# European_Red_List_2017_December

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Not Applicable (NA) Cookie-cutter Shark (Isistius brasiliensis) is only known from one record in Madeira, therefore likely representing less than 1% of the total global population of the species and being assessed as Not Applicable in the European region.

range:
This oceanic species is widespread in temperate and tropical regions, although records are patchy. In European waters, only one specimen has been caught off Madeira in the Eastern Central Atlantic (Cadenat and Blache 1981). The species has been found at depths of 1,000 m.

population:
Nothing is known about population size or structure. The population is inferred to be stable based on its limited interaction with fisheries.

habitat:
This oceanic shark occurs at depths beyond the main fisheries (1,000 m). It makes diurnal vertical migrations from below 1,000 m in the day to near the surface at night (Last and Stevens 1994). This species is small, having only been recorded up to 50 cm total length. Nothing else is known of its biology.

threats:
This species is rarely taken as bycatch in commercial fisheries owing to its small body size and deep depth range (>1,000 m). Thus, there are no significant threats in place.

conservationAction:
There are currently no conservation measures in place for this species. Further research should be conducted to determine the population size and trends of the species.


taxonomicNotes:
This species might be confused with the congener Isistius brasiliensis.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)Largetooth Cookiecutter Shark is a rare epibenthic and epipelagic shark that is known from less than ten specimens. Its geographic range is possibly circumglobal, but records are from scattered locations throughout the Pacific and Atlantic. All specimens have been collected close to land unlike its congener, Cookiecutter Shark (Isistius brasiliensis). The largest recorded specimen was just over 42 cm total length, but very little is known of the biology of this facultative ectoparasite. It is probably rare bycatch of pelagic and bottom trawl and longline fisheries (i.e., taken by hook or attached to its captured prey). It is likely that this shark occurs in European waters as it has been recorded in other similar regions of the world. The lack of records from the Northeast Atlantic suggests that this shark is very rarely caught by fisheries in this area. Given its extremely limited interaction with fisheries, it can be inferred that the population is stable. Largetooth Cookiecutter Shark is therefore assessed as Least Concern in the European region. Monitoring should be conducted on the harvest trend of this species.

range:
This species has been recorded sporadically from throughout the Pacific and Atlantic (Zidowitz et al. 2004, Ebert and Compagno 2013). The only Northeast Atlantic record is from north of the Azores (43° 58’N, 28° 32’W; Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Its depth range is 60-2,060 m.

population:
This species is rarely encountered compared to Cookiecutter Shark (Isistius brasiliensis). This may be due to its more localised or limited geographic range, its occurrence in deeper water, or its lower abundance (Ebert and Compagno 2013). Given its limited interaction with fisheries, the population is suspected to be stable. 

habitat:
This is an epibenthic and epipelagic species that occurs at depths of around 100 m over the continental shelf and at depths of 60−120 m over continental slopes with bottom depths of 815−2,060 m. All known specimens have been collected close to land, except one specimen caught north of the Azores at about 95 m deep over water 890−980 m deep (Zidowitz et al. 2004, Ebert and Compagno 2013, Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Its infrequency of capture compared with Cookiecutter Shark suggests that it may be localised or more limited in its geographic range and habitat, and it might occur in deeper water (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Little information is available on this species’ biology as it is known from fewer than ten specimens. It reaches a maximum size of at least 42 and 34 cm total length for females and males, respectively (Garrick and Springer 1964, Zidowitz et al. 2004, Ebert and Compagno 2013). This species is a facultative ectoparasite, like Cookiecutter Shark, but it likely uses a different biting/cutting action (Ebert and Compagno 2013). 

threats:
This shark is not targeted by commercial fisheries, but it is occasionally taken as bycatch in pelagic and bottom trawl fisheries and longline fisheries. Fishermen sometimes suspect it of being the cause of “crater wounds” and gouges on fishes, which lowers the quality of their catch (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). One specimen was retrieved attached to a hooked Blue Shark (Prionace glauca; Sadowsky et al. 1988, Amorin et al. 1998). This species may occur in areas less heavily fished than Cookiecutter Shark, therefore reducing the likelihood of it being captured by fishing gear.

conservationAction:
No species-specific management or conservation measures are currently in place. Monitoring should be conducted on harvest trend of the species.

redListAssessors:
Kyne, P.M., Gerber, L. & Sherrill-Mix, S.


taxonomicNotes:
Seigel et al. (1977) considered Squaliolus sarmenti and S. aliae as synonyms of S. laticaudus. Sasaki and Uyeno (1987) subsequently removed S. aliae from the synonymy as distinct and the genus now contains these two widely recognised species. Squaliolus laticaudus is sympatric with S. aliae in some regions.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least ConcernBig-eyed Dwarf Shark (Squaliolus laticaudus) is one of the world’s smallest sharks with a maximum size of 27.5 cm total length. This shark is rarely taken by fisheries because of its small size. It has a widespread warm-temperate and tropical distribution, occurring near landmasses generally over continental slopes and avoiding central ocean basins. Little is known of its biology, but it is known to undertake diel vertical migrations that probably relate to prey movement. While records of this species from the Northeast Atlantic are patchy, it can be inferred that the status in this region is similar to that globally. The absence of identifiable threats and its widespread distribution justifies an assessment of Least Concern in the European region.

range:
This species is widespread in many warm-temperate and tropical regions. In the Northeast Atlantic, there are patchy records from the Bay of Biscay, France (Ebert and Stehmann 2013), and the Azores (Aires Da Silva et al. 1998). In the Eastern Central Atlantic there are patchy records from off of Madeira, the Canary islands and Cape Verde (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). The known range will likely increase as more specimens are recognized. The depth range is 500–2,000 m during the day to ~200 m at night.

population:
No information on population size or stock structure is available. 

habitat:
This oceanic species occurs near landmasses and avoids central ocean basins. It is primarily found over the continental slope at 200–500 m, but it also occurs over continental shelves. It avoids the surface, but undertakes vertical migrations on a diel cycle from depths of 500–2,000 m during the day to ~200 m at night, probably relating to prey movement (Ebert and Compagno 2013). Ebert and Compagno (2013) report that Squaliolus spp. may occur as single individuals as well as in aggregations.This is one of the world’s smallest shark species with a maximum size of 27.5 cm total length (TL) (Ebert and Compagno 2013). Males mature at 15.2 cm TL on average and reach a maximum size of 22.3 cm TL. Females mature at 17–20 cm TL on average and reach a maximum size of 27.5 cm TL. Size at birth is 8–10 cm TL (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). The reproductive mode of this species is live-bearing with yolk-only nutrition, and it produces litters of three to five pups. All known records of gravid females to date came from between 27° and 32°N. Nothing else is known about the breeding behavior or reproductive cycle of this shark (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). 

threats:
This species is of no interest to fisheries, though it is probably taken as bycatch by bottom trawl fisheries overlapping its range (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). This shark has occasionally been taken by bottom longline fisheries at depths of 700–750 m and pelagic longline fisheries at depths of 60–80 m over water ~1,220 m deep (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Incidental catch is rare, because it is generally too small to be caught in fishing gear.

conservationAction:
No specific conservation requirements, although the distribution, population size and trends needs to be better defined with the collection and documentation of further specimens during oceanic survey work. Research into life history is also required.

useAndTrade:
The species is not exploited or traded commercially.


taxonomicNotes:
Synonym = Echinorhinus (Rubusqualus) mccoyi Whitley, 1931.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Endangered (EN) Bramble Shark (Echinorhinus brucus) is apparently a rare deepwater shark, with individual specimens recorded sporadically at widely dispersed localities. This species may be present at greater depths than it is commercially fished. It reaches a large size and although very little is known of its life history, it is likely a slow growing, late-maturing species with low overall productivity. In the Northeast Atlantic, it appears to have been eliminated from the continental shelf habitat early in the development of industrialised fisheries. There is possibly a substantial portion of the population in waters deeper than those reached by trawl fishing. There is no information on trends in abundance for the last few decades, nor is there evidence of recent captures despite widespread, intense trawling activity throughout the species’ former range, but it is suspected that the European population of Bramble Shark has undergone a decline of more than 50% over a century (approximately three generations), therefore classifying the species as Endangered under criterion A2bcd.

range:
This species is present almost worldwide. In the Northeast Atlantic, it occurs in coastal waters from Norway to Africa (Ebert and Stehmann 2013), including Portugal and Spain. In the Mediterranean Sea, it occurs off Spain, France, Italy, Algeria, Croatia, Malta and Turkey. Its depth range is 18-1,214 m.

population:
Most records of this shark are historical (Quero and Emmonnet 1993, Quero and Cendrero 1996, Quero 1998, Kabasacal and Delyan 2011). There is little information on current population trends, though it is apparent that this species is currently quite rare throughout most of its former European range. Historically, it was present throughout much of the Mediterranean Sea, from the Gulf of Lions (Capapé 2000) to the Aegean Sea and Levantine Basin (Bilecenoglu et al. 2002). This species was common in the coastal waters of the Bay of Biscay (Arcachon) in the 18th century (Quero and Cendrero 1996, and references therein). At that time, it was considered one of the five "big fish" caught by dredge fishing (pêche du peugne) in November and December, suggesting that it was a significant portion of the catch. This shark might have been captured with nets from the continental shelf at depths of 15−65 m. In the 19th century, reports indicated that this species was discarded in Arcachon, and by the end of the 19th century it was rarely caught in this area. In the 20th century, only six specimens were recorded from the Bay of Biscay. In the Mediterranean Sea, this species is reported sporadically from the western central and northeast areas (Boero and Carli 1979, Bilecenoglu et al. 2002, De Maddalena and Zuffa 2003, Storai 2004, Kabasakal and Delyan 2011). In the Gulf of Lion - another heavily exploited trawl-fishing ground - Bramble Shark was detected in the 1940s, but not in later decades (Aldebert 1997). In the Gulf of Naples, retired Italian bottom longline fishermen called this species ‘Fico d’india’, but the current generation of fishermen no longer do (Psomadakis et al. 2009). In Turkish waters, this species was caught in high numbers at the beginning of the 20th century (Kabasakal and Delyan 2011). Its meat was sold and consumed locally. Now, this shark is detected only sporadically in these waters. It is likely that similar patterns of decline occurred early in the development of European fisheries elsewhere in European Union (EU) waters (i.e., Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea), but equally detailed historical accounts of this shark in these areas do not exist. Hence, this species appears to have been eliminated from the shelf seas of EU waters almost unnoticed. It is suspected that the European populations of Bramble Shark have undergone a decline of more than 50% over a century (approximately three generations).

habitat:
This bottom-dwelling shark occurs on upper and middle continental slopes, mainly at depths of 400−900 m (based on relatively few captures), but it has also been taken in water as shallow as 18 m (Boero and Carli 1979, Lipej et al. 2004, Ebert and Stehmann 2013) and as deep as 1,214 m (Kabasakal 2005). It is considered a fairly sedentary, slow moving shark, though it may be capable of short rushes to capture prey (e.g., fish and crustaceans). Little is known about the reproductive cycle of this shark. It is live bearing and embryos rely on the yolk sac for nutrition. Litters of 15−26 pups are born at a total length (TL) of 24−50 cm (Quero 1998, Ebert and Stehmann 2013). The maximum size for this species is around 310 cm TL. It has a long generation length of more than 30 years, similar to other large-bodied deepwater species.

threats:
This shark is likely the unreported bycatch of several deepwater trawl and longline fisheries. Given the long generation time of this species, it is sensitive even to very low levels of fishery exploitation. 

conservationAction:
No species-specific management or conservation measures are currently in place. This species is not listed as one of the deepwater sharks protected by the EU zero Total Allowable Catch limitation on European Commission vessels (CEC 2012). In 2013, the EU banned the removal of shark fins on board vessels (CEC 2013), in line with advice from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission’s Shark Specialist Group and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (CEC 2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection.Monitoring should be undertaken on the harvest of this species.

useAndTrade:
At the beginning of the 20th century, its meat was sold for consumption locally in the Mediterranean region (Kabasakal and Delyan 2011). Its meat has also been used for fishmeal and its liver oil for medicinal purposes in South Africa


taxonomicNotes:
A comparison of Southeastern to North Atlantic specimens should be carried out to determine if both populations are the same species.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC) Black Dogfish (Centroscyllium fabricii) has a widespread but discontinuous distribution in the Northeast Atlantic, occurring from depths of 180 to 2,250 m. The deeper extent of its range affords it refuge from fishing pressure, although it is a bycatch of deepwater fisheries elsewhere. While this species is likely to have low productivity and recovery potential, the effort and expansion of deepwater fisheries in European waters has declined over the past decade, and zero Total Allowable Catch quotas have been introduced, reducing the likelihood of mortality for the species. This dogfish is therefore assessed as Least Concern in the Northeast Atlantic, although the activity and effect of deepwater fisheries in this region should be monitored, as the status of this species could change in the event of fishery expansion.

range:
In the Northeast Atlantic, Black Dogfish (Centroscyllium fabricii) occurs off Iceland, along the Atlantic Slope, including the Iceland-Faroe Ridge, Faroes, southern Norway, Rockall Trough, Porcupine Seabight and Morocco (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Its depth range is 180-2,250 m.

population:
The size of the European subpopulation is unknown, but it is inferred to be stable because there has been no trend in abundance from 1998 until present in the Scottish deepwater surveys of the Northeast Atlantic (ICES 2014). No information is available for the period preceding this survey, although it is possible that there might have been some unquantifiable reduction in the population as there were deepwater fisheries in operation from 1989 onwards.

habitat:
This is a deepwater schooling shark of the outer continental shelf and slope found at depths from 180 to 2,250 m but mostly below 275 m (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). In the Rockall Trough it has been recorded from the 1,250 to 1,500 m bathymetric zone (Mauchline and Gordon 1983). Off Iceland the species is most abundant between 800 and 1,200 m (range 436 to 1,653 m; Jakobsdottir 2001). Off Greenland it is present from 338 to 1,299 m but more common below 500 m (Yano 1995) and in the Northeast Atlantic it is found from 400 to 1,400 m depth, with high concentrations between 350 and 500 m (Kulka 2006).At high latitudes in the north Atlantic it may move near the surface, especially during the winter (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Most commonly caught at the bottom of the ocean where water temperatures usually range from 3.5-4.5°C, with a minimum of 1.0°C. In the Northeast Atlantic, the largest catches came from the warmest available locations (between 5 and 6.5°C), primarily in the Laurentian Channel (Kulka 2006).Size at maturity for the Northeast Atlantic is around 51-70 cm total length (TL) and around 46-63 cm TL in females and males respectively (Yano 1995, Jakobsdottir 2001). Maturity stages have been observed during two seasons indicating an undefined breeding season in Iceland waters (Jakobsdottir 2001). The species is live bearing with yolk sac only nutrition. Reports of litter size also vary but it has been reported at a mean of 16.4 (range 4-40; Yano 1995). Size at birth is from 15-20 cm TL and maximum size is 107 cm TL in the north Atlantic (Ebert and Stehmann 2013).

threats:
This species is taken as bycatch in deepwater mixed trawl, gillnet, mixed and directed longline fisheries, and is discarded at sea owing to the European Union’s zero Total Allowable Catch (TAC) quotas in place since 2010 for a select group of sensitive deepwater sharks. There is no information available on post-release survival rate, nor the condition in which individuals are discarded after capture.Given that the highest abundance occurs at around 1,300 m, with its core depth range from 800 to 1,800 m (ICES 2014), a large part of the local population is well below the maximum depth of the Northeast Atlantic deepwater fishery (about 1,000 m in recent years, although French vessels often fished down to 1,400 m in the past). This should offer some degree of refuge and may explain why no decline has been observed in recent years. Furthermore, deepwater fisheries effort has decreased over the past decade (Dransfeld et al. 2013, STECF 2014), but should still be monitored in case of future expansion, which could pose a threat to this shark. Off Iceland, the species is likely to be discarded by the commercial fishery for Greenland Halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) in considerable amounts. Records are rare and purely incidental, but Jakobsdottir (2001) estimated a bycatch of 98 and 109 tonnes (t) in 1996 and 1997 respectively based on trawl surveys in the area. Records of the catch proportions of the fleet in this area are needed for a full evaluation of the level of discarding of this species.French landings (mainly from the Faroes and waters northwest of Ireland) decreased from about 250 t in 2000 to nearly 30 t in 2004 (ICES 2005). Iceland reported few landings from their waters and the largest annual landings reported by Spain came from north of the Azores in 2000 (85 t) and 2001 (91 t; ICES 2005). In 2011, landings were reported by Norway (31 t), Iceland (45 t) and Spain (2 t), and from the northern North Sea, Faroes, Irish waters, the English Channel, and north Azores (ICES 2013).

conservationAction:
Based on advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to end fishing for deepwater sharks, the European Union Fisheries Council established a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) limitation for a group of particularly sensitive deepwater sharks including this species in 2007 (CEC 2012). This TAC was gradually reduced and in 2010 it was set at zero. In 2011, the allowable bycatch was also reduced, from 10% to 3% of the 2009 TAC and in 2012 it was further reduced to zero (ICES 2013).More information on biology, ecology and bycatch levels is required to determine future conservation requirements.

redListAssessors:
Blasdale, T., Walls, R., Jung, A., Dureuil, M., Ebert, D.A., Crozier, P. & McCormack, C.


taxonomicNotes:
In geographic regions other than North America sharks referred to as this species are Etmopterus baxteri or Etmopterus unicolor (Compagno and Niem 1998).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)  Great Lanternshark (Etmopterus princeps) is a relatively small (up to 75 cm total length) and poorly known deepwater shark (350-4,500 m) that occurs in the Northeast and Eastern Central Atlantic. This species is not targeted by fisheries, but it is taken as bycatch in deepwater trawl and longline fisheries over much of its range. The population is inferred to be stable from catch per unit of fishing effort data estimated from Scottish research surveys between 2000 and 2012. In 2010, the European Union Fisheries Council banned catch of several deepwater shark species, including Great Lanternshark, but high levels of bycatch and discarding are still suspected. The productivity and recovery potential of this species is likely to be low based on life history traits of other deepwater sharks. Great Lanternshark is assessed as Least Concern on the basis of inferred population stability in the European region despite fisheries bycatch.

range:
In the Northeast Atlantic, this species occurs in the Denmark Strait between Greenland and Iceland, off southern Iceland along the Atlantic slope to the Faeroe Islands, Norway, Scotland (including Rockall Trough), Ireland, southwest England, Bay of Biscay, France, Spain, Portugal, Gibraltar, the Azores, and the Canary Islands (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). The species is also found in the Northwest Atlantic.  Generally, it occurs at depths of 3502,213 m, but also on the lower rise of the Northeast Atlantic at 3,7504,500 m.

population:
Scottish research surveys’ catch per unit of fishing effort data found no trend in population between 2000 and 2012 (ICES 2013). Although the European Union (EU) banned the catch of this species in 2010, bycatch and discard levels are still suspected to be significant (Jakobsdóttir 2001, Clarke et al.2005, Pajuelo et al.2010).

habitat:
This species occurs on continental slopes, on or near the bottom. Generally, it occurs at depths of 3502,213 m, but also on the lower rise of the Northeast Atlantic at 3,7504,500 m (Compagno 2001). Off the coast of western Iceland, this species was most abundant at depths of 8001,000 m, with more females than males at depths > 1,000 m (Jakobsdóttir 2001).The maximum recorded size for this species was a female at 89 cm total length (TL) (Jakobsdóttir 2001). Size at maturity is 62.2 cm TL for females and 57.3 cm TL for males. This species appears to have at least two peak spawning periods: June to July, and October (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). It is a live bearing species, with yolk-only nutrition. Litter size is 10 pups on average, and size at birth is ~1217 cm TL (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Its generation length is estimated in around 43.5 years.

threats:
This species is not targeted by commercial fisheries, but it is taken as bycatch and retained in groundfish fisheries in the Eastern Atlantic (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Species-specific catch data are rare, but total estimated landings were ~20 tonnes in 2008. Fishing mortality from discards is likely much higher (Ebert and Stehmann 2013).

conservationAction:
Based on advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to end fishing for deepwater sharks, the EU Fisheries Council established a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for this species in 2007 (CEC 2012). This TAC was gradually reduced and in 2010 it was set at zero. In 2011, the allowable bycatch was reduced from 10% to 3% of the 2009 TAC and in 2012 it was further reduced to zero (ICES 2013).Like many deepwater shark species, more information on their biology, ecology and prevalence in fisheries is required. Better monitoring and reporting is needed for deepwater fishery bycatch.

redListContributors:
Herndon, A., Burgess, G.H. & Fordham, S.


taxonomicNotes:
The similar, but larger, Etmopterus bigelowi was previously confused with this species until described as a distinct species by Shirai and Tachikawa (1993) (Compagno in prep.).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD) Smooth Lanternshark (Etmopterus pusillus) is a deepwater shark that occurs on continental and insular slopes at depths of 274−1,000 m. It is captured in large quantities off the Portuguese coast as bycatch of deepwater fisheries. Species-specific landings data are generally unavailable because this species is either discarded or retained in mixed deepwater shark catches that are not identified to species level. Post-discard survival is unknown. Little is known about the biology and distribution of this species, but we can infer that the productivity and recovery potential are probably low as for other deepwater species. Due to the lack of data available for inferring population trends, this species cannot be assessed beyond Data Deficient for the European region at this time.

range:
The species is found globally, through the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans. In the Northeast and Eastern Central Atlantic, this species occurs off Portugal, Madeira, the Azores and the Canary Islands. The depth range is 274−1,000 m or more, possibly to 1,998 m.

population:
This shark is captured in several fisheries off the southern Portuguese coast. Catch per unit effort data for deepwater longlines set at 200−780 m depth have increased insignificantly from 2.23 specimens per 1,000 hooks (s.d.=2.72) in 1997−1998 (Erzini et al. 1999) to 2.27 specimens per 1,000 hooks (s.d.=2.72) in 2003 (Coelho et al. 2005), which suggests no detectable trend.

habitat:
This lanternshark occurs on or near the bottom of continental and insular slopes at depths of 274−1,000 m or more, possibly to 1,998 m (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Its reproductive mode is live bearing with yolk-only nutrition. Litter size is one to six, with an average of 3.5 embryos; although fecundity may be slightly higher than reported given that the number of ovarian eggs in adult females tends to be slightly higher at two to 18, averaging 10−11. Size at birth is 15−16 cm total length (TL; Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Age at maturation is eight to 11 years for females and five to nine years for males (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). It likely varies with the region, but in Portuguese waters size at maturation is estimated to be 43.6 cm TL for females and 38.1 cm TL for males. Given the observed maximum body size, this species matures extremely late in its life cycle: 86.9% of 50.2 cm TL for females and 79.5% of 47.9 cm TL for males (Coelho and Erzini 2005). Maximum-age estimates range up to 17 years for females and 13 years for males (Ebert and Stehmann 2013).

threats:
This species is taken as bycatch in bottom trawl and longline fisheries operating in the eastern Atlantic. Bycatch from Portuguese longliners targeting European Hake (Merluccius merluccius), Wreck Fish (Polyprion americanus) and Conger Eels (Conger conger) is a significant threat to lanternsharks because their rocky-bottom habitat makes them more accessible to this type of fishery (Coelho and Erzini 2008). It is also captured in high quantities as bycatch of the bottom trawl fishery that targets Norway Lobster (Nephrops norvegicus), Red Shrimp (Aristeus antennatus) and Deepwater Pink Shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris; Erzini et al. 1999, Coelho and Erzini 2005). Species-specific landings data are difficult to come by as it is always discarded in Portuguese waters (Coelho et al. 2005), or retained in mixed deepwater shark catches and rarely identified to species level in other parts of the eastern Atlantic (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Post-release survival rate has not yet been estimated.

conservationAction:
No species-specific management or conservation measures are in place. Further research should be conducted to determine the population size and trends of the species, and the levels of harvesting need to be monitored.

redListContributors:
Coelho, R.P., Tanaka, N., Compagno, L.J.V., Jung, A. & Fordham, S.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT)Velvet Belly Lanternshark (Etmopterus spinax) is a species of no commercial value. All specimens captured as bycatch by commercial fishing vessels are generally discarded and only occasionally processed and sold together with some other common species from its depth range. Data from the Mediterranean Sea and Eastern Central Atlantic indicate that the species is still relatively common in scientific and commercial trawl surveys, although there is evidence that the population may have declined in some areas in recent decades. Management measures, such as a 2005 ban on bottom trawling below 1,000 m depth in the Mediterranean Sea, likely protect part of the population. In the Northeast Atlantic deepwater fisheries are more intense, and scientific trawl surveys indicate that catch rates declined by nearly 20% from the 1970s to 2004. In the Mediterranean Sea, population densities and structure show a stable population despite fishing pressure from bottom trawls in frequently exploited slope grounds. Given that fishing pressure in the pelagic zone of the Mediterranean Sea is rare, the partially mesopelagic habits of this species may have protected it from fishing pressure. Continued monitoring is required to ensure that this species is not detrimentally affected by expanding deepwater fisheries in the future, particularly in the Northeast and Eastern Central Atlantic, but also in the Mediterranean Sea.Assuming that the subpopulations in the Mediterranean and the Northeast Atlantic are roughly equally split, an overall reduction of 26% has occurred in European waters over the last 26 years (three generations), being close to meet the threshold for Vulnerable under Criterion A2. The species is therefore assessed as Near Threatened.

range:
This is a common lantern shark species occurring in the Mediterranean Sea, Northeast and Eastern Central Atlantic. Within the Mediterranean Sea, it is most common in the western part of the basin (Spain, France, Italy, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco; Baino et al. 2001) and less common in the central and mid-eastern areas (Albania, Malta, Libya, Greece; Serena 2005). It is also found in the easternmost areas of the Mediterranean Sea (Israel, Cyprus) (Gilat and Gelman 1984, Galil and Goren 1994, Jones et al. 2003), and is apparently absent from the Marmara and Black Seas (Serena 2005). In the Northeast Atlantic, it is found in Iceland and Norway, and westwards to the Canary Islands (Brito et al. 2002) and the Azores (Santos et al. 1997). Its range continues southward to the Eastern Central Atlantic, where it is found in Senegal, Sierra Leone, Côte d'Ivoire to Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon (Ebert and Stehmann 2013), and the Cape Verde Islands (Reiner 1996). Its depth limit is 70-2,000 m.

population:
Mediterranean Sea Data collected from 1985–2002 by the Italian national “Gruppo Nazionale Risorse Demersali” (GRUND) project and from 1994–2002 by the International Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean (MEDITS) project (Relini 1998, Bertrand et al. 2000) provided information on the abundance and bathymetric distribution of this shark in the Mediterranean Sea. This species was present at both high frequencies (19% of the hauls) and high abundance (between one and 10 kg per km2), with a standing stock biomass of 4% (2,248 t). It had an especially high presence in the western-central part of the Mediterranean Sea (Morocco, Spain, France, Tyrrhenian, Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily coasts) (Baino et al. 2001). This high presence may also be associated with stable subpopulations in some areas. For example, in the northern Tyrrhenian Sea, analysis of trends in Biomass Index (BI kg per km2) from 1985–2002 indicated stable subpopulations (Relini et al. 2000, Cecchi et al. 2004). Several authors have pointed out differences in abundance of this species in the Mediterranean Sea, and in some cases marked decreases in abundance during recent decades for several geographic areas. Data collected in the Gulf of Valencia (Spain) from a bottom trawl fishery sampled from 1988–1989 revealed a Frequency of Occurrence (FO) for this species of 87.5% in trawls carried out between 450 and 675 m depth, and a mean abundance of 4.93 specimens obtained per trip (Guallart 1990). In 2013, trawl surveys were conducted in the same area for comparison and showed that abundance has remained relatively stable, with a FO of 76.5%, and a mean abundance of 3.88 specimens obtained per trip (Guallart et al. 2013). In both cases juveniles and adults of both sexes were represented in the size-frequency distribution. However, differences in abundance within the Mediterranean Sea exist, and there is evidence for decline in some areas. In particular, Ordines et al. (2011) found marked differences in abundance between the Balearic Islands (FO: 75.0% hauls; mean 3.71 specimens per haul) and Algerian waters (FO: 89.9% hauls; mean 49.3 specimens/haul). Significant declines in catches for this species were noted in the Balearic Sea between 2000 and 2010, which may be linked to previous exploitation period in each area and this species’ sensitivity to exploitation. However, Cartes et al. (2013) analysed changes in the deepwater shark composition of catches in the Balearic Sea over a longer period of 60 years. Their results showed marked oscillations in abundance, but with a global balance of decrease from ~ 90% FO in the 1950s to ~ 30% FO in 2007. Unlike Ordines et al. (2011), they attributed these variations to environmental change, such as changes in temperature and salinity that have occurred in deep-water masses in this region since the 1950s. Further east, in the waters surrounding Sicily, abundance data showed a FO ranging from 28.2–67.1 %; and an abundance ranging from 37.9–114.7 specimens/km2 (Ragonese et al. 2013). The above results from the Balearic Sea would indicate a 33% estimated decline over the 57-year period from 1950-2007. This translates into a 0.993 annual proportional decline, and considering a stable population size from 2007-2015, a reduction of 12% is estimated to have occurred over the last 26 years (1989-2015, three generations).Northeast Atlantic Information for this species from the Northeast Atlantic is limited, but suggests declines in catches where data are available. Catch rates in Scottish surveys from 1998–2001 had declined by 81% when compared to surveys by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) in the 1970s. While these surveys cannot be directly compared as they used different gear and vessels and fished at different depth ranges, they do appear to suggest that population levels have declined slightly from pre-fishery levels (Jones et al. 2005). French deepwater trawl vessels in International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Division VIa (West of Scotland) showed discard rates of this species to peak at a catch per unit effort (CPUE) of 18.3 kg per hour fished (kg/hr) at 500 m and then decline to 1.3 kg/hr at 700 m (Crozier 2003). Reports on catches of this species in the Eastern Central Atlantic have mostly come from southern Portugal and West Africa. In southern Portugal, Coelho and Erzini (2008b) described a mean abundance of 30.88 specimens obtained per haul, and found during scientific deepwater trawl surveys that CPUE was greatest at 500 m depth with a capture rate of 15.75 specimens per hour (Coelho et al. 2005b). This species was common off the coast of northwest Africa in the 1980s and was still very common in surveys conducted in 2005 (Gulyugin et al. 2006).Considering the 81% estimated decline over the 1970-2001 period, there is an annual proportional change of 0.9478, and considering a stable population size from 2007-2015, a reduction of 62% is estimated over the last 26 years (three generations).Assuming that the subpopulations in the Mediterranean and the Northeast Atlantic are roughly equally split, an overall reduction of 26% is calculated for European waters over the last 26 years (three generations). The population trend in the Northeast Atlantic is decreasing, while it remains stable in the Mediterranean Sea. At the European level, the population trend is stable.

habitat:
This lantern shark is most often described as a benthic or semi-pelagic species (McEachran and Branstetter 1984, Compagno 1984, Compagno et al. 2005, Ebert and Stehmann 2013, Goujard et al. 2013), but can be found throughout the water column (Hickling 1963) and is considered by some to be a typical mesopelagic species (Claes et al. 2014).In the Mediterranean Sea, this shark has been recorded at depths ranging from 300–2,490 m. Cecchi et al. (2004) found the typical depth distribution to be 322–633 m in the Thyrrenian Sea. Similarly, in the Gulf of Valencia, this species was most commonly encountered by commercial bottom trawls between 300 and 800 m, and was slightly more abundant below 550 m (Guallart 1990, Guallart et al. 2013). In the Adriatic Sea it was reported down to 1,200 m depth (Ungaro et al. 2001), and a maximum depth of 2,490 m was recorded in the eastern Mediterranean through the use of baited cameras (Jones et al. 2003). In the Eastern Central Atlantic, this was a resident species at 400–500 m, dominated at 600 m and was sub-dominant at 600–900 m (Litvinov 1993). In the Northeast Atlantic it has been caught at depths of 400–1,000 m (Bridger 1978; Merrett et al. 1991a,b). In the Eastern Central Atlantic, this species can occasionally be found in waters as shallow as 200 m, but is a dominant species at depths greater than 400 m (Litvinov 1993).This species is live bearing with yolk sac (Compagno 1984, Coelho and Erzini 2008a), with a low fecundity of 9.94–16.5 oocytes (Hickling 1963, Coelho and Erzini 2008a, Porcu et al. 2014) and on average 7.59 embryos produced per reproductive cycle (Coelho and Erzini 2008a). A reproductive resting period as long as two to three years has been shown to occur between pregnancies (Hickling 1963, Coelho et al. 2008a), which could reduce the already quite low fecundity of the species (Coelho and Erzini 2008a). Pups are born between eight and 14 cm total length (TL; Ebert and Stehmann 2013, Marano et al. 2000). Estimated age at maturity is five to six years (Cecchi et al. 2004), although longevity is unknown for the species. Female size at maturity is estimated at 38–40 cm TL (Capapé et al. 2001, Cecchi et al. 2004) or 31 cm TL specifically in southern Portugal (Coelho and Erzini 2005). Male size at maturity is estimated to be 35 cm TL (Capapé et al. 2001) and 25 cm TL, specifically in southern Portugal (Coelho and Erzini 2005). The maximum size reported for this species is 60 cm TL (Compagno 1984) although most authors report maximum sizes below 45 cm (Coelho and Erzini 2008a, Porcu et al. 2014). Its generation length is estimated to be 8.5 years.

threats:
Mediterranean This species is caught as a bycatch in Italian (Abella and Serena 2002) and Spanish (Guallart 1990, Guallart et al. 2013) bottom trawl fisheries. In both fleets, it is most often discarded either dead or in very poor condition (Coelho and Erzini 2008b). The main depth range (70-2,490 m) is within the range of Mediterranean fisheries. However, the ban on bottom trawling below depths of 1,000 m in the Mediterranean Sea, adopted by all members of The General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) (that came into force in September 2005), will allow refuge in the deeper part of its bathymetric range. In addition, this species is partially mesopelagic and at present no fishing pressure exists in the mid-depth water column in its area of distribution. This may help to preserve a part of its population from fishing pressure.Northeast Atlantic In the Northeast Atlantic this species may be susceptible to heavy commercial fishing pressure as bycatch (Coelho 2007), as it is most abundant between 400 and 800 m. Of particular concern are the mature individuals that have been found within this depth range. In the Skagerrak and Kattegat waters surrounding Sweden, this species is caught as bycatch and most likely discarded in bottom trawl fisheries targeting Norway Lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) and Northern Prawn (Pandalus borealis). Off the south coast of Portugal (Algarve), this species is captured in high quantities as bycatch of the deepwater bottom trawl fisheries that target Norway Lobster, Red Shrimp (Aristeus antennatus) and Deepwater Pink Shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris); and the near bottom longline fishery that targets European Hake (Merluccius merluccius), Conger Eels (Conger conger) and Wreck Fish (Polyprion americanus). In all fisheries catches of this species are discarded (Coelho et al. 2005a, Coelho and Erzini 2008b). Some discards may still be alive when returned to sea, but they usually have severe injuries that are likely to lead to mortality or a significant reduction in fitness.

conservationAction:
There are no species-specific management measures in place for this shark, but regulations on bottom trawling and deepwater shark bycatch may benefit the species. The GFCM banned bottom trawling below depths of 1,000 m in the Mediterranean Sea in February 2005, and this came into force in September 2005. In Swedish waters (e.g., Skagerrak and Kattegat), bottom-trawls are required to have a selective grid that should help to reduce bycatch of this species.Based on advice from ICES to end fishing for deepwater sharks, the European Union Fisheries Council established a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for this species in 2007 (CEC 2012). This TAC was gradually reduced, and in 2010 it was set at zero. In 2011, the allowable bycatch was reduced from 10% to 3% of the 2009 TAC and in 2012 it was further reduced to zero (ICES 2013). However, as most of the bycatch of this species is discarded at sea either dead or damaged, it is difficult to trust that this measure will be effective in reducing fishing mortality. Coelho et al. (2003) proposed restrictions on the depth of hooks relative to the bottom in order to reduce bycatch levels for this and other semi-pelagic shark species. Harvest trends should be managed and researched.

redListAssessors:
Guallart, J., Coelho, R.P., Blasdale, T., Mancusi, C., Serena, F., Ungaro, N., Litvinov, F., Crozier, P. & Stenberg, C.


taxonomicNotes:
The Oxynotus recorded as O. centrina from Angola, Namibia, and South Africa may not be that species but an undescribed one, differing from O. centrina in having a much shorter interdorsal space. If this is correct, the records of O. centrina from tropical West Africa need to be reexamined, but until the problem is resolved the southern and southwestern African Oxynotus is retained in O. centrina (Bass et al. 1976).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)Angular Rough Shark (Oxynotus centrina) is a medium-sized (up to 150 cm total length, but mostly less than 100 cm) neritic and deepwater, benthic shark. It is distributed throughout the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea, including the Adriatic and Marmara Seas, and possibly off Mozambique at depths of 60−800 m. This species is taken primarily as bycatch by offshore bottom trawlers in the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. Survey data from the Mediterranean Sea indicate that the species is now rare in the western (off Morocco and France) and eastern (Aegean Sea) parts and absent from the eastern central part (Adriatic, Ionian and Albanian Seas). However, records from Spanish-Mediterranean waters (Adriatic Sea and Ionian Sea), suggest that the species still exists there in unknown numbers. In another survey, the species was absent from the Gulf of Lions where it once occurred, indicating that it may be locally extinct in that region. This species’ depth range lies entirely within the depth of fishery operations throughout much of its range. In addition, the large spiny dorsal fins and relatively large body size make it particularly vulnerable to capture in nets. Mortality of discards is probably high, although some specimens caught at 100−300 m depth have later survived several months in aquaria. In the Mediterranean Sea, the extremely low level of abundance throughout much of this species range and there is evidence for localised population declines. In the Northeast Atlantic there are little data to infer population trends, but similarity to the Mediterranean Sea in terms of high fishing pressure throughout much of its Northeast Atlantic range, vulnerable life history characteristics, and susceptibility to capture, suggest that similar declines have occurred in the Northeast Atlantic. Based on documented and suspected declines and continuing fishing pressure throughout much of its range, this species is assessed as Vulnerable under Criterion A2bd, as it is suspected that it has undergone a decline of at least 30% over the three-generation period (60 years).

