Habitats Directive in northern Italy: a series of proposals for habitat definition improvement

Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) is the cornerstone of nature conservation in Europe and is at the core of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. There is room, however, for its improvement, at least for northern Italy, where ambiguities in the definition of habitat types of Annex I of the Habitats Directive are not novel and interpretation difficulties have been highlighted. Sharpening the characterization of habitat types represents an opportunity for lowering classification uncertainties and improving conservation success. With the aim to refine the definitions of habitat types and associated typical species of the Habitats Directive, a group of vegetation scientists of the Italian Society of Vegetation Science based in northern Italy made the exercise of finding viable proposals for those habitat types having a problematic interpretation in the Alpine biogeographical region of Italy. Such proposals arise from group discussions among scientists, and professionals, thus offering a shared view. We prepared 9 habitat proposals important for this geographic area. They include new habitat types at the European level, new subtypes within pre-existing habitat types, including some adjustments of the recently proposed subtypes with respect to northern Italy, and recognition of priority criteria for a pre-existing habitat type. With a vision of tailored conservation, our proposals represent a starting point in view of a future update of Annex I. Furthermore, the list of typical species could be useful for preparing expert systems for automatic classification. Irrespective of legally binding solutions in place, we caution these proposals represent relevant baseline conservation indications that local and regional administrations of the Alpine Arch should consider.


Introduction
Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) deals with the conservation of natural habitats, wild fauna and flora, and aims to promote the maintenance of biodiversity, also considering economic, social, cultural, and regional requirements.This European Union (EU) community legislative tool is widely recognized as cornerstone of nature conservation in Europe.Annex I of Habitats Directive lists today 200+ European natural habitat types, including 70+ priority ones (i.e.habitat types in danger of disappearance and whose natural range mainly falls within the territory of the EU).A scientific reference document, namely the Interpretation Manual of EU Habitats EUR28, aims to clarify any ambiguities in the interpretation of Annex I of the Habitats Directive by developing common definitions for all habitat types (European Commission, 2013).Nevertheless, inherent problems of imprecise interpretation concerning Annex I habitat types have long been highlighted (Evans, 2010).In many cases, a better, more extensive, definition of the habitat types in the Interpretation Manual of EU Habitats EUR28 would be enough to avoid misinterpretations.This would mean, for example, to mention specific syntaxa in the description.Similarly, in some cases, the removal of the keywords linked to the substrate (i.e.basiphilous/acidophilous) would make the habitat types more inclusive.In other cases, extending the geographical range of the habitat type would clarify its identity.In doubtful habitat type assignment cases, however, the adoption of a mosaic solution with multiple habitat types, typically between transitional ones, has been adopted to overcome such issues, making it difficult to apply conservation measures.In addition, similar problems arise for degraded vegetation for which a clear habitat identification is often compromised.When dealing with this decision, the recommendation has been to assign the habitat type when elements of naturalness are still present, differently to what happens with reforestations, in which the assignment of a habitat type is instead not recommended (Lasen, 2006).Other structural problems are related to the lack of experts of a given geographical area in the initial planning phase of the Habitats Directive.In spite of that, considering cascading implications entailed by the definition of habitat types, habitat types deserve to be unambiguously identified regardless of all the limitations due to the assignment procedure or other problems derived from the initial planning.Thus, sharpening their characterization represents an opportunity for lowering the classification uncertainties and improving the overall conservation success.This step is practically implemented by defining more net floristic-vegetation boundaries among different habitat types that are essential for the identification of more accurate lists of typical species (Bonari et al., 2021;Dalle Fratte et al., 2022).In recent years, a parallel new habitat classification at the pan-European level has been proposed (Chytrý et al., 2020).The new EUNIS (European Nature Information System) classification is more consistent and removes many ambigu-ities and overlapping in the definition of habitat types.Still, because the Habitats Directive currently remains legally binding, implementation efforts of the definitions of habitat types and associated typical species are desirable.
In view of the fifth EU reporting 2019-2024 (Art.17 Habitats Directive; DG Environment, 2017), the Italian Society for Vegetation Science started a series of contributions to refining habitat type distribution knowledge at the national scale.To date, this initiative resulted in new grid-cell data for 30+ EU habitat types in Italy (Gigante et al., 2019a;2019b;Gianguzzi et al., 2020;Rivieccio et al., 2020;Bazan et al., 2021;Rivieccio et al., 2021;Tavilla et al., 2022;Rivieccio et al., 2022).In parallel, the growing necessity to improve the list of Annex I habitat types, led to a series of proposals for new habitat types and subtypes for Sicily, Sardinia, southern and central Italy (Casavecchia et al., 2021;Fois et al., 2021;Guarino et al., 2021;Spampinato et al., 2023).Though the Directive is known to be more deficient in (sub)mediterranean areas for what concerns habitat type definitions, other non-mediterranean areas are also subjected to some inaccuracies, meaning having problems of poorly defined or even neglected habitat types (Lasen, 2006).When considering the Alpine biogeographical region, on one hand, there are habitat types reported by the Habitats Directive as a priority (e.g.4070, 6230) that are de facto not threatened in northern Italy, and on the other hand, there are many other habitat types that are not classified as a priority but represent peculiar natural aspects requiring special conservation (e.g.3130, 3140, 3150, 3160, 3230, 3260, 4080, 5110, 62A0, 6410, 7140, 7150, 7230, 8310, 9160, 9340).To counteract this gap, some recent studies have investigated hygrophilous forests, scrubs, and aquatic vegetation in northern Italy (Poldini et al., 2020;Castello et al., 2021).Furthermore, checklists of habitat types have been improved and extended (Wilhalm et al., 2022).Yet, despite these thematic contributions, many aspects linked to Annex I habitat types within the Alpine biogeographical region (sensu EU) have still to be elucidated.This effort is essential to identify habitat types more easily in the field and thus develop more accurate maps of habitat types and, more generally, for improved habitat type conservation and monitoring (Gigante et al., 2016;Dalle Fratte et al., 2019;Bonari et al., 2021).The last assessment of habitat types in the Alpine biogeographical region of Italy reports an evident and undeniable deterioration of habitat types compared to the previous report: 29 habitat types are currently threatened here (Angelini et al., 2021).Since many habitat types are of great natural value but neglected or with an unclear definition for northern Italy, in this contribution, we aim to clarify the poor definition of some habitat types of northern Italy by refining their typical species, improve their distribution, propose new habitat types and subtypes, and highlight priority recognition criteria.

