Assessment of beetles and birds:Problems and solutions

Ilpo Mannerkoski Finnish Environment Institute

Syktyvkar 29.9.-4.10.2014

Beetles

•Better known than most insect groups

•Information even then inadequate

•Database of the expert group

•Threatened species database

•Published records

•Observations of the specialists

Work in practice

•Done in the expert group for beetles – 15 members

•Species obviously LC were separated first

•Documentation and preparing proposal

•Processing in expert group meetings

Completion of the documentation, intrpretation of the data,

evaluation against the criteria

•Result: final categories

•Checking and approval of the list in the steering

committee

Assessment

•3697 species in the check list

•3416 species were assessed

•104 species (< 3 % ) not evaluated (NE)

•177 species (<5 %) not applicable (NA)

•RE – no specific time limit

life history and

detectability of each species were considered in

relation to the extent by which the species had been sought in

known localities or other suitable habitats

Use of criteria

•Observation period 10 years

•A − not used

•B − mostly used B1ab (i,ii,iii,iv) + B2ab(i,ii,iii,iv)

•C − not used

•D − much used

•E − not used

•Downgrading – 9 species

Hololepta plana (Histeridae)

Monochamus urussovii (Cerambycidae)

Problems

•Shortage of knowledge few records from vast area and

long time period

•Representativeness of the data extensive data from

forests, less data from other habitats, regional differences

•Interpretation of the data changes in use of traps:

more new records than old of species considered as declining and

living in declining habitat

•Short observation time known changes often

happened earlier than during the last ten years

Example

Cryptocephalus hypochoeridis (Chrysomelidae)

Habitat: dry open meadows, adults on yellow flovers

Easily detected

Many old observations, mostly before 1970’s, 40 localities in threatened species database

One record from 1980’s, latest record 1990

Strongly declined, all records older than observation frame, decline inferred continuing

Decline of habitat continues, real habitat preferences badly known

Fluctuations?

EN B2ab(i,ii,iv)

Example 2

Mesosa myops (Cerambycidae)Habitat: old deciduous trees Quercus, TiliaDifficult to be detectedAlways very rare species, three localities knownLatest records from two of these from 1940’s, now one population in Turku, there living in many places, tens of inhabited trees, population size unknownNo known decline during the observation periodFinding of new localities unprobableLocality protected but still prone to effects of human actvities or stochastic events

VU D2

Example 3

Meloe proscarabaeus (Meloidae)

Living in open, dry habitats, larvae in nests of Aculeate Hymenoptera65 localities in threatened species databaseOnly sex localities after 1980, some of them single recordsDecline of the population and habitat continuingFluctuations?

B2ab(ii,iii,iv)

Assessment of birds

•One of the best known groups of organisms in Finland

•The only group for which estimates of population sizes,

long-term changes and short-term fluctuations can be

presented for each species based on censuses and other

field work

•The IUCN criteria can be adjusted quite easily and reliably

Datasets used

•11 different breeding population data-sets

- bird atlases

- census of land birds during the nesting season

- long-term monitoring of land birds during the nesting

season

- Breeding bird censuses in Nature Reserve network

(Metsähallitus)

Datasets

Bird Atlases 1974–1979, 1986–1989 and 2006–2010 (FMNH)

Datasets

•winter bird censuses

•monitoring on spring and autumn migration at

two bird observatories

•bird observation database Tiira

•published reviews and reports

Assessment of birds in general

•Done in the expert group for birds – 10 members

•248 species evaluated, two subspecies of

dunlin Calidris alpina were evaluated separately

•No species were excluded due to insufficient

information•8

species not applicable (NA) Alien species

introduced by man No

established population in Finland

Assessment of birds in general

Population size was estimated for every species

- complete count, the number of individuals observed - population estimated from density estimates based on quantitative censuses

The observation period applied was three generations 30-48 years − 15 species 17-29 years − 32 species 11-16 years − 45 species 10 years − 157 species

Assessment of birds in general

•All criteria A > D were applied

•E was not used

•Downgrading by one or two grades −16 species

Species occurring as scarce edge populations

Populations were considered stable within their

main range outside Finland

Examples Twite Carduelis flavirostris CR > VU

Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus CR > EN

Example

Rustic Bunting Emberiza rustica

Habitat: pine mires, spruce mires

Vast distribution area

Population 200 000 – 400 000 pairs

Decline in monitoring data:

58 % in 20 years

41 % in 10 years

VU A2ab

Evaluated as LC in the year 2000Reason for change: genuine change

Thank you!