pers. comm. 2007).

threats:
There are no major threats to this species across most of its range. In some areas, many hedgehogs are killed by collision with cars, but this is unlikely to cause serious population declines (Huijser 1999, Verkem et al. 2003). It is locally hunted and eaten in parts of its range, but this is a localised activity and is also not considered a serious threat to the species.

conservationAction:
This species is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention. It occurs in a number of protected areas throughout its wide range. It is also legally protected in many countries within its range.

redListAssessors:
Amori, G., Hutterer, R., Kryštufek, B., Yigit, N., Mitsain, G. & Palomo, L.J.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Not Evaluated (NE)This species is common and abundant throughout its wide range, but some marginal populations are fragmented and slowly declining. In Ukraine the population has historically declined dramatically, and the species is considered Critically Endangered in the national Red Data Book.

range:
Widespread in the steppe zone from Northeast Africa to Central Asia. In Europe it occurs in Southeast Ukraine, the lower Don River and Volga River basin steppes (Russian Federation) and Cis-Caucasus.

population:
It is a widespread and common species in most of the distribution area, but in marginal parts of its range populations are usually fragmented and often declining. There is a lack of detailed data on population size in the European part of the distribution area, but it is considered Critically Endangered in the Ukraine owing to its very small range and declining trend in that country (I. Zagorodnuik pers. comm. 2006). Since 1950 three fragmented populations have been recorded in Ukraine: one around the Streltsovskie Stepi Nature Reserve (last record about 50 years ago), one record from amateur source found near Lugansk city in 2001/2, and one in the Donetsk Region near shore of Azov sea. The third population is the only stable one and is largest in Ukraine. It is partly covered by the Kamennye Mogily Nature Reserve (I. Zagorodnuik pers. comm.).

habitat:
Inhabits different types of dry steppes, semi-deserts and deserts. Prefers dry river valleys, gullies, forest shelter belts, abandoned irrigation ditches and shrubby areas. Often settles in oases and around human settlements. Avoids tugais and high herbage. Lives in burrows that it usually digs itself, although sometimes it occupies abandoned burrows of turtles, gerbils, foxes and otters. Active at night. In nothern parts of distribution area hibernates from late October/early November to late March/early April. Heat occurs in April after hibernation. Gestation is about 40 days, females give birth to 3 to 8 pups (5-6 on average). In the European part of the distribution area it usually gives birth once a year, in southern parts often twice.

threats:
No major threats are known for most of the distribution area. In marginal populations (e.g., Ukraine) it could suffer from habitat loss.

conservationAction:
It occurs in a number of protected areas throughout its wide range. The species is listed as Critically Endangered in the Red Data Book of Ukraine.


taxonomicNotes:
Genetic studies indicate that the population on Gran Canaria in the Canary Islands (previously considered to be a separate species, Crocidura osorio) is conspecific with C. russula (Vogel et al. 2003), although differences in size, ecology, and behaviour (Hutterer et al. 1992) characterize it as a distinct island form. The African population is probably a composite of two species that are only sympatric in part of Algeria (R. Hutterer pers. comm.).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)A very widespread and common species within its range, with no serious threats.

range:
This species is found in southern and western Europe (including some Atlantic and Mediterranean islands). It also occurs in North Africa, in Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria (Ramalhinho et al. 1999). The population on Gran Canaria in the Canary Islands (previously considered to be a separate species, Crocidura osorio) seems to have been introduced from Spain (Vogel et al. 2003). It typically occurs from sea level to 1,200 m, but has also been found as high as 2,000 m, particularly in Mediterranean landscapes (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

population:
Population size and trends are unknown, although the species is generally widespread and fairly common within its range. In Germany at least it is stable and expanding in some parts, although it is not known if this is natural or the result of accidental human transportation (Kraft 2000). It is probably the most common shrew in Spain, and is often the dominant prey species in the barn owl's diet in this region (Ramalhinho et al. 1999).

habitat:
In the Mediterranean it occurs in a wide range of habitats including shrubland (maquis), open habitats, forest edges with abundant ground vegetation, cultivated fields, urban areas, gardens, farms, mountainous areas and land adjacent to rivers and streams (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). It particularly favours old terraces with dry stone walls. In northern Europe and at higher alititudes it is predominantly synanthropic, living in close proximity to humans in houses and gardens (Ramalhinho et al. 1999). In Morocco, it occurs in the mountains.

threats:
Due to its synanthropic habits it may suffer from the use of pesticides and other toxic chemicals (Ramalhinho et al. 1999), but this is not thought to be a serious threat to the species at present.

conservationAction:
It receives legal protection under the Bern Convention (Appendix III), and it occurs in numerous protected areas.

redListAssessors:
Holger Meinig, Stéphane Aulagnier, Rainer Hutterer


taxonomicNotes:
Populations from eastern Asia (SE Siberia, E China, Korea, Taiwan) are now considered to be a separate species, C. shantungensis.

redListCategoryRationale:
A widespread and common species throughout its range with no major threats.

range:
The lesser white-toothed shrew Crocidura suaveolens has a wide distribution in the Palaearctic, extending from the Atlantic coast of Spain and probably Portugal (where its occurrence needs further confirmation) eastwards through Europe and Asia to Siberia. The southernmost edge of its distribution passes through northern Africa (Morocco and Algeria: Corbet 1978), Asia Minor, Israel, Saudia Arabia, Iran and China. In Europe, it has a somewhat scattered distribution in north-west Iberia, south-west France, Italy, central and eastern Europe, and the Balkans. It is present on some Atlantic and Channel islands, and on most eastern Mediterranean islands, as well as Menorca, Corsica, Elba, and Capraia in the western Mediterranean. It was introduced to Crete in Minoan times (Pieper 1990), where it may threaten the endemic Cretan white-toothed shrew C. zimmermanni through competition (Nowak 1999). In eastern Europe and in Germany C. suaveolens is expanding northwards in urban landscapes. It is commonest from sea level to 1,000 m, although it occurs as high as 1,600 m (Libois et al. 1999).

population:
It is uncommon in the western part of its range, occurring at much lower densities than its congener C. russula (Libois et al. 1999). Further east it is more common. Described as abundant and ubiquitous in at least parts of its global range (Harrison and Bates 1991). In the steppe forest zone in Ukraine it is the most abundant shrew species, both in natural and agricultural habitats (I. Zagorodnyuk pers. comm. 2006).

habitat:
At higher latitudes and altitudes in Europe it is often associated with human habitation, tending to be found in parks, gardens, and even houses. It is very common in straw ricks. In western and southern Europe and it inhabits a wide range of habitats including vineyards, olive groves, terraced farmland on hillsides, dry Mediterranean shrubland, sand dunes, rocky areas in the mountains, and damp densely-vegetated patches near to water. It tends to avoid dense forests (Vlasák and Niethammer 1990, Libois et al. 1999). Small, soft-bodied insects form a major part of its diet (Vlasák and Niethammer 1990).In south-west Asia it has been collected from habitats with long dry grasses; thick vegetation along streams, river edges and vegetation channels; around houses and in forested areas (Bates and Harrison 1989, Tez 2000). Its main requirement is enough vegetation and moisture to support its insect prey, and in arid areas it tends to be more common near springs and oases; however it is more tolerant of dry conditions than many of its congeners (Qumsiyeh 1996). The gestation period is 28 days and life expectancy one year; a female may have 10-12 litters, each with one to seven young, although usually four (Qumsiyeh 1996).

threats:
It may be out-competed in some areas by C. russula. Pesticides and herbicides may have a negative impact on the species in agricultural habitats (Libois et al. 1999), but at present this does not seem to be a major threat.

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention. Subspecies C. s. caneae, endemic to Crete, is on Appendix II of the Bern Convention (as C. ariadne). It occurs in protected areas within its range. No specific conservation actions are recommended.

redListAssessors:
Vladimir Vohralík, Jan Zima, Boris Kryštufek, Boris Sheftel, Holger Meinig


redListCategoryRationale:
C. zimmermanni is endemic to Crete where it is restricted to the central areas of the island. Its extent of occurrence is less than 20,000 km² and it has been collected at only three sites, although further sites are known from owl pellet samples. It is estimated that there are fewer than 10 locations (certainly not more than 15 sites). It is suspected that population decline and range contractions are occurring as a result of out-competition by a non-native shrew, C. suaveolens. This could ultimately result in the extinction of C. zimmermanni. Assessed as Vulnerable.

range:
Crocidura zimmermanni is endemic to the island of Crete (Greece), where it has been trapped in the central mountains at altitudes of 1,150 to 1,400 m. However, owl pellets collected at 140 to 830 m contained remains of this species, indicating that it may also occur at lower altitudes (Vogel 1999).

population:
It is a rare and little-known species which is only recorded from a small number of localities. Analysis of owl pellets suggested that C. zimmermanni is more than ten times rarer than its congener C. suaveolens (Vogel 1999). The population trend has not been quantified but it is suspected to be decreasing.

habitat:
It has been collected in open mountainous areas that are dry in summer and snow-covered in winter (Vogel 1999). It is likely also to occur at lower altitudes, but if so its habitat preferences there are unknown.

threats:
The introduction of C. suaveolens in Minoan times (ca. 2,500 to 1,500 BC) may have forced C. zimmermanni into a restricted range as it is out-competed for habitat (Pieper 1990, Nowak 1999). C. suaveolens is abundant in coastal areas, but has also been found in the mountains at the same sites as C. zimmermanni (Vogel 1999).