Materials and methods
Backed by their experience, a core group of thirteen vegetation scientists of the Italian Society of Vegetation Science and skilled practitioners (hereafter all reported as experts) based in northern Italy made the exercise of finding viable, shared, proposals for those habitat types having a problematic interpretation in the Alpine biogeographical region of Italy.Specifically, the Italian regions here considered are, from East to West: Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Veneto, Trentino-South Tyrol, Lombardy, Piedmont, and Aosta Valley (Fig. 1).
The workflow took place in five steps essentially represented by the identification of the proposals, assessment of their urgency in terms of conservation, drafting of the text, and control quality check.In particular, i) In the first meeting, each expert proposed one or multiple potentially suitable habitat type case(s) suffering interpretation problems, lacking in the Habitats Directive for northern Italy, or worthy of priority recognition.Because this step aimed to produce the first list of potential "working habitats" (i.e.candidate-proposals) this process was expeditive and devoid of any discussion.This list comprehended 27 candidate-proposals; ii) In the second step, this list was shared among the experts in an online document for three months.Each expert had the possibility to comment -positively or negatively -on this list, along with comments and explanations of her/his opinion; iii) In the third step, the proposals were then re-assessed and streamlined collectively, so that only the most sound and urgent proposals were retained and continued up to the next step.Because of the different competence of the experts involved (e.g.aquatic vegetation, grassland, forest), in this step, a coordinator for each proposal was identified.The coordinator had the responsibility of finding the best collaborators among the experts to elaborate the full proposal; iv) In the fourth step, proposals were drafted by different subgroups of specialists led by the coordinators.The proposals mostly followed a standard template provided by the Italian Society for Vegetation Science, already used for other series of proposals for different geographic areas of Italy (Casavecchia et al., 2021;Fois et al., 2021;Guarino et al., 2021;Spampinato et al., 2023); v) In the fifth and last step, each proposal was commented in a choral fashion and improved with minor comments by the whole team of experts.Macrotype: Macrotype code according to European Commission (2013); when the habitat type or subtype is new, the proposed code is consistent with the structure designated in Annex I of the Habitats Directive.EEA Biogeographical region: Biogeographical region according to EEA (2022a).Region: Italian administrative regions (in alphabetic order).CORINE Biotopes/PALAEARCTIC: CORINE Biotopes and PALAEARCTIC classification codes according to Devillers et al. (1991) and Devillers and Devillers-Terschuren (1996) (Biondi et al., 2009); typical species are meant as a combination of literature, expert evaluation, and, if present, local or regional habitat interpretation manuals.Syntaxonomic reference: Syntaxonomic reference to the alliance level, followed by classification to high-ranking syntaxa.If not specified, syntaxonomic nomenclature of alliances, orders, and classes follows Mucina et al. (2016Mucina et al. ( , v. 2, 2022-06-30)-06-30).Where necessary, the syntaxonomic level of association is specified.Dynamics and contacts: Vegetation dynamics and contacts.

Title of the proposal
Nomenclature of vascular plants follows Bartolucci et al. (2018) and subsequent updates available on Portal to the Flora of Italy v. 2022.1 (Portal to the Flora of Italy, 2022) and for bryophytes Aleffi et al. (2020).

Results
Overall, after the streamlined process, we retained 9 proposals.They include new habitats at the European level, new subtypes within pre-existing habitats, including some adjustments of recently proposed subtypes with respect to northern Italy, and a recognition of priority criteria for a pre-existing habitat type (Table 1 Motivation: Habitat very sensitive to land reclamation, water regulation, eutrophication, pollution by phytosanitary products, and deterioration due to the invasion of alien species (Casavecchia et al., 2021).Chytrý et al. (2020) highlighted that the main threats are the expansion of agricultural, industrial, and urban areas, and changes in the level of groundwater and its pollution.In many places, the habitat is totally transformed, and strong intervention is needed for recovery.Tall-sedge beds are assessed as VU (Vulnerable) in the European Red List of Habitats (Janssen et al., 2016) and included in the list of natural habitats requiring specific conservation measures under the Bern Convention (Evans and Roekaerts, 2019).Some regions, such as the Aosta Valley in Italy, have already included the habitat within regional nature conservation laws (Aosta Valley Regional Law no.8/2007).It hosts rare or threatened species of Italian vascular flora as Carex buekii and C. vulpina, listed as Endangered, Thelypteris palustris, listed as VU (Rossi et al., 2020).The Red List of vascular flora of Veneto (Buffa et al., 2016) (Casavecchia et al., 2021;Guarino et al., 2021;Spampinato et al., 2023).

