Re

view

Recent progress in conservation of threatened Spanish vascularflora: a critical review

Juan Carlos Moreno Saiza,*, Felipe Domınguez Lozanob,c, Helios Sainz Olleroa

aDepartamento de Biologıa (Botanica), Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco, E-28049 Madrid, SpainbArea de Medio Ambiente, TRAGSA. Ctra. de Toledo, km 6,8. E-28916 Leganes (Madrid), Spain

cDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy, One Shields Avenue, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA

Abstract

The transfer of legal responsibilities from the Central Government to the Autonomous Communities ended a tradition of paying littleattention to endangered Spanish flora. The studies undertaken to implement the European Natura 2000 network, and to prepare

regional ‘Red Data Books’ and lists of protected flora offered a much better view of which species were really at risk. As a consequence, agrowing number of botanists is now involved in different aspects of conservation biology. The recent publication of a new Spanish RedList of vascular flora has provided the groundwork for the so-called ‘Threatened Flora Atlas’ project, which will update and homogenisethe information on 500 taxa at risk. This project will produce a new Spanish Red Book and monitor the status of 40 selected species. The

Spanish strategy for plant conservation is discussed, pointing out some deficiencies, such as the neglect of non-vascular taxa, the unevenand sometimes uncoordinated local policies and the uncertain future of some current initiatives.# 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Plant conservation; Vascular flora; Legislation; Recovery plans; Spain

0006-3207/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00128-9

Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 419–431

www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon

Contents

1. Background ................................................................................................................................................................................ 420

2. The process of cataloguing threatened species ...........................................................................................................................421

2.1. National policies................................................................................................................................................................ 4212.2. Regional policies with European support..........................................................................................................................421

3. Recovery plans ........................................................................................................................................................................... 425

4. Research and most recent projects .............................................................................................................................................425

4.1. The new Spanish red list....................................................................................................................................................4264.2. The endangered flora atlas ................................................................................................................................................426

5. A strategy for the future ............................................................................................................................................................ 427

Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................................................................... 429

References ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 429

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: jcarlos.moreno@uam.es (J.C. Moreno Saiz).

1. Background

Spain was one of the countries to commit themselvesto the nature conservation movement that was born inthe USA and Europe. The Junta de Parques Nacionales(National Parks Board) was set up in 1917 to ensure thecataloguing and protection of natural spaces. TwoNational Parks, Parque Nacional de la Montana deCovadonga and Parque Nacional del Valle de Ordesa,were declared one year later, primarily on the basis oftheir cultural and scenic value rather than on their nat-uralistic value. Other natural spaces were proposed bysome botanists of that time, such as Pıo Font Quer whosuggested the mountain of Montseny (near Barcelona)in 1927, and his student, Jose Cuatrecasas, who putforward the Palmeral de Elche (Alicante) in 1931. Nogreat interest was, as yet, shown in the cataloguing andconservation of threatened plants, except for one studyconcerning the island of Tenerife (Cabrera, 1906). Noneof these botanical initiatives resulted in the adoption ofconcrete measures due to the Spanish Civil War and thecultural and scientific ‘desert’ that followed in sub-sequent years.

It was not until several decades later that the firstarticles on threatened species were published, such asthat describing the situation of Iberian populations ofTetraclinis articulata (Vahl) Masters (Rigual and Esteve,1953), or that describing the first attempt to reintroduceLysimachia minoricensis J.J. Rodr. (Bolos, 1962), extinctin the wild but conserved in botanical gardens. Duringthese years, certain Spanish botanists became involvedin international projects such as Flora Europaea. Thekey question of how to protect the rich botanical heri-tage in Spain became an interest for some of them (cf.Fernandez Galiano, 1971).

In 1972, after the Spanish dictatorship became lessautocratic, ICONA (National Institute for NatureConservation) was set up as part of the Spanish Minis-try of Agriculture. This was the first official sign of new

attitudes towards nature. ICONA continued to declareprotected natural areas (cf. Morillo and Gomez Campo,2000), but its main efforts and most of its staff focusedon the management of State forests. At first, no catalo-guing of threatened plants species was undertaken,except in the Canary Islands where there was a betteragreement among the different lobbies. Thus, Kunkel(1977a,b, 1978) was given funding to study Canariannational parks and to produce what may be consideredthe first Red Book in Spain, that of Gran Canaria.

In the academic sphere, the activity of the Plant Biol-ogy Department of the Escuela Tecnica Superior deIngenieros Agronomos de Madrid (Madrid School ofAgronomy) stands out. In 1972, Gomez Campo, withthe support of ICONA, set up the world’s first seedbank dedicated to endemic and threatened flora, bring-ing together germplasm of Iberian and Macaronesianspecies. This team produced the first list of Iberianendemics, a synthesis of chorological information, adiagnosis of the state of conservation and an assessmentof their first reintroductions from the seed bank (Clem-ente, 1973; Hernandez Bermejo and Sainz Ollero, 1977;Sainz Ollero and Hernandez Bermejo, 1979, 1981). Thefirst Red Book on the flora of Peninsular Spain and theBalearic Islands was published in 1987. In this book,Gomez Campo (1987) co-ordinated the work of 72 col-laborators on 300 data-sheets. All of the selected taxawere vascular, endemic, taxonomically consistent spe-cies with some degree of range-size rarity.

The Ministry of Public Works, which also had envir-onmental interests, promoted the production of aSpanish Red List for the 16th General Assembly of theIUCN held in Madrid (Barreno et al., 1984). Twentybotanists with a wide range of experience in conserva-tion participated and the result was the first all-encom-passing, balanced work on the threatened flora of theentire country (Table 1).

The subsequent evolution of the Administration, thesigning of international agreements and the declaration

Table 1

Peninsular and insular origin of the plants included in the Red List of Barreno et al. (1984)a

Peninsular Spain

Balearic Islands Canary Islands

Endemics

Non-endemics Total

Ex

1 1 2 2 1

E

36 17 53 25 127

V

75 64 139 24 119

R

233 101 334 85 130

I

27 8 35 – 5

K

9 2 11 – 24

Threatened taxa

384 193 577 136 406

nt

339 441 780 34 162

Total

720 634 1357 170 568

a Of the 1119 threatened taxa, 24 were shared between Peninsular and Balearic Spain. The list also includes two endemic Peninsular species

(Hieracium guadarramense Arvet-Touvet, Origanum paui Martınez) and one non endemic (Astragalus algarviensis Cosson ex Bunge) without

category.

420 J.C. Moreno Saiz et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 419–431

of Protected Areas have been described by Morillo andGomez Campo (2000). In this paper we shall, therefore,concentrate on legislation regarding flora and its imple-mentation, and research and recent projects aimed at itsconservation.

2. The process of cataloguing threatened species

2.1. National policies

The Central Administration currently holds fewresponsibilities for nature management, since most ofthem have been transferred to the 17 AutonomousCommunities. State powers include the promulgationof general legal regulations, the promotion of someinter-regional advisory criteria, and its role as inter-locutor in international agreements such as CITES, theBern Convention, etc. The Spanish Natural Areas andWild Flora and Fauna Conservation Law dates from1989. For the first time, significant legal weight wasgiven to the protection of species, with priority for insitu conservation and attention to endemic taxa. Thislaw also defined the characteristics of the National Cat-alogue of Threatened Species (hereafter NCTS) and itscategories (‘endangered’, ‘sensitive to habitat change’,‘vulnerable’ and ‘of special interest’), which were similarbut not identical to those of the IUCN (Fig. 1). Whilethe ‘endangered’ and ‘vulnerable’ categories are quitesimilar to those that are homonymous in the 1964IUCN scheme, the other two would later give rise tomisunderstandings and legal problems. ‘Sensitive tohabitat change’ is an intermediate category between‘endangered’ and ‘vulnerable’, proposed to includethreatened taxa in fragile habitats. Its vagueness andlack of definition has prevented its wider use. The cate-gory ‘Of special interest’ covers a variety of situations,from vulnerable species with narrow distributions tonon-threatened taxa with biogeographical, ecological orcultural interest, corresponding to the ‘rare’ taxa ofIUCN.

