Next Article in Journal
The Genus Tegonotus Nalepa (Acariformes: Eriophyidae: Phyllocoptinae): Description of a New Species and Key to Valid Species
Next Article in Special Issue
The Older, the Richer? A Comparative Study of Tree-Related Microhabitats and Epiphytes on Champion and Planted Mature Oaks
Previous Article in Journal
Updated List of Oklahoma Tiger Beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) with Notes on Their Distribution and Conservation Status
Previous Article in Special Issue
Temporal Shifts in Biological Community Structure in Response to Wetland Restoration: Implications for Wetland Biodiversity Conservation and Management
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 17
Issue 7
10.3390/d17070464
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Mammal Fauna Changes in Baltic Countries During Last Three Decades

by
Linas Balčiauskas
1,*,
Valdis Pilāts
2 and
Uudo Timm
3
1
State Scientific Research Institute Nature Research Centre, Akademijos 2, 08412 Vilnius, Lithuania
2
Independent Researcher, LV-2150 Sigulda, Latvia
3
Estonian Environment Agency, Mustamäe Tee 33, 10616 Tallinn, Estonia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2025, 17(7), 464; https://doi.org/10.3390/d17070464
Submission received: 3 June 2025 / Revised: 24 June 2025 / Accepted: 27 June 2025 / Published: 1 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diversity in 2025)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

We examined three decades of changes in the mammal fauna of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in the context of climate variability, land use transformation, and anthropogenic pressures. We compiled distributional, abundance, and status data from publications, atlases, official game statistics, and long-term monitoring programs, and we evaluated trends using compound annual growth rates or temporal indices. Our review identified losses such as regional extinctions of garden dormice and European mink, declines in small insectivores (e.g., pond bats and shrews) and herbivores (e.g., Microtus voles), and the contraction of boreal specialists (e.g., Siberian flying squirrels). However, we also identified gains, including increases in ungulate numbers (e.g., roe deer, red deer, fallow deer, moose, and wild boars before African swine fewer outbreak) and the recovery of large carnivores (e.g., wolves and lynxes). Invasions by non-native species (e.g., American mink, raccoon dog, and raccoon) and episodic disturbances, such as African swine fever and the “anthropause” caused by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, have further reshaped community composition. The drivers encompass climatic warming, post-socialist forest succession, intensified hunting management, and rewilding policies, with dispersal capacity mediating the responses of species. Our results underscore the dual legacy of historical land use and contemporary climate forcing in structuring the fauna dynamics of Baltic mammal communities in the face of declining specialists and invasive taxa.