range:
In the Northeast Atlantic, this species occurs from as far north as Norway, southwards to Portugal, the Madeira Islands, the Canary Islands and further south beyond the Eastern Central Atlantic. It is present throughout the Mediterranean Sea, including the entire coast from the Strait of Gibraltar to Israel and the Marmara Sea, but not the Black Sea. Its depth range is 60-600 m.

population:
Generally, this shark is reported as uncommon or rare (e.g., Tortonese 1956, Capapé et al. 1999, Baino et al. 2001), although earlier authors have referred to it as frequent (Lozano Rey 1928). Surveys indicated a wide, although scattered, occurrence irregularly distributed between shelf and bathyal hauls (52−741 m depth), but always in low numbers (Ragonese et al. 2013). In the Mediterranean Sea, the International Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean (MEDITS) collected catch data at depths of 10−800 m from 1994 to 1999. During this period, this shark was recorded in only 36 of 6,336 tows, with the majority of catches made at 100−200 m depth (Baino et al. 2001, STECF 2004). Regional survey indexes indicate that the species is more common in the western central Mediterranean Sea (Tyrrhenian Sea off Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily) with lower abundance in the western (off Morocco, Spain and France) and eastern (Aegean Sea) parts of the Mediterranean Sea. The MEDITS survey data collected between 1994 and 1999 indicate a lower abundance of this species in the western Mediterranean Sea than in the other areas (Baino et al. 2001, STECF 2004). In the Gulf of Lions, this species was captured in around 6% of hauls (n=27) in shelf surveys (zero to 150 m) and around 6% of hauls (n=37) in slope surveys (150−800 m) between 1957 and 1960 (Aldebert 1997). Although it persisted in French catches at low abundances up to 1992, it was subsequently absent in 139 hauls made during trawl surveys in 1994 and 1995, suggesting that it is locally extinct from this area (Dulvy et al. 2003). This species may now be very rare or absent from the eastern central Mediterranean Sea (Adriatic, Ionian and Albanian Seas; Baino et al. 2001, STECF 2004). DESEAS surveys (exploratory surveys of deepwater shrimp, Aristeus antennatus) conducted in the Balearic and Ionian Seas found one specimen in the western Ionian Sea at 800 m (Sion et al. 2004). Nearby in the Adriatic Sea, research trawl survey data from 1948 indicate that the species was formerly present, albeit rare (i.e., 0.21% of hauls, 0.25% of surveys, estimated density of 1.15 kg/km2). Recently, a new sightings programme has yielded records of newborns and juveniles in the central Adriatic Sea (Soldo 2006).  There are very little data on the occurrence of this species in the Northeast Atlantic. It was absent in a recent and intensive study of the deepwater longline fishery for sharks off the Canary Islands, where it was previously present (Hernandez-Perez et al. 1997). There is no information on the abundance of this species elsewhere in the region.The species is suspected to have declined by at least 30% over three generations (60 years) in European waters.

habitat:
This benthic species occurs at depths of 60−660 m, mostly deeper than 100 m (Serena 2005). In the northern Mediterranean Sea, it is found on coralline algal and muddy bottoms, mostly at depths of 100−200 m. However, Kabasakal (2009) observed and video-recorded a specimen at 30 m depth in the Marmara Sea and Sion et al. (2004) reported specimens caught at 800 m.  This sharks is a live-bearing species that produces litters of 10−12 pups once a year (Capapé et al. 1999). Embryos feed solely on yolk. Size at birth is reported to be less than 25 cm total length (TL; Compagno et al. 2005) and 22.8 cm TL, with a range of 21−24 cm (Capapé et al. 1999). Size at maturity is between 50 and 70 cm TL (Serena 2005). Capapé et al. (1999) reported that females mature at a larger size (66 cm TL) than males (60 cm TL). This species reaches a maximum size of 150 cm TL (Compagno et al. 2005, Serena 2005) although most individuals are less than 100 cm TL (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Capapé et al. (1999) reported maximum lengths of 64 cm and 78 cm for males and females, respectively. The generation length is estimated to be 20 years.

threats:
Large, offshore bottom-trawl fisheries bycatch is the main threat to this benthic shark. According to Dulvy et al. (2003), the large spiny dorsal fins and relatively large body size likely make this species vulnerable to fishing exploitation. Its exploitation as bycatch has been well documented in the Mediterranean Sea (Fischer et al. 1987) and it is likely enduring similar bycatch pressure in the Northeast Atlantic given that its depth range (60−660 m) is entirely within the range of longline, trawl and gillnet fisheries operating throughout these areas. Discard mortality is probably high. Some discards have been observed alive (Ragonese et al. 2013) and some specimens caught in bottom trawls have survived for several months in aquaria (Barrull and Mate 2002, Roche et al. 2013), but there is no data on post-release survival rates. There is overall concern for the effect of indirect exploitation on population abundance if fishing effort increases within this species’ range. Over a period of 50 years, benthic trawling effort in the shelf and slope area of the Mediterranean Sea significantly increased in intensity and efficiency. For example, the Gulf of Lions area was initially exploited by small-scale benthic trawl fisheries, comprising 27 small low-powered boats (total nominal horse power of 2,700 hp), and in 1974−1987 effort had increased seven-fold to a total nominal horse power of 19,940 hp. Since then, half of the fishing effort has been displaced to targeting small pelagic fish (Aldebert 1997). The Adriatic Sea is subject to trawling mainly by Italian, Croatian, Slovenian, and Albanian fleets, however, no landings data are available (Jukic-Peladic et al. 2001). In the southern Mediterranean Sea and off the Tunisian coasts, this species is fished at depths of 60−100 m in areas where it reproduces (Bradaï et al. 2002). Most size classes are likely taken in fishing nets given that the legal mesh size in much of the Mediterranean Sea is around 20 mm. Considering the large size at maturity (about 60 cm total body length), the probability of capture before breeding is likely to be high.

conservationAction:
This species is strictly protected in the Croatian-Adriatic part of the Mediterranean Sea. No other species-specific management or conservation measures are currently in place. The development and implementation of national and/or regional management plans under the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks are needed to facilitate the conservation and sustainable management of all chondrichthyan species in the region. There is an urgent need for the monitoring of landings and bycatch of this species and the collection of geographic range and life history data in order to better understand population structure and trends. Catches and the extent of fishing effort should be monitored closely, as indirect exploitation could cause population depletion. 

useAndTrade:
This species is of little economic value; in certain cultures fishermen often discard it immediately because they believe it brings bad luck, but it is sometimes retained and used for fishmeal, oil, and smoked or dried and salted for human consumption (Ebert and Stehmann 2013).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD)Sailfin Roughshark (Oxynotus paradoxus) is a medium-sized (up to 118 cm total length) uncommon deepwater bottom shark found at depths of 265−720 m. It is moderately abundant in deeper offshore waters off the British Isles. The species is probably taken as bycatch of offshore trawling fleets but no information is available on frequency. The known depth range is entirely within the range of deepwater fisheries operating in the Northeast Atlantic, although the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and southern part of its range probably offer some refuge from fishing pressure. Furthermore, it is possible that this species is continuously distributed along the Northeast and Eastern Central Atlantic floor, deeper than presently known. Alternatively, separate slope and ridge populations may exist. Owing to the overlap between this species’ geographic range and fisheries’ reach, it cannot be assumed that the lack of interaction with fisheries is a sign that this population is stable. Therefore, given the paucity of information available on this deepwater shark, it is assessed as Data Deficient in European waters. Research is needed to better define the range, population structure and the effect of fisheries on the population.

range:
This species is endemic to the eastern Atlantic. In the Northeast Atlantic, it is found along the Atlantic Slope from Scotland (including the northern North Sea), to Ireland, southern England, France, Spain, Portugal, and the Azores (Azevedo et al. 2003, Ebert and Stehmann 2013). It has also been reported from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (Hareide and Garnes 2001). In the Eastern Central Atlantic it occurs off the Madeira Islands, the Canary Islands, Morocco, Mauritania, Western Sahara, Senegal, and possibly southwards to the Gulf of Guinea region. It is apparently absent from the Mediterranean Sea. Its depth range is 265-720 m.

population:
This shark is moderately abundant off the British Isles. Catches in these waters indicate that it is rare in inshore waters (three individuals were reported from Irish inshore waters by Quigley and Flannery in 1994), but numerous individuals have been caught in deeper offshore waters (Ni Mhurachu and O’Connor 1987, Henderson 1996, Quigley and Flannery 1996). A zero Total Allowable Catch (TAC) has been in place for this deepwater shark throughout European Commission (EC) waters since 2010, and a bycatch allowance of zero since 2012. This may contribute to increased discarding at sea and fewer reports of this species in catches. The population trend of this species is currently unknown.

habitat:
Sailfin Roughshark is an uncommon deepwater bottom shark found on the continental slope at depths from 265−720 m. This species is live bearing, and embryos rely on a yolk sac for nutrition. Size at birth is about 25 cm total length (TL). Size at maturity is unknown, but a mature male has been observed at 75 cm TL (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Its maximum size is about 118 cm TL.

threats:
This shark is uncommon bycatch for offshore trawling fleets (Compagno 1984). Trawl and gillnet fisheries operate throughout its known depth range in areas of the Northeast Atlantic (see ICES 2013 for further information on these fisheries), but no information is available on the bycatch of this species. Deepwater fisheries operating in the Northeast Atlantic have contracted in recent years, both in terms of distance from shore and effort. They show no signs of current or future expansion.The Mid-Atlantic Ridge and southern part of the species’ range, off the West African coast, may offer some refuge from fishing pressure. This is particularly true if the species is found at greater depths than what are presently known along the Northeast and Eastern Central Atlantic floor.

conservationAction:
European Union (EU) total allowable catch (TAC) for a number of deepwater sharks including this species is currently set at zero, and has been since 2010. In 2011, the existing bycatch allowance from 2009 TACs of 10% was also reduced to 3%. In 2012, bycatch allowance was reduced to zero (ICES 2013). Further research should be conducted on the population size and trend of the species, and the effects of fisheries on it.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Endangered (EN) Centroscymnus coelolepis (Portuguese Dogfish) is a medium-sized deepwater species found in the Northeast Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea. Although life history information is limited, it is known to have low fecundity and likely has other characteristics similar to related species, such as very slow growth, late onset of sexual maturity and a long gestation period. This suggests a low intrinsic rate of population increase.In the Northeast Atlantic, the species is estimated to have undergone a decline of more than 80% over the past 100 year period (three-generation span), and current exploitation levels are likely unsustainable. Furthermore, one of the key causes of the decline, bycatch in multi-species fisheries, has not ceased. There are no management plans to reduce bycatch in these fisheries, which recently have shown an increase in effort. The species is of particular concern in this region because the mature part of the subpopulation is susceptible to exploitation throughout their range. Where survey catch data exist, catch rates were initially high and then tended to decline rapidly. In the Mediterranean Sea, this species occurs at depths that are outside of the scope of existing fisheries. Data on the status of this subpopulation are scarce, but there is no evidence of population decrease. Taking into account the global listing of Near Threatened, and the two very different scenarios in the Mediterranean Sea and Northeast Atlantic, this species is given an overall European assessment of Endangered under Criterion A2bd. This is based on the fact that the declines seen in the Northeast Atlantic are actual estimations, while the lack of data in the Mediterranean Sea is a less concrete form of evidence for population stability. Furthermore, the majority of European waters occupied by this species are in the Northeast and Eastern Central Atlantic.

range:
This species has a wide but patchy distribution in the Atlantic and Western Pacific (Yano and Tanaka 1983, Clark and King 1989). In the Northeast Atlantic it is found from Iceland to Portugal and westwards to the Azores. In the Eastern Central Atlantic it is found in the waters surrounding the Canary and Madeira Islands, and along the coast from Morocco to Sierra Leone. The International Council on the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) considers the Northeast Atlantic to be a single stock (ICES 2005), which has been supported by Veríssimo et al. (2012). It is also found in the western Mediterranean Sea (Compagno 1984), and is considered to be a separate subpopulation (Clò et al. 2002). Its depth range is 270−3,675 m.

population:
In the Northeast Atlantic, a study that modelled population abundance concluded that a rapid decline of 83% occurred between 1993 and 1997, leading to an overall decline of 78% from 1993 to 2009 (Dobby et al. 2010). There is no evidence to suggest that this decline has been reversed since, and the species is estimated to have undergone a decline of more than 80% over the past 100 year period (three-generation span).Quotas for other, targeted species regulate the deepwater fisheries that catch this species. Recently these quotas have increased, meaning that fishing mortality for this species has likely increased. In 2005, ICES compiled all available catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) data from Scottish, Irish, French and Norwegian surveys over the period of 1993-2005. Declines in the range of 70-94% were recorded for all areas where more than three years of data were available. The Northeast Atlantic subpopulation of this species is estimated to be declining, given historical and recent declines in abundance and CPUE.In the absence of survey, catch or landings data from the Mediterranean Sea, it is suspected that this subpopulation is stable.

habitat:
This is a medium-sized bentho-pelagic shark occurs at depths of 270−3,675 m (Compagno 1984). There is evidence of size segregation by depth, with smaller individuals at greater depths and pregnant females at shallower depths.This live bearing with yolk sac species produces eight to 21 pups, but the gestation period is currently unknown. Size at birth is ~ 23−30 cm total length (TL; Girard and DuBuit 1999, Clarke et al. 2001). Size at maturity occurs at 86 and 102 cm for males and females respectively. In the Northeast Atlantic this shark ranges in length from 68−109 cm for males and 71−121 cm for females (Girard and DuBuit 1999, Clarke et al. 2005) smaller sharks are rarely encountered (Clarke et al. 2001, Moura et al. 2014). Considering data available for Centroselachus crepidater, age at maturity is inferred to be around 15 years, longevity is 60 years and generation length is approximately 37.5 years.

threats:
Important fisheries for this species existed in the United Kingdom and Portugal where it was targeted by a deepwater longline fishery (Correia and Smith 2004, Correia 2009). Between 1986 and 2006 catches in Portugal varied between about 300-900 tonnes with an increasing trend (op. cit. 2004 and 2009). This increasing trend in catches was likely driven by demand, as prices of landed wet weight increased between 1986 and 2006.Landings data are unreliable for this species, as it has historically been lumped with other deepwater shark species, and as a zero Total Allowable Catch (TAC) introduced in 2010 (ICES 2013) has likely encouraged discarding. For example, the combined landings of Leafscale Gulper Shark (Centrophorus squamosus) and this species decreased from 10,000 in the early 2000s to 1 t in 2012. This sharp decline in landings hides continued fishing mortality, as discard survival is likely to be low (OSPAR Commission 2010).Currently, this dogfish is taken as bycatch in multi-species deepwater trawl, hook and gillnet fisheries that target other species with high TACs. These fisheries occur west and north of the British Isles and on Hatton Bank. It is also bycatch in directed longline fisheries for Black Scabbard in Portugal. This species is particularly vulnerable to exploitation in European waters because its entire reproductive cycle is susceptible to the deepwater fishery. For example, mature females give birth in shallower waters where their catchability may increase (Clarke et al. 2001).

conservationAction:
Based on advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to end fishing for deepwater sharks, the European Union Fisheries Council established a TAC for this species in 2007 (CEC 2012). This TAC was gradually reduced, and in 2010 it was set at zero. In 2011, the allowable bycatch was reduced from 10% to 3% of the 2009 TAC and in 2012 it was also reduced to zero (ICES 2013). However, this legislation is ineffective at actually preventing catches, and post-release survival is unknown. The species is recommended for additional conservation measures by OSPAR.

useAndTrade:
This shark has historically been exploited commercially for its liver oil and flesh.


taxonomicAuthority:
(Barbosa du Bocage & de Brito Capello 1864)

taxonomicNotes:
Transferred from Centroscymnus to Centroselachus

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)Longnose Velvet Dogfish (Centroselachus crepidater) is common bycatch in various Northeast and Central Atlantic deepwater fisheries. It has low productivity and an estimated longevity of 54 years, making it highly sensitive to exploitation, according to other similar deepwater sharks. Despite this, the population trend in this region has been stable since 1998, and the species is now protected by European Union Total Allowable Catch restrictions. Longnose Velvet Dogfish is assessed as Least Concern on the basis of estimated stable population trends and effective management measures in European waters.

range:
This is a fairly common but poorly studied species with a wide but patchy range. It occurs in the Northeast and Eastern Central Atlantic from the Denmark Straits, Iceland, and Faroe Islands southwards along the Atlantic slope to Rockall Trough, Porcupine Seabight, Portugal, Morocco, Senegal, Madeira Islands, and the Azores (Ebert and Stehmann 2013).

population:
The population appears to be stable or slightly increasing in European waters according to Scottish survey data from 19982013 (ICES 2014). Historically, this used to be one of the more abundant shark species discarded by the French deepwater fishery (Blasdale and Newton 1998), and post-release survival rates are unknown but presumably low.

habitat:
This demersal species occurs on or near the bottom at depths of 200−1,500 m along the upper continental and insular slopes (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). On average this live bearing species produces six pups per litter, but this can range from one to nine pups (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Size at birth is around 15−16 cm total length (TL) and females appear capable of breeding throughout the year. Males mature at about nine years of age, with a length at 50% maturity (L50%) of 57.2 cm TL, while females mature at 20 years, with a L50% maturity of 75.4 cm TL (Moore et al. 2013). Maximum length is about 105 cm TL, with the oldest recorded male being 34 years and the oldest female 54 years (Daley et al. 2002).

threats:
This species is typically discarded when caught incidentally, and while historical reported landings are just over 500 tonnes, recent landings have been near zero between 2000 and 2009. This reduction in landings is most likely due to a ban on deepwater set gillnets and a reduced Total Allowable Catch (TAC) limit for deepwater sharks (Ebert and Stehmann 2013), rather than resulting from a total absence in catches. In the Northeast Atlantic, deepwater fisheries have decreased in effort gradually over the past decade (Dransfeld et al. 2013, STECF 2014), but should still be monitored in case of future expansion, which could pose a threat to this shark.

conservationAction:
Based on advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to end fishing for deepwater sharks, the European Union Fisheries Council established a TAC for this and other deepwater species in 2007 (CEC 2012). This TAC was gradually reduced and in 2010 it was set at zero. In 2011, the allowable bycatch was reduced from 10% to 3% of the 2009 TAC and in 2012 it was further reduced to zero (ICES 2013).

useAndTrade:
Historically this species was targeted for its liver oil and flesh, and also retained as bycatch.


redListCategoryRationale:
Azores Dogfish (Scymnodalatias garricki) is a rare, deepwater dogfish known only from a holotype found at 300 m over a seamount north of the Azores in the central eastern Atlantic (37.7 cm total length), and a second specimen captured south of the Azores in 2001. The biology of the species is virtually unknown. The lack of records suggests that it is rare and has little, if any, interaction with fisheries. For this reasons, the Azores Dogfish is assessed as Data Deficient. This species occurs in an area where deepwater longline fisheries are developing and could potentially be taken as bycatch in the future. It may have limiting life history characteristics, similar to other deepwater shark species, thus will not be sufficiently fecund to withstand high levels of exploitation. Catches need to be carefully monitored and this species should be reassessed if more biological and fisheries data become available.

range:
This dogfish is only known from the holotype caught north of the Azores on a seamount of the northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge (40°22'N, 30°10'W) and a second specimen captured south of the Azores (34°25'N, 30°02'W). Its depth range is 300-2,000 m.

population:
No quantitative information on population trends or structure is available, although this species is apparently very rare.

habitat:
This species is apparently mesopelagic or deep-benthic, occurring in the open ocean over seamounts along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and near the Azores at 300 to 580 m depth, with bottom depths in the vicinity of 2,000 m or more (Ebert and Stehmann 2013).Almost nothing is known of its biology. The holotype was an adolescent male at 37.7 cm total length (TL; Kukuev and Konovalenko 1988) and a female with several embryos was reported to be 80 cm TL (Kukuev 2006). 

threats:
Current threats to this species are unknown. To date, it has only been recorded from scientific surveys despite many fisheries operating within its range. Demersal longline fisheries operate to depths of 700 m, and the Black Scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo) fishery operates at 600–1,000 m, off the Azores (Bordalo-Machado et al. 2009). Longline fisheries for tuna also operate in this area. Gillnets and handline fisheries targeting deepwater sharks (e.g., Kitefin Shark Dalatias licha) operated in the Azores from 1972–2001 (Heessen 2003). Trawlers have also operated over the Mid-Atlantic Ridge for many years, particularly the Russian fishery targeting Alfonsinos (Beryx splendens) and Roundnose Grenadiers (Coryphaenoides rupestris) at depths of 600–1,000m (ICES 2006). It is possible that there are no reports of this species from such fisheries because data from observers or fishing logbooks are not available (ICES 2006), some demersal fisheries do not report landed bycatch at the species level (Heessen 2003) and landings of deepwater sharks are likely underestimated when reported to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES 2006).

conservationAction:
No species-specific management or conservation measures are currently in place. This species is not included in the list of deepwater sharks protected by the European Union’s (EU) zero Total Allowable Catch limitations on European Commission vessels (CEC 2012). However, the ban on bottom trawling within the Azores Exclusive Economic Zone potentially offers some protection (CEC 2005).In 2013, the EU banned the removal of shark fins on board vessels (CEC 2013), in line with advice from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission’s Shark Specialist Group and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (CEC 2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection.In the future, the extent of longline fisheries around the Azores should be monitored and bycatch should be reported at the species level. Given that this species is very rare, and likely has limiting life history characteristics, it may be biologically vulnerable to depletion.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC) Knifetooth Dogfish (Scymnodon ringens) is a little known deepwater shark, found from depths of 200–1,600 m in the eastern Atlantic from Scotland to Portugal and off Mauritania and Senegal. It is taken as bycatch in bottom trawls, with line gear, and with fixed bottom nets. It is among a wide group of demersal squaloids taken as bycatch in the Spanish deepwater trawl fishery for Black Hake (Urophycis tenuis) off Mauritania. It has been reported as relatively common in the eastern Atlantic, but had historically only been captured in very small numbers in commercial trawls and deepwater surveys west of Scotland. More recent Spanish surveys of the Porcupine Bank, west of Ireland, estimated that both abundance and biomass had overall been stable or increasing from 2001–2012. Its deep bathymetric range, probably largely outside the range of current fisheries, likely affords it some protection from exploitation. Considering the deep range, stable biomass trend presented from Spanish scientific surveys, and recent regulatory measures for deepwater sharks, Knifetooth Dogfish is listed as Least Concern in European waters. However, given the uncertain effects of fisheries in parts of its range, and the sensitivity of deepwater sharks to exploitation, bycatch levels and discard rates need to be quantified and monitored for the fisheries that catch this species. 

range:
This dogfish is present in the eastern Atlantic along the Atlantic slope from Scotland to Spain, Portugal, Mauritania, and southwards to Senegal (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Its depth range is 200-1,600 m.

population:
Historically, this species was not reported during 1970s Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF) surveys, which surveyed depths between 366 and 1,280 m, suggesting that it was uncommon west of Britain (Bridger 1978). The Spanish deepwater trawl fishery for Black Hake (Urophycis tenuis) off Mauritania from 1992–2001 reported that the catch of these squaloids declined from 158 tonnes (t; 87% of elasmobranch landings) in 1992 to 22 t (59%) in 2001, with a minimum of 3.5 t in 1999 (Fernández et al. 2005). The decline may be attributable to a set of factors, and may not necessarily correspond to a decline in the population size. However, more recent surveys from 2001–2012 reported it in Spanish surveys on Porcupine Bank in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Subareas VIIc (Porcupine Bank) and VIIk (West Great Sole). The average stratified catch for this species was of 1.5 individuals, or around 4 kg per haul. It therefore represented only 1.4% of elasmobranch mean stratified abundance caught, or 6.7% of the stratified biomass caught (Fernández-Zapico et al. 2013, ICES 2013). The stratified biomass from the Spanish Porcupine Bank survey showed an increasing trend after a drop in 2005, while the stratified abundance showed a steady increase in the last five years (ICES 2013). It can therefore be estimated that this dogfish is increasing in European waters.

habitat:
A relatively little known deepwater shark that lives in temperate and subtropical waters on or near the sea bottom at depths of 200–1,600 m. It is live bearing with yolk sac, and has a maximum size of ~ 110 cm total length.

threats:
This deepwater dogfish is reportedly captured in bottom trawls, longlines and fixed bottom nets in the eastern Atlantic. It may be retained as bycatch or directly targeted with other deepwater sharks, but overall it is of little interest to fishers. It may be discarded or retained for human consumption and fishmeal production. It is retained as bycatch in the longline fishery targeting Black Scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo) in the Northeast Atlantic (Walker et al. 2005), by the Basque artisanal longline fleet targeting deepwater sharks in the Bay of Biscay (Heessen 2003), by the Spanish deepwater trawl fishery for Black Hake off Mauritania (Fernández et al. 2005), and by a small-scale Portuguese multispecies demersal fishery operating in the Azores using handlines and bottom longlines. It is also retained as bycatch in industrial deepwater fisheries using bottom longlines in international waters (ICES 2005). These industrial deepwater fisheries have no target fisheries, but likely discard this particular deepwater shark because of its low commercial value (ICES 2005, Pinho and Canha 2011). Discards are expected to increase, particularly from these international longliners, because of quota and local area restrictions being introduced in the Azores (ICES 2013).The deep bathymetric range of this species may afford it some protection from deepwater fisheries. While deepwater fisheries have decreased in effort gradually over the past decade (Dransfeld et al. 2013, STECF 2014), they should still be monitored in case of future expansion, which could pose a threat to this shark. 

conservationAction:
Based on advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to end fishing for deepwater sharks, the European Union Fisheries Council established a TAC (Total Allowable Catch) for deepwater shark species in 2007, adding this species in 2010 (CEC 2012). This TAC was gradually reduced and in 2010 it was set at zero. In 2011, the allowable bycatch was reduced from 10% to 3% of the 2009 TAC and in 2012 it was further reduced to zero (ICES 2013). Research and monitoring should be conducted on the harvest of this species.

useAndTrade:
There is no information on the use and trade of the species.


taxonomicNotes:
Yano et al. (2004) confirm that sleeper sharks found in the South Atlantic Ocean and Southern Ocean are a separate species, Somniosus antarcticus Whitley, 1939.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT) Somniosus microcephalus (Greenland Shark) is a large dogfish of the Arctic and North Atlantic oceans, inhabiting inshore zones to continental shelves and slopes usually at depths of zero to 1,200 m (one individual recorded at 2,200 m). Maximum size is uncertain but reaches at least 640 cm total length (TL), possibly 756 cm TL, with most adults between 288 and 504 cm TL. This appears to be an extremely long-lived and slow-growing elasmobranch with limited reproductive capacity. Historically it was targeted for its liver oil in Norway, Iceland, Russia and Greenland with catches reaching 32,000 sharks per year in the 1910s in Greenland alone. These fisheries may have had a significant effect on the species, but the rate of historical decline (if any) is unknown. It is presently taken as bycatch in trawl, gillnet and trap fisheries, as well as in Arctic artisanal fisheries. Its population dynamics and biology are not well understood but its large size and slow growth rate suggest it is sensitive to exploitation. No life history information on age at maturity or longevity are available. Time series data suggest a decline in landings from 1990-2012 (ICES 2013). Based on congener sleeper sharks (Centroselachus crepidater) generation length can be estimated to be at least 37.4 years, but is likely significantly longer given the larger size of S. microcephalus. A decline of 74% is estimated from 1990-2012 from ICES 2013 data. If declines continued at this rate, the species would likely be extinct by the year 2077 (within less than three generations). However, this information is based on landings data, which are not always an accurate measure of abundance, and it is unclear how effective management changes have been for reducing bycatch. This shark is listed as Near Threatened in European waters on the basis of possible population declines that are likely to approach the threshold for listing under criterion A and limiting life history characteristics. There is a need to examine historical data and monitor current bycatch levels in the region.

range:
This species is restricted to northern Atlantic and Arctic regions. In the northeast Atlantic Ocean it is found in the waters surrounding the islands of Greenland, Iceland, and Spitzbergen. It is also found along the Arctic coasts of Russia (Bear Island, White Sea) and Norway, and further southwards to the North Sea and Ireland. It is not found in the Mediterranean Sea or the Eastern Central Atlantic. Reports of Greenland Shark (Somniosus microcephalus) from the Southern Hemisphere are most likely misidentifications of Southern Sleeper shark (S. antarcticus).

population:
No information is currently available on population size or structure. In the Northeast Atlantic, an inferred decrease in the subpopulation was reported in the Barents Sea over the last century (Rusyaev and Orlov 2013). Estimated landings from Icelandic fisheries in International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Sub-areas Va (Iceland) and XIV (East Greenland) peaked at 91 tonnes in 1998 and have since declined, with as little as three tonnes reported in 2007 (ICES 2013).

habitat:
This shark is littoral and epibenthic, with habitat preferences ranging from river mouths and bays to continental shelf and slope waters. It is usually found at depths of zero to 1,200 m, but a maximum dive of 1,816 m was recorded by satellite telemetry for one individual (Campana et al. 2013) and another individual was observed at a depth of 2,200 m off North Carolina by a Remotely Operated Vehicle (Herdendorf and Berra 1995, Ebert and Compagno 2013). This species has been recorded in water temperatures of 0.6 to 17.2°C (Campana et al. 2013, Ebert and Compagno 2013). Although typically considered a deepwater species, local Inuit commonly report sightings of Greenland sharks in very shallow coastal waters, scavenging on harvested marine mammals. Overall knowledge of movement and migration patterns remains limited. Satellite tracking of this species in the Northwest Atlantic showed medium-sized sharks moving northward and larger sized sharks moving southwards (Campana et al. 2013). However, in the Northeast Atlantic, individuals tagged off Svalbard showed no specific directional movements (Fisk et al. 2012). Short term tracking studies of Greenland Sharks under ice off Baffin Island during late Spring suggest that individuals remain at deeper depths during the morning and gradually move into shallower depths in the afternoon and at night (Skomal and Benz 2004), and vertical dive data suggest an oscillating diving behaviour interspersed with deep dives (Campana et al. 2013). This species is live bearing with yolk sac, with one observed female carrying 10 young (Ebert and Compagno 2013). Size at birth is approximately 37−38 cm total length (TL) (Bjerkan and Koefoed 1957, Ebert and Compagno 2013). Size at maturity is > 400 and > 300 cm TL for females and males, respectively (Yano et al. 2007). This species reaches a maximum size of at least 640−756 cm TL, however most adults are between 288 and 504 cm TL (MacNeil et al. 2012, Ebert and Compagno 2013). The species is very slow growing with medium-sized sharks appearing to grow at a rate of one centimetre per year (Hansen 1963, Castro 1984, Castro et al. 1999). Juveniles are not commonly observed, but have been caught in deep waters in both coastal fjords and as bycatch in offshore waters. This suggests that juveniles reside in coastal and offshore nursery areas, or that these smaller individuals undertake large-scale movements between these areas (Hussey et al. 2014).

threats:
In the northeast Atlantic Ocean, shark liver fisheries in the waters surrounding Norway, Russia, Iceland, and Greenland historically targeted this species, and may have had a significant effect on subpopulations. The Greenland fishery commenced in the early 19th century and in 1857 the estimated annual catch was 2,000-3,000 sharks. However in the 1910s this annual catch increased to 32,000 sharks (Jensen 1914). A target commercial trawl fishery for this species in the Barents Sea extracted 200-300 tonnes annually from 1930 to 1941 (Rusyaev and Orlov 2013). All commercial fishing of this species ceased when Greenland fisheries for liver oil stopped in 1960 (Castro et al. 1999). During the 1970s this shark was perceived as a problem for other fisheries in western Norway and the government subsidized a fishery in order to reduce the population (Castro et al. 1999). Currently this shark is taken as bycatch in trawl, gillnet and fish trap fisheries. An estimated 1,200 individuals or 140-150 tonnes are taken as bycatch annually in commercial Barents Sea bottom trawl fisheries (Rusyaev and Orlov 2013). In addition to commercial bycatch, it is also caught by artisanal fisheries in the Arctic and is viewed as a nuisance species due to its entanglement in longlines and consequent damage to fishing gear (Young et al. 2010, Idrobo and Berkes 2012).

conservationAction:
Based on advice from ICES to end fishing for deepwater sharks, the European Union Fisheries Council established a total allowable catch (TAC) for this species in 2007 (CEC 2012). This TAC was gradually reduced and in 2010 it was set at zero. In 2011, the allowable bycatch was reduced from 10% to 3% of the 2009 TAC and in 2012 it was further reduced to zero (ICES 2013).

useAndTrade:
An estimated 1,200 individuals or 140-150 tonnes are taken as bycatch annually in commercial Barents Sea bottom trawl fisheries (Rusyaev and Orlov 2013). In addition to commercial bycatch, it is also caught by artisanal fisheries in the Arctic (Young et al. 2010, Idrobo and Berkes 2012).

redListAssessors:
Burgess, G.H., Sherrill-Mix, S.A. & Kyne, P.M.


taxonomicNotes:
This is a valid species but often confused with other Somniosus species. Yano et al. (2004) resurrected Somnious longus Tanaka, 1912, from the western Pacific; as a result S. rostratus is now restricted to the northeast Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea. Pacific records of S. rostratus are a result of misidentification (Yano et al. 2004). Somniosus bauchotae (Quéro 1976) was described from a northeast Atlantic specimen but is now considered to be a junior synonym of S. rostratus.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD)Little Sleeper Shark (Somniosus rostratus) is a rare, medium-sized deepwater shark known from a few records on the outer continental shelf and upper slope at depths of 102–2,220 m in the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea with the majority of reports from less than 1,000 m depth. This species is occasionally taken as bycatch in deepwater bottom trawl and bottom longline fisheries. It is typically discarded but is sometimes landed under the same commercial category as the other deepwater sharks. The scarcity of captures could be this species is naturally rare, or that the bathymetric distribution of this species extends deeper than the depths currently surveyed. Information on diet preferences suggests that this species may occur throughout the mid- to deeper water column of the Mediterranean Sea, a depth that is poorly sampled and has no present fishing pressure, which may partially explain the scarcity of its presence in deep demersal fisheries. The ban on bottom trawling below depths of 1,000 m in the Mediterranean Sea affords the species some protection for part of the population in this region, although it is still sensitive to exploitation in the upper half of its depth range, and by intense deepwater fisheries operating in areas of the Northeast Atlantic. Compared to other sleeper sharks, the relatively small known range of this species and its rarity in an area that has been subject to heavy fishing pressure over a long period are cause for concern. As the majority of specimens of this species were caught at less than 1,000 m depth, this population is potentially under fishing pressure even in the Mediterranean Sea which banned bottom trawling at depths greater than 1,000 m. At the present stage of knowledge we must consider Little Sleeper Shark to be Data Deficient, due to a poor understanding of population size and structure. The species likely has slow life history characteristics like other deepwater squaloids, and therefore may be sensitive to exploitation, suggesting that further knowledge on this species could lead to a higher threat future assessment.

range:
In the Northeast Atlantic this shark is found as far north as the waters off northwest Ireland (Quéro et al. 1978), and extends southwards to Madeira (Cadenat and Blache 1981), the Canary Islands, Portugal, and France (Quéro 1976). In the Mediterranean Sea, it is found in the Balearic Sea off Spain (Guallart 1990, Barrull and Mate 1995, 2001, Guallart et al. 2013), in the Ligurian Sea off northern Italy (Tortonese 1956, Cigala-Fulgosi and Gandolfi 1983) and off the coast of France (Moureau 1881, Tortonese 1956), Sicily, Algeria (Tortonese 1956), Malta (Vella et al. 2013) and Israel (Golani 1986-87). Its depth range is 102–2,220 m

population:
This sleeper shark is an apparently rare, poorly known species that has mostly been reported in isolated records, but also regularly observed in some areas off the Mediterranean coast of Spain (Tortonese 1956, Compagno 1984, Guallart et al. 2013). A bottom trawl fishery targeting Red Shrimp (Aristeus antennatus) in the Balearic Sea operating at a 550–800 m depth range reported a mean catch rate of 5.81 * 10-2 specimens per journey over a six month period (Guallart et al. 2013). That suggests an approximate catch rate of one specimen per month and boat. While these values of density are low, they suggest that this species is not as rare as previously described. No information exists on the relationship between the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea populations, although differences in some biological parameters suggest that they may be somewhat isolated.

habitat:
This bathydemersal and possibly mesopelagic deepwater species has been reported from depths of 102–2,220 m (Barrull and Mate 1995, 2002) from the outer continental shelves and upper slopes on or near the bottom (Compagno et al. 2005, Ebert et al. 2013). Almost all of the reported catches of this species ranged from depths of 200-1,000 m (Tortonese 1956, Cadenat and Blache 1981, Compagno 1984, Barrull and Mate 1995, 2002, Guallart et al. 2013, Vella et al. 2013). Most evidence suggests that it is an upper slope species, which rarely occurs at depths deeper than 1,000 m depth. Although specimens are usually captured with bottom fishing gears, highly mobile cephalopods have been found in the stomach contents of this species, which may suggest that this shark moves throughout the deeper reaches of the water column (Golani 1986-87, Barrull and Mate 2002, Guallart et al. 2013).Reproduction is aplacental live bearing, with five to 17 pups produced per litter (Tortonese 1956, Barrull and Mate 2002, Guallart et al. 2013). Vitellogenesis seems not to be synchronous with embryonic development (Guallart et al. 2013), which may imply some resting time between pregnancies. Size at birth is between 21 and 28 cm total length (TL); males are mature at 71 cm TL and females at 80 cm (Barrull and Mate 2002, Ebert et al. 2013, Guallart et al. 2013). This shark attains a maximum size of about 143 cm TL in the Northeast Atlantic but it hardly exceeds 100 cm TL in the Mediterranean Sea.