Proposals for the inclusion of species, subspecies andpopulations in the NCTS came from public adminis-trations or other public or private institutions.Depending on the category, the NCTS also recognisedthe need to draw up a legal plan of action for thetaxon (recovery, habitat conservation, conservation, ormanagement plan). The 1990 Catalogue abolished theformer lists of protected species, which were clearlyinsufficient, featured taxa of dubious priority, andlacked plants from the Canary Islands. This catalogueincluded a new list of 61 taxa, almost all of which wereendangered. After five successive enlargements nego-tiated with the Autonomous Communities (1996–2001),it now comprises 133 plant species (Table 2; see NCTS,2001).

2.2. Regional policies with European support

Autonomous Communities are fully empowered todevelop and pass legislation and policies related to theconservation of species and natural areas. The combi-nation of this management capacity with the approvalof the so-called EU ‘Habitats Directive’ and its LIFEfunds in 1992 led to what Domınguez and Sainz (1997)called an ‘autonomic lift-off’ in plant conservation.Despite notable absences of species from the Directivein the annexes (Domınguez Lozano et al., 1996), Spainwas the country with the greatest number of plants andhabitats listed due to its diversity and endemicity (seeMedail and Quezel, 1997). The total funding obtainedby the autonomic governments has made Spain theprincipal recipient of the LIFE programme. Spain,which has received 20% of the budget, is followed byFrance, Germany and Italy, which have receivedaround 10% each (see Fig. 2). Thus, five Autonomous

Fig. 1. Approximate correspondence between NCTS and IUCN’s

categories of risk. Ex/EX, Extinct; EW, Extinct in the Wild; CR, Cri-

tically Endangered; E/EN, Endangered; SHC, Sensitive to Habitat

Change; V/VU, Vulnerable; SI, of Special Interest; R, Rare; LR,

Lower Risk.

J.C. Moreno Saiz et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 419–431 421

Communities (the Canary Islands, Andalucıa, Valencia,Aragon and the Balearic Islands) have implementedLIFE projects aimed at conserving their flora. Threeother regional governments (Galicia, Castilla y Leon,Castilla—La Mancha) have received approval for com-pensation funds for reforestation. In all, Europeanfunding with regard to flora has amounted to 6.8 mil-lion euros of a total budget of around 12.4 millioneuros.

Several Autonomous Communities, including thosethat subsequently received LIFE resources, allocatedtheir own funds for the study of their respective threa-tened flora resulting in the declaration or updating ofnumerous regional catalogues of legally protected plants(see Fig. 3 and Table 2). Only three regions (Galicia,Castilla y Leon, and Cantabria) still lack this legalinstrument (the first two only protect the holly tree, Ilexaquifolium L.). Such lists do not always use the NCTScategories, partly because some are older. Another caseis the Catalonian decree regulating the ‘Plan de Espa-cios de Interes Natural’ (‘Plan for Spaces of NaturalInterest’), which only covers certain species in suchareas without attributing them categories.

The research entrusted to different scientific teams hasallowed for the re-evaluation of the risk status of a verylarge number of taxa (e.g. Sanchez Gomez et al., 1998;Saez and Rossello, 2001). Thus, many species previouslyconsidered endangered have turned out not to be so.Other cases of taxonomically inconsistent species orsubspecies have been detected, partly because Penin-

sular and Balearic Spain still lack a complete, modernchecklist. In all, the names of around 1500 vascularplants are found today in the various protection lists,although it is likely that 10–20% are synonyms orduplicates.

Seventeen autonomous centres of focus for plantconservation imply great richness and diversity, andtake decision-making to the place where the problemsreally arise. However, this decentralisation also has itsdrawbacks, such as the duplication of efforts and costs.To avoid duplication, co-ordination between adminis-trations is essential. This co-ordination has only beenintensified in recent years. Inconsistencies have alsoarisen in the management and legislation of species,partly due to the unequal rate of implementation ofmeasures in different regions. There is still a certaindegree of autonomous chauvinism whereby Autono-mous Communities are reluctant to remove from thecatalogues taxonomically weak or widely distributedspecies that were formerly considered emblematic.

Some territories illustrate current trends. The CanaryIslands have an extensive network of protected areasand a very large number of threatened plants: 59angiosperms and four ferns in Annexe II of the ‘Habi-tats’ Directive, 472 taxa in the Spanish red list (VV.AA.,2000) and 247 species in the recent legal decree for theislands. There are two Red Books concerning the floraof the archipelago, a general book published after sev-eral years of delay (Gomez Campo, 1996) and anotherthat is more up-to-date and detailed dealing only withthe species of the Directive (Beltran Tejera et al., 1999).The plant conservation programme in the Canariannational parks can be considered a model example(Banares, 1994), as is the work of the botanical gardenin Gran Canaria, Jardın Botanico Canario ‘Viera yClavijo’. Another contribution to this volume (Marrero-Gomez et al., 2003) outlines their main features.

The extensive region of Andalucıa is home to thegreatest species diversity (more than half of the Ibero-Balearic flora) and the largest number of endemics inthe Peninsula. Like the Canary Islands, it also suffersfrom the pressures that tourism and agriculture exert onthe protected territory. Sierra Nevada is the mostimportant centre of plant diversity in the western Med-iterranean region (Blanca et al., 1998), containingaround 25% of Andalusian endemics and more than100 threatened plants. It is the most recently declaredSpanish National Park and the first in which its botani-cal value was a determining factor. The Natural Park ofthe Sierras of Cazorla, Segura and Las Villas is the mostextensive in Spain and the most active with regard to themanagement of threatened flora. Its enthusiastic staff, inorder to tackle the disproportionate increase in livestockin the area has been forced to put up ‘exclusion fences’for Atropa baetica Willk. and Solenanthus reverchoniiDegen to keep out herbivores. The latter was considered

Table 2

Number of taxa and categories of vascular plants included in Spanish

national and regional legal catalogues

Administrative area

Categoriesa

E

SHC V SI Others Total

Spain

118 5 4 6 – 133

Andalucıa

69 – 122 – – 191

Aragonb

7 17 26 47 – 97

Asturiasb

5 25 13 20 – 63

Balearic Islands

– 8 6 22c – 36

Paıs Vasco

5 – 24 25 81 135

Canary Islandsb

74 131 12 30 – 247

Castilla—La Manchab

12 – 139d 283e – 434

Catalunab

– – – – 204 204

Extremadura

7 11 24 69 – 111

La Rioja

3 – – – – 3

Madridb

4 21 37 26 – 88

Murcia

– – – – 43 43

Navarra

– 16 37 – – 53

Valencia

– – – – 57f 57

a See abbreviations in Fig. 1.b These lists also comprise non-vascular taxa.c Additionally, all orchids and the genus Tamarix are included.d Also the genus Utricularia.e Also the genus Pinguicula.f Also the genera Thymus, Teucrium and Sideritis.

422 J.C. Moreno Saiz et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 419–431

extinct for many years but now about sixty individualsare maintained between the reserve’s garden and theCazorla mountain range.

