Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Biodiversity Data Journal logoLink to Biodiversity Data Journal
. 2019 Apr 5;7:e34089. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.7.e34089

A database of threat statuses and life-history traits of Red List species in Flanders (northern Belgium)

Dirk Maes 1,✉, Dimitri Brosens 2,1,✉, Filiep T’jollyn 1, Peter Desmet, Frederic Piesschaert 1, Stijn Van Hoey 1, Tim Adriaens 1, Wouter Dekoninck 3, Koen Devos 1, Koen Lock 4, Thierry Onkelinx 1, Jo Packet 1, Jeroen Speybroeck 1, Arno Thomaes 5, Koen Van Den Berge 1, Wouter Van Landuyt 1, Hugo Verreycken 1
PMCID: PMC6477847  PMID: 31048982

Abstract Abstract

Background

Red Lists estimate the extinction risk of species at global or regional levels and are important instruments in conservation policies. Global Red List assessments are readily available via the IUCN website (https://www.iucnredlist.org) and are regularly updated by (taxonomic) experts. Regional Red Lists, however, are not always easy to find and often use local criteria to assess the local extinction risk of species.

New information

Here, we publish a database with the outcome of 38 Red List assessments in Flanders (northern Belgium) between 1994 and 2018. In total, the database contains 6,224 records of 5,039 unique taxa pertaining to 24 different taxonomic groups. Using a quality control procedure, we evaluated the criteria used, the number of records, the temporal and spatial distribution of the data and the up-to-dateness of the Red Lists. This way, nineteen Red Lists were approved as being of sufficient high quality (i.e. validated) and nineteen others were not. Once validated, Red Lists are approved by the regional Minister of Environment and published in the Belgian Official Gazette acquiring legal status. For the validated Red Lists, we additionally compiled (life-history) traits that are applicable to a wide variety of species groups (taxonomic kingdom, environment, biotope, nutrient level, dispersal capacity, lifespan and cuddliness). The publication of this dataset allows comparison of Red List statuses with other European regions and countries and permits analyses about how certain (life-history) traits can explain the Red List status of species. The dataset will be regularly updated by adding new Red List (re)assessments and/or additional (life-history) traits.

Keywords: Red List, Flanders (northern Belgium), life-history traits, IUCN, threatened species, conservation

Introduction

Red Lists are important instruments at both the global and the regional scale (Brooks et al. 2016). They estimate the extinction risk in a given region, usually using standardised and internationally accepted criteria (Mace et al. 2008). Although Red Lists are not compiled to prioritise conservation actions (Lamoreux et al. 2003, Rodrigues et al. 2006), they are often used as an important source for conservation policies (McCarthy et al. 2008), such as species action plans (Fitzpatrick et al. 2007, Laycock et al. 2011) and reintroduction programmes (IUCN/SSC 2013). Additionally, consecutive Red Lists allow comparison of changes in Red List categories and, in combination with information on threats, provide information about effective application of conservation efforts to the species’ major threats (Brooke et al. 2008). Yet, national or regional Red Lists are often only available locally and/or in the local language and not always easy to access, which hinders analyses on larger scales (Maes et al. 2019). Although a website with national or regional Red Lists exists (http://www.nationalredlist.org), it is often more convenient for local authorities to manage the information on national or regional Red Lists locally (e.g. https://www.inbo.be/en/search-flanders-red-lists) and to publish them on open-access platforms for easier availability.

Here, we publish the results of Red List assessments in Flanders (northern Belgium) between 1994 and 2018. For the species on the validated Red Lists, we also include some general (life-history) traits (taxonomic kingdom, environment, biotope use, nutrient level, lifespan, mobility and cuddliness - cf. Trochet et al. 2014), which allows further analyses on the correlation between the Red List status and the species characteristics (cf. Jeppsson and Forslund 2014).

General description

Purpose

This database publishes the Red List statuses of all species that were assessed in Flanders (northern Belgium) since 1994. First, a literature search was done in both local and scientific publications to gather all Red List assessments ever performed in Flanders. All species present in the Red Lists were compiled in a database with the original taxonomic name and Red List status as published in the original Red List. The data were carefully checked for double entries and for typing errors in the published species names. Since Red List categories were not always in accordance with the presently-used IUCN categories, we ''translated'' the originally-published Red List category into IUCN Red List categories. Second, all species names were checked against the GBIF Backbone Taxonomy (GBIF secretariat 2019) to obtain currently traceable species names (including synonyms). Since the Flemish Species Decree of 2009 (Flemish Government 2009) came into effect, Red List assessments in Flanders are coordinated by the Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO, formerly the Institute for Nature Conservation – IN). The task of the Institute is to not only instigate the compilation of new Red Lists, but also to perform a control procedure to check whether the Red List is of sufficiently high quality. The quality control procedure consists of checking the number of available historical and recent data, the number of sites that were surveyed in both historical and recent times (>70 grid cells of 5 x 5 km) and a minimal spatial coverage (>10%) of the different ecological districts of Flanders (Maes et al. 2015). For older Red Lists, this quality control was done post factum, while for new Red Lists, this was done at the start of the Red List assessment. Red Lists fulfilling the quality control criteria are labelled as ''validated Red Lists''. Applying this procedure, we were able to validate nineteen out of 38 published Red Lists Table 1, while nineteen others could not be validated Table 2.

Table 1.

Validated Red Lists in Flanders (n = 19) with the Red List criteria used (Local or IUCN Red List criteria), the year of publication, the reference to the Red List, the reference to the life-history traits and the number of species (nSpecies) included in the Red List. Red Lists marked with a * have been approved by the minister.