threats:
This deepwater shark is occasionally taken as bycatch in longline and bottom trawl fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic (Ebert and Stehmann 2013), but is often grouped with other shark species. Along the Mediterranean coast of Spain, it is regularly caught in bottom trawl fisheries targeting Red Shrimp (Aristeus antennatus). A range of 12–20 of these vessels have been bottom trawling at depths between 500 and 800 m for at least the past 20 years (Guallart et al. 2013). In the western Mediterranean Sea, it is also retained as bycatch in demersal fisheries and fisheries targeting Black Scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo) in the Azores, although species-specific data are not available (Heesen 2003). When retained as bycatch, this shark is typically discarded at sea and probably has low survival rates following discard (Guallart et al. 2013). Occasionally unskinned carcasses are landed and sold as gulper sharks (Centrophorus spp.). In 2010 a new mesopelagic longline was introduced in the Ligurian Sea swordfish fishery, substituting the traditional surface long line and catches of this species were recorded at depths > 1,500 m (Garibaldi et al. 2012, Garibaldi 2014). This shark is likely slow growing and slow to mature like other deepwater squaloid sharks, making it sensitive to exploitation. While deepwater fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic have decreased in effort gradually over the past decade (Dransfeld et al. 2013, STECF 2014), they should still be monitored in case of future expansion, which could pose a threat. Additionally, it has a relatively small known range compared to other sleeper sharks and is susceptible to capture in the shallower half of its bathymetric range, where most of the population appears to occur.

conservationAction:
No species-specific management or conservation measures are currently in place, and this species was not included in a 2010 zero Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and a 2012 zero allowable bycatch for deepwater sharks by the European Union Fisheries Council. The General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) banned bottom trawling below depths of 1,000 m in the Mediterranean Sea in February 2005 and this came into force in September 2005. The measure was adopted by consensus by all members of the GFCM, which include: Albania, Algeria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, EC, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Morocco, Romania, Slovenia, Serbia and Montenegro, Spain, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey. The development and implementation of national and/or regional management plans, such as the FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks), is required to facilitate the conservation and management of all chondrichthyan species in the region.

redListAssessors:
Guallart, J., Mancusi, C. & McCormack, C.


taxonomicNotes:
The generic placement has been confused. It appears in most of the literature under the synonym Scymnodon obscurus (Vaillant, 1888).  Zameus specimens from the Kyushu-Palau Ridge, the South China Sea, off southeastern Australia and New Zealand appear to also be this species (Compagno in prep. a).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD)Smallmouth Velvet Dogfish (Zameus squamulosus) is a widespread deepwater dogfish generally found on or near the bottom of continental and insular slopes at depths of 550–1,450 m. It reaches a maximum size of 69 cm total length, but little is known of its biology. It is taken as bycatch in trawl, set net and longline deepwater fisheries, but species-specific catch data is not available. It should be recognised that deepwater squaloids are biologically vulnerable to population collapse from overfishing (directed or bycatch) due to their life history characteristics. As such, catch rates should be monitored, particularly if deepwater fisheries expand. Given the lack of information catches, population trends and biology, this species cannot be assessed beyond Data Deficient for the European region at the present time.

range:
The species is found globally in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. In the Northeast Atlantic, this species is known to occur off Iceland and the Faeroe Ridge, and sporadically southwards to Madeira and the surrounding islands (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). The depth range is 550–1,450 m.

population:
This species is probably rare in its deepwater habitats.

habitat:
This poorly known benthic deepwater shark is usually found off continental and insular slopes, on or near the bottom, at depths of 550–1,450 m (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). It may also be epipelagic, as it has been recorded at depths of zero to 580 m in water over 2,000 m deep off of Brazil (Compagno 2001).For this species, the maximum recorded total length (TL) is 84 cm. Size at maturity is 59–69 cm TL for females and male 47–51 cm TL for males (Compagno 2001). Size at birth is ~20 cm TL. The reproductive mode of this species is live-bearing with yolk-only nutrition. Litters may be three to 10 pups based on examination of mature females with ovarian eggs (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). 

threats:
This relatively small shark is of little interest to fisheries. It is taken as bycatch in bottom trawls, set gillnets, and on bottom and pelagic longlines in the Northeast Atlantic (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Although there is no species-specific bycatch information available for this species, it is probably low given their rare occurrence throughout their known range.

conservationAction:
No species-specific conservation measures are currently in place. 


taxonomicNotes:
While there are reported subpopulations of Squalus acanthias (Linnaeus, 1758) elsewhere in the world, some of these ‘stocks’ are now considered separate species (Ebert et al. 2010). Further taxonomic studies on this genus are required, including in relation to Mediterranean and Black Sea subpopulations. In Europe, three subpopulations are inferred to occur.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Endangered (EN) Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias) is a small demersal shark found in temperate continental shelf seas. This historically abundant dogfish is sensitive to overexploitation by fisheries because of its late maturity, low reproductive capacity, longevity, long generation time (25 to 35 years) and hence a very low intrinsic rate of population increase (2 to 7% per annum). Population segregation and an aggregating behaviour increase catchability of mature (usually pregnant) females even when subpopulations are seriously depleted. There are suspected to be three distinct subpopulations (Northeast Atlantic, Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea) in European waters. The Northeast Atlantic subpopulation occurs from the northern Bay of Biscay to Norwegian waters. There has been a long history of unrestricted exploitation throughout most of the 20th century. A previous IUCN Red List assessment estimated the stock to have declined by >90% (over three generations, 75-105 years). More recently, a 2012 stock assessment for the Northeast Atlantic provides an estimated decline in total biomass of 77-81% from initial levels. The updated International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) assessment is based on a new population model with density dependence incorporated. Restrictive management was implemented for the Northeast Atlantic subpopulation in 2010 through the introduction of a zero Total Allowable Catch. It is inferred that the Mediterranean subpopulation has also declined and is sensitive to overexploitation. This subpopulation is unmanaged. There have been declines in landings of 86-98% for the Black Sea subpopulation, and without management the Black Sea subpopulation is projected to become locally extinct within three generations (75-105 years).  While declines of Spurdog range from 77% to over 80%, which could potentially qualify it as Critically Endangered under criterion A2bd, management measures implemented in 2010 in the Northeast Atlantic support a conservative listing of Endangered. However, unregulated target and incidental capture in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, and incidental capture in the Northeast Atlantic, remain a threat to the species.

range:
In the Northeast Atlantic, this species occurs as far northeast as Russia’s Murmansk Coast and White Sea. It occurs as far west as Iceland and can be found around the Faroe Islands and in Norwegian waters. It is also found in the Celtic and North Seas (but rarely in the western Baltic Sea) and southwards towards the Eastern Central Atlantic where it is known from France, Portugal, Madeira and the Canary Islands, and further south along the coast (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Within the Mediterranean Sea, this dogfish is most abundant in the eastern central area (southern Adriatic, Ionian and Albanian Seas), less so in the eastern Aegean Sea, and fairly scarce elsewhere. It is also present throughout the Black Sea.

population:
Within European waters, there are distinct subpopulations of this species in the Northeast Atlantic, Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea. It is also found in the Eastern Central Atlantic, but little information is available specific to this region. Northeast Atlantic In the 1920s this was a very abundant species in the Iberian Peninsula (Portugal and Spain), along both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean coasts (Rey 1928). Huge numbers were sometimes captured in these waters with longlines and nets, implying possible aggregating behaviour during certain periods. Heessen (2003) identified a single Northeast Atlantic subpopulation, ranging from the northern Bay of Biscay to the Norwegian Sea. This subpopulation has been fished off Europe since the early 1900s (mainly in the North and Irish Seas), primarily by British and Norwegian fleets, and later by French and Irish fleets (Bonfil 1994). In the late 20th century, the United Kingdom fishery landed around 80% of the European Union catch. Annual catches that were well below 10,000 tonnes (t) throughout the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) area before the 1930s had more than doubled by 1937, then reached a peak of over 58,000 t in 1963 (Heessen 2003). Holden (1968) considered the female portion of the Scottish-Norwegian stock to be overfished in the late 1960s. In the late 1970s, landings continued to decline and by 1978, the Norwegian fishery north of Scotland had collapsed (Hjertenes 1980). Commercial landings of this species in the Northeast Atlantic have decreased from their peak of approximately 60,000 tonnes per year in the early 1960s to <5,000 t per year since 2006. Landings of this dogfish captured in Portuguese waters decreased by 51% between 1987 and 2000, according to Official Portuguese fisheries statistics. Since then, landings increased until 2002, so that the overall decrease from 1987 to 2002 has been 11.3% (DGPA 1988–2004). When a linear regression was fitted to the log transformed data of these annual landings, projections were made for a three-generation period (75-100 years) in the past, with a reduction of landed biomass of 43%. Fordham et al. (2006) estimated that under the scenario of continued fishing pressure and no sign of reduced exploitation levels for the future, another 43% reduction of landed biomass could occur in the next three generations (75-100 years). Estimates of total numbers of mature adults in 2000 ranged from 100,000 to 600,000 individuals. The most recent IUCN Red List assessment for the Northeast Atlantic (Fordham et al. 2006) estimated a decline in biomass of about 80% over >75 years for this subpopulation, and of 98% over the three generation period (up to 105 years). Since the previous assessment (Fordham et al. 2006), the causes of the decline (high fishing mortality) are clearly reversible, are understood and have largely ceased. The main threat to the subpopulation now is as a discarded bycatch in multi-species fisheries, rather than targeted fisheries. Measures to mitigate such bycatch are possible and the target fishery for this species is technically managed against a benchmarked stock assessment through a Total Allowable Catch (set to zero). An age- and sex-structured stock assessment model for this stock was developed (ICES 2012, De Oliveira et al. 2013). This assessment uses length-based processes (maturation, pup production, growth, and gear selectivity) with a length-at-age relationship to convert length to age. Pup production was related to the numbers of pregnant females to allow for density-dependent effects. This model was fitted to a trawl survey index (Scottish groundfish surveys of the North Sea and west coast of Scotland) and length frequencies in trawl surveys and commercial catch sampling were recorded. The model was run from 1905 to reflect baseline conditions, and this period also encompasses the estimated three-generation time. The model estimated that the 2010 subpopulation was at 19% and 23% relative to historical levels in 1905 and 1955. The model, which has been benchmarked by ICES, confirms that this subpopulation is depleted, but not to the extent estimated in an earlier assessment (Hammond and Ellis 2005, Fordham et al. 2006). Under the new management regime in 2010, we can project that this subpopulation may have stabilized at 19-23% relative to historical levels, although incidental capture remains a threat. Mediterranean Sea This species occurred in 5% of the International Trawl Surveys in the Mediterranean (MEDITS) programme from 1994–98. There are very few time series data for it in the Mediterranean Sea. Of the data that are available, Jukic-Peladic et al. (2001) did not report any significant change in occurrence, while Aldebert (1997) reported a decline in landing observations beginning in the 1980s. Directed fisheries for this species in the 1970s have ceased as a result of these reported declines. This subpopulation is suspected to be threatened as a result of these observed declines and widespread market demand. Black Sea Despite the scarcity of trend data for the Black Sea subpopulation, exploratory assessments have been undertaken (Daskalov 1998), but the resulting outputs have generally been uncertain (Bradaï et al. 2012). A stock assessment for the Black Sea subpopulation (Prodanov et al. 1997) identified a decline in abundance of 60% between 1981 and 1992. This decline took place in under three generations. Annual reported landings of this species (as reported in Bradaï et al. 2012) declined from >3,200 tonnes (for the period 1989–1993) to < 240 tonnes (2005–2009). The magnitude of this decline (>90%) is a cause for concern. The lack of management in this area suggests that these declines are driven by subpopulation depletion. It can be inferred that the causes of the 60% decline reported by Prodanov et al. (1997) have not ceased. Furthermore, deteriorating ecosystem quality in this area such as the presence of the invasive Combjelly (Mnemopsis ledyii) may have had direct or indirect effects on this dogfish species. It is inferred that this subpopulation is threatened as a result of declines in landings and unregulated fisheries in this region. A decline of 60% is estimated over 1981-1992 (Prodanov et al. 1997); assuming an exponential decline pattern and projecting this to 2055, a decline of 100% is inferred over three generations (1991-2055; 75 years) in the Black Sea. Thus, the Black Sea population is at risk of becoming locally extinct within three generations unless management changes occur.

habitat:
This species is found in temperate waters worldwide. It occurs from coastal waters to depths of 900 m, but is found mostly in waters <200 m deep. Usually coastal and demersal, it migrates north and south as well as nearshore and offshore in waters of 7–15°C (Compagno 1984). This is a highly migratory species, travelling in large, dense aggregations, segregated by size and sex. This aggregating behaviour means that catch per unit effort (CPUE) data may not be an adequate indicator of population status, as a high CPUE may be maintained even when populations are severely depleted. This dogfish is a bentho-pelagic species not known to associate with any particular habitat (McMillan and Morse 1999). In the Northeast Atlantic, pupping occurs from late August to December (Ford 1921, Holden and Meadows 1962, Gauld 1979, Jones and Ugland 2001) after a gestation period of 18–25 months (Ford 1921, Gauld 1979, Jones and Ugland 2001). Breeding takes place every other year (Holden and Meadows 1962, Sosinski 1978, Fahy 1989). They are thought to mate offshore in winter (Castro 1983, Compagno 1984), between October and February (Jones and Ugland 2001), soon after females have given birth (Holden 1965). The length at birth ranges from 19–31 centimetres (cm) (Ford 1921, Gauld 1979). Females mature at 74 cm to 92.5 cm and males mature at 57.5 cm to 64 cm (Holden and Meadows 1962, Sosinski 1978, Fahy 1989, Henderson et al. 2002). The maximum age is at least 40 years (Fahy 1989), and fecundity increases with size (Ellis and Keable 2008). The generation length of this species is approximately 25-35 years (Jim Ellis, pers. comm. April 2015). In the Northeast Atlantic, possible mating sites have been suggested in the central Irish Sea, the southern Celtic Sea and the east coast of England (Dureuil 2013). Vince (1991) found evidence for larger females and males in the North Sea, and Holden (1965) found females larger than 80 cm northeast of Scotland. Hickling (1930) reported the location of birthing grounds along the west coast of Ireland and in the Celtic Sea. Vince (1991) suggested that females might give birth in the eastern Celtic Sea and Holden (1965) reported parturition to occur along the Norwegian coast and north of Scotland. Dureuil (2013) found the highest numbers of pups northwest of Scotland, based on survey data from 1985–2012.

threats:
This is a valuable commercial species in many parts of the world, caught in bottom trawls, gillnets, line gear, and by rod and reel. The principal threat to this species is overexploitation, by both target and bycatch fisheries. As of 2010, target fisheries have ceased in the Northeast Atlantic, yet target fisheries still exist in the Mediterranean and Black Seas.   Locally high biomass initially supported large catches of this species, but due to low productivity, most large-scale fisheries have been depleted and collapsed (Ocean Wildlife Campaign 1996). Its aggregating behaviour makes it possible for fishers to continue to target high value mature females even after stocks have been depleted. The species is also taken as a bycatch in multi-species fisheries, meaning that fishing pressure can continue even after subpopulations have been so depleted that they can no longer support viable fisheries. Habitat loss and degradation may potentially pose a threat to this dogfish. Coastal development, pollution, dredging and bottom trawling affect coastal or benthic habitat that the species’ prey relies on (ASMFC 2002). However, such effects have not been evaluated in European waters. Northeast Atlantic Since 2007 bycatch quotas and maximum landing length have deterred target fisheries; along with subsequent zero Total Allowable Catch (TAC). However, these management measures may have led to increased discarding in mixed fisheries. Official fisheries statistics in most regions only consider landed biomass, while quantities discarded and their associated mortality is unknown. There also remains some uncertainty in the accuracy of landings data, as some countries may have reported landings under the more generic ‘dogfish and hounds’ category. Mediterranean Sea A study by Ragonese et al. (2013) found that this species was occasionally caught in deep water off the Southern coast of Sicily and was regularly found in the fish markets, but nowadays it has almost disappeared. This study did not encounter this species in surveys of Maltese waters and in the shelf seas off Southern Sicily and between Malta and Tunisia. In Tunisian waters this species is considered bycatch, but has become fully commercialised (Farrugio and Soldo 2013). Black Sea The main nations exploiting this species in the Black Sea are Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russia, Turkey and the Ukraine. Bradaï et al. (2012) noted that it was taken as bycatch in gillnet, trawl and longline fisheries, and declining catch rates and changes in fishing patterns may have led to a decrease in target fisheries. Given the restricted range of this subpopulation, further studies to better understand the current status and effect of fisheries are required.

conservationAction:
Despite several decades of warnings of unsustainable fishing pressure and population declines (Holden 1968), management measures have only recently been introduced in northern Europe. The EU established a TAC for this species in the North Sea in 2000, yet these limits were set higher than reported landings, making them relatively ineffective. In 2006, ICES advised ending the fishery and in response fishery ministers reduced the TAC for this species by 20%. In 2007 they also established a TAC (2,828 t) in other parts of the Northeast Atlantic subpopulation’s range. In 2008, ICES advised that there should be a maximum landing length (MLL) to protect mature females, and a MLL of 100 cm was included in fisheries regulations in 2009. These species-specific TACs were subsequently reduced by 25% for 2008, by another 50% for 2009, and by 90% for 2010, and have since been set at zero (2011–2014). However, the current regulations have resulted in increased discarding (ICES 2009, ICES 2012, Casey et al. 2012)., In 2007 Norway introduced a general ban on target fisheries for this species in the Norwegian economic zone and in international waters of ICES Subareas I–XIV, with the exception of a limited fishery for small coastal vessels. Since 2011, all directed fisheries have been banned, although there is a seasonal bycatch allowance, ostensibly as dead specimens must be landed. From 2011 onwards, these regulations also include recreational fisheries. Norway has a 70 cm minimum landing size, which was first introduced in 1964. In 2008, the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) also prohibited targeted fisheries for this species within the NEAFC Regulatory Area. The northern hemisphere subpopulations of this species were listed in 2008 under the Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), based on a proposal from Belgium. The species is thereby covered under the 2010 CMS Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for Migratory Sharks and an accompanying 2012 Conservation Action Plan for MoU listed sharks, but no species-specific regional plans or measures have resulted from this listing to date. EU proposals (in 2007 and 2010) to list this species under Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) failed to receive the necessary two-thirds majority of CITES Party support. There is no known management for either the Mediterranean or Black Sea subpopulations. Monitoring of the harvest trends should be conducted.

useAndTrade:
This is a valuable commercial species in many parts of the world, caught in bottom trawls, gillnets, line gear, and by rod and reel. The principal threat to this species is overexploitation, by both target and bycatch fisheries, although target fisheries have now ceased in the Northeast Atlantic. France was the largest importer of dogfish meat within the European Union (EU) from 1990–1994, importing an annual average of 5,000 tonnes (98% of the meat was identified as coming from this species) with the United Kingdom (UK) being France’s top European supplier. From 1988–1994, Norway was the largest of nine non-EU suppliers to the EU of this dogfish species (both fresh and chilled) followed by the United States (US). The decline in European landings created sufficient demand to initiate imports from 25 other countries including the US and Argentina.

redListAssessors:
Ellis, J., Soldo, A., Dureuil, M. & Fordham, S.

redListContributors:
Fowler, S.L., Coelho, R.P., Goldman, K. & Francis, M.P.


taxonomicNotes:
Squalus blainvillei (Risso 1827) is a small benthic shark that may form a species complex (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). There are no type specimens and the species was inadequately described. It has been widely reported (with perhaps two or three different species involved in the eastern Atlantic), but the complex is in need of critical revision to define the species' true range.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD)This small shark species, like other squaloid sharks, may have life history characteristics that make it more sensitive to exploitation. It is fished in the tropical eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea with bottom trawls, gillnets and line gear, where it is caught with a complex of other spurdogs (Squalus spp.), but due to problems with identification the population trajectory and even the volume of catch are uncertain. The species is used fresh, salted, dried and smoked for human consumption. It is not possible to assess this species beyond Data Deficient until the species complex has been revised and the taxonomic issues resolved. Taxonomic resolution and the quantification of species-specific catch levels should therefore be a priority.

range:
The geographic range of this species is undefined, due to taxonomic confusion with several different species, however it is suspected to occur in both the waters of the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. In the Northeast Atlantic, nominal records have been reported from the Bay of Biscay to the coastal waters of France (Compagno 2001, Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Its suspected range continues southwards to the Eastern Central Atlantic, in the coastal waters of Morocco, Mozambique, the Canaries, Senegal, to the Congo and possibly Namibia, but records are probably based on a different species (Compagno 2001, Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Records of this species have also been reported from the Mediterranean and Black Seas, however these records are probably based on two or more species. Its depth range is 16-677 m.

population:
Information on population size and structure is available for this species in the Mediterranean Sea, but due to taxonomic confusion with several other species of spurdog (Squalus spp.) the available data are unreliable. Data available from 1948−2005 for the eastern Adriatic Sea suggest that a significant decline occurred in the number of individuals caught (Ferretti et al. 2013). Three multi-year trawling surveys undertaken in the waters of the eastern Adriatic Sea between 1948 and 1971 reported catches of this species. When these earlier surveys (1948-1971) were compared to the International Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean (MEDITS) program trawl survey data (1994−2005), it appears that the Adriatic Sea population has declined by 88%. However, data from all surveys have high uncertainty due to issues with species identification, and comparison is difficult due to probable differences in survey methodology. In contrast to the Adriatic Sea, waters around the Riviera and Malta report stable populations of this species, and waters around Sicily report a slight population increase (Ragonese et al. 2013). This species is reported as common off the southern coast of Sicily, representing a commercialized bycatch in some fishing zones.This species composed ~3% (1,500 tonnes (t) out of a total 55,000 t) of the total catch of elasmobranchs from the 1994−2005 MEDITS trawl surveys conducted at depths of 10−800 m along the European Mediterranean coast (Serena et al. 2005). This species appears less abundant than Spurdog (Squalus acanthias), which composed 6,700 t of the total catch, however it was not possible to determine the trend in abundance of this species in the Mediterranean Sea because the data are highly uncertain (Serena et al. 2005).

habitat:
This benthic species lives in muddy bottom habitats at depths of 16−677 m. It has been nominally recorded on continental shelves and upper slopes (Whitehead et al. 1984, Compagno 2001), on the outer shelf and epibathyal zones (50−677 m) in the Mediterranean Sea (Serena et al. 2005, Ragonese et al. 2013), and off West Africa in muddy bottom habitats at depths of 16−255 m (Compagno 2001). In the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean, nominal reports suggest that this species forms large schools (Compagno 2001).Details on the biology of this shark are uncertain because of the taxonomic problems discussed above (Compagno 2001). This spurdog is live bearing with yolk sac. In the Mediterranean Sea, it was found to produce three to four pups per litter by Bauchot (1987), while Whitehead et al. (1984) reported four to nine pups, with one litter produced every two years. Size at birth was reported to be 23 cm total length (TL) (Bauchot 1987). Size at maturity was estimated by Bauchot (1987) to be 50−65 cm TL and 45−50 cm TL for females and males, respectively, while data from ~119 specimens collected in the waters around Crete (Greece) estimated size at maturity at 52 cm TL and 47 cm TL for females and males, respectively (Chatzispyrou and Megalophonou 2005). Most recent estimates by Marouani et al. (2012) further confirmed these maturity estimates, calculating an L50 of 62.5 cm TL and 52.3 cm TL for females and males, respectively. Female maturity may occur between 5−10 years, while male maturity may occur between 4−9 years (Marouani et al. 2012). Specimens obtained from the southern coast of Italy were reportedly 90 cm TL (Ragonese et al. 2013), which exceeds the previous reported maximum length of 81 cm TL (Chen et al. 1979). Longevity was estimated to be 24.75 and 31.5 years for males and females, respectively (Marouani et al. 2012).

threats:
Taxonomic confusion makes it difficult to assess the full impact of threats on this species. Sharks that have been identified as this species are fished with bottom trawls, gillnets and line gear in the tropical eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. However the catch is probably multi-species and includes other spurdog species (Compagno 2001), therefore catch levels are uncertain due to identification problems.Spurdog species are taken as bycatch in the bottom trawl fishery targeting shrimps in the Strait of Sicily. About one third of the catch of this fishery is chondrichthyan bycatch, of which this species and Spurdog compose about 5% (Ragonese et al. 2000). In this area, both of these species are captured in significant numbers due to the good quality of their meat, which is marketed for human consumption (1,200 t of Squalus spp. were landed in 1982) (Cingolani et al. 1986).In the Black Sea these two spurdog species are taken as bycatch by purse seines targeting pelagic fishes like anchovy, sardines and horse mackerel. The abundance of spurdog species in these catches has displayed similar fluctuations to the targeted species. The catch of spurdog species catch has gradually decreased and reached 645 metric t for the Turkish region and 430 metric t for the Black Sea region. According to Serena et al. (2005) catch data indicate that the Black Sea and eastern Black Sea catches have decreased to 67% and 62% from historical levels, respectively.Directed fisheries for Spurdog undertaken during the 1970s in areas of the northwest Mediterranean Sea (off the Balearic Islands) have ceased as a result of declines in the population. Compared to Spurdog, this species is of limited fisheries importance, but may also have been impacted by fishing pressure in this area.

conservationAction:
In 2013, the European Union (EU) banned removal of shark fins on board vessels through Regulation No. 605/2013, in line with advice from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission’s Shark Specialist Group and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (Regulation No. 1185/2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection. No species-specific management or conservation measures are currently known to be in place. Further research should be conducted to clarify the taxonomic status of the species and harvest levels of the species.

useAndTrade:
This species is apparently regularly present in fish markets near Adriatic Sea ports, including Sicily, Tunisia, Morocco, Greece, Turkey and occasionally elsewhere (Bauchot 1987), although difficulties with identification may pose a problem. The species is used fresh, salted, dried and smoked for human consumption.

redListAssessors:
Soldo, A., Bradai, M.N., Buscher, E., Ebert, D.A., Serena, F. & Mancusi, C.

redListContributors:
Stehmann, M.F.W., Walls, R.H.L. & Fordham, S.


taxonomicNotes:
Last and Stevens (1994) suggest that the southern Australian Squalus megalops Macleay, 1881 is probably distinct from nominal S. megalops in other parts of the world and appears to be endemic to Australia. The enigmatic Squalus uyato Rafinesque, 1810, should likely be referred to as this species.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD) Shortnose Spurdog (Squalus megalops) is a common to abundant dogfish that inhabits temperate and tropical seas. It is of considerable interest to fisheries through much of its range, although little information is available for this species in European waters. In some parts of its range it is taken in significant quantities in bottom trawls and also caught with lines and mesh nets. It should be noted that although currently considered a wide-ranging single species, as assessed here, it may in fact be an Australian endemic pending further taxonomic studies. While some studies support the occurrence of Shortnose Spurdog in the Mediterranean Sea, the species is assessed as Data Deficient due to lack of information on the population and taxonomic uncertainty. Further research should be conducted to clarify its status throughout its range.

range:
This species has been reported from both the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea, specifically in the western Mediterranean Sea (Muñoz-Chápuli etal. 1984), in Italian waters (Mulas etal. 2011), southern Portugal, Spain, south to Mauritania, Alboran Sea, Guinea, Gabon to Angola, and Namibia (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Its presence in the Mediterranean Sea is considered questionable, although recent studies have reported it from Italian waters (Mulas etal. 2011). Additionally, a short snouted spurdog of the Squalus megalops-cubensis group was thought to be this species based on morphometrical and meristic data along with genetic analysis in the Gulf of Gabès, central Mediterranean Sea (Marouani et al. 2012).

population:
No information is currently available on population size or structure. Despite reports in Italian waters and in the central Mediterranean Sea, it was absent from all records of the International Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean (MEDITS) performed in the same area between 1994 and 2009 (Ragonese et al. 2013).

habitat:
This spurdog is common and abundant throughout much of its temperate and tropical range. It is found on the inner and outer continental shelves and upper slopes generally on or near the bottom at depths from close inshore down to 732 m. This is a social shark that often forms large, dense schools where it occurs and may also segregate by sex.This aplacental live bearing dogfish typically produces two or three pups per litter, but this can range from one to six pups per litter. The gestation period is uncertain although it has been estimated at two years, and there appears to be a lack of reproductive seasonality with no obvious peaks in fetal size during the year. Adult females are apparently continuously reproductive, without a gap between pregnancies (Watson and Smale 1998). Size at birth is about 23 to 25 cm total length (TL), and free-living young with yolk scars are 23−28 cm TL. For the central Mediterranean Sea, age at maturity was estimated at 8.4 years, or 44.39 cm TL for males and 15.3 years, or 56.41 cm TL for females (Marouani 2013, Marouani et al. 2013), with the theoretical maximum length being 68.3 cm for males and 82.3 cm TL for females. The oldest male observed in the Mediterranean Sea was 29 years and the oldest female was 26 years (Pajuelo et al. 2011). In the Eastern Central Atlantic, a theoretical maximum length was 72.6 cm TL for males and 94.4 cm TL for females, and no data exists for age or size at maturity. The oldest male observed in the Eastern Central Atlantic was 26 years and the oldest female was 32 years (Marouani et al 2013).

threats:
This species is of considerable interest to fisheries and is taken in large quantities in demersal trawls but also on lines and nets in some parts of its range. In the Northeast Atlantic it is possibly taken as part of a species complex composed of two or three species.

conservationAction:
There are currently no species-specific conservation measures in place. Further research should be conducted to clarify the taxonomic status of this species.

redListAssessors:
Cavanagh, R.D., Lisney, T.J., Bradai, M.N. & Buscher, E.


taxonomicNotes:
Lozano Rey (1928) reported the species as a synonym of S. squatina, from both the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts of the Iberian Peninsula.  Squatina aculeata is difficult to identify at the species level, therefore many of the records from fishermen reports are often assigned only to genus level.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Critically Endangered (CR)Sawback Angelshark (Squatina aculeata) was formerly a common and important demersal predator over large areas of its coastal and outer continental shelf habitat in the Mediterranean Sea and eastern Atlantic. Most of this region is now subject to intense fishing. This species is highly catchable from birth onwards. It is the bycatch of benthic trawl, set net and bottom longline fisheries operating through most of its range and habitat. As a result of its limiting life history characteristics and increasing fishing effort and capacity, the abundance of this angel shark has declined significantly over a 50 year period to the point that it appears to have disappeared from large areas of the Mediterranean Sea (and parts of the West African coast). While exact declines have not been quantified in the Mediterranean Sea, this species was caught in only one of 6,366 hauls performed by the International Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean between 1994 and 1999, and none have been caught in surveys of the Aegean Sea for over a decade. A similar disappearance is suspected in the southern Mediterranean Sea as well. Sawback Angelshark is therefore assessed as Critically Endangered in European waters under criteria A2bcd on the basis of inferred and suspected declines of at least 80% over three generations (45 years) in the past and the likelihood of continuing declines resulting from fishing pressure.

range:
This species occurs in the Mediterranean Sea, including the western and central basins, Ionian Sea, Levant, and Egyptian coasts. Its occurrence in the Adriatic Sea has not been reported (Notarbartolo di Sciara and Bianchi 1998). It does not occur in the Black Sea (Serena 2005). The depth range is 30−500 m. It also occurs along the Atlantic coast of Africa.

population:
Despite a paucity of historical records, this shark has likely undergone a significant decline throughout most of its range. For example, Vacchi et al. (2002) reported a significant decline in shark bycatch of a tuna trap operating in Baratti (northern Tyrrhenian Sea) between 1898 and 1922. Catches of Squatina species decreased from an average of 134 specimens in 1898−1905, to 95 in 1906−1913, and down to 15 in 1914−1922. This early decline probably marks the beginning of trawling activity. Off the Balearic Islands, angel sharks (Squatina species) were historically documented in fisheries checklists (Barceló and Combis 1868, Fage 1907). Captures of angel sharks were relatively frequent until the 1970s in coastal artisanal fisheries (e.g., trammel nets and gillnets), trawls and bottom longline fisheries, and then became increasingly sporadic in the 1980s. Records from a Balearic lobster gillnet fishery show that angel sharks (probably Sawback Angelshark [Squatina aculeata] and Smoothback Angelshark [Squatina oculata], judging by the depth and substratum where this fishery operates) were captured on a daily basis until the mid-1980s. Between 1996 and 2001, a bottom trawl fishing survey caught Squatina species in only four of 131 hauls performed around the Balearic Islands at depths of 46−1,800 m. (Massutí and Moranta 2003).This species was not recorded in any of the 9,281 hauls performed during 22 trawl surveys conducted in Italian waters between 1985 and 1998 as part of Italian scientific trawl survey programme “Gruppo Nazionale Demersali” (GRUND; Relini et al. 2000). This species was recorded in only one of 6,336 tows conducted at depths of 10−800 m along the northern Mediterranean coastline from the Aborean Sea to the Aegean Sea by the International Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean (MEDITS) programme between 1995 and 1999 (Baino et al. 2001). It appears that angel sharks are now nearly absent from most of the northern Mediterranean coastline. In the Aegean Sea, this species disappeared from trawl surveys over an eight year period (1995−2000). The catch per unit effort was 6.91 kg/h in 1995−2000 and 0 kg/h in 2003−2006 (Damalas and Vassilopoulou 2010).Quignard and Ben Othman (1978) suggest that this species may be more common off the North African coastline (e.g., off the Tunisia coast in the Gulf of Gabès) than in the northern Mediterranean Sea. However, more recently, Bradaï (2000) reported that this species is rare off Tunisia.  Portuguese landings data from a fleet operating off Morocco and Mauritania (aggregated for Sawback Angelshark, Smoothback Angelshark and Angel Shark [Squatina squatina]) indicate a significant decline between 1990 and 1998 (ICES 2013). Landings peaked at 35 tonnes (t) in 1990 and the fishery was closed in 1998 when the total landings had dropped to 1.7 t. This represents a 95% decline in landings in eight years, however nothing is known of the pattern of effort associated with these landing. Overall, a population decline of at least 80% is suspected over three generations (45 years).

habitat:
This angel shark occurs on the outer continental shelf and uppermost slope of warm temperate and tropical regions of the Atlantic. It lives on or near the seabed at depths of 30−500 m, and prefers muddy substrate (Ebert and Compagno 2013). The biology of this species is not well known. The estimated average length at maturity is 124 cm total length (TL). Maximum size is estimated at ~188 cm TL. Its size at birth, longevity, age at maturity, rate of population increase and mortality are unknown. It is a live bearing species and embryos rely on yolk for nutrition (Ebert and Compagno 2013). The reproductive age, gestation time, reproductive periodicity, fecundity and rate of population increase are also unknown, although its generation length is inferred to be around ~15 years, based on biological information from better known angel sharks, such as S. nebulosa.

threats:
This species is not targeted by commercial fisheries, but it is taken as bycatch in bottom trawl fisheries as well as trammel nets and bottom longlines throughout its range. Angel sharks are highly susceptible to trawl gear because they are sit-and-wait predators. Benthic trawl effort has increased in both intensity and efficiency on the shelf and slope area of the Mediterranean Sea over the last 60 years.Sawback Angelshark has virtually disappeared from most of its former Mediterranean range where its habitat on the outer continental shelf and uppermost slope (30−500 m depth) is subject to intense demersal fisheries, especially off the northern coasts. There is evidence for a dramatic decline in angel sharks from a tuna trap operating in the Northern Tyrrhenian Sea from 1898 to 1922 (Vacchi et al. 2002). This early decline probably marks the beginning of trawling activity in the area. Declines have also been reported off the Balearic Islands. Fishermen in Balearia had a type of fishing net specifically for catching angel sharks called “escatera” (‘escat' meaning angel shark in Catalan), suggesting that they used to be common in the area; now they may be absent from it. Demersal fishing pressure from the shrimp bottom trawl fishery is very high in this area at depths down to ~800 m. Squatina species are prone to local depletion because their low rate of exchange between populations limits the recovery potential of isolated populations such as those around the Balearic Islands. If adjacent populations are depleted, the possibility of recruitment is further reduced. Also, human disturbance by habitat degradation and tourism are possible threats to its preferred sandy near-shore habitat. 

conservationAction:
All angel shark species are protected within six marine reserves around the Balearic Islands. Fishing for these species is forbidden and incidental captures must be released. Mediterranean countries, including Albania, Turkey, Malta and France, must report the catch of all angel sharks to the Fisheries and Aquaculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). However, no species-specific conservation measures are in place for the rest of this shark’s range. In 2012, parties to the Barcelona Convention agreed to list this species in Annex II of the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean (FAO 2012). According to Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/1, this species cannot be retained on board, transshipped, landed, transferred, stored, sold or displayed, or offered for sale, and must be released unharmed and alive, to the extent possible.In 2013, the European Union (EU) banned the removal of shark fins on board vessels (CEC 2013), in line with advice from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Shark Specialist Group and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (CEC 2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection.As the species is Critically Endangered, the species requires its habitat to be protected and the harvest of this species to be better managed. Further research should be conducted to increase knowledge of the population size, trends, habitat, ecology and conservation actions.

redListContributors:
Morey, G, Serena, F., Mancusi, C., Coelho, R.P., Seisay, M. & Litvinov, F.