Andalucıa has drawn up an ambitious integrated insitu and ex situ conservation strategy (Hernandez et al.,1999) whose first step was to update the regional RedData Book (Blanca et al., 1999, 2000). Now more thor-ough studies on urgent threats and plans to guaranteethe variability of wild populations can be afforded andmeasures such as cultivation, domestication, reinforce-ment or reintroduction are under debate for a numberof species. These plans resulted from the collaborativeeffort of Andalusian universities, the Donana ResearchInstitute and the Botanic Garden of Cordoba, whichhouses the Andalusian germplasm bank and plays anactive role in the Iberian–Macaronesian Association ofBotanic Gardens.

Aragon was one of the first autonomous communitiesto have its own Red Book (Sainz Ollero et al., 1996) andto publish a law on protected species in conformity withthe NCTS. It was also a pioneer in approving the firstplan for the recovery of a plant, Borderea chouardii(Gaussen) Heslot. Its critical status (see Morillo and

Gomez Campo, 2000) led to it being chosen as the logoof the IUCN–Spain’s Commission on Flora and it isnow being studied in great detail. Its very limited dis-tribution (<1 km2), low number of individuals (�2200)and reduced genetic variability (Segarra-Moragues andCatalan, 2002) have been verified. Other activities haveincluded encouraging floristic studies and preparing newrecovery programmes for Pyrenean (Garcıa et al., 2002)or steppe plants such as Vella pseudocytisus subsp. pauiGomez Campo (Domınguez, 2000), as well as for theinteresting disjunct Mediterranean–Turanian taxonKrascheninnikovia ceratoides (L.) Gueldenst (Dom-ınguez et al., 2001). A report of the Aragonian projectco-funded by the EU has been published recently(Puente, 2001).

The Valencian Community, despite having a catalo-gue of protected species that is out of step with otherregions, has undertaken various initiatives: a Red Book(Laguna, 1998), the funding of taxonomic monographson critical genera (Crespo Villalba and Lledo Barrena,1998; Mateu Andres et al., 2000), the strengthening anddevelopment of research at the University of ValenciaBotanic Garden, agreements for the in vitro cultivation

Fig. 2. European Union funds provided for environmental programmes ACMA (1984–1991), ACNAT (1992), LIFE I (1992–1995) and LIFE II

(1996–1999). Units in thousands of euros (source EU D.G. Env. D1, LIFE Unit).

J.C. Moreno Saiz et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 419–431 423

with the Valencian Institute of Agricultural Research(IVIA), etc. Its network of micro-reserves for flora hasachieved international recognition (Laguna, 1999, 2001)for its novelty and careful management. Since 1991more than 150 of these micro-areas (typically of 1–2 ha)

have been protected and it is predicted that this numberwill soon reach 250 reserves, containing the entireValencian flora of concern. This legal tool aims to pro-tect plants with narrow habitat requirements that fitwith difficulty within other types of protected areas.

Table 3

Legal recovery, conservation and management plans approved for specific plant species in Spain

Taxon

Date Autonomous Community NCTS category Regional category Spanish

Red List

Recovery plans

Borderea chouardii (Gaussen) Heslot

1995 Aragon Endangered Endangered CR

Coincya rupestris Porta &

Rigo ex Rouy subsp. rupestris

1999

Castilla—La Mancha Endangered Endangered EN

Atropa baetica Willk.

1999 Castilla—La Mancha Vulnerable Endangered CR

Sideritis serrata Lag.

1999 Castilla—La Mancha Proposed as Endangered Endangered CR

Helianthemum polygonoides Peinado & al.

1999 Castilla—La Mancha – Endangered CR

Delphinium fissum subsp. sordidum

(Cuatrec.) Amich & al.

2002

Castilla—La Mancha – Endangered EN

Conservation plans

Erodium paularense Fern. Gonz. & Izco

2002 Castilla—La Mancha Proposed as Sensitive to

Habitat Change

Vulnerable

EN

Management plans

Taxus baccata L.

2002 Asturias – Special Interest –

Ilex aquifolium L.

2002 Asturias – Special Interest –

Quercus suber L.

2002 Asturias – Special Interest –

Quercus ilex L. and Q. rotundifolia Lam.

2002 Asturias – Special Interest –

Fig. 3. Map of the Spanish Autonomous Communities showing the date of their last legal catalogue of protected plants in use.

424 J.C. Moreno Saiz et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 419–431

Examples are Silene hifacencis Rouy ex Willk. on seacliffs, Limonium dufourii (Girard) Kuntze in coastal saltmarshes and Salix tarraconensis Pau in the pass ofBeceite.

3. Recovery plans

Since 1989, under the Nature Conservation Act,Spain has made the development of recovery plansmandatory for all endangered species. Only a fewcountries have made the development of such plans thesubject of a legal obligation (de Klemm, 1994). Therecovery plans are inspired by the philosophy andstructure of those promulgated by the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. The difference with respect to theAmerican or other similar plans (cf. N.P.W.S., 1998;US F.W.S., 2000), stems from the fact that govern-mental environmental services in Spain, like in almostall European countries, cannot make decisions on theinvestments necessary for their implementation as this isat the discretion of laws passed by the national orregional Parliaments (E. Laguna, personal communi-cation). This contradiction has subsequently condi-tioned the timetable and effectiveness of such decrees.

Although more than 10 years have passed since thecreation of these legal measures, only six recovery plans,one conservation plan and four management plans havebeen announced so far (Table 3).

Plans that are now being developed include manage-ment measures, research on the lesser known aspects ofthe taxon biology, educational programmes to raisesocial awareness and monitoring. Thus, they are com-parable with those being developed in Sweden, theCzech Republic and the United Kingdom, and they aremore specific and practical than the pan-European planpublished for the orchid Cypripedium calceolus L. (Ter-schuren, 1999).

There are also drafts of a number of new plans (e.g.for species of the Andalusian flora) that have not beenofficially approved despite the time elapsed since theirdesign. The scarcity of approved official plans may bedue to several factors. Some regional governments havenot wished to give recovery plans legal status due to thelevel of commitment and/or rigidity that they wouldthereby acquire, preferring at times to fund ongoingstudies or management measures (as with Ligusticumhuteri Porta in the Balearics). In other cases, regionalgovernments have preferred to begin with general poli-cies that simultaneously benefit as many species as pos-sible (seed banks, micro-reserves, adaptation of forestrylaws and practices to biodiversity conservation require-ments, etc), optimising costs and putting emphasis onspecific actions on populations whose risk of extinctionhas not decreased with the previous measures (Laguna,2001). Finally, the debatable inclusion of certain taxa in

the NCTS has occasionally held back the drafting ofplans, either because its category of threat has not beenjudged correctly, or because the species have been obli-gatorily listed, as in the case of the those belonging tothe EU ‘Habitats’ Directive, even though they may notbe threatened in Spain.

An additional problem is posed by threatened taxaranging over various Communities. The 1990 law ofnature states that the National Commission of NatureProtection, an organ of political representation of theAutonomous Communities and the Ministry of theEnvironment, will produce the ‘‘orientative criteriaconcerning the content of the action plans’’. To datethis commission has only examined the cases of someemblematic species of fauna and a delay with respect toplants has been produced (B. Heredia, personalcommunication). As a result of this, the Community ofCastilla—La Mancha has approved some recovery andconservation plans, as in Atropa baetica, leaving out theAndalusian populations, and thereby any inter-regionalco-ordination.

4. Research and most recent projects

Conservation biology is no longer the work of just afew teams in Spain and it is spreading through anincreasing number of botany departments. The fundingof these lines of work has been based not only on pro-jects commissioned by different regional administra-tions, but also on general research agendas (the so-called plans for the promotion of knowledge) of stateeducation and research administrations.