Dynamics and contacts:
The habitat often occurs at the transition from submerged to emerged areas, placing between the classes Phragmito-Magnocaricetea Klika in Klika et Novák 1941and Molinio-Arrhenatheretea Tx. 1937(Biondi et al., 2014) (Janssen et al., 2016).In alpine countries the habitat type is considered in low decline in France (Villaret et al., 2019) and in Switzerland is assessed as NT (Delarze et al., 2016).It can host rare and threatened plant species (Rossi et al., 2020) (Janssen et al., 2016).In the Alps, the habitat is considered in decline in France (Villaret et al., 2019), and in Switzerland is assessed as VU (Delarze et al., 2016).Some Italian regions, such as the Aosta Valley, have already included the habitat within regional nature conservation laws (Aosta Valley Regional Law no.8/2007).
It is the habitat of some rare or specialised odonates like Aeshna juncea, Leucorrhinia dubia, Somatochlora alpestris, and Sympetrum danae (Delarze and Gonseth, 2008;Villaret et al., 2019).(Minghetti, 2003) are included in Annex I habitat 91D0* "Bog woodland" (Biondi et al., 2009).(Minghetti, 2003;Armiraglio et al., 2006;Lasen, 2006;Lasen, 2014).They occur in different environmental conditions due to the high ecological amplitude and genetic variability of P. sylvestris (Del Favero, 2004), also reflected in its wide geographic distribution (Euroasiatic).In the Alps, the habitat is threatened by forest decay (Vacchiano et al., 2008).Most subtypes are considered NT in the European Red List of Habitats (Janssen et al., 2016) and the subtypes (A, B, D, E) are listed in Resolution No. 4 1996 listing endangered natural habitats requiring specific conservation measures under Bern convention (Evans and Roekaerts, 2019).However, in spite of their relevance throughout the Italian Alps, no habitat type specifically includes P. sylvestris-dominated forests.Diagnostic sentence: Forests of the Italian Alps dominated by P. sylvestris.Different subtypes can be distinguished, mainly corresponding to syntaxa identifiable on the basis of the ecological characteristics of the substrate (pH, soil, water), elevation, climate, internal or external position with respect to the Alpine Arch.Subtypes: A*) Inner-Alpine Ononis steppe P. sylvestris forests; B) Alpine spring heath Pinus sylvestris forests; C) Alpine acidophilous P. sylvestris forests; D*) Montane P. sylvestris forests on gravel beds; E) P. sylvestris forests of dolomites and dolomite rendzinas of the eastern Alps and Pre-Alps, with a predominantly suboceanic climate.
The subtypes A and D are proposed as priority habitat types sensu Habitats Directive.(European Commission, 2013) gives examples, with multiple subtypes, that allow Rhododendron spp.scrub to be easily referred to this code, also with Juniperus communis.These communities are a zonal expression of the vegetation enclosed between the upper limit of the forest and the primary grasslands or other types of scrubs such those dominated by Ericaceae, suffruticose dwarf-shrubs, Genista spp.and other thermophilous formations of the forest margins, located on average at lower elevations.However, Alnus alnobetula formations (Alnetum viridis s.l.) are not mentioned in the Interpretation Manual of EU Habitats EUR28 although they host, in the entire Alpine Arch, well characterised communities both floristically (herbaceous layer with elements of habitat 6430 with tall herbs) and ecologically (extensive slopes with long snowfall or even avalanche-prone slopes) on soils derived from both siliceous and calcareous-terrigenous substrates, capable of retaining humidity even in periods of relatively low precipitation.Moreover, Alnus alnobetula formations belonging to the Alnetum viridis characterise the alpine landscape in various sectors and are communities of naturalistic value for the species they can host, also with respect to the fauna.The alliance Alnion viridis includes also more trivial communities developing on abandoned pastures on subacidophilous soils.These communities are to be referred to the Rhododendron ferruginei-Alnetum viridis association (Boscutti et al., 2014), which are not to be considered habitats of community interest.Diagnostic sentence: Scrubs dominated by Alnus alnobetula, widespread in the subalpine belt and at lower elevations on avalanche-prone slopes.Together with a few other shrub species, the herbaceous layer is characterised by extensive tall-herbs cover, favoured by the site conditions typically characterised by long snowfall and high humidity, as also indicated by the presence of high bryophyte cover.Casavecchia et al. (2021), herbaceous and dwarf shrub-suffrutescent plant commu-nities typical of Italian ultramafic soils have been generally referred to the habitat type 6130 based on broad ecological similarity, rather than on syntaxonomic evidence (Mucina et al., 2016), limiting the vegetation of the Violetalia calaminariae only to communities on screes and the "heavy-metal tolerant vegetation on mining spoil heaps of cool-temperate Europe".On the contrary, the Interpretation Manual of EU Habitats EUR28 (European Commission, 2013) explicitly highlights that this habitat type includes open natural or semi-natural grasslands on natural rock outcrops rich in heavy metals and cites the reference to the PALAEARCTIC codes 34.2 (Lowland heavy metal grasslands) and 36.44 (Alpine heavy metal communities).For these reasons we propose here, in agreement with Casavecchia et al. (2021), to adopt a more inclusive concept and diagnostic sentence for the habitat type 6130, and to include all the communities present in northern Italy on ultramafic soils.We consider necessary to better define their attribution to subtypes.These open grasslands are characterized by a highly specialized flora with the presence, mainly among the nickel hyperaccumulator taxa, of threatened endemic taxa and species, subspecies, and ecotypes adapted to heavy metals.Baker et al. (2010) highlighted the rarity and fragmentation of primary sites of metallophytes, often forming small geographically isolated 'islands' in areas characterized by background vegetation with non-elevated metal concentrations.Because of their restricted geographical distribution and very limited ecological amplitude, metallophytes are prone to extinction due to habitat destruction, genetic drift, demographic stochasticity, and inbreeding.Diagnostic sentence: Herbaceous or herbaceous-suffrutescent formations with sparse cover, natural or semi-natural, on shallow soils often with rocky or gravelly outcrops, rich in heavy metals (e.g.nickel, zinc, chromium, copper), mostly of ultramafic nature, locally in mining districts.The flora is highly specialized, with taxa adapted to heavy metals and often Ni-hyperaccumulators. Variants are recognized based on geographical distribution, floristic composition and nature of the substrate.

Reference list of typical species:
We propose to better define, in Piedmont and Aosta Valley, two of the five subtypes described by Casavecchia et al. (2021), and we highlight the need for further analysis to delimit other subtypes proposed by the same authors in northwestern Italy.Subtypes: A) Herbaceous or herbaceous-suffrutescent communities on the subalpine-alpine belt of the Italian western Alps, developed on serpentine rocks; B) Northern Apennines garrigue communities growing on ophiolitic substrates.
Communities strictly found on ultramafic cliffs and screes deposits (chasmophytic, comophytic and glareicolous) should be referred to other habitat types.(Biondi et al., 2014;Casavecchia et al., 2021), we adopted the syntaxonomic treatment within the class Rosmarinetea officinalis.

Reference list of typical species:
The association Campanulo bertolae-Alyssoidetum utriculatae Montacchini et al. 1982, described for Susa Valley (Piedmont) on ophiolitic rocky habitats, would be attributed to the alliance Potentillion caulescentis by the authors (Montacchini et al., 1982); therefore, it seems appropriate to associate it with the habitat type 8210, waiting for further analyses.
The alliance Galio anisophylli-Minuartion vernae Ernst 1965, with the association Violetum dubyanae Ernst 1965 described on the basis of surveys carried out in the Bergamo Alps, are indicated by Ernst (1965) as typical herbaceous communities of heavy metal substrates belonging to order Violetalia calaminariae Br.-Bl.Et Tx.Ex Ernst 1965.As also reported by other authors (Baker et al., 2010), they should be excluded and must be traced back to the alliance Thlaspion rotundifolii Jenny-Lips 1930 (Punz and Mucina, 1997;Mucina et al., 2016).

