Credit: Iifar/Wikimedia
Credit: Iifar/Wikimedia
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 Picea omorika conservation in Europe
The species shows lower genetic diversity than more-widely-distributed spruce species (Picea). It is typically genetically and morphologically uniform, with high rates of inbreeding, possibly being an example of endemism leading to reduced genetic diversity (Ballian et al., 2006; Nasri et al., 2008; Mataruga et al., 2020). However, some isolated populations of Serbian spruce have been shown to have unexpectedly high levels of genetic variation, and genetic diversity is high considering the extremely limited range of the species (Nasri et al., 2008; Aleksić et al., 2022). Low genetic diversity could be the result of genetic drift and a recent extreme population genetic bottleneck (Ballian et al., 2006). Genetic bottlenecking causing the species to become genetically impoverished could be the result of isolation, founder effects, or the species’ failure to colonize Europe in the Holocene after glaciers retreated, being unable to compete with other species such as Norway spruce (Picea abies), despite historically being more widely spread (or at least its ancestor) (Nasri et al., 2008).
The isolated populations of Serbian spruce are highly genetically diverse from one another, with exceptional genetic structure and poor genetic connectivity even at small special scales. This indicates high genetic differentiation and limitations to gene flow despite the species light pollen and seeds (Mataruga et al., 2020; Aleksić et al., 2022). More than a quarter of genetic variation may be found between populations; this is higher than other spruce species, likely due to Serbian spruce growing in rough terrain, resulting in isolation of populations (Ballian et al., 2006).
Serbian spruce shows genetic clustering, with eastern and western populations being separated, and eastern populations having higher genetic diversity and larger populations (Mataruga et al., 2020). However, some research shows a north/south genetic separation of the species, with southern populations having higher genetic diversity (Nasri et al., 2008). These differences could be the result of different environmental pressures, with western populations experiencing a greater frequency of wildfires; wildfires likely play an important role for natural regeneration and genetic structuring of the species (Mataruga et al., 2020).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
No information available.
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Genetic conservation efforts for Serbian spruce are a priority due to its already very limited natural distribution and genetic variety, low number of remnant and small sized populations, and its vulnerability to habitat fragmentation, drought, fungus and disease, and constant human pressure (Ballian et al., 2006). There is also a lack of suitable habitats for the species to expand to at higher elevations within its range, making climate change a significant threat (Mataruga et al., 2020). Natural regeneration is poor in Serbian spruce, and it competes poorly with other species, but wildfires can increase natural regeneration and increase pollen migration by up to 66%; however, too high fire frequency can negatively affect regeneration of the species (Aleksić et al., 2022). The current conservation strategy does not allow active management in natural Serbian spruce populations, which are under legal protection; however, prescribed burning and removal of competitors would be beneficial for the survival of the species (Mataruga et al., 2020).
The species is at risk of extinction in its natural habitat in the next few decades and therefore genetically informed conservation actions are needed (Ballian et al., 2006). The species is protected by law in former Yugoslavia since 1955, IUCN Red-Listed since 1998, and has been included into the pan-European network of genetic conservation units (GCU) (Mataruga et al., 2020). Currently there are four natural populations and three planted stands included as GCUs, but further establishment of an efficient GCU network for the dynamic conservation of this exceptional and fragile forest genetic resource is recommended (Mataruga et al., 2020). The exact number and size of current populations is unknown, making the selection of populations to conserve difficult, representing a significant obstacle. A “one population–one unit” strategy may be the most effective, including all Serbian spruce populations in the network of GCUs (Mataruga et al., 2020).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Genetic Characterisation of Picea omorika and its GCUs
Availability of FRM
FOREMATIS
Contacts of experts
NA
Further reading
Aleksić, J.M., Schueler, S., Mengl, M., and Geburek, T. 2009. EST-SSRs developed for other Picea species amplify in Picea omorika and reveal high genetic variation in two natural populations. Belgian Journal of Botany, 142(1): 89–95.
References
Aleksić, J.M., Mataruga, M., Daničić, V., Cvjetković, B., Milanović, Đ., Vendramin, G.G., Avanzi, C., and Piotti, A. 2022. High pollen immigration but no gene flow via-seed into a Genetic Conservation Unit of the endangered Picea omorika after disturbance. Forest Ecology and Management, 510: 120115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120115
Ballian, D., Longauer, R., Mikić, T., Paule, L., Kajba, D., and Gömöry, D., 2006. Genetic structure of a rare European conifer, Serbian spruce (Picea omorika (Panč.) Purk.). Plant Systematics and Evolution, 260: 53–63.
Mataruga, M., Piotti, A., Daničić, V., Cvjetković, B., Fussi, B., Konnert, M., Vendramin, G.G., and Aleksić, J.M. 2020. Towards the dynamic conservation of Serbian spruce (Picea omorika) western populations. Annals of Forest Science, 77: 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-019-0892-1
Nasri, N., Bojovic, S., Vendramin, G.G., and Fady, B. 2008. Population genetic structure of the relict Serbian spruce, Picea omorika, inferred from plastid DNA. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 271: –7.
See details
Designed by Newtvision