Without going into detail, it may be said that the wayis now paved for basic aspects of conservation research.Iriondo et al. (1994) and Gonzalez Benito et al. (1999)provide extensive reviews of studies on ex situ con-servation, where micropropagation and cryopreserva-tion methods have been optimised for some Spanishendemic species. Studies focused on autecology ofthreatened species are not very numerous (Herrera,1987, 1990; Ferrandez et al., 1993; Gonzalez Benito etal., 1995; Arista Palmero et al., 1997; Gomez Mercadoet al., 1997) but partial results can be found among awider range of papers (e.g. Blanca and Valle, 1986;Domınguez Lozano et al., 1996). Papers on reproduc-tive biology were among the first to be undertaken and,therefore, have a longer tradition (e.g. Guitian andSanchez, 1992; Herrera, 1993; Valdes and Dıaz Lifante,1996; Aparicio and Garcıa Martın, 1996; Albert andIriondo, 1997; Torres et al., 2001; Navarro and Guitian,2002). Furthermore, published genetic studies arebeginning to appear with a focus on the management offragmented populations, the collection of germplasmand the reintroduction of new populations (e.g. Ibanezet al., 1999; Martın et al., 1999; Martın and Hernandez

J.C. Moreno Saiz et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 419–431 425

Bermejo, 2000; Simon et al., 2001; Banares et al., 2001).Finally, demographic studies are still scarce due to thenumber of years required to model populations in fluc-tuating environments as those of the Mediterraneanarea (e.g. Garcıa and Antor, 1995; Marrero Gomez etal., 1999; Iriondo, 2001). A large proportion of thisresearch consists of doctoral theses of new conservationexperts.

4.1. The new Spanish red list

In 1995 the Cordoba Botanic Garden held a meetingin which the IUCN–Spain’s Commission on Flora wasconstituted and the revision of the 1987 Red Book wasproposed as a medium-term goal. In 1999, the Valen-cian Government funded a meeting where the bases forthe production of the Spanish Red List were set out,and the following steps were approved:

� Generation of regional proposals including onlytaxa at risk throughout the entire country, inother words, taxa fulfilling the criteria of theIUCN categories in Spain as a whole; such draftswould consider species and subspecies of vascularplants.

� Establishment of a committee charged with cen-tralising and processing the information.

� Enlargement of the working group to gatheropinions and experience of leading Spanish tax-onomists, especially with respect to particularlycontroversial genera.

� Preparation of a technical seminar to debate theproposed lists.

This workshop was held in 2000 in Miraflores de laSierra (Madrid), and was the largest meeting of expertsin plant conservation ever celebrated in Spain. The

revision of the status of numerous species, the discus-sion of their taxonomic aspects, etc., gave rise to a listpublished the same year (VV. AA., 2000).

4.2. The Threatened Flora Atlas

The Ministry of the Environment has proposed tocontinue the work of this team in the ‘Atlas and RedBook of Threatened and Protected Plants of PeninsularSpain, Balearic and Canary Islands’. This project fallswithin the jurisdiction of the Direccion General deConservacion de la Naturaleza (General Directorate forNature Conservation) for the creation of the NationalInventory of Habitats and Taxa, which will be com-pleted in 2003. Its initial objective is to increase knowl-edge on the status of Spanish plant conservationthrough the mapping and inventory of the most endan-gered plants. The five working areas (Andalusian,Atlantic, Central, Mediterranean and Canarian sectors)have representatives on a steering committee that co-ordinates the 36 teams from different universities, gar-dens and botanical research centres, autonomous con-servation agencies and participating independentconsultants. Its development has been structured as fol-lows (Fig. 4).Phase one: Production of a database compiling exist-

ing information on taxa at risk. Extinct plants (EX, EWand RE), those categorised as CR and EN in the red listand all the Data Deficient species (DD) were chosen.The latter category was included in an attempt to pre-vent the lack of information on some species frommasking greater risks. Plants in the category of Vulner-able were excluded from this initial project. This data-base was designed with the following structure: (1)taxonomy; (2) chorology: published references and her-barium sheets using the 10, 5 or 1 km UTM grids; (3)demography: populations, censuses and colonisation

Fig. 4. Flow diagram summarising the schedule of the Spanish ‘Threatened Flora Atlas’ project.

426 J.C. Moreno Saiz et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 419–431

strategies; (4) ecology; (5) biology, phenology, repro-ductive system, dispersal and hybrids; and (6) con-servation and legislation.Phase two: Fieldwork on the threatened taxa, once the

DD species that turn out not to be endangered havebeen discarded. It is intended to study all of these taxaat what has been termed a ‘basic’ level and it constitutesthe main part of the inventory. This involves threeaspects: (1) chorology: mapping of populations using 1km UTM grid squares and determination of the area ofreal occupation; (2) direct censuses of the populationsor estimates for those that exceed 2500 individuals; (3)environmental characteristics and conservation status,including the analysis of threats, current conservationmeasures and their evaluation, and a managementproposal.

Work on half of these species was undertaken in 2001,leaving the other half for the following year. The second‘demographic’ level is being carried out on 40 indicatorspecies (based on their risk status, rarity or small num-ber of populations). Population viability analyses, cur-rently limited to three sampling campaigns, are alsoplanned.

After the plots for each population have been chosenand marked out, the next stages will be: (1) annual fol-low-up of the number of individuals; (2) determinationof the population structure by size or developmentalstages over 3 years; and (3) accumulation of data on thebiology of the species (with an estimation for each classof seed production by plant and a vegetative reproduc-tion factor in clonal species).

To standardise the field work and data collection atboth levels, a methodological manual has been pub-lished that takes into account the experience of a sub-group of participants and takes advantage of formerreports (Cropper, 1993; Olivier et al., 1995; Iriondo,1996) (Text available upon request).

An additional aspect to be covered in two years is thedrawing up of a preliminary list of alien taxa in Spain,pointing out those species that affect threatened floraand the results of their establishment.Phase three: Synthesis of results: the data from the

basic studies will be used to produce the ‘Atlas and RedData Book of Threatened Flora in Spain’, which willillustrate the broad distribution of each plant (at a scaleof 100 km2 squares), summarise its status, and makeproposals for its management. The demographic follow-up of the 40 selected species will allow for a generalassessment of trends in the endangered flora, and willsuggest plans for future actions and guidelines formonitoring the threatened flora.

Chorological data using GIS will be used to identifythe most important areas for threatened Spanish flora,and to look for gaps in the grid of national and/orregional protected areas as well as in the Natura 2000network.

5. A strategy for the future

Strategic documents on plant conservation are highlyheterogeneous as the core question is a broad one: howshould we set priorities and protect rare and endangeredplants in a territory? For example, current Red Databooks, although important as a source of basic infor-mation, are almost exclusively botanical reports (Phitoset al., 1995; Valencia et al., 2000, and many others),whereas other approaches stress administrative con-straints (Palmer, 1995; Willoughby, 1992). It could besaid that each individual strategy represents local cir-cumstances. Economic factors can affect both the kindof threats facing rare plants and the quality of dataavailable for planning. Bearing this in mind, we suggestsome basic steps for plant conservation in Spain.Step one: basic information. At present there is a lack

of information on a large proportion of rare plants dueto uncertainty regarding their taxonomy or distribution.In the immediate future it will be difficult to reduce thenumber of rare plant taxonomic problems unless sys-tematic research is carried out. The need for more basicdata has been recognised by other works in similarMediterranean areas (Skinner et al., 1995; Hilton-Tay-lor, 1996; Coates and Atkins, 2001). The impressiveFlora iberica project (Castroviejo, 1986–2001) will taketime to be finished and will not provide a comprehensivereference in the immediate future. As a precautionarymeasure it seems sensible to protect the type localities ofdubious taxa until further studies can be undertaken toclarify their status.