Dynamics and contacts:
The community of the subtype A mainly contacts the association Caricetum fimbriatae and is at the crossroad of three orders (Richard, 1985)  Vegetation dynamics of the subtype B are very slow as underlined by Casavecchia et al. (2021).There are contacts with meso-xeric grasslands (habitat type 6210) with Bromopsis erecta, Brachypodium genuense and Sesleria pichiana, and stable stages dominated locally by Erica cinerea or Erica scoparia (habitat 4030), or Juniperus communis matorral (habitat 5130).The vegetation on screes (habitat 8130) and cliffs (habitat type 8210) partially shares the floristic composition and hosts also other serpentinophytes species like Asplenium cuneifolium, Paragymnopteris marantae subsp.marantae.(Galvánek and Janák, 2008).Italy is the country with the greatest surface of the habitat 6230* within the Natura 2000 sites (Galvánek and Janák, 2008), mostly located in the Alpine biogeographical region (EEA, 2022b).

SPECIES-RICH NARDUS GRASSLANDS ON SILI-CEOUS SUBSTRATES OF THE ALPS
The definition of this habitat type determines critically important features that are mandatory for its identification, specifically relating to substrate, elevation, and number of species.However, the habitat definition has been extended to cover wider ecological conditions, specifically to substrates not strictly siliceous (e.g.Biondi et al., 2009;Gennai et al., 2014;Lüth et al., 2011;Bensettiti et al., 2005), likely including communities with higher plant diversity (e.g.Pittarello et al., 2017).Furthermore, over the years there have been changes in the syntaxonomic classification of Nardus grasslands in northern Italy that have increased the possibility of confusion in the interpretation of this habitat type.The identification of habitat subtypes seems thus necessary to disentangle all the facets of this habitat type in northern Italy.Diagnostic sentence: Closed, dry or mesophile, perennial Nardus grasslands occupying siliceous soils in Atlantic or sub-Atlantic or boreal lowland, hill and montane regions of middle and northern Europe and western Iberia.Vegetation highly varied, but the variation is characterised by continuity.Species-rich sites should be interpreted as sites which are remarkable for a high number of species.In general, habitats irreversibly degraded by overgrazing should be excluded.
The following habitat subtypes can be identified in northern Italy: A) Meso-subxerophytic oligotrophic grasslands in the lowland to submontane belt of the sub-Atlantic regions of western and central Europe, subject to grazing or regular mowing without fertilization (Violion caninae); B) Dry and oligotrophic pastures in the montane belt of the Alps (Nardo-Agrostion tenuis and Nardo-Agrostion caninae); C) Hygrophilous oligotrophic meadows on peaty soils in the montane belt of the subatlantic regions of western and central Europe (Nardo-Juncion squarrosi); D) Chionophilous grasslands in the subalpine belt of the Alps, usually subject to grazing (Nardion strictae).Klika et Hadač 1944).The Nardion strictae alliance shows a strong regional differentiation, that in the Alps and Pyrenees can be referred to the Sieversio-Nardetum strictae Lüdi 1948association (European Commission, 2013) but limited to the montane-subalpine belt.Dynamics and contacts: Nardus grasslands are mainly in contact with beech forests on siliceous substrates (habitat types 9110 and 9120) in the montane belt or spruce forests (habitat type 9410) at higher elevations.This habitat type is in contact with different scrubs, ranging from alpine and boreal heaths (habitat type 4060) to dry heaths (habitat type 4030) or Juniperus communis formations (habitat type 5130).Nardus grasslands are in contact also with hay meadows (habitat type 6520) mainly in the montane belt, grasslands of primary origin (habitat type 6150), and cenosis of the Agrostion schraderianae Grabherr 1993

Bern convention: -Motivation:
In Italy these semi-natural pastures have a peculiar floristic richness and host many species (Casavecchia et al., 2021).Like other semi-natural pastures, these communities in northern Italy are strongly dependent on grazing and are threatened by the intensification of agricultural practices or by undergrazing and abandonment.The floristic richness of these communities is strongly dependent by the mechanical action of grazing animals: grazing and trampling create a heterogeneous grass cover compared to mown grasslands, which favour the coexistence of different plant species (annual, thorny, sub-nitrophilous, reptant) (Buffa et al., 1988-89).Animal droppings (dung, urine) are also important, ensuring regular fertilisation of the soil (Delarze and Gonseth, 2008).Diagnostic sentence: Mesic permanent grassland of lowlands, hills and sub-mountain areas of northern Italy.Reference list of typical species: Bellis perennis, Crepis capillaris, Cynosurus cristatus, Festuca rubra s.l., Hypochoeris radicata, Lolium perenne, Lolium pratense, Phleum pratense subsp.pratense, Poa pratensis subsp.pratensis, P. trivialis, Prunella vulgaris subsp.vulgaris, Scorzoneroides autumnalis, Taraxacum officinale sect.Taraxacum, Trifolium repens, Veronica serpyllifolia.Syntaxonomic reference: Alliance Cynosurion cristati Tx. 1947(order Arrhenatheretalia elatioris Tx. 1931, class Molinio-Arrhenatheretea Tx. 1937).This proposal includes permanent communities associated with an agricultural use of grasslands.On the contrary, communities resulting from the temporary abandonment of cultivation (e.g.communities with Lolium multiflorum; Poldini and Oriolo, 1994) or turf relegated to archaeological sites and/or public parks (e.g.communities with Plantago major and Trifolium repens) are excluded.However, this is in contrast with Delarze and Gonseth (2008).In their view, grass carpets in parks and sport grounds constitute a very impoverished variant of Cynosurion cristati.
The habitat type 62A0 has been included in Annex I of the Habitats Directive to define the Illyrian-submediterranean localities in northeastern Italy and the Adriatic.However, the same community has been more likely attributed to the habitat type 6210(*) "Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrate (Festuco-Brometalia) (* important orchid sites)" (Olmeda et al., 2019).Similarly to habitat type 6210(*), the xeric grasslands of 62A0 might be rich in orchids, as well as in rare and endemic species (Biondi et al., 2009).Therefore, habitat type 62A0 would deserve to be considered of priority importance when it meets the same priority criteria attributed to the grasslands of habitat type 6210(*) (Oriolo and Tomasella, 2014).Diagnostic sentence: Xeric and meso-xeric grasslands of the submediterranean zones of the southern Pre-Alps, Istria, and Balkan peninsula, where they coexist with steppic grasslands of the Festucetalia valesiacae (6210), developing in areas of lesser continentality than the latter and incorporating a greater number of Mediterranean elements.They are also found in the southeastern coastal districts of the Italian Peninsula.These grasslands in northern Italy should be interpreted as priority sites on the basis of one or more of the following three criteria: (a) the site hosts many orchid species; (b) the site hosts an important population of at least one orchid species considered not very common on the national territory; (c) the site hosts one or several orchid species considered to be rare, very rare, or exceptional on the national territory.Festuco-Brometea Br.-Bl. et Tx. ex Soó 1947).Dynamics and contacts: In the southeastern Pre-Alps, the habitat type 62A0 is mostly in contact with oak forests on basic substrates (91H0*, Pannonian woods with Quercus pubescens) sometimes with Carpinus orientalis, or locally in contact with Fagus sylvatica forests in the internal Pre-Alps, or evergreen forests dominated by Quercus ilex (habitat type 9340) in the northern coast of Adriatic Sea.This habitat type is in contact with different scrubs, ranging from submediterranean bushes with Cotinus coggygria, Pistacia terebinthus, Prunus spinosa, Rhamnus catharticus, and Juniperus communis formations (5130).In southern Italy, these grasslands are mostly in contact with Quercus ilex and Quercus rotundifolia forests (9340), with eastern white oak woods (91AA*) and Quercus trojana woods (9250).
In northeastern Italy, primary situations and cliff edges can be considered stable or long lasting.Here these grasslands are in contact mainly with rupicolous grasslands of the Alysso alyssoidis-Sedion Oberd.et T. Müller in T. Müller 1961 (6110) and submediterranean screes with Achnatherum calamagrostis along the riverbanks.In the Mediterranean region, they are also in contact with the scrubland with Salvia officinalis and with arid pioneer communities of annual plants (6220), other than with grasslands of the habitat type 6210(*), as also stated in the habitat type definition.