1. Introduction

There is strong, multi-taxon evidence from empirical studies and predictive models indicating that climate change is already driving and will continue to drive substantial northward and upslope range shifts and contractions, as well as community reorganization, in European mammals. This will benefit generalists and species with high dispersal abilities, while exposing specialists, cold-adapted species, and fragmented populations to heightened risks [1]. Researchers have demonstrated that edge range dynamics differ markedly in species such as volcano rabbits (Romerolagus diazi) and European mountain hares (Lepus timidus), with pronounced upslope shifts and varying responses at the leading and trailing edges, depending on dispersal dynamics [2]. Complementing this work are analyses of over 230,000 hunting locations in the European Alps, which document year-to-year and interdecadal elevational shifts in large ungulates such as ibex (Capra ibex), chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra), red deer (Cervus elaphus), and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) [3]. These analyses underscore the urgent need for climate-integrated conservation planning and targeted monitoring of climatically adaptive areas to support species persistence across a rapidly changing landscape.
Climate change is expected to cause significant changes in the range of European bat communities, affecting species diversity and ecosystem function. According to species distribution models, range suitability will decline in southern Europe and expand in northern regions [4]. Bat activity analyses in Ireland reveal spatially variable, species-specific responses, with some populations declining and others increasing. These results challenge standard temperature–growth assumptions [5]. A systematic review confirms northward expansions in species such as Nathusius’s (Pipistrellus nathusii) and Kuhl’s (P. kuhlii) pipistrelles, as well as contractions. This emphasizes the need for long-term empirical studies to improve predictions and inform conservation efforts [6].
The modern European mammal community has been reshaped by historical and ongoing processes, including habitat changes, extinctions, introductions, and range shifts. While species losses from extinctions and contractions have sometimes been offset by reintroductions and the arrival of alien species [7], human activities and habitat alterations have reorganized local mammal communities across many regions [8]. Long-term zooarchaeological data indicate that human impacts, rather than natural climate change, have primarily driven the gradual decline in large mammal diversity over millennia. However, current conservation efforts may help reverse some defaunation trends [9].
Despite overabundant populations of ungulates and increasing numbers of large carnivores [10,11], European large mammals are projected to experience significant habitat loss due to climate change, land use, and socioeconomic factors. By 2050, an average habitat loss of around 10% is expected, with worst-case losses reaching up to 25%, particularly in northwestern Europe. While changes in human consumption may mitigate the impacts, they likely will not reduce extinction risks for species lacking local adaptation or dispersal capacity [12]. In subarctic Europe, most terrestrial mammals could benefit from climate change if they are able to disperse, except for some cold specialists. Migration capacity is critical for future community composition; dispersal limits could impact species assemblages more than direct climate effects [13].
The East Baltic’s mammal fauna formed 10,000–15,000 years ago during the Holocene through climatic shifts and diverse faunal influences, including boreal, taiga, and steppe. Since the 19th century, it has experienced significant changes. Species losses, range redistributions, and shifting abundances have occurred alongside changes in land use under mid-20th-century socialist policies, which increased forest cover and altered hunting practices. These changes have benefited some species while causing declines in others [14]. Continued shifts in land use have further influenced these trends [15]. Distribution maps of all Baltic mammals were compiled in the 1999 Atlas of European Mammals [16] and in national atlases in Lithuania [17], Latvia, and Estonia.
Due to differences in research history and capacity across the Baltic countries, data coverage is uneven. These differences have resulted in variations in long-term and synthesis projects, including Red Data and Red Books, studies on invasive species, analyses of roadkill, monitoring of mammals, and population replenishment through breeding. For instance, extensive long-term monitoring exists for large ungulates, yet sparse records exist for small insectivores, carnivores, and bats. Therefore, analyses of mammal fauna shifts must account for these gaps. For instance, there are limited small-mammal data in Latvia, and bat surveys are insufficient in Lithuania. Some existing information remains at the expert level.
Some general trends in Baltic game mammals have been analyzed in broader contexts [14] or by country [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. However, none of these papers include drivers such as African swine fever or the anthropause during the lockdown periods of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Our aim was to summarize information on the status and compositional changes of mammalian species in the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) over the last three decades, considering climate uncertainty and habitat transformation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Region Description

The term “Eastern Baltic” refers to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. These countries are historically recognized as Europe’s mesoregion, the Baltic [26]. In the 19th century, the region was divided into Estland, Livland, and Kurland. By the early 20th century, the concept of three states had evolved. By the late 1930s, the term “Baltic states” had become established [27]. The Eastern Baltic Region [28] is part of Northern Europe and the wider Baltic Sea region [29].
The region is bordered by the Baltic Sea to the west and north and by Russia, Belarus, and Poland to the east and south. It covers 175,228 km2, which is smaller than neighboring countries such as Belarus and Poland. As of 2024, the population was 6,132,500 [30]. The population density is generally equal to that of regions in Finland and Sweden along the Baltic Sea, ranging from 10 to 25 inhabitants per km2 in most of Estonia and from 25 to 50 inhabitants per km2 in most of Lithuania.
This region’s terrain is relatively flat and dotted with more than 7000 lakes and numerous hills, especially in the east. Many rivers flow northwest into the Baltic Sea. Despite extensive agriculture, more than one-third of the Eastern Baltic region remains forested (Figure 1). Estonia and Latvia are two of the five EU countries where forests cover more than half of the national land area.
Most of the region lies in the eastern continental climate zone, which has cold winters and hot, dry summers. The northern part lies in the Nordic climate zone, which has cold winters and mild, humid summers [31]. As in the entire Baltic Sea region, the climate is highly variable due to the opposing effects of moist, relatively mild airflows from the North Atlantic Ocean and the continental climate of Eurasia [32]. The Eastern Baltic region belongs to the boreal–nemoral forest zone, though only the southern part of Lithuania belongs to the nemoral forest zone [29]. Additional information on the region is provided by Timm et al. [15].