taxonomicNotes:
Squatina oculata is difficult to identify to the species level, therefore many of the records from fishermen reports are often assigned only to genus level.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Critically Endangered (CR)Smoothback Angelshark (Squatina oculata) was formerly common over large areas within its coastal and outer continental shelf habitat in the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. Most of this region is now subject to intense demersal fishing. As this species is highly catchable from birth onwards, it is caught as bycatch in benthic trawls, set nets and bottom longlines operating throughout most of its range. Increased fishing effort and capacity over a 50 year period and this species’ slow life history characteristics have led to a concomitant decline in abundance, and it has apparently been eliminated from large areas of the northern Mediterranean Sea and parts of the West African coast. This species is now extremely uncommon throughout most of the remainder of its range. Angelshark landings (three species) from the Portuguese fleet operating off Morocco and Mauritania have declined by 95% from 1990 to 1998. Commercial and artisanal fishing pressure is intense and often unregulated throughout the region and it is suspected that this will continue in the future. This formerly common species may be locally extinct from large areas of the northern Mediterranean Sea. Smoothback Angelshark is therefore assessed as Critically Endangered in European waters under criteria A2bcd+A3cd on the basis of estimated and suspected past declines of at least 80% over three generations in the past and the likelihood of continuing future declines resulting from fishing pressure.

range:
In the Northeast Atlantic, this species has been reported west of the Iberian Peninsula, but not northwards. Historically, it occurred throughout the Mediterranean Sea (Fredj and Maurin 1987, Fischer et al. 1987), including the Adriatic Sea (Roux 1986) and off Greece (Ondrias 1971). Currently, it may be more frequent in the southern regions of the Mediterranean Sea (e.g., in the Gulf of Gabès off Tunisia and Libya), although it is considered rare (Lamboeuf et al. 1995, Bradaï 2000). It has been recorded in the Levantine basin off Syria (Saad et al. 2006) and Turkey (Bilecenoglu et al. 2002). In 2004, one specimen was caught by a trawl net in the Trianda Gulf, northwest of the Island of Rhodes. This catch occurred ~ 60 years after the last angelshark was caught in the Dodecanese Islands, southeast Aegean Sea (Corsini and Zava 2007). One report of this species was made off Albania in 2006 (Arapi et al. 2006). Its depth range is 20-500 m.

population:
This angelshark has disappeared from parts of its historical range and declined significantly where it still occurs. This early decline coincides with the beginning of trawling activity in the area, to which angelsharks are highly susceptible. Vacchi et al. (2002) reported a substantive decline in the elasmobranch catch of a tuna trap operating in Baratti (northern Tyrrhenian Sea) between 1898 and 1922. For the genus Squatina (angelsharks), catches decreased from an average of 134 specimens from the period 1898 to 1905, to 95 between 1906 and 1913, and down to 15 between 1914 and 1922.Declines have also been reported from studies off the Balearic Islands where this species, previously common, may now be absent (Massuti 2003). Lozano Rey (1928) reported this angelshark as a common species off the southern and eastern Iberian coasts. Since then it has virtually disappeared from most of its former range in the Mediterranean Sea.Off the Balearic Islands, angelsharks were historically documented in checklists (Barceló and Combis 1868, Fage 1907). Captures of angelsharks were relatively frequent until the 1970s, becoming increasingly sporadic during the 1980s in coastal artisanal fisheries (trammel nets and gillnets), trawls and bottom longline fisheries. For example, records from a Balearic lobster gillnet fishery show that it was common to capture angelsharks on a daily basis until the mid 1980s, presumably of Sawback Angelshark (Squatina aculeata) or Smoothback Angelshark (S. oculata), judging by the depth and substratum where this fishery operates. Recently, Massutí and Moranta (2003) reported no captures of angelsharks from four bottom-trawl fishing surveys (131 hauls, at a depth range of 46 to 1,800 m) carried out between 1996 and 2001 around the Balearic Islands. Two major trawl surveys were carried out (the Mediterranean International Trawl Survey (MEDITS) and the Italian National Project (National Group for Demersal Resource Evaluation, GRUND)). Out of a combined total of 18,376 tows, Smoothback Angelshark was not caught in any (Relini et al. 2000, Baino et al. 2001). It was not caught in any of the 2,575 tows of the five trawl surveys analyzed by Ferretti et al. (2013) over the period 1948–2005 (including the MEDITS). Occurrence in the area surveyed was historically reported by Perugia (1881), Faber (1883), Brusina (1891), Ninni (1912), Jardas (1984) and Bello (1999).This angelshark was reported in the Gulf of Naples historically and was considered common throughout the Tyrrhenian Sea (Psomadakis et al. 2009 and references therein). Based on interview with fishers in the Gulf of Naples, Psomadakis et al. (2009) reports that no catches of angelsharks have occurred in the area since the 1980s and that they appear locally extinct, while in the past they represented an important resource for artisanal local fisheries (references in Psomadakis et al. 2009).The species may be more common off the North Africa coastline than in the northern Mediterranean Sea, for example, as reported for the Tunisia (Gulf of Gabès) coast (Quignard and Ben Othaman 1978). However, more recently, Bradaï (2000) considered this species to be very rare off Tunisia.Data from southern Portugal also suggest the scarcity of the species in the area, where no specimens of the genus Squatina were recorded from experimental fishery surveys using semi-pelagic longlines and trammel nets (Coelho et al. 2005).According to Ferretti et al. (2005) the two species of angel sharks (Squatina squatina and Squatina aculeata) displayed the steepest negative rate of change by declining until extirpation; they declined by more than 80% in 33 years (approximately three generations).

habitat:
A warm-temperate and tropical angelshark of the eastern Atlantic continental shelves and upper slopes from > 20 to 500 m, mostly between 50 and 100 m, deeper in the tropics than in temperate seas. Age at maturity, longevity and reproductive age are unknown. Females are reported to mature at 100 cm TL from Tunisian waters and 89 cm from Senegal, males at 71 cm from Tunisia and 82 cm from Senegal (Capapé et al. 1990, 2002). It reaches a maximum size of 160 cm (Ebert and Compagno 2013), which is slightly smaller than that reported for other species of angelshark. Its generation length is inferred to be around 12 years.The species is live bearing with yolk sac, with both ovaries functional. It gives birth between February and April (after a minimum one month gestation period) to about three to eight young (Capapé et al. 1990), ranging from 22.6-27 cm TL. The gestation time, reproductive periodicity, rate of population increase and natural mortality are all unknown.

threats:
Benthic trawl effort has increased in both intensity and efficiency on the continental shelf and slope of the Mediterranean Sea over the last 50 years. The species is also caught incidentally in trammel nets and bottom longlines throughout its range. It is also caught as bycatch in fixed bottom nets, line gear, and occasionally even in pelagic trawls. The habitat of the species over the outer continental shelf and uppermost slope (20-500 m depth) is subject to intense demersal fisheries, especially off the northern coasts of the Mediterranean Sea. Human disturbance by habitat degradation and tourism are also possible threats to its preferred sandy near-shore habitat.This species is caught off Tunisia, Libya (Lamboeuf et al. 1995) and Syria (Saad et al. 2006), where it still has a moderate commercial value. It is possibly a component of catches off other countries throughout the Mediterranean Sea, including those that report angelsharks to FAO: Albania, France, Malta, Turkey (Ebert and Compagno 2013). In Albania in 2004, about 4,082 kg of Smoothback Angelshark were landed (Arapi et al. 2006). It was also included in the list of discarded fish of Greek trawl fisheries of the Ionian and Aegean Sea (Machias et al. 2001).

conservationAction:
The genus Squatina is protected within three marine reserves in the Balearic Islands area, where fishing for these species is forbidden. There are no known specific conservation measures for this species throughout the rest of its range. There is an urgent need to confirm the status of this species in the southern Mediterranean Sea, Canary Islands and other areas where subpopulations may still persist. If this is the case, appropriate conservation measures are needed to protect it there.Parties to the Barcelona Convention agreed in 2012 that Smoothback Angelshark be listed in Annex II of the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean Sea -- which includes Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/1 – stating that this species cannot be retained on board, transshipped, landed, transferred, stored, sold or displayed or offered for sale, and must be released unharmed and alive, to the extent possible.In 2013, the EU banned removal of shark fins on board vessels through Regulation No. 605/2013, in line with advice from the IUCN SSG and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (Regulation No. 1185/2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection. Further research should be conducted on the population size and trend of the species.

redListAssessors:
Ferretti, F., Morey, G, Serena, F., Mancusi, C., Coelho, R.P., Seisay, M., Litvinov, F. & Buscher, E.


taxonomicNotes:
Squatina squatina is difficult to identify to species level, therefore many of the records from fishermen reports in the Mediterranean are often assigned only to genus level, though this is the only angel shark known from northern European seas.

redListCategoryRationale:
Angel shark (Squatina squatina) was formerly common throughout large areas of coastal and outer continental shelf seas in the Northeast Atlantic, Mediterranean and Black Seas. Most of this region is now subject to intense demersal fisheries, and the species is highly catchable from birth onwards and is taken as bycatch in demersal trawls, set nets and bottom longlines operating through most of its range and habitat. As a result of its slow life history characteristics and bycatch in fisheries with steadily increasing effort and capacity, its abundance has markedly declined during the past 50 years to the point where it has been declared locally extinct in the North Sea and is locally extinct from large areas of the northern Mediterranean Sea. It is now undetectable throughout most of the remainder of its range, with the exception of the Canary Islands where effective conservation measures are required urgently. Angelshark is therefore assessed as Critically Endangered  under criteria A2bcd+3d on the basis of estimated and suspected past declines of at least 80% over three generations and the likelihood of continuing future declines resulting from fishing pressure.

range:
Angel shark (Squatina squatina) originally ranged from Scandinavia to northwest Africa (Mauritania and the Canary Islands), including the Mediterranean and Black Seas. The current distribution is reduced from this historic range as a result of severe population depletion, local extinction, and range contraction. The species is now locally extinct or extremely rare over much of its former range, and it is inferred that almost all of the remaining population is found around the Canary Islands. Its depth range is five to 150 m.

population:
This species was reportedly common, or at least frequently or regularly recorded in many areas during the 19th century and early 20th century. For example, it was particularly common on the south and east English coasts (Yarrell 1836, Day 1880), and also in the North Sea, on the Dogger Bank, in the Bristol Channel and Cornwall, and “by no means uncommon” in the Firth of Clyde (Day 1880). Historically it was also caught in Tralee Bay and Clew Bay, Ireland. It was still caught regularly and considered common in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the 20th century (Garstang 1903). During much of the 20th century, recreational fisheries landed unknown quantities of Angelshark from the west coast of Ireland. Landings in the Northeast Atlantic compiled by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea’s (ICES) Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF) in 2004, from 1978 to 2002 for all ICES Areas, are variable because of recent misreporting of this non-quota species as other species, primarily Monkfish (Lophius spp.). Deleting these records revealed that landings have declined from 15-20 tonnes in the 1980s to one to two tonnes in the 1990s, with the last reported landing in 1998. Only 3.2 tonnes of the species have been reported in landings on the French coast since 1996 (ICES 2012).Although more common off the Atlantic Iberian coasts, this shark was also reported as frequent in the Mediterranean Sea during the first half of the 20th century by Lozano Rey (1928). Off the North Africa coastline it may currently be more common than in other parts of the Mediterranean Sea; for example, as reported off the coast of Tunisia, although it is considered rare in the Gulf of Gabès (Bradaï 2000). Tunisia reported small catches of this species during the past decade (10-53 tonnes), with the 1997 catch at 37 tonnes. Other Mediterranean countries that report 'angelsharks' to the Fisheries and Aquaculture Organisation of the United Nations with this species as part of the catch include Albania, Turkey, Malta and France.Steep population declines have now been reported from several parts of this species’ range, including in the North Sea (ICES 2005), UK coastal waters (Rogers and Ellis 2000), the French coast (Quero and Cendrero 1996, Capapé et al. 2000), and large areas of the Mediterranean Sea (e.g., Vacchi et al. 2002). During the early 1900s, an average of one specimen was taken during every ten hours of trawl survey in British coastal waters, but in recent years the species has virtually vanished (Rogers and Ellis 2000). The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) surveys recorded angelsharks (Squatina spp.) in low numbers in Cardigan Bay during the 1980s (Ellis et al. 1996) but reported just two individuals in the last 20 years. Vacchi et al. (2002) reported the steep decline in the elasmobranch catch of a tuna trap operating in Baratti (northern Tyrrhenian Sea) between 1898 and 1922. For angel sharks, catches decreased from an average of 134 specimens from the period 1898 to 1905, to 95 between 1906 and 1913, and down to 15 between 1914 and 1922. The population has become increasingly fragmented and records are now extremely infrequent (for more information, see “Threats”). The species has now disappeared from much of its former range in the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. Survey data for this species in the northern Mediterranean Sea exist for the period from 1985 to 1999, when two major trawl surveys were carried out: the International Bottom Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean (MEDITS) and the Italian scientific trawl surveys “Gruppo Nazionale Demersali” (GRUND). During the MEDITS program (1995-1999), a broad-scale survey of the northern Mediterranean coastline from west Morocco to the Aegean Sea at depths of 10 to 800 m, this shark appeared in only two of a total of 6,336 tows, at a depth range of 50 to 100 m (Baino et al. 2001). In the GRUND survey, captures of the species were reported in only 0.41% of 9,281 hauls (Relini et al. 2000). The species was reported from trawl surveys carried out in the Adriatic Sea in 1948, but MEDITS trawls in 1998 indicated that it might now be absent from this area (Jukic-Peladic et al. 2001). Indeed, the last documented catch from the Adriatic Sea was in 1958 (Ferretti et al. 2013), and evidence points to angelsharks being absent nowadays from most of the northern Mediterranean coastline. Historically, angelsharks were very abundant in the Tuscan Archipelago (D’Ancona and Razzauti 1937, Biagi 1999). From analyses of multiple trawl surveys in the area, Ferretti et al. (2005) detected the disappearance of all angelshark species from the area (Angelshark and Sawback Angelshark [S. aculeata]). Out of 22 elasmobranch species that the author could model, trends in standardised trawl survey catch rates for Angelshark and Sawback Angelshark displayed the steepest decline (> 99% since historical levels). Trawl surveys have not detected this species in this region since the end of the 1970s (Ferretti et al. 2005). Decreased catches in the Sicilian channel were detected between 1983 and 1992 from landing records of the fish market of Valletta (Fergusson and Marks 1996). Using information from interview surveys, Maynou et al. (2011) suggested that angelsharks became locally extinct in the Catalan Sea before 1959.  Declines have also been reported from studies off the Balearic Islands where this species, previously relatively frequent, may now be absent. It was historically documented in checklists from the region (Delaroche 1809, Ramis 1814, Barceló and Combis 1868, Fage 1907, De Buen 1935), where captures of angelsharks were relatively frequent until the 1970s, then became increasingly sporadic during the 1980s in coastal artisanal fisheries (trammel nets and gillnets), lobster tangle nets, trawl and bottom longline fisheries. Recently, Massutí and Moranta (2003) reported no captures of angelsharks from four bottom-trawl fishing surveys (131 hauls, at a depth range of 46 to 1,800 m) carried out between 1996 and 2001 around the Balearic Islands. In addition, the likely low interaction with stocks from other areas further affects the already low recovery capacity of isolated populations such as those in this area. According to Ferretti et al. (2005) the two species of angel sharks (Squatina squatina and Squatina aculeata) displayed the steepest negative rate of change by declining until extirpation; they declined by more than 80% in three generations (33 years).

habitat:
A temperate-water bottom-dwelling angelshark of the European and North African continental shelves, occurring on or near the bottom from close inshore (five metres) in the intertidal or subtidal zone to at least 150 m depth. This shark prefers mud or sandy bottom and it may penetrate estuaries and brackish water. In the northern parts of its historical range it was seasonally migratory, making northwards incursions during the summer (Ebert and Compagno 2013). Most life history data are from Capapé et al. (1990) for the Mediterranean Sea. Females reach maturity at 128-169 cm total length (TL), and males at 80-132 cm TL (Lipej et al. 2004). Maximum size is 183 cm TL and possibly up to 244 cm TL (Compagno 1984, Ebert and Compagno 2013), with estimates of < 240 cm TL in the Mediterranean Sea (Tortonese 1956). Age at maturity and longevity are unknown. This shark is live bearing with yolk-sac nutrition, with both ovaries functional. It has moderate-sized litters of seven to 25 young, which vary according to the size of the female (Tortonese 1956, Bini 1967, Capapé et al. 1990, Ebert and Compagno 2013). Records of size at birth are 24-30 cm TL (Ebert and Compagno 2013) and 24 cm TL (Tortonese 1956, Bini 1967). Gestation period is eight to 10 months (Capapé et al. 1990, Ebert and Compagno 2013), born in December to February in the Mediterranean Sea but apparently later in northern parts of its range (July in England). Reproductive age and periodicity, rate of population increase and mortality are unknown. Its generation length is inferred to be around 11 years, based on biological information from better known angel sharks.

threats:
Angelsharks are highly susceptible to bycatch in trawls because they lie on the bottom. Benthic trawl effort has increased in both intensity and efficiency on the shelf and slope area of the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea over the last 50 years. The early population decline probably marks the beginning of trawling activity in the area. This species is also caught incidentally in trammel nets and bottom longlines throughout its range, and was formerly the object of targeted fisheries with nets called ‘squanere’ (angelshark nets) in parts of the Mediterranean Sea (Marchesetti 1882, Fortibuoni et al. 2010). Human disturbance by habitat degradation and tourism are also possible threats to its preferred sandy nearshore habitat. A low rate of exchange between angel shark populations may make them especially prone to local depletion and means that recolonisation will be extremely low.

conservationAction:
In 2008, Angelshark was added to the Wildlife and Countryside Act in the United Kingdom, and is protected under legislation in inshore waters (ICES 2012). The United Kingdom and Belgium proposed Angelshark for listing on the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) Priority List of Threatened and Endangered Species, and this proposal was deemed appropriate by the WGEF (ICES 2002). Angelshark was listed by OSPAR in 2008. In 2010, the retention of Angelshark was prohibited throughout European Union (EU) waters; however, angling pressure upon this species is considerable in the last stronghold in the Canary Islands. The genus Squatina is protected within three Balearic Islands marine reserves, where fishing for angelsharks is forbidden.Parties to the Barcelona Convention agreed in 2012 that Angelshark be listed in Annex II of the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean Sea -- which includes Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/1 – stating that this species cannot be retained on board, transshipped, landed, transferred, stored, sold or displayed or offered for sale, and must be released unharmed and alive, to the extent possible.In 2013, the EU banned the removal of shark fins on board vessels through Regulation No. 605/2013, in line with advice from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission’s Shark Specialist Group and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (Regulation No. 1185/2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection. The genus Squatina is protected within three Balearic Islands marine reserves, where fishing for these species is forbidden.There is an urgent need to confirm the status of this species in the southern Mediterranean Sea, the Canary Islands, and other areas where subpopulations may still persist. If so, appropriate conservation measures are needed to protect this species. Further research should be conducted on the population size and trend of the species.

useAndTrade:
There is no information on the use and trade for this species.

redListAssessors:
Ferretti, F., Morey, G, Serena, F., Mancusi, C., Fowler, S.L., Dipper, F. & Ellis, J.


taxonomicNotes:
According to Fernholm and Wheeler (1983), four specimens in the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet (Swedish Museum of Natural History) are probably the original material examined by Linnaeus (1758) to describe the species and they should be accorded type status.  The western North Atlantic population was at one time assigned to a separate species, Myxine limosa Girard (1859), and Wisner and McMillan (1995) suggested a return to this practice based on differences in size at maturity (eastern North Atlantic are smaller) and colour differences in preserved specimens. In the absence of other supporting morphological data, these features seem insufficient to justify dividing the eastern and western Atlantic populations into separate species (Martini et al. 1998, Martini and Flescher 2002). More conclusive studies involving morphological and molecular data are necessary to resolve this taxonomic question.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC) Listed as Least Concern as the species is widespread and abundant, and it is not commercially targeted. However, further research and monitoring should be conducted on its population size and trend.

range:
There are two populations from the North Atlantic Ocean of this species. In the eastern North Atlantic, it is present from Murmansk (Russia) to northern Morocco, and in the western Mediterranean Sea, through northern Morocco, Tunisia (Fishbase 2014), Algeria, and the northern Adriatic Sea, but probably occurs along all western Mediterranean coastal regions. In the western North Atlantic, it is present from Greenland to Florida, including a few records in the Gulf of Mexico (off Yucatán and Florida). It is present at depths from 40 to 1,200 m.

population:
This species is known to be very abundant and has a large distribution, although it is rarely recorded from Irish waters (Went and Kennedy 1976). Its current population trend is unknown.

habitat:
This species is found on shelves and slopes at depths from 40-1,100 m (eastern North Atlantic) and from 75-742 m depth (western North Atlantic). The maximum depth record (1,006 m) given by Wisner and McMillan (1995) for the western North Atlantic population was based on a single specimen (ISH 431-1986) recently reidentified as Myxine jespersenae, which was in fact collected off southeastern Iceland (Møller et al. 2005). The sex ratio of females and males in the samples analyzed by Martini et al. (1997) was highly skewed, at 9.8:1, which is typical for the species as a whole. The paucity of males in the population on both sides of the Atlantic has long been recognized, but it remains unexplained. This species is found on muddy bottoms where they hide in the mud. In Kattegat, the species is been found in circalittoral sandy bottoms with sea pens as Pennatula phosphorea or Virgularia mirabilis (Paulomäki and Aguilar 2011). Slime is utilized for defence and it feeds mainly on dead and dying fish of varying species by boring into the body and consuming the viscera and musculature. The species is chiefly nocturnal. Its eggs are few in number, about 19-30 mm and large (20-25 mm), and the horny shell has a cluster of anchor-tipped filaments at each end. The copulatory organ is absent in this species. The gonads of hagfishes are situated in the peritoneal cavity. The ovary is found in the anterior portion of the gonad, and the testis is found in the posterior part. The animal becomes female if the cranial part of the gonad develops or male if the caudal part undergoes differentiation. If nothing develops, then the animal becomes sterile. If both anterior and posterior parts develop, then the animal becomes a functional hermaphrodite. However, hermaphroditism being characterised as functional needs to be validated by more reproduction studies (Patzner 1998). Its maximum size is 95 cm (TL).  					The species has low resilience with a minimum population doubling time of 4.5-14 years and moderate to high vulnerability (Fishbase 2014).

threats:
Ellis et al. (2015) assessed fisheries of Hagfish around the world, concluding that it is not a sustainable fishery. The lack of knowledge on its biology and the lack of stock assessment and fishing regulations may have caused over-exploitation in some areas. The fishery is expanding, so the species could be threatened by fishing activities.

conservationAction:
The species is not included on any National Red Lists or Red Data Books and it is not subject to any conservation actions. It is unknown whether it occurs in protected areas. Further research should be conducted on the population size, trends and trade of the species. Monitoring of the population trends is also encouraged.

useAndTrade:
Myxine glutinosa is known as a by-catch species in NAFO Regulatory Area (Rogers and Gianni 2010), and in Ireland, where it is most likely discarded. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada (Government of Canada 2009) has assessed if Hagfish populations (Myxine glutinosa among other Myxinidae species) can sustain fishing activities in non-exploited areas, such as Newfoundland and Labrador, concluding that current lack of knowledge on most of the ecological aspects of Atlantic Hagfish does not allow to ensure the sustainability of fisheries. The species is susceptible to overexploitation due to its low reproductive rate (Grant 2006) .  Hagfish fisheries around the world have not been very sustainable and are expanding, so stock assessments and fisheries measures are needed to avoid over-exploitation, as this has occurred in some areas around the world (Ellis et al. 2015). There are no available data on catches at European waters.


taxonomicNotes:
Myxine ios is known from two populations as defined by Fernholm (1981). The Irish population is mainly known from Porcupine Seabight, southwestern Ireland (Fernholm 1981, Merrett et al. 1991, Priede et al. 1994). The West African population is known off Western Sahara, from Cap Boujdour to Cap Blanc (Fernholm 1981). Two specimens were recently trawled off Angolan waters and they present very similar characters to those of the Western Sahara population (Tweddle and Anderson 2008). The populations differ slightly in coloration (Fernholm 1981), and it is unknown if they may represent separate species. According to Møller et al. (2005), some records of M. ios from the Denmark Strait (Fernholm and Vladykov 1984) and West Greenland (collected by Jørgensen in 2003) might belong to M. jespersenae.

redListCategoryRationale:
European Regional Assessment: Least Concern (LC) Myxine ios is only known from a few deep water specimens off the coast of Ireland, West Africa, and Angola. In the northeastern Atlantic, this species appears restricted to the deep waters off Ireland, which is thought to be a distinct population. There are no known major threats, but it may be caught in bottom trawling fisheries within its range. Therefore, M. ios is assessed as Least Concern. However, more research is needed on this species distribution, population, biology, life history, and potential threats, especially as this species has an unknown distribution and is potentially susceptible to deep-sea trawling along the continental slope.

range:
Myxine ios is distributed from southwestern Ireland to Angola (Fernholm 1981, Merrett et al. 1991, Priede et al. 1994). It is separated into two populations: the West African population, known from Western Sahara to Angola and the Irish population, known mainly from  Porcupine Seabight, off southwestern Ireland (Fernholm 1981, Tweddle and Anderson 2008). Myxine ios has also been recorded from Hatton Bank, off northwestern Ireland (Durán Muñoz et al. 2012). It is found from about 600 to 1625 m (Fernholm 1990).

population:
This population is only know from a few museum specimens collected from locations along the Eastern Atlantic from Ireland and the coast of Angola (Fernholm 1981, Tweddle amd Anderson 2008, Durán Muñoz et al. 2012).

habitat:
Irish specimens were collected by semi-balloon otter trawls on the Porcupine Seabight at depths of 985-1,650 m (Fernholm 1981, Merrett et al. 1991, Massutí et al. 2004). The bottom water temperatures were 4.7°C and 6.2-6.4°C, and the bottom substrate was likely soft mud. Irish specimens included a recently spawned female captured in July and probably ripe males in June and July (Fernholm 1981). This species consists of scavengers which are found on muddy bottoms and feed largely on dead or disabled fish by boring into its skin. Its eggs are few and large (20 to 30 mm). The copulatory organ is absent in this species. The gonads of hagfishes are situated in the peritoneal cavity. The ovary is found in the anterior portion of the gonad, and the testis is found in the posterior part. The animal becomes female if the cranial part of the gonad develops or male if the caudal part undergoes differentiation. If none develops, then the animal becomes sterile. If both anterior and posterior parts develop, then the animal becomes a functional hermaphrodite. However, hermaphroditism being characterized as functional needs to be validated by more reproduction studies (Patzner 1998).

threats:
There are no known direct threats to this species (Knapp et al. 2011) but its currently known distribution range overlaps with areas where deep-sea trawling occurs (Ireland and West Africa).

conservationAction:
There are no conservation measures in place, but more research is needed on this species' biology, population size, distribution and impact of deep-sea trawling activities. This species may occur within marine protected areas present throughout its range. Myxine ios was assessed as Least Concern globally in 2009.


taxonomicAuthority:
Møller, Feld, Poulsen, Thomsen & Thormar, 2005

redListCategoryRationale:
European Regional Assessment: Least Concern (LC) Myxine jespersenae is only known from a few deep water specimens taken in the North Atlantic Ocean, specifically off the coasts of Iceland and Greenland. There are no known threats to this species, but it may be caught as bycatch in bottom trawling fisheries within its range. More research is needed on this species distribution, population, biology, life history, and potential threats, especially as there are few records to understand its distribution and the species was only described in 2005. It has likely been previously mistaken for Myxine glutinosa in bycatch and scientific survey records, and may accidentally be targeted in M. glutinosa fisheries. However, within the assessment zone, there are no confirmed major species-specific threats. Therefore, M. jespersenae is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Myxine jespersenae is known only from the coasts of Greenland and Iceland; specifically, M. jespersenae has been collected from the eastern Davis Strait, Denmark Strait, Reykjanes Ridge, and southeast of Iceland. The disjunctive distribution is likely a result of a very limited sampling effort in the waters around southern Greenland (Møller et al. 2005). It occurs sympatrically with Myxine glutinosa, with a limited area of overlap in vertical distribution (752—1556 vs. 64—782 m; Møller et al. 2005).

population:
This population is only known from a few type specimens collected at 17 locations off coastal Greenland and Iceland (Møller et al. 2005).

habitat:
This species is usually taken from muddy bottoms and cold waters (3.7-4.7°C) on the lower slope at depths from 752 to 1,556 m. According to Møller et al. (2005), the "eggs of a trawl-damaged female... were in various stages of maturation, elliptical, up to 23.6 x 8.5 mm. All eggs were in mesenteries and no anchor filaments were found".

threats:
There are no known direct threats to this species (Knapp et al. 2012). There are deep water fisheries active within the currently known distribution range but no records are being reporting from bycatch incidences. This is likely due to this species being lumped with Myxine glutinosa as bycatch since the species was only recently described.

conservationAction:
There are no conservation measures in place, but more research is needed on this species' biology, population size, distribution and impact of deep-water trawling activities. This species may occur in marine protected areas present throughout its distribution (World Database on Protected Areas 2010). Myxine jespersenae was assessed as Least Concern globally in 2009.


taxonomicNotes:
E. arvense is known to hybridise with a number of other species of the genus, none of these hybrids is frequent and they are not considered likely to affect the survival of the species or this evaluation.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


This species is classed as Least Concern as it is widespread with stable populations throughout its European range and does not face any major threats.

range:
E. arvense occurs throughout most of the Northern Hemisphere, from Europe east through the Middle East, the Caucasus, Siberia, Kazakhstan, the Himalayas and Mongolia east to China, Japan and the Korean Peninsula, as well as throughout North America except the extreme southeast. In Europe, it occurs more or less throughout, from Scandinavia through the Baltic States south to the Iberian Peninsula and France along the Mediterranean coast to Greece.

population:
E. arvense appears to be widespread and abundant throughout its European range.

habitat:
E. arvense occurs in a very wide range of habitats, including most anthropogenic habitats from gardens, quarries, railways and waste ground to roadsides. In natural habitats, it is most frequent on river banks, dune grassland and pasture.

threats:
There are no known past, ongoing or future threats to this species.

conservationAction:
There are no conservation measures in place or needed.

useAndTrade:
The species has a wide range of reported medicinal applications (PFAF 2014) anodyne, antirheumatic, antiseptic, astringent, cardiac, carminative, diaphoretic, diuretic, galactogogue, haemostatic, homeopathy, nervine, tuberculosis, vulnerary. The green infertile stems are used, most active when fresh but can also be harvested in late summer and dried for later use, and sometimes the ashes of the plant are used (PFAF 2014)

Other uses of the plant include as a dye, fungicide, liquid feed in horticulture, in paper production, as a polish, sandpaper and as as a scourer.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


This species is classified as Least Concern due to its widespread distribution, stable populations and no major threats.

range:
Equisetum hyemale is native throughout temperate Asia, North America, South America and Europe. It is also cultivated widely (USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program 2012).

population:
Generally a common species throughout Europe, often considered a weed.

habitat:
A slow-growing, evergreen, rhizomous herb found in shaded open wet woodland along streams and rivers, base-rich moorland flushes and sand dunes growing in permanently moist sandy or clay soils high in minerals and silica (Online Atlas of the British and Irish Flora 2012, Castroviejo et al. 1986).

threats:
There are no threats to this species. It was previously threatened by land drainage, grazing and trampling of riverbanks by livestock in the United Kingdom (Online Atlas of the British and Irish Flora 2012).

conservationAction:
There are no conservation measures in place or needed. It is listed as Endangered in the Czech Republic (Holub and Procházka 2000), Vulnerable in Croatia (Nikolić and Topić 2005), Near Threatened in Hungary (Király 2007) but Least Concern in Denmark (NERI 2007), Estonia (eBiodiversity Estonia 2012), Germany (Ludwig and Schnittler 1996), Luxembourg (Colling 2005), Norway (Artsdatabanken 2010), Switzerland (Moser et al. 2002) and the United Kingdom (Cheffings and Farrell 2005).

useAndTrade:
Equisetum hyemale stem bark and woody plant material is used as an active diuretic when taken internally and is used in the treatment of kidney and bladder problems (European Medicines Agency 2008, Plants for a Future 2012). It has been prescribed widely as a traditional medicine for the treatment of inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, conjunctivitis, pyelonephritis (Park and Jeon 2008). It is also used to make a polish for wood, a light pink dye and a hair rinse to get rid of fleas, lice and mites.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Although it is locally threatened, this species is classified as Least Concern due to its widespread distribution, overall stable populations and no major threats.

range:
Equisetum telmateia is native to northern Africa, temperate Asia, North America and Europe (USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program 2012).

population:
Common species with a large population throughout Europe. Often considered a weed.

habitat:
Equisetum telmateia is a deciduous herb found in open habitats, eroding sea and river cliffs, roadsides and railway embankments growing in base rich clay soils on sites with permanent seepage and on porous clay rocks (Online Atlas of the British and Irish Flora 2012).

threats:
This species can be threatened with land drainage. In Sweden some local populations have become extinct due to land drainage and subsequent overgrowth (Mattiasson 2000).

conservationAction:
It is described as rare in the Czech Republic (Holub and Procházka 2000) and is listed as Critically Endangered in the national red lists of Belarus (Ermakova 2005) and Sweden (Gärdenfors 2010). However, it is classed as Least Concern in a number of countries including Denmark (NERI 2007), Germany (Ludwig and Schnittler 1996), Luxembourg (Colling 2005), Switzerland (Moser et al. 2002) and the United Kingdom (Cheffings and Farrell 2005). In Sweden, conservation efforts have been made but it is argued that gradual population declines will eventually lead to its unavoidable extinction which may be characteristic for populations of long-lived perennials on drained or otherwise damaged sites. In such situations, it may be questioned whether conservation efforts, known to only postpone the extinction, are worthwhile (Mattiasson 2000).

useAndTrade:
A plant used in traditional medicine for its anti-inflammatory and diuretic properties and antioxidant activity of aqueous extract (infusion) or as a decoction to stop excess urinating. A poultice of the rough leaves and stems is applied to cuts and sores (Correia et al. 2005, Plants for a Future 2012). It is also used for its antibacterial properties to treat infections. In Turkey, at least, it is one of the most commonly used plants (Uzun et al. 2004). The root and fertile shoots can be eaten cooked and the stems are used for making floor polish.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


This species is classed as Least Concern as it is widespread with stable populations in parts of its range and therefore the risk of the species going completely extinct in Europe is quite low. However, it is concerning that the species is classed as threatened on various national red lists and research into the causes of those declines as well as adequate measures to prevent this are needed.

range:
Equisetum variegatum is native to Europe and cold temperate zones, the Pyrenees and Cantabrian mountains (Castroviejo et al . 1986).

population:
Low genetic diversity has been observed within populations inhabiting lowland areas, especially in France, which reduces its capacity for adaptive responses to environmental stresses and any isolated populations have no chance to recover new genetic material through migration. In the Alps and Pyrenees at higher elevations populations are numerous and representative of its central distribution area (Machon et al . 2001).

habitat:
A circumboreal, evergreen herb occurring in a variety of open habitats which are often flooded in the winter, next to streams and cold water springs in montane areas, dune slacks, river shingle, upland flushes and stony shores in limestone rich, moist soil. It is more common at higher elevations (Online Atlas of the British and Irish Flora 2012, Castroviejo et al. 1986).

threats:
This species is impacted by habitat disturbance. Increase of livestock has impacted montane populations, and drainage and sand dune development affect lowland populations (Online Atlas of the British and Irish Flora 2012).

conservationAction:
This species is included in several national red lists under the following listings: Critically Endangered in the Czech Republic (Holub and Procházka 2000); Endangered in Germany (Ludwig and Schnittler 1996) and the Netherlands (van der Meijden et al. 2000); Near Threatened in Denmark (NERI 2007) and Hungary (Király 2007); Least Concern in Estonia (eBiodiversity Estonia 2012), Norway (Artsdatabanken 2010), Svalbard and Jan Mayen (Artsdatabanken 2010), Switzerland (Moser et al. 2002) and the United Kingdom (Cheffings and Farrell 2005).

useAndTrade:
Large quantities of this plant are toxic as it reduces the body's Vitamin B complex but can be avoided by cooking. Its astringent properties make it an excellent clotting agent, to heal wounds, stop nosebleeds and reduce the coughing up of blood. It also repairs damaged connective tissue, improving its strength and elasticity. The plant has been used in the treatment of sore eyes. The stems contain 10% silica used for scouring metal, as a fine sandpaper and for polishing brass and hardwood (Plants for a Future 2012).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


This species has a large Macaronesian and Mediterranean distribution, occurs in protected areas, has been collected recently and does not appear to be in decline from any threatening processes at present. It is therefore listed as Least Concern.

range:
E. fragilis has a Macaronesian and Mediterranean distribution. It occurs from sea level up to 1,100 m (Castroviejo et al. 1986).

population:
The population size is not known, but it has been reported as being very common on the Balearic Islands.

habitat:
A shrub, found growing in rocky arid areas, limestone cliffs, coastal dunes, rocky slopes, sandy areas, near sea or roadside. Flowers from March to May. Seeds are thought to be dispersed by animal consumption.

threats:
There are no major threats at present aside from general disturbance from human activities.

conservationAction:
There are many occurrences of this species in botanic gardens and an ex situ seed collection has been made as part of the Millennium Seed Bank project. It has previously been noted in the Red List of Malta and rated as Near Threatened in the Croatian Red list under subsp. campylopoda , however, this subspecies is now recognized as a synonym of E. foeminea Forssk. The distribution range intersects several protected areas.

useAndTrade:
The stems of most members of this genus contain the alkaloid ephedrine and are valuable in the treatment of asthma and many other complaints of the respiratory system (Plants for a Future 2010). Other medicinal uses include antiviral affects, in particular against influenza, and it can be combined with other herbs to treat a wider range of issues. It is advised that E. fragilis be used with great caution, preferably under the supervision of a qualified practitioner (Plants for a Future 2010).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


This is a widespread species under no significant threat at present and it is hence listed as Least Concern.

range:
It is widespread from the Canary Islands (to Spain) through the Mediterranean and extending eastwards to Pakistan. This species occurs from 50 m to 2,500 m.

population:
It is common in some localities, rare in others.

habitat:
A shrub to 1 m high, growing in rocky arid areas, stony slopes, often on exposed areas between limestone rocks. Flowers from March to July and fruits from May to October.