Discussion
We report several proposals that can be considered the most urgent Annex I amendments and new habitat proposals for what concerns northern Italy.Our proposals for adjustments concern habitats with a very different ecology (i.e.wetlands, fens, scrubs, forests, grasslands) thus suggesting shortcomings for different macrohabitat types.To add more specifics to our proposals, besides the information reported for each proposal in the standard template provided by the Italian Society for Vegetation Science, we report below more insights for those habitats that deserve further discussion.We organized our proposals as: new habitat types, new subtypes within pre-existing habitat types, and new priority criteria for a pre-existing habitat type.

i) New habitat types
FRESHWATER LARGE SEDGES Formations of the alliance Magnocaricion elatae Koch 1926 represent habitat types of unquestionable conservation value.They are relatively easy to identify and map.As a typical community of humid environments, it is particularly affected by pressures as periods of drought which are becoming more frequent due to climate change.
Compared to the proposal of Casavecchia et al. (2021), which also includes the vegetation dominated by Phragmites australis, for northern Italy it was agreed here to consider only the communities belonging to the Magnocaricion elatae Koch 1926, as they are generally of higher conservation value.
The conservation of this habitat type requires regular management, which in the past was implemented by mowing (and subsequent use of sedges for chair stuffing) and/or fire (Lonati and Lonati, 2005).The abandonment of such management practices saw the following emergence of tall caespitose Poaceae typical of fluctuating watershed (e.g.Molinia arundinacea, Deschampsia caespitosa) and then of hygrophilous woody species, with progressive deterioration of the quality of this habitat type.In perifluvial areas, Magnocaricion elatae Koch 1926 is highly dependent on river dynamics (flooding, bank erosion, creation of temporary ponds) and it often constitutes a short-term habitat.

GREY WILLOW CARRS
This habitat type must be distinguished from wet hedgerows and shrubby dynamical stages with Frangula alnus and Salix cinerea that are common in lowland wet areas.They present a richer floristic composition with several mesic shrub species (i.e Cornus sanguinea s.l., Viburnum opulus, Prunus spinosa subsp.spinosa, Euonymus europaea).In the dynamical stages, herb species like Molinia caerulea, Filipendula ulmaria, Carex spp.are often present.These communities are referred to the alliance Salicion cinereae T. Müller et Görs ex Passarge 1961 (order Salicetalia auritae Doing 1962, class Crataego-Prunetea Tx. 1962).A correspondence can be established between this habitat type and the forest type ("tipologia forestale") "Formazioni di Salix cinerea" by Del Favero (2004).
From an ecological perspective, acidic fens communities could be referred to communities identified by some dominant bryophytes.More precisely, in the western Alps, they are characterized by Sphagnum subsecundum, S. compactum and S. girgensohnii altogether, and S. fallax, Sarmentypnum exannulatum, Sphagnum warnstorfii, Eriophorum angustifolium and Sarmentypnum sarmentosum altogether (Miserere et al., 2003).Similarly, the same species have been found in the rest of Southern Alps (Bragazza and Gerdol, 1996) and more broadly together with vascular plants in Europe (Peterka et al., 2016).Miserere et al. (2003) highlighted that many vascular plants (e.g.Carex nigra, C. echinata, Viola palustris, Potentilla erecta, Nardus stricta and Eriophorum angustifolium subsp.angustifolium) that are frequently found with significant cover values in fens, mires and bogs, should not be easily used to classify and characterize homogeneous communities, particularly on the Italian side of the Alps, where the limited size of the wetlands, causes an overlapping in the composition of species in the individual communities.Meanwhile, bryophytes play an important role in identifying plant communities, owing to both their high cover values and to their greater sensitivity to changes in water chemistry and to the depth of the water table .A pan-european study on fen vegetation (Peterka et al., 2017) recognizes as a major compositional gradient within fens at continental scale the base richness gradient and consider the bryophytes in the delimitation of alliances, recognising that bryophytes indicate habitat conditions and have a crucial importance for the functioning of mire habitat types.That study did not support the classification at alliance level based on dominance of selected vascular plants along with hydrological characteristics (i.e.water table depth).Accordingly, the alliances Caricion lasiocarpae Vanden Berghen in Lebrun et al. 1949 (Annex I: 7140) and Rhynchosporion albae Koch 1926 (Annex I: 7150) are not supported and mainly included in Caricion fuscae Koch 1926 nom.conserv.propos.Caricion fuscae, within this interpretation, overlaps with the interpretation giv-en to habitat types 7140 and 7150.Peterka et al. (2017) and Preislerová et al. (2022) also recognized the presence in the Italian Alps of the alliance Drepanocladion exannulati Krajina 1933 and of the alliance Sphagno-Caricion canescentis Passarge (1964) 1978.The presence and the boundaries between Caricion fuscae and Drepanocladion exannulati or Sphagno-Caricion canescentis in the Italian Alps must be better investigated and defined.At the same time would be necessary re-evaluate the boundaries between the descriptions and interpretations of bogs, mires, and fens habitat types (especially 7140, 7150) in the light of the pan-european works provided by Mucina et al. (2016), Peterka et al. (2017) and Preislerová et al. (2022).In Italian Alps the vegetation of acidic fens has been studied and described mainly by the works of Gerdol and Piccoli (1980), Balátová-Tulácková and Venanzoni (1990), Würz (1992), Gerdol (1994), Lasen and Argenti (1996), Gerdol and Tomaselli (1997), Pascal and Varese (1999), Gerdol and Bragazza (2001), Miserere et al. (2003).