2.2. Data Sources

We used all relevant scientific publications on Baltic mammals concerning the distribution, numbers, and ecology of extant, extinct, and vagrant species. We conducted literature search primarily via Google Scholar using species and country names, as well as relevant keywords such as “mammals,” “population trends,” “distribution,” “threats,” and so on. In addition to peer-reviewed articles, we included gray literature such as government reports, monitoring documents, national assessments, and technical publications, which are often essential for capturing up-to-date or regionally specific data. Publications that did not present new information and were based on earlier works (e.g., student projects) were excluded.
The data used in the review included species distribution (coordinates or 10 × 10 km UTM grid cells), population numbers for game species, and relative abundances for small mammals. It also included ecological characteristics such as habitat use, invasiveness, and threats, as well as species status, including Red List assessments and expert evaluations.
Data on the number of game animals were drawn from official sources: Game animal census in Lithuania [33], Game animal populations in Latvia [34], and Status of Game Populations in Estonia [35]. Data for Latvia and Lithuania have been available online since 2015; earlier data were collected from official sources that are no longer available online. All game population figures, regardless of the period, originate from national programs and follow consistent data collection methodologies. The only difference is their current digital availability, not their source or validity.
The other data sources in Lithuania were the Invasive Species Database and the Information system on protected species under Biodiversity information platform, BIĮP [36], as well as the database of the citizen science project on large carnivores from 2012 to 2018, which is not available online. There was also an expert evaluation of species candidates for the Red Data Book (reports not available online) and an expert evaluation of invasive species [37].
In Latvia, mammal data are primarily stored in two state-level geographic information system databases. The first is the Natural Data Management System (OZOLS), which is based on the National Biodiversity Monitoring Program and covers species such as free-ranging bats, hibernating bats, the pond bat (Myotis dasycneme), the otter (Lutra lutra), the brown bear (Ursus arctos), the hazel dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius), and the forest dormouse (Dryomys nitedula) [38]. The second database is the citizen science portal Dabasdati.lv. Established in 2008 by the Latvian Fund for Nature and the Latvian Ornithological Society, Dabasdati.lv allows public wildlife observations and includes reports on nearly all mammal species in Latvia [39].
In Estonia, an overview of the 2019 Red List results is available online [40], while A. Leivits provided an assessment at the species group level [41]. Data on species threat assessments are stored in the Estonian Nature Information System [42], and species-level Red List categories can be found on the eElurikkus (eBiodiversity) website [43].

2.3. Evaluation Methods

The geospatial data stored in the aforementioned national databases were initially evaluated and prepared for the needs of the EMMA2 (European mammal atlas) project using GIS tools. For this study, the same data were then compared across all three Baltic states, as well as with the geospatial data used for the EMMA1 maps and the previous study [15]. A 50 × 50 km grid was used for both EMMA1 and EMMA2. In the databases, either a 10 × 10 km grid or coordinates are available.
In terms of the temporal structure of the analysis, we compared data from two main time periods: a baseline period (generally pre-2000, depending on the country and data availability) and a recent period covering 2000–2024. This resulted in an approximate 30-year interval. Although the exact interval varies slightly by dataset, the range allows for the analysis of long-term population trends.
To evaluate the growth rates of the main ungulate game species, we used the compound annual growth rate (CAGR), which is a measure of the mean annual growth rate of species numbers over the period from 2000 to 2024 in each of the countries (Table S1). CAGR essentially “smooths out” year-to-year dynamics to show the steady growth rate that would take one from the initial to final values [18]. One advantage of CAGR is that the obtained coefficients are comparable between species, regardless of their abundance. However, past CAGR does not guarantee future population performance.
We visualized year-to-year population changes in roe deer, red deer, moose, and wild boar in three countries graphically. All calculations were performed, and figures were prepared using Microsoft Excel® 2016.

3. Results

After reviewing the list of mammal species provided by Timm et al. [15], we concluded that some species should be added due to recent discoveries, while others should be excluded based on improved knowledge. Altogether, 87 species of mammals have been recorded in the region. Most are found throughout the region, while some are only found in one Baltic country or the other. Most species are residents, while some are vagrants (Table 1).