conservationAction:
This species occurs in numerous protected areas across its range. Seed has been banked as part of the Millennium Seed Bank project. E. major has been listed in the Red Data Books of Cyprus and Croatia as Vulnerable and Near Threatened respectively (Tsintides et al. 2007, Nikolić and Topić 2005).

useAndTrade:
The stems of most members of this genus contain the alkaloid ephedrine and are valuable in the treatment of asthma and many other complaints of the respiratory system (Plants for a Future 2010).


taxonomicNotes:
Allium schoenoprasum L. is a tertiary wild relative of a number of crops in the allium group, including onion ( A . cepa L.), Welsh onion ( A . fistulosum L.), leek ( A . porrum L.) and garlic ( A . sativum L.). Two subspecies are native to Europe: A . schoenoprasum ssp. alpinum (DC.) Čelak. and A . schoenoprasum L. ssp. schoenoprasum (Euro+Med PlantBase 2006); these are primary wild relatives of chives. Three subspecies are recognized in Iberia: A. schoenoprasum ssp. orosiae , A. schoenoprasum ssp. latiorifolium and A . schoenoprasum ssp. schoenoprasum.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Allium schoenoprasum is widespread throughout Europe and is therefore regionally assessed as Least Concern. However, it is nationally threatened in some countries; therefore, national level monitoring is required. Germplasm collection and duplicated ex situ storage is also a priority for this species.

range:
A . schoenoprasum is native to many parts of northern, middle, east, southeastern and southwestern Europe, as well as temperate Asia, Canada, the USA, India and Pakistan (USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program 2010). Information on the distribution is available for the following countries: Czech Republic: A. schoenoprasum ssp. alpinum is known in three localities in national parks and A. schoenoprasum ssp. schoenoprasum is widespread along the Elbe and Vltava Rivers. Finland: occurs in the whole country but most frequently in the south. A. schoenoprasum ssp. schoenoprasum occurs in the south with one known occurrence in central-northern Finland . A. schoenoprasum ssp. alpinum occurs in the northern-most part of the country. France: widespread, occurs in over half of the country's 100 departments, but is marginally less widespread in the north (Association Tela Botanica 2000–2010). Iberia: A. schoenoprasum ssp. orosiae from western Pyrennes and ssp. A. schoenoprasum ssp. latiorifolium from Sierra De Guadarrama. Ireland: limited distribution, occurring in only seven localities (Preston et al . 2002). However, according to Preston et al . (2002), it is only native in two of these localities (in the west). Netherlands: distributed along the large rivers (Mennema et al. 1985). Norway: A. schoenoprasum ssp. schoenoprasum occurs in the south and A. schoenoprasum ssp. alpinum in the north. Portugal: occurs in the northwest. Slovakia: A. schoenoprasum ssp. alpinum is scattered in mountain regions in northern and northwestern parts of the country (Dostál and Červenka 1992). UK : patchy distribution throughout England and parts of Scotland, but has only be recorded in one locality in Northern Ireland (Preston et al . 2002). However, according to Preston et al . (2002), it is only native in a few localities in the west (mainly Cornwall and Wales) and the northeast.

population:
A. schoenoprasum has a stable population trend in Slovakia and is noted as common where it is found in Germany and Norway. Further research is needed to gather information about the population size and trend throughout the rest of its range.

habitat:
A. schoenoprasum ssp. schoenoprasum grows along river banks and in wet meadows , while A. schoenoprasum ssp. alpinum occurs in alpine grasslands, on rocky ledges, in crevices and dry places with little soil. In the UK, this species occurs in a range of lowland habitat types but is most commonly found on thin soils over limestone, serpentine and igneous rocks. It is also known to grow in rank grass on deeper soils and within crevices in riverside bedrock (Preston et al . 2002). In Finland the species is found in agricultural habitats , rocky areas and shores.

threats:
In Finland, A. schoenoprasum ssp. alpinum is threatened by habitat destruction through tourism and has been classified as Near Threatened (D2). This species is also known to have been threatened in the Netherlands by the modification of riverdunes (Mennema et al. 1985).

conservationAction:
Knowledge of its national threat status is as follows: Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia: A. schoenoprasum ssp. alpinum is classified as Vulnerable (VU). Finland: A. schoenoprasum ssp. alpinum is classified as Near Threatened (NT), while A . schoenoprasum ssp. schoenoprasum is classified as Least Concern (LC). Denmark: this species is classified as Data Deficient (DD) (Den Danske Rødliste 2010).In France this species is protected in the region of Bretagne in the west (Association Tela Botanica 2000–2010). EURISCO reports 174 germplasm accessions held in European genebanks, 76 of which are reported to be of wild or weedy origin. Of the wild accessions, 73 originate from within Europe. The majority of these wild accessions originate from Sweden (40) (EURISCO Catalogue 2010).

useAndTrade:
A . schoenoprasum is widely cultivated (commonly known as chives). In Europe the young leaves are appreciated as early vitamin source in the spring and are used as condiment for salads and sauces (Rabinowitch and Currah 2002). A . schoenoprasum ssp. alpinum and A . schoenoprasum ssp. schoenoprasum are primary wild relatives of and potential gene donors to chives. The species is also a tertiary wild relative of and potential gene donor to a number of other crops in the allium group, including onion ( A . cepa ), Welsh onion ( A . fistulosum ), leek ( A . porrum ) and garlic ( A . sativum ).

redListAssessors:
Magos Brehm, J., Tavares, M., Bulińska, Z., Kell, S.P., Draper, D., Labokas, J., Strajeru, S., Eliáš, P., Korpelainen, H., and Smekalova, T.


taxonomicNotes:
Allium ursinum L. is a tertiary wild relative of a number of crops in the allium group, including onion ( A . cepa L.), Welsh onion ( A . fistulosum L.), leek ( A . porrum L.), garlic ( A . sativum L.) and chives ( A . schoenoprasum L.). Two subspecies are native to Europe: A . ursinum ssp. ucrainicum Kleopow & Oxner and A . ursinum L. ssp. ursinum (Euro+Med PlantBase 2006).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Although Allium ursinum is locally infrequent and the subpopulation size is small in some parts of its range, it is very widespread in Europe and is therefore regionally assessed as Least Concern.

However, it is nationally threatened in some countries; therefore, national level monitoring is required. Germplasm collection and duplicated ex situ storage is also a priority for this species.

range:
A . ursinum is native to parts of northern, middle, east, southeastern and southwestern Europe, as well as the Caucasus and western Asia (Turkey) (Hulten and Fries 1986, USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program 2010). Information on the distribution is available for the following countries: Finland: occurs in the southern part of the country. France: widespread, occurs in all departments with the exceptions of Seine-Saint-Denis in the Région Parisienne and four departments in the south; Tarn-et-Garonne, Bouches-du-Rhône, Var and Alpes-Maritimes (Association Tela Botanica 2000–2010). Hungary: A . ursinum ssp. ucrainicum occurs in the southeast (except Pilis and Budai mountains), West Transdanubia (Sopron, Kemeneshát), South Transdanubia (Bakonalja, South – Zala, Baranya), Szigetköz region, Danube region: Csepel island, north Alföld region: rare, Dráva floodplain, Nyírség: Bátorliget. In Hungary mainly ssp. ucrainicum is found, however in western parts of Hungary ssp. ursinum or transitional forms are rarely found at Sopron, Ágfalva, Vas County: Káld, Zala County: Tapolca, Lesenceistvánd, Somogy County: Kaposvár–Bőszénfa, Kisalföld region: Rajka–Dunakiliti, Mosonszentjános, Danube landscape: Szigetújfalu, Visegrádi mountain: Pilismarót (Soó 1966, Kevey 1978, Simon 1992). Ireland: relatively widespread across the whole of the country (Preston et al . 2002). Lithuania: A . ursinum is concentrated in central and western lowlands but is rare in southern and eastern areas (Karpavičienė 2004). Netherlands: indigenous in the south of Limburg, and is possible in some places on the North Sea coast (Mennema et al. 1985). Norway: found in southern coastal areas and in the fjords. Portugal: occurs in one region in the northeast. Slovakia : A . ursinum ssp. ucrainicum occurs throughout the country especially in hills and submountain regions, A . ursinum L. ssp. ursinum is known only around the town of Bratislava (western Slovakia) (Dostál and Červenka 1992). Spain: occurs in the north. UK: widespread although marginally less widespread in northern Scotland (Preston et al . 2002).

population:
This species often has a scattered distribution, but when found exists in groups of many individuals. Further research is needed to gather information about the population size and trend of this species throughout its range.

habitat:
A. ursinum is found in forest areas, preferring shady, wet, humid habitats. For example, it occurs in lowland areas, in moist woodlands, riverbanks and hedge banks in the UK (Preston et al . 2002) and in herb-rich forests in Finland . Less frequently it can be found in rock crevices, scree and on cliff ledges by the coast (Preston et al . 2002). In Hungary this species is often a c onstituent of many beech and hornbeam–oak sub-associations, found in fresh or humid, loose, alkaline rich and poorly acid soils with medium humus loam-, adobe-, poured-, and detritus soils (Soó 1966, Simon 1992).

threats:
Further research is needed to gather information about the potential threats to this species throughout its European range.

conservationAction:
A. ursinum is classified as Least Concern (LC) in the Netherlands (Tamis et al. 2003) and in Denmark (Den Danske Rødliste 2010), while in Finland it is Near Threatened (NT). In Hungary, A . ursinum ssp. ucrainicum is not protected (Király 2007). EURISCO reports 19 germplasm accessions held in European genebanks, 12 of which are reported to be of wild or weedy origin. Of the wild accessions, nine originate from within Europe. These wild accessions originate from the following countries: Austria, Croatia, Norway, Sweden and Ukraine (EURISCO Catalogue 2010). Further germplasm collection and duplicated ex situ storage is required.

useAndTrade:
A . ursinum is a tertiary wild relative of and potential gene donor to a number of crops in the allium group, including onion ( A . cepa ), Welsh onion ( A . fistulosum ), leek ( A . porrum ), garlic ( A . sativum ) and chives ( A . schoenoprasum ). In earlier centuries thisspecies has been cultivated as vegetable, medicinal and spice plant in northern and central Europe (Rabinowitch and Currah 2002).

redListAssessors:
Draper, D., Labokas, J., Tavares, M., Strajeru, S., Eliáš, P., Bulińska, Z., Korpelainen, H., and Smekalova, T.


taxonomicNotes:
Leucojum vernum var. vernum and L. vernum var. carpathicum are recognized varieties of this species.

redListCategoryRationale:
Global and European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


This endemic species has a wide distribution through Europe, where it is found in a variety of damp woodlands, scrub and grasslands over a range of altitudes and it is inferred that the area of occupancy (AOO) and population exceed the values needed for a threatened category. It occurs within numerous protected areas and in some parts of Europe is afforded legislative protection from collection from the wild. It is assessed as Least Concern in the European region and the EU27. However, in parts of the range it is suffering from declines associated with habitat loss and collection (Jovanović et al. 2009, Marossy 2006) and sample surveys to establish the current population status and periodic monitoring to detect significant declines may be needed.

range:
The geographic range of this species extends from central France to Belgium and western Ukraine (Govaerts et al. 2005-2007), and northwards to northern Germany (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2012). As a popular garden plant it has sometimes also become naturalized in areas outside its native range. Records from just south of the Pyrenees in Spain require confirmation.

population:
There are a large number of specimen collections and observational records for this species (GBIF 2013). The majority are from the core countries central to its range and there are recent as well as historical records. This suggests that the population is large. Particularly high densities are noted in some areas, such as the Märzenbecherweisen nature reserve in Germany (Polentzal Tourist Information 2012). However, there is mass collection from the wild in some areas which may lead to local declines in population and also local habitat loss (Marossy 2006, Jovanović et al . 2009). The overall population trend is unknown.

habitat:
This is a bulbous perennial of damp woodlands, scrub, hedges and meadows. It is often found in hilly areas on calcareous soils. It is frost hardy and a good early nectar source for bees as it flowers between February and April (Trias Blasi 2013).

threats:
The species may be impacted in parts of its range by habitat loss such as conversion for agriculture and afforestation. In Serbia it is considered threatened by inappropriate management of old beech forests (Jovanović et al . 2009). As it has a preference for damp habitats it may also be affected by drainage activities. It is noted be threatened by collection from the wild in parts of its range. In Romania it is reported to be mass harvested and sold in markets, particularly for spring festivals in March, leading to a gradual decrease in some local populations (Marossy 2006). In Serbia, for example, it is thought to be threatened by collection for the pharmaceutical trade (Jovanović et al . 2009).

conservationAction:
This species is cultivated in botanic gardens and seeds have been collected and stored as part of ex situ conservation measures (Trias Blasi 2013). In Belgium, Austria and Liechtenstein this species is listed as being given protection against wild collection for trade (Lear 1998). In Germany wild populations have been specifically protected by the Federal Nature Conservation Act since 1980 (Floraweb 2012) and it has protected status within regions of France (Tela Botanica 2013). The species is found within protected areas, and is recorded from nearly 150 Natura 2000 sites across its range (EUNIS 2014), such as Märzenbecherweisen nature reserve, where the largest occurrence of wild plants of this species in Saxony is found. It is a popular place to visit in the spring and the Saxon association for the preservation of local traditions has made efforts to protect this population since 1928 (Polentzal Tourist Information 2013). Further research is needed to establish the extent and impact of any collection from the wild. Numerical data in relation to current population status is not readily available, surveys and periodic monitoring to detect any significant declines are recommended.

useAndTrade:
The species is a popular garden plant and is widely cultivated with bulbs commercially produced for sale. It is not known whether there is any collection from the wild for the horticultural trade but there is some reported collection for the pharmaceutical trade in Serbia (Jovanović et al . 2009) and for sale in local markets in Romania (Marossy 2006). Alkaloids present in the bulbs have been investigated for their anti-viral effectiveness and are thought to have high anti-retroviral properties (Szlávik et al. 2004). Galantamine, which has been extracted from this species, has also shown potential in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (Fulton and Benfield 1996).

redListAssessors:
Korpelainen, H., Magos Brehm, J., Asdal, Å., Eliáš, P., Draper, D., Vögel, R., and Kik, C.


taxonomicNotes:
There are several recognized sub-species of Narcissus poeticus : N. poeticus subsp. poeticus, N. poeticus subsp. radiiflorus (Salisb.) Baker and N. poeticus subsp. verbanensis (Herb.) P.D.Sell. (emonocots 2013).

redListCategoryRationale:
Global and European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


The species has a wide distribution within Europe, where it is endemic, and the extent of occurrence (EOO) greatly exceeds the values needed for a threatened category. The area of occupancy (AOO) and population are also inferred to exceed the thresholds. No numerical data in relation to any declines is available. Any declines are suspected to be at a local scale only, and insufficient to have significant impacts on the overall population or to trigger a threatened category. It is assessed as Least Concern in the European Region and the EU 27.

range:
This plant is native to southern and east-central Europe and the range extends to the Ukraine (Govaerts 2010). It has been widely introduced to other parts of the world, for example, it is considered a neophyte in Germany (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2012) and is recorded in Sweden, Finland and Denmark (GBIF 2013). It is cultivated elsewhere, for example, in the United States.

population:
There are a large number of specimen collections and observational records for this species (GBIF 2013). The majority are from the core countries central to its range and there are many recent, as well as historical, records. In the Ukrainian Carpathians, at the edge of the range, this is considered to be a rare species, but still forms a characteristic community forming white carpets when in flower (Kricfalusy 2013). It is inferred that the overall population is large and the overall population trend is suspected to be stable.

habitat:
This is a species of damp meadows in mountains and is also found along roadsides. All parts of the plant are toxic to mammals, including humans (USDA 2010).

threats:
This species has suffered from competition from other vegetation as a result of under-grazing or intensive grazing leading to tussock grassland, drainage of damp areas and intensification of agriculture, in some parts of its range, for example in the Ukraine (Nijland 2009).

conservationAction:
This species has some regional protective legislation in France (Tela Botanica 2013) and Narcissus poeticus ssp. radiiflorus is included in Annex 1 of the Bern Convention (Bilz et al. 2011). It is recorded from protected areas within its range, such as the Carpathian Biosphere reserve. It is conserved ex situ, for example, it is grown in the Jerusalem Botanic Gardens and there is one accession in the National Plant Germplasm System of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA 2010).

useAndTrade:
Narcissus oil is used in the perfume industry and is a popular fragrance, it is obtained from several Narcissi and notably from this species (Groom 1997). Extracts of a chemical from the bulbs have been investigated for their viscous properties and used as an application with a fungicide to germinating seeds (Umarov 2009). Specific components in the mucilage of the bulb may have growth-inhibitory effects and may potentially have a future use in cancer treatments (Kornienko and Evidente 2008). The species is cultivated in gardens and grown in plant nurseries and there are many hybrids and varieties. It is possible that it may occasionally be collected from the wild for horticultural use. It is irritant and emetic, but a homeopathic remedy is reportedly made from the bulb (Plants for a Future 2014).


taxonomicNotes:
The situation with S. lutea is complex: Molecular and morphological data would suggest that S. sicula is synonymous with S. lutea , merely representing a section of near-continuous variation. Furthermore, S. greuteriana also appears to be within this variation (Gage and Wilkin 2008).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


This species is assessed as Least Concern due to its wide distribution, stable populations and its ability to live in a wide variety of habitats. The existing threats are unlikely to cause the species’ populations to severely decline in the near future.

range:
Sternbergia lutea is native to Europe, North Africa and West Asia (The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2010). In Europe, this species occurs from Spain (including the Balearic Islands) to the Balkans. In Slovenia, the only native subpopulation is now extinct, but some introduced subpopulations still exist (Čušin et al. 2004). In Italy, in some central regions, the species is also considered as introduced. The species is not native but cultivated in Serbia (V. Stevanović pers. comm. 2010).

population:
In Spain, it is widespread but scattered. In Italy, it is frequent with more than 100 subpopulations. In Slovenia, it has been extinct for more than a century. The current population trend is unknown.

habitat:
Sternbergia lutea occurs on xeric pastures, often on basic soils.

threats:
Its habitat is threatened by vegetation changes due to changes in agricultural practices.

conservationAction:
This species is listed under Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). It is considered as threatened in some Italian regions (Emilia Romagna, Latium), but generally classed as Least Concern (Conti 1997). It is classified as Near Threatened in Croatia and Vulnerable in Bosnia-Herzegovina (Flora Croatica Database 2010).

useAndTrade:
This species is collected and used for ornamental purposes.

redListAssessors:
Caldas, F.B., Montagnani, C., Jogan, N., Moreno Saiz, J.C., Gargano, D., Buord, S. and Gigot, G.


taxonomicNotes:
Asparagus officinalis L. is a primary wild relative of cultivated asparagus, A. officinalis .

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Asparagus officinalis is regionally assessed as Least Concern. It is widely distributed throughout most of Europe and the population trend is generally stable. It grows in a range of habitat types and there are no reported major threats.

A. officinalis subsp. prostratus is however Endangered in Great Britain; therefore, the subpopulations of this taxon require active management and monitoring.

range:
A. officinalis is native to most of central and southern Europe and to north Africa. It has been introduced and become naturalized across northern Europe, Australasia and parts of north and south America (USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program 2010). Knowledge of its national distribution is available for the following European countries: Slovakia: occurs in the west, southwest, south and southeast of the country (Dostál and Červenka 1992). Norway: southeast coast. Germany: widespread. Hungary: widespread (Soó 1966, Simon 1992). France: widespread; occurs in all departments with the exceptions of Gers, Hérault and Gard in the south and Paris to the north (Association Tela Botanica 2000–2010). United Kingdom: Asparagus officinalis ssp. prostratus has a particularly narrow coastal range occurring in five localities in south Wales, nine in southwest England and seven in the Channel Islands (Preston et al . 2002). Asparagus officinalis ssp. officinalis has a much larger range—it has a patchy distribution in the west of the UK but is widespread in East Anglia and the southeast (Preston et al . 2002). It is present in only one locality in Northern Ireland and four localities in southern Scotland, near Edinburgh (Preston et al . 2002). Ireland: Asparagus officinalis ssp. prostratus has a particularly narrow coastal range, occurring in only seven localities in eastern Ireland (Preston et al . 2002). A. officinalis ssp. officinalis also has a narrow range, occurring in only five localities on the east coast (Preston et al . 2002).

population:
Knowledge of the European population of this species is as follows: Slovakia: the subpopulations are scattered but the population trend is stable. Germany: widespread and common. Central Europe: stable. United Kingdom: Asparagus officinalis ssp. prostratus is showing some evidence of decline in terms of both range and frequency; those populations that remain are small, scattered and single-sexed (Preston et al . 2002).

habitat:
In the Mediterranean, A. officinalis is found in many habitats, from hedgerows and grassy habitats to scrub, wasteland and coastal areas (Blamey and Grey-Wilson 2004). In central Europe, it also occurs in steppe in warm regions. In Hungary, it grows in dry oak woodlands ( Orno-Quercetum ( pubescenti-cerris, Corno-Quercetum ) karst scrub-forests, shrubs ( Crataegetum danubiale ), steppe woodlands ( Campanolo-Stipetum tirsae ), sand steppes ( Brometum tectorum ) and salt steppes ( Achilleo-Festucetum pseudovinae ) (Soó 1966, Simon 1992). It occurs in a range of soil types, but prefers calcareous soils, rich in nutrients and alkaline minerals (Soó 1966, Simon 1992). According to Preston et al . (2002), A. officinalis ssp. prostratus prefers lowland areas, occurring on free-draining sea-cliffs (where it grows through Festuca rubra in rocky soils) and sand dunes (commonly found alongside paths). Tutin et al. (1980) also noted that this taxon occurs on coastal sands and rocks. A. officinalis ssp. officinalis prefers free-draining sandy soils and lowlands (Preston et al . 2002).

conservationAction:
The genus Asparagus is listed in Annex I of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Knowledge of the national threat/protection status of this species in Europe is as follows: Great Britain: A. officinalis ssp. prostratus is listed as Endangered (EN C2a(i)); A. officinalis ssp. officinalis is listed as Least Concern (LC) (Cheffings and Farrell 2005). Denmark: classified as Least Concern (LC) (Den Danske Rødliste 2010). Hungary: this species is not protected (Király 2007). EURISCO reports 92 germplasm accessions of A. officinalis held in European genebanks, 33 of which are reported to be of wild or weedy origin. Of the wild accessions, 26 originate from within Europe (EURISCO Catalogue 2010).

useAndTrade:
Wild populations of A. officinalis are potential gene donors for cultivated asparagus improvement. The species is also collected for ornamental purposes.


taxonomicNotes:
The taxon Colchicum fominii is now included in C. arenarium (Persson 2007). Colchicum fominii was described from steppes near the present Moldavian/Ukrainian border. Recent studies of material from this region showed that the species does not differ enough from C. arenarium to count as a separate species but that it could rather be a geographic race (K. Persson pers. comm. 2010).

redListCategoryRationale:
Global and European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Colchicum arenarium is native to Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Slovakia, and Ukraine. The plant seems to be only widespread in Hungary where the population is very large (between 5 million and 8.3 million individuals) and it is found wherever the habitat is suitable. In the neighbouring countries it seems to be much rare with one locality in Slovakia, ten in Ukraine, three in Moldova and three in Romania. There is no information on the Serbian or Croatian populations available.


Overall, the populations are declining and several threats to the species and its habitat have been cited: forest plantations and forestry management such as digging up of the soil, the abandonment of pastoral systems leading to succession and invasion of the habitat, building works, and the digging out of tubers by boars or humans who are using them for horticultural purposes. This species is classed as Least Concern as it is widespread with big populations in parts of its range and therefore the risk of the species going completely extinct in Europe is quite low. However, it is concerning that the species is classed as threatened on various national Red Lists and conservation measures to prevent further declines are needed.

range:
Colchicum arenarium is native to Croatia, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Ukraine. In Hungary, it is found in the inner lowlands between the Danube and the Tisza rivers. The plant occurs in a single locality in Slovakia in the Čenkovská step steppe National Nature Reserve. There is an uncertain record of a historical occurrence from the sands near Komárno (Mereďa and Hodálová 2011). It occupies a narrow territory near the northwestern part of the Black Sea maritime zone from Dobrogea to the Podolian uplands in Moldova, Romania and the Ukraine. In the Ukraine, the plant is very rare and only found in the Odessa region at ten sites. In Moldova, the species is known from three localities near the towns Comrat, Chirsova and Chisinau. In Romania, it is found at three localities in the Dobrogea region.

population:
The population for Hungary is very large (between 5 millions and 8.3 million individuals). Within its range, it is found wherever the habitat is suitable. In Slovakia there are four micropopulations, numbering together about 500 flowering individuals. The numbers of individuals in the national nature reserve are more or less stable but due to the small scale occurrence on the rare sand habitats, these subpopulations are classed as Critically Endangered (Mereďa and Hodálová 2011). In the Ukraine, the populations are small in number of sites and individuals. In the largest Ukrainian subpopulation near the villages Grebeniki and Kardamiczeve in the Odessa region, the density is 5-25 individuals per 1 m². The largest Moldavian subpopulation near the village Comrat consists of 70-100 individuals. The density of this subpopulation is 0.2 individuals per 1 m². The density is decreasing and the subpopulations are overall declining. There is no information for Croatia, Serbia or Romania available.

habitat:
This perennial geophyte grows in the steppe of Stipa ukrainica and Festuca valesiaca communities, in shrubby communities and in the ecotone between steppe and forest communities, such as the edge of oak forest steppes. It blooms in autumn. In Slovakia the plant is found on xeric sand grasslands and also in stands of Robinia pseudacacia (Mereďa and Hodálová 2011). It grows in the following Habitats Directive listed habitats (Commission of the European Communities 2009): 6120 Xeric sand calcareous grasslands 6260 Pannonic sand steppes 91N0 Pannonic inland sand dune thicket (Junipero - Populetum albae).

threats:
One of the main threats is forestry management, e.g. in Robinia stands, using methods digging up the soil. Plantations of Pinus silvestris and Pinus nigra , pose another threat. And the abandonment of pastoral systems leading to succession and invasion of the habitat. In some military areas, trampling and discharge by motorised vehicles impacts on the subpopulations. The construction of a motorway might destroy a minor parts of its population.<span style="font-weight: bold;  In Slovakia the species is threatened by changes in the tree layer composition, overgrowing by woody plants and expansive herbs, and the digging out of tubers by boars (Mereďa and Hodálová 2011). In Ukraine, gathering of flowers and digging the tubers out of the soil is one of the main threats. Furthermore, the building of hydrological constructions affects the species.

conservationAction:
Colchicum arenarium is listed on Annex II of the Habitats Directive. This taxon is listed under Appendix I of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) under the names C. arenarium and C. fominii . In Hungary, it is assessed as Near Threatened and strictly protected. More than half of the localities are protected and 75% are in Natura 2000 sites. All the Slovak individuals occur in one protected area. It is classified as Critically Endangered in Slovakia (Mereďa and Hodálová 2011). It is estimated to be Vulnerable in Serbia (V. Stevanović pers. comm. 2010). It is considered as Data Deficient in Croatia (A. Alegro pers. comm. 2011). It is included in the Ukrainian Red Data Book (2009) and the Red List of Romania as Vulnerable and in the Red Data Book of Moldova (2002) as Endangered. Some populations are in the regional nature monument Grebeniki in the Odessa region in Ukraine. It is protected in the area of multifunctional management in the north of Bugeac in Moldova, and in the natural reserves Dealul Alah Bair and Recifii Jurasici Cheia in Dobrogea region in Romania. There is a proposition for establishing a natural reserve Măgurele Nord-Vest in the Dobrogea region in Romania.

useAndTrade:
This species is collected from the wild for the horticultural trade.


redListCategoryRationale:
Global and European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


This is a very widespread species in Europe and it is common in its core range. The extent of occurrence (EOO) greatly exceeds the values needed for a threatened category and it is inferred that the population and area of occupancy (AOO) also exceed such values. It is not thought to have suffered any significant overall declines as the population is noted to have declined in some areas but increased in others. It is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
An European endemic (Govaerts 2014), native throughout much of Europe (Polunin 1969, Jaeger and Flesch 1990, Jung et al. 2011, BCGI 2013, ENSCO 2014) except for the north, where it has been introduced to some countries, including Denmark and Norway. Although its range is almost continuous through Europe, there are some gaps in the distribution such as the Great Hungarian Plain, where precipitation is low and soils are partly salinized (Jung et al. 2011).

population:
The species can occur in high population densities, for example, in semi-natural grasslands in Austria and Germany where, as it is toxic to livestock, control measures may even be attempted (Winter et al . 2013). There have been some declines mainly as a result of agricultural intensification, for example in Ukraine. However, in its core distribution area, such as in parts of Germany and Austria, populations have increased recently.

habitat:
The species is a perennial geophyte found in damp meadows, open woods and river banks over a range of altitudes from near seal level to 1,700 m. The leaves appear in spring and the flowers appear, after the leaves have withered, in autumn. It favours moderately nutrient rich and deep soils with pH values of 4-8. Important pollinators are Bombus hortorum and the honey bee ( Apis mellifera ) (Jung et al. 2011).

threats:
This is a widespread species and very common in the core of its range. However, it can be found in Red Data Books of several countries at the distribution limits: Great Britain, Ireland, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, Albania, Bulgaria and northern federal states of Germany. A decline in the number of sites has been noted in Poland and Ukraine mainly as a result of intensification of agriculture, draining, ploughing and re-seeding grassland. In addition collection from the wild is noted in Ukraine, Serbia and Poland (Jung et al. 2011). The species is known to occur in semi-natural grasslands in Austria and Germany where, as it is toxic to livestock, control measures may even be attempted (Winter et al . 2013) which may pose a threat to local populations.

conservationAction:
This species occurs in national parks within its range, such as Tomorri National Park in Albania (Ruci et al. 2001). It is conserved ex situ in many botanic gardens and seed banks such as Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, London, and the Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum of the Freie Universität Berlin, Germany (BCGI 2013, ENSCO 2014). Agri-environment schemes that support low input agriculture may in this way promote population growth (Jung et al. 2011).

useAndTrade:
The plant is widely cultivated as an ornamental. All parts of the plant contain toxins with the highest concentration in the bulbs and seeds. Colchicine from this plant has been used in the treatment of several diseases including leukaemia and allergic diseases and as a diuretic. Today it is mostly used pharmaceutically in the treatment of gout and familial Mediterranean Fever. It has been used homeopathically in the treatment of gout and polyarthritis. In Veterinary medicine it is used for arthritis and as a diuretic (Jaeger and Flesch 1990). Colchicine extracted from this plant has been used to alter cell division in plants in an attempt to find new varieties (Polunin 1969).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


This species is classified as Least Concern due to its widespread distribution, assumed stable populations and no major threats. It is considered as not threatened in several national Red Lists.

range:
This species is native to the boreal and temperate regions of Europe and extends into Asia. It has been naturalised outside its native range (Klotz et al. 2002, Online Atlas of the British and Irish Flora 2012).

population:
The species is assumed to be common with an overall stable trend.

habitat:
Convallaria majalis is a herbaceous geophyte that prefers nutrient-poor soils. It grows in deciduous forests with Quercus , Betula and Fraxinus spp. and in woodland (Klotz et al. 2002, Online Atlas of the British and Irish Flora 2012).

threats:
There is no information available but it is unlikely to face any major threats.

conservationAction:
This species is listed as Near Threatened in Luxembourg (Colling 2005) and as Least Concern on the national Red Lists of Belgium (Van Landuyt et al. 2006), Denmark (NERI 2007), Norway (Artsdatabanken 2010), Switzerland (Moser et al. 2002), and the United Kingdom (Cheffings and Farrell 2005). It is considered as not threatened in Germany (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2012).

useAndTrade:
The aerial parts of the fresh flowering plant are prepared as a homeopathic remedy for animals (European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products 1998). This plant contains convallatoxin and various cardenolides and is therefore used to treat heart complaints. However, the plant itself is toxic. Extracts from the roots and flowers have anti-bacterial properties. An essential oil is produced from the flowers and used in perfumes (Hanelt et al. 2001, Schönfelder and Schönfelder 2011). The leaves provide a green dye in summer and a yellow dye in autumn. It is also used as an ornamental plant (Plants For A Future 2012).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


The species is classified as Least Concern due to its widespread distribution and conservation efforts, although it has declined and is described as rare and scarce in parts of its range.

range:
Polygonatum odoratum is native to temperate Asia and throughout Europe. It has also been cultivated widely and naturalised outside this range (USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program 2012).

population:
Once a common species in the UK it is now rare and is becoming more scarce (Online Atlas of the British and Irish Flora 2012).

habitat:
Polygonatum odoratum is a rhizomatous, perennial herb of ancient Fraxinus woods and rocky habitats and limestone outcrops and less commonly in thickets generally growing on calcareous soils. It flowers from May to June and is also grown in gardens (Blamey and Grey-Wilson 2003, Online Atlas of the British and Irish Flora 2012, Castroviejo et al. in prep).

threats:
This species has declined with the destruction of limestone pavement but this threat is now much reduced and the distribution has probably stabilised (Online Atlas of the British and Irish Flora 2012).

conservationAction:
Limestone pavement is a priority habitat in the United Kingdom, and is where Polygonatum odoratum can be found. The limestone pavement is protected from loss and deterioration by the United Kingdom and Ireland Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group which oversees the UK Biodiversity Action Plan for Limestone Pavements. As a result P. odoratum is being protected and preserved (Limestone Pavement Conservation, date unknown). It is listed as Near Threatened in Luxembourg (Colling 2005) and Least Concern in Denmark (NERI 2007), Norway (Artsdatabanken 2010), Switzerland (Moser et al. 2002) and the United Kingdom (Cheffings and Farrell 2005).

useAndTrade:
Polygonatum odoratum has been used for thousands of years in herbal medicine. It is used in Chinese traditional medicine for its antioxidative properties. Main applications are in the form of a poultice and it is applied externally for treatment of burns, bruising and to stimulate tissue repair. The root is harvested in the autumn and can be dried. It is used in the treatment of dry throat, dry coughs and coronary heart disease. An infusion is used as a diuretic and stimulant to the metabolism (Plants for a Future 2012). The berries contain anthraquinone, a toxic compound which can cause vomiting and diarrhoea (Lewis and Elvin-Lewis 2003).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


This is a very widespread and generally common species. The extent of occurrence (EOO) is much larger than that required for a threatened category, the area of occupancy (AOO) and population are also inferred to fall above such values. It is suspected not to have suffered any significant declines. It is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
This species is found from Macaronesia (the small islands in the Atlantic off the coast of Europe and north Africa) through Europe to the Mediterranean countries of north Africa and Iran (Govaerts 2014). This species occurs in Europe, particularly in the west and south and it is absent from the north and northeast (Polunin 1969).

population:
This a very widespread species in Europe, it is reported as common in many areas, for example, the Dajti National Park, Albania (Kalajnxhiu et al. 2011) and the population is inferred to be large. There have been some declines in woodland habitats throughout its range, but this species also grows in hedgerows and scrub in managed landscapes and the population is suspected to be stable.

habitat:
This perennial climber is found in hedgerows, scrub, woodland and woodland edges, it tends to avoid very acid soils (Plants for a Future 2012).

threats:
This species is found in woods, but is also able to colonize disturbed and secondary habitats, such as hedgerows and scrub in cultivated areas. It is inferred not to have any significant ongoing threats and none are envisaged in the near future.

conservationAction:
This species is found in six botanic gardens (BCGI 1913) and seeds are stored at the Centre for the Conservation of Biodiversity in Italy (ENSCO 2014). It is found within conservation areas within its range, for example, Abruzzo National Park in Italy (Naturetrek 2013) and it is listed in 20 Natura 2000 sites (EUNIS 2010).

useAndTrade:
All parts of this species are poisonous as they contains saponins. However, the young shoots are sometimes cooked and eaten, although they are very bitter. The species is not normally used internally, but the finely chopped and crushed root is applied externally as a poultice to bruises and rheumatic joints (Plants for a Future 2012). Other topical uses include treating hair loss and improving blood circulation to the scalp (WebMD 2014). It is believed to have its effect as a result of penetration of the skin by minute needle-like crystals of calcium oxalate (Schmidt and Moult 1983)


redListCategoryRationale:
European Regional Assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 Assessment: Least Concern (LC)


The estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) for this species exceeds the values needed for a threatened category. It is reported as a common species of dry and rocky areas and the area of occupancy (AOO) is also inferred to exceed these values. The population is suspected to be large and relatively stable.

range:
This species is native to coastal areas of the Mediterranean region. In Europe it is found in Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Albania, Croatia, Greece, Cyprus. Its native range extends to Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Algeria, Morocco, southern Iran and Iraq (Davis 2014, Govaerts 2014, USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program 2014) and it has been introduced elsewhere.

population:
This is reported to be the commonest of the three European species of Drimia . As a characteristic species of dry barren hillsides and common in many Mediterranean areas, it is inferred that the population is large and stable.

habitat:
This is a species of Mediterranean coastal areas up to 300 m above sea level. It is a characteristic feature of dry barren hillsides sandy and rocky places. The large bulbs produce rosettes of broad, long, leathery green leaves. These die back and in the autumn a tall flower spike is produced. These flowers are insect and wind pollinated. The bulbs are noted to flower freely following fire (Polunin 1969, Davis 2014).

threats:
This species grows on dry barren hillsides which are less favoured for agriculture and it has some resistance to grazing, probably as a result of the chemical compounds which it contains. It is noted to bloom freely after fire, which implies some resilience to this potential threat. Tourist developments along the coast may result in some loss of habitat. It is considered Near Threatened in Sardinia and the Balearics and rare in Corsica (unpublished factsheet from MAPROW database: U. Schippmann pers. comm. 2013).

conservationAction:
The seeds of this species are conserved in the Millennium seed bank and the plant is grown ex situ in the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, London (Davis 2014). It is found within protected areas such as the Isola Gallinara Nature Reserve in Italy and in five other Natura 2000 sites (EUNIS 2014).

useAndTrade:
In ancient Greece this species was recommended for the treatment of jaundice, convulsions and asthma. It was also used against an excess of fluid in body tissues, as it stimulates the heart, It contains cardiac glycosides which are strongly diuretic and relatively quick-acting. Its medicinal uses include as a diuretic, purgative and expectorant. Historically wild bulbs were collected, chopped and dried and then ground to produce a powder that was toxic to rodents. In the 1980's there was renewed interest is the compound, scilliroside, which it contains, for use as a rat poison, due to increasing resistance to the generally used anticoagulant poisons. Traditionally the bulbs have been used as a charm attached to doorways and also as an insect repellent. The flowers are attractive and are sometimes cut to add to flower arrangements (Davis 2014, Plants for a Future 2014).


taxonomicNotes:
This species has many synonyms, subspecies and varieties and is subject to much geographic variation.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)

The species has a very wide distribution within Europe and the estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) for greatly exceeds the values needed for a threatened category. It occurs in a variety of habitats over a range of altitudes and the area of occupancy (AOO) is also inferred to exceed these values. It is common in many parts of its range and the population is inferred to be large, stable and not to be suffering from significant declines. It is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
This species is found in central, southern and eastern Europe, including records from Ukraine. Its range extends to Anatolia in eastern Turkey (Bakis et al. 2014), Lebanon and Syria and to the North Caucasus and Trans-Caucasus regions (Polunin 1969, Govaerts 2014).

population:
This a very widespread species and common in many parts of its range, such as the Lapus region of Transylvania and Belmonte, Calabria, Italy (Ardelean 2009, Ecobelmonte 2014) although less common in others, such as Bavaria (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2014). The overall population is inferred to be large and stable.

habitat:
This spring flowering bulb is found in woodlands, for example of beech, hornbeam and oak, coppiced woodland, scrub, grassland and meadows. It is found in lowland and mountain areas (Polunin 1969, Tela Botanica 2013).

threats:
This attractive spring bulb is threatened with over collection from the wild in parts of its range, for example, in Romania they are mass harvested and sold in markets without any restriction (Marossy 2006).

conservationAction:
This species occurs in many conservation areas throughout its range, for example, the Magura National Park in Poland, the Wolferskopf Nature Reserve in Germany and fifty other Natura 2000 (EUNIS 2014).

useAndTrade:
This attractive blue spring flowering bulb is cultivated as an ornamental. Bulbs may also used for medicinal purposes as they contain cardiac glycosides and may have therapeutic use for heart failure (Balasoiu et al. 2013). Extracts from the flowers have been shown to have anti-oxidant properties (Soare et al. 2012).


taxonomicNotes:
The subspecies Iris aphylla hungarica was previously assessed for Europe on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (assessment published in 2011), but is now synonymised with <span lang

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT)
EU 27 regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT)


Iris aphylla is native to central and eastern Europe, though its range extends beyond the IUCN definition of geographical Europe to the Caucasus Mountains east of the Black Sea. This species is widespread but declining and/or threatened across most of its range. At the European level, although it has a large distribution in Ukraine with many localities and a stable population, the species has reportedly gone extinct in Serbia (though whether it occurred there is uncertain) and is threatened, near threatened and/or declining in all other countries of occurrence except Albania and Romania, where its status is unknown.