Taxonomic group Criteria Year Reference Reference(s) life-history traits nSpecies
Butterflies (Lepidoptera – Rhopalocera)* Local 1996 Maes and Van Dyck (2001) Maes et al. (2013) 68
Grasshoppers (Orthoptera)* Local 2000 Decleer et al. (2000) Kleukers et al. (1997) 39
Breeding birds (Aves)* Local 2004 Devos et al. (2004) Birdlife International (2004), Vermeersch et al. (2004) 211
Dragonflies (Odonata)* Local 2005 De Knijf (2006) De Knijf (2006), Nederlandse vereniging voor Libellenstudie (2002) 66
Vascular plants (Tracheophyta)* Local 2006 Van Landuyt et al. (2006) Biesbrouck et al. (2001), Ellenberg et al. (1992), Hill et al. (2004), Stieperaere and Fransen (1982) 1154
Carabid beetles (Coleoptera – Carabidae)* Local 2008 Desender et al. (2008b) Desender et al. (2008a), Homburg et al. (2014), Turin (2000) 382
Butterflies (Lepidoptera – Rhopalocera)* IUCN 2011 Maes et al. (2012) Maes et al. (2013) 70
Amphibians (Amphibia)* IUCN 2012 Jooris et al. (2012) Jooris et al. (2013) 16
Reptiles (Reptilia)* IUCN 2012 Jooris et al. (2012) Jooris et al. (2013) 6
Waterbugs (Hemiptera – Gerromorpha, Nepomorpha)* IUCN 2013 Lock et al. (2013) Aukema et al. (2002), Stoffelen et al. (2013) 62
Freshwater fishes (Pisces)* IUCN 2014 Verreycken et al. (2014) Kottelat and Freyhof (2007), Vandelannoote et al. (1998), Van Emmerik and De Nie (2006) 42
Ladybirds (Coleoptera – Coccinellidae)* IUCN 2014 Adriaens et al. (2015) Adriaens and Maes (2004), Adriaens et al. (2008), Baugnée et al. (2011), Cuppen et al. (2017), Roy et al. (2011) 39
Mammals (Mammalia)* IUCN 2014 Maes et al. (2014) Verkem et al. (2003) 103
Saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera – Cetoniidae, Dynastidae, Lucanidae) IUCN 2015 Thomaes et al. (2015) Thomaes et al. (2015) 19
Breeding birds (Aves) IUCN 2016 Devos et al. (2016) Birdlife International (2004), Vermeersch et al. (2004) 217
Grasshoppers (Orthoptera) IUCN 2017 Maes et al. (2017) Kleukers et al. (1997) 52
Hornworts (Anthocerotophyta) IUCN 2017 Van Landuyt and De Beer (2017) Hill et al. (2007), Siebel (2005) , Siebel and During (2006) 4
Liverworts (Marchantiophyta) IUCN 2017 Van Landuyt and De Beer (2017) Hill et al. (2007), Siebel (2005), Siebel and During (2006) 114
Mosses (Bryophyta) IUCN 2017 Van Landuyt and De Beer (2017) Hill et al. (2007), Siebel (2005), Siebel and During (2006) 399
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Non-validated Red Lists in Flanders (n = 19) with the criteria used (Expert judgement, Local or IUCN Red List criteria), the year of publication, the reference to the Red List and the number of species (nSpecies) included in the Red List.

Taxonomic group Criteria Year Reference nSpecies
Mammals (Mammalia) Expert judgement 1994 Criel (1994) 69
Waterbugs (Hemiptera – Gerromorpha, Nepomorpha) Expert judgement 1994 Bosmans (1994) 58
Waterbeetles (Coleoptera – Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Noteridae, Paelobiidae) Expert judgement 1994 Bosmans (1994) 139
Carabid beetles (Coleoptera – Carabidae) Local 1995 Desender et al. (1995) 368
Amphibians (Amphibia) Local 1996 Bauwens and Claus (1996) 14
Dragonflies (Odonata) Local 1996 De Knijf and Anselin (1996) 58
Reptiles (Reptilia) Local 1996 Bauwens and Claus (1996) 5
Fishes (Pisces) Local 1998 Vandelannoote and Coeck (1998) 55
Hoverflies (Diptera – Syrphidae) Local 1998 Meerhaeghe and Grootaert (1998) 265
Spiders (Araneae) Expert judgement 1998 Maelfait et al. (1998) 604
Breeding birds (Aves) Expert judgement 1999 Devos and Anselin (1999) 71
Macrofungi (Ascomycota, Basidiomycota) Local 1999 Walleyn and Verbeken (1999) 552
Dolichopodid flies (Diptera – Dolichopodidae) Local 2000 Pollet (2000) 260
Empidid flies (Diptera – Empididae, Hybotidae, Atelestidae, Brachystomatidae) Local 2001 Grootaert et al. (2001) 259
Waterbugs (Hemiptera – Gerromorpha, Nepomorpha) Local 2001 Bonte et al. (2001) 58
Ants (Hymenoptera – Formicidae) Local 2003 Dekoninck et al. (2003) 55
Land snails (Mollusca) Local 2006 van Loen et al. (2006) 120
Waterbeetles (Coleoptera – Dytiscidae) Local 2012 Scheers (2012) 106
Grasshoppers (Orthoptera) IUCN 2013 Lock et al. (2011) 45
Open in a new tab

Thirteen validated Red Lists have already been approved by the Minister of Environment, were published in the Belgian Official Gazette and thus acquired legal status (publication numbers 2011035522 and 2013204362; http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/doc/rech_n.htm). The procedure to have the six most recently validated Red Lists also approved by the Minister has been started (saproxylic beetles, breeding birds, grasshoppers, hornworts, liverworts and mosses – Table 1).

Finally, we added (life-history) traits (kingdom, environment, biotope, nutrient level, lifespan, mobility and cuddliness) to the species in the validated Red Lists based on regional sources on the biology and/or ecology of the different species groups (see references in Table 1). These life-history traits are explained in Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. The workflow for the compilation of the Red List database in Flanders is given in Fig. 1.

Table 5.

The taxonomic kingdom to which the different species groups belong.