3.1. Most Recently Extinct Species in the Region

Several species disappeared regionally, or even nationally, by the late 20th or early 21st century (Table 1). This fact was overlooked in an earlier review [15]. For example, they noted that E. quercinus and M. lutreola were declining and already absent from Lithuania; however, later surveys revealed no records of either species in Estonia or Latvia.
In Lithuania, the last E. quercinus was observed between 1957 and 1959 [44]. It was later considered extinct and not included in the most recent edition of the Red Data Book [45]. In Latvia, the last reliable record of E. quercinus is from 1996 [46]. In Estonia, this species was common until the mid-20th century; then, the population declined. The last reliable record with a preserved skull is from Laitse in northwestern Estonia in 1986 [47]. The species is still on the list of protected species but is considered extinct in the latest edition of the Red List [48].
M. lutreola has been absent from Lithuania since 1959, having become extinct after the invasive N. vison spread during the 1950s [44]. It is also not included in the most recent edition of the Red Data Book [45]. The last reliable records of M. lutreola are from 1993 in Latvia [49] and from 1996 in Estonia [50].
According to Timm et al. [15], M. avellanarius was assumed to have a patchy distribution in Estonia. Timm and Maran [47] had to recognize that the last reliable record of M. avellanarius in Estonia dates back to 1986. Additionally, this species has also disappeared in the northeastern part of Latvia (Vidzeme), meaning that the presumed Livonian population of the hazel dormouse, which is common to Estonia and Latvia, has ceased to exist [46,51].
The vanishing of P. volans in Latvia has been documented since the early 21st century. After 2004, no area inhabited by flying squirrels was known [52,53], and rumors about flying squirrels wandering around ceased after 2013. The presented maps (Figure S1) indicate a marked range contraction in Estonia, being found in a small area in the northeastern part of the country [42,53], and complete disappearance from Latvia, highlighting a significant decline in the species’ regional distribution.
Likewise, E. europaeus has declined in Latvia; a survey from the 1990s found only two localities [54]. Modern Dabasdati.lv records do not distinguish it from the morphologically similar E. roumanicus. Observations suggest that E. roumanicus is expanding as E. europaeus retreats [55,56]. This implies that E. europaeus may now be extinct in Latvia.

3.2. Declines in Abundance and Distribution Ranges

Monitoring data show a significant decline in M. dasycneme numbers at nursery roosts over the past decade in Latvia. The TRIM index [57] of female abundance decreased by nearly 50% from 2015 to 2024 (p < 0.05). The average size of nursery roosts peaked around 2014–2015 at approximately 90 individuals per colony. It steadily dropped to 35–40 individuals by 2024, representing a roughly 60% decrease since 2007 [58]. Meanwhile, monitoring data of hibernating M. dasycneme indicate an increase in numbers during the last decade. The reasons for opposite tendencies are unclear, and most probably the increase in the number of hibernating bats does not reflect trends in the population as a whole [59].
As for P. auritus, hibernation monitoring from 1993/94 to to 2023/24 shows that the species’ TRIM abundance index has roughly halved, dropping from 150–180 index points at its peak in the late 1990s/early 2000s to 80–90 by 2024. The most pronounced drop occurred after 2005, with stabilization at low levels (70–100) over the past decade [59]. Although Lithuania lacks long-term data on summer bat counts, even the rarest species are increasing in wintering sites [45].
In Lithuania, a significant decrease in the relative abundance and proportion of S. araneus populations since the 1980s, with an accelerated decline since the 2000s, was found, though no similar downward trends were observed for S. minutus or N. fodiens [60]. Habitats heavily impacted by agriculture exhibited the lowest shrew numbers, suggesting that anthropogenic land use is a critical factor in their decline. Interestingly, water shrews, which are usually found in natural aquatic habitats, have recently been observed in human-altered environments, suggesting a shift in their ecological preferences [61].
Similarly, C. glareolus, once a dominant rodent species in Lithuania, has experienced a significant decline since the 1990s. This decrease has been attributed to changes in habitat quality and possibly climate-related factors. However, clear cyclical population fluctuations, which are common in northern latitudes, have not been identified in Lithuanian populations [62].
A broad overview study covering the period from 1975 to 2021 further supports these findings, reporting significant decreases in the proportions of C. glareolus and S. araneus coinciding with a marked increase in species such as A. flavicollis and A. agrarius. These shifts appear to be closely linked to changes in land use after Lithuania transitioned away from intensive agriculture in the 1990s [61].
Similarly, studies from 1991–2016 reveal a marked decline and dampening of vole population cycles in Latvia, particularly in Microtus spp. after 2008 and in C. glareolus around 2003, likely driven by shifts in forestry practices and climate [63].
The number of L. timidus records in Lithuania decreased from 449 before 2007 to 96 between 2008 and 2019. This decline prompted its Vulnerable listing and extirpation from western and southwestern regions [45]. In Latvia, game statistics indicate a stable population over the last decade, though Dabasdati.lv observations are notably scarce in Kurzeme [34,39]. Estonia has reported 402 records, with annual L. timidus sightings increasing to 40–92 since 2020 [64]. However, the hunting bag has decreased from over 1000 in the early 1990s to 45–240 since 2008. Additionally, the winter track index has fluctuated with a slight downward trend since 2010 [35].
There is insufficient knowledge of M. erminea populations across all three countries due to a lack of targeted studies. However, records have recently declined everywhere. In Lithuania, the number of known localities decreased from 69 in the 1990s, to 54 in the 2000s, and to just 10 in 2019 [17,45]. In Latvia, comparisons between EMMA1 and EMMA2 data reveal a scarcity in the eastern regions. Estonia recorded 34 observations from 2008 to 2020s, with the northern area the least represented, with a maximum of six observations per year, and 0–3 observations per year after 2020 [43]. Consequently, M. erminea is classified as Endangered (EN) in Lithuania, with status Data Deficient (DD) in Latvia. Despite low number of observations, its species status still is Least Concern (LC) in Estonia.
The number of S. scrofa in the Baltic states has dropped significantly since the African swine fever virus (ASFV) reached the region in 2014 [65]. In Latvia, the population decreased from approximately 74,000 in 2013 to around 21,000 [34]. In Estonia, the population dropped from around 22,000 to 7000 [35,66]. In Lithuania, the population fell from around 60,000 to 20,000 [67]. From 2000 to 2013, the population within all three countries increased, especially in Latvia (see Figure 2).