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention. Research is required to determine its distribution and population trend, and to investigate potential threats (especially competition with C. suaveolens) and identify appropriate conservation measures.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Not Applicable (NA)EU 25 regional assessment: Not Evaluated (NE)Less than 1% of range lies within Europe, so it is considered Not Applicable.

range:
Distributed in sand deserts in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Russia.

population:
In some places is common, but it is a naturally rare species. Quantitative data on population size is lacking.

habitat:
Inhabits semi-fixed and fixed sands covered by saxaul (Haloxylon sp.). Active at dusk and night. Usually uses rodent burrows. Feeds mainly on insects and their larvae, often eats ants, sometimes hunts small lizards. Breeding season is from March to October. Young animals start reproduction in the second half of summer. Litter size is 4-5.

threats:
There are no major threats to the species. In the areas of overlapping range Hemiechinus auritus and Crocidura spp. are food competitors.

conservationAction:
There are no special conservation measures applied. A common species in most parts of the range.

redListAssessors:
Katerina Tsytsulina, Nikolai Formozov, Boris Sheftel


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Not Evaluated (NE)This species is widespread and abundant and abundant, with no major threats. Considered Least Concern.

range:
Distributed in tundra and forest zones from west of the Urals (Russia) to Alaska (USA); Yukon, Northwest Territories (Canada); south to the Altai Mtns (Russia), Mongolia and NE China. Also occurs along water courses in steppe zones. In Europe found along the European slope of the Ural mountains and the valley of the Ural river and along the Pechora river.

population:
A widespread and very abundant species. The most common species of small mammal found along Siberian rivers.

habitat:
Prefers river meadows with osier, settles in fire-sites and overgrown glades. Along rivers penetrates to semi-deserts. Solitary, the size of individual space is up to 1,500 m2. Feeds mainly on beetles. Reproduction is usually in summer, gives 3-4 litters per year; litter size is about 7-10 young.

conservationAction:
No special conservation measures known or required.


taxonomicNotes:
Formerly included in S. araneus, but now recognised as a distinct species (Hutterer in Wilson and Reeder 2005).

redListCategoryRationale:
This species has a relatively large range, within which it is widespread. Population size has not been quantified, but it is not believed to approach the thresholds for the population size criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. less than 10,000 mature individuals in conjunction with appropriate decline rates and subpopulation qualifiers). Population trend has not been quantified, but it is not believed to approach the threshold for the population decline criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. declining more than 30% in ten years or three generations), as no major threats to the species are known. For these reasons, it is evaluated as Least Concern.

range:
The Appenine shrew is endemic to the Italian peninsula. It is recorded from the Appenines to Calabria, at altitudes between 300 m and 1,160 m, but its exact distribution is poorly known (Hausser 1990, 1999, Amori and Aloise 2005).

population:
It is not abundant, but it is quite widespread (G. Amori pers. comm. 2006). There are no data on population trend.

habitat:
A poorly known species. It occurs in shrubland habitat within forested areas (G. Amori pers. comm. 2006), but avoids densely forested areas (Mortelliti et al. 2007). Hausser (1990) describes it as being found near streams, in bogs, and in hedgerows and stone walls in damp areas.

threats:
Pesticides and habitat destruction (through agriculture and urbanisation) are considered to be the main threats (G. Amori pers. comm. 2006).

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention. It occurs in protected areas in parts of the range. Research is required on its distribution, population status, and trends.


redListCategoryRationale:
C. sicula is endemic to Italy, occurring on Sicily and surrounding islands in the Mediterranean. It is relatively widespread within its range and although population trends are not known, there do not appear to be any serious threats at present. Consequently, the species is assessed as Least Concern. It has a small extent of occurrence (approaching 20,000 km²), therefore it should be reassessed if any declines are suspected. Populations on Sicily and Gozo may deserve some special attention because they are genetically distinct.

range:
Crocidura sicula is endemic to Sicily and its associated islands (to Italy) and Malta. It is currently found on Sicily, Ustica, Gozo, and the Egadi islands (Favigniana, Levanzo, Marettimo). It may be extinct on the island of Malta, where it is known only from subfossil remains (Vogel 1999). It occurs from sea level to about 1,000 m (G. Amori pers. comm. 2006).

population:
This species is widespread on Sicily (Maddalena et al. 1990). However, trapping results indicate that it occurs at much lower densities than other Crocidura species that inhabit Mediterranean islands (Vogel 1999). Population trends are unknown. It may have gone extinct on the island of Malta, but even if so, the date of that extinction is unknown. In Ustica a melanic form occurs and shows a very restricted range (G. Amori pers. comm. 2006).A new genetic study has shown that populations of Sicily and Gozo may deserve some special attention because they are genetically distinct (R. Hutterer pers. comm. 2007).

habitat:
Owl pellet analyses suggest that C. sicula inhabits suburban areas, gardens, pastures, arable land, and open scrub. In the summer, it prefers damp areas (Vogel 1999).

threats:
No serious threats are known at present, although pesticides in agricultural areas are often a problem for insectivore species. Populations on smaller islands could be adversely affected by predation from domestic cats (G. Amori pers. comm. 2006).

conservationAction:
It is protected under Appendix III of the Bern Convention. No specific conservation actions are recommended at this time. This is one of only three ancient endemic mammal species occurring on the Mediterranean islands (Gippoliti and Amori 2006), and for this reason it is a valuable species to conserve.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)Globally and within Europe as a whole this species has a wide range, but it is a habitat specialist and its distribution is patchy. Habitat loss and degradation is ongoing but is not a serious threat to the species at present. In the EU 25, it is largely restricted to Finland, with some isolated populations in Sweden. The range is fragmented and habitat loss is a concern for local populations. The species needs to be monitored in western Europe at least, but is currently not believed to approach the IUCN Red List thresholds. It is consequently classed as Least Concern at both the EU 25 and European regional level.

range:
The taiga shrew's range extends from Fennoscandia in the west, through northern and central Russia, north Mongolia and northern China, and northern Kazakstan, to the Pacific coast and Sakhalin island. In Europe, it is more or less continuously distributed from Finland to northern Russia and northern Belarus (Corbet 1978, Sulkava 1999). Populations in Norway and Sweden may be isolated. It is a habitat specialist, and consequently has a patchy distribution. The species was not detected in Fennoscandia until as late as 1949 (Sulkava 1999).

population:
It is rare and local. In north-west Europe and north-western Siberia, captures of this species generally form less than 1% of all Sorex captures with snap traps and pitfall traps (Sulkava 1999). It is a patchily distibuted species and little is known about population trends.

habitat:
It is a habitat specialist, preferring small brook sides with dense vegetation (e.g. ferns) within mature spruce and mixed boreal forests. It is also sometimes found in scrub and fallow fields, so long as there is damp, dense vegetation at ground level and a deep soil layer (Sulkava 1999). It feeds mainly on invertebrates, particularly earthworms and dipteran larvae, although plant material is very occasionally taken (Sulkava 1990).

threats:
Preferred habitats are being altered by forestry and drainage (Sulkava 1999). Globally this is not considered to be a serious threat at present.

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention, and occurs in many protected areas. Population trends and habitat status require monitoring in the western European part of its range, and particular attention should be paid to isolated populations in Scandinavia.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)This species is very widespread and common. Although habitat destruction is a general threat, it is not a serious threat to the species at present. Consequently, Sorex minutus qualifies as Least Concern.

range:
It occurs from the British Isles and Iberia through much of continental Europe, European Russia and Siberia to Lake Baikal in the east. The northernmost limit of its range extends beyond the arctic circle. In Portugal the distribution is discontinuous in some regions north of the Tagus river (Cabral et al. 2005). It occurs from sea level to 2,000 m in the Pyrenees (Palomo and Gisbert 2002) and 2,260 m in the Alps (Spitzenberger 2002).

population:
It is a common species in suitable habitats throughout its range, and it may even be the dominant shrew species in swampy areas (Hutterer 1999).

habitat:
It tends to be found in relatively damp areas with dense vegetation at ground level, and it occurs in a wide variety of habitats including swamps, grasslands, heaths, sand dunes, woodland edge, rocky areas, shrubland, and montane forests. It feeds on invertebrates (Hutterer 1990, 1999).

threats:
It suffers from destruction of habitat, use of pesticides and declining invertebrates. However, these are not considered to be major threats to the global or European regional persistence of the species at present. The apparent geographic isolation of some Iberian populations may make local extinctions more likely (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention. It occurs in a number of protected areas throughout its wide range. Studies of its ecology and distibution are required in Portugal (Cabral et al. 2005), and isolated Iberian populations should be monitored.

redListAssessors:
Holger Meinig, Boris Kryštufek, Margarida Fernandes


redListCategoryRationale:
Population size in this species has not been quantified, but it is not believed to approach the thresholds for the population size criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. less than 10,000 mature individuals in conjunction with appropriate decline rates and subpopulation qualifiers), as the species is commonly found in owl pellets in at least parts of its range. The extent of occurrence is fairly large, but the area of occupancy is not known, and it may not be safe to assume that it is much larger than 2,000 km2. In Spain the population is stable and it is likely to be stable also in Portugal. No serious threats at present. Least Concern.

range:
It is endemic to the Iberian Peninsula, where it is found in northern Portugal (north of the Tagus River) and central Spain (García-Perea et al. 1997). It occurs from the coast up to 2,000 m (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

population:
Population size and trends have not been quantified. However, the species is quite common in the diet of nocturnal raptor species (Cabral et al. 2005). In Spain the population is stable and it is likely to be stable also in Portugal (Muñoz, L.J.P. pers. comm. 2007).

habitat:
It is found in Atlantic climate areas, where it inhabits a variety of woodland and scrub habitats, including native beech, oak, and pine forests, plantations of introduced Eucalyptus and Pinus pinaster, and damp areas with dense shrubby vegetation. It is also found in cultivated fields, stream- and river-banks, scree slopes, and rocky areas near to pastures. It prefers humid locations, and is restricted to areas where the annual rainfall exceeds 600 mm (García-Perea et al. 1997, Hausser 1999, Palomo and Gisbert 2002, Cabral et al. 2005).

threats:
It is not considered threatened in Spain, although its population status is not known (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). In Portugal, it may be locally threatened by habitat destruction and pesticide use, as well as reductions in the abundance of its invertebrate prey (Cabral et al. 2005).

