Back

How well is Italian biodiversity represented in red lists and conservation legislation? Taxonomic biases, coverage gaps and the assessment-to-legislation bottleneck

Miccolis, E.; Rasotto, M. B.; De Pascale, F.; Pievani, T.

2026-07-01 ecology
10.64898/2026.06.30.730850 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Italy, one of Europe's most biodiverse countries, is expected to undergo landscape-wide nature recovery thanks to the EU Nature Restoration Regulation. National red lists represent critical instruments for informing conservation strategies at finer geographic resolutions and prioritizing taxa of national importance; yet the taxonomic completeness of Italian red lists remains unquantified in relation to national biodiversity. Equally, no systematic evaluation has been conducted on the representation of threatened and endemic Italian taxa within European and international conservation directives and treaties. We present the first comprehensive review of threat status and policy inclusion of Italian biodiversity, encompassing animals, plants, fungi, lichens, and algae. We cross-referenced national species checklists with Italian, European, Mediterranean, and global IUCN red lists, alongside policy annexes from the Birds and Habitats Directives, the Bern and Barcelona Conventions, and CITES. Our dataset comprised 76,845 taxa, of which 8,389 are endemic; yet red list assessments exist for only 10% of this total (7,349 taxa, including 1,700 endemics). Conservation policy coverage is even more restrictive: only 1,346 taxa are listed under at least one legislative instrument, with only half of these classified as threatened. This constitutes a compounding double bottleneck with most of the Italian biodiversity remaining both unassessed and unprotected and systematically biasing conservation policy toward an unrepresentative fraction of national biodiversity. We recommend accelerated national assessments and urgent establishment of a national biodiversity priority list founded on transparent prioritization protocols. This would complement ecosystem-based interventions mandated by the Nature Restoration Regulation while correcting for vertebrate-centred biases.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Conservation Letters
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.8%
2
Biodiversity and Conservation
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.4%
3
Conservation Biology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.4%
4
Scientific Data
209 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.6%
5
Biological Conservation
46 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.0%
50% of probability mass above
6
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.2%
7
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.4%
8
Peer Community Journal
281 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
9
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
10
Ecological Indicators
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.0%
11
Diversity and Distributions
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.0%
12
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 39%
2.5%
13
Conservation Science and Practice
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.3%
14
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.7%
15
Journal of Applied Ecology
39 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
16
Global Ecology and Biogeography
47 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.6%
17
Animal Conservation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.6%
18
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
393 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
19
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
20
Ecology and Evolution
267 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
21
Insect Conservation and Diversity
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
22
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 15%
0.6%
23
Global Change Biology
78 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%