3.3. Increases and Overabundance

Population increases have occurred among large and some medium-sized carnivores. The populations that are growing most rapidly include ungulates, brown bears, and gray seals.
Between 1970 and 2000, the population of U. arctos in Estonia fluctuated, as determined by game monitoring [68]. From 2004 to 2023, the number of females with cubs steadily increased from approximately 50 to 90 [35]. In Latvia, the U. arctos population ranged from 3 to 15 individuals from 1990 to 2008. Then, it began to increase, reaching approximately 150 individuals in 2024 [69,70]. In Lithuania, U. arctos remain rare, with fewer than ten individuals. However, overwintering occurs, and the first cub was recorded in 2025 [71].
Gray seals found within the territorial waters of the Baltic countries belong to the common Baltic population that inhabits the entire Baltic Sea. Of the Baltic countries, only Estonia conducts seal censuses, as breeding areas and haul-out sites are located in the Gulf of Riga and the West Estonian archipelago [72]. Monitoring of H. grypus in Estonia indicates a constant increase in their numbers: from approximately 1500 in 1991 to over 7000 in 2024 [73].
Since 1999, the number of C. lupus in Latvia has fluctuated slightly but generally increased [74]. This increase is based on a reconstruction of the sex–age structure of hunted individuals. Since 2023, a similar trend has been observed in Estonia for the number of reproductive packs [35]. In Lithuania, the number of individuals was around 1000, with over 100 groups, as early as 2018 [20]. The steady increase in the bag, from 102 in 2018/2019 to 341 in 2024/2025 [75], also confirms the increasing wolf numbers in Lithuania.
Lynx population trends vary across the Baltic States. In Latvia, the L. lynx population trend remains generally upward [34], while a reconstruction model indicates fluctuations [76]. In Estonia, reproductive unit counts reveal growth in the early 2000s, a sharp decline from 2010 to 2013, and a subsequent recovery [35]. In Lithuania, the number of lynxes has increased significantly in recent years, with citizen scientists reporting a fourfold increase between 2015 and 2020 [19,45]. Despite historical fluctuations and regional differences, the lynx population in the Baltic States appears to be recovering overall.
Most likely, C. aureus is increasing in numbers throughout the region, similar to what has been documented in Estonia [35]. Likewise, both M. martes, M. foina, and N. procyonoides continued to increase in number after the previous reference period and discontinue it in the recent decade, while badgers have shown an increasing trend up to now [34,35].
The population of L. europaeus has shown a stable trend since the late 1990s, increasing in numbers during the last decade in Latvia and Estonia [34,35]. However, an increase in numbers is doubtful in Lithuania, as the hunting bag has remained low since the 1990s [77].
In Latvia, based on owl pellet data from 1985–2016 [78], S. betulina showed wave-like population dynamics with a steady increase since 1987. However, this trend may not apply regionally, as long-term trapping in Lithuania indicates stable, low numbers of the species in small mammal communities [61].
Analysis of national game survey data from 2000 to 2024 reveals consistent, species-specific trends among the three native deer species in the Baltic States (Table 2). The population of C. capreolus more than doubled across all three countries, reflecting broad habitat suitability and adaptive reproductive strategies. C. elaphus populations showed the most pronounced expansion, roughly tripling or more, especially in Lithuania. A. alces populations showed steady, though moderate, increases (Figure 3). The numbers of S. scrofa also increased until the outbreak of ASF, which led to a significant reduction in the abundance of this species (Figure 2).

