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 Ulmus laevis conservation in Europe
European white elm has low to moderate levels of genetic variation and diversity and significant genetic differentiation between populations across Europe (Nielsen and Kjær, 2010; Litkowiec et al., 2022). Up to 90% of genetic variation is within populations (Kavaliauskas et al., 2023). Genetic diversity and polymorphism are lower than might be expected for a highly outcrossing, wind-pollinated, and widespread temperate tree species and is lower than in other elm (Ulmus) species (Nielsen and Kjær, 2010; Litkowiec et al., 2022). Populations in Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands were found to have especially low genetic diversity, which is explained by them being on the edge of the species’ range (Nielsen and Kjær, 2010).
European white elm is genetically homogeneous, with one haplotype being found across 90% of individuals across Europe and two other rare haplotypes being found in marginal populations (Collin, 2003; Litkowiec et al., 2022). However, genetic drift has caused substantial differentiation among small peripheral populations, with populations in the core of the species’ range, such as in Poland, having a higher level of genetic variation (Collin, 2003). Polish European white elm populations have a higher number of alleles and greater heterozygosity than Spanish and Danish populations, indicating higher genetic diversity (Litkowiec et al., 2022).
Spatially close European white elm trees are genetically close to one another, suggesting fruit is not dispersed very far and that pollination is over short distances, even if fruit are winged and suitable for wind-dispersal (Nielsen and Kjær, 2010).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
European white elm has some genetic differentiation and non-geographically related genetic structuring and clustering across Europe. This is the result of climate change during the Quaternary period, which reduced and isolated populations during glacial–interglacial cycles and postglacial migration (Litkowiec et al., 2022). However, some spatial genetic structuring is linked to river basins (Kavaliauskas et al., 2023). Postglacial recolonization and restriction to glacial refugia may have caused a loss of genetic diversity and significant genetic bottlenecking (Nielsen and Kjær, 2010; Litkowiec et al., 2022). European white elm has maintained a reduced level of genetic diversity and low genetic differentiation due to damage from DED (Litkowiec et al., 2022). The current genetic structure of European white elm implies free gene exchange among populations and indicates that they share a common postglacial history (Litkowiec et al., 2022).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Habitat loss to agriculture, forestry, and urbanization over the last hundred years and DED have reduced European white elm populations and threaten their genetic diversity (Collin, 2003; Litkowiec et al., 2022). The removal of riparian forests and draining and reclaiming of land for agriculture or poplar cultivation has had a significant negative impact on the species, fragmenting populations and limiting them to marginal sites (Collin, 2003). DED has had more of an impact in Central and Eastern European populations than in western ones (Collin, 2003).
In situ conservation through the establishment of a network of conservation stands across the natural distribution range of European white elm, including a range of ecological conditions, is still possible despite the threat of DED (Collin, 2003). Preliminary inventories are recommended for areas where the distribution of this species is unknown (Collin, 2003).
Marginal and threatened populations and those in rare environments such as floodplains should be given conservation priority (Collin, 2003). Natural regeneration should be favoured, but where regeneration is poor planting of local material may be required (Collin, 2003). Ex situ conservation may also be required when populations are small and fragmented, or when the impact of DED strong, which should not be difficult as European white elm can easily be propagated by cuttings (Collin, 2003).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Genetic Characterisation of Ulmus laevis and its GCUs
Availability of FRM
FOREMATIS
Ulmus laevis - Technical guidelines for genetic conservation and use for European white elm
Publication Year: 2003Despite this pathological threat, the in situ conservation of white elm genetic resources is still possible through the establishment of a network of conservation stands. These stands should be selected across the natural distribution range, incorporating ecological variation, comprising at least 50 flowering trees in each. In countries where the distribution of this species in the wild is unknown, a preliminary inventory should be undertaken. Priority should be given to marginal populations and rare floodplain communities in danger of deforestation. Silvicultural management should stimulate and promote natural regeneration. However, planting of the original or local material may be required when regeneration is poor or the number of seed trees is insufficient.
Complementary ex situ conservation measures must be undertaken when no legal habitat protection measure can be taken, when populations are small and fragmented, or when the impact of DED is too strong. In emergency cases, ‘static’ conservation measures, such as clonal archives and cryopreservation of seed lots can be applied. However, ‘dynamic’ ex situ conservation units, such as conservation seed orchards (in artificial conditions) or pseudo in situ conservation units (plantations in original habitat), which brings together diverse material from the same eco-region and enhances genetic exchange, are highly recommended. White elms can easily be propagated by cuttings, and field clonal archives can be maintained as low hedges (1.5 – 2 m), which are less attractive to the vectors of DED.
A European core collection of elm clones has already been established with material from the nine countries participating in the EU RESGEN project. It is important that this collection is complemented with material originating from all the relevant regions of Europe.
Noble Hardwoods Network: Report of the first meeting
Noble Hardwood Network: Report on the fourth and fifth meeting
Noble Hardwoods Network: Report of the second meeting
Contacts of experts
NA
Further reading
Torre, S., Sebastiani, F., Burbui, G., Pecori, F., Pepori, A.L., Passeri, I., Ghelardini, L., Selvaggi, A., and Santini, A. 2022. Novel insights into refugia at the southern margin of the distribution range of the endangered species Ulmus laevis. Frontiers in Plant Science, 13: 826158. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.826158
Vakkari, P., Rusanen, M., and Kärkkäinen, K. 2009. High genetic differentiation in marginal populations of European white elm (Ulmus laevis). Silva Fennica, 43(2): 185–196.
Venturas, M., Fuentes-Utrilla, P., Ennos, R., Collada, C., and Gil, L. 2013. Human-induced changes on fine-scale genetic structure in Ulmus laevis Pallas wetland forests at its SW distribution limit. Plant Ecology, 214: 317–327.
References
Collin, E. 2003. EUFORGEN Technical Guidelines for genetic conservation and use for European white elm (Ulmus laevis). Rome, International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. 6 pages.
Kavaliauskas, D., Fussi, B., Rau, B., and Šeho, M. 2023. Assessing genetic diversity of European white elm (Ulmus laevis Pallas) in Bavaria as an indicator for in-situ conservation and sustainable use of the species genetic resources. European Journal of Forest Research, 142(1): 145–160.
Litkowiec, M., Chudzińska, M., Pasławska, A., Pałucka, M., Kozioł, C., and Lewandowski, A. 2022. Population history, genetic variation, and conservation status of European white elm (Ulmus laevis Pall.) in Poland. Annals of Forest Science, 79: 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13595-022-01157-5
Nielsen, L.R. and Kjær, E.D. 2010. Fine-scale gene flow and genetic structure in a relic Ulmus laevis population at its northern range. Tree Genetics & Genomes, 6: 643–649.
See details
Designed by Newtvision