Kingdom Description
Fungi Agaricomycetes, Geoglossomycetes, Leotiomycetes, Pezizomycetes, Sordariomycetes
Invertebrates Ants (Formicidae), Butterflies (Lepidoptera – Rhopalocera), Carabid beetles (Carabidae), Dolichopodid flies (Dolichopodidae), Dragonflies (Odonata), Empidid flies (Empididae, Hybotidae, Atelestidae, Brachystomatidae), Grasshoppers (Orthoptera), Hoverflies (Diptera – Syrphidae), Ladybirds (Coleoptera – Coccinellidae), Molluscs (Mollusca), Saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera – Cetoniidae, Dynastidae, Lucanidae), Spiders (Araneae), Waterbeetles (Coleoptera - Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Noteridae, Paelobiidae), Waterbugs (Hemiptera – Gerromorpha, Nepomorpha)
Plants Hornworts (Anthocerotophyta), Liverworts (Marchantiophyta), Mosses (Bryophyta), Vascular plants (Tracheophyta)
Vertebrates Amphibians (Amphibia), Breeding birds (Aves), Freshwater fishes (Pisces), Mammals (Mammalia), Reptilia (Reptilia)
Open in a new tab

Table 6.

Description of the environment in which each species occurs.

Environment Description
Aquatic The major part of the life cycle is in water
Epiphytic Living on trees (only liverworts and mosses)
Marine At least a part of the life cycle is in the sea
Semi-aquatic Water is necessary for hunting or breeding
Terrestrial The major part of the life cycle is on land
Open in a new tab

Table 7.

The biotope type in which each species occurs.

Biotope Description
Agriculture Arable fields, agricultural grasslands
Dunes Sandy shores and coastal dunes
Eurytopic No clear biotope preference or occurring in different biotope types
Grasslands Dry and wet semi-natural grasslands
Heathlands Dry and wet heathlands, (peat)bogs
Marine Sea
Marshes Wetlands, mires
Running waters Rivers, rivulets
Salt marshes Littoral sediment
Shrubs Scrubs
Standing waters Ponds, lakes, ditches
Urban Anthropogenic (buildings, gardens, cemeteries, railroads …), industrial sites
Woodlands Deciduous, coniferous and mixed woodlands
Open in a new tab

Table 8.

The nutrient level of the biotope in which each species occurs.

Nutrient level Description
Eutrophic The biotope in which the species occurs has a high nutrient level
Mesotrophic The biotope in which the species occurs has an intermediate nutrient level
Oligotrophic The biotope in which the species occurs has a low nutrient level
Open in a new tab

Table 9.

The lifespan of each species.

Lifespan Description
Longlived The species lives ≥ 3 years
Shortlived The species lives < 3 years
Open in a new tab

Table 10.

The dispersal capacity of each species.

Mobility Description
Mobile The dispersal capacity of the species is ≥ 5 km
Sedentary The dispersal capacity of the species is < 5 km
Open in a new tab

Table 11.

The cuddliness of each species.

Cuddliness Description
Cuddly The species is considered cuddly
Non cuddly The species is considered non-cuddly (spiny, dangerous, venomous, predator)
Open in a new tab

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Workflow for the compilation of the Red List database in Flanders (northern Belgium).

We will update the database regularly, i.e. whenever new Red Lists are published and/or new information on the life-history traits of the assessed species becomes available. We also aim to reassess all Red Lists (using IUCN criteria) of taxonomic groups for which only local criteria were applied in the past (e.g. carabid beetles, dragonflies, vascular plants).

Additional information

Red Lists are usually published as reports from the Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), but some of them remained unpublished and were only available for internal use (waterbeetles – Bosmans 1994, waterbugs – Bosmans 1994; Bonte et al. 2001, hoverflies – Meerhaeghe and Grootaert 1998, land snails – van Loen et al. 2006). Other Red Lists were published as part of (provisional) distribution atlases (amphibians and reptiles – Bauwens and Claus 1996, freshwater fishes – Vandelannoote and Coeck 1998, grasshoppers – Decleer et al. 2000, ants – Dekoninck et al. 2003, breeding birds – Devos et al. 2004, dragonflies – De Knijf 2006, vascular plants – Van Landuyt et al. 2006), as dissertation projects (waterbeetles – Scheers 2012) or as papers in local (spiders – Maelfait et al. 1998, waterbugs – Lock et al. 2013) or international journals (butterflies – Maes et al. 2012, freshwater fishes – Verreycken et al. 2014, ladybirds - Adriaens et al. 2015). In this database, we bring together all the threat statuses of all the species mentioned in the published and unpublished Red Lists since 1994 in Flanders.

Since 1994, 38 Red Lists have been compiled in Flanders. In total, this concerned 6,224 records of 5,039 unique species – in some cases listed in consecutive Red Lists - pertaining to 24 taxonomic groups. Most of the older Red Lists (1994-1999) used expert judgement without quantitative analyses to classify species into Red List categories: mammals (Criel 1994), waterbugs (Bosmans 1994), waterbeetles (Bosmans 1994), spiders (Maelfait et al. 1998) and breeding birds (Devos and Anselin 1999). After the publication of local Red List criteria (Maes et al. 1995), Red Lists were compiled using a combination of rarity and decline (Maes and van Swaay 1997). Since 2011, however, IUCN criteria for regional use (IUCN 2003) were adopted in Flanders (Maes et al. 2011) and since then, all Red Lists were compiled using the IUCN criteria. The main difference between local and IUCN criteria is that IUCN criteria allow species to be classified based on declining trends (criterion A), rarity or small population sizes only (criterion B, C or D), while in the previously used local criteria, a species could only be classified as threatened when it had both a declining (distribution or population) trend and when the species had a limited distribution.

Geographic coverage

Description

Flanders covers an area of 13,522 km² and is the northern administrative region of Belgium Fig. 2. The bounding box of Flanders is 50.67N to 51.51N latitude and 2.53E to 5.94E longitude. It represents 45% of Belgian territory and is largely covered by agricultural land and urban areas. Only 15% of Flemish territory is covered by (semi-)natural areas (e.g. woodlands, wetlands, heathlands, grasslands). With 481 inhabitants per km², Flanders is one of the most densely populated areas in Europe.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

The location of Flanders (in black) within Belgium (in grey) in NW Europe. The white area within Flanders is the Brussels-Capital Region.

Coordinates

50.67 and 51.51 Latitude; 5.94 and 2.53 Longitude.

Traits coverage

RLCAsPublished and RLC_IUCN

The Red List category as published (RLCAsPublished) in the original Red Lists, mostly in Dutch, are given in Table 3, as well as their translation into the Red List category (RLC_IUCN) according to the IUCN Red List categories (IUCN 2003). Depending on the Red List categories used, the original Red List categories can be translated into different IUCN categories and vice versa.