3.4. New Non-Vagrant Mammal Species in the Baltic Countries

Since the 1990s, one insectivorous mammal, N. milleri, has been included in the fauna list. It was first captured in western Lithuania in 2009 [79] and later confirmed in collections. In 2016, the species (N. anomalus at that time) was confirmed in Estonia based on previous findings, extending its range 350 km and 500 km north of its previous localities [80]. The current species name is N. milleri. The species’ absence in Latvia is most likely due to a lack of targeted research.
The addition of P. pygmaeus to the bat list is the result of the taxonomic revision of P. pipistrellus. Until 1999, the two species were considered conspecific [81].
The Latvian mammal list has been supplemented with two species that were already listed in the 1998 East Baltic checklist. After spreading north and east in Lithuania into reedbeds, meadows, and abandoned fields since 1960, A. oeconomus was trapped in the southeastern part of Latvia (close to the Lithuanian border) in 1989 [82]. The presence of M. subterraneus in Latvia was confirmed in 2006 via mtDNA analysis [83]. Later, both species were found as prey of owls in several locations throughout the country [78].
In 1999, Lithuania added A. uralensis, and by 2000, 62 individuals had been found across 33 forest–meadow ecotones [84]. The first discovery of M. schisticolor in Estonia was from eagle owl pellets in 2018. Unexpectedly, nine more findings were recorded during 2019–2020 with a surprisingly wide spread across the country. There have historically been no records of M. schisticolor in the Baltic States, and Estonia is quite far south of the known species range [85].
Two other newcomers are carnivores. After the first record from Estonia in 2013, C. aureus population size and distribution area have continuously increased, primarily along the western coast. In recent years, several breeding groups have colonized islands and settled along the northern coast and eastern border [86]. In Latvia, C. aureus was first hunted in 2013 [87], though it was likely spotted as early as 2012 [88]. Since then, it has been observed and hunted primarily in the central (Zemgale) and coastal regions of the country. In Lithuania, the first C. aureus was hunted in 2015 [89]. So far, 14 known registrations in Lithuania are close to the Polish, Belarusian, and Latvian borders, with one exception in the central part of the country.
The raccoon was first recorded in Lithuania in 2010 [37]. Breeding was confirmed in 2016 when a juvenile P. lotor was found dead on the side of the road. Most sightings have been in western Lithuania, particularly on the Kuršių Nerija spit. This is likely due to migration from the Kaliningrad region of Russia and the borders with Poland and Belarus [90]. In Latvia, only two sightings were documented in 2025 [91], and one of the animals was eliminated within a month.

3.5. Species on the Edge or with Patchy Distribution

Despite the region’s limited mammalian diversity, many species are on the edge of their current distribution range in one of the three Baltic countries or have patchy distributions (Table 3).