SCOTS PINE FORESTS OF THE ITALIAN ALPS
The diversity of P. sylvestris communities within the Italian Alps and northern Italy is described and testified in numerous works.The main contributions derive from the work by: Mondino (1963), Montacchini (1982), Demas et al. (1990), Poldini (1984), Varese (1996), Mondino et al. (1997), Del Favero et al. (2000), Minghetti (2003), Del Favero (2004), Armiraglio et al. (2006;2011), Lasen (2006), Camerano et al. (2007;2008), Caccianiga andArmiraglio (2011), Lasen (2014).The importance of Pinus sylvestris forests has been highlighted also beyond the Alps (Hemp et al., 2022).Remarkably, Scots pine forests of the Italian Alps have already been proposed for inclusion in Annex I of the Habitats Directive by Lasen (2014) and Lasen et al. (2016).Within the subtype B, the southwestern Alps communities (EUNIS 2021: T358) includes elements of order Quercetalia pubescenti-petraeae Klika 1933 and order Brachypodietalia pinnati Korneck 1974 nom.conserv.propos.In northern Italy, outside of the Alps, further P. sylvestris communities deserve to be cited: the Po terraces with P. sylvestris forests (EUNIS 2021: T362) and the supramediterranean P. sylvestris forests of the inland hills of Piedmont (EUNIS 2021: T364).Subtype A include the basophiles steppic P. sylvestris woods of the inner western Alps, included in the list of endangered natural habitat types requiring specific conservation measures under Bern Convention (Evans and Roekaerts, 2019).Subtype D includes the mountain P. sylvestris woods on gravel beds, described in the Alps with three different associations.Although classified in different alliances, these communities are conditioned by a strong determinism linked to the river dynamics and the ecology of the gravel beds, regardless of the associated species composition.For this reason, they have been included in a separate subtype, which we proposed as a priority, because of its rarity and vulnerability.
A correspondence can be established between the proposed subtypes and the forest types ("tipologie forestali") proposed by Del Favero (2004).However, a specific forest type for highly continental steppe forests has not been established.Thus, Subtype A may be partially included into different forest types linked to the inner Alpine areas ("Pineta di pino silvestre dei substrati carbonatici mesalpica e/o endalpica, Pineta a pino silvestre dei substrati silicatici montana") as well as to specific edaphic conditions such as rocky outcrops ("Pineta a pino silvestre primitive di rupe") and moraines ("Pineta di pino silvestre dei substrati silicatici mesalpica e/o endalpica su morena").
A more straightforward correspondence can be established between Subtype B and the type "Pineta di pino silvestre dei substrati carbonatici mesalpica e/o endalpica tipica" and "con abete rosso", as well as between Subtype C with "Pineta di pino silvestre dei substrati silicatici montana" and "Pineta di pino silvestre dei substrati silicatici submontana".Subtype D corresponds to "Pineta di pino silvestre primitiva di falda detritica" and Subtype E can be rather easily ascribed to the types "Pineta di pino silvestre dei substrati carbonatici esalpica tipica" and "con faggio".
ii) New subtypes within pre-existing habitat types GREEN ALDER SCRUB WITH TALL HERBS Notably, there is a lack of a specific code for Alnus alnobetula scrubs, being this plant community quite characteristic and well distributed across the Alps with peculiar vegetation characteristics.The community is a scrub where the dominant species Alnus alnobetula is a shrub.Therefore, the code 6430 ´Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine lev-els´ has to be rejected, notwithstanding a similar ecology and sometall herb species in common.Within 4xxx there are only two other possibilities: when Alnus alnobetula is admixed with Salix spp., the code 4080 ´Sub-Arctic Salix spp.scrub´ can be used, while in presence of abundant Rhododendron ferrugineum, the code 4060 ´Alpine and Boreal heaths´ can be alternatively used.This latter case can be adopted also for pure Alnus alnobetula formations, aware of not being an optimal solution.However, it has to be recalled, that including Alnus alnobetula formations within the code 4060 ´Alpine and Boreal heaths´ should be done carefully and only when Alnus viridis formations are truly admixed to other woody species and on hygro-nitrophilous soils along avalanche gullies and moderately steep slopes.
At the phytosociological level, the alliance Alnion viridis Schnyder 1930 is not sufficient to characterise the subtype proposed under habitat code 4060 because it comprises several associations including the Rhododendron ferruginei-Alnetum viridis association (Boscutti et al., 2014) which develops on species-poor abandoned pastures on subacidophilous soils where tall herbs are not present.The subtype proposed must be referred to the Alnetum viridis association which is well defined from a vegetation and ecological perspective and is also easy to recognise physiognomically directly in the field (Boscutti et al., 2014).Also relevant is the ecological homogeneity that finds its highest expression (as dominance and continuity) in the inner alpine sectors with siliceous substrate.Biodiversity is highest in the outer sectors and carbonate (albeit terrigenous) substrates.The weak ecological value of the Rhododendron ferruginei-Alnetum viridis association is also outlined by Bühlmann et al. (2014) which considered these formations too homogeneous, of little naturalistic and landscape value, and fundamentally linked to the abandonment of pasture use (see also Anthelme et al., 2001;David, 2010;Svensk et al., 2021;2022).In the Dolomites area, these formations are among the most favoured by the black grouse (Tetrao tetrix).
Formations of Alnus alnobetula can be considered long-lived, although they are not climax vegetation.They occur in the subalpine belt in which the Rhododendron ferrugineum scrub can be considered the head of the series.In the alpine area they occupy cool sites conditioned by prolonged snowfall and in avalanche furrows even at elevations below the potential forest limit.The persistence of such conditions considerably slows down the evolution towards tree formations (in this case mainly Larix decidua or Larix decidua-Pinus cembra woodlands, habitat 9420, more rarely Picea abies woodlands, habitat 9410).Generally, these communities are highly natural formations that should not be seen as disruptive.Transition stages and mosaics can still be observed in which Alnus alnobetula does not yet form compact, well-structured communities.The nitrogen-fixing action of Alnus alnobetula leads to an increase in nitrogen that favours nitrophilous aspects and the development of an interesting species composition.Green alder scrub can be classified to the forest type ("tipologia forestale") "Alneto di ontano verde" by Del Favero (2004).

