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 Sorbus torminalis conservation in Europe
Wild service tree has high genetic diversity within and between populations (Bednorz, 2007; Kučerová et al., 2010). Genetic diversity is higher within populations than between them (Demesure-Musch and Oddou-Muratorio, 2004).
Wild service tree populations in eastern Europe are clustered into five groups, with significant isolation by distance and genetic differentiation correlated with geographical distance (Kučerová et al., 2010). However, some research shows no evidence of isolation by distance (Angelone et al., 2007). Genetic structuring, high genetic differentiation in eastern Europe, and genetic differences between western and eastern wild service tree populations in Europe might be the result of postglacial migration paths and gene flow among separated refugia (Demesure-Musch and Oddou-Muratorio, 2004; Kučerová et al., 2010).
Wild service tree’s weak gene flow has created significant genetic structuring at local scales but geographic structuring at regional levels is low (Demesure-Musch and Oddou-Muratorio, 2004; Angelone et al., 2007; Kučerová et al., 2010). Human management also appears to have had little impact of wild service tree’s genetic structuring (Demesure-Musch and Oddou-Muratorio, 2004).
Wild service tree is a diploid species, is partially self-incompatible and outcrossing, with hermaphrodite flowers pollinated by insects (Demesure-Musch and Oddou-Muratorio, 2004; Bednorz, 2007). Wild service trees have weak gene flow, with pollen being dispersed locally but poorly among scattered populations. However, seeds can be dispersed over distances of up to 2.5 km in rare events (Demesure-Musch and Oddou-Muratorio, 2004; Angelone et al., 2007). Long-distance seed dispersal and a higher proportion of gene flow by seeds than by pollen affects the genetic diversity in this species (Demesure-Musch and Oddou-Muratorio, 2004; Angelone et al., 2007). Gene flow by seeds is more common during the pioneer phase of establishment of wild service trees in a new habitat. This determines the genetic composition of newly founded population, which then contributes less to the regional migrant gene pool (Angelone et al., 2007).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Wild service trees hybridize with related species such as common whitebeam (Sorbus aria) and introgression occurs (Kučerová et al., 2010). During hybridization with other species, the wild service tree is typically the male parent, which makes introgression rare and means hybridization does not significantly affect the species’ genetic diversity (Demesure-Musch and Oddou-Muratorio, 2004). Hybrids are morphologically and genetically distinguishable (Kučerová et al., 2010).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Wild service tree has a scattered distribution, and its genetic diversity is at risk (Demesure-Musch and Oddou-Muratorio, 2004). The main threats to the species include logging, small and fragmented habitats, spatial isolation of populations, limited gene flow, low competitiveness, and inappropriate forest management (Demesure-Musch and Oddou-Muratorio, 2004; Bednorz, 2007). Wild service trees are sensitive to competition, which can limit their regeneration and lead to local extinction (Demesure-Musch and Oddou-Muratorio, 2004). The tree typically grows in disturbed forests and forest edges but is out-competed by late-successional species, meaning management favouring closed canopies has negatively affected wild service tree (Angelone et al., 2007)
Natural populations should be maintained at an effective size. Wild service tree should also be introduced at new sites to reduce isolation and increase gene flow (Bednorz, 2007). Active methods of protection are necessary to maintain ecosystem dynamics favourable for wild service trees as they are dependent on forest successional stages (Demesure-Musch and Oddou-Muratorio, 2004; Bednorz, 2007). Forest management needs to favour individual trees, for example by clearing competing neighbouring trees and establishing regeneration before that of social broadleaves, giving young trees competitive advantage (Demesure-Musch and Oddou-Muratorio, 2004). Conservation should take place at the landscape or regional scale (Demesure-Musch and Oddou-Muratorio, 2004). When it is not possible to apply in situ conservation, ex situ conservation must be considered, collecting seeds from many trees (Demesure-Musch and Oddou-Muratorio, 2004). Creating regional core collections will allow seed to be used to reinforce some small populations (Demesure-Musch and Oddou-Muratorio, 2004).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Genetic Characterisation of Sorbus torminalis and its GCUs
Availability of FRM
FOREMATIS
Sorbus torminalis - Technical guidelines for genetic conservation and use for wild service tree
Publication Year: 2003In situ measures
Dynamic conservation maintains the diversity of evolving populations thanks to the combined effects of environmental pressure and sexual reproduction. In situ conservation is applied through a network of conservation units (natural stands).