Gathering new information should, we hope, stimu-late an iterative process of listing and re-evaluatingpriorities. Ideally, the systematics and chorology of rareplants should be reviewed periodically and managersand legislators should be flexible enough to accom-modate this process for a time. However, some authorshave argued that this approach could produce an unde-sirable sense of perpetual provisionality (de Klemm,1997).Step two: monitoring. At this stage the focus shifts

from the species to the population level. In the processof population monitoring, data needs to be collectedabout the process of rarefaction and its possible rela-tionship with human activities. Some authors havepointed out the enormous requirements and commit-ments that monitoring schemes require (Palmer, 1995,Willoughby, 1992). The seriousness of this issue calls fora proper conservation infrastructure to co-ordinate theadministrative conservation bodies of the country.From our point of view, these bodies are by far theprincipal agents of monitoring, although non-govern-mental organisations (Sigg, 1999; Wigginton, 1999)have been traditionally important in other strategies orcountries. The scientific community should be in chargeof the development of a sound monitoring programme.

J.C. Moreno Saiz et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 419–431 427

Step three: action planning. The previous step willidentify populations which are critically endangered orat serious risk of extinction. To implement action plans,we propose the establishment of recovery teams withregional conservation technicians, as the most effectiveway to carry out this phase. The goals, intensity andmethods of interventions (population reinforcement,translocation, restoration) should be carefully determined(Brown, 1994; Maunder, 1992).

Finally, these steps should be based on a very flexiblestructure, where different agents easily exchange differ-ent responsibilities and roles. The periodical review ofresults would provide criteria to restructure the frame-work as needed.On the ground conservation and pending tasks. The

Spanish strategy for the conservation of biodiversity(GDNC, 1999) states that the protection of threatenedspecies will be based on the respective national andautonomous community catalogues and on the devel-opment of the measures that they include. Thus, theCentral Administration will continue to use the NCTSas its main tool for the conservation of species. How-ever, as of yet, there is no subordinate strategy for themanagement of plant diversity, as in the United King-dom (Palmer, 1995). Nor has an inter-regional manage-ment and research system been established, as inFrance, where the government funds a network ofreference centres called the National Botanical Con-servatories (Aboucaya et al., 2001).

Some problems, identified in the final document of theSpanish strategy, remain unresolved. For example, ithas been proposed that the NCTS categories be mod-ified and perhaps adjusted to those of the IUCN. Therecent publication of the new Spanish red list and futurework on the projected new red book will allow admin-istrations to bring together a homogeneous catalogue ofspecies that are of undoubted high priority.

The strategy also discusses some points concerningrecovery plans. It suggests producing a charter for nat-ure and setting up mechanisms to ratify plans without alegislative framework. Channels would be established toprovide them with budgets and fiscal measures to helpconserve the species chosen for their general interest(emblematic, endemic). However, the main conclusion isthat much greater co-ordination is needed (betweenresearchers and managers, and between regional andnational governments) because the great urgency ofconservation is not compatible with duplicity of effortsand expenses.

The idea of species recovery is almost 30 years old(Clark, 1994), although, in the past years, the issue hasreceived various assessments in its country of origin (i.e.Dixon and Cook, 1989; Schemske et al., 1994; Tear etal., 1995). Since earlier times in Spain (Machado, 1989;Banares, 1994) there has been a great number of recov-ery initiatives. However, more recently, we think

recovery plans have become highly heterogeneous andhave created a misleading view of what a truly struc-tured recovery plan should be. We recommend thatthese ongoing efforts should be expanded. New methodsof prioritisation need to be developed to determinewhich plants should be chosen for monitoring throughother less demanding programmes. This would establisha gradual ‘modus operandi’ in management techniqueswith different points of view and goals in each stage ofthe ranking (see Section 5.3).

Thus, recovery programmes, in a strict sense, shouldnot be considered a widely applicable tool for plantconservation in Spain. In our opinion, it is necessaryto develop more innovative approaches that place lessemphasis on legal enforcement and more emphasis onefforts to changing attitudes (e.g. exploring the socio-economical implications of preserving endangeredplant populations). The recent case of the endangered‘manzanilla real’ of Sierra Nevada’ (Artemisia grana-tensis Boiss.) is instructive. Following a court trial,neither judges nor public opinion condemned thepractice of a local collector of wild Artemisia plants,although the species is strictly protected and cultiva-tion techniques had been optimised to produce thou-sands of individuals (Hernandez Bermejo, personalcommunication).

The first step of recovery planning should be to gatherbasic information on the biology of the plant in ques-tion and on how populations are influenced or evendisrupted by human interactions. Nevertheless, this isjust the threshold to a full range of activities to recoverpopulations that are on the brink of extinction (Clark etal., 1994).

The ‘Threatened Flora Atlas’ project directly ema-nates from the Convention of Biological Diversity andmeets some of the requirements of the above strategy.This project will provide a database of the vascular florasubjected to the greatest threats. However, this databasewill be incomplete because budgetary limitations willnot allow the inclusion of Vulnerable taxa, of whichthere are 700 in the country as a whole. Moreover, thisproject will not include non-vascular plants or fungi,whose status is only known from fragmentary or pre-liminary studies (Calonge, 1993; Sergio et al., 1995;Barreno et al., 1998). Finally, there is no guarantee thatthe database will be updated after the project concludesin 2003.

A lack of continuity can condition other aspects ofthe project. The projections concerning populationdynamics of the 40 selected species require more than 3years (two transitions) to provide realistic results and toallow identification of the critical stages of their life-cycles (Beissinger and Westphal, 1998; Fieberg and Ell-ner, 2001). Broadening the methodology of this branchof conservation biology among Spanish botanists hasbeen considered a collateral objective, since demo-

428 J.C. Moreno Saiz et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 419–431

graphic studies are directly linked to the most importantquestions concerning the persistence of rare plants(Schemske et al., 1994, Menges, 2000). As other authorshave pointed out (Groom and Pascual, 1998), it willalso be necessary to develop new approaches in PVA inorder to increase its conservation utility.

The project is expected to generate a considerableamount of very accurate data on the distribution anddispersion of populations allowing for the developmentof management models and analyses of fragmentationand colonisation patterns of rare species. However, asthe distribution of plants classified as Vulnerable is nottaken into account, the selection of important areas forplants will remain biased to some extent. Nevertheless,the results of this chorological synthesis will be useful toconfirm or reject the high degree of protection of theareas of the endangered species advanced, perhaps toooptimistically, by some authors (Gomez Campo, 1997;Morillo and Gomez Campo, 2000). Some papers thathave explored the Iberian and Balearic hotspots interms of species richness, range-size rarity and com-plementarity have identified some gaps in the Spanishnetwork of protected areas (Castro Parga et al., 1996;Lobo et al., 2001).

The academic community and administration techni-cians are becoming increasingly involved in plant con-servation. However, there is an almost complete absenceof NGOs interested in plant conservation in Spain. Asfar as we know the ‘book of the yew’ (Cortes et al.,2000) is the only proposal of an action plan from aSpanish conservationist group. The potential risksassociated with the implementation of action plans byNGOs is a matter that has seldom been cited (Marren,2001). Nevertheless, the role that these associations playin other countries (Sigg, 1999; Palmer, 1995) will taketime to be filled in Spain. For the moment, we should besatisfied with the creation of a Spanish Society of Con-servation Biology of Plants, which will put an end to along tradition of poor co-ordination and lack ofcommunication.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank E. Laguna and B. Herediafor their kind answers to our queries. E. Fernandez-Galiano and H. Synge helpfully guided us in the searchof international programmes. We also acknowledge J.M. Iriondo for providing us with the opportunity andencouragement to write these pages, and the twoanonymous referees who substantially improved thefinal version of the manuscript. The authors areinvolved in the development and progress of the‘Threatened Flora Atlas’ funded by the Spanish Minis-try of Environment, Nature Conservation Directorate-General.

