Corresponding author: Karin Voigtländer (
Academic editor: R. Mesibov
The Red Lists of endangered species published by the German Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN - the Federal Agency of Nature Conservation) are essential tools for the nature protection in Germany since the 1970s. Although many groups of insects appear in the German Red Lists, small and inconspicuous soil organisms, among them millipedes and centipedes, have in the past been ignored. In the last few years great efforts have been made to assess these two groups, resulting in Red Lists of German
The basis of all protection measures are studies of the distribution and endangerment of species and habitats. For this purpose the so-called “Red Lists” are expert scientific reports which document and evaluate the current degree of endangerment on the basis of population size and population dynamics (vulnerability analysis). They indicate a (possible) need for conservation actions and have other useful functions (
Uses for Red Lists.
In South Africa and Australia, conservation decisions may be based on endangered myriapod species (mostly short range endemics) (
To enable myriapods to be considered in German conservation planning, the authors prepared Red Lists for German
The Red Lists of Germany are edited and published by the Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN). They have recorded extinct, missing or vulnerable species of animals, plants, mushrooms and plant communities since the 1070s (e.g.
Although many groups of insects have been well-documented for many years, this is not the case for soil fauna (
In contrast to many other
Shared distribution limits for myriapods in Germany.
Myriapods, especially the diplopods, are highly suitable for biological site-characterization (
A final reason for improving the conservation status of
Although the application of the Red List protocols to myriapods is detailed elsewhere (
The methods and procedures for Red List assessments are fixed by the BfN (
To get comparable results for all assessed German species groups it is not possible to modify methods greatly. In previous years, species vulnerability and degree of endangerment were evaluated with the help of defined categories, based on various quantitative criteria. Now the procedure has changed so that the criteria and their definitions are in the foreground. The new method is described in
Four criteria are used for vulnerability analysis:
1. current situation of population size and distribution,
2. long-term trend of population size and distribution (25 to >100 years),
3. short-term trend of population size and distribution (less than 25 years),
4. risk factors.
Standardised classes for each criterion are introduced to make the classification more understandable and verifiable.
In contrast to most other countries and previous versions of Red Lists, the BfN has demanded a complete list of all German diplopods and chilopods and an assessment of their current status (see Appendix). For the analysis several parameters have to be considered (population size, number of occurrences, grid or areal data, habitats). For myriapods the key data would be the number of occurrences and if available the population size and habitats. Six frequency of occurrence classes can be distinguished (extremely rare, very rare, rare, moderately frequent, frequent, very frequent) which are supplemented by the classes “extinct or lost” and “unknown”.
The short– and long–term trend criteria enable the consideration of changes of the population size over the time. By a comparison of both trends the reliability of the results of the Red List is increased. If the number of records is not very large, an evaluation is also possible by using only one trend criterion, either short- or long-term. In taxa with large and irregular fluctuations within populations the short-term trend criterion should be ignored. For the long-term population trend of myriapods we compared the situations before and after 1950. Species recently added to the German fauna are classified as “data insufficient” for this criterion.
If it is well-established that the population of a species will decline during the next 10 years, risk factors have to be considered. The prospective effect of risk factors rather than the total number of factors should be of greater importance for the overall evaluation.
Importantly, the method of
The classification of degree of endangerment (categories) is determined by a standardised classification scheme set by the BfN (see
The myriapod Red Lists are based on an ongoing and systematic recording of the German myriapod fauna by the Working Group of the German Speaking Myriapodologists (
There was insufficient data for an evaluation of Symphyla and
Altogether 61 centipede species and 136 millipede species (140 counting subspecies) were known in Germany in 2010:
|
No of spp. |
|
No of spp. (incl. subtaxa) |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
4 |
|
15 |
|
24 |
|
2 |
|
32 |
|
37 (40) |
|
59 | ||
|
21 (22) | ||
|
1 |
Based on the BfN data sheet with all criteria evaluated, the tally of species considered endangered was 13% for
Tally of the species and Red List categories (modified from
|
|
|||
absolute | percentage | absolute | percentage | |
|
61 | 100% | 140 | 100% |
Neobiota | 8 | 13% | 16 | 11% |
Indigenous species and archaeobiota | 53 | 87% | 124 | 89% |
|
||||
0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | |
7 | 11% | 7 | 5% | |
1 | 2% | 18 | 13% | |
0 | 0% | 5 | 4% | |
0 | 0% | 1 | 1% | |
|
8 | 13% | 31 | 22% |
7 | 11% | 21 | 15% | |
|
15 | 25% | 52 | 37% |
NTNear threatened | 2 | 3% | 4 | 3% |
* Least concern | 36 | 59% | 67 | 48% |
D Data deficient | 0 | 0% | 1 | 1% |
The present Red List of the German myriapod species has to be regarded as a first attempt at estimating degrees of endangerment for species in this neglected group. It is not surprising that difficulties exist, which we list below. In addition, we will provide some recommendations for further research.
