Assessment of beetles and birds: Problems and solutions Ilpo Mannerkoski Finnish Environment Institute Syktyvkar

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, Tilia Difficult to be detected Always very rare species, three localities known Latest records from two of these from 1940’s, now one population in Turku, there living in many places, tens of inhabited trees, population size unknown No known decline during the observation period Finding of new localities unprobable Locality 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 Hymenoptera 65 localities in threatened species database Only sex localities after 1980, some of them single records Decline of the population and habitat continuing Fluctuations? 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 years − 15 species years − 32 species 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 – pairs Decline in monitoring data: 58 % in 20 years 41 % in 10 years VU A2ab Evaluated as LC in the year 2000 Reason for change: genuine change

Thank you!