ULTRAMAFIC GRASSLANDS OF NORTHWESTERN ITALY
In the subalpine-alpine belt of the western and southern Alps (Cottian, Graian, Pennine, Lepontine, and Rhetian), in Italy, France, and Switzerland, on slopes of intermediate exposure and the cracks of rocks rich in fine soil, a remarkable association, specific to serpentine outcrops and dominated by Carex fimbriata, develops.The association Caricetum fimbriatae was first described by Guyot (1925) in the South of the Aosta valley, then found and specified by Verger (1983;1987) in the North of Aosta Valley, close to Monte Rosa, and formerly described by Richard (1985), who also detailed the phytosociological and ecological characteristics.Further studies were conducted in Piedmont, Aosta Valley, and Queyras (Verger, 1993a;Verger, 1993b;Verger et al., 1993;1998;D' Amico et al., 2009;D' Amico and Previtali, 2012) outlining and identifying limits between the Caricetum fimbriatae and other communities that develop on ultrabasic and serpentine substrates in different environments (rocks, debris, woods, scrubs and heaths, windy ridges, grasslands), combining vegetation, pedological and ecological analysis.
Communities of Caricetum fibriatae are dynamically relatively stable, limited not only by elevation and slope but also by the presence of high levels of phytotoxic heavy metals; the suffruticose species (e.g.Vaccinium uliginosum subsp.microphyllum) can however develop.When the slope is reduced and the dynamics more accelerated the extensive grazing of beef cattle favors maintenance (the animals seek above all the few palatable species present, e.g.Trifolium alpinum, Carex sempervirens).
In the western Alps, we consider that other subtypes, such as those suggested by Casavecchia et al. (2021), can be better described and clearly separated from 6210 and 6240 habitats only by further analysis.In particular, we consider necessary to better investigate the: 1) serpentine sub-steppes of Piedmont and Aosta Valley, dominated by perennial grasses; 2) herbaceous-suffrutescent communities on the montane belt in the western Alps on serpentine and ophiolitic bedrocks.
We highlight that CORINE Biotopes and PALAEARC-TIC habitats classifications (Devillers et al., 1991;Devillers and Devillers-Terschuren, 1996) consider as heavy metal alpine communities only the alliance Galio anisophylli-Minuartion vernae Ernst 1965, with the association Violetum dubyanae Ernst 1965.As previously argued these syntaxa must be included in alliance Thlaspietea rotundifolii and excluded from the interpretation of the habitat 6130; therefore, more appropriately the PALAEARC-TIC code 36.44,EUNIS 2012 code E1.B5 and EUNIS 2021 code R1S5 must be traced back to alpine serpentine communities here described.New codes and descriptions of the EUNIS classification will have to be designed to include the northern Apennine and Mediterranean serpentine and ophiolitic communities.

SPECIES-RICH NARDUS GRASSLANDS ON SILI-CEOUS SUBSTRATES OF THE ALPS
The phytosociological classification of Nardus grasslands has long been somewhat problematic (Gennai et al., 2014;Lüth et al., 2011).Difficulties arise because Nardus grasslands are anthropogenic communities that originate in different ways inside their geographical and elevational range while preserving floristic traces of their original natural composition.
Depending on the elevation, continentality of the climate, and soil humidity, we identified three subtypes Nardus grasslands are typical semi-natural grasslands on acidic soils in large part of temperate Europe (Damgaard et al., 2011;Dupré et al., 2010).However, in some countries (e.g.France, Slovakia) the habitat is also found on calcareous substrates where the calcium content is highly decreased in the upper layers of the soil because of high precipitation (Bensettiti et al., 2005;Galvánek and Janák 2008;Stanová and Valachovič, 2002).The same interpretation could be used also in northern Italy, provided that calcareous soils are leached and that only subalpine situations are considered.
One of the contacts that can cause major problems of interpretation is between subalpine Nardus grasslands (subtype D) and higher elevation grasslands of primary origin of the lower alpine level.In these grasslands, Nardus stricta can often determine the physiognomy of the vegetation, often following grazing (e.g.Dakskobler et al., 2022).Here we suggest that such grasslands of primary origin above the timber line should be referred to as natural grasslands (group 61, habitat type 6150 or 6170, respectively on siliceous or calcareous substrates).
In general, it is extremely important to avoid the inclusion of Nardus grasslands at its ecological extremes (e.g. on carbonatic substrates, in the alpine belt, or overgrazed pastures) since they would require different thresholds of conservation values, lowering the conservation value assessment.

