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 Quercus petraea conservation in Europe
Sessile oak has a high level of genetic and phenotypic diversity due to the maintenance of a large population across Europe, long-distance geneflow, interfertility, and a high level of outcrossing (Ducousso and Bordacs, 2004; Dostálek, Frantík, and Lukášová, 2011). Genetic variation is higher in sessile oak than pedunculate oak in Europe, but not in Türkiye (Yucedag and Gailing, 2013).
Typically, differentiation across European populations in sessile oak is low. However, there is a slight correlation between genetic distance and geographic distance among populations, with an increase in distance between populations being linked with a decrease in genetic distance (Dostálek, Frantík, and Lukášová, 2011).
Spatial genetic structuring has been observed to be stronger in sessile oak than in pedunculate oak in French populations, occurring frequently in unplanted oak forests, natural stands, and coppiced stands (Dostálek, Frantík, and Lukášová, 2011). Spatial genetic structuring is positive up to 30 m in adult trees and 40 m between seedlings, which is to be expected as most seed and pollen dispersal is short range in sessile oak, being 8 m and 23 m on average, respectively (Eusemann and Liesebach, 2021). This means that many sessile oak forests are not completely uniform on a genetic level, but rather form mosaics and patches of genetic neighbourhoods, which could increase the adaptive potential of sessile oak forests (Eusemann and Liesebach, 2021).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
There is so much genetic variation in oak species that taxonomic identification is difficult (Ducousso and Bordacs, 2004; Curtu et al., 2006). Interspecific hybridization has been a key migration mechanism, allowing oaks to increase genetic diversity and adaptability (Ducousso and Bordacs, 2004). While sessile oak differs genetically from Hungarian oak (Quercus frainetto), downy oak (Quercus pubescens), and pedunculate oak, the differences and genetic variation between the species is not large and they are closely related (Curtu et al., 2006). Genetic variation between species is low because of shared ancestral origins and hybridization where multiple oak species co-occur (Yucedag and Gailing, 2013). This means that natural hybrids occur frequently, introgressive forms of oak can arise, and individuals with intermediate morphologies occur, making a clear definition of species boundaries difficult (Yucedag and Gailing, 2013).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
The distribution of oaks has been reduced and fragmented by continued deforestation, management, and human activity such as the conversion of forest into farmland since 8 500 BP (Eusemann and Liesebach, 2021). However, since the nineteenth century silvicultural management has increased oak forest coverage (Ducousso and Bordacs, 2004). Despite this, old-growth oak forests are rare and most oak stands are managed. Small populations in more extreme habitats are also at risk of disappearing, and the introduction of exotic genotypes into plantations is one of the main threats to oak genetic diversity (Ducousso and Bordacs, 2004).
Programmes of genetic conservation can be developed with a range of objectives, e.g. to sample genetic diversity, conserve evolutionary mechanisms and oak ecosystems, and protect endangered populations (Ducousso and Bordacs, 2004). In situ conservation is preferred for oaks, but if natural regeneration is not sufficient then adapted ex situ conservation can be used to protect endangered gene pools (Ducousso and Bordacs, 2004). Stands used for seed production should be as diverse as possible to generate seed with high genetic diversity, maximizing the adaptive potential of newly planted stands (Eusemann and Liesebach, 2021). Conservation efforts should prioritize use of local material and natural regeneration; reproductive material should only be transferred locally, and agreements between nurseries and forest managers for raising seedlings are also needed (Ducousso and Bordacs, 2004).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Genetic Characterisation of Quercus petraea and its GCUs
Availability of FRM
FOREMATIS
Quercus robur and Quercus petraea - Technical guidelines for genetic conservation and use for pedunculate and sessile oaks
Publication Year: 2003The forest reproductive material transfer in international trade must be in agreement with EU Directives and the OECD scheme. All scientific studies are congruent for the promotion of local material. Forest managers are urged to follow these guidelines:
1) Natural regeneration must be a priority.
2) Reproductive material must be transferred only at a local scale; transfers among provenance regions must be strictly limited. Foresters must use genetic resources for artificial regeneration from local seed stands, that have been selected for their phenotypic values and silvicultural histories.
3) Development of seedlingraising agreements between nurseries and forest managers is needed.
At present in Europe, these genetic resources are not really endangered except in some situations (marginal populations in coastal sand dunes or peatbogs; altitudes >1400 m) and at the limits of the natural range. These genetic resources are potentially threatened by introduction of exotic genotypes, species purification, neglected practices and conversion to high forest. For these reasons, we recommend development of programmes of gene conservation with the following objectives:
1) Sampling of genetic diversity: sampling strategies defined empirically or according to results obtained with molecular and quantitative markers.
2) Conservation of evolutionary mechanisms: the high genetic diversity of white oaks is the result of evolutionary mechanisms such as interspecific hybridization.
3) Conservation of oak ecosystems: humans have created ecotypes adapted to different management for wood production and acorn crops. Most of these management systems are neglected because foresters have undertaken conversion to high forest.
4) Conservation of endangered populations and minor species: marginal or endangered populations in Europe need conservation measures. The first step is to take a census, then define a policy for each situation.
In situ conservation methods should be generally preferred. If natural regeneration methods are not sufficient, an adapted and specified ex situ conservation programme including a controlled autochthonous reproductive material system (e.g. clonal seed orchards) should be used as well to preserve the endangered genepool.
Social Broadleaves Network: Report of the first meeting
Mediterranean Oaks Network: Report of the second meeting
Mediterranean Oaks Network: Report of the first meeting
Social Broadleaves Network: Report of the fifth meeting (Temperate Oaks and Beech network)
Social Broadleaves Network: Report of the third meeting
Social Broadleaves Network: Report of the second meeting
Contacts of experts
NA
Further reading
Bacilieri, R., Ducousso, A., and Kremer, A. 1995. Genetic, morphological, ecological and phenological differentiation between Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. and Quercus robur L. in a mixed stand of northwest of France. Silvae Genetica, 44(1): 1–9.
Gömöry, D., Yakovlev, I., Zhelev, P., Jedináková, J., and Paule, L. 2001. Genetic differentiation of oak populations within the Quercus robur/Quercus petraea complex in Central and Eastern Europe. Heredity, 86(5): 557–563.
References
Curtu, A.L., Gailing, O., Leinemann, L., and Finkeldey, R. 2006. Genetic variation and differentiation within a natural community of five oak species (Quercus spp.). Plant Biology, 9(01): 116–126.
Dostálek, J., Frantík, T., and Lukášová, M. 2011. Genetic differences within natural and planted stands of Quercus petraea. Open life sciences, 6(4): 597–605.
Ducousso, A. and Bordacs, S. 2004. EUFORGEN Technical Guidelines for genetic conservation and use for pedunculate and sessile oaks (Quercus robur and Q. petraea). Rome, International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. 6 pages.
Eusemann, P. and Liesebach, H. 2021. Small‐scale genetic structure and mating patterns in an extensive sessile oak forest (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.). Ecology and Evolution, 11(12): 7796–7809.
Yucedag, C. and Gailing, O. 2013. Morphological and genetic variation within and among four Quercus petraea and Q. robur natural populations. Turkish Journal of Botany, 37(4): 619–629.
See details
Designed by Newtvision