References

Aboucaya, A., Verlaque, R., Guyot, I., 2001. La conservation des

plantes rares et menacees en France. In: Gomez Campo, C. (Ed.),

Conservacion de Especies Vegetales Amenazadas en la Region

Mediterranea Occidental. Una Perspectiva desde el Fin de Siglo.

Fundacion Ramon Areces, Madrid, pp. 199–227.

Albert, M.J., Iriondo, J.M., 1997. Flowering and fruiting phenology of

Erodium paularense Fdez. Glez. and Izco. Lagascalia 19 (1–2), 579–

582.

Aparicio, A, Garcıa Martın, F., 1996. The reproductive biology and

breeding system of Erica andevalensis Cabezudo and Rivera (Erica-

ceae), an endangered edaphic endemic in southwestern Spain.

Implications for its conservation. Flora 191, 345–351.

Arista Palmero, M., Herrera Maliani, F.J., Talavera Lozano, S., 1997.

Biologıa del Pinsapo. Junta de Andalucıa, Sevilla.

Banares, A., 1994. Recuperacion de la flora amenazada de los Parques

Nacionales canarios. Metodologıa para su planificacion y ejecucion.

Ecologıa 8, 227–244.

Banares, A., Marrero, M., Carque, E., Sosa, P., 2001. Biologıa de la

conservacion de la flora amenazada en los Parques Nacionales can-

aries. In: Gomez Campo, C. (Ed.), Conservacion de Especies Vege-

tales Amenazadas en la Region Mediterranea Occidental. Una

Perspectiva desde el Fin de Siglo. Fundacion Ramon Areces,

Madrid, pp. 35–62.

Barreno, E., Bramwell, D., Cabezudo, B., Cardona, M.A., Costa, M.,

Fernadez Casas, F.J., Fernandez-Galiano, E., Fernandez Prieto,

J.A., Gomez Campo, C., Hernandez Bermejo, E., Heywood, V.H.,

Izco, J., Llorens, L., Molero Mesa, J., Monserrat, P., Rivas Martı-

nez, S., Saenz Laın, C., Santos, A., Valdes, B., Wildpret de la Torre,

W., 1984. Listado de plantas endemicas, raras o amenazadas de

Espana. Informacion Ambiental 3, 49–72.

Barreno, E., Puche, F., Atienza, V., Perez Rovira, P., Gimeno, C.,

Segarra, J.G., 1998. Flora no vascular de interes conservacionista. In:

Laguna, E. (Ed.), Flora Endemica, Rara o Amenazada de la Comu-

nidad Valenciana. Generalitat Valenciana, Valencia, pp. 363–368.

Beissinger, S.R., Westphal, M.I., 1998. On the use of demographic

models of population viability in endangered species management.

Journal of Wildlife Management 62 (3), 821–841.

Beltran Tejera, E., Wildpret de la Torre, W., Leon Arencibia, M.C.,

Garcıa Gallo, A., Reyes Hernandez, J., 1999. Libro Rojo de la

Flora Canaria Contenida en la Directiva-Habitats Europea. Minis-

terio de Medio Ambiente, Madrid.

Blanca, G., Cabezudo, B., Hernandez-Bermejo, J.E., Herrera, C.M.,

Molero-Mesa, J., Munoz, J., Valdes, B., 1999. Libro Rojo de la

Flora Silvestre Amenazada de Andalucıa. Tomo I: Especies en

Peligro de Extincion. Junta de Andalucıa, Sevilla.

Blanca, G., Cabezudo, B., Hernandez-Bermejo, J.E., Herrera, C.M.,

Munoz, J., Valdes, B., 2000. Libro Rojo de la Flora Silvestre Ame-

nazada de Andalucıa. Tomo II: Especies Vulnerables. Junta de

Andalucıa, Sevilla.

Blanca, G., Cueto, M., Martınez-Lirola, M.J., Molero-Mesa, J., 1998.

Threatened vascular flora of Sierra Nevada (Southern Spain). Bio-

logical Conservation 85, 269–285.

Blanca, G., Valle, F., 1986. Las plantas endemicas de Andalucıa

Oriental, I. Monografıas de Flora y Vegetacion Beticas 1, 1–53.

Brown, J.S., 1994. Restoration ecology: living with the Prime Direc-

tive. In: Bowles, M. L., Whelan, C.J. (Eds.), Restoration of Endan-

gered Species. Conceptual Issues, Planning and Implementation.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 355–380.

Bolos, A., 1962. Extincion y replantacion de Lysimachia minoricensis.

Collectanea Botanica (Barcelona) 6 (1–2), 357–358.

Cabrera, A., 1906. La extincion de varias especies de la flora canaria.

Boletın de la Real Sociedad Espanola de Historia Natural 6, 421–424.

Calonge, F.D., 1993. Hacia la confeccion de una lista roja de Macro-

mycetes (hongos) en la Penınsula Iberica. Boletın Sociedad Micolo-

gica de Madrid 18, 171–178.

J.C. Moreno Saiz et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 419–431 429

Castro Parga, I., Moreno Saiz, J.C., Humphries, C.J., Williams, P.H.,

1996. Strengthening the Natural and National Park system of Iberia

to conserve vascular plants. Botanical Journal of the Linnean

Society 121, 189–206.

Castroviejo, S. (Coord.), 1986–2001. Flora iberica. Vols. 1-8 and 14.

Real Jardın Botanico, CSIC, Madrid.

Clark, J.A., 1994. The endangered Species Act: its history, provisions,

and effectiveness. In: Clark, T.W., Reading, R.P., Clarke, A.L.

(Eds.), Endangered Species Recovery. Finding the Lessons,

Improving the Process. Islands Press, Washington, pp. 19–43.

Clark, T.W., Reading, R.P., Clarke, A.L., 1994. Synthesis. In: Clark,

T.W., Reading, R.P., Clarke, A.L. (Eds.), Endangered Species

Recovery. Finding the Lessons, Improving the Process. Islands

Press, Washington, pp. 417–431.

Clemente, M., 1973. Lista de Endemismos Vegetales Ibericos. Escuela

T.S. Ingenieros Agronomos, Madrid.

Coates, D.J., Atkins, K.A., 2001. Priority setting and the conservation

of Western Australia’s diverse and highly endemic flora. Biological

Conservation 97, 251–263.

Cortes, S., Vasco, F., Blanco, E., 2000. El Libro del Tejo (Taxus bac-

cata L.). Un Proyecto para su Conservacion. ARBA, Madrid.

Crespo Villalba, M.B., Lledo Barrena, M.D., 1998. El Genero

Limonium en la Comunidad Valenciana. Generalitat Valenciana,

Valencia.

Cropper, S., 1993. Management of Endangered Plants. CSIRO, Mel-

bourne.

de Klemm, C., 1994. Conservation legislation. In: Given, D.R. (Ed.),

Principles and Practice of Plant Conservation, chapter 9. Chapman

& Hall, Hong Kong, pp. 189–204.

de Klemm, C., 1997. Comparative Analysis of the Effectiveness of

Legislation for the Protection of Wild Flora in Europe. Nature and

Environment, No. 88. Council of Europe,, Strasbourg.

Dixon, P.M., Cook, R.E., 1989. Science, planning, and the recovery of

endangered plants. Endangered Species Update 6 (10), 9–14.

Domınguez, F., 2000. Herramientas para la conservacion de la flora

iberica. Aproximacion historica, el caso de Vella pseudocytisus ssp.

paui y estudio de los patrones de rareza y amenaza. Thesis. Uni-

versidad Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid.