For species with extinction-recolonization dynamics, it is not possible to define units of conservation. Indeed, the extinction-colonization events and high levels of seed flow could not be maintained in conservation units. Here, the issue is not to limit the large geneflow but rather to conserve it. It is also necessary to maintain the entire ecosystem dynamic because wild service tree dynamics are closely related to forest succession. Therefore, wild service tree conservation should not be practised at the local level (several hectares) but at the landscape level or even at the regional scale. For now, it is not possible to indicate a critical population size below which the populations would be threatened.
Conservation efforts need first to be focused on common forestry practices. For long-term sustainability of wild service tree genetic resources, forest management must be oriented in favour of each single tree. First, competition from neighbouring trees must be controlled and wild service trees need to be released at each logging intervention. Second, the forester must be aware that the seed trees of the neighbouring compartments will also contribute to regeneration. Most importantly, regeneration of wild service tree must be established before that of social broadleaves. In this way, the young wild service tree seedlings are given a competitive advantage against oaks or beeches. It is also important to ensure a regular distribution of wild service tree even with small clusters or single individuals. The local disappearance of some trees is not harmful to the population because seed flows allow colonization at long distances. But the forester must ensure the presence of a favourable site for new establishments. On the regional scale, an effort must be also made to favour the presence of wild service tree. The regional dynamics of geneflow are very important to conserve the local dynamic geneflow.
Ex situ measures
When it is not possible to apply in situ conservation, or measures for seed supply, ex situ conservation must be considered. To establish artificial conservation populations, the seeds must be collected from many trees with a distance of more than 200 m between them, to enlarge the genetic basis and to avoid relatedness. Planting conditions (site, planting distances, care and tending over the first years) must be carefully controlled. The core collections could be created regionally so that the seed could be used to reinforce some small populations. If the core collection is not isolated from other wild service trees (>10 km), geneflow can not be excluded. The strategy could be combined with ecological engineering techniques used in environmental restoration projects.
Noble Hardwood Network: Report on the fourth and fifth meeting
Noble Hardwoods Network: Report of the second meeting
Contacts of experts
NA
Further reading
Hoebee, S.E., Menn, C., Rotach, P., Finkeldey, R., and Holderegger, R. 2006. Spatial genetic structure of Sorbus torminalis: The extent of clonal reproduction in natural stands of a rare tree species with a scattered distribution. Forest Ecology and Management, 226(1–3): 1–8.
Oddou‐Muratorio, S, Demesure-Musch, B, Pélissier, R., and Gouyon, P.H. 2004. Impacts of gene flow and logging history on the local genetic structure of a scattered tree species, Sorbus torminalis L. Crantz. Molecular Ecology, 13(12): 3689–3702.
References
Angelone, S., Hilfiker, K., Holderegger, R., Bergamini, A., and Hoebee, S.E. 2007. Regional population dynamics define the local genetic structure in Sorbus torminalis. Molecular Ecology, 16(6): 1291–1301.
Bednorz, L. 2007. Conservation of genetic resources of Sorbus torminalis in Poland. Dendrobiology, 58: 3–7.
Demesure-Musch, B. and Oddou-Muratorio, S. 2004. EUFORGEN Technical Guidelines for genetic conservation and use for wild service tree (Sorbus torminalis). Rome, International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. 6 pages.
Kučerová, V., Honec, M., Paule, L., Zhelev, P., and Gömöry, D. 2010. Genetic differentiation of Sorbus torminalis in Eastern Europe as determined by microsatellite markers. Biologia, 65(5): 817–821.
See details
Designed by Newtvision