The assessment of some species is negatively affected by a lack of area-wide data. A clear division between the South and the North of Germany is obvious (
Approximate numbers of sampled sites in the federal states of Germany.
Recommendation: During the assessment process each species must be studied and discussed in detail. This is done in depth in our Red Lists of German chilopods and diplopods (
Often the number of available records does not allow the calculation of exact numerical terms for the criteria, e.g. if there are only sporadic records of single specimens or a few records in greater intervals.
Recommendation: Frequency classes should be established on the basis of accurate numerical ranges, if possible. When this is not possible, interpolation or expert opinion becomes relevant and legitimate.
At the present time it is not possible to provide a short-term population trend for any German myriapod species. It can be assumed, however that such a trend will often be overlaid by the natural range of fluctuation.
Recommendation: This criterion should be ignored (legitimately according to
The criteria for the analysis of endangerment can be effectively applied to many animal groups, but they are less suitable for
Recommendation: Doubtful cases needs to be discussed in the comments to the Red Lists.
The taxonomic status of most German diplopods and chilopods is well established. In some species or species groups, however, the taxon’s validity at the species level has been disputed or neglected in the past or is still uncertain. This results in incomplete or inaccurate knowledge of the distribution, trends and risks for these species. A careful taxonomical revision is needed for several questionable species or subspecies, e.g. the
Recommendation: Taxonomic status needs to be discussed in the comments to the Red Lists.
Standardised and appropriate capture methods are necessary. Pitfall trapping, sieving and hand sampling are regularly used for myriapods, but not all methods are equally suitable for all myriapod species in all habitats.
Recommendation: Sampling should include a wide range of methods, such as soil sampling or tree traps (e.g. for
For some species, there have been no records in Germany for 50 years or more, e.g.
Recommendation: Targeted searches at known localities and in the surrounding areas are necessary to determine whether a species is really lost.
In some cases “extremely rare” and “very rare” may be incorrect. If there are limited records, an overlooked population could have a major effect on the conservation status of the species, e.g. for
Recommendation: Targeted searches of the area surrounding known records and in equivalent habitats in other regions are necessary to improve knowledge of rarity. If the choice of “extremely rare” or “very rare” is unclear, the species should be classified as “extremely rare”, because this increases the chances that the species will be given a high priority for further study.
For many myriapod species, especially for diplopods, the loss of biotope or habitat plays an important role in endangerment classification. If a threatening event affects a species with a very small distribution area this implies the possible extinction of the species. In Germany this is the case with
Recommendation: In all cases, knowledge of the autecological requirements of species in relationship to their distribution area and also knowledge of possible alternative habitats is very important and should be studied. The following risk factors must be weighed: “direct human effects” (e.g. building measures), “loss of habitat”, “re-colonisation hindered for species with a small distribution area which have not been rediscovered to date”.
In Germany, the number of endemic species is quite small (six species) in comparison to other European countries, e.g. Austria, 18 diplopods (
Recommendation: Endemism is always strongly connected with national responsibility. The conservation of endemic species should always be considered in planning projects and substantial human activities. Therefore endemic and subendemic species should get the risk factor “resettlement under less favourable conditions”.
Many species, including extremely rare species, have their distribution limits within Germany (
Recommendation: For assessing the level of national responsibility the whole of a species distribution area, its degree of fragmentation as well as local abundances have to be examined and evaluated.
Alien species are non-indigenous species that have been introduced by direct or indirect human activity since 1492 (
Recommendation: If it is unclear whether or not a species is alien, it should be evaluated.