Domınguez, F., Franco, F., Galicia, D., Moreno, J.C., Orueta, D.,

Sainz, H., Blasco, J., 2001. Krascheninnikovia ceratoides (L.) Guel-

denst. (Chenopodiaceae) en Aragon (Espana): algunos resultados de

su plan de conservacion. Boletın Real Sociedad Espanola de His-

toria Natural (Seccion Biologica) 96, 15–26.

Domınguez Lozano, F., Galicia Herbada, D., Moreno Rivero, L.,

Moreno Saiz, J.C., Sainz Ollero, H., 1996. Threatened plants in

Peninsular and Balearic Spain: a report based on the EU Habitats

Directive. Biological Conservation 76, 123–133.

Domınguez, F., Sainz, H., 1997. Flora espanola amenazada. Iniciati-

vas para la conservacion de un patrimonio unico. Biologica 9, 62–

70.

Fernandez Galiano, E., 1971. Problemes de la conservation de la

vegetation et de la flore en Espagne. Boissiera 19, 81–86.

Ferrandez, J.V., Sese, J.A., Villar, L., 1993. Androsace pyrenaica Lam.

(Primulaceae): planta endemica del Pirineo central. Corologıa, eco-

logıa y conservacion. Lucas Mallada 5, 93–100.

Fieberg, J., Ellner, S.P., 2001. Stochastic matrix models for conserva-

tion and management: a comparative review of methods. Ecology

letters 4, 244–266.

Garcıa, M.B., Antor, R.J., 1995. Age and size structure in populations

of a long-lived dioecious geophyte: Borderea pyrenaica (Dioscor-

eaceae). International Journal of Plant Sciences 156 (2), 236–243.

Garcıa, M.B., Guzman, D., Goni, D., 2002. An evaluation of the sta-

tus of five threatened plant species in the Pyrenees. Biological Con-

servation 103, 151–161.

GDNC, General Directorate for Nature Conservation, 1999. Estrate-

gia espanola para la conservacion y el uso sostenible de la diversi-

dad biologica. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Madrid.

Gomez Campo, C. (Ed.), 1987. Libro Rojo de Especies Vegetales

Amenazadas de Espana Peninsular e Islas Baleares. Ministerio de

Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentacion, Madrid.

Gomez Campo, C. (Ed.), 1996. Libro Rojo de Especies Vegetales

Amenazadas de las Islas Canarias. Gobierno de Canarias, Tenerife.

Gomez Campo, C., 1997. In situ conservation of threatened plant

species in Spain. Lagascalia 19, 33–44.

Gomez Mercado, F., Moreno Lozano, R., Gimenez Luque, E., 1997.

Estudio de las poblaciones de Delphinium fissum subsp. sordidum

(Ranunculaceae) en Sierra Magina (Jaen, Espana). Monografıas de

Flora y Vegetacion Beticas 10, 101–113.

Gonzalez Benito, M.E., Martın, C., Iriondo, J.M., 1995. Autoecology

and conservation of Erodium paularense Fdez. Glez. and Izco. Bio-

logical Conservation 72, 55–60.

Gonzalez Benito, M.E., Martın, C., Iriondo, J.M., Perez, C., 1999.

Conservation of the Rare and Endangered Plants Endemic to Spain.

In: Benson, E.E. (Ed.), Plant Conservation Biotechnology. Taylor

and Francis, London.

Groom, M.J., Pascual, M.A., 1998. The analysis of population persis-

tence: an outlook on the practice of viability analysis. In: Fiedler,

P.L., Kareiva, P.M. (Eds.), Conservation Biology for the Coming

Decade. Chapman & Hall, New York.

Guitian, J., Sanchez, J.M., 1992. Flowering and fruit set of Petrocoptis

grandiflora (Caryophyllaceae). International Journal of Plant Sci-

ences 153 (3), 409–412.

Hernandez Bermejo, J.E., Sainz Ollero, H., 1977. Algunos datos sobre

la conservacion de los recursos naturales espanoles. In: Ramade, F.

(Ed.), Elementos de Ecologıa Aplicada. Mundi-Prensa, Madrid, pp.

511–547.

Hernandez, J.E., Clemente Munoz, M., Rodrıguez Hiraldo, C., 1999.

Estrategias de conservacion de la flora amenazada. Medio Ambiente

30, 52–59.

Herrera, C.M., 1987. Distribucion, ecologıa y conservacion de Atropa

baetica Willk. (Solanaceae) en la Sierra de Cazorla. Anales del Jar-

dın Botanico de Madrid 43 (2), 387–398.

Herrera, C.M., 1990. Biologıa y ecologıa de Viola cazorlensis. II. Uso

del sustrato, reproduccion y consumo por los herbıvoros. Anales del

Jardın Botanico de Madrid 47 (1), 125–138.

Herrera, C.M., 1993. Selection on floral morphology and environ-

mental determinants of fecundity in a hawk moth-pollinated violet.

Ecological Monographs 63 (3), 251–275.

Hilton-Taylor, C., 1996. Red data list of southern African plants.

Strelitzia 4, 1–117.

Ibanez, O., Calero, C., Mayol, M., Rossello, J.A., 1999. Isozyme uni-

formity in a wild extinct insular plant, Lysimachia minoricensis J.J.

Rodr. (Primulaceae). Molecular Ecology 8, 813–817.

Iriondo, J.M., 1996. The survey and modelling of small plant populations

as a basis for developing conservation strategies. Bocconea 5, 151–157.

Iriondo, J.M., 2001. Biologıa de poblaciones: una perspectiva inte-

gradora en la conservacion de especies amenazadas. In: Gomez

Campo, C. (Ed.), Conservacion de Especies Vegetales Amenazadas

en la Region Mediterranea Occidental. Una Perspectiva desde el Fin

de Siglo. Fundacion Ramon Areces, Madrid, pp. 243–253.

Iriondo, J.M., De Hond, L.J., Gomez-Campo, C., 1994. Current

research on the biology of threatened plant species of the Medi-

terranean Basin and Macaronesia: a database. Bocconea 4, 5–383.

Kunkel, G., 1977a. Inventario de las Plantas Vasculares Endemicas en

la Provincia de Las Palmas. Monografıas ICONA 15. Ministerio de

Agricultura, Madrid.

Kunkel, G., 1977b. Inventario florıstico de la laurisilva de La Gomera,

Islas Canarias. Naturalia Hispanica 7, 1–136.

Kunkel, G., 1978. La vida vegetal del Parque Nacional de Timanfaya,

Lanzarote, Islas Canarias. Naturalia Hispanica 15, 1–94.

Laguna, E. (Ed.), 1998. Flora Endemica, Rara o Amenazada de la

Comunidad Valenciana. Generalitat Valenciana, Valencia.

Laguna, E., 1999. The Plant Micro-Reserves Programme in the

Region of Valencia, Spain. In: Synge, H., Akeroyd, J. (Eds.), Planta

430 J.C. Moreno Saiz et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 419–431

Europa. Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Conservation

of Wild Plants, 9–14 June, Uppsala. Plantlife-Swedish University of

Agricultural Sciences, Newcastle, pp. 181–186.

Laguna Lumbreras, E., 2001. Conservacion de endemismos vegetales

en la Comunidad Valenciana: la red de microrreservas. In: Gomez

Campo, C. (Ed.), Conservacion de Especies Vegetales Amenazadas

en la Region Mediterranea Occidental. Una Perspectiva desde el Fin

de Siglo. Fundacion Ramon Areces, Madrid, pp. 149–174.

Lobo, J.M., Castro, I., Moreno Saiz, J.C., 2001. Spatial and environ-

mental determinants of vascular plant species richness distribution

in the Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands. Biological Journal of

the Linnean Society 73, 233–253.

Machado, M., 1989. Planes de recuperacion de especies. Ecologıa 3,

23–41.

