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 minor conservation in Europe
Field elm has low to moderate levels of genetic diversity and moderate genetic differentiation (Buiteveld et al., 2016). The species has a high rate of clonal reproduction from artificial plantings in Europe, giving it a high heterozygosity and some genetic bottlenecking (Cox et al., 2014: Buiteveld et al., 2016).
At the European scale, field elm has low genetic differentiation, which may be because artificial planting has altered the geographic genetic structure of the species across Europe (Buiteveld et al., 2016). Where field elm is native it is expected to have higher genetic differentiation in isolated populations, such as those on the Balearic Islands and other surrounding islands when compared with populations in Iberia (Fuentes-Utrilla et al., 2014).
Field elm has wind-dispersed seeds and pollen that can travel distances of up to 8 km and has low self-pollination, allowing the species to maintain genetic connectivity among isolated populations (Bertolasi et al., 2015). Field elm seeds can also float, allowing the species to colonize riparian habitats downstream (Buiteveld et al., 2016).
Widespread human-mediated planting has spread field elm through Europe, taking advantage of the species' ability to propagate vegetatively and resprout from the stump, and this can result in clusters of identical genotypes (Buiteveld et al., 2016). Clonal reproduction can limit potential mates and pollen dispersal, causing a decrease in fertility and increase in self-compatibility (Cox et al., 2014). Non-random mating in isolated and fragmented populations can also lead to genetic drift and reduced genetic variation (Cox et al., 2014).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
There is a large genetic and morphological variation in field elm, and it is unclear how it should be classified. Some view it as one large species while others see it as many species that include some varieties and hybrids (Buiteveld et al., 2016). Field elm’s range overlaps with wych elm (Ulmus glabra) in the north and these two species often hybridize, creating a hybrid form called Dutch elm (Ulmus hollandica), making taxonomic classification even more difficult (Cox et al., 2014; Buiteveld et al., 2016). Field elm also hybridizes with Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila). The genetic barriers between field elm and both Siberian elm and wych elm are low and hybridization is often human induced (Cox et al., 2014; Bertolasi et al., 2015).
Hybridization can add to the genetic variability of field elm, especially as DED has reduced field elm populations, and introgression may have passed some of Siberian elm’s resistance to DED to field elm (Cox et al., 2014; Bertolasi et al., 2015). However, introgression and the commercial release of cultivars could result in homogenization of the genetic structure of wild field elm populations (Cox et al., 2014).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Field elm is not endangered due to its strong resilience, despite the threat of DED and its effects on the species’ genetic structure and distribution (Bertolasi et al., 2015). However, the species is rare in parts of its range, often represented by few, scattered, populations or confined to single lines of trees along the sides of watercourses (Fuentes-Utrilla et al., 2014). Field elm is resistant to summer droughts and could be a replacement for less tolerant species such as alder (Alnus) under future climate change (Fuentes-Utrilla et al., 2014).
Taxonomic complexity, human exploitation, and high rates of clonality make field elm a difficult species to conserve because its genetic diversity is not fully understood and has been heavily modified (Buiteveld et al., 2016). Research and inventories are needed to fully understand the genetic structure of the species and create conservation programmes in Europe (Buiteveld et al., 2016). Dynamic in situ conservation could promote the natural adaptation of field elm genetic resources (Buiteveld et al., 2016). However, there is a lack of interest in in situ conservation of field elm outside of ancient woodlands as few mature trees survive DED. Conservation can be achieved through root suckering and seedlings, and many European countries have ex situ clone banks for this species (Buiteveld et al., 2016).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Genetic Characterisation of Ulmus minor and its GCUs
Availability of FRM
FOREMATIS
Noble Hardwood Network: Report on the fourth and fifth meeting
Noble Hardwoods Network: Report of the second meeting
Noble Hardwoods Network: Report of the first meeting
Contacts of experts
NA
Further reading
No available research.
References
Bertolasi, B., Leonarduzzi, C., Piotti, A., Leonardi, S., Zago, L., Gui, L., Gorian, F., Vanetti, I., and Binelli, G. 2015. A last stand in the Po valley: genetic structure and gene flow patterns in Ulmus minor and U. pumila. Annals of Botany, 115(4): 683–692.
Buiteveld, J., Vanden Broeck, A., Cox, K., and Collin, E. 2016. Human impact on the genetic diversity of Dutch field elm (Ulmus minor) populations in the Netherlands: implications for conservation. Plant Ecology and Evolution, 149(2): 165–176.
Cox, K., Vanden Broeck, A., Vander Mijnsbrugge, K., Buiteveld, J., Collin, E., Heybroek, H.M., and Mergeay, J. 2014. Interspecific hybridisation and interaction with cultivars affect the genetic variation of Ulmus minor and Ulmus glabra in Flanders. Tree Genetics & Genomes, 10: 813–826.
Fuentes-Utrilla, P., Valbuena-Carabaña, M., Ennos, R., and Gil, L. 2014. Population clustering and clonal structure evidence the relict state of Ulmus minor Mill. in the Balearic Islands. Heredity, 113(1): 21–31.
If you notice any error in the contents of this species page, please contact euforgen@efi.int
See details
Designed by Newtvision