We have prepared Red Lists for
However, lack of detailed knowledge (e.g. of distribution, frequency of occurrence, effects of contaminants) should not be allowed to hinder the compilation of Red Lists. German nature protection practices (environmental planning, surveys and reports) value biotopes according to their conservation status, which is mostly measured by the occurrence of Red List species. Without proof of existence of such species, funds may not be allocated for further studies in those biotopes. On the other hand, without these funds we cannot build an increased, detailed knowledge base of threatened species. This problem, however, must not lead to a deviation from clear scientific methods towards mere scientific politics. Results must always be replicable and well founded.
The work reported here shows that millipedes and centipedes are worthy of and in need of protection, and Red Lists provide nature conservation efforts with a powerful management tool for conserving these groups.
We are very grateful for the extensive support of Norman Lindner (Leipzig). We thank also Michel Hamer (Pietermaritzburg) and an anonymous reviewer for their critical and helpful remarks and Vera Wilkin (Rochester) and Robert Mesibov (Penguin) for their help in improving our English.
Species list of all German
|
||
---|---|---|
|
|
|
R | er | |
* | vf | |
♦ | ? | |
♦ | ? | |
2 | vr | |
* | vr | |
1 | er | |
* | h | |
R | er | |
R | er | |
* | vr | |
♦ | ? | |
* | f | |
♦ | ? | |
* | mf | |
* | r | |
* | r | |
NT | r | |
3 | vr | |
* | f | |
R | er | |
♦ | ? | |
1 | er | |
* | vr | |
* | r | |
* | vf | |
* | vr | |
* | mf | |
R | er | |
* | r | |
1 | er | |
* | mf | |
R | er | |
* | vr | |
♦ | ? | |
EU | vr | |
* | vr | |
* | mf | |
* | vr | |
2 | er | |
* | vr | |
2 | er | |
* | f | |
* | mf | |
2 | er | |
* | f | |
* | r | |
* | r | |
3 | vr | |
* | mf | |
* | vr | |
2 | er | |
2 | er | |
2 | er | |
R | er | |
NT | r | |
* | vr | |
* | vf | |
* | r | |
* | vr | |
* | mf | |
R | er | |
* | mf | |
* | vr | |
* | vr | |
R | er | |
R | er | |
2 | er | |
R | er | |
* | f | |
* | vr | |
* | r | |
R | er | |
2 | er | |
* | vr | |
NT | r | |
* | r | |
2 | er | |
* | mf | |
NT | mf | |
* | r | |
R | er | |
* | f | |
♦ | ? | |
* | f | |
♦ | ? | |
* | mf | |
* | mf | |
R | er | |
* | mf | |
2 | er | |
2 | vr | |
* | vf | |
R | er | |
* | vr | |
♦ | ? | |
* | vr | |
2 | er | |
* | f | |
R | er | |
D | vr | |
♦ | ? | |
* | vr | |
♦ | ? | |
* | f | |
* | mf | |
* | mf | |
* | vf | |
1 | er | |
* | mf | |
R | er | |
1 | er | |
* | mf | |
* | mf | |
♦ | ? | |
♦ | ? | |
2 | er | |
* | vr | |
* | mf | |
♦ | ? | |
* | mf | |
3 | vr | |
R | er | |
2 | er | |
♦ | ? | |
3 | vr | |
3 | vr | |
1 | er | |
2 | er | |
2 | er | |
♦ | ? | |
* | r | |
* | vf | |
R | er | |
R | er | |
R | er | |
1 | er | |
* | vf | |
* | r | |
2 | er |
|
||
---|---|---|
|
|
|
1 | er | |
♦ | ? | |
* | r | |
* | mf | |
1 | er | |
* | r | |
* | r | |
1 | er | |
* | r | |
* | vf | |
R |
|
er |
♦ | ? | |
1 | er | |
1 | er | |
R | er | |
* | vr | |
* | vr | |
R | er | |
♦ | ? | |
NT | vr | |
♦ | ? | |
* | mf | |
* | r | |
* | vr | |
* | r | |
* | vf | |
* | vf | |
* | mf | |
* | h | |
* | r | |
* | vf | |
R | er | |
R | er | |
R | er | |
* | r | |
* | mf | |
NT | r | |
* | f | |
* | vf | |
* | mf | |
* | mf | |
* | r | |
* | f | |
1 | er | |
* | vr | |
* | vr | |
* | mf | |
* | mf | |
* | r | |
♦ | ? | |
2 | vr | |
* | h | |
R | er | |
♦ | er | |
♦ | ? | |
♦ | ? | |
* | vr | |
* | f | |
* | mf | |
1 | er | |
* | vr |