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention. It occurs in protected areas within its range. Research is needed to evaluate its population status and trends (Cabral et al. 2005).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)This species has a wide range and is generally abundant, although local population declines have been recorded. Loss and degradation of wetland habitat is the main threat, although this is not a serious threat to the global population at present. The subspecies niethammeri in western Spain has a restricted range and may be threatened. It is morphologically distinct from other populations and may warrant species status. Further taxonomic investigation and population monitoring is recommended for this subspecies.

range:
The water shrew has a large range extending from the British Islands eastwards to Lake Baikal, Yenisei River (Russia), Tien Shan (China), and northwest Mongolia. A disjunct range includes Sakhalin Island and adjacent Siberia, Jilin (China), and North Korea. In Europe it is generally widespread throughout, with the exception of southern Iberia. It occurs only sporadically on the Balkan peninsula, where it is largely restricted to the mountains. It occurs from sea level to over 2,500 m (Stone 1995). The distribution of the species recently expanded southwards in Italy owing to a new record in the Sila massif (Aloise et al. 2005).

population:
It is a widespread and abundant species, although local population declines may be caused by wetland drainage, pollution, and destruction of riverbanks. Population densities fluctuate from year to year (Spitzenberger 1999). In the northern part of its range and in the steppe zone, the species has a patchy distribution.

habitat:
This species is semi-aquatic with water repelling fur. It occurs in a wide variety of wetland habitats, both freshwater and coastal, including lakes, rivers, streams, marshes, bogs, damp grasslands, humid woodlands, sea shores and intertidal wetlands. It is the most aquatic of all European shrews. It hunts on land and in water for invertebrates, including crustaceans, and occasionally takes small fish and amphibia (Sokolov and Orlov 1980, Spitzenberger 1999, Smith and Xie in press). It paralyses large prey with its venomous saliva (Stone 1995, Smith and Xie in press). It is highly territorial, with males only moving out of territory during the breeding season.

threats:
Loss of wetland habitats through drainage, development, conversion to agricultural land, and destruction of natural vegetation at the water's edge may have a negative impact on this species. It may suffer from a shortage of food when prey species decline owing to acidification and pollution of water with pesticides, fertilisers, and sewage (Spitzenberger 1999).

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention, and occurs in numerous protected areas within its range. The western Spanish population is a separate subspecies (niethammeri), which has a very restricted range and may be threatened. It is morphologically distinct from other populations, and may represent a valid species (López-Fuster et al. 1990, Bühler 1996). There is a need for taxonomic research on this population, as well as surveys and monitoring to determine if it is undergoing population decline or range contractions.

redListAssessors:
Holger Meinig, Sandro Bertolino, Boris Kryštufek, Igor Zagorodnyuk, Giovanni Amori, Heikki Henttonen, Friederike Spitzenberger, Boris Sheftel, Rimvydas Juškaitis


redListCategoryRationale:
The species has a fairly wide but very fragmented distribution. In the core of the range the population appears to be stable but declines are occurring in some isolated populations at the edges of the range. Overall, there is a slow population decline, but not at a rate high enough to trigger a threatened category. The extent of occurrence and area of occupancy are above the thresholds for Criterion B (>20,000 km² and >2,000 km² respectively), although the area of occupancy may not be much greater than 2,000 km² and there is ongoing habitat loss and degradation. Assessed as Near Threatened as it almost qualifies as threatened under criterion B2.

range:
The Alpine shrew is endemic to Europe, where it has a disjunct range in the Alps, the Balkans, the Carpathians, and a number of isolated mountains in Germany, Czech Republic and Poland (Spitzenberger 1999, Meinig 2004). It previously occurred in the Pyrenees, where it is thought to have gone extinct in the early 20th century, and in the Harz (Spitzenberger 1999). Its vertical range is from 200 to 2,500 m (Spitzenberger 1999).

population:
More data are needed to be able to determine population trends. It is widespread but local in the Alps, where populations are thought to be stable. Small, isolated populations at the edge of the species' range may be declining, and there have been subpopulation extinctions (for example in the Pyrenees). In the Harz, the northernmost population in Europe, it appears to have disappeared (last record was in 1954 despite intensive studies to find the species there). It is still present in Germany. Some of the other remaining populations are considered evolutionarily significant units because of their long period of isolation (Meinig 2004).

habitat:
In the mountains, it tends to be found in open habitats (meadows, rocky areas with sparse vegetation, and banks of mountain streams), where it lives in cracks and crevices under rocks and in stone walls. At lower altitudes, it prefers cool, damp, shaded areas, such as densely-vegetated ravines and holes under mossy rocks, tree-roots and logs in forests (Spitzenberger 1990, 1999). It mainly feeds on arthropods and molluscs (Spitzenberger 1990).

threats:
Loss of alpine water courses due to water abstraction and hydroelectric power is also a threat, as is loss of habitat owing to intensification of winter tourism in the Alps. Human land use is a direct threat and climate change may be a future indirect threat as a result of range shifts in other species that may be direct competitors with S. alpinus when ranges overlap.

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention. A major part of the alpine shrew's range in the Carpathians is covered by the Carpathians Reserve (about 45,000 ha) and National Park (about 70,000 ha). There is a need for monitoring, particularly of isolated subpopulations.

redListAssessors:
Hutterer, R., Amori, G., Kryštufek, B., Meinig, H., Bertolino, S., Spitzenberger, F. & Zima, J.


taxonomicNotes:
Formerly known as the Valais chromosome race of the Common Shrew S. araneus (2n = 24/25, FN = 40). Given species rank, diagnosed and reviewed by Brünner et al. (2002). Sorex arunchi may be related, if not conspecific (Hutterer in Wilson and Reeder 2005).

redListCategoryRationale:
S. antinorii is a poorly known species. Although it has a wide range in Italy, its population size, trend and ecological requirements are not known. It is not abundant. More data are required to be able to assess its status.

range:
The main part of of this species' range occurs in Italy, but it crosses the border into France and Switzerland. It inhabits the southern part of the Alps, the Po lowlands, and the Appenine mountains south to Calabria (Brünner et al. 2002). Further research is required to determine the distribution limits of this species. The northern boundary of its distribution is poorly defined, and in southern parts of its range it is confined to higher altitudes and its distribution is patchy; in general it is more patchily and less extensively distributed than shown on the map.It occurs from the Po plain to at least 1,300 m (Brünner et al. 2002).

population:
There are very poor population data for this species. Population trend is not known.

habitat:
Occurs in areas with dense vegetation cover.

threats:
Pesticides and habitat loss (resulting from agricultural expansion and intensification) are the main threats.

conservationAction:
More research is required on the range, population, threats and habitat requirements of the species.


taxonomicNotes:
This species has huge chromosomal variation and includes many chromosomal races. Recently one of these races has been described as a separate species (S. antinorii)(Wilson and Reeder 2005).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)S. araneus has a very wide range and is one of the commonest shrew species throughout its range. Although general habitat degradation may affect localised populations, this is not considered a serious threat to the global population.

range:
The common shrew has a wide distribution in the Palaearctic, occurring from Britain through central, northern and eastern Europe and Asia as far east as Lake Baikal and as far north as the Arctic coast. It is widespread throughout, with the exception of arid steppe and desert areas. In Europe, it occurs in most continental areas, with the exception of large parts of Iberia and France, and some parts of Italy and the Balkans. There are isolated populations in the Pyrenees and the Massif Central (France). It is recorded from sea level to 2,500 m (Andĕra 1999).

population:
It is one of the most abundant shrew species.

habitat:
It prefers cool, damp and shady habitats with dense vegetation, such as riparian forests and reed beds (Hausser et al. 1990). However, it tolerates a broad range of habitats, and it is present (albeit at lower densities) in drier areas such as woodland, scrub, road verges, hedges in farmland, and even sand dunes (Andĕra 1999). It is absent from very arid habitats. It feeds largely on invertebrates, especially arthropods, earthworms, and snails, but it also feeds on vegetative matter (Hausser et al. 1990).

threats:
Threats include general habitat degradation and an indirect threat from pesticides and pollutants (accumulation of toxins through their diet). In some countries, this is an indicator species for monitoring terrestrial pollution. However, the species is not considered seriously affected by these threats at a regional or global level.

