Without robust and unbiased systems for monitoring, changes in natural systems will remain enigmatic for policy makers, leaving them without a clear idea of the consequences of any environmental policies they might adopt. Generally, biodiversity-monitoring activities are not integrated or evaluated across any large geographic region. The EuMon project conducted the first large-scale evaluation of monitoring practices in Europe through an on-line questionnaire and is reporting on the results of this survey. In September 2007 the EuMon project had documented 395 monitoring schemes for species, which represents a total annual cost of about 4 million euro, involving more than 46,000 persons devoting over 148,000 person-days/year to biodiversity-monitoring activities. Here we focused on the analysis of variations of monitoring practices across a set of taxonomic groups (birds, amphibians and reptiles, mammals, butterflies, plants, and other insects) and across 5 European countries (France, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, and Poland). Our results suggest that the overall sampling effort of a scheme is linked with the proportion of volunteers involved in that scheme. Because precision is a function of the number of monitored sites and the number of sites is maximized by volunteer involvement, our results do not support the common belief that volunteer-based schemes are too noisy to be informative. Just the opposite, we believe volunteer-based schemes provide relatively reliable data, with state-of-the-art survey designs or data-analysis methods, and consequently can yield unbiased results. Quality of data collected by volunteers is more likely determined by survey design, analytical methodology, and communication skills within the schemes rather than by volunteer involvement per se.

One particular challenge in reducing the loss of biodiversity by 2010, as agreed on at the Earth Summit in 2002, is to assign conservation tasks to geographic or administrative entities (e.g., countries or regions) on different geographical scales. To identify conservation tasks, it is imperative to determine the importance of a specific area for the global survival of a species. So far, these national or subnational responsibilities for the conservation of species have been included differently in methods prioritizing conservation. We reviewed how 12 European and 3 non-European methods determined national conservation responsibilities and evaluated the international importance of a biological population. Different countries used different methodologies, which made a direct comparison of assessments of national responsibilities among countries extremely difficult. Differences existed in the importance criteria used. Criteria included population decline, range reduction, rarity status, degree of isolation of a population, endemism, proportional distribution, and geographic location. To increase comparability, it is imperative to develop criteria for which data are generally available and to standardize the methodology among countries. A standardized method would allow conservation decisions to be based on the conservation status of a species and on the responsibility of a geographic or administrative entity for the survival of a species. We suggest that such a method should use a scalable index of proportional distribution, taxonomic status, and the distribution pattern of a taxon or species as key elements. Such a method would allow for the creation of hierarchical lists and would be highly relevant for parts of the world with multiple political jurisdictions or state unions and for nations with regional governmental structures. Conservation priorities could then be reasonably set by combining national responsibility assessments with the international conservation status of a species.

The Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) commits its signatories to the identification and monitoring of biodiversity. The European Union has implemented this commitment into its legislation. Despite the legal requirement resources are scarce, requiring a prioritization of conservation actions, including e.g. monitoring. Red lists are currently the most prominent tool for priority setting in applied conservation, despite the fact that they were not developed for that purpose. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that they do not always reflect actual conservation needs. As a response, the concept of national responsibility as a complementary tool was developed during the last two decades. The existing methods are country specific and mainly incomparable on an international scale. Here, we present a newly developed method, which is applicable to any taxonomic group, adjustable to different geographic scales, with little data requirements and clear categorizations. We apply the new method to over 1,000 species in several countries of different size and report on the applicability of our method and discuss problems that derive from the currently available data. Our method has several major advantages compared to currently available methods. It is applicable to any geographic range, allows automatization, given database availability, and is readily adjustable to future data improvements. It further has comparably low data demands by exploiting one of the most commonly available information on biodiversity, i.e. distribution maps. We believe that our method allows the allocation of the limited resources in nature conservation in the most sensible way, e.g. the sharing of monitoring duties, effectively selecting networks of protected areas, improving knowledge on biodiversity, and closing information gaps in many species groups.

Red lists serve as the most prominent tool for priority setting in applied conservation, even though they were not originally designed for this task. Hence, threat status does not always reflect actual conservation needs and can be very different from actual conservation priorities. Therefore, red lists may at best be a suboptimal tool for setting conservation priorities in a country or region. As a response, a range of alternative or complementary tools have been developed, with approaches, methods, and parameters such as population decline, population center etc. used, differing widely among countries. One recent development is the combination of conservation status with a measure of the international importance of a population in a focal region for the global survival of a species. Here, we provide a new method that integrates the two concepts while keeping them conceptually separate. The main benefit of this method is that it can be applied across variable geographical scales such as regions, countries, and even continents. Furthermore, it allows for better recommendations for applied conservation and conservation policy development than the two concepts in isolation. Our method, if applied internationally, would allow for a standardized priority setting in species conservation, would be highly comparable between countries, and would lead to a more efficient use of the limited financial and human resources for monitoring and conservation of biodiversity.

Containing more than a hundred species, the Chrysis ignita species group is the largest and one of the most taxonomically challenging groups in its genus. It has not been possible to resolve the taxonomy of the group using traditional methods due to the lack of robust diagnostic morphological characters. Here we present the results of a molecular analysis designed to delimit species in the Chrysis ignita group for the first time; using mitochondrial sequence data for 364 in-group specimens consisting of all 18 species known to occur in Northern Europe. Two mitochondrial loci were analysed: a COI gene fragment, and a continuous DNA sequence consisting of 16S rRNA, tRNAVal , 12S rRNA and ND4. Two approaches were employed for delimiting species: (1) genetic distance analysis based on the standard COI barcode sequences and; (2) phylogenetic analysis of the COI fragment together with rRNA genes. Both analyses yielded trees with similar topology, but support values for nodes were higher using the second approach. Fifteen species were distinguished in all analyses: Chrysis angustula Schenck, 1856, C. brevitarsis Thomson, 1870, C. clarinicollis Linsenmaier, 1951, C. corusca Valkeila, 1971, C. fulgida Linnaeus, 1761, C. ignita (Linnaeus, 1758), C. impressa Schenck, 1856, C. iris Christ, 1791, C. leptomandibularis Niehuis, 2000, C. longula Abeille de Perrin, 1879, C. ruddii Shuckard, 1837, C. schencki Linsenmaier, 1968, C. subcoriacea Linsenmaier, 1959, C. terminata Dahlbom, 1854 and C. vanlithi Linsenmaier, 1959. The specific status of C. mediata Linsenmaier, 1951 and C. solida Haupt, 1957 was not resolved. Included unidentified specimens grouped in three clusters, two of which are distinctly delimited and apparently represent cryptic species. The specific status of the unidentified samples in the third cluster remained unclear. Moreover, our data suggest the existence of additional cryptic species currently lumped under the names C. pseudobrevitarsis Linsenmaier, 1951 and C. schencki Linsenmaier, 1968. In conclusion, our results derived from analysis of mitochondrial loci strongly support the specific status of the majority of currently recognised species in the Chrysis ignita species group, and suggest the existence of additional cryptic species in Northern Europe. Thus, considering the difficulties that often arise during species determination based on morphological characters, the mtDNA loci used here appear highly suitable for assisting species delimitation in this group as well as identification of specimens.