3.6. Vagrant Species

Listed species should be considered vagrants because they are only recorded once or a few times throughout the entire region or in any of the countries. Most of these species are marine mammals capable of long-distance movement.
An unusual long-distance O. rosmarus movement was made from the west coast of Norway into the Baltic Sea along its southern and eastern coast, reaching Finland in 2022 [92,93]. The most recent visit of T. truncatus from the Moray Firth in Scotland to the Riga Gulf was made in 2023 [94], and the species last seen in Lithuanian waters in 2015 [95] and near the Estonian shore in 2020 [96]. Other unusual visits were of M. novaeangliae to the Latvian coast in 2006 [97] and possibly again in 2012 [98], while L. albirostris was seen near the Estonian shore in 2008 [99].
The more common ones are the Baltic seals, with H. grypus inhabiting the entire Baltic Sea [100] and P. vitulina being confined to the western Baltic Sea [101]. Accidental records of this species in the eastern part are known from the Rīga Gulf in 1992 [102] and at Klaipėda in 2005 [103]. P. hispida species predominantly inhabit the northern and northeastern Baltic Sea. They are rare visitors to Latvia’s west coast [104]. Only one record is known in the coastal waters of Lithuania: In 1997, a ringed seal was by-caught near Karklė [105].
Bats, especially migratory species, are capable of long-distance movement. Therefore, registrations outside of a species’ range (i.e., the area of regular occurrence) can be classified as vagrancy [106,107]. In Latvia, besides M. myotis, N. lasiopterus is reliably found only at the Pape Ornithological Station in southwestern Latvia [108]. The other noctule species, N. leisleri, has been found once in southeastern Latvia during bat migration [109], in addition to several records of migrating specimens in Pape [108].
The East Baltic region is far from the southern edge of the G. gulo range in Europe [110]. Previous records of the species in Estonia [68] and Latvia [55] were of animals crossing the frozen Finnish Gulf. Wolverines have been recorded as vagrants in southern Finland [110].

3.7. Species Excluded from the Checklist

Compared to the previous checklist [15], we excluded nine species.
The nutria (Myocastor coypus) was excluded because the animals observed in the three countries were escapees that cannot establish viable populations due to climate reasons. Though the mouflon (Ovis aries musimon) initially survived after being introduced to Lithuania, it currently has no wild populations.
The Eurasian least shrew (Sorex minutissimus) and the lesser white-toothed shrew (Crocidura suaveolens) were excluded because old records from Estonia could not be confirmed by new findings, and no preserved remains of the recorded animals exist to verify the correctness of the identification [111]. The lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros) and the Bechstein’s bat (Myotis bechsteinii) were mentioned in 19th-century sources for Lithuania [44], but they have not been confirmed by new findings either.
The reintroductions of the Russian desman (Desmana moschata), the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), and the Siberian roe deer (Capreolus pygargus) in Lithuania failed [44,112], so there is no reason for them to be included in the checklist.

3.8. Alien Species

Of the 75 species inhabiting the region, 6 are alien (Table 1). Three of these species, O. zibeticus, N. procyonoides, and N. vison, are widespread and were introduced from neighboring countries after WWII, while N. vison populations were also increased by escapes from fur farms. These species mainly became established locally in the 1960s–1970s [44,55,113]. After peaking in the 1980s, O. zibeticus sharply declined and are now rare in Estonia [113] and likely in the surrounding region as well. In Latvia and Estonia, N. vison populations have stabilized or declined [34,35], but they remain abundant in Lithuania [114]. Only N. procyonoides has increased overall in the 21st century.
Two ungulate species, D. dama and C. nippon, were introduced to Lithuania in the 1950s and 1960s [44]. Since both species are kept in game parks in other regions and countries, individual animals or small groups have been spotted as escaped ones also in Latvia [39]. It is presumed that C. nippon came to Estonia from Russia, where they were released in the Leningrad Region. They were first seen in the first half of the 1980s in Virumaa [115]. The first D. dama was recorded in Estonia in 2012 [47].
The other newcomer into the region is P. lotor, which is most likely due to its expansion in Europe [116,117]. It is the only mammal species that should currently be classified as an invasive species in the region. The number of raccoons hunted indirectly indicates the extent and pace of the invasion. In Lithuania, eleven raccoons were shot during the 2022/2023 hunting season.

4. Discussion

4.1. Drivers and Trends in European Mammal Fauna Changes over the Last Century

Over the last century, European mammal fauna has experienced significant declines and recent recoveries [118]. These changes are driven by five negative and one positive factor (Table 4), which are not all limited to recent decades. Rapid human expansion caused global extinction spikes, severely impacting local mammal populations, especially megafauna [119]. Large mammals such as aurochs, wolves, and bears were systematically hunted for perceived threats, meat, fur, and status [11]. Habitat loss and fragmentation from agriculture, urbanization, and forestry also had major negative effects, even when indirect [120]. Past climate changes had limited impact on extinctions compared to human population growth [119]. Introduced species negatively affected islands and fragmented ecosystems [116