Marren, P., 2001. Wilderness and biodiversity. Plant Talk 25, 4.

Marrero Gomez, M.V., Banares Baudet, A., Carque Alamo, E.,

Padilla Cubas, A., Valdes, B., Dıaz Lifante, Z., 1999. Size structure

in populations of two threatened endemic plant species of the Can-

ary Islands: Cistus osbaeckiaefolius and Helianthemum juliae. Nat-

ural Areas Journal 19 (1), 79–86.

Marrero-Gomez, M.V., Banares-Baudet, A., Carque-Alamo, E.,

2003. Plant resource conservation planning in protected natural

areas. Biological Conservation, this issue (doi: 10.1016/S0006-

3207(03)00126-5).

Martın, C., Gonzalez Menito, M.E., Iriondo, J.M., 1999. The use of

genetic markers in the identification and characterization of three

recently discovered populations of a threatened plant species.

Molecular Ecology 8 (S12), 31–40.

Martın, J.P., Hernandez Bermejo, J.E., 2000. Genetic variation in the

endemic and endangered Rosmarinus tomentosus Huber-Morath &

Maire (Labiatae) using RAPD markers. Heredity 85, 434–443.

Mateu Andres, I., Segarra Moragues, J.G., Paula Julia, S., 2000.

Linaria y Chaenorhinum en la Comunidad Valenciana. Generalitat

Valenciana, Valencia.

Maunder, M., 1992. Plant reintroduction: an overview. Biodiversity

and Conservation 1, 51–61.

Medail, F., Quezel, P., 1997. Hot-spots analysis for conservation of

plant biodiversity in the Mediterranean basin. Annals of Missouri

Botanical Garden 84, 12–127.

Menges, E.S., 2000. Population viability analyses in plants. Challenges

and opportunities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15 (2), 51–56.

Morillo, C., Gomez Campo, C., 2000. Conservation in Spain, 1980–

2000. Biological Conservation 95, 165–174.

Navarro, L., Guitian, J., 2002. The role of floral biology and breeding

system on the reproductive success of narrow endemic Petrocoptis

viscosa Rothm. (Caryophyllaceae). Biological Conservation 103,

125–132.

NCTS, 2001. Web page. Available from: http://www.mma.es/Natur-

alia/naturalia_hispanica/ catalogo_especies_2000/indice.html.

N.P.W.S., 1998. Wollemi Pine (Wollemia nobilis) Recovery Plan. New

South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney.

Olivier, L., Galland, J.-P., Maurin, H. (Eds.), 1995. Livre Rouge de la

Flore Menacee de France. Tome I: Especes Prioritaires. Museum

National d’Histoire Naturelle-Conservatoire Botanique National de

Porquerolles-Ministere de l’Environment, Paris.

Palmer, M., 1995. A UK Plant Conservation Strategy: a Strategic

Framework for the Conservation of the Native Flora of Great

Britain and Northern Ireland. The Joint Nature Conservation

Committee, Birmingham.

Phitos, D., Strid, A., Snogerup, S., Greuter, W., 1995. The Red Data

Book of Rare and Threatened Plants of Greece. WWF, Athens.

Puente, J., 2001. Concluye el proyecto Life de flora amenazada en

Aragon. Medio Ambiente Aragon 8, 14–17.

Rigual, A., Esteve, F., 1953. Algunas anotaciones sobre los ultimos

ejemplares de Callitris quadrivalvis Vent. en la Sierra de Cartagena.

Anales Instituto Botanico Cavanilles 11 (1), 437–478.

Saez, Ll., Rossello, J.A., 2001. Llibre Vermell de la Flora Vascular de

les Illes Balears. Govern de les Illes Balears, Palma de Mallorca.

Sainz Ollero, H., Franco Mugica, F., Arias Torcal, J., 1996. Estrate-

gias para la Conservacion de la Flora Amenazada de Aragon.

Consejo de Proteccion de la Naturaleza de Aragon, Zaragoza.

Sainz Ollero, H., Hernandez Bermejo, J.E., 1979. Experimental rein-

troductions of endangered plant species in their natural habitats in

Spain. Biological Conservation 16 (3), 195–206.

Sainz Ollero, H., Hernandez Bermejo, J.E., 1981. Sıntesis Corologica

de las Dicotiledoneas Endemicas de la Penınsula Iberica e Islas

Baleares. Monografias INIA 31. Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca,

Madrid.

Sanchez Gomez, P., Guerra Montes, J., Guemes Heras, J., Garcıa

Rodrıguez, J., Hernandez Gonzalez, A., Carrillo Lopez, A.F., Car-

rion Vilches, M.A., 1998. Flora Murciana de Interes Nacional y

Europeo. Universidad de Murcia-Region de Murcia, Murcia.

Schemske, D.W., Husband, B.C., Ruckelshaus, M.H., Goodwillie, C.,

Parker, I.M., Bishop, J.G., 1994. Evaluating approaches to the

conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology 75 (3), 584–606.

Segarra-Moragues, J.G., Catalan, P., 2002. Low allozyme variability in

the critically endangered Borderea chouardii and its congener Borderea

pyrenaica (Dioscoreaceae), two paleoendemic relicts from the Central

Pyrenees. International Journal of Plant Science 163 (1), 159–166.

Sergio, C., Casas, C., Brugues, M., Cros, R.M., 1995. Lista Vermelha

dos Briofitos da Penınsula Iberica. Instituto Conservacao da Nat-

ureza, Lisboa.

Sigg, J., 1999. California native plant society: who are we? Fremontia

27 (2), 3.

Simon, J., Bosch, M., Molero, J., Blanche, C., 2001. Conservation

biology of the Pyrenean larkspur (Delphinium montanum): a case of

conflict of plant versus animal conservation? Biological Conserva-

tion 98, 305–314.

Skinner, M.W., Tibor, D.P., Bittman, R.L., Ertter, B., Ross, T.S.,

Boyd, S., Sanders, A.C., Shevock, J.R., Taylor, D.W., 1995.

Research needs for conserving California’s rare plants. Madrono 42

(2), 211–241.

Tear, T.H., Scott, J.M., Hayward, P.H., Griffith, B., 1995. Recovery

plans and the endangered species act: are criticisms supported by

data? Conservation Biology 9 (1), 182–195.

Terschuren, J., 1999. Action Plan for Cypripedium calceolus in Europe.

Nature and Environment, No. 100. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Torres, M.E., Ruiz, C., Iriondo, J.M., Perez, C., 2001. Pollination

ecology of Antirrhinum microphyllum Rothm. (Scrophulariaceae).

Bocconea 13, 543–547.

U.S.F.W.S., 2000. Recovery Plan for the Golden Paintbrush (Cas-

tilleja levisecta). US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Oregon.

Valdes, B., Dıaz Lifante, Z., 1996. Habitual autogamy in Linaria tur-

sica Valdes et Cabezudo (Scrophulariaceae). Flora 191, 329–333.

Valencia, R., Pitman, N., Leon-Yanez, S., Jorgensen, P.M., 2000.

Libro rojo de las plantas endemicas del Ecuador. Herbario QCA,

Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Ecuador, Quito.

VV.AA., 2000. Lista Roja de la Flora Vascular Espanola (valoracion

segun categorıas UICN). Conservacion Vegetal 6(extra), 11-38.

Available from: http://www.uam.es/otros/consveg/documentos/

numero6.pdf.

Wigginton, M.J., 1999. British Red Data Books. 1. Vascular Plants,

3rd ed. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Willoughby, J., 1992. Rare Plants and Natural Plant Communi-

ties. A Strategy for the Future. Bureau of Land Management,

California.

J.C. Moreno Saiz et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 419–431 431