Within the EU 27, Iris aphylla is found in nine countries and is threatened and/or declining in six of them (its status in Romania is unknown), comprising more than half of its range. The area of occupancy, the number of localities and whether they are fragmented is not known. It has disappeared from open steppe habitats and become isolated at the limits of its geographical range.


The overall decline is mainly attributed to natural succession of open grassland into shrub and woodland; it is also threatened by invasion of Robinia pseudoacacia, logging of forest, burning, infrastructure development, industrial air and soil pollution, collection and competition. However, it can also occur in secondary habitats such as artificial woods and plantations, so may be able to adapt somewhat to moderate habitat transformation. Although the overall population decline has not been quantified as there is no specific information on population size, and though this species is protected in several countries, it is precautionarily assessed as Near Threatened approaching criteria A2cde, as it could likely have declined by 20% or more over the past 60-75 years, given that it is facing many threats and listed as threatened and declining across much of its range. No rescue effect is expected from outside its European range, as the only populations outside this range are on the far eastern side of the Black Sea and not likely to reach Europe. Furthermore, the species has been found to have extremely low seed set and number of juveniles due to limited pollen and seed dispersal, due to its highly fragmented distribution (Wroblewska and Brzosko 2006); if this pattern holds elsewhere in its range, immigration and establishment from outside Europe is highly unlikely. It is strongly recommended to collect detailed population information and decline rates from each country and to re-assess the species when all the data is available. It might then warrant listing in a more threatened category.

range:
Iris aphylla is native to central and eastern Europe, including the Carpathians and the Caucasus. Its distribution is not continuous and is fragmented over a large area, except in Ukraine and Russia. It is found in nine countries within the EU 27 with numerous disjunct localities (Witkowski et al. 2003, Wroblewska and Brzosko 2006). Some sources list this species as occurring in France and Italy, but a recent review of Irises concluded that the species found in France is Iris perrieri , while in Italy (and Austria) the species is Iris benacensis (Colasante and Mathew 2008). Its presence in Albania and Serbia is doubtful (G. Király pers. comm. 2013). It is also grown as an ornamental species in other parts of Europe (M. Aronsson pers. comm. 2013). In Russia, I. hungarica is reported from the Briansk region where the population covers an area of 100-300 m². In Ukraine, it has a large distribution in the forest-steppe zone, in the south of deciduous and mixed forests (in Polesian lowland) and in the northern part of the steppe zone. In Hungary, it is found in the northeast. The taxon is found in one locality in northeast Poland in the Northern Podlasie Lowland (Piękoś-Mirkowa and Mirek 2006). In Slovakia, it occurs in the Slovenský kras Karst (the Jasovská and Zádielska planina Plateaus), the Hornád Valley (from Hranovnica to Kysak), Spišská kotlina Basin (Dreveník NNR), Slánske vrchy Mts. (Fintice, Kokošovce) and hills on Východoslovenská nížina Lowland. Several localities, such as the occurrence in Burda, could not be confirmed recently (Mereďa and Hodálová 2011).

population:
Many Iris aphylla subpopulations are found in isolated patches. In the Czech Republic, the species is rare (recently recorded at only 6–20 localities) and is declining in abundance. It has been reported from two localities in Bulgaria, but one has been completely destroyed and the species has not been confirmed in the other since 1976 ( Petrova and Vladimirov 2009). In Albania, it is known from Gryka e Shijes ( Kukesi District ) at 400 m (L. Shuka pers. comm. 2013). There are seven natural subpopulations in Poland and four reintroduced subpopulations, as many became extinct in the 19th Century. The mean population size of the seven natural subpopulations observed over three years was 9,609 ramets (the largest subpopulation was 2,510 and the smallest was 129), which included 277 flowering ramets (ranging from 85 to 4) and eight juveniles (five in the largest subpopulation and zero in three subpopulations) (Wroblewska and Brzosko 2006). This survey revealed extremely low seed set and number of juveniles due to limited pollen and seed dispersal, due to its highly fragmented distribution. The Hungarian populations of the subspecies I. a. hungarica have been estimated between 13,000-16,000 individuals and are slightly decreasing. In the Ukraine, the populations are found in isolated patches over a wide range; the trend is stable as there are still many localities. In Brianskaja region of Russia, the populations cover an area of 100-300 m². In Slovakia, it has been recorded in 29 localities (Commission of the European Communities 2009). The size of I. a. hungarica populations in Slovakia (numbering typically tens to hundreds of individuals) as well as their number have considerably decreased over the last decades (Mereďa and Hodálová 2011). In Poland the subspecies has become extinct in more than half of its localities. The extant populations comprise from a few to 3,000 flowering shoots, but in recent years the populations have decreased (Kaźmierczakowa and Zarzycki 2001).

habitat:
Iris aphylla is a long-lived rhizomatous perennial herbaceous plant with violet flowers pollinated by insects. It is found in open calcareous grassland and steppe (Wroblewska et al. 2003), meadow-steppe communities and grasslands, and in pine forests and oak-pine forests. It can also occur in secondary habitats such as artificial woods with Robinia pseudoacacia (plantations). It is found on sunlit limestone, andesite, basalt and melaphyre slopes and rocks from lowlands to the submontane vegetation belt (Mereďa and Hodálová 2011). As a long-lived perennial, its generation length is at least 20-25 years (M. Aronsson pers. comm. 2013). Iris aphylla hungarica grows in the following Habitats Directive listed habitats (Commission of the European Communities 2009): 40A0 Subcontinental peri-Pannonic scrub 6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) 6240 Sub-Pannonic steppic grasslands 6250 Pannonic loess steppic grasslands 91H0 Pannonian woods with Quercus pubescens 91I0 Euro-Siberian steppic woods with Quercus spp. 91M0 Pannonian-Balkanic turkey oak–sessile oak forests

threats:
The declines in this species are attributed to general forestry management and lack of grazing, natural succession and overgrowth by shrubs. A major threat is invasion of Robinia pseudoacacia , along with logging of existing forest, ploughing of the soils and then plantations, as the species needs light and can be outcompeted by other plants. It is also threatened by infrastructure development and industrial air and soil pollution ( Petrova and Vladimirov 2009). Minor threats include over-collection (Wroblewska et al. 2003) and burning. Forest plantations are the main threat for the Ukrainian steppe habitat, while in Slovakia it is threatened by intensive use of orchards and fallows in the vineyards. The loss of suitable habitats from encroachment by woody plants or herbs has been reported as a threat from Slovakia and Poland. Locally, rock mining is a threat. Habitat destruction and climatic changes since the 19th Century have also led to decline and range contraction from open habitats and the scarcity of suitable habitats, causing it to become more rare (Wroblewska and Brzosko 2006).

conservationAction:
The species Iris aphylla (or subspecies I. a. hungarica ) is listed on Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive and on numerous national red lists. It is reported as having gone Extinct in Serbia (Baričevič et al. 2004), though it is uncertain whether it was ever present in the country (G. Király pers. comm. 2013). It is Critically Endangered in Slovakia, where it occurs in 11 Natura 2000 sites covering 77.8% of its localities (Witkowski et al. 2003, Mereďa and Hodálová 2011). It is also Critically Endangered in Bulgaria (Petrova and Vladimirov 2009) where is protected under the Law for Nature Protection and occurs in ex situ collections, and has a very good adaptability to cultivation (Baričevič et al. 2004). It is included in the Red Data Book of Belarus as Endangered (Ermakova 2005) and is protected in Pripjatskij National Park. It is also listed as Endangered in the Czech Republic (Holub and Procházka 2000, Grulich 2012), Germany (Red List from 1996; Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2012), and the Carpathians (Witkowski et al. 2003). In Hungary, it is included as Vulnerable in the national Red List (Király 2007) with less than 50% of its population included in protected areas but more than 50% in Natura 2000 sites. It is included in the Red Book of Moldova as Vulnerable (Kalakin 2009). In the Polish Red Data Book (2001) and in the national Red List (2006) it is classed as Vulnerable and is protected at national level (Kazmierczakowa and Zarzycki 2001, Piekoś-Mirkowa and Mirek 2006). Some subpopulations occur in nature reserves and in the Biebrza National Park in Poland. It is listed as Vulnerable (VU D2) on the Red List of the Vascular Flora of France (UICN France, FCBN and MNHN 2012), and is also listed in the French Decree of 20 January 1982 establishing the national list of protected plants [Liste des espèces végétales protégées sur l'ensemble du territoire français métropolitain: Article 1], though the species present in France is likely to be Iris perrieri rather than Iris aphylla (Colasante and Mathew 2008). It has been categorized as Near Threatened in Russia, and is listed in the regional Red Data Books of the Russian Federation: Republics of Chuvashia and Tatarstan, Brianskaja region. In the Ukraine, it is not listed as a threatened species and is found in many protected areas; ex situ conservation measures are under way in the National Botanical Garden of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in Kyiv. The conservation status in Albania and Romania is unknown. The subspecies I. a. hungarica (now synonymised with Iris aphylla ) was previously listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species as Data Deficient (assessment published in 2011).

useAndTrade:
This is a medicinal and aromatic plant, but there is little information on its use (Baričevič et al. 2004). It is an ornamental used in plant breeding for obtaining short-stemmed, winter-hardy and ever-flowering varieties (Research Institute of Agriculture and Forages 1996). The subspecies I. a. hungarica was collected from the wild as a garden plant and still survives in some gardens, and is easy to cultivate.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Listed as Least Concern due to its widespread distribution and lack of major threats. Within Europe, Iris lutescens is distributed over a wide area from Portugal to Italy. Although it is not believed to be frequent, there are no known major threats affecting this species. It is valued as an ornamental plant and is cultivated widely for this purpose. There is no information on any declines within its native range. More information is needed to determine the status of the species in Portugal and Italy, as well as any potential threats.

range:
Iris lutescens is native to north Africa, Spain, Portugal, France and Italy, and has spread to Malta and Switzerland, where it is only known from two localities (RBG Kew 2012). In total there are 770 records on GBIF, excluding Italy. There are 135 recorded localities on the Iberian Peninsula (Anthos 2010).

population:
There is no information on the population size or trend available. It is scarce in the Balearic Islands and scattered throughout the Iberian Peninsula (Castroviejo et al . in prep.). The species is overabundant in Mediterranean France and possibly in other regions (e.g., Catalonia, Tuscany) (E. Vela pers. comm. 2013).

habitat:
A rhizomatous perennial herb found in open grassland and scrubland in dry, stony or shallow soils and rocky areas. It has a short flowering period. There are two distinct varieties in the Iberian Peninsula and Africa, each with distinct morphology and distribution (Castroviejo et al . in prep, Colasante and Sauer 1993).

threats:
There is no information on any threats affecting the species as a whole. Iris habitats in central Italy in general are becoming increasingly threatened by uncontrolled agricultural expansion, habitat degradation, and environmental pollution (Colasante and Sauer 1993).

conservationAction:
In Spain, Iris lutescens is protected under regional legislation in Murcia (Decreto 50/2003, B.O.R.M. no.131) and is listed as a 'Taxon of special interest' in the Red Book of Protected Wild Flora of Murcia (Anthos 2010). This species has not been assessed in France, nor is it protected or regulated there (Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle 2003-2013). Colasante and Sauer (1993) recommend protection and preservation of Iris habitats in central Italy, in order to preserve the still rich and diverse Iris taxa found there. More information is needed to determine the status of the species in Portugal and Italy, as well as any potential threats.

useAndTrade:
It is cultivated as an ornamental plant in rock gardens and has gained the Award of Garden Merit (Royal Horticultural Society 2011). It is cultivated widely in Portugal.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


This species is classed as Least Concern as it is widespread with stable populations and does not face any major threats.

range:
I. pseudacorus occurs from Madeira to North Africa and Europe east through Western Siberia, the Caucasus, the Middle East and Kazakhstan to the Primorskye region of far eastern Russia, Sakhalin Island and China. It has apparently been introduced to the Korean Peninsula, India, Canada, the United States and Argentina. In Europe, it occurs more or less throughout except for the the far north.

population:
I. pseudacorus is widespread and abundant throughout its European range.

habitat:
I. pseudoacorus occurs in shallow water or saturated soils in marshes, along the shores of lakes or ponds with stagnant or slow flowing waters, and ditches.

useAndTrade:
There is some horticultural trade in I. pseudacorus but most material apparently derives from cultivation, rather than the wild.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD)
EU 27 regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD)


There is insufficient information available to properly assess this species and it is thus listed as Data Deficient. This species has a relatively large distribution in central and eastern Europe, but the total population size and trend is unknown.

Habitat loss and degradation are taking place throughout its range, though some of the grassland and steppe habitat in which it is found in the Pannonian Region has been protected and restored under Natura 2000; this may help the species to recover from any negative impacts of human interference. The species is classed as threatened on various national red lists and may be threatened in additional countries; further information is needed on the status of the population where it has not been assessed, along with research into the causes of declines and adequate measures to prevent them.

range:
Iris pumila is native to and has a large distribution in southeast Europe and west Asia (RBG Kew 2012). There are 482 records on GBIF. It is listed as native to Slovenia (RBG Kew 2012), but is not reported present there (Purger et al. 2008). This species is planted as an ornamental outside its native range, where it sometimes escapes and naturalizes (M. Aronsson pers. comm. 2013).

population:
The total population size and trend is unknown. In Croatia it is extremely rare; one small population of less than 50 individuals isolated in an area less than 10 km² was discovered in 2007 (Purger et al . 2008). It is rare in the Czech Republic, occurring in 6-20 localities; exant subpopulations are not clearly declining (Grulich 2012). It can be found in several localities in Romania and Serbia, is widespread in Bulgaria, and is rather frequent in north-eastern Hungary (Assyov and Petrova 2006, Purger et al . 2008). A good undisturbed natural population is found in the protected natural reserve of the Deliblato Sands in Serbia (Tarasjev et al . 2012).

habitat:
A rhizomatous perennial herb found in lowland open dry habitats such as sandy steppe, sand dunes and shady woodland. It grows on calcareous, dry, loose, basic or slightly acidic soil with low humus content and fertility, on rocky ground, mainly on limestone, dolomite, loess or sand substrata (Purger et al. 2008). Flowering occurs during early spring for a few weeks, with a diverse range of colours; flowering phenology is highly susceptible to environmental variability and habitat type (Tarasjev 1997).

threats:
The major threats are disturbances to the habitat such as road building, trampling, lack of grazing and competition with invasive alien species, as well as habitat loss due to agricultural changes, infrastructure development, abandonment and lack of management of grasslands (Purger et al. 2008). Today over 60% of the land in the Pannonian region has been converted to agriculture, large-scale canalization and land reclamation, resulting to substantial areas of floodplains and land conversion for arable crops and fast-growing alien trees such as Robinia pseudoacacia , and destroying many seminatural and natural habitats (European Communities 2009).

conservationAction:
Iris pumila is listed as Endangered in the Czech Republic (Grulich 2012). It is not threatened in Hungary, but is protected under the 23/2005. (VIII. 31.) KvVM decree (Baričevič et al. 2004, Király 2007). It can be assessed as Critically Endangered in Croatia, and is treated as Endangered and protected in Serbia (Purger et al. 2008). The whole genus Iris is legally protected in Croatia and noted in the Ordinance on Proclamation of Wild Taxa as Protected and Strictly Protected (Official Gazette 99/09); it is forbidden to collect or destroy strictly protected plants as well as to hold and trade them without explicit authority permission (I. Boršić pers. comm. 2013). The European Union's LIFE programme has protected and restored several thousands of hectares of damaged steppe habitats in the Pannonian Region under Natura 2000, allowing rare plants to recover (European Communities 2009). More information on the specific distribution, population size and trend, the actual impact of the threats, and whether the species is found in any protected areas, would be beneficial.

useAndTrade:
It is listed as a medicinal and aromatic plant but there is limited information on its specific uses (Baričevič et al. 2004). It is commonly used as ornamental plant, and has been bred extensively with other Irises, resulting in a great variety of cultivars.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT)
EU 27 regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT)


Iris sibirica has a wide distribution throughout central and eastern Europe, but is suffering declines in many countries across its range. It is cultivated widely as an ornamental flower but has become rare and threatened in many parts of Europe due to habitat loss and degradation. The overall population decline has not been quantified, but it is listed as near threatened, threatened or extinct in the wild in about half of its range in both regional Europe and the EU 27, and thus could have declined by at least 20% over the past 60-75 years. It is only known to be protected in France, Germany and Poland and within Natura 2000 sites. 

It is therefore listed as Near Threatened approaching criterion A2ce. Rescue from outside of Europe is not expected, as the great majority of the global population is found within the region, so any immigration would be unlikely to boost populations sufficiently; the initial category therefore remains unchanged. It is strongly recommended to collect detailed population information and decline rates from each country and to re-assess the species when all the data is available to review if it would qualify for threatened under criterion A.

range:
Iris sibirica has a wide distribution throughout central and eastern Europe and west Asia. It has been introduced in Sweden, the United Kingdom, Korea and North America (Online Atlas of the British and Irish Flora 2012, RBG Kew 2012). Outside of Europe, it is native to Asiatic Turkey, Kazakhstan, the North Caucasus, Transcaucasus, the Russian Far East (Altay, Krasnoyarsk, West Siberia) and Mongolia (RBG Kew 2012).

population:
The total number of individuals is unknown and may be high given the species' broad distribution, but the population appears to be declining across Europe. The species is threatened in numerous countries, and declines have specifically been reported from Croatia (Nikolić and Topić 2005), central Europe (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2012) and Switzerland (Moser et al. 2002). There are fewer than 10,000 mature individuals in Switzerland (Mo ser et al. 2002). It is widespread but declining in Germany (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2012). This species is strongly declining in at least parts of its range in the Czech Republic, and is no longer present in 20–50% of previously recorded localities (Grulich 2012). In Poland it is very rare (Kostrakiewicz and Wroblewska 2008).

habitat:
A rhizomatous geophyte found in damp deciduous woodlands, tall herb grasslands, damp and swampy lowland meadows and waste ground (Kostrakiewicz and Wroblewska 2008, Flora Croatica Database 2012, RBG Kew 2012). Iris sibirica is a characteristic species of summer-dry, continental Cnidion meadows, found mostly in large river floodplains in Moravia, Austria, Slovakia and Hungary, which are regularly flooded for a few weeks every spring but where the water table can drop in summer to one metre below ground level or deeper; they are usually mown once or twice a year but never grazed (Šeffer et al. 2008). As a long-lived perennial, its generation length is at least 20-25 years (M. Aronsson pers. comm. 2013).

threats:
This species is threatened by habitat loss and degradation caused by overgrazing, overuse and draining/filling in of wetlands, flood control in floodplains, conversion of grassland into arable land, and afforestation of damp and wet meadows (Gabrielian 1988, Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2012, Flora Croatica Database 2012). Changes in water regime and ceasing of mowing, which enables colonization by shrub vegetation and transformation of vegetation type, are also significant threats. Strong destruction and fragmentation of natural wet meadows has led to decreased population size and lowered genetic variability (Kostrakiewicz and Wroblewska 2008).

conservationAction:
The species Iris sibirica is listed on numerous national red lists. It is Data Deficient on the Red List of the Vascular Flora of France (UICN France, FCBN and MNHN 2012), but is protected under the French Decree of 20 January 1982 establishing the national list of protected plants [Liste des espèces végétales protégées sur l'ensemble du territoire français métropolitain: Article 1]. It is Near Threatened in Belarus (Ermakova 2005), Estonia (eBiodiversity Estonia 2012) and Hungary (Király 2007), and Vulnerable in the Czech Republic (Holub and Procházka 2000, Grulich 2012), Lithuania (Rašomavičius 2007), Switzerland (Moser et al. 2002) and the Ukraine (Witkowski et al. 2003). Of the two subspecies found in Croatia, I. s. sibirica is listed as Vulnerable ( I. s. erirrhiza is not listed; Nikolić and Topić 2005). The whole genus Iris is legally protected in Croatia and noted in the Ordinance on Proclamation of Wild Taxa as Protected and Strictly Protected (Official Gazette 99/09); it is forbidden to collect or destroy strictly protected plants as well as to hold and trade them without explicit authority permission (I. Boršić pers. comm. 2013). Iris sibirica has been reported extinct in the wild in Slovakia (Witkowski et al. 2003), but is listed as Vulnerable on the Red list of ferns and flowering plants of Slovakia (Feráková et al. 2001). It is considered to be rare and endangered in Poland but is protected (Kostrakiewicz and Wroblewska 2008). The species is threatened in Germany, but is protected under the Federal Nature C

useAndTrade:
It is used as an ornamental plant and was first brought into cultivation in the Middle Ages; it is still widely cultivated in temperate regions. All parts of the flower are poisonous (RBG Kew 2012). An insecticide can be obtained from the plant (Plants for a Future 2012).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)
EU 27 regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)


Most of the native European distribution of Iris spuria lies within the EU 27. This species is rare and threatened throughout its range, and has already disappeared from one country. The species is declining across its range due to habitat loss and degradation, as well as ecological factors (including the effects of competitors) which have significantly reduced the germination and seedling establishment for further recruitment. Although there is not enough population data to quantify an overall population decline, given such widespread losses it suspected to have declined by at least 30% over the past 60-75 years. It is therefore classified as Vulnerable A2ce at the European and EU 27 levels.

It is not known if individuals from outside the region arrive in any substantial quantity that could potentially rescue the regional population, but given the limited seed dispersal, poor success of restoration efforts and difficulties with regeneration, any such immigration is not expected to have much rescue impact; furthermore, the species is probably extinct or at least Critically Endangered in north Africa (E. Vela pers. comm. 2013). The category therefore remains unchanged.


It is strongly recommended to collect detailed population information and decline rates from each country and to re-assess the species when all the data is available. Habitat protection and management is required to  mitigate increasing pressures from agriculture and hydrodynamics (flood  control, drainage).

range:
Iris spuria is native to north-central and central Europe, north Africa and western Asia; it has naturalised in the UK and Italy (Pašica 2003, Online Atlas of the British and Irish Flora 2012, RBG Kew 2012). It is reportedly native to Spain (RBG Kew 2012), but there do not seem to be any records of its occurrence there (Castroviejo et al. in prep, Anthos 2010).

population:
The total population size is unknown. It is very rare in Germany (Bissels et al. 2006). It was known from just one locality in the Czech Republic, which has since gone extinct, and has disappeared from 4 out of six localities in Slovakia (Čeřovský et al. 1999). Remnant populations still exist in France along the northern Upper Rhine, though large scale restoration efforts of species-rich flood meadows where it occurs at sites of former arable fields have had poor success of seedling establishment (Norbert and Annette 2003). In Hungary it is more common, with more than 300 localities and an estimated more than 1 million individuals; there is no clear trend indicating it is declining in Hungary, and the situation in Romania may be similar (G. Király pers. comm. 2013).

habitat:
Iris spuria is a rhizomatous geophyte found in alluvial meadows along large rivers, and growing in damp meadows and pastures associated with Cnidion. The success of seedling establishment is strongly influenced by regular flooding in the late spring and early summer to eliminate competitors (Norbett and Annette 2003). It is tolerant of high anthropogenic influence and partial drainage but is sensitive to regular mowing and saline soils (Zlinska 2006). In Sweden, it only occurs on brackish water seashores (M. Aronsson pers. comm. 2013). The Weevil Mononychus schoenherrii Kolenati develops on this plant (Gültekin and Korotyaev 2012). As a long-lived perennial, its generation length is at least 20-25 years (M. Aronsson pers. comm. 2013).

threats:
The plants are susceptible to human interference such as picking and burning (Pašica 2003). The frequency of mowing on this flood meadow plant affects seed establishment and the recruitment of seedlings (Bissels et al. 2006). Due to intensive agriculture in lowlands and lack of management, it has vanished in many localities (Zlinska 2006). Due to flood control, drainage, intensified use and conversion into arable land, such habitats have become extremely rare. Drought is a significant cause of seed germination failure, and reduced frequency of floods or fast-retreating flood water causes significant declines in the regeneration capability, as it facilitates invasion by other plants as well as reducing the dispersal capability (Norbert and Annette 2003). In France a strong long-term decline of these species has taken place since the 1920s as a result of intensiﬁed grassland management, drainage and conversion into arable land. Despite the restoration of suitable site conditions, the current occurrence of these species is restricted by dispersal limitation to remnant stands along ditches, paths and old meadows (Donath et al . 2006).

conservationAction:
Iris spuria is listed as Regionally Extinct in Czech Republic (Holub and Procházka 2000), Critically Endangered in Slovakia (Čeřovský et al. 1999), Endangered in Germany (assessment from 1996; Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2012) and Sweden (Gärdenfors 2010), and Near Threatened in Denmark (NERI 2007) and Hungary (Király 2007). In Slovakia, where it is Critically Endangered, it is known from six localities including the Komocín Nature reserve, Pohrebiste Nature Reserve and Kamenínske slanisko National Nature Reserve (Zlinska 2006). It is considered to be threatened in France, and large scale restoration efforts of species-rich flood meadows where it occurs at sites of former arable fields have had poor success of seedling establishment. Direct sowing of seeds is required for improved restoration and genetic variability (Norbett and Annette 2003). It is also rare in Serbia (Pašica 2003). It is considered to be threatened on a Central European scale (Schnittler and Gunther 1999). More specific information is needed on the population size and rate of decline across Europe. Habitat protection and management is required to mitigate increasing pressures from agriculture and hydrodynamics (flood control, drainage).

useAndTrade:
Blue Iris is cultivated in Egypt as the rhizomes contain isoflavones which have anti-inflammatory properties (Singab 2004).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD)
EU 27 regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD)


Iris xiphium is endemic to the western and central Mediterranean. It is widespread in Portugal, but is known from only one small area of France. No information on population size and trend or potential threat is available and the species is therefore assessed as Data Deficient.

population:
There is no information on the population size or trend available. The species has been reported as common across its European range (Pacific Bulb Society 2012).

habitat:
This species inhabits temperate mixed forest. It is the only Iris species to have bulbs, non-persistent roots and canaliculated leaves (Martinez et al. 2010). It is found in vegetation in rocky and scree plant communities (Deil et al. 2008).

threats:
There is no information on the threats affecting this species, although changes in land use and agriculture may have an impact.

conservationAction:
Iris xiphium is listed as Vulnerable (VU D2) on the Red List of the Vascular Flora of France (UICN France, FCBN and MNHN 2012). It is also listed in the French Decree of 20 January 1982 establishing the national list of protected plant [Liste des espèces végétales protégées sur l'ensemble du territoire français métropolitain: Article 1]. It is not listed on any other national red lists or known to be protected in other countries in its range. Research is needed to determine the population size and trends, and the impact of potential or actual threats.

useAndTrade:
This species is widely appreciated for its beautiful blue and yellow flowers, and is favoured by florists for its striking colour combinations. Cultivation has produced a great number of varieties popular in horticulture; of these, var. lusitanica has bright yellow flowers and is very popular.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT)
EU 27 regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT)


The estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) for this lily exceeds the values needed for a threatened category. However, as this is not a common species, generally suspected to occur in small populations, it is inferred that the area of occupancy (AOO) may fall below 2,000 km2. The species is recorded from about twenty sites in Greece and has undergone population reductions (National Technical University of Athens 2011). This infers more than ten locations but a continuing decline in the number of subpopulations or mature individuals. As a perennial bulb it is not thought to be subject to extreme fluctuations.


The species is assessed as Near Threatened under Criterion B as the AOO is inferred to be less than 2,000 km2, however sub-criteria are not thought to be met. Further surveys are needed to establish the current population size of this species and monitoring is needed to detect and enumerate declines. Such information may allow the application of categories requiring numerical values and percentage declines. Further research is needed to give a better understanding of its biology, ecology, population dynamics and threats.

range:
The species is known from the southern Balkan Peninsula (southern and eastern Albania (Pieroni et al. 2014) and southern Macedonia) to southwestern Anatolia, Turkey, to Lebanon, Palestine and Israel (WCSP 2014). It is native to southeast Europe in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Greece and the Aegean Islands. It is an attractive species and has been introduced elsewhere since ancient times (P. Dimopoulos and A. Strid pers. comm. 2014), for example, in north Africa (e.g., Tunisia, Algeria), France (Association Tela Botanica 2014), Italy and Madeira (Govaerts 2014, GRIN 2014), and as a result it is difficult to it is often difficult to distinguish introduced from native populations and its native status on the Aegean Islands is debated (Strid 2007).

population:
The population trend varies across Europe. It is widely distributed with a healthy population size in Bulgaria (Angelova et al. 1994) and is common in Poland (Mysliwy 2008), while in Belgium it is rare (Van Landuyt et al. 2006). Population declines have been reported from the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Sweden and Switzerland (Moser et al. 2002, Colling 2005, Gärdenfors 2010, Grulich 2012), and also from central Europe (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2012). In the United Kingdom, where it was introduced in the Middle Ages and recorded in the wild by 1597, the population continues to decline due to the gradual extinction of established subpopulations and a decreased rate of introduction due to more effective seed cleaning (Online Atlas of the British and Irish Flora 2012).

habitat:
This perennial bulb species is found in Mediterranean low evergreen tree and shrub habitats ( phrygana and maquis ) and on rocky slopes and ledges, often on limestone. It is generally found at altitudes between 100-1,200 m, and flowers in May and early June (Strid 2007).

threats:
Indiscriminate harvesting reportedly causes loss and endangers the species in Turkey (Kizmazm not dated). However, this species is no longer thought to be collected for trade from the wild in Europe (Lear 1988). However, local collection, grazing and tourism are all considered threats in Greece (National Technical University of Athens 2011).

conservationAction:
This lily is found within a Natura 2000 site in Greece: Ethnikos Drymos, which is a National Park. It is grown ex situ in 79 botanic gardens (BCGI 2013) but it is not known whether it is conserved in any seed bank. Characterization and conservation of wild ecotypes are essential for preserving this important plant in Israel (Zaccai et al. 2009) and elsewhere. It is listed as Endangered and its priority protection is considered urgent (National Technical University of Athens 2011).

useAndTrade:
This lily belongs to a group of plants used in folk medicine for their anti-inflammatory effect. Extracts from the bulb of this plant are used externally for ulcers, inflammation, burns and wound healing. Recently antifungal properties have been described (Eisenreichova et al. 2004). The species has a long history of herbal use, although it is less commonly used in modern herbalism because of its scarcity. The flowers are harvested when fully open and used fresh for making juice, ointments or tinctures. The pollen has been used in the treatment of epilepsy and the bulb can also be cooked and eaten (Plants for a Future 2012). The root is collected sold dried in Albania (Pieroni et al. 2014). The petals transmit their fragrance to almond oil, olive oil, and lard, and have been used in the past by perfumers (Grieve 1931). It is also an attractive and popular garden plant and cut flower and there are several cultivated varieties. In the Christian religion it became a symbol of purity, possibly because of its white colour,and associated with the Virgin Mary, from which it is likely to have derived its common name of Madonna Lily. It was widely grown in monasteries and is a common motif in religious art (Strid 2007).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


The extent of occurrence (EOO) for this lily greatly exceeds the values needed for a threatened category, and it is recorded from throughout much of Europe. Although it is often a rare plant it is inferred that the area of occupancy (AOO) and population also exceed these values, for example, although it is considered to be rare in Switzerland it is still assessed as Least Concern as it is present in sufficient numbers and is without significant percentage declines (Moser et al. 2002). Some surveys and monitoring of sample populations may be necessary to detect and enumerate declines as collection poses a threat in some parts of its range. It is considered Least Concern.

range:
In Europe the species is found from western Portugal through central, southwestern and northwestern Europe (France to just north of Paris). Its range extends eastwards to Mongolia (Govaerts 2014, GRIN 2014).

population:
This lily is noted to be very widely distributed and the most common lily species in Europe (Perrson et al. 1998), from this it is inferred that the population is large. However, the population of this species has been noted to have declined over recent decades as a result of human impacts (Kedra and Bach 2005).

habitat:
This lily grows from a bulb to 1.2 m in height. It propagates mainly by seed set from light, wind dispersed, seeds and less commonly by bulbils. It is pollinated by insects, notably hawk moths attracted by its scent and pollen rich flowers. It grows in open beech forest, forest edges, damp sub-alpine meadows and borders of pastureland up to 2,300 m and prefers calcareous soils (Persson et al 1998).

threats:
This is an attractive lily and may be subject to collection from the wild, for example in Romania (Marossy 2006), and this is a threat from which it receives legal protection in some countries within its range (Lear 1988). It is frequently used and collected as a medicinal plant in Croatia where it is considered endangered and has legal protection (Kathe et al. 2003).

conservationAction:
Seed is stored in seed banks, for example in Pavia in Italy (ENSCO 2014) and it is grown ex situ in 134 botanic gardens worldwide (BGCI 2013). It is listed as occurring in 495 Natura 2000 sites (EUNIS 2014) and is found in National Parks, for example, Kampinoski National Park in Poland and the Triglav and Narodni National Park in Slovenia. In Italy, complex legislation for each region grants limited protection against collection to this species, it is protected in Liechtenstein, Romania, Croatia, France (Centre Poitou-Charentes Limousin Auvergne Dordogne Corsica Champagne-Ardenne; Association Tela Botanica 2014), Austria, and Switzerland (Lear 1988, Kathe et al. 2003). It is an endangered species legally protected in Poland. and the use of tissue culture to aid in restoration has been investigated (Kedra and Bach 2005).

useAndTrade:
The bulb of this species is considered edible after cooking and is high in starches. It was reportedly used as fodder for animals (Hanelt 2001). Medicinally, it is considered to have diuretic properties and is traditionally used to treat heart diseases, menstrual problems and as an expectorant (Plants for a Future 2014). It is also used in skin treatment products (WebMD 2014) and there is a current patent for an extract used in skin lightening products (IFI CLAIMS 2012). Decoctions are used to treat hepatitis in Russian medicine and also for abscesses and toothache (Hanelt 2001). As an attractive flowering plant it is also valued in horticulture and received the Award of Garden Merit from the Royal Horticultural Society in 2002; it is widely cultivated for horticulture.


taxonomicNotes:
Although only two are listed this species has many synonyms and varieties (Govaerts 2014).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)

The extent of occurrence (EOO) greatly exceeds the values needed for a threatened category. It occurs in a variety of habitats and may even achieve dominance in some mountain grassland. It is inferred that the area of occupancy (AOO) and population a very large. It is very resilient to disturbance and has no significant threats and with changing management regimes in mountain pastures and hay meadows, its population is suspected to be increasing. It is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
The species is found through Europe to Turkey (Anatolia), the Caucasus to Mongolia, the Russian Far East and China (Xinjiang) (GRIN 2014), Japan and coastal Alaska (Schaffner et al. 2001). In Europe it is found from Turkey through southeastern Europe, east and central areas to Spain and Portugal in the south and also in northeastern Finland and northern Norway (Govaerts 2014, GRIN 2014). It has a wide altitudinal range but in central Europe is generally found above 800 m (Schaffner et al. 2001).

population:
Few numerical data is available for this species. It is considered rare and only known from one locality in Finland at the edge of its range. However, it is noted to be quite common and sometimes abundant elsewhere (NatureGate 2014) and is even considered an important weed on some grazed montane grassland, where preferential grazing of more palatable species may favour its dominance. It can reach densities of ten plants per square metre and attains pest status in grasslands above 500 m asl in France, Italy, Germany, Austria and Switzerland. It is inferred that the population is very large. No significant threats have been identified and changes in montane grassland management, such as nitrogen inputs and changed grazing and mowing regimes, together with the time and cost involved in weed control, have all acted to favour this species and the population is suspected to be increasing (Schaffner et al. 2001).

habitat:
This a long lived robust perennial grows to a height of 1.5 m with a sturdy rhizome. It has a large branched spike of numerous flowers which produce nectar and have a strong smell and which are noted to be visited by flies. It grows in alpine and sub-alpine herb communities, in scrub, forests, pastures and hay meadows with a preference for moist conditions. From Switzerland westwards it occurs mainly on north-facing slopes and in the drier areas of Spain and Portugal, it is restricted to stream sides or fens and lake margins (Schaffner et al. 2001). It can occur in dense stands and may become dominant in some mountain grasslands and in some pasture and hay meadows it has a weed status and farmers attempt to control the population numbers (Schaffner et al. 2001).

threats:
No significant threats to this species have been identified. The survival rate of established plants is very high and it can tolerate repeated disturbance and even the removal of all above ground tissue (Schaffner et al. 2001).

conservationAction:
This species is cultivated ex situ in 72 botanic gardens worldwide (BGCI 2013) and the ENSCO (2014) database suggests that seed is stored in one institution in France and another in Germany. It is listed as occurring in 35 Natura 2000 sites (EUNIS 2014) and it occurs in National Parks such as Giant Mountains National Park, East Bohemia in the Czech Republic. It is considered to be endangered and legally protected in Finland where it is a rare species.

useAndTrade:
This species is cultivated as a garden plant. It also has medicinal uses and is mostly collected from the wild, but has been locally cultivated in central Europe and parts of Croatia. Although very poisonous, in traditional medicine the roots and rhizomes were used to make medicine to treat epilepsy, gout, rheumatism, hypertension, neuralgia, pneumonia, cholera, and typhoid fever. It was also used to make a sneezing powder. The plant contains specific alkaloids which have been used in modern medicine for medication to lower blood pressure but its importance has declined because of poisonous side-effects. The pulverized rootstock has been used as an insecticide on currants and gooseberries in Europe and occasionally as an ointment to treat skin diseases such as scabies or to kill lice (Grieve 1931, Keller 2001, Kathe 2003). Grieve (1931) suggests its principal use is in veterinary medicine.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


This species is classified as Least Concern due to its widespread distribution, stable populations and the existing threats are unlikely to cause the species to severely decline in the near future.

population:
The population trend is overall stable and the species is abundant (Spain: 861 localities, France: 490 localities, Hungary: 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 individuals) (Commission of the European Communities 2009).

habitat:
This species occurs in calcareous woodland, scrub, phrygana, shady rocky places and also moist areas. It needs mild temperatures in winter. Ruscus aculeatus can be found in a wide range of Habitats Directive listed habitats (Commission of the European Communities 2009): 2250 Coastal dunes with Juniperus spp. 5230 Arborescent matorral with Laurus nobilis 5310 Laurus nobilis thickets 6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates ( Festuco-Brometalia ) 8210 Calcareous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation 8220 Siliceous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation 91E0 Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior ( Alno- Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae ) 9120 Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the shrublayer ( Quercion robori-petraeae or Ilici-Fagenion ) 9130 Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests 9160 Sub-Atlantic and medio-European oak or oak-hornbeam forests of the Carpinion betuli 9180 Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines 92A0 Salix alba and Populus alba galleries 9230 Galicio-Portuguese oak woods with Quercus robur and Quercus pyrenaica 9260 Castanea sativa woods 9320 Olea and Ceratonia forests 9330 Quercus suber forests 9340 Quercus ilex and Quercus rotundifolia forests 9380 Forests of Ilex aquifolium 9580 Mediterranean Taxus baccata woods

threats:
Many threats to this species have been described. Some examples are: communication networks, plant collection, removal of hedges and copses, general forestry management, forest plantations, deforestatio n, and fires ( Commission of the European Communities 2009).

conservationAction:
Ruscus aculeatus is listed on Annex V of the Habitats Directive. It is protected in several countries including Switzerland, Hungary, and France. This plant is classed as Least Concern on several red lists (Croatia, Hungary, Switzerland) or is not listed at all (Bulgaria, Spain, UK). Only in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia it is estimated to be Vulnerable (V. Stevanović pers. comm. 2010, Flora Croatica Database 2004).

useAndTrade:
Ruscus aculeatus is used in homoeopathic medicine. The stem of the plant can also be eaten as an asparagus substitute.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


In Europe the species distribution is from Italy, Austria, Czech Republic and Slovakia, through the Balkan Peninsula to Greece, with a record from southern Ukraine. The extent of occurrence (EOO) for this species exceeds the values needed for a threatened category under criterion B. It is suspected that the area of occupancy (AOO) also exceeds these values as it occurs over a range of altitudes and in several habitat types, for example, Western Pontic rhododendron-oriental beech forests, Illyrian and south Carpathian beech forests (EUNIS 2014). The population is inferred not to be small, for example, even in Slovakia, where this species is considered rare and endangered, in a study of eight populations ;the number of shoots at each site ranged from 126 to 595 (Halada and Erdekska 2005).