Table 3.

Translation of published Red List category name into IUCN Red List categories.

RLCAsPublished RLC_IUCN IUCN Category
Achteruitgaand NT Near Threatened
Bedreigd EN Endangered
Bedreigd VU Vulnerablea
Bedreigd, maar mate waarin ongekend DD Data Deficient
Bedreigd, maar niet gekend in welke mate DD Data Deficient
Bijna in gevaar NT Near Threatened
Critically endangered CR Critically Endangered
Endangered EN Endangered
Ernstig bedreigd CR Critically Endangered
Geografisch beperkt NT Near Threatened
Kwetsbaar VU Vulnerable
Least concern LC Least Concern
Met uitsterven bedreigd CR Critically Endangered
Met verdwijning bedreigd CR Critically Endangered
Momenteel niet bedreigd LC Least Concern
Momenteel niet in gevaar LC Least Concern
Near threatened NT Near Threatened
Niet bedreigd LC Least Concern
Niet geëvalueerd NE Not Evaluated
Niet van toepassing NA Not Applicable
Niet-inheemse broedvogel NA Not Applicable
Not assessed NE Not Evaluated
Onregelmatige broedvogel NE Not Evaluated
Onvoldoende data DD Data Deficient
Onvoldoende gekend DD Data Deficient
Regionaal uitgestorven RE Regionally Extinct
Regionally extinct RE Regionally Extinct
Sterk bedreigd EN Endangered
Uitgestorven RE Regionally Extinct
Uitgestorven in Vlaanderen RE Regionally Extinct
Vatbaar voor bedreiging NT Near Threatened
Verdwenen RE Regionally Extinct
Verdwenen uit Vlaanderen en het Brussels Gewest RE Regionally Extinct
Vermoedelijk bedreigd DD Data Deficient
Vulnerable VU Vulnerable
Waarschijnlijk bedreigd DD Data Deficient
Zeldzaam NT Near Threatened
Zeldzaam (vrij zeldzaam) NT Near Threatened
Zeldzaam (zeer zeldzaam) NT Near Threatened
Zeldzaam (zeldzaam) NT Near Threatened
Open in a new tab

Criteria

The criteria used to compile the Red Lists (Table 4).

Table 4.

Criteria used for the Red List assessments in Flanders.

Criteria Description
Expert judgement The Red List was compiled on the basis of expert knowledge about rarity and trend without the use of quantitative criteria
Local Quantitative local criteria were used (Maes et al. 1995)
IUCN Quantitative IUCN criteria were used (Maes et al. 2011)
Open in a new tab

Kingdom

The taxonomic kingdom to which a species belongs (Fungi, Invertebrates, Plants, Vertebrates – Table 5).

Environment

The environment in which the species occurs (Aquatic, Epiphytic, Marine, Semi-aquatic, Terrestrial – Table 6).

Biotope

The preferred biotope in which the species occurs in Flanders (northern Belgium) (Table 7). This is based on broad biotope classifications used in the land use map of Flanders (Gobin et al. 2009) and in Corine Land Cover (Version 18.5.1) or Natura2000 habitats (Council Directive 92/43/EEC). For species occurring in two different biotope types, both biotopes are given in the dataset.

NutrientLevel

The nutrient level of the biotope in which the species occurs (Eutrophic, Mesotrophic, Oligotrophic – Table 8).

Lifespan

The longevity of the species (Table 9). We arbitrarily choose 3 years to discriminate between longlived and shortlived species.

Mobility

The dispersal capacities of the species (Table 10) We arbitrarily choose 5 kilometres to discriminate between mobile and sedentary species.

Cuddliness

Whether the species is considered cuddly or not (Stokes 2007) (Table 11). This information is only given for animals (invertebrates and vertebrates).

Temporal coverage

Notes

All Flemish Red Lists compiled between 1994 and 2018.

Usage rights

Use license

Creative Commons Public Domain Waiver (CC-Zero)

Data resources

Data package title

Validated & non-validated Red Lists of Flanders, Belgium

Number of data sets

2

Data set 1.

Data set name

Non-validated Red List of Flanders, Belgium

Data format

DwC-A

Number of columns

2

Character set

UTF-8

Download URL

https://doi.org/10.15468/54nwog

Description

The Non-validated Red Lists of Flanders, Belgium is a species checklist dataset published by the Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO). It includes 3,161 taxa from 19 Flemish Red Lists that are considered non-validated, i.e. which did not use quantitative criteria and a representative sample of occurrences across all ecological regions in Flanders (Maes et al. 2015) for Red List assessment. Here, this compilation is published as a standardised Darwin Core Archive and includes for each taxon: the scientific name, higher classification (provided by the GBIF Backbone Taxonomy, https://doi.org/10.15468/39omei), stable taxon identifier and Dutch vernacular name (in the taxon core) and the Red List category in Flanders as published, its IUCN equivalent and year of assessment (respectively, in occurrenceRemarks, threatStatus and eventDate in the distribution extension). Issues with the dataset can be reported at: https://github.com/inbo/rl-flanders-checklist.

Data set 1.
Column label Column description
Taxon core http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Taxon
Distribution extension http://rs.gbif.org/terms/1.0/Distribution
Open in a new tab

Data set 2.

Data set name

Validated Red Lists of Flanders, Belgium

Data format

DwC-A

Number of columns

3

Character set

UTF-8

Download URL

https://doi.org/10.15468/8tk3tk

Description

The Validated Red Lists of Flanders, Belgium is a species checklist dataset published by the Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO). It includes 3,063 taxa from 19 Flemish Red Lists that are considered validated, i.e. which used quantitative criteria and a representative sample of occurrences across all ecological regions in Flanders (Maes et al. 2015) for Red List assessment. Here, this compilation is published as a standardised Darwin Core Archive and includes for each taxon: the scientific name, higher classification (provided by the GBIF Backbone Taxonomy, https://doi.org/10.15468/39omei), stable taxon identifier and Dutch vernacular name (in the taxon core), the Red List category in Flanders as published, its IUCN equivalent and year of assessment (respectively, in occurrenceRemarks, threatStatus and eventDate in the distribution extension) and the life-history traits environment, biotope, cuddliness, lifespan, mobility, nutrient level and spine (in the description extension). Issues with the dataset can be reported at: https://github.com/inbo/rl-flanders-checklist.