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention, and it occurs in many protected areas. No specific conservation actions are recommended at present.

redListAssessors:
Holger Meinig, Boris Kryštufek, Boris Sheftel, Igor Zagorodnyuk, Giovanni Amori, Jan Zima, Heikki Henttonen


taxonomicNotes:
Possibly related to or conspecific with Sorex antinorii (Brünner et al. 2002), although its karyotype has not been studied yet. Genetically well distinguished from araneus, but morphological differences between both species are weak (Hutterer in Wilson and Reeder 2005). More taxonomic research is needed on this taxon.

redListCategoryRationale:
It is uncertain whether this is a valid species. More taxonomic investigation is required, as well as research on range, population, ecological requirements and threats. This taxon has a restricted extent of occurrence (<20,000 km2), so it may warrant listing in a threatened category when more data become available.

range:
Sorex arunchi is endemic to Europe, where it is found in the Udine province of north-east Italy, and probably adjacent Slovenia (Lapini and Testone 1998).

population:
There are no population data available for S. arunchi.

habitat:
It is a lowland taxon, and is found in forested areas.

threats:
Pesticides and habitat destruction (agriculture) are likely to be the main threats. Shrews tend to accumulate toxins from pesticides and pollutants through their invertebrate diet (Stone 1995). It may be particularly vulnerable to habitat loss because of its restricted range.

conservationAction:
No conservation measures are known to be in place. More research is needed, particularly taxonomic research.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)Sorex caecutiens is a widespread and abundant species with a very large global range. Within the EU 25, its range is more restricted and logging activities may affect local populations. However, it is not considered threatened at present.

range:
The masked shrew is found from Scandinavia in the west (including an isolated population in central Norway), through northern Europe and Asia to the Pacific coast and the islands of Sakhalin and the Kuril archipelago, as well as the Japanese island of Hokkaido (Corbet 1978, Pucek 1999, Frafjord 2002, Finch and van der Kooij 2005). It range extends to the north of the arctic circle, and the southern boundary of its distribution runs from easternmost Poland through Russia, northern Kazakhstan, northern Mongolia and north-east China to the Korean peninsula. In Europe, it is found in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Poland, Belarus, and Russia. In northern Finland it occurs from sea level up to 1,000 m, and in central Norway it is found up to 1,600 m (J. van der Kooij in litt. 2006).

population:
It is generally less common than its congener the common shrew, but it is nevertheless a widespread and abundant species (Sulkava 1990). Populations are thought to be stable, with interannual fluctuations that follow no particular cycle (Pucek 1999). In eastern Karelia, where population density has best been studied, tenfold fluctuations have been recorded (Sulkava 1990).

habitat:
It occurs mainly in coniferous, deciduous and mixed forests in the taiga zone, although it is also found in a range of tundra habitats including birch and willow scrub in river valleys (Pucek 1999, Finch and van der Kooij 2005). In northern Fennoscandia, it tends to be found in shrub-rich mires, alpine birch forests, and open mires, and at the south-western edge of its range in Norway it occurs in alpine habitats (Finch and van der Kooij 2005). In general moist habitats are preferred, such as damp parts of forests with thick moss cover (Pucek 1999). Cultivated land is avoided (Sulkava 1990). The masked shrew feeds on a wide range of insects, spiders, and centipedes (Stone 1995). As it has a lower net food intake than larger shrews such as S. araneus, it can survive in less productive habitats (Finch and van der Kooij 2005).

threats:
Extensive logging is a general threat to habitat and may affect local populations. However, at the global scale the population is not considered under serious threat from this.

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention. It occurs in many protected areas.


redListCategoryRationale:
A widespread and abundant species with no serious threats affecting the global population at present. Assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Sorex coronatus is endemic to Europe, where it occurs from northern Spain, through France and the Low Countries, to northern Switzerland, Germany, and the westernmost corner of Austria. It is also found on the island of Jersey (United Kingdom) (Hausser 1999). Its vertical range is from 0 to 2,200 m (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

population:
It is generally widespread and abundant. However, at the edge of its range in Switzerland intensive agriculture and pesticide use have caused the species to decline, such that now only relict populations remain in some areas (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

habitat:
It inhabits a variety of habitats with dense vegetation at ground level, including woods, hedges, abandoned or unmown meadows, and marshes. It is scarce in intensively cultivated areas, and tends not to occur near to human habitation. It competes with Sorex araneus, and the microhabitats used are different for each species where their ranges overlap (Hausser 1990, 1999).

threats:
Threats include general habitat degradation and the indirect effects of pesticides and pollutants (accumulation of toxins through the species' diet) (Stone 1995, Palomo and Gisbert 2002). However, the species is not considered seriously affected by these threats at the global level.

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention, and occurs in protected areas within its range.

redListAssessors:
Aulagnier, S., Hutterer, R., Amori, G. & Kryštufek, B.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)This species is widespread within its range. No serious threats are known. Consequently it qualifies as Least Concern.

range:
Suncus etruscus ocurs from southern Europe and North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt) through the Arabian Peninsula and Asia Minor to Iraq, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Burma, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and Yunnan (China). Records from southern India and Sri Lanka probably refer to another species (Libois and Fons 1999). West and East African records (Guinea, Nigeria, Ethiopia) are doubtful and need confirmation (Wilson and Reeder 2005). In Europe, it is confined to the Mediterranean climate zone, occurring on the Iberian, Italian, and Balkan peninsulas as well as on a number of Mediterannean islands. There is an established introduced population in the Canary Islands (Tenerife). It occurs from sea level to altitudes of over 1,000 m (Libois and Fons 1999, Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

population:
It tends to be less common than other shrews living in same area, as indicated by both trapping experiments and analyses of owl pellets (Libois and Fons 1999). Trapping is not so effective for catching this species because the shrew is too small (less than 2g); it is often more commonly seen in owl pellets (V. Vohralík pers. comm. 2006).

habitat:
It prefers abandoned olive groves, vinyards, and other cultivated areas overrun by mediterranean shrubs, but occurs also in gardens, low maquis, scrub, and open forest of Mediterranean oaks and pines, provided that old dry stone walls are available as shelters. It avoids sand dunes, dense forests, and intensively cultivated land (Libois and Fons 1999, Palomo and Gisbert 2002). It is more active during night than day, with a peak at dawn.  It experiences daily variations of weight, hypothermy, and torpor, as regulatory mechanisms of the high energetic consumption associated with activity. Possibly the smallest terrestrial mammal, its head and body measures 35-50 mm in length (Stone 1995) .

threats:
It is sensitive to insecticides and pesticides, but these are not thought to pose a major threat to the survival of the species at present.

conservationAction:
It is present in some protected areas (e.g. Donana and Nestos delta), and is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)This species has a large range, within which it is widespread. The population size has not been quantified, but the species is not believed to approach the thresholds for the population size criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. less than 10,000 mature individuals in conjunction with appropriate decline rates and subpopulation qualifiers). Although population declines or fluctuations have occurred in parts of its range, the species is not believed to approach the thresholds for the population decline criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. declining more than 30% in ten years or three generations). For these reasons, it is evaluated as Least Concern.

range:
Crocidura leucodon occurs in Europe and western Asia, from north-west France in the west to the Caspian sea in the east, extending as far south as Israel. In Europe, it is absent from Iberia and southern France, Fennoscandia, northern Poland, the Baltic, and northern Belarus and European Russia (Krapp 1999). The only European island on which it is known to be present is Lesbos (Greece). Its distribution in the eastern part of the range is not well known because it is possible that some records from that region refer to a different species. It occurs from sea level to around 2,000 m.

population:
At the northern and western borders of its range at least, it appears to be declining or fluctuating. In the southern part of eastern Europe this species has seriously declined during the last 50 years (50 years ago there were many records, especially from owl pellets, whereas recently there are very few records)(I. Zagorodnyuk pers. comm. 2006).

habitat:
Its habitat preferences vary in different parts of its geographic range. In France, it is found in damp areas with dense vegetation, whereas in central Europe and Italy it prefers open agricultural landscapes. At the northern edge of its range it is associated with gardens and houses in suburban and urban areas, and in the Balkans and Asia Minor it can be found in moist habitats in the mountains including screes, stony areas, riverbanks and stone walls. In Asia Minor it is also found above the tree line in stony areas (Krapp 1999). In European Russia the species occurs in moist habitats within steppe and semi-desert areas. It feeds on invertebrates, including insects, insect larvae and worms.

threats:
This species often occurs in open rural country, where it may be negatively affected by agricultural intensification (accidental poisoning and loss of prey species as a result of pesticide use, and loss of cover owing to replacement of hedgerows and fallow areas with large-scale monocultures) (Krapp 1999).

conservationAction:
It is protected under Appendix III of the Bern Convention, and it occurs within protected areas.

redListAssessors:
Vladimir Vohralík, Jan Zima, Boris Kryštufek


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)This species has a wide range. The population size has not been quantified, but it is not believed to approach the thresholds for the population size criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. less than 10,000 mature individuals in conjunction with appropriate decline rates and subpopulation qualifiers). Although the species is presumed to be declining as a result of loss and degradation of its wetland habitat, it is not believed to approach the thresholds for the population decline criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. declining more than 30% in ten years or three generations). For these reasons, it is evaluated as Least Concern. However, the fragmented distribution of this species makes it susceptible to local extinctions, and population trends need to be monitored.

range:
Neomys anomalus has a patchy distribution in continental Europe and Asia Minor. It is found in parts of central and southern Europe from Spain and Portugal in the west through to the middle of the River Don (European Russia) in the east, but its range is fragmented (Corbet 1978, Spitzenberger 1999). It is recorded from sea level to 1,850 m (Spitzenberger 1999).

population:
It is suspected to be declining in line with rates of loss of its wetland habitat (Spitzenberger 1999, Spitzenberger pers. comm. 2006). Its patchy distribution means that there are many small isolated subpopulations, making local extinctions more likely. It may be locally quite abundant in the absence of its main competitor, N. fodiens. There are areas where the two species occur in the same habitats, but using different niches.

habitat:
It inhabits lush vegetation next to slow-flowing or still eutrophic waters (marshes, swamps, lakes, rivers, and streams). Its habitat choice is influenced by competition with the larger Eurasian water shrew N. fodiens, which is a stronger swimmer (Spitzenberger 1990, 1999). In general, N. anomalus is less aquatic than N. fodiens and can colonise areas away from water (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). However, in regions where N. fodiens is absent, N. anomalus may adopt its competitor's aquatic niche and increase in size (Spitzenberger 1990, 1999). N. anomalus is strictly carnivorous, feeding predominantly on soft-bodied invertebrates such as insect larvae, spiders and worms (Spitzenberger 1990, Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

threats:
The major threat to the species is habitat loss. In many parts of its range wetlands are being destroyed and fragmented as a result of water extraction, canalisation of streams, agriculture, road building, and other human activities. Water quality is often degraded by agricultural chemicals, industrial effluent and sewage. Use of pesticides may be a problem in parts of the range (Palomo and Gisbert 2002, Cabral et al. 2005).