ITALIAN LOWLAND, COLLINE AND SUB-MON-TANE PERMANENT PASTURES OF CYNOSURION CRISTATI
In northern Italy, these communities are extensively grazed by means of rotational grazing systems.The adaptation of the species to frequent trampling and grazing results in a physiognomy dominated by small species with stolons (epigeal or hypogean) and/or rosettes with leaves appressed to the soil surface (Delarze and Gonseth, 2008).They differ from the typical mowing grasslands (habitat types 6510 and 6520) not only in their floristic composition but also in their heterogeneous appearance, due to the presence of heads not consumed by livestock.In lowland environments, the main threat is the transformation from permanent pasture to arable land and improved temporary grasslands; in hilly and low-mountain environments this habitat type is threatened by the abandonment of traditional grazing practices.
iii) New priority criteria for pre-existing habitat types XERIC AND MESO-XERIC GRASSLANDS OF THE EASTERN SUBMEDITERRANEAN ZONES OF THE SOUTHERN PRE-ALPS Dry and semi-dry grasslands are among the species-rich plant communities of Europe but their conservation status in Europe and even more in Italy is of conservation concern.In both the EU28 and EU28+, the 3 Critically Endangered habitat types are two types of dry grasslands, while four types are endangered, and more types are vulnerable.The greatest threat is the abandonment of traditional management which led to different forms of degradation and a reversion to scrub and woodland (Jansen et al., 2016).Fringe species, shrubs and trees tend to invade dry grasslands of habitat type 62A0.These dynamical processes are very common in several areas where successional stages can be more spread than the grasslands themselves.
Although some of the communities belonging to this habitat type are of primary origin, and can therefore be considered stable or long-lasting, most of these communities are secondary grasslands of anthropogenic origin, mainly related to pastoral and mowing activity.These grasslands in southeastern Europe are indeed the result of a long time of human influence, but they have been progressively abandoned after the Second World War, starting from the less productive ones.Nowadays, a mosaic with various stages of scrub encroachment can be found (Tryfon, 2016).
Due to the imprecise definitions in the Interpretation Manual of EU Habitats EUR28, some very similar types of grasslands in certain countries have been included in other priority habitat types despite they belong to E1.2a (Semi-dry perennial calcareous grassland), as a subtype of 6210(*) from a floristic-ecological point of view (Olmeda et al., 2019).In particular, this refers to the mesoxeric and base-rich facies of habitat type 6270 (northern countries), the mesoxeric facies of habitat type 6240* (eastern central Europe) and mesoxeric facies of habitat type 62A0 (Illyrian region).Therefore, Olmeda et al. (2019) suggested to include in the habitat type 6210(*) all the mesoxeric basi-philous grasslands of Europe to avoid misunderstandings between the countries.
In northern Italy, the boundary between the communities of habitats 6210 and 62A0 is often very difficult to establish.As a rule of thumb, the limit between these two complex vegetation communities falls on the hydrographic right of lake Iseo, a region in which the calcareous and dolomitic substrates of the central-eastern Pre-Alps are replaced by marly arenaceous rocks.Furthermore, in correspondence with this limit, the average annual rainfall increases progressively towards west (Armiraglio et al., 2010).
Finally, it is relevant to note that in southeastern Italy, the communities belonging to the habitat type 62A0 are well differentiated from a floristic-ecological perspective and indeed refer to an endemic alliance (Hippocrepido glaucae-Stipion austroitalicae Forte et Terzi in Forte et al. 2005).This alliance includes xeric grasslands of the class Festuco-Brometea with accentuated Mediterranean characteristics which, although presenting affinities with those trans-Adriatic or North Adriatic, differ from these grasslands for their own endemic species pool and for the presence of species that seem to find their synecological optimum here.Due to this peculiarity, it would be appropriate for southeastern Italy to identify this habitat as always of priority importance (*).

Conclusion
With a vision of tailored conservation, we offered an overview of the most urgent issues to implement, refine, or solve in terms of Annex I Habitats Directive habitat type definitions in northern Italy.The wide community of experts who participated in this contribution represents a well-established network that allowed insights and open-minded discussions that improved the overall output.We are aware our proposals will not easily or soon become part of the Habitats Directive or within other legal frameworks.Further, we acknowledge the list of typical species should be corroborated by numerical analysis.Still, they represent a starting point in view of a future update of Annex I Habitats Directive or the Italian Interpretation Manual of habitat types and they could be useful to prepare expert systems for automatic classification.Irrespective of legally binding solutions in place, biodiversity conservation should also act locally to preserve relevant natural aspects in need of conservation.We thus caution these proposals represent applicable baseline conservation indications that local administrations should consider.

Natura 2000 :
Habitat type name present in the Interpretation Manual of EU Habitats EUR28 (European Commission, 2013).Type: Three possible cases of proposals are reported: i) new habitat type proposal; ii) new subtypes in a pre-existing habitat type; iii) recognition of priority criterion for habitat types or subtypes.Authors: List of authors who contributed to the proposal.The first name is the coordinator, followed by collaborators.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Map of northern Italy encompassing the regions of Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Veneto, Trentino-South Tyrol, Lombardy, Piedmont, and Aosta Valley from East to West (administrative borders not shown) for which our proposals apply.
within the class Nardetea strictae Rivas Goday et Borja Carbonell in Rivas Goday et Mayor López 1966 nom.conserv.propos.(subtypes A, B, C).However, this scheme hardly classifies the subalpine Nardus grasslands of the alliance Nardion strictae Br.-Bl.1926.They cannot be easily incorporated into the class Nardetea strictae Rivas Goday et Borja Carbonell in Rivas Goday et Mayor López 1966 nom.conserv.propos.owing to their strict similarities in floristic and environmental relationships with the primary grasslands of Juncetea trifidi Hadač in Klika et Hadač 1944.In the suggested classification, we included these grasslands into the subtype D, which comprises subalpine grasslands belonging to the Nardion strictae Br.-Bl.1926.

Reference list of typical species:
Description of the new habitat type, subtype or priority criteria.Typical species, typically ten, in addition to and/or comprising those already listed in the Interpretation Manual of EU Habitats EUR28 (European Commission, 2013); new list of species if a new habitat type/subtype is proposed, comprising the species already reported in the Italian Interpretation Manual of habitat types ).Not yet included in any Annex I habitat type.The vegetation dominated by Cladium mariscus (7210*) is classified within the class Phragmito-Magnocaricetea Klika in Klika and Novak 1941 but can also develop adjacent to sedge vegetation attributable to the alliance Caricion davallianae Klika 1934 or with other types of helophytic vegetation (Phragmition communis Koch 1926) or large sedges (Magnocaricion elatae Koch 1926).
includes the typical species Carex appropinquata, C. elongata, C. vulpina and Ranunculus lingua, listed as Critically Endangered, and C. randalpina as VU.The habitat hosts the threatened snails Vertigo moulinsiana and V. angustior, listed in Annex II of Habitats Directive.

Table 1 .
Overview of the series of habitat proposals and, if present, their associated subtypes.Legend for proposal type: New = New habitat types; Sub = New subtypes within pre-existing habitat types; Prior = New priority criteria for pre-existing habitat types.Abbreviations of the Red List of Habitats EUR28 are: EN = Endangered, LC = Least Concern, NT= Near Threatened, VU = Vulnerable.p.p. = Pro parte.