Data set 2.
Column label Column description
Taxon core http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Taxon
Distribution extension http://rs.gbif.org/terms/1.0/Distribution
Description extension http://rs.gbif.org/extension/gbif/1.0/description.xml
Open in a new tab

Acknowledgements

We thank all volunteers for collecting distribution data with which the different Red Lists were compiled. Marc Pollet is kindly thanked for very helpful and constructive comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. We also thank Svenja Halfter, Tamires Zepon and Paulo Borges for their constructive comments on the manuscript.

Contributor Information

Dirk Maes, Email: dirk.maes@inbo.be.

Dimitri Brosens, Email: dimitri.brosens@inbo.be.

Author contributions

DM compiled the database and FT thoroughly checked all entries in the database, DB, FP and SVH checked the species names against the GBIF Backbone Taxonomy and DB and PD standardised and published the data as a Darwin Core Archive. TA (dragonflies, grasshoppers, ladybirds), WD (carabid beetles), KD (breeding birds), KL (grasshoppers, waterbeetles, waterbugs), DM (butterflies), TO (mammals - bats), JP (molluscs), JS (amphibians and reptiles), AT (saproxylic beetles), KVDB (mammals), WVL (hornworts, liverworts, mosses, vascular plants) and HV (freshwater fishes) provided the life-history traits for the different taxonomic groups. All authors assisted in the writing of the manuscript.

