To learn more about the map elements, please download the "Pan-European strategy for genetic conservation of forest trees"
This distribution map has been developed by the European Commission Joint Research Centre (partly based on the EUFORGEN map) and released under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0)
Caudullo, G., Welk, E., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., 2017. Chorological maps for the main European woody species. Data in Brief 12, 662-666. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.05.007
The following experts have contributed to the development of the EUFORGEN distribution maps:
Fazia Krouchi (Algeria), Hasmik Ghalachyan (Armenia), Thomas Geburek (Austria), Berthold Heinze (Austria), Rudi Litschauer (Austria), Rudolf Litschauer (Austria), Michael Mengl (Austria), Ferdinand Müller (Austria), Franz Starlinger (Austria), Valida Ali-zade (Azerbaijan), Vahid Djalal Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Karen Cox (Belgium), Bart De Cuyper (Belgium), Olivier Desteucq (Belgium), Patrick Mertens (Belgium), Jos Van Slycken (Belgium), An Vanden Broeck (Belgium), Kristine Vander Mijnsbrugge (Belgium), Dalibor Ballian (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Alexander H. Alexandrov (Bulgaria), Alexander Delkov (Bulgaria), Ivanova Denitsa Pandeva (Bulgaria), Peter Zhelev Stoyanov (Bulgaria), Joso Gracan (Croatia), Marilena Idzojtic (Croatia), Mladen Ivankovic (Croatia), Željka Ivanović (Croatia), Davorin Kajba (Croatia), Hrvoje Marjanovic (Croatia), Sanja Peric (Croatia), Andreas Christou (Cyprus), Xenophon Hadjikyriacou (Cyprus), Václav Buriánek (Czech Republic), Jan Chládek (Czech Republic), Josef Frýdl (Czech Republic), Petr Novotný (Czech Republic), Martin Slovacek (Czech Republic), Zdenek Špišek (Czech Republic), Karel Vancura (Czech Republic), Ulrik Bräuner (Denmark), Bjerne Ditlevsen (Denmark), Jon Kehlet Hansen (Denmark), Jan Svejgaard Jensen (Denmark), Kalev Jðgiste (Estonia), Tiit Maaten (Estonia), Raul Pihu (Estonia), Ülo Tamm (Estonia), Arvo Tullus (Estonia), Aivo Vares (Estonia), Teijo Nikkanen (Finland), Sanna Paanukoski (Finland), Mari Rusanen (Finland), Pekka Vakkari (Finland), Leena Yrjänä (Finland), Daniel Cambon (France), Eric Collin (France), Alexis Ducousso (France), Bruno Fady (France), François Lefèvre (France), Brigitte Musch (France), Sylvie Oddou-Muratorio (France), Luc E. Pâques (France), Julien Saudubray (France), Marc Villar (France), Vlatko Andonovski (FYR Macedonia), Dragi Pop-Stojanov (FYR Macedonia), Merab Machavariani (Georgia), Irina Tvauri (Georgia), Alexander Urushadze (Georgia), Bernd Degen (Germany), Jochen Kleinschmit (Germany), Armin König (Germany), Armin König (Germany), Volker Schneck (Germany), Richard Stephan (Germany), H. H. Kausch-Blecken Von Schmeling (Germany), Georg von Wühlisch (Germany), Iris Wagner (Germany), Heino Wolf (Germany), Paraskevi Alizoti (Greece), Filippos Aravanopoulos (Greece), Andreas Drouzas (Greece), Despina Paitaridou (Greece), Aristotelis C. Papageorgiou (Greece), Kostas Thanos (Greece), Sándor Bordács (Hungary), Csaba Mátyás (Hungary), László Nagy (Hungary), Thröstur Eysteinsson (Iceland), Adalsteinn Sigurgeirsson (Iceland), Halldór Sverrisson (Iceland), John Fennessy (Ireland), Ellen O'Connor (Ireland), Fulvio Ducci (Italy), Silvia Fineschi (Italy), Bartolomeo Schirone (Italy), Marco Cosimo Simeone (Italy), Giovanni Giuseppe Vendramin (Italy), Lorenzo Vietto (Italy), Janis Birgelis (Latvia), Virgilijus Baliuckas (Lithuania), Kestutis Cesnavicius (Lithuania), Darius Danusevicius (Lithuania), Valmantas Kundrotas (Lithuania), Alfas Pliûra (Lithuania), Darius Raudonius (Lithuania), Robert du Fays (Luxembourg), Myriam Heuertz (Luxembourg), Claude Parini (Luxembourg), Fred Trossen (Luxembourg), Frank Wolter (Luxembourg), Joseph Buhagiar (Malta), Eman Calleja (Malta), Ion Palancean (Moldova), Dragos Postolache (Moldova), Gheorghe Postolache (Moldova), Hassan Sbay (Morocco), Tor Myking (Norway), Tore Skrøppa (Norway), Anna Gugala (Poland), Jan Kowalczyk (Poland), Czeslaw Koziol (Poland), Jan Matras (Poland), Zbigniew Sobierajski (Poland), Maria Helena Almeida (Portugal), Filipe Costa e Silva (Portugal), Luís Reis (Portugal), Maria Carolina Varela (Portugal), Ioan Blada (Romania), Alexandru-Lucian Curtu (Romania), Lucian Dinca (Romania), Georgeta Mihai (Romania), Mihai Olaru (Romania), Gheorghe Parnuta (Romania), Natalia Demidova (Russian Federation), Mikhail V. Pridnya (Russian Federation), Andrey Prokazin (Russian Federation), Srdjan Bojovic (Serbia) , Vasilije Isajev (Serbia), Saša Orlovic (Serbia), Rudolf Bruchánik (Slovakia), Roman Longauer (Slovakia), Ladislav Paule (Slovakia), Gregor Bozič (Slovenia), Robert Brus (Slovenia), Katarina Celič (Slovenia), Hojka Kraigher (Slovenia), Andrej Verlič (Slovenia), Marjana Westergren (Slovenia), Ricardo Alía (Spain), Josefa Fernández-López (Spain), Luis Gil Sanchez (Spain), Pablo Gonzalez Goicoechea (Spain), Santiago C. González-Martínez (Spain), Sonia Martin Albertos (Spain), Eduardo Notivol Paino (Spain), María Arantxa Prada (Spain), Alvaro Soto de Viana (Spain), Lennart Ackzell (Sweden), Jonas Bergquist (Sweden), Sanna Black-Samuelsson (Sweden), Jonas Cedergren (Sweden), Gösta Eriksson (Sweden), Markus Bolliger (Switzerland), Felix Gugerli (Switzerland), Rolf Holderegger (Switzerland), Peter Rotach (Switzerland), Marcus Ulber (Switzerland), Sven M.G. de Vries (The Netherlands), Khouja Mohamed Larbi (Tunisia), Murat Alan (Turkey), Gaye Kandemir (Turkey), Gursel Karagöz (Turkey), Zeki Kaya (Turkey), Hasan Özer (Turkey), Hacer Semerci (Turkey), Ferit Toplu (Turkey), Mykola M. Vedmid (Ukraine), Roman T. Volosyanchuk (Ukraine), Stuart A'Hara (United Kingdom), Joan Cottrell (United Kingdom), Colin Edwards (United Kingdom), Michael Frankis (United Kingdom), Jason Hubert (United Kingdom), Karen Russell (United Kingdom), C.J.A. Samuel (United Kingdom).
Status of Cupressus sempervirens conservation in Europe
Most conifers have high genetic diversity and low differentiation among populations. However, Italian cypress shows low heterozygosity (indicating low genetic diversity within a population) and low genetic variation within populations, although native Iranian populations showed more genetic diversity within populations than genetic diversity between populations (Shahroodian et al., 2011). Genetic variation and differentiation between populations was found to be higher in natural populations than domesticated ones (Bagnoli et al., 2009).