Although it is under pressures of over-exploitation in parts of its range, if plant parts, stems and flowers, are collected this reduces reproductive capacity from seed but has less impact on vegetative reproduction. This may allow populations to persist but may ultimately affect their genetic make up and frequent cutting may reduce their viability. However, plants may also be uprooted.

There are few quantitative data relating to declines. One study found that it had some resistance to disturbance and, together with vegetative reproduction, this allowed the populations, surveyed between 1987 and 1998 in a 100 m2 permanent plot, to remain stable (Halada and Erdekska 2005). From this it is inferred that populations overall may not have declined sufficiently to trigger a threatened category under criterion A. It is assessed on these inferences as Least Concern. However, this appears not to be a common plant in some areas and it is considered threatened in many countries within its range. Also many of the herbarium records found are more than fifty years old. Surveys are needed to establish the current range and population status and monitoring is needed to quantify declines.

range:
This species is considered be native to Turkey and Europe (both Thrace and Anatolia; Bakis et al. 2014). In Europe, the species is recorded from Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, the Balkan Peninsula, Greece and western Turkey (Thrace), with an isolated population in Ukraine (Krym) (RBG Edinburgh 1998, GRIN 2014). In addition to the above countries, Kremer et al. (2009) give the former Yugoslav occurrence as including Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia. It reaches the northern limit of its range in Slovakia where it is found in the Malé Karpaty mountains (Halada and Erdekska 2005). It has been widely introduced, including to the UK in the 16th Century (Botanical Society of the British Isles and the Biological Records Centre 2012).

population:
The population over the range is inferred not to be small, although it is often not common, for example, it is noted to be rare in Greece (Greekflora.gr 2014). Even at the northern edge of its range in Slovakia, where it is considered Critically Endangered and rare, a study of the population at eight sites found from 126 to 595 shoots at each site. The study also found that it had some resistance to disturbances and, together with vegetative reproduction, allowed the populations, surveyed between 1987 and 1998 in a 100 m2 permanent plot, to remain stable (Halada and Erdekska 2005). In Fruška Gora National Park in Serbia it was noted to be abundant in three research plots (Trifunov et al . 2013). However, it is suspected that over-exploitation pressures in parts of its range, for example Serbia and Bulgaria are leading to population decreases.

habitat:
This small evergreen shrub, which is a rhizome geophyte, is found in beech forests and oak-hornbeam forests often on deep humus rich soils (Halada and Erdekska 2005, Govaerts 2014). It is unusual in having a small flower and red fruit which appear to originate from the leaf, however, these structures are not true leaves but phylloclades, a form of modified branch.

threats:
In Slovakia populations are threatened by forestry causing habitat disturbance, shoot collecting for decorative purposes, and grazing by animals, especially deer (Halada and Erdekska 2005). It is a popular ornamental plant and its slow growth and low germination rate hamper cultivation commercially and it is threatened by collection from the wild. In Bulgaria it is under the regulation of the biodiversity act of 2002, however, it is frequently found in local flower markets and it is also collected from the wild in Romania (Marossy 2006, Ivanova e t al. 2013). The beech forest habitat of this species in Bulgaria is also noted to be threatened by unregulated logging, logging roads and erosion related to them, infrastructure development, grazing and forest plantations (Gussev 2014). It is also under over-exploitation pressure in Serbia (Radovic and Kozomara 2011).

conservationAction:
This species is listed from 25 Natura 2000 sites, such as the regional nature Park of Monte Cornero in Italy (EUNIS 2014) and other protected areas such as the Fruška Gora National Park in Serbia. It is recorded from 90 botanic gardens worldwide (BGCI 2013). It is not known whether it is conserved in any seed bank. Micropropagation protocols are being investigated for commercial cultivation and hopefully to reduce the pressures of collection from wild populations (Ivanova e t al. 2013). It is considered a rare and threatened species of the Slovak flora and is listed as Critically Endangered there, in Kosovo (Feráková et al. 2001, Millaku 2006) and in Austria (Niklfeld and Schratt-Ehrendorfer 1999). It is at the northern edge of its range in Slovakia and the population is small. It is listed as Endangered in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Muftic et al. 2011). It is also considered rare and possibly Near Threatened in Hungary (Király 2007). It is included in the Habitat Directive 92/43/EEC as a plant of economic importance and conservation value and in Bulgaria it is under the regulation of the biodiversity act of 2002 (Ivanova e t al. 2013). In Romania and Croatia it is also protected by law (Marossy 2006) and in Croatia considered Near Threatened (Nikolic and Topic 2007). It is listed in the red data books of Albania and Ukraine (Kremer et al. 2009) and is noted to be rare in Greece (Greekflora.gr 2014).

useAndTrade:
This plant is cultivated in gardens, it is often used as ground cover in woodland areas as it is evergreen and shade tolerant. The shoots may also be collected for decorative purposes and plants or plant parts are sold in flower markets, for example, in Bulgaria (Ivanova e t al. 2013). Ruscogenin, neoruscogenin and a new steroid genin were isolated and identified from the roots and rhizomes of Ruscus hypoglossum L. (Panova et al. 1974). There is little documented medicinal use for this particular species although uses are listed for the similar species Ruscus aculeatus which contains ruscogenin and neoruscogenin. These substances are anti-inflammatory and cause the contraction of blood vessels, especially veins. A decoction is listed as being used in the treatment of skin and water diseases in Bosnia Herzegovina (Redzic 2007).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


The species is widespread in the southern parts of the European region, is fairly common and the threats it is facing are unlikely to cause its decline in the near future. It is considered Least Concern.

range:
The species range is from southern and western Europe to western Asia and North Africa (Castroviejo et al. 1986-2013, Euro+Med 2014, GBIF 2014). In Europe, present in the Atlantic coastal areas from France to Gibraltar, and the Mediterranean countries and Macaronesia (de Bolòs and Vigo 1984-2001).

population:
No information on population trends are available. Population may be decreasing as the Mediterranean vegetation habitats where it thrives is also declining (Myers et al. 2000).

habitat:
The species thrives in Mediterranean forests and shrublands. It grows in different types of forest: holm-oak forests, cork tree forests, oak-woods, riverine forests and pine groves (Castroviejo et al. 1986-2013).

threats:
The species threat is habitat decline due to urban sprawl, increase of fires and logging.

conservationAction:
There are no conservation measures in place or needed. It is assumed that the species occurs in protected areas in parts of its large range.

useAndTrade:
The root is used in folk medicine as a sudorific, depurative, diuretic and tonic (Lange 1998, unpublished factsheet from MAPROW database: U. Schippmann pers. comm. 2013, Association Tela Botanica 2014, PFAF 2014). The ripe fruits are squeezed and applied to the skin in the treatment of scabies. Young shoots can be eaten raw or cooked as an asparagus (PFAF 2014 . A red dye is obtained from the ripe tendrils.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


The species distribution in Europe is broad and the estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) for this species greatly exceeds the values needed for a threatened category. As it occurs in a variety of habitats and is not uncommon in large parts of its range, the area of occupancy (AOO) and population are also inferred to exceed these values. There have been declines associated with loss of habitat but these are suspected not to be of a sufficient percentage of the total population to trigger a threatened category. It is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
This plant is found in Europe and temperate Asia in the Caucasus and Siberia. In Europe it has a wide distribution from Iceland and Scandinavia and Great Britain in the north and west through central Europe to the Ukraine in the east and to Spain and some Mediterranean islands in the south (Bjerketvedt et al. 2003).

population:
The is a widespread species and is not uncommon in many parts of its range, for example in Finland it is reported to be common or at least quite common (Naturegate 2014). In eastern Belgium it has relatively high abundance and frequency and a study of 47 populations here found the mean population size was 1,106 (Jacquemyn et al. 2006). It is inferred that the population is large. However declines are noted in Europe (Jacquemyn et al. 2006, Online Atlas of the British and Irish Flora 2014, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew 2014).

habitat:
This is a perennial herb with a creeping rootstock from which clonal groups arise. It grows to 15-35 cm in height and characteristically has four leaves with a central stalked flower and bluish black berry. It is found in broad leaved forests, coppices and forest margins also in fens, swamps and streamsides, often on calcareous substrates (Naturegate 2014). It flowers in may and June and is visited by flies (Jacquemyn et al. 2006). It occurs in a wide variety of habitat types such as Boreal fern spruce swamp woods, Tall-herb western [Picea] taiga and Iberian supra-Mediterranean alder galleries (EUNIS 2014).

threats:
This species is in decline in Europe due to a loss of the broadleaved woodland that is its main habitat. This plant is a slow coloniser, and is, for example, considered an ancient woodland indicator species in southern Britain. It has limited dispersal ability even if new woodlands are planted to mitigate loss of established woodland but may spread slowly to secondary woodland which is adjacent to primary woodland (Rose 1999, Online Atlas of the British and Irish Flora 2014, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew 2014). It is thought to be vulnerable to habitat changes such as drought and competition from other species, such as Hedera helix and Rubus fruticosus . Populations in unfavourable conditions show low seed production and low clonal diversity and as remnant population are more liable to extinction (Jacquemyn et al. 2006).

conservationAction:
This species is found in protected areas such as State National Park Belovezhskaya Pushcha in Belarus and is listed from 44 Natura 2000 sites, for example, Dammer Moor nature reserve in Germany (EUNIS 2014). It is grown e x situ in 70 botanic gardens worldwide and seed is stored in seed banks, for example in Gijon, Spain (BGCI 2013, ENSCO 2014). It receives formal protection in some areas, for example France (Association Tela Botanica 2014). It has been assessed as Least Concern in Switzerland and in the UK (Cheffings and Farrell 2005, Zoological Society of London 2014).

useAndTrade:
This attractive plant is used as a garden ornamental. Although this is poisonous plant it has been used in traditional medicine to treat coughs, rheumatism and colic also headaches and neuralgia. An ointment made from the plant has been used to treat wound, tumours and inflammations and the juice from the berry to treat eye inflammations. A red dye can also be extracted from the berry and a yellow dye from the leaves (Plants for a Future 2014). It is reportedly useful as an antidote against mercurial sublimate and arsenic with a tincture prepared from the fresh plant (Grieve 1931).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Anacamptis coriophora is very local and often rare where it occurs however it is widespread occurring from Spain to Russia in Europe. The existing threats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline very quickly in the near future and therefore, Anacamptis coriophora is assessed as Least Concern. However, the species is more threatened in the northern part of its range and has gone extinct in a few countries. Local conservation measures are therefore urgently needed.

range:
Anacamptis coriophora is a central and southern European species, extending its range into western Asia (The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2010). It is Regionally Extinct in the Czech Republic, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

population:
Anacamptis coriophora is very local and often rare where it occurs. The overall population size is unknown but has a declining trend (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007).

habitat:
Anacamptis coriophora typically occurs in grassy places derived from ‘molinaies’:  boggy meadows and moorland, flushed slopes and woodland edges prone to flooding. It prefers slightly acidic to slightly alkaline soil often clayey-calcareous substrates in full sunlight. This species is found from sea level to 2,500 m altitude. The flowering time is from April to July (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al.2007).

threats:
Main threats to this species are posed by habitat conversion such as canalisation, flood prevention measures, building programmes and urban expansion. Further threats are extensive drainage, agricultural use of the habitat including the application of fertilisers, and plant collection (Bournérias et al. 2005, Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The species is protected at national level in Belgium, France and Luxembourg. It is included in the following national red lists:
Regionally Extinct in Czech Republic (Holub and Procházka 2000), Estonia (Lilleleht 2008), Luxembourg (Colling 2005) and the Netherlands (Meijden 2000) under the synonym Orchis coriophora
Critically Endangered (level 1) in Germany (Ludwig and Schnittler 1996)
Endangered in Belarus (Ermakova 2005) and Switzerland (Moser et al. 2002)
Vulnerable in Croatia (Nikolić and Topić 2005) and France (UICN et al. 2010)
Near Threatened in Hungary (Király 2007)

The following actions are recommended to protect Anacamptis coriophora (Bournérias et al. 2005, Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007);
Water regime must be ensured, drainage of meadows should be avoided, and provision of small dams may be necessary to avoid drying of the site in spring.
Protection of the living individuals through legislation that bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.

useAndTrade:
The bulb is very nutritious when cooked. It is a source of 'salep', a fine white to yellowish-white powder that is obtained by drying the tuber and grinding it into a powder. Salep is a starch-like substance which can be made into a drink, added to cereals or to bread. It can be prepared in the same way as arrowroot. A jelly can be made from the salep which is used to treat irritations of the gastro-intestinal canal (Plants For a Future 2010).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


This species occurs at numerous sites in Mediterranean Europe and the existing threats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline quickly enough to qualify for a threatened category in the near future.

range:
Anacamptis laxiflora is an Eurasian species. It is found in west and central Europe, in the Mediterranean and extends into western Asia.

population:
The species is present in several locations in the Mediterranean region, local but often abundant in its sites, however the trend of the populations remains unknown. Population information is available in the following countries: in the Iberian Peninsula it is widespread throughout and present in 81 regions in Spain and seven provinces in the south of Portugal. In France it is known from 73 departments and Corsica. It is very common and present throughout the whole country in Italy.

habitat:
It is a perennial herbaceous plant (tuberous geophyte) that inhabits humid pastures and marshes. It prefers humid soils and requires a lot of light. Flowering occurs during spring.

threats:
The drainage, infilling, water abstraction for agriculture and urbanization of this species’ habitat are its main threats. Collection might affect the species.

conservationAction:
All orchids are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). In France, it is protected in some regions such as Champagne-Ardennes, Bourgogne, Franche-Comté, Rhone-Alpes and Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur and in the department of Gironde. It is listed as Vulnerable on the national red list (UICN France et al. 2010). The following conservation measures are recommended: Monitor the existing sites and search for new ones Estimate the population size and study their dynamics Conservation of the species and its habitat Harvest control Ex situ conservation (of the seeds)

useAndTrade:
As with many orchids, the tubers of this species could be used for human consumption and also for medicinal uses (cancer treatments and gastro-intestinal irritations). The tubers are generally harvested after flowering. It is mainly cultivated.

redListAssessors:
Flanagan, D., Rhazi, M., Rhazi, L., Rankou, H., and Grillas, P.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Anacamptis papilionacea is rather widespread, often abundant and the most frequent orchid species on its potential biotopes. The existing threats for the species and the habitats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline very quickly in the near future. Therefore, Anacamptis papilionacea is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Anacamptis papilionacea is a Mediterranean and eastern species, found from North Africa to Turkey, extends northwards to the foothills of the Alps and eastwards to the Caspian Sea. The range encloses southern Greece, the islands of the Aegean Sea, and parts of western and southern Turkey. The species has a blurred range limit with a wide transitional zone that begins to the north of the Peloponnese. It is found from sea level to 1,800 m altitude. (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007).

population:
Anacamptis papilionacea is rather widespread and often abundant where it occurs. This species becomes scarce only at the borders of its distribution area, and very rare further in the east due to unfavourable climate influences as the high mountains leave fewer lowland positions as possible locations. As far as population size is concerned, no precise count has ever been made; however, the plants often grow in groups and the total population is in decline (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007).

habitat:
Anacamptis papilionacea typically grows in short, poor grassland, stony meadows, garrigue, maquis and open woodland. It prefers dry to moist substrates, alkaline soil rich in lime and often calcareous soils. The species grows in full sunlight to mid-shade. The flowering time of the species is from end of March to June (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007).

threats:
Anacamptis papilionacea is the most frequent orchid species in its potential biotopes. This species is sensitive to grazing by animals, agricultural use of the habitat, urbanisation, fire and deforestation (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007).

conservationAction:
All orchids are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This species is a protected plant in some countries including Belgium, Luxembourg, and some regions in France.

The following actions are recommended to protect Anacamptis papilionacea (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Harrap 2009, Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004);
Improve the management of grasslands, including moderate grazing activities.
Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.


taxonomicNotes:
Anacamptis urvilleana Sommier & Carnuano Gatto, is included, as a synonym, in the species Anacamptis pyramidalis (L.) L.C. Richard. The latter is widespread in Greece (Commission of the European Communities 2009).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Anacamptis pyramidalis is widespread and abundant where it occurs. The extent of occurrence and area of occupancy of the species are greater than 20,000 km² and 2,000 km² respectively. The existing threats for the species and the habitats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline very quickly in the near future. Therefore, Anacamptis pyramidalis is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Anacamptis pyramidalis is native to Europe and the Mediterranean, extending its distribution into North Africa and the Middle East. The species can be found from Denmark in the north, to southern Sweden and the Baltic States, east to Poland and the Ukraine and south to the Mediterranean, Crimea and Caucasus. It is also found in North Africa in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, and in the Middle East in Israel, Turkey, northern Iraq and northwest Iran (Bournérias et al. 2005, Harrap 2009, Delforge 1995, Lang 2004, Commission of the European Communities 2009).

population:
Anacamptis pyramidalis is widespread and sometimes abundant . As far as population size is concerned, no precise counting has ever been made; however, the total population is estimated to be of some thousand individuals. With respect to population dynamics, this species has a relatively widespread (but patchy) distribution in the Maltese Islands, and, with few exceptions, is usually present in very small numbers (sometimes a handful of individuals or clumps) where found. In Britain the species has been lost from 20% of the historical range and from 31% in Ireland (Bournérias et al. 2005, Harrap 2009, Delforge 1995, Lang 2004, Commission of the European Communities 2009).

habitat:
Anacamptis pyramidalis typically occurs in short grassland, garrigue, phrygana, dense woodland or sporadically in oak and pine forests. It grows in calcareous substrates, usually dry soils in full sun light. This species is found from sea level to 2,000 m altitude. The flowering time of the species takes place from early June to mid-August and sometimes from May. ( Bournérias et al. 2005, Delforge 1995, Harrap 2009, Lang 2004 ).

threats:
Anacamptis pyramidalis is widespread and sometimes abundant where it occurs. This species is suffering from reduction in habitat quality and extent, mainly due to its garrigue and steppe habitats being considered as ‘wasteland’. However, the habitat has been destroyed by infrastructure development, quarrying, and other land uses. The quality of the habitat is declining due to invasive species, particularly ruderals an d aliens, and through inappropriate landscaping or deforestation for agriculture (Lang 2004 , Bournérias et al. 2005, Harrap 2009, Delforge 1995).

conservationAction:
All orchids are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). It is listed on Annex II of the Habitats Directive under the synonym Anacamptis urvilleana . This species is a protected plant in some countries including Belgium, Luxembourg, and some regions in France, Czech Republic and Slovakia.

The following actions are recommended to protect Anacamptis pyramidalis (Lang 2004, Delforge 1995, Bournérias et al. 2005, Harrap 2009):
Moderate grazing.
Creating man-made habitat such us road side verges.
Protection of the living individuals of the species through legislation and legal protection which ban the species from being picked or dug up.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites.
Populationstudies and monitoring.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT)
EU 27 regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT)


Anacamptis sancta is an eastern Mediterranean species that only reaches Europe on the Greek islands and Cyprus. It is very rare and local where it occurs. Its area of occupancy is suspected to be smaller than 2,000 km² as this species becomes rare in regions far from maritime climate and it avoids locations higher than 800 m. The main threats to this orchid are extensive grazing by animals, agricultural use of the habitat, infrastructure development and recreational activities along the coasts. The number of locations of this species is not known but it might be severely fragmented.

Therefore, Anacamptis sancta is assessed as Near Threatened approaching Criterion B2b(iii).

range:
Anacamptis sancta is an eastern Mediterranean species that settles in low lying areas of the southeast Mediterranean and in the dry areas close to the coasts of the east Mediterranean. To the west the species does not reach the Greek mainland but there are strong populations found on the southeast and central Aegean Islands (Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007). Its area of occupancy is suspected to be smaller than 2,000 km².

population:
Anacamptis sancta is very rare and local where it occurs . This species becomes rare on regions far from maritime climate and it avoids locations higher than 800 m. This is why very weak populations were found on the very mountainous isles of Crete and Carpathos. This change is due to unfavourable climate influences as the high mountains leave fewer lowland positions as possible locations. The total number of individuals is unknown; however, the total population is in decline due to the human influences on the coasts (Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007).

habitat:
Anacamptis sancta typically occurs in short, poor grassland, garrigue, scrub and open woodland. It prefers dry to temporarily wet places, alkaline, stony soil with good drainage. These can be extensive meadows, often very dry at flowering time, meadow-like small patches in the phrygana or similarly situated places in bright pine forests. This species grows in full sunlight to mid-shade and is found from sea level to 900 m altitude. The flowering time of the species takes place from the beginning of April to the end of June (Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007).

threats:
This species is subject to threats such us grazing by animals, agricultural use of the habitat, infrastructure development and recreational activities at the coasts (Delfor ge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007).

conservationAction:
All orchids are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

The following actions are recommended to protect Anacamptis sancta (Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007);
Improve the management of grasslands and allow moderate grazing activities.
Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.


taxonomicNotes:
Cypripedium variegatum Georgi. is an invalid synonym http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/record/kew-54415"> Cypripedium orientale Spreng. is an illegitimate synonym "authorship">

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Not Applicable (NA)


Cypripedium guttatum is rare and local with a very large distribution area and aggregations of various size and numbers. The population trend is declining in European Russia but from a global view and wide distribution the danger is low as the existing threats for the species and the habitats are unlikely to cause the species to decline rapidly in the near future, in particular if the conservation measures suggested are applied. The species is protected in 27 Zapovedniks and national parks in Russia. Therefore, Cypripedium guttatum is assessed as Least Concern. It does not occur within the EU 27.

range:
Cypripedium guttatum is a circumpolar species found in Europe and Asia. The species ranges from White Russia in the west to Japan in the east and south to the Himalayas. In Europe, the species distribution encompasses central, eastern and northeastern parts of European Russia. The species can be found from 1,000 m to 4,100 m altitude (Delforge 1995, Cribb 1997, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008, The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2012). This species was noted to occur in Belarus and Ukraine, although Averyanov (1999) considered this doubtful (Averyanov 1999).

population:
Cypripedium guttatum is rare and local and the spatial structure of the population is characterized by aggregations of various size and numbers. The populations include from five to 20 individuals per m² - the overall number is 150 to 250. The large aggregations include up to 500 shoots and the maximum density in the aggregation is 130-150 shoots by m² (Averyanov 1999, Delforge 1995, Cribb 1997, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

habitat:
Cypripedium guttatum grows in a wide range of habitats and prefers moist, acidic to neutral substrates or wet swampy soil, but can still grow on rocky substrates and sandy soils. The species occurs in sparse broad-leaved, mixed, and coniferous forests, amidst shrubs, in clearing and edges of the forests, along ravines and mountain meadows. It is also found in waterlogged forests, transitory swamps, forested limestone slopes, sand screes, birch forests, open grasslands, woodlands and often associated with C. macronthos . Cypripedium guttatum prefers mid-shade to shade and flowers from the beginning of May to July (Averyanov 1999, Delforge 1995, Cribb 1997, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

threats:
The populations and the distribution area of Cypripedium guttatum have significantly reduced during last decades especially in European Russia due to numerous anthropogenic threats including the loss of habitat by construction building projects and urbanization. In addition, drought, deforestation, fires, recreational activities and collection for drug production, are causing populations to decline (Averyanov 1999, Delforge 1995, Cribb 1997, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Cypripedium guttatum is included in the Red Data Book of Kazakhstan (Gvozdev 1978), some regional red lists in Russia and it is protected in 27 Zapovedniks and national parks of Russia.

However, the following actions are recommended to protect Cypripedium guttatum (Averyanov 1999, Cody 2000, Cribb 1997, Delforge 1995, Gvozdev 1978, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008);
Protection of the habitat, especially the open grassland and woodland from human activities, deforestation and fires.
Fencing the vulnerable sites to protect the species from collection and animals.
Control and management of the production of Cypripedium drugs.
Raise public awareness'
Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.

useAndTrade:
Cypripedium guttatum is used for many purposes: The plant taken in a sweetened concoction was used as a diuretic and a strong sedative against headaches and upper abdominal pain. The stems were used for soups to dilate blood vessels and stimulate appetite. Cypripedin, a powder produced by precipitating the tincture with water, was said to have greater powers than the root and was given to children instead of opium. Plants in this genus were known for the drug Cypripedium which was used as a gentle nervous stimulant or antispasmodic. Roots were chewed as a sedative especially during menstruation and childbirth. (Cody 2000, Delforge 1995, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)
EU 27 regional assessment: Vulnerable (V)


Dactylorhiza iberica is quite local and often found in small and isolated populations where it occurs. The population is very fragmented and has a decreasing trend.

The area of occupancy is under 2,000 km² (about 628 km²). Main threats are posed by changes in hydrology, competition from other species and recreational activities. Therefore, Dactylorhiza iberica is assessed as Vulnerable.

range:
Dactylorhiza iberica is a Mediterranean-Pontic species found in the northern Peloponnese and Greek Macedonia, extending to the Caucasus and Iran as far as Crimea to the north. The species is missing from the Aegean except from the island of Eubéa in Greece. It is found from 600 to 2,600 m altitude (Delforge 1995, Tsintides et al. 2007, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

population:
Dactylorhiza iberica is quite local and often found in small isolated populations where it occurs. It has a very fragmented distribution and the population is decreasing. The population in Cyprus consists of only 180 individuals. (Delforge 1995, Tsintides et al. 2007, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008 ).

habitat:
Typical habitats of Dactylorhiza iberica include marshy grassland, wet slopes and stream banks. It grows in alkaline damp to swampy and calcareous soils in full sunlight to semi-shade. The flowering time is from May to August. (Delforge 1995, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

threats:
The narrow ecological range of this species is submitted to numerous threats especially to changes in hydrology by groundwater extraction, competition from other species, hybridization and recreational activities. Additional threats are tourism development, urbanization, trampling, and plant collection. (Delforge 1995, Tsintides et al. 2007, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008 ).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This orchid is listed as Endangered in the national red list of Cyprus (Tsintides et al. 2007).

The following actions are recommended to protect Dactylorhiza iberica (Delforge 1995, Tsintides et al. 2007, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008);
Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Protection of the habitat from trampling and recreational activities.
Fencing the vulnerable sites to protect the groundwater.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.

useAndTrade:
The tuber is very nutritious when cooked. It is a potential source of 'salep', a fine white to yellowish-white powder that is obtained by drying the tuber and grinding it into a powder. Salep is a starch-like substance which can be made into a drink, added to cereals or to bread. It can be prepared in the same way as arrowroot. A jelly can be made from the salep which is used to treat irritations of the gastro-intestinal canal (Plants For a Future 2010).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Dactylorhiza romana is rather local but sometimes found in large and dense populations. The existing threats for the species and the habitats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline quickly in the near future. Therefore, Dactylorhiza romana is assessed as Least Concerned.

range:
Dactylorhiza romana is a central and eastern Mediterranean species. The species can be found up to 2,000 m altitude (Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Rossi 2002, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

population:
Dactylorhiza romana is rather local and the sites usually hold a few plants but in some places larger dense populations occur. T he trend of the population is unknown. (Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Rossi 2002, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

habitat:
Dactylorhiza romana is primarily found in guarrigue, scrub and open woodland. It prefers dry to moist, alkaline to acidic soils. This species grows in full sunlight to shade and flowers from March to June. (Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Rossi 2002, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

threats:
Dactylorhiza romana is threatened by trampling, land melioration, agricultural use, collection of the tuber for the production of salep, urbanisation and tourism. (Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Rossi 2002, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

conservationAction:
All orchids are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). It is listed as Vulnerable on the Bulgarian Red List (Petrova and Vladimirov 2009).

The following actions are recommended to protect Dactylorhiza romana;
Protection of the habitat from agricultural use and land melioration.
Fencing the vulnerable sites to protect the habitat from trampling.
Control and management of the salep production from the tubers.
Raise public awareness.
Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Epipactis helleborine is widespread and sometimes abundant where it occurs with a large distribution area in Europe. The species is found in considerable numbers and is capable of colonising new forestry plantations. Overall, the population has a declining trend but the existing threats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline severely in the near future. Therefore, Epipactis helleborine is assessed as Least Concern.

population:
Epipactis helleborine is widespread and sometimes abundant. The overall population size is unknown but the species is found in considerable numbers. T he population is decreasing in some localities. (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

habitat:
Epipactis helleborine grows in deciduous woodland, edges and clearings in open or dense woodland. It prefers moist, calcareous and deep substrates. This species grows in mid-shade to shade and flowers from June to September. (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

threats:
Epipactis helleborine is locally declining due to the clearance or ‘coniferisation’ of woodland, increase in dense shade due to lack of woodland management, ground disturbance by machinery and horses and grazing by animals. Further threats are posed by urbanisation, tourism and recreational activities. (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This orchid is included in the following national red lists: Least Concern in Czech Republic (Rare - Holub and Procházka 2000), Denmark (NERI 2007), France (UICN France et al. 2010), Germany (Ludwig and Schnittler 1996), Hungary (protected - Király 2007), Luxembourg (Colling 2005), Norway (Artsdatabanken 2010), Switzerland (Moser et al. 2002) and the United Kingdom (Cheffings and Farrell 2005) Regionally Extinct in Cyprus (Tsintides et al. 2007) 

The following actions are recommended to protect Epipactis helleborine(Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008);
Protection of the habitat, especially the woodland, from clearance and plantation with conifers.
Fencing vulnerable sites to protect the species from wild animals and grazing.
Ensure adequate sunlight to the forest floor by woodland management.
Sympathetic management of isolated populations.
Raise public awareness.
Adopt legislation which bans collection of the species.
Ex situ conservation: artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring and surveillance of existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Gymnadenia conopsea is widespread and sometimes abundant where it occurs with a large distribution area in Europe. Local population declines have been noted but the existing threats for the species and the habitats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline quickly enough to qualify for a threatened category in the near future. Therefore, Gymnadenia conopsea is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Gymnadenia conopsea is a boreal and temperate Eurasian species. In Europe the species is found from north to northernmost Scandinavia and south to the Mediterranean, Turkey and the Caucasus. The species avoids the Mediterranean lowlands and can be found up to 2,800 m altitude (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

population:
Gymnadenia conopsea is widespread and sometimes abundant. Although the species is common or even abundant, t he trend of the population is decreasing on many sites due to numerous threats. I n Britain the total loss of the species between 1500 and 1999 was 39.5% and in Ireland it was 30.5%. (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

habitat:
Gymnadenia conopsea typically occurs in short grassland, meadows, fens, flushed slopes, unimproved hill pastures, road verges, grassy moorland and scrub. It prefers dry to wet and calcareous substrates. This species grows in full sunlight and flowers from May to August. (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

threats:
The main cause of the local declines are ploughing, agricultural uses, conversion of downs and pastures into arable land, drainage and land improvement. An abandonment of grazing activities will lead to the invasion of scrub and competition; overgrazing on the other hand will lead to a loss of species diversity. Additional threats are urbanisation, tourism and construction work. (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

The following actions are recommended to protect Gymnadenia conopsea (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008);

Protection of the habitat from ploughing, agricultural uses and conversion to arable land.
Fencing the vulnerable sites to protect the species.
Management of grazing.
Water regime must be ensured, drainage of downs and pastures should be avoided, and provision of small dams may be necessary to avoid drying out of the site.
Raise public awareness.
Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Endangered (EN)
EU 27 regional assessment: Endangered (EN)


Himantoglossum comperianum is very local and very rare with few locations (Lesbos, Samos, Kos, Rhodes and Crimea). The species grows often as solitary individuals in very small groups with an area of occupancy below 500 km² and a severely fragmented distribution area. There is a continuing population decline due to collection, afforestation, intensive grazing, abandonment of pastoral systems and competition. Therefore, Himantoglossum comperianum is assessed as Endangered.

range:
Himantoglossum comperianum ranges from southern Anatolia, west to the Aegean Islands in Greece (Lesbos, Samos, Kos, Rhodes), north to Crimea (Ukraine), south to Lebanon and east to Iranian Kurdistan. The species can be found from 400 to 2,000 m altitude (Delforge 1995, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008, The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2010). The area of occupancy is smaller than 500 km².

population:
Himantoglossum comperianum is very local and very rare and grows as solitary individuals in very small groups. The populations are decreasing and the distribution area is severely fragmented. (Delforge 1995, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

habitat:
Himantoglossum comperianum is typically found in short, poor grassland, olive groves, woodland edges and open woodland often with pine. It prefers dry and calcareous soils and grows in mid-shade; the flowering time of the species takes place from May to July. (Delforge 1995, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

threats:
Himantoglossum comperianum is threatened by collection of the tuber for salep production or for horticultural use, afforestation, intensive grazing, abandonment of pastoral systems and subsequent competition, as well as tourism (Delforge 1995, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

conservationAction:
All orchids are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This species is also listed under Appendix I of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention).