References

  1. Adriaens T., Maes D. Voorlopige verspreidingsatlas van lieveheersbeestjes in Vlaanderen, resultaten van het lieveheersbeestjesproject van de jeugdbonden. Bertram. 2004;2(1bis):1–72. [Google Scholar]
  2. Adriaens T., San Martin y Gomez G., Maes D. Invasion history, habitat preferences and phenology of the invasive ladybird Harmonia axyridis in Belgium. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10526-007-9137-6. BioControl. 2008;53(1):69–88. doi: 10.1007/s10526-007-9137-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Adriaens T., San Martin y Gomez G., Bogaert J., Crevecoeur L., Beuckx J. P., Maes D. Testing the applicability of regional IUCN Red List criteria on ladybirds (Coleoptera, Coccinellidae) in Flanders (north Belgium): opportunities for conservation. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/icad.12124/full. Insect Conservation and Diversity. 2015;8(5):404–417. doi: 10.1111/icad.12124. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Aukema B., Cuppen J. G. M., Nieser N., Tempelman D. Verspreidingsatlas Nederlandse wantsen (Hemiptera: Heteroptera). Deel I: Dipsocoromorpha, Nepomorpha, Gerromorpha & Leptopodomorpha. EIS Nederland; Leiden: 2002. [Google Scholar]
  5. Baugnée J. Y., Branquart E., Maes D., Segers S. Velddeterminatietabel voor de lieveheersbeestjes van België en Nederland (Chilocorinae, Coccinellinae, Epilachninae & Coccidulinae): herziene druk met larventabel. Jeugdbond voor Natuur en Milieu, Jeunes & Nature asbl i.s.m. het Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek; Gent/Wavre/Brussel: 2011. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bauwens D., Claus K. Verspreiding van amfibieën en reptielen in Vlaanderen. De Wielewaal; Turnhout: 1996. [Google Scholar]
  7. Biesbrouck B., Es K., Van Landuyt W., Vanhecke L., Hermy M., Van den Bremt P. Een ecologisch register voor hogere planten als instrument voor het natuurbehoud in Vlaanderen. Flo.Wer vzw, Instituut voor Natuurbehoud, Nationale Plantentuin van België, KULeuven; Brussel: 2001. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bonte D., Vandomme V., Muylaert J., Bosmans R. Een gedocumenteerde Rode Lijst van de water- en oppervlaktewantsen van Vlaanderen [unpublished report] Universiteit Gent; Gent: 2001. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bosmans R. Een gedocumenteerde Rode lijst van de waterkevers en waterwantsen van Vlaanderen, met inbegrip van enkele case studies [unpublished report] Laboratorium voor Dierenecologie, Biogeografie en Natuurbehoud; Gent: 1994. [Google Scholar]
  10. Brooke M. D., Butchart S. H. M., Garnett S. T., Crowley G. M., Mantilla-Beniers N. B., Stattersfield A. Rates of movement of threatened bird species between IUCN red list Categories and toward extinction. ISI:000254796800024. Conservation Biology. 2008;22(2):417–427. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00905.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Brooks T. M., Akcakaya H. R., Burgess N. D., Butchart S. H. M., Hilton-Taylor C., Hoffmann M., Juffe-Bignoli D., Kingston N., MacSharry B., Parr M., Perianin L., Regan E. C., Rodrigues A. S. L., Rondinini C., Shennan-Farpon Y., Young B. E. Analysing biodiversity and conservation knowledge products to support regional environmental assessments. <Go to ISI>://WOS:000390212900001. Scientific Data. 2016;3 doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Criel D. Rode lijst van de zoogdieren in Vlaanderen. AMINAL; Brussel: 1994. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cuppen J., Kalkman V. J., Tacoma-Krist G. Verspreiding, biotoop en fenologie van de Nederlandse lieveheersbeestjes (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) Entomologische Berichten. 2017;77(3):147–188. [Google Scholar]
  14. Decleer K., Devriese H., Hofmans K., Lock K., Barenburg B., Maes D. Voorlopige atlas en ''rode lijst'' van de sprinkhanen en krekels van België (Insecta, Orthoptera) IN.2000/10. SALTABEL i.s.m. IN en KBIN; Brussel: 2000. [Google Scholar]
  15. De Knijf G., Anselin A. Een gedocumenteerde Rode lijst van de libellen van Vlaanderen. Vol. 4. Instituut voor Natuurbehoud; Brussel: 1996. [Google Scholar]
  16. De Knijf G. De Rode Lijst van de libellen in Vlaanderen. In: De Knijf G., Anselin A., Goffart P., Tailly M., editors. De libellen (Odonata) van België: verspreiding - evolutie - habitats. Libellenwerkgroep Gomphus ism Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek; Brussel: 2006. 16 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dekoninck W., Vankerkhoven F., Maelfait J. P. Verspreidingsatlas en voorlopige Rode Lijst van de mieren van Vlaanderen. IN.R.2003.7. Instituut voor Natuurbehoud; Brussel: 2003. [Google Scholar]
  18. Desender K., Maes D., Maelfait J. P., Van Kerckvoorde M. Een gedocumenteerde Rode Lijst van de zandloopkevers en loopkevers van Vlaanderen. Vol. 1. Instituut voor Natuurbehoud; Brussel: 1995. [Google Scholar]
  19. Desender K., Dekoninck W., Maes D. An updated Red List of the ground and tiger beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in Flanders (Belgium) Bulletin van het Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen, Entomologie. 2008;78:113–131. [Google Scholar]
  20. Desender K., Dekoninck W., Maes D., Crevecoeur L., Dufrêne M., Jacobs M., Lambrechts J., Pollet M., Stassen E., Thys N. Een nieuwe verspreidingsatlas van de loopkevers en zandloopkevers (Carabidae) in België. INBO.R.2008.13. Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek & Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen; Brussel: 2008. [Google Scholar]
  21. Devos K., Anselin A. Broedvogels. In: Kuijken E., editor. Natuurrapport. Toestand van de natuur in Vlaanderen: cijfers voor het beleid. Instituut voor Natuurbehoud; Brussel: 1999. 3 [Google Scholar]
  22. Devos K., Anselin A., Vermeersch G. Een nieuwe Rode Lijst van de broedvogels in Vlaanderen (versie 2004) In: Vermeersch G., Anselin A., Devos K., Herremans M., Stevens J., Gabriëls J., Van Der Krieken B., editors. Atlas van de Vlaamse broedvogels 2000-2002. Instituut voor Natuurbehoud; Brussel: 2004. 15 [Google Scholar]
  23. Devos K., Anselin A., Driessens G., Herremans M., Onkelinx T., Spanoghe G., Stienen E. W. M., T'Jollyn F., Vermeersch G., Maes D. De IUCN Rode-Lijst van de broedvogels in Vlaanderen (2016) https://www.natuurpunt.be/sites/default/files/documents/publication/natuur.oriolus_2016-4_de_iucn_rode_lijst_van_de_broedvogels_in_vlaanderen.pdf Natuur.oriolus. 2016;82(4):109–122. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ellenberg H., Weber H. E., Dll R., Wirth V., Werner W., Paulissen D. Zeigerwerte van Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Erich Goltze Verlag; Gttingen: 1992. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fitzpatrick U., Murray T. E., Paxton R. J., Brown M. J. F. Building on IUCN regional red lists to produce lists of species of conservation priority: a model with Irish bees. ISI:000250008700023. Conservation Biology. 2007;21(5):1324–1332. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00782.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Government Flemish. Soortenbesluit. https://codex.vlaanderen.be/Portals/Codex/documenten/1018227.html. [2019-01-18T00:00:00+02:00];
  27. secretariat GBIF. GBIF Taxonomic Backbone. [2019-02-22T00:00:00+02:00]; doi: 10.15468/39omei. [DOI]
  28. Gobin A., Uljee I., Van Esch L., Engelen G., de Kok J., van der Kwast H., Hens M., Van Daele T., Peymen J., Van Reeth W., Overloop S., Maes F. Landgebruik in Vlaanderen. 2009 (20) Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek; Brussel: 2009. [Google Scholar]