Low levels of genetic variation may be because of the species’ evolutionary and cultural history and because populations are often small and isolated (Bagnoli et al., 2009; Soudabeh et al., 2012). The species has also experienced genetic bottlenecks in its evolutionary history that have reduced genetic diversity and allelic richness but have also created greater genetic differentiation (Bagnoli et al., 2009). Genetic diversity and allelic richness of the species decreases from east to west within the Greek distribution of the species (Bagnoli et al., 2009). Reduction in allelic richness in Italian and Tunisian populations may be the result of genetic drift from cultivation or because small and scattered populations in Italy are more susceptible to inbreeding (Bagnoli et al., 2009). The central peripheral hypothesis could explain the low genetic diversity of Italian cypress in Italy. It is expected that a species will have low diversity and high differentiation at its range margins, which is seen in Italian cypress, and this may be exacerbated by human introductions within populations, increasing differentiation between populations (Bagnoli et al., 2009).
Genetic studies reveal distinct population structures in different geographic regions, showing unique genetic characteristics, reflecting historical isolation and adaptation to local environments. Two main genetic groups have been identified in Europe (Italy and Tunisia, and Greece and Türkiye) with five subgroups: Türkiye with the Greek islands Rhodes and Samos, Greece (Crete), southern Italy, northern Italy, and Tunisia with central Italy (Bagnoli et al., 2009). Italian cypress was at one time separated into two varieties, but the second is now recognized as only a cultivar with no botanical significance (Bagnoli et al., 2009).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Human activities, including cultivation and habitat modification, have shaped the genetic diversity of Italian cypress. Italian cypress genetic distribution has been significantly affected by human-mediated distribution since antiquity and the Bronze Age. The species was introduced to Italy likely by the Romans, where it subsequently spread and is now a permanent part of Italian landscapes (Bagnoli et al., 2009; D’Auria, Teobaldelli, and Di Pasquale, 2019). Italian populations experienced multiple re-introductions from eastern populations, possibly explaining why the level of genetic differentiation in Italian populations is so much higher than Greek or Turkish populations (Bagnoli et al., 2009).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Conservation initiatives should consider preserving representative genetic samples to maintain the species' resilience in the face of environmental challenges and human impact. Genetic conservation and management of Italian cypress involves preserving its diverse gene pool to ensure long-term species viability. Strategies include establishing ex situ conservation in botanical gardens and seed banks, prioritizing populations with unique genetic traits. Effective genetic management safeguards the species' adaptive potential, contributing to the overall conservation of Italian cypress.
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Genetic Characterisation of Cupressus sempervirens and its GCUs
Availability of FRM
FOREMATIS
Contacts of experts
NA
Further reading
Raddi, S., Sümer, S., 1999. Genetic diversity in natural cupressus sempervirens L. populations in Turkey. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 27, 799–814.
Santini, A. and Donardo, V. 2000. Genetic variability of the ‘bark canker resistance’ character in several natural provenances of Cupressus sempervirens. Forest Pathology, 30: 87–96.
References
Bagnoli, F., Vendramin, G.G., Buonamici, A., Doulis, A.G., Gonzalez‐Martinez, S.C., La Porta, N., Magri, D., Raddi, P., Sebastiani, F., Fineschi, S., 2009. Is cupressus sempervirens native in Italy? an answer from genetic and Palaeobotanical Data. Molecular Ecology 18, 2276–2286.
D’Auria, A., Teobaldelli, M., Di Pasquale, G., 2019. The late holocene history of Cypress (cupressus sempervirens L.) in the Italian Peninsula: New perspectives from Archaeobotanical Data. The Holocene 30, 210–217.
Shahroodian, S.H., Azadfar, D., Soltanloo, H., and Ramezanpour, S. 2011. Genetic variability in natural Iranian populations of Cupressus sempervirens var. horizontalis in Caspian Sea coastward assessed by SSR markers. Plant Omics Journal, 4(1): 19–24.
Soudabeh, K.A., Davoud, A., Anoushirvan, S., Hossein, V.K., and Mohammad, M. 2012. Assessment of genetic variability in long-lived Cupressus sempervirens var. horizontalis using SSR markers. Plant Gene and Trait, 3(8): 43–49.
See details
Designed by Newtvision