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention, and it occurs in many protected areas. It is recommended that population trends are monitored, as the species may be vulnerable to the loss of aquatic habitats.

redListAssessors:
Holger Meinig, Sandro Bertolino, Boris Kryštufek


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)This species has a large range, within which it is widespread. It is rare and also very difficult to catch through normal trapping methods. The population size has not been quantified, but it is not believed to approach the thresholds for the population size criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. less than 10,000 mature individuals in conjunction with appropriate decline rates and subpopulation qualifiers). Although the population trend is not known, there are no major threats, and it is not believed to approach the thresholds for the population decline criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. declining more than 30% in ten years or three generations). For these reasons, it is evaluated as Least Concern.

range:
The least shrew occurs from Fennoscandia through European Russia and Siberia to the Pacific coast and the islands of Hokkaido and Sakhalin (Corbet 1978, Sulkava 1999). In Europe, it occurs more or less continuously from northern Scandinavia through most of Finland to central and northern Russia. There are a small number of records from central Scandinavia (Grüner 1998, Sulkava 1999, Vaernesbranden and Larsen 2004), but this tiny and elusive shrew may be more widespread in central Scandinavia than the paucity of records would appear to suggest (Sulkava 1999). In Fennoscandia it occurs from sea level to above the tree line (0-1,600 m: J. van der Kooij in litt. 2006).

population:
Trapping results suggest that it occurs at much lower densities than other sympatric Sorex species (although reliable population density estimates are hard to obtain because of difficulties in trapping this species)(Sulkava 1990, 1999). The long-term population trend appears to be stable (Sulkava 1999).

habitat:
This is a very small species (possibly the smallest terrestrial mammal species, although the pygmy white-toothed shrew Suncus etruscus may be slightly smaller) and it is very difficult to catch, other than by pitfall traps. It occurs from the forest tundra zone in the north, through boreal coniferous forests to mixed forests and forest steppe at the southern limit of its range. Within these zones it prefers moist spruce-dominated woodland with thick moss, but it is also commonly found in bogs and mires, and even in dry pine forests and clear-felled areas (Sulkava 1990, 1999). It feeds on small insects, grubs, spiders and snails, consuming as much as 2-5 times its body weight over a 24 hour period (Sulkava 1990, Macdonald and Barrett 1993).

threats:
No major threats are known. Clear-cutting does not appear to have a negative impact on population densities (Sulkava 1999).

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention, and occurs in a number of protected areas.


taxonomicNotes:
It has been argued, on the basis of mandibular measurements, that Crocidura canariensis should be treated as a subspecies of C. sicula (Sarà 1996). However, other morphological, ecological, palaeontological and molecular evidence supports specific status (Michaux et al. 1991, Hutterer et al. 1992). Genetic distances suggest that C. canariensis and C. sicula diverged approximately five million years ago (Vogel et al. 2003).

redListCategoryRationale:
C. canariensis has a very small extent of occurrence (5,000 km²), which is severely fragmented, and presumably declining as a result of habitat loss and degradation caused by urbanisation and desertification. Consequently it qualifies as Endangered.

range:
The Canary shrew Crocidura canariensis is endemic to the eastern Canary Islands, where it is currently found on Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Lobos and Mount Clara. Its extent of occurrence (EOO) is less than 5,000 km². Recent fossils indicate that it previously occurred on Graciosa and Alegranza (Hutterer 1999), but it has never been trapped on either of these islands and is presumed to have gone extinct there (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). Canary shrew remains have been found in owl pellets collected on Graciosa and Alegranza, but this is believed to result from the movement of owls between different islands (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

population:
Numbers and population trends are unknown. Mount Clara has a tiny population, which is unlikely to number more than a hundred individuals. The habitat of C. canariensis is severly fragmented as a result of anthropogenic habitat loss and natural barriers to dispersal (R. Hutterer pers. comm. 2006).

habitat:
The Canary shrew's main habitat is the malpaís (barren lava fields), and it seems to be adapted to the hot and dry conditions of these plains (Hutterer et al. 1992, Stone 1995). It feeds on snails and insects in lava tubes, and it is cool inside its burrows even when temperatures reach 60ºC outside. The shrew is also sometimes found in gardens and abandoned arable land adjacent to lava fields, as well as in rocky gullies and sandy areas with rocks and vegetation (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). On Mount Clara, the species is restricted to a single coastal sand dune. More suitable habitat is found on other islands, however, there is a lot of urbanisation and industry.

threats:
This species has a highly restricted distribution. Rapid urbanisation and infrastructure development in and around its range are causing loss and fragmentation of suitable habitat, and desiccation may also be a problem (Hutterer 2004). Introduced cats Felis catus sometimes depredate Canary shrews (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). Other introduced species, e.g. rats and mice, are also present but are not known to have any effect on the Canary shrew. Of these threats, habitat loss is considered to be the most important (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

conservationAction:
C. canariensis is listed on Appendix II of the Bern Convention and Annex IV of the EU Habitats Directive, and is also protected under Spanish law. It is found within a number of National Parks in Fuerteventura. Research is needed to determine the ecological and conservation requirements of this species (Stone 1995). Recommended conservation measures include controlling feral cats and preventing further introductions of alien species to small islands such as Mount Clara (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD)EU 25 regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD)In Europe, this species is restricted to the islands of Ibiza, Sardinia and Pantelleria, where it has a small range (approaching the threshold for the geographic range criterion of the IUCN Red List, i.e less than 20,000 km²). However, there are no data on population trends. Currently there are no serious threats known, but pesticide use may be problematic. More research is needed to determine the status of this species, and reassessment is recommended if more data become available.

range:
This species occurs on the islands of Ibiza (Spain), and Sardinia and Pantelleria (Italy). It also occurs in North Africa, where its range is poorly known but includes Tunisia and eastern Algeria (Wilson and Reeder 2005). The Pantelleria population may be a separate subspecies (cossyrensis). It occurs from sea level to 800-1,000 m above sea level (G. Amori pers. comm. 2006).

population:
Little is known about population size and trends in this species, but it is not rare (G. Amori pers. comm. 2006).

habitat:
It occurs in a variety of habitats including pastures, cultivated fields, low shrubland, gardens, and old agricultural terraces with dry-stone walls.

threats:
No serious threats are known at present, although accidental poisoning with pesticides may be a problem. The population on Pantelleria may be threatened because of its highly restricted range.

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention (as a subspecies of Crocidura russula). Further research is required to determine population status and trends and to investigate potential threats.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Not Evaluated (NE)The species has a relatively large global range, within which it is widespread and facing no major threats. Although its Extent of Occurrence within the European region is fairly small (approaching 20,000 km2), there is no evidence of population declines or range contractions, and no serious threats are known. Consequently it is classed as Least Concern.

range:
Talpa levantis is found along the southern edge of the Black Sea, from southeastern Bulgaria through Turkey to the Caucasus region (Corbet 1978, Wilson and Reeder 2005). It is found from sea level to at least 2,000 m, possibly higher in the Caucasus (B. Kryštufek and V. Vohralík pers. comm. 2006).

habitat:
It inhabits various biotopes from the lowland to the mountains. In its European range it is found in meadows and deciduous forests. Only a few specimens have been collected in the European part of the range through trapping. The majority of records are based on anlyses of raptor and owl pellets. In the eastern parts of its range (the Caucasus) it also occurs in alpine meadows (B. Kryštufek and V. Vohralík pers. comm. 2006).

conservationAction:
It probably occurs in protected areas in the Caucasus.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)This species is widespread and abundant, with no serious threats at present. Consequently it is classed as Least Concern.

range:
The European mole occurs from Britain and Spain eastwards through much of continental Europe to the rivers Ob and Irtysh in Asian Russia (Corbet 1978, Kryštufek 1999, Wilson and Reeder 2005). In Europe, it is generally widespread, although absent from southern Iberia, southern Italy, the southern Balkans (where it is replaced by other Talpa species); and northern Fennoscandia and European Russia. It is found on many islands in the Baltic and around the British coast, but it is not found on Ireland, Iceland, the North Sea islands, and the Mediterranean islands (with the exception of Cres in the northern Adriatic). It is found from sea level to 2,400 m (Kryštufek 1999).

population:
It is generally common in appropriate habitats, with densities of up to 16 individuals per hectare recorded (Kryštufek 1999). It is sufficiently common to be considered a pest of farmland and lawns in many parts of its range.

habitat:
It is present in most habitats where there is sufficiently deep soil to permit the construction of its extensive burrows. It prefers meadows, pastures, arable land, gardens and parks, and is rarely found in coniferous forests, or habitats with sandy, stony or permanently waterlogged soils (Kryštufek 1999). It feeds mainly on earthworms, as well as other soil invertebrates (Niethammer 1990).

threats:
It is widely persecuted as a pest, but although this may cause local population declines it is not a serious threat to the species. In the past, it was hunted in great numbers for its fur, but this no longer occurs.

conservationAction:
It occurs in protected areas within its range. No specific conservation measures are recommended.

redListAssessors:
Vladimir Vohralík, Jan Zima, Boris Kryštufek, Boris Sheftel, Holger Meinig, Nikolai Formozov


redListCategoryRationale:
Although this species is relatively localized and quite poorly known, no major threats are known, and it is listed as Least Concern. The population size has not been quantified, but it is not believed to approach the thresholds for the population size criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. less than 10,000 mature individuals in conjunction with appropriate decline rates and subpopulation qualifiers). The population trend is not known, but it is not believed to approach the thresholds for the population decline criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. declining more than 30% in ten years or three generations).

range:
The Balkan mole is endemic to the Balkans, where it is found in southern Montenegro, western Macedonia, north-eastern Greece, and the island of Corfu. It is likely to occur in Albania. Its vertical range is from sea level to 2,300 m (Kryštufek 1999).

population:
Its population status is not known, but it may be locally abundant (Kryštufek 1999).

habitat:
It occurs in a variety of open habitats including sandy beaches, pastures and arable land (Kryštufek 1999).

conservationAction:
It receives no protection under European legislation. It occurs in some protected areas in northern Greece (for example the Pelister mountains). No further actions are required at present.


redListCategoryRationale:
T. romana is widespread in central and southern Italy. The population size has not been quantified, but it is not believed to approach the thresholds for the population size criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. less than 10,000 mature individuals in conjunction with appropriate decline rates and subpopulation qualifiers). Although intensive arable farming may be a problem in some areas, the population trend is thought to be stable, and is not believed to approach the thresholds for the population decline criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. declining more than 30% in ten years or three generations). For these reasons, it is evaluated as Least Concern.

range:
The Roman mole is endemic to Italy. It is now confined to the mainland, having last been recorded on Sicily in 1885 (Loy 1999). Reports of an isolated subpopulation in the Var region of southern France (Saint Girons 1973 in Niethammer 1990) have not been confirmed (Niethammer 1990, Loy 1999, Wilson and Reeder 2005). It is found from sea level to about 2,000 m (Loy 1999).

population:
It is widespread throughout its range (Loy 1999). No information is available on abundance although it is assumed to be stable (G. Amori pers. comm. 2006).

habitat:
Its ecology is similar to that of the European mole T. europaea. It is found in a variety of habitats including arable fields, pastures, and woods, and it feeds predominantly on earthworms (Niethammer 1990, Loy 1999).

threats:
Local population declines are suspected in areas where there is intensive arable farming (Loy 1999). The mole is widely persecuted as a pest. However, these are not thought to be major threats at present.

conservationAction:
It is not protected under national or international law. No specific conservation measures are known. Occurs in protected areas within its range.


redListCategoryRationale:
The species has a relatively wide range, is common in at least some areas, and is not believed to be facing any major threat. Hence it is listed as Least Concern.

range:
Talpa caeca is endemic to Europe, where it is found in the western Alps, the Apennines, and the Balkan peninsula. It is likely to occur in Albania. Records from the Carpathians (Romania) require confirmation. Small blind moles recently found in Turkish Thrace and southern Bulgaria have been ascribed to T. levantis, but the possibility that they are in fact T. caeca merits further investigation. The species occurs from sea level to 2,000 m, although it is found more often above 1,000 m (Kryštufek 1999).

population:
Its population status is unknown across the whole range, but it is common in the mountainous areas of Italy (G. Amori pers. comm.). It is possible that it is locally common across its whole range. Its distribution is sporadic in karst limestone areas (Kryštufek 1999).

habitat:
It occurs in deciduous woodland, meadows and pastures in hilly or mountainous areas. It requires deep soil that is not too dry, which explains it sporadic distribution in karstic areas. Its diet is probably similar to that of the common mole T. europea, which feeds on soil-dwelling invertebrates, especially earthworms. It tends to be competitively displaced into marginal habitats by the larger T. europea in areas such as the Balkans (Kryštufek 1999). In Italy it is similarly displaced by Talpa romana where the two species occur in sympatry (G. Amori pers. comm. 2006).

conservationAction:
It is not protected under international legislation. It occurs in protected areas across its range. In Italy it is not protected.

redListAssessors:
Amori, G., Hutterer, R., Bertolino, S., Mitsain, G., Yigit, N., Kryštufek, B. & Palomo, L.J.


redListCategoryRationale:
A common species in the Iberian Peninsula and under no major threats. Hence listed as Least Concern.

range:
The Iberian mole is endemic to Portugal and Spain (Foy 1999). It occurs from the coast to 2,300 m (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

population:
It is common in suitable habitats throughout its range (Loy 1999). However, in the southern part of its range it is confined to mountainous areas (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). In Portugal it may be considered a single subpopulation or three separate subpopulations if the rivers are shown to be major barriers to dispersal (M. Fernandes pers. comm. 2006).

habitat:
It is a burrowing species, and like its congener the European mole T. europaea it is found in a variety of habitats so long as there is deep soil that is not excessively stony, sandy, or waterlogged. It is often found in meadows and pastures. In southern parts of its range it is restricted to upland areas (Loy 1999, Palomo and Gisbert 2002). It feeds on invertebrates, especially earthworms (Niethammer 1990).

threats:
It is a pest species causing damage to pastures, so it is persecuted by farmers. Loss of meadows to afforestation is probably the main threat to the species, but this is not thought to be a severe threat at present (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

conservationAction:
It occurs in a number of protected areas. No further actions are required.


redListCategoryRationale:
Listed as Vulnerable because the species is undergoing declines across its whole range. Declines appear to be the highest in Spain, but are lower in France (where the population marginally occurs) and Portugal. An overall decline of 30% over the last ten years is plausible, and given the ongoing threats to this species it is realistic to expect a further decline of at least 30% over the next ten years.

range:
The Pyrenean desman is restricted to the Pyrenees mountains (Andorra, France and Spain), as well as parts of northern and central Spain and northern Portugal. In France it occurs along the Aude, Agly, Salat, Aspe, Ossau, Ariège, Ardour, Tet and Tech rivers. In Portugal it occurs along the Minho, Ancora, Lima, Neiva, Cavado, Ave, Leca, Douro, Vouga, Mondego, and Tejo rivers (Queiroz et al. 1998) In Spain it is found in the upper reaches of rivers in the Pyrenees, the Cantabrian mountains, the Sistema Central, the Picos de Europa and along the Deva River. It also occurs in the Sierra de Guarra north of Huesca and Infiesta, Oviedo, and Burguete, Navarro (J. Herrero pers. comm. 2006). It is found at altitudes between sea level and 2,500 m (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). In Spain, the river systems that the species occurs in flow to three different seas: Mediterranean, Atlantic and Cantabrian; hence the populations are all separated from each other.

population:
The population has declined in recent years, but it is hard to obtain precise estimates of population size and decline rate for this shy and secretive species (González-Esteban et al. 2003). The desman has been radio-tracked in Portugal following successful capture of animals using underwater traps (care is required to check these traps regularly to prevent drownings: M. Fernandes pers. comm. 2006). In favourable habitats population densities may be 5-10 individuals per kilometre, but other studies indicate much lower densities (Quaresma et al. 1998, Chora 2001, Cabral et al. 2005). In Portugal it is estimated that there are less than 10,000 mature individuals divided into small and isolated subpopulations due to the existence of physical (e.g. dams) and ecological barriers (Cabral et al. 2005). In Spain the species has undergone marked declines in the central system (J. Herrero pers. comm. 2006), and the desman has disappeared from some sites where it was previously known (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). In the Spanish Pyrenees and Cantabrian regions densities range from 2.8 to 7.3 animals per km of river (Palomo and Gisbert 2002); however, in the Sistema Central population densities are lower (P. García pers. comm. 2007). In France the population is also declining (S. Aulagnier pers. comm. 2006). As well as population declines, range contractions have been observed along the western, southern, and eastern edges of the desman's range in Portugal (Cabral et al. 2005).

habitat:
The desman's preferred habitat is fast flowing mountain streams, although it is occasionally found in slow moving water bodies such as canals, lakes and marshes. It favours perennial rivers where the margins offer some shelter, and it requires clean and well oxygenated water. G. pyrenaicus is specialised to an aquatic environment. It feeds nocturnally on a diverse array of crustaceans and insect larvae, including stoneflies and caddis fly larvae (Queiroz 1999, Palomo and Gisbert 2002, Cabral et al. 2005).

threats:
This species is confined to a very vulnerable habitat in a restricted area. The most potent threats are from water pollution, and habitat fragmentation caused by the construction of hydro-electric plants, water extraction, and dam and reservoir construction (Queiroz 1999, Palomo and Gisbert 2002, Cabral et al. 2005). Other threats are direct persecution from fishermen who incorrectly believe this species to be a threat to fish stocks, especially trout, or from over-eager collectors. Poison and explosives are used as fishing methods in Portugal, which would kill the desman (Cabral et al. 2005). The escape of North American mink (Neovison vison) from fur farms in northern Iberia might be negatively impacting populations in Galicia. It is predated by otters in Galicia (forming up to 5% of their diet) (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).Climate change is anticipated to be a serious threat to the desman in the near future. The species tends to occur only in areas with annual rainfall superior to 1,000 mm and, given climate change scenarios for Spain, by 2060 the species may be virtually extinct from central Spain and also in most of its important areas from northern Iberia (P. García pers. comm. 2007).

conservationAction:
It is strictly protected under the Bern Convention (Appendix II) and the EU Habitats and Species Directive (Annexes II and IV). Part of the range falls within the Parc National des Pyrénées Occidentales and Parque Nacional de Covadona, and possibly the Parque Nacional de Aiguas y Lago de San Mauricio and the Parque Nacional de Ordesa. This species' conservation has been the topic of an international conference that has drawn up an action plan that includes priority actions. There is also an action plan for the species in Portugal. Actions proposed include appropriate management of water courses, habitat restoration, improvement of knowledge of the threatened populations, and use of the desman as a flagship species to promote river conservation (Cabral et al. 2005). In Spain the species is considered Vulnerable because populations have disappeared from the formerly known range (L.J.P. Muñoz pers. comm. 2007).

redListAssessors:
Fernandes, M., Herrero, J., Aulagnier, S. & Amori, G.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)EU 25 regional assessment: Not Evaluated (NE)A rare species with a fragmented distribution. Population size, area of occupancy, and habitat quality are all declining, and the species faces a number of serious threats including bycatch, habitat loss and degradation, water pollution, and competition from introduced species. Surveys in Russia indicate that the population declined from 39,000 in 1985 to 27,000 in 2000/2001, and it is suspected that rates of decline have increased since then. The desman recently went extinct in Belarus. Overall, it is suspected that declines exceed 30% over a ten-year period in the past or future, so the species is classed as Vulnerable.

range:
This species occurs in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan; it has recently disappeared from Belarus. At the beginning of the 20th century the desman was common in the Dnepr, Don, Volga and Ural rivers basins. Its current range is very fragmented, and it has disappeared form many areas where it formerly occurred. At the end of the 19th century it disappeared from Ukraine, but was reintroduced in the 1950s. In the 1990s it was found again in the Desna (a tributary of the Dnepr, Ukraine).

population:
At the beginning of the 1970s in the Soviet Union there were about 70,000 individuals, of which the majority occurred in Russia, with about 1,500 individuals in Kazahstan and single records in Ukraine and Belarus. More recent surveys in the Russian Federation indicate that the population there declined from 39,000 in 1985 to 27,000 in 2000/2001, and it is suspected that rates of decline have increased since then owing to growing threats from fisheries bycatch. The 2000/2001 survey covered around 30,000 km of the banks of rivers, lakes and artificial reservoirs, and a uniform methodology was used (see the Biodiversity Conservation Centre website http://www.biodiversity.ru/eng/programs/desman/results.html for further details). In Ukraine the desman is currently very rare and in Belarus it has recently been extirpated.

habitat:
A riparian species, it is found in holes primarily along oxbow lakes, less frequently by rivers and ponds. It does not inhabit all water bodies within its range; it has quite strict habitat requirements and prefers water bodies with rich water-marsh vegetation, bushes and primary forests along the banks. Prefers lakes with 1-2 m depth with rich invertebrate fauna. Also found in small rivers with slow flow. In favourable years it is able to reproduce during the whole year, but usually has two reproduction peaks at the end of spring and autumn. Males participate in care of young. Omnivorous, recorded feeding on at least 72 species of water invertebrates and 30 plant species, as well as fish and amphibians.

threats:
The main threat to the Russian desman at present is the widespread use of fixed fishing nets. These nets, which are used by poachers, have become increasingly cheap and widely available in recent years: a recent study recorded 50 'outlets' freely selling these nets on the Moscow-Vladimir section of the Nizhny Novgorod highway alone (http://www.biodiversity.ru/eng/programs/desman/results.html). The very low price and high durability of modern nets means that poachers often leave them in the water for days or even months, checking them only occasionally and often abandoning them. A desman dies on average within 5-10 minutes when trapped in a net. The second most important threat is the use of 'electric landing nets' (or electric rods), which use an electric current to stun fish. These items of equipment, also used by poachers, have become widespread over the last 10-15 years. They are not believed to directly harm desmans, as a general rule, but they almost totally wipe out the fish and aquatic invertebrates that the desman depends upon. A third major threat is habitat loss and degradation. During the second half of the twentieth century water pollution, creation of impoundments, drainage, clearance of riparian vegetation, and uncontrolled agricultural exploitation of flood plains became widespread and contributed to the decline in the species' population. However, this process has abated somewhat in the last decade, and its influence on the decline in the Russian desman population is today secondary. Competition for breeding sites with introduced nutria (Myocastor coypus) and muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus) may also be a threat.

conservationAction:
The desman is listed in the Russian Red Data Book (under category 2: declining in number rare relict species). It is protected in the buffer zone of Okskiy, Voronezhskiy, Kaluzhskie Zaseki Zapovednik, and Ugra National Parks and several small protected areas. This species has been the subject of re-introductions attempts. Recently, conservationists tried to reintroduce it to the Desna basin, in the area of Bryanskiy Les Zapodnenik. The Biodiversity Conservation Centre has started a public campaign against nylon nets and electro-fishing. Conservation measures recommended to stabilize and improve the condition of the Russian desman throughout its range include the following:· Banning the unrestricted sale of nets and net-making materials;· Developing a system of measures to combat electric landing nets; and· Setting up specialized hunting reserves in the desman's key areas of habitation.

redListAssessors:
Katerina Tsytsulina, Nikolai Formozov, Boris Sheftel, Igor Zagorodnyuk


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)This species has a wide range. Population size has not been quantified, but it is not believed to approach the thresholds for the population size criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. less than 10,000 mature individuals in conjunction with appropriate decline rates and subpopulation qualifiers), as the species is described as locally common in at least parts of its range. Population trend has not been quantified, but it is not believed to approach the threshold for the population decline criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. declining more than 30% in ten years or three generations), although there have been some declines. For these reasons, it is evaluated as Least Concern.

range:
Lepus europaeus has a large global range extending from western Europe to western Siberia (Russia) and south-western Asia (Iran). In Europe, the species is widely distributed throughout, with the exception of most of the Iberian peninsula, northern Fennoscandia and northern Russia. It occurs on a number of Mediterranean islands. The population in Ireland was introduced recently, and the population in the UK is a long-established naturalised population, that may originally have been introduced by the Romans (Battersby 2005). As a game species, the European hare has widely been introduced to countries across the globe (Flux and Angermann 1990). It is found from sea level to 2,300 m (Spitzenberger 2002).

population:
It is considered locally common in at least parts of its range, with typical population densities ranging from 0.2 to 0.7 individuals per hectare (Homolka and Zima 1999). In western and central Europe, the species has undergone significant decline in the last 50 years (Flux and Angermann 1990, Homolka and Zima 1999, Battersby 2005, Smith et al. 2005), although there are indications that the population trend has stabilised in recent years in at least some countries (Battersby 2005, Zima pers. comm. 2006). Hunting bags suggest that populations in Finland are currently stable (H. Henttonen pers. comm. 2006). There is no information on population trends in eastern and south-eastern Europe.

habitat:
A highly adaptable species, it occupies a wide variety of habitats, including grassland, steppes, open temperate woodland, arable farmland, and pastures (Flux and Angermann 1990, Homolka and Zima 1999). It tends to be particularly abundant in open, flat areas where cereal cultivation predominate. Dense old-growth forests are avoided (H. Henttonen pers. comm. 2006). Woodland, scrub, hedges and shelterbelts are used as cover when the species is resting (Homolka and Zima 1999). It feeds mainly on grasses and herbaceous plants. When available, weeds and wild grasses are preferred, but where intensive agricultural practices have reduced the availability of these food sources crop species are selected (Reichlin et al. 2006). Unlike Lepus timidus, it does not feed on shrubs.

threats:
Agricultural intensification, in particular the increased use of pesticides, fertilizers and heavy machinery in arable farming, is generally considered to be the main cause of population declines in western and central Europe (Homolka and Zima 1999). A recent study that reviewed available literature on the relationship between hare abundance, demography, habitat, and land-use practices in 12 European countries confirmed that the primary cause of hare decline was intensification of agriculture (Smith et al. 2005). It is inferred that this threat may impact on the species throughout its global range, wherever farming is practiced. Agricultural intensification in eastern and south-eastern Europe is a potential cause for concern, especially in countries that have recently acceded to the EU, or that may join in the near future. In Greece, restocking with hares from other regions has been identified as a threat to local gene pools (Mamuris et al. 2001). This issue has also been identified as a concern for the Cantabric population in Spain (Palacios et al. 2004). It is a popular game species throughout it range in Europe, but hunting is regulated and appears sustainable. Smith et al.'s (2005) review found no evidence of a link between hunting pressure and population density.

conservationAction:
The species is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention. It occurs in many protected areas throughout its wide range. In Norway, Germany, Austria and Switzerland, population declines have resulted in country-specific Red Listing as "near threatened" or "threatened" (Reichlin et al. 2006).Research is needed to determine the effect that habitat change has on life history parameters with regard to declines (Smith et al. 2005). There is a lack of understanding as to why hare numbers are low in pastoral landscapes, and therefore research should be conducted within this habitat type with particular emphasis paid to demography and behavioral ecology (Smith et al. 2005). When population declines are the direct result of agricultural intensification, which results in increased application of fertilizer, landscape homogeneity and mechanization, population declines of L. europaeus can be countered by management practices that increase heterogeneity (Smith et al. 2005).In Spain, molecular phylogenetic studies have shown that the Cantabric population has unique mtDNA in relation to other European populations (Palacios et al. 2004). As an important hunting species, declining numbers have prompted the importation of non-Iberian hares (from France and elsewhere) to supplement hare densities (Palacios et al. 2004). In an effort to conserve this population's gene pool, a captive breeding program has been implemented (Palacios et al. 2004). As of 2003 this program has successfully bred leverets and in 2004 turned its focus to increasing genetic variability by introducing individuals from new localities (Palacios et al. 2004).