  29. Grootaert P., Pollet M., Maes D. A Red Data Book of Empidid Flies of Flanders (northern Belgium) (Diptera, Empididae s.l.): constraints and possible use in nature conservation. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1011315313330. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2001;5(2):117–129. doi: 10.1023/A:1011315313330. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hill M. O., Preston C. D., Roy D. B. PLANTATT. Attributes of British and Irish Plants: Status, Size, Life History, Geography and Habitats. Biological Record Centre. NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire: 2004. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hill M. O., Preston C. D., Bosanquet S. D. S., Roy D. B. BRYOATT: attributes of British and Irish mosses, liverworts and hornworts. Centre For Ecology And Hydrology; Monks Wood: 2007. [Google Scholar]
  32. Homburg Katharina, Homburg Nils, Schäfer Florian, Schuldt Andreas, Assmann Thorsten. Carabids.org – a dynamic online database of ground beetle species traits (Coleoptera, Carabidae) Insect Conservation and Diversity. 2014;7(3):195–205. doi: 10.1111/icad.12045. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. International , BirdLife. Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. Vol. 12. BirdLife International; Cambridge, UK: 2004. [Google Scholar]
  34. IUCN . Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels: Version 3.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission, IUCN; Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: 2003. [Google Scholar]
  35. IUCN/SSC . Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. Version 1.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission; Gland, Switzerland: 2013. [Google Scholar]
  36. Jeppsson T., Forslund P. Species' traits explain differences in Red list status and long-term population trends in longhorn beetles. Animal Conservation. 2014;17(4):332–341. doi: 10.1111/acv.12099. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Jooris R., Engelen P., Speybroeck J., Lewylle I., Louette G., Bauwens D., Maes D. De IUCN Rode Lijst van de amfibieën en reptielen in Vlaanderen. INBO.R.2012.22. Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek; Brussel: 2012. [Google Scholar]
  38. Jooris R., Engelen P., Speybroeck J., Lewylle I., Louette G., Bauwens D., Maes D. De amfibieën en reptielen van Vlaanderen. Recente verspreiding en toelichting bij de nieuwe Rode Lijst. 2013/6. Natuurpunt Studie; Mechelen: 2013. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kleukers R., van Nieukerken E., Odé B., Willemse L., van Wingerden W. K. R. E. De Sprinkhanen en Krekels van Nederland (Orthoptera) Vol. 1. Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, KNNV Uitgeverij & EIS-Nederland; Leiden: 1997. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kottelat M., Freyhof J. Handbook of European freshwater fishes. Publications Kottelat; Cornol, Switzerland: 2007. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lamoreux J., Akçakaya H. R., Bennun L., Collar N. J., Boitani L., Brackett D., Brautigam A., Brooks T. M., de Fonseca G. A. B., Mittermeier R. A., Rylands A. B., Gärdenfors U., Hilton-Taylor C., Mace G., Stein B. A., Stuart S. Value of the IUCN Red List. ISI:000183117100004. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2003;18(5):214–215. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00090-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Laycock H. F., Moran D., Smart J. C. R., Raffaelli D. G., White P. C. L. Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation spending. <Go to ISI>://WOS:000293262000010. Ecological Economics. 2011;70(10):1789–1796. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.05.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Lock K., Adriaens T., Devriese H., San Martin y Gomez G., Decleer K. Updated red lists of grasshoppers and crickets (Orthoptera) in Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia. Bulletin de la Société royale belge d'Entomologie. 2011;147:211–225. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lock K., Stoffelen E., Vercauteren T., Bosmans R., Adriaens T. Updated Red List of the water bugs of Flanders (Belgium) (Hemiptera: Gerromorpha & Nepomorpha) Bulletin de la Société royale belge d’Entomologie/Bulletin van de Koninklijke Belgische Vereniging voor Entomologie. 2013;149:57–63. [Google Scholar]
  45. Mace G. M., Collar N. J., Gaston K. J., Hilton-Taylor C., Akçakaya H. R., Leader-Williams N., Milner-Gulland E. J., Stuart S. N. Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN's system for classifying threatened species. ISI:000261395700018. Conservation Biology. 2008;22(6):1424–1442. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01044.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Maelfait J. P., Baert L., Janssen M., Alderweireldt M. A Red list for the spiders of Flanders. Bulletin van het Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen, Entomologie. 1998;68:131–142. [Google Scholar]
  47. Maes D., Maelfait J. P., Kuijken E. Rode lijsten: een onmisbaar instrument in het moderne Vlaamse natuurbehoud. Wielewaal. 1995;61(5):149–156. [Google Scholar]
  48. Maes D., van Swaay C. A. M. A new methodology for compiling national Red Lists applied on butterflies (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera) in Flanders (N-Belgium) and in The Netherlands. Journal of Insect Conservation. 1997;1(2):113–124. doi: 10.1023/A:1018491228082. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Maes D., Van Dyck H. Butterfly diversity loss in Flanders (north Belgium): Europe's worst case scenario? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320700001828. Biological Conservation. 2001;99(3):263–276. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00182-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Maes D., Decleer K., De Bruyn L., Hoffmann M. Nieuwe Rode-Lijstcategorieën en -criteria voor Vlaanderen. Een aanpassing aan de internationale IUCN standaarden. Natuur.focus. 2011;10(2):54–61. [Google Scholar]
  51. Maes D., Vanreusel W., Jacobs I., Berwaerts K., Van Dyck H. Applying IUCN Red List criteria at a small regional level: A test case with butterflies in Flanders (north Belgium) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320711004393. Biological Conservation. 2012;145(1):258–266. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Maes D., Vanreusel W., Van Dyck H. Dagvlinders in Vlaanderen: nieuwe kennis voor betere actie. Uitgeverij Lannoo nv; Tielt: 2013. [Google Scholar]
  53. Maes D., Baert K., Boers K., Casaer J., Crevecoeur L., Criel D., Dekeukeleire D., Gouwy J., Gyselings R., Haelters J., Herman D., Herremans M., Lefebvre J., Lefevre A., Onkelinx T., Stuyck J., Thomaes A., Van Den Berge K., Vandendriessche B., Verbeylen G., Vercayie D. De IUCN Rode Lijst van de zoogdieren in Vlaanderen. INBO.R.2014.1828211. Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek; Brussel: 2014. [Google Scholar]