The following actions are recommended to protect Himantoglossum comperianum (Delforge 1995, Vakhrameeva et al. 2008);
Protection of the habitat, especially the woodland from inappropriate management.
Fencing the vulnerable sites to protect the species from wild animals and collection.
Control and management of the salep production from the tubers.
Sympathetic management of isolated populations.
Raise public awareness. Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.

useAndTrade:
Rhizomes were collected for the orchid trade (Morgan and Leon 1992). The bulb is very nutritious when cooked. It is a source of 'salep', a fine white to yellowish-white powder that is obtained by drying the tuber and grinding it into a powder. Salep is a starch-like substance which can be made into a drink, added to cereals or to bread. It can be prepared in the same way as arrowroot. A jelly can be made from the salep which is used to treat irritations of the gastro-intestinal canal (Plants For a Future 2010).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Himantoglossum robertianum is rare but has a large distribution area. The population size and trend are unknown but the species is subject to several threats such as infrastructure expansion, agricultural use of its habitat, climate change, collection. However, the existing threats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline severely in the near future, in particular as in some areas the population is increasing. 

Therefore, Himantoglossum robertianum is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Himantoglossum robertianum is a Mediterranean species found from Portugal and Morocco to Anatolia, extending on the Atlantic coast to northern Spain. The species can be found up to 1,700 m altitude (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

population:
Himantoglossum robertianum is rather widespread but rare. The population size and trend are unknown. The species is on the increase again in some areas, it expands for example "shorttext">  north "shorttext">wards  into "shorttext">  the "shorttext">  Rhone Valley. (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

habitat:
Typical habitats of Himantoglossum robertianum include short, poor grassland, garrigue, scrub, and open woodland. It prefers dry to moist, alkaline and calcareous substrates and grows in full sunlight to mid-shade; the flowering time is from January to April (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

threats:
Himantoglossum robertianum is subject to declines caused by infrastructure expansion, agricultural use of its habitat, climate change as the species is sensitive to extreme temperatures, collection for horticultural purpose, urbanisation and tourism (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). It is assessed as Least Concern on the French red list (UICN France et al. 2010).

The following actions are recommended to protect Himantoglossum robertianum (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002);
Protection of the habitat, especially the grassland from ploughing and other agricultural activities.
Fencing the vulnerable sites to protect the species from collection.
Control and management of the salep production from the tubers.
Sympathetic management of isolated populations
Raise public awareness.
Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.

useAndTrade:
The bulb is very nutritious when cooked. It is a source of 'salep', a fine white to yellowish-white powder that is obtained by drying the tuber and grinding it into a powder. Salep is a starch-like substance which can be made into a drink, added to cereals or to bread. It can be prepared in the same way as arrowroot. A jelly can be made from the salep which is used to treat irritations of the gastro-intestinal canal (Plants For a Future 2010). This orchid is collected for its ornamental value.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Neotinea maculata has quite a large distribution area. Although the overall population trend is decreasing, the existing threats for the species and its habitats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline severely in the near future.

Therefore, Neotinea maculata is assessed as Least Concern. However, the species is declining very fast in some sites and local conservation actions are therefore needed.

range:
Neotinea maculata is found in the Mediterranean basin from Portugal and Spain east to Cyprus, ranges north to southwest and southern France, former Yugoslavia, and Greece. It is present on most of the Mediterranean islands, the Canary Islands, Madeira, and extends into North Africa and the Levant. The species occurs up to 2,000 m altitude (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

population:
Neotinea maculata is rather widespread and rather rare. T he trend of the population is decreasing and the declines appear to be ongoing on many sites . For example, in Ireland the total loss of the species between 1500 and 1999 was 46% of the historical range and it is extinct in Britain, previously being known only from the Isle of Man. (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

habitat:
Neotinea maculata is typically found in short, poor grassland, garrigue, scrub and often conifer woodland. It prefers dry to moist, slightly acidic to slightly alkaline, often calcareous and limestone soils. This species grows in full sunlight to shade and flowers from March to June (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

threats:
Neotinea maculata is locally declining on many sites and extinct already in some areas due to trampling, erosion, improvement of pastures and overgrazing, urbanisation, tourism and infrastructure expansion (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). It is included in the national red list of Croatia as Near Threatened (Nikolić and Topić 2005) and classed as Least Concern on the French national red list (UICN France et al. 2010).

The following actions are recommended to protect Neotinea maculata (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002);
Protection of the habitat, especially the pastures from improvement, trampling and overgrazing.
Fencing the vulnerable sites to protect the species from wild animals.
Moderate grazing.
Ensure enough supply of sun light to the forest floor
 Sympathetic management of isolated populations.
Raise public awareness.
Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Neotinea tridentata is widespread but rather rare. The species appears locally to have weak and small populations where the number of mature individuals is estimated to be often less than 250 and the trend of the populations is decreasing due to numerous threats including collection for salep and intense agricultural use of the habitats which has led to extinctions. However, the existing threats for the species and the habitats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline fast enough to qualify for a threatened category. Therefore, Neotinea tridentata is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Neotinea tridentata is a Central and South European species. It occurs north in Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, and extends eastwards to Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, the Crimea Peninsula, the Caucasus and northeast to the Black Sea areas of Turkey with a separate area to the south of Lake Van. In the west it occurs in the Iberian Peninsula and the Balearic islands. The species can be found up to 1,600 m altitude (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002, The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2010).

population:
Neotinea tridentata is widespread but rather rare. The population size is unknown, but the populations have a decreasing trend. The species appears locally to have weak and small populations where the number of mature individuals is estimated to be less than 250. (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

habitat:
Neotinea tridentata is typically found in short, poor grassland, open garrigue, unimproved meadows, maquis, shrubland, woodland edges and open woodland. It prefers dry to moist, alkaline to weakly acid substrates and grows in full sunlight to mid-shade. Flowering time is from March to June-July (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

threats:
Neotinea tridentata is locally declining on many sites due to numerous threats including the collection of the tuber or the whole plant, and digging and consumption by animals (sheep and rabbits in particular). The reduction of grazing leads to succession of forest species and competition. The latter is also an effect of intensive fertilisation. Agricultural intensification and ploughing furthermore destroys the species habitat. Other threats are urbanisation, tourism and expansion of infrastructure. (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This orchid is listed in several national red lists: Critically Endangered in Czech Republic (Holub and Procházka 2000) Vulnerable in Croatia (Nikolić and Topić 2005), Germany (Ludwig and Schnittler 1996) and Switzerland (Moser et al. 2002) Near Threatened in France (UICN France et al. 2010) and Hungary (Király 2007).

The following actions are recommended to protect Neotinea tridentata (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002);
Protection of the habitat, especially the pastures from ploughing, agricultural uses and fertilisation.
Fencing the vulnerable sites to protect the species from wild animals.
Maintenance of specific biotopes by sheep grazing or mowing has led in some places to considerable increases of the populations.
Control of the tuber collection.
Sympathetic management of isolated populations.
Raise public awareness.
Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.

useAndTrade:
The tubers are collected after flowering or fruit maturity as a a source of 'salep', a fine white to yellowish-white powder that is obtained by drying the tuber and grinding it into a powder. Salep is a starch-like substance which can be made into a drink, added to cereals or to bread. It can be prepared in the same way as arrowroot. A jelly can be made from the salep which is used to treat irritations of the gastro-intestinal canal (Plants For a Future 2010). This orchid is collected for its ornamental value.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Ophrys bombyliflora is widespread and occurs in several locations in Europe. The existing threats for the species and the habitats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline severely in the near future. Therefore, Ophrys bombyliflora is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Ophrys bombyliflora is found throughout the Mediterranean except for the very easternmost regions. The species occurs up to Rhodes in the east, in western Anatolia, westwards up to the Canary Islands in the Atlantic and is very rare on Lesbos and Samos. This species is found from sea level to 900 m altitude (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

population:
Ophrys bombyliflora is widespread, fairly common in the Mediterranean region and sometimes found in big populations. The trend of the populations remains unknown (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

habitat:
Ophrys bombyliflora can be found in garrigue, roadside slopes, grassland, open forest and woodland, pesticide-free olive groves and moist meadows. It grows in alkaline dry to very wet, calcareous soil in full sunlight to light shade. The flowering time of the species takes place from February to May with a peak time in March-April (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

threats:
Ophrys bombyliflora is threatened by urbanisation, construction work, residential building and plant collection (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This orchid is listed as Vulnerable on the Croatian red list (Nikolić and Topić 2005).

Recommended conservation measures for Ophrys bombyliflora include (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007):
Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Protection of the localities through legal nature conservancy.
Introducing informal and inexpensive management contracts with the owners of species localities.
Moderate grazing or forestry, mowing or recurrent burning; to prevent the vegetation to become dominated by more robust and competitive species.
Monitoring the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics .

useAndTrade:
The root is edible when cooked and is also a source of 'salep', a fine white to yellowish-white powder that is obtained by drying the tuber and grinding it into a powder. This salep is said to be very nutritious and is made into a drink or added to cereals and bread. Many Ophrys spp. are collected for their attractiveness (Plants For a Future 2010).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Ophrys ferrum-equinum has most of its distribution area in Greece and is fairly widespread in the eastern Mediterranean although its population trends are unknown. The current threats for the habitats and the species are unlikely to cause the populations to decline very quickly in the near future, and it is considered Least Concern.

range:
Ophrys ferrum-equinum is found throughout the eastern Mediterranean from the Balkans to Anatolia, the majority of populations are situated in the southwest. This species is missing from Cephalonia and also possibly from Crete but the species occurs in Karpathos. This species is found from sea level to 1,100 m altitude. (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

population:
Ophrys ferrum-equinum is fairly widespread in the eastern Mediterranean region and sometimes rare. The trend of the populations remains unknown (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

habitat:
Typical habitats of Ophrys ferrum-equinum include roadside slopes, garrigue, stony grassland, open pine woods and pesticide-free olive groves. It grows in alkaline dry to moist, calcareous soil in full sunlight to light shade. The flowering time is from March to May with a peak time from mid-March to mid-April (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

threats:
Ophrys ferrum-equinum is threatened by urbanisation, construction work, residential building and plant collection (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Recommended conservation measures for Ophrys ferrum-equinum are (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004);
Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Protection of the localities through legal nature conservancy. Introducing informal and inexpensive management contracts with the owners of species localities.
Moderate grazing or forestry, mowing or recurrent burning; to prevent the vegetation to become dominated by more robust and competitive species.
Monitoring the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Ophrys fuciflora is quite widespread and very common in Central Europe. The existing threats for the species and the habitats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline severely in the near future.

range:
Ophrys fuciflora is found throughout Central Europe, in the central and eastern Mediterranean and extends further east to Iraq. The species is European, especially central European, from the United Kingdom through to Romania and to the Italian Peninsula, Sicily and Sardinia, very rare in southern France. Ophrys fuciflora appears to be absent from the Iberian Peninsula and the Balearic Islands as well as from the major part of the Balkan Peninsula. This species is found from sea level to 1,500 m altitude (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

population:
Ophrys fuciflora is quite widespread, very common in Central Europe and fairly rare in parts of the Mediterranean region. The trend of the populations remains unknown (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

habitat:
Ophrys fuciflora is found in garrigue, roadside slopes, grassland, open pine and oak woods and old pesticide-free olive groves. It grows in dry to moist, calcareous soil in full sunlight to light shade. This species is found from sea level to 1,500 m altitude. The flowering time of the species takes place from March to June with a peak time from mid-April to late May (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

threats:
Ophrys fuciflora is threatened by urbanisation, construction work, residential building, and plant collection (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

This orchid is listed as Vulnerable on the Croatian red list (Nikolić and Topić 2005).

Recommended conservation measures for Ophrys fuciflora include (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007);
Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Protection of the localities through legal nature conservancy.
Introducing informal and inexpensive management contracts with the owners of species localities.
Moderate grazing or forestry, mowing or recurrent burning; to prevent the vegetation to become dominated by more robust and competitive species.
Monitoring the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Ophrys fusca is fairly widespread and occurs in several locations in Europe. The existing threats for the species and the habitats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline severely in the near future.

range:
Ophrys fusca is found throughout the Mediterranean. In Europe, it extends from Portugal to Crete and along the French Atlantic coast south of Brittany. This species is found from sea level to 1,500 m altitude (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

population:
Ophrys fusca is fairly common and widespread in the Mediterranean region and sometimes local and abundant. The trend of the populations remains unknown (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995). Some authors recognize numerous segregate taxa.

habitat:
Ophrys fusca can typically be found in garrigue, maquis, grassland, light-open pine and oak woods, pesticide-free olive groves and roadside verges. It prefers alkaline dry to moist soil in full sunlight to light shade. The flowering time of the species takes place from January to June with a peak time in March-April. Flowering individuals can even be encountered in December (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

threats:
Ophrys fusca is threatened by urbanisation, construction work, residential building and plant collection (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This orchid is listed as Vulnerable on the Croatian red list (Nikolić and Topić 2005).

Recommended conservation measures for Ophrys fusca include (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007);
Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Protection of the localities through legal nature conservancy.
Introducing informal and inexpensive management contracts with the owners of species localities.
Moderate grazing or forestry, mowing or recurrent burning; to prevent the vegetation to become dominated by more robust and competitive species.
Monitoring the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Ophrys lutea is widespread and occurs in several locations in Europe. The existing threats for the species and the habitats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline severely in the near future. Therefore, Ophrys lutea is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Ophrys lutea is found throughout the Mediterranean and in western France north to Brittany. This species is European; from Spain as far south as Sicily and the Balkans. It is missing from Central and Atlantic Europe. This species is found from sea level to 1,800 m altitude (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

population:
Ophrys lutea is widespread in Europe in disjunct areas. The species is rather local and often abundant where it occurs. The trend of the populations remains unknown (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

habitat:
Typical habitats of Ophrys lutea include guarrigue, maquis, grassland, roadside slopes, light-open pine and oak woods, as well as pesticide-free olive-groves. It grows in dry to moist, preferably calcareous soil in full sunlight to light shade. The flowering time of the species takes place from January to May, with a peak in March-April. In some years, flowering individuals may be found by the coast as early as December (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

threats:
There are specific threats for the species and its habitats in the region such as urbanisation, construction work, residential building, and plant collection (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This orchid is listed as Endangered in Croatia (Nikolić and Topić 2005), but as Least Concern on the French red list (UICN et al. 2010).

Recommended conservation measures for Ophrys lutea include (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007);
Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Protection of these species localities through legal nature conservancy.
Introducing informal and inexpensive management contracts with the owners of species localities.
Moderate grazing or forestry, mowing or recurrent burning; to prevent the vegetation to become dominated by more robust and competitive species.
Monitoring the existing populations and sites. Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Ophrys reinholdii has most of its distribution area in Greece. The area of occupancy might be small and below one of the thresholds but the species has been described as common on Rhodes. The population trend is unknown but the habitat of this species; roadside slopes, garrigue, scrubland, and oak woods are declining due to tourism, urbanisation, and infrastructure development.

However, at the moment it is not believed that the existing threats for the species and the habitat are likely to cause the populations to decline severely in the near future, especially if the recommended conservation measures are being applied. Therefore, Ophrys reinholdii assessed as Least Concern.

range:
The total range of Ophrys reinholdii extends from the Balkan Peninsula to Cyprus, southern and southwestern Anatolia, Iran and Iraq. It can be found in the southwestern part of the Balkan Peninsula , on the Ionian Islands and on the Aegean Islands. It is common on Rhodes (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007). In 2003, a small population was discovered in southeastern Bulgaria (Bergman et al. 2004). The species is found from sea level to 1,300 m altitude, in Bulgaria it is distributed between 260 and 390 m.

population:
Ophrys reinholdii is fairly widespread and rather rare in Europe . The trend of the populations is unknown but the species' habitat continues to decline (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995). In  Bulgaria  the species was found with a limited population of two individuals in 2003. This population was found during 2004 in the far southeast of the nature park Strandzha with 53 individuals, distributed in small groups of two to seven individuals (Bergman et al. 2004).

habitat:
Typical habitats include garrigue, scrubland, old olive groves, graveyards, roadside slopes, and open to rather dense pine and oak woods. Ophrys reinholdii grows in dry to moist, calcareous to slightly acid soil in full sunlight to partial shade. The flowering takes place from March to May with a peak in April in the Aegean Islands (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995, Bergman et al. 2004). In  Bulgaria , the flowering time is from the first ten days of April to the second ten days of May (Bergman et al. 2004).

threats:
The small size of the local populations, the natural vulnerability and threats for the habitats such as urbanisation, construction work and residential building are affecting the species. The increase in tourism activities, collection of the species and intensive traffic on forestry roads poses further threats to Ophrys reinholdii (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Bergman et al. 2004).

conservationAction:
All orchids are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Ophrys reinholdii is a species of high conservation value and the following conservation actions are recommended
Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Protection of these species localities through legal nature conservancy.
Introducing informal and inexpensive management contracts with the owners of species localities.
Moderate grazing or forestry, mowing or recurrent burning; to prevent the vegetation to become dominated by more robust and competitive species.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring the existing populations and sites.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Ophrys scolopax is widespread and present in several locations in the Mediterranean region and Europe. The existing threats for the species and the habitats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline severely in the near future. Therefore, Ophrys scolopax is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Ophrys scolopax is found throughout most of the Mediterranean and further east to the Crimea, Iran and the Caucasus. This species is widespread and occurs in the Iberian Peninsula, southern France and the Italian Peninsula. In the northeast, it reaches Hungary and Romania. The species is absent from Cyprus and some other islands as well as from the Mediterranean coast of the Levant. It is found from sea level to 2,000 m altitude (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

population:
Ophrys scolopax is widespread. The population size and trend are unknown (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

habitat:
Ophrys scolopax is typically found in garrigue, open pine and oak woods, grassland, roadside slopes, and olive groves free of pesticide, fertiliser and mechanical treatment of the soil. It grows in dry to moist soil in full sunlight to light shade. The flowering time is from March to June with a peak time in April in most places (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

threats:
Ophrys scolopax is affected by urbanisation, construction work, residential building and plant collection (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This orchid is listed as Least Concern on the French red list (UICN et al. 2010). Recommended conservation measures for Ophrys scolopax are: Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up. Protection of these species localities through legal nature conservancy. Introducing informal and inexpensive management contracts with the owners of species localities. Moderate grazing or forestry, mowing or recurrent burning; to prevent the vegetation to become dominated by more robust and competitive species. Monitoring the existing populations and sites. Estimate the population size and study their dynamics (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)

EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Ophrys speculum is widespread throughout the Mediterranean and occurs in several locations in Europe. The existing threats for the species and the habitats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline severely in the near future. Therefore, Ophrys speculum is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Ophrys speculum is found throughout the Mediterranean. It seems absent from Cyprus and is very rare in France and Crete from where it has been recorded only a couple of times. This species is found from sea level to 1,200 m altitude (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

population:
Ophrys speculum is fairly widespread, often found in colonies especially in coastal zones, rare in the centre of Europe and extremely rare in France. The trend of the populations remains unknown (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

habitat:
Ophrys speculum is typically found in guarrigue, poor grassland, roadside slopes, open pine woods, fallow fields, scrub and pesticide-free olive-groves. It grows in dry to moist, preferably calcareous soil in full sunlight to light shade. The flowering time of the species is from late February to early May, with a peak from mid-March to mid-April (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

threats:
Ophrys speculum is faces specific threats such as urbanisation, construction work, residential buildings and plant collection (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This orchid is listed as Vulnerable on the French red list (UICN et al. 2010).

Ophrys speculum can be protected in two fundamental ways through specific protection of the living individuals of the species or through protection and management of the habitats of the species (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007);
Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Protection of these species localities through legal nature conservancy.
Introducing informal and inexpensive management contracts with the owners of species localities.
Moderate grazing or forestry, mowing or recurrent burning to prevent the vegetation to become dominated by more robust and competitive species.
Type of habitat management that imitates the traditional agriculture or forestry of the locality of the species.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Ophrys tenthredinifera is widespread and occurs in several locations in Europe. The existing threats for the species and the habitats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline severely in the near future. Therefore, Ophrys tenthredinifera is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Ophrys tenthredinifera is found throughout the Mediterranean , where it is fairly common in the western and central parts and decreases towards the east. The species is very rare in several Aegean islands and in Cyprus it is known from only one locality. This species is found from sea level to 1,800 m altitude. (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

population:
Ophrys tenthredinifera is quite widespread in Europe and fairly rare towards the east. The trend of the population remains unknown (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

habitat:
Ophrys tenthredinifera can be found in guarrigue, grassland, open pine woods, as well as old olive-groves, and on roadside verges. It grows in dry to cool, calcareous to slightly acid soils in full sunlight to light shade. The flowering time of the species takes place from February to May, with a distinct peak from mid-March to mid-April (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

threats:
Ophrys tenthredinifera suffers from habitat loss due to urbanisation, construction work, residential building, and from plant collection (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Recommended conservation measures for this species are: Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up. Protection of these species localities through legal nature conservancy. Introducing informal and inexpensive management contracts with the owners of species localities. Moderate grazing or forestry, mowing or recurrent burning to prevent the vegetation to become dominated by more robust and competitive species. Monitoring the existing populations and sites. Estimate the population size and study their dynamics (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007).


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


The species occurs in numerous sites in Europe but its population trend is unknown. The existing threats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline severely in the near future. Therefore, Ophrys umbilicata is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Ophrys umbilicata is found throughout the eastern Mediterranean and from the Aegean basin to southern Iran. This species is quite local and sometimes abundant, it occurs in Albania through Greece, Cyprus east to the Levant but is missing in Crete. This species is found from sea level to 1,200 m altitude (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

population:
Ophrys umbilicata is quite local and no precise counting of the population size was ever made. The trend of the population is unknown (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

habitat:
Typical habitats for Ophrys umbilicata include grassland, garrigue, roadside slopes, light-open pine woods and cypress groves as well as pesticide-free olive groves. Ophrys umbilicata grows in dry to somewhat moist, often calcareous soils and rarely on sandstone in full sunlight to light shade. The flowering time of the species takes place from February to April with a peak time in late March and early April. (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007, Delforge 1995).

threats:
The natural vulnerability of Ophrys umbilicata , collection of the species and threats to its habitats such as urbanisation, construction work and residential buildings are affecting the species (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Recommended conservation measures for Ophrys umbilicata include (Pederson and Faurholdt 2007);
Protection of the living individuals through legislation that bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Introducing informal and inexpensive management contracts with the owners of species localities.
Moderate grazing or forestry, mowing or recurrent burning to prevent the vegetation to become dominated by more robust and competitive species.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Orchis anatolica is very rare and local where it occurs but the existing threats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline quickly in the near future. Therefore, Orchis anatolica is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Orchis anatolica is an eastern Mediterranean species found from the Cyclades and Crete in the west to Iran in the east. The species can be found from sea level to 2,000 m asl (Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007).

population:
Orchis anatolica is local and rather rare where it occurs (Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007).

habitat:
Orchis anatolica typically occurs in garrigue, pinewoods and open woodland. The species can also be found in areas of scrubland, wasteland and on seasonally wet soil which must be alkaline. It prefers stony dry to moist, calcareous to neutral substrates and substrates of dolomite. This species favours mid-shade. The flowering time is determined by the altitude of the plants location and takes place from the beginning of March until the end of May (Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007).

threats:
Orchis anatolica declined and became rare particularly in Turkey due to its extensive use and the ongoing practice of digging up tubers for the production of salep. On Cyprus and Crete the species is under threat and classified as not common due to hybridization with Orchis quadripunctata . In addition, this species is vulnerable to other threats such us tourism, land use changes, deforestation and expansion of villages and infrastructures (Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007).

conservationAction:
All orchids are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

The following actions are recommended to protect Orchis anatolica (Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007;
Improve the management of the habitat.
Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Orchis anthropophora is widespread and rather common in the centre and west of the range, rare in the north of the distribution area where isolated occurrences are threatened. Its population trend is overall decreasing, however new sites have been found. The existing threats for the species are unlikely to cause the populations to decline quickly in the near future. Therefore, Orchis anthropophora is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Orchis anthropophora is a Mediterranean-Atlantic species, occurring in western and southern Europe, North Africa and the Levant. The species ranges north to the Netherlands, southern Germany and Switzerland, south to the Balkans and the Mediterranean with most of the islands from the Balearics to Cyprus. It can be found from sea level to 1,600 m altitude (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004).

population:
Orchis anthropophora is widespread and rather common in the centre and west of the range, rare in the east and north. As far as population size is concerned, in Britain the total loss of the species between 1500 and 1999 was 48% of the total number of 10 km². The trend of the populations remains unknown in other places but many sites on the northeastern border of the distribution are declining. On the other hand, new sites have been found (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004).

habitat:
Orchis anthropophora grows in xerophitic and well drained short grassland, garrigue, scrub, woodland edges, roadsides verges, churchyards, abandoned quarries and pits and rarely in open woodland. It prefers dry to moist calcareous soils, chalk or limestone substrates. This species favours full sunlight to mid shade and flowers from April to June (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004).

threats:
Orchis anthropophora is submitted to numerous threats such us competition with other species due to shrub encroachment, overgrazing, ploughing, building sites and tourism . In addition to that, the clearing of road verges and the application of herbicides and pesticides affects this plant. On the othe r hand, the quantity of new sites has grown a bit lately (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The species is protected in several countries at the national level such us Belgium, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom, and at the regional level in France.

The following actions are recommended to protect Orchis anthropophora (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Delforge 1995, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004);
Improve the management of the habitat, especially road verges and open habitat from agricultural use.
Sympathetic management of isolated populations.
Monitor grazing to stop overtaking of small populations and to limit the competition with other species.
Fence the vulnerable sites.
Protection of the living individuals through legislation that bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Orchis italica is rather local but sometimes abundant. Its extent of occurrence and area of occupancy exceed 20,000 km² and 2,000 km² respectively. The existing threats for the species and the habitat are unlikely to cause the populations to decline severely in the near future, especially if the recommended conservation measures are being applied. Therefore, Orchis italica is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Orchis italica is a Mediterranean species that extends in the north from Dalmatia, to central Italy, northern Portugal, into North Africa and Turkey. It is widespread throughout central and southern Italy and in Sicily; but is absent from Sardinia and from northern Italy with the exception of a few old and unconfirmed records from Lombardy. The species can be found up to 1,300 m altitude (Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

population:
Orchis italica is rather local but sometimes abundant. As far as population size is concerned, no precise counting has ever been made; however, there are many strong and large populations. The trend of the population remains unknown but many sites have been declining everywhere (Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

habitat:
Orchis italica grows in short, poor grassland, open garrigue, scrub, woodland edges and open woodland. It prefers alkaline to acidic, dry to moist soils, mostly calcareous and stony substrates. This species favours full sunlight to mid-shade and flowers from beginning of March to mid-May (Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

threats:
Orchis italica is declining due to numerous anthropogenic threats including urbanisation, building projects, expansion of infrastructure, overgrazing, deforestation, tourism and plant collection (Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Rossi 2002).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

The following actions are recommended to protect Orchis italica (Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Rossi 2002);
Protection of the habitat, especially the open grassland and woodland from infrastructure expansion and fires.
Monitor the grazing to stop the overtaking of small populations and to limit the competition with other species.
Fencing off vulnerable sites.
Raise public awareness.
Control and management of the salep production from the tubers.
Protection of the living individuals through legislation which bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Orchis militaris is local and rather rare where it occurs but is widespread in Europe. Population declines have been noted and there are several threats affecting the species habitat. However, the existing threats for the species and the habitat are unlikely to cause the populations to decline very quickly in the near future. Therefore, Orchis militaris is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Orchis militaris is a Euro-Siberian species. In Europe, the species ranges in the north from England, northern Germany, southeast Sweden and Estonia to northern Spain, central Italy, the Balkans and European Turkey. In Russia, the species extends east to the Altai Mountains and Lake Baikal. It can be found from sea level to 2,200 m altitude (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004).

population:
Orchis militaris is local and rather rare where it occurs. As far as population size is concerned, in Greece the total number may be no more than 500 individuals. In Britain the total loss of the specie s between 1500 and 1986 was 84% . The trend of the population remains unknown in other places but many sites have been declining everywhere (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004).

habitat:
Orchis militaris inhabits short, poor grassland, unimproved meadows, scrub, woodland glades, woodland edges, rough field and open woodland. It  prefers dry to moist, alkaline soils. This species favours full sunlight and flowers from April to June and sometimes to July at higher altitudes (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004).

threats:
Orchis militaris is declining in population size and number of locations as the species and the habitat are submitted to numerous threats such us an intensified use of fertilizers, overgrazing, drainage, ploughing of meadows, building sites, tourism and damage by slugs. The abandonment of agricultural activities and grazing leads to natural vegetation succession and increased competition for this species (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The species is protected in several countries at the national level such as Belgium, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom, and at the regional level in France.

The following actions are recommended to protect Orchis militaris (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004);
Improve the management of the habitat, especially the open habitat, fencing of sites.
Restrict the use of fertilisers.
Protection of the living individuals through legislation that bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Orchis pallens is rare and local with a very scattered distribution area but it occurs in many European countries. The extent of occurrence and area of occupancy exceed the threshold of 20,000 km² and 2,000 km² respectively. The existing threats for the species and the habitat are unlikely to cause the populations to decline severely in the near future. Therefore, Orchis pallens is assessed as Least Concern. However, the species is declining quickly in Central Europe and would require closer attention in this area.

range:
Orchis pallens is a European-Caucasian species. It has a sub-Mediterranean to sub-oceanic distribution and reaches from the Pyrenees in northern Spain via the south of France to central Germany and further north to southern Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and the Balkans to southern Greece. It occurs in most of the regions of Italy, except Umbria and Apulia, and is very rare in the south of Italy. This plant is also found in the east to the Crimean Peninsula and the Caucasus. The species can be found up to 2,400 m altitude (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

population:
Orchis pallens is rare and local. The species has a very scattered distribution area and there are many locally abundant populations but most do not exceed 100 specimens. As far as population size is concerned, no precise counting has ever been made but many sites have been declining rapidly especially in central Europe (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

habitat:
Orchis pallens grows in mountain meadows, alpine pastures, scrub, woodland edges and open woodland, both deciduous and coniferous. It prefers moist, calcareous to slightly acidic substrates and limestone in Central Europe. This species favours mid-shade and flowers from mid-April to the end of May (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

threats:
The populations and their habitats are declining especially in central Europe due to numerous anthropogenic threats including the ceasing of the former coppicing of woods and a decrease in the amount of light reaching the forest floor caused by the natural succession of the woodland. Further threats are posed by lack of rain, late frost, damage by wild animals such as badgers and wild boars, urbanisation and infrastructure expansion, tourism, deforestation, and plant collection (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

The following actions are recommended to protect Orchis pallens (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002);

Protection of the habitat, especially the former coppicing of woods on which the species depends.
Raise public awareness about deforestation and fire. Protection of the population from wild animals such as badgers and wild boar; fencing off vulnerable sites.
Control and management of the salep production from the tubers.
Protection of the living individuals through legislation which ban the species from being picked or dug up.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites. Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Orchis provincialis is rare and local where it occurs but has a very large distribution area. Many of the populations are stable. The existing threats for the species and the habitat are unlikely to cause the populations to decline very quickly in the near future, especially if the recommended conservation measures are being applied. Therefore, Orchis provincialis is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Orchis provincialis is a Mediterranean endemic species with a remarkably vast distribution area from the Iberian Peninsula throughout the western and central part of the Mediterranean region to the mountains around the eastern parts of the Black Sea. The species also occurs in Asiatic Turkey, Tunisia and Algeria. It can be found up to 1,700 m altitude (Bournérias et al. 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

population:
Orchis provincialis is rare and local where it occurs. As far as population size is concerned, no precise counting has ever been made. Many stable populations have been observed but this does not exclude that the species might been declining in parts of its range (Bournérias et al. 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002). In Switzerland, five individuals were counted in 2001, but it might be extinct now (A. Gygax pers. comm. 2010).

habitat:
Orchis provincialis inhabits garrigue, scrub, maquis, mountain pastures and open woodland both deciduous and coniferous. It prefers moist, slightly acidic to slightly alkaline, often calcareous and stony substrates and rarely damp areas in the mountains. This species grows in full sun light to mid-shade and flowers from the end of March to the beginning of June (Bournérias et al. 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

threats:
The threats to the species are natural succession of woodlands which decrease the amount of light reaching the forest floor, urbanisation, building projects, expansion of infrastructure (new roads and expansion of towns), tourism and plant collection (Bournérias et al. 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This species is also listed under Appendix I of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). The following actions are recommended to protect Orchis provincialis; Protection of the habitat, especially the open woodland from deforestation and development. Forestry management that stops overgrowth and closing up of forest. Fencing the vulnerable sites. Raise public awareness. Control and management of the salep production from the tubers. Protection of the living individuals through legislation that bans the species from being picked or dug up. Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections. Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites. Estimate the population size and study their dynamics. (Bournérias et al. 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

useAndTrade:
The tuber is very nutritious when cooked. It is a source of 'salep', a fine white to yellowish-white powder that is obtained by drying the tuber and grinding it into a powder. Salep is a starch-like substance which can be made into a drink, added to cereals or to bread. It can be prepared in the same way as arrowroot. A jelly can be made from the salep which is used to treat irritations of the gastro-intestinal canal (Plants For a Future 2010). Many orchid species are collected for their attractiveness.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Orchis purpurea is widespread and rather rare where it occurs with a very large distribution area beyond any of the thresholds for a threatened category. The existing threats for the species and the habitat are unlikely to cause the populations to decline severely in the near future. Therefore, Orchis purpurea is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Orchis purpurea is a Mediterranean-Atlantic species. In Europe, it occurs westwards and northwards to England and Denmark, eastwards to western and southern Poland and Ukraine and south to central Spain, Italy, northern Greece and Bulgaria. It is also found on Corsica and Sardinia, and in North Africa, in Algeria and Tunisia. The species can be found up to 1,800 m altitude. (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

population:
Orchis purpurea is widespread and rather rare. As far as population size is concerned, in Britain it is nationally scarce and has been lost from 57% of the historic range, although it currently appears to be expanding its range. Overall, t he trend of the population is declining due to numerous threats (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

habitat:
Orchis purpurea inhabits short grassland, garrigue, slopes, scrub or coppice, clearings and woodland edges and open woodland of beech, ash or hazel, or occurs along paths. It prefers dry to moist, alkaline to neutral soils, and is very rarely found in calcareous and limestone substrates. This species grows in full sunlight to shade and flowers from May to June (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

threats:
The main threats to the species are the collection of the tuber for the production of salep, digging and consumption by animals (wild boar, rabbits, slugs and muntjac), ploughing, agricultural uses of the habitats and application of fertilisers. Additional threats are urbanisation, tourism, extension of the infrastructure, and deforestation. (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The species is protected in several countries at the national level such us Belgium, Luxembourg and at the regional level in France.

The following actions are recommended to protect Orchis purpurea (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002);
Protection of the habitat, especially the open grassland from ploughing, agriculture uses and fertilisation; and the woodland from fire and deforestation.
Fencing the vulnerable sites to protect the species from wild animals.
Control and management of the salep production from the tubers.
Sympathetic management of isolated populations.
Raise public awareness.
Protection of the living individuals through legislation that bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)


Orchis simia is rather scattered and rare where it occurs but has a large distribution area that is beyond any of the thresholds for a threatened category. The species is locally threatened in many sites but at European level the existing threats are unlikely to cause the populations to decline severely in the near future. Therefore, Orchis simia is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
Orchis simia is a Mediterranean-Atlantic species. The species ranges from southern Europe and the Mediterranean region, including the Balearic Islands, the Aegean Islands, Crete and Cyprus, north to Hungary, southern Germany, the Netherlands and England. In the east it extends to Syria, Turkey, the Crimean Peninsula, Caucasus, Iran and Turkmenistan, and southwards into North Africa: Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. The species can be found up to 1,550 m altitude (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

population:
Orchis simia is rather scattered and rare where it occurs with a large distribution area. Overall the population has a declining trend (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

habitat:
Orchis simia inhabits short, poor grasslands, garrigue, maquis, scrubland, woodland edges and open woodland. It prefers dry to slightly moister conditions, neutral to calcareous soils. This species grows in full sunlight to mid-shade and flowers from March to June (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

threats:
Orchis simia is directly affected by the collection of the tuber for the production of salep (especially in Turkey where the species is considered as endangered) or for horticulture, digging and consumption by animals (wild boar, rabbits, slugs and muntjac), and overgrazing by sheep and goats. Its habitat quality and extent is declining due to natural succession of the woodland causing a decrease in the amount of light reaching the forest floor, re-forestation, ploughing, agricultural use including the intensive application of fertilisers. Urbanisation, building projects (e.g. the new organisation and consolidation of the wine-growing area in Kaiserstuhl/Germany), infrastructure development, and tourism all lead to habitat loss (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002).

conservationAction:
All orchid species are included under Annex B of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The species is protected in several countries at the national level such us Belgium, Luxembourg and at the regional level in France.

The following actions are recommended to protect Orchis simia (Bournérias and Prat 2005, Delforge 1995, GIROS 2009, Harrap and Harrap 2009, Kretzschmar et al. 2007, Lang 2004, Pignatti 1982, Rossi 2002);
Protection of the habitat, especially the open grassland and downland from ploughing, agriculture uses and extensive use of fertilisation; and the woodland.
Fencing the vulnerable sites to protect the species from wild animals.
Site management including moderate grazing by sheep and goats, and habitat clearance to allow enough supply of sunlight to the forest floor.
Control and management of the salep production from the tubers.
Raise public awareness.
Protection of the living individuals through legislation that bans the species from being picked or dug up.
Ex situ conservation: Artificial propagation, re-introduction, seed collections.
Monitoring and surveillance of the existing populations and sites.
Estimate the population size and study their dynamics.