redListAssessors:
Giovanni Amori, Jan Zima, Heikki Henttonen, Andrew Smith, Charlotte Johnston


taxonomicNotes:
Two recognized subspecies occur on the Iberian peninsula of Europe. Oryctolagus cuniculus algirus occupies the south-western area (roughly Portugal and southern Spain). Its range overlaps somewhat with that of O. c. cuniculus, which occupies all points north and west of O. c. algirus (Biju-Duval et al. 1991). O. c. cuniculus is thought to be the descendant of early domestic rabbits released into the wild (Chapman and Flux 1990), and is the subspecies that has been introduced throughout Europe and worldwide (Angulo 2004).  O. c. algirus is also found in north Africa, and on Mediterranean and Atlantic islands (Branco et al. 2000).

redListCategoryRationale:
European and EU 25: Populations in all parts of Europe where the rabbit has been established since before 1500 A.D. are considered for this assessment. Significant declines have been reported in many parts of the rabbit's European range, and it is inferred that declines approach 30% over the last 10 years overall. Consequently the species is assessed as Near Threatened (approaching A2b). In many countries outside Europe, the rabbit is an alien invasive species that is itself a threat to many other species; the listing of Near Threatened in Europe should not in any way deter efforts to eradicate the rabbit in areas where it is a conservation problem.

range:
Oryctolagus cuniculus is a widespread and abundant species, which has been introduced to all continents except Antartica. It was originally restricted to Spain, Portugal, western France, and northern Africa, but it has spread over the last two millenia to almost all parts of the European region, including the British Isles, many Mediterranean islands, the Azores, and Madeira. This range expansion occurred partly because of deliberate introductions, as the rabbit was widely exploited as a food source, and partly through natural spread. It remains absent from most of Fennoscandia, and occurs only sporadically on the Balkan peninsula. Outside Europe, it was introduced to Australia, in 1788 and again in 1859, where it is now widespread (Thompson and King 1994). It was introduced to South America unsuccessfully several times since the mid-nineteenth century, and successfully in about 1936; it now maintains a limited range in Argentina and Chile (Thompson and King 1994). Found in many islands in the Pacific, off the African coast, New Zealand, and the Caribbean (Thompson and King 1994).

population:
It is a common species throughout much of its European range. Population densities of 0.5 to 10 individuals per hectare are typical, with densities of up to 100 individuals per hectare having been recorded (Homolka and Zima 1999). However, in at least some parts of Europe the species has undergone significant decline in recent years. In Portugal, a population reduction of 24% was recorded between 1995 and 2002 (Alves and Ferreira 2002), and in Spain and Portugal as a whole it is estimated that there are now as few as 5% of the number of rabbits that existed 50 years ago (Ward 2005). Large declines since 1990 have also been noted in Austria (Spitzenberger 2005) and Germany (Eylert 2004), and in the UK the species declined significantly between 1995 and 2002 (different survey methods give a 48% decline from 1995-2002 and a 23% decline from 1997-2002: Battersby 2005). Subspecies O. c. huxleyi, which occurs on certain Atlantic and Mediterranean islands, has a restricted range and may be threatened (Homolka and Zima 1999).

habitat:
The rabbit occupies a variety of habitats, including grassland, meadows, pastures, arable field-margins, sand-dunes, grassy cliffs, heathland and open woodland. In summer, it feeds on the vegetative parts of a variety of grasses and herbaceous plants, and in winter it eats grasses, bulbs and bark (Macdonald and Barrett 1993). It can be an agricultural pest in areas where it is abundant, and it has caused severe damage to native ecosystems in some areas where it has been introduced (for example Australia) (Ward 2005). Rabbits are an essential keystone element of the Mediterranean ecosystem in Spain and Portugal, being preyed on by at least 39 predator species including the Critically Endangered Iberian lynx Lynx pardinus and the vulnerable and range-restricted Iberian imperial eagle Aquila adalberti (Ward 2005, BirdLife International 2006). Rabbit declines are considered to have had a negative impact on both of these threatened species (Ward 2005, BirdLife International 2006).

threats:
Myxomatosis caused severe population declines in the 1950s, but numbers subsequently rallied as the myxoma virus become less virulent and the rabbit more immune (Macdonald and Barrett 1993, Macdonald and Tattersall 2001). Myxomatosis was deliberately introduced to Europe in 1952 in an effort to control rabbit numbers; it originates from South America (Ward 2005). Declines in recent years have been attributed to Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease (RHD; also known as DHV), myxomatosis, and over-hunting (Ward 2005, Spitzenberger 2005). RHD is believed to have originated in Europe, where it was first detected in 1987 (Ward 2005). Habitat loss (due to agriculture, forestry, development, forest fires and land abandonment) is considered to be a contributory factor to rabbit decline in Iberia (Ward 2005). It is a popular game species, and over-hunting may be a problem in some parts of its range. Pest control measures may cause local population declines. There have been attempts in Australia to develop a genetically modified immunocontraceptive virus for rabbits, and accidental or deliberate illegal spread of such a virus could be a threat to rabbits in the future (Henzell and Cooke 2003, Trout 2003, Ward 2005).

conservationAction:
The issue of eradication of O. cuniculus from its introduced range (e.g. Australia, New Zealand, and many islands) may have overshadowed the significance of rabbit decline in its native range. However, the importance of O. cuniculus within its natural range necessitates that it be considered for listing as threatened in spite of its global abundance. It is a keystone component of the Iberian ecosystem, as prey for specialist predators (Virgos et al. 2005) and as a landscape modeller (Delibes et al. 2000, Ward 2005). It is an important game species in Spain and Portugal (Ward 2005). Oryctolagus cuniculus occurs in some protected areas within its natural range, including Donana National Park in Spain (Ward 2005) and Serra da Malcata Nature reserve in Portugal (700km2) where the Iberian lynx is protected.Ward (2005) summarises key issues regarding the conservation of the European rabbit within its native range: "- Establish rabbit monitoring programs to accurately describe decline directly.- Create and implement a management plan for rabbit recovery that prioritizes critical ranges and populations. Some plans have begun for local regions, including Donana National park. - Programs to limit the incidence and impact of new and existing diseases may be difficult in the wild, though some success has been observed in captive populations. Current vaccines do not confer total immunity to RHD or myxomatosis, have side effects such as increasing vulnerability to predators, and have short-lived effectiveness. A genetically modified live myxomatosis virus vaccine, LapinVac, is controversial because of the possibility of unpredictable evolution of the virus, and its potential spread to rabbit populations outside the natural O. cuniculus range where eradication, not conservation, is the objective. Increasing habitat quality may indirectly help rabbit disease resistance. Controlling disease vectors for myxomatosis has not been found to be effective. Preventing the spread of modified immunocontraceptive viruses engineered in Australia to control rabbit fertility may become an issue.- Reducing hunting impact is not guaranteed to reduce decline because disease effects often outweigh hunting as a threat, and because implementation of restrictions would likely not be realistic given the prevalence of hunting in Iberia. Revisions to existing hunting seasons have been proposed and some tested, but even moving the season to summer when rabbits are most abundant has caused concern in trials because the overall catch increases and the season coincides with a peak in death from disease. A growing recognition among hunters of the issue of rabbit decline has led to some self-restraint, and though often well intentioned, uninformed management strategies are leading to inappropriate actions. Rather than focusing on hunting restraint, many hunters exert efforts to reduce rabbit predators, which are not directly responsible for decline. As a very large demographic, hunters could represent a powerful force in maintaining sustainable hunting populations, if the awareness of the issue of decline increased within this group.- Rabbit populations affected by agriculture represent a sensitive issue, as rabbits are typically seen as a pest and an economic liability for farmers. Despite pressures from environmental groups, many farmers continue to take measures to eradicate rabbits from their land, even in areas where rabbit populations have declined dramatically. Awareness among farmers of rabbit conservation issues is low. Government policy allows farmers to control rabbits with permits, and though crop loss due to rabbit damage is economically subsidized, no requirement of those compensated is made for conservation.- Halting and reversing habitat loss and fragmentation was aided in the 1990s by the establishment of many national parks in Spain, but much optimal rabbit habitat is on private land. A shift from high-intensity farming and monoculture forestry back to mixed agro-forestry and small scale farming would help sustain rabbit populations. Natura 2000 promotion of sustainable development and EU subsidies supporting environmentally friendly agriculture are promising but underfunded and too new to demonstrate a significant impact. Eucalyptus plantation removal has demonstrated a positive effect on rabbit populations, but may compromise other environmental issues such as erosion and conditioned bird habitat, as well as economic impact.- Reintroductions have been a key focus of conservation efforts, with up to 500,000 released annually in Spain and France. The efforts so far have not increased rabbit populations, due to increased mortality from predation and inadvertent spread of disease, which may actually have a net negative impact. The flaws in reintroduction practices do not completely negate the importance of the efforts, which have been shown to help sustain predators and hunting populations. The success of introductions may be increased by fencing from predators and competitors and preventing dispersal.- Though rabbit predators have not directly caused rabbit decline, factors that have caused initial decline (e.g., disease, habitat loss) are exacerbated by some opportunistic predators (while not caused by specialist predators like the Iberian lynx and Imperial eagle). Game keeping efforts to increase rabbit populations often focus on predator reduction, sometimes counterproductively, causing decline of top predators that are already threatened. Efforts could be more productively focused on habitat protection, reduction of rabbit mortality by humans (hunting, poisoning), and reducing disease impacts."