  54. Maes D., Isaac N. B., Harrower C., Collen B., van Strien A., Roy D. B. The use of opportunistic data for IUCN Red List assessments. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bij.12530/full. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2015;115(3):690–706. doi: 10.1111/bij.12530. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Maes D., Adriaens T., Decleer K., Foquet B., Foquet R., Lambrechts J., Lock K., Piesschaert F. IUCN Rode Lijst van de sprinkhanen en krekels in Vlaanderen. 2017 (29) Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek; Brussel: 2017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Maes D., Verovnik R., Wiemers M., Brosens D., Beshkov S., Bonelli S., Buszko J., Cantú Salazar L., Cassar L. F., Collins S., Dincă Vlad, Djuric M., Dusej G., Elven H., Franeta F., Garcia Pereira P., Geryak Y., Goffart P., Gór A., Hiermann U., Höttinger H., Huemer P., Jakšić P., John E., Kalivoda H., Kati V., Komac B., Kőrösi A., Kulak A. V., Kuussaari M., L’Hoste L., Lelo S., Mestdagh X., Micevski N., Mihut S., Monasterio León Y., Munguira M. L., Murray T., Nielsen P. S., Ólafsson E., Õunap E., Pamperis L., Pavlíčko A., Pettersson L. B., Popov S., Popović M., Ryrholm N., Šašić M., Pöyry J., Savenkov N., Settele J., Sielezniew M., Sinev S., Stefanescu C., Švitra G., Tammaru T., Tiitsaar A., Tzirkalli E., Tzortzakaki O., van Swaay C. A. M., Viborg A. L., Wynhoff I., Zografou K., Warren M. S. Integrating national Red Lists for prioritising conservation actions for European butterflies. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2019;in press(Special Issue Butterfly Conservation 2018) doi: 10.1007/s10841-019-00127-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. McCarthy M. A., Thompson C. J., Garnett S. T. Optimal investment in conservation of species. <Go to ISI>://WOS:000259788100014. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2008;45(5):1428–1435. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01521.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Meerhaeghe A., Grootaert P. Een gedocumenteerde Rode lijst van de zweefvliegen in Vlaanderen [unpublished report] Instituut voor Natuurbehoud; Brussel: 1998. [Google Scholar]
  59. Pollet M. Een gedocumenteerde Rode lijst van de slankpootvliegen (Dolichopodidae) van Vlaanderen. Vol. 8. Instituut voor Natuurbehoud; Brussel: 2000. [Google Scholar]
  60. Rodrigues A. S. L., Pilgrim J. D., Lamoreux J. F., Hoffmann M., Brooks T. M. The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. ISI:000235463300008. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2006;21(2):71–76. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Roy H. E., Brown P. M. J., Frost R., Poland R. Ladybirds (Coccinellidae) of Britain and Ireland. Biological Record Centre; Wallingford, UK: 2011. [Google Scholar]
  62. Scheers K. Rode lijst en verspreidingsonderzoek van de waterroofkevers (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) van Vlaanderen. Hogeschool Van Hall Larenstein; Velp: 2012. [Google Scholar]
  63. Siebel H., During H. Beknopte Mosflora van Nederland en België. KNNV Uitgeverij; Zeist: 2006. [Google Scholar]
  64. Siebel H. N. Indicatie waarden van mossen. BLWG; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  65. Stieperaere H., Fransen K. Standaardlijst van de Belgische vaatplanten, met aanduiding van hun zeldzaamheid en socio-oecologische groep. Dumortiera. 1982;22:1–14. [Google Scholar]
  66. Stoffelen E., Henderickx H., Vercauteren T., Lock K., Bosmans R. De water- en oppervlaktewantsen van België (Hemiptera, Heteroptera: Nepomorpha & Gerromorpha). Determinatiesleutels, beschrijvingen en foto's van de volwassen water- en oppervlaktewantsen. Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen; Brussels: 2013. [Google Scholar]
  67. Stokes D. L. Things we like: human preferences among similar organisms and implication for conservation. Human Ecology. 2007;35(3):361–369. doi: 10.1007/s10745-006-9056-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Thomaes A., Drumont A., Crevecoeur L., Maes D. Rode lijst van de saproxyle bladsprietkevers (Lucanidae, Cetoniidae en Dynastidae) in Vlaanderen. INBO.R.2015.7843021. Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek; Brussel: 2015. [Google Scholar]
  69. Trochet Audrey, Moulherat Sylvain, Calvez Olivier, Stevens Virginie M., Clobert Jean, Schmeller Dirk S. A database of life-history traits of European amphibians. Biodiversity Data Journal. 2014;2 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.2.e4123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Turin H. De Nederlandse loopkevers, verspreiding en oecologie (Coleoptera: Carabidae) Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum Naturalis, KNNV Uitgeverij & EIS-Nederland; Leiden: 2000. [Google Scholar]
  71. Vandelannoote A., Coeck J. Rode lijst van de inheemse en ingeburgerde zoet- en brakwatersoorten en van de rondbekken in Vlaanderen. In: Vandelannoote A., Yseboodt R., Bruylants B., Verheyen R. F., Coeck J., Maes J., Belpaire C., Van Thuyne G., Denayer B., Beyens J., De Charleroy D., Vandenabeele P., editors. Atlas van de Vlaamse beek- en riviervissen. Water-Energik-vLario; Wijnegem: 1998. 5 [Google Scholar]
  72. Vandelannoote A., Yseboodt R., Bruylants B., Verheyen R. F., Coeck J., Maes J., Belpaire C., Van Thuyne G., Denayer B., Beyens J., De Charleroy D., Vandenabeele P. Atlas van de Vlaamse beek- en riviervissen. Water-Energik-vLario; Wijnegem: 1998. [Google Scholar]
  73. Van Emmerik W. A. M., De Nie H. W. De zoetwatervissen van Nederland. Ecologisch bekeken. Sportvisserij Nederland; Bilthoven: 2006. [Google Scholar]
  74. Van Landuyt W., Hoste I., Vanhecke L. Rode Lijst van de vaatplanten van Vlaanderen en het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest. In: Van Landuyt W., Hoste I., Vanhecke L., Van den Bremt P., Vercruysse W., De Beer D., editors. Atlas van de Flora van Vlaanderen en het Brussels Gewest. Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek, Nationale Plantentuin van België & Flo.Wer.; Brussel: 2006. 12 [Google Scholar]
  75. Van Landuyt W., De Beer D. Een Rode Lijst van de hauwmossen (Anthocerotophyta), levermossen (Marchantiophyta) en bladmossen (Bryophyta) van Vlaanderen. 2017 (48) Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek; Brussel: 2017. [Google Scholar]
  76. van Loen H., Jordaens K., Backeljau T. Gedocumenteerde Rode Lijst en Naamlijst van de landslakken van Vlaanderen en Brussel [unpublished report] Onderzoeksopdracht IN/JPM/97002. Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek, Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen, Universiteit Antwerpen; Brussel, Antwerpen: 2006. [Google Scholar]
  77. Verkem S., De Maeseneer J., Vandendriessche B., Verbeylen G., Yskout S. Zoogdieren in Vlaanderen. Ecologie en verspreiding van 1987 tot 2002. Natuurpunt Studie & JNM-Zoogdierenwerkgroep; Mechelen: 2003. [Google Scholar]
  78. Vermeersch G., Anselin A., Devos K., Herremans M., Stevens J., Gabriëls J., Van Der Krieken B. Atlas van de Vlaamse broedvogels 2000-2002. Instituut voor Natuurbehoud; Brussel: 2004. [Google Scholar]
  79. Verreycken H., Belpaire C., Van Thuyne G., Breine J., Buysse D., Coeck J., Mouton A., Stevens M., Vandenneucker T., De Bruyn L., Maes D. An IUCN Red List of lampreys and freshwater fishes in Flanders (north Belgium) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fme.12052/full. Fisheries Management and Ecology. 2014;21(2):122–132. doi: 10.1111/fme.12052. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. voor Libellenstudie , Nederlandse Vereniging. De Nederlandse libellen (Odonata) Koninklijke Nederlandse Natuurhistorische Vereniging (KNNV); Krikken,J., Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum; European Invertebrate Survey; Utrecht; Leiden: 2002. [Google Scholar]
  81. Walleyn R., Verbeken A. Een gedocumenteerde Rode Lijst van enkele groepen paddestoelen (macrofungi) van Vlaanderen. Vol. 7. Instituut voor Natuurbehoud; Brussel: 1999. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Biodiversity Data Journal are provided here courtesy of Pensoft Publishers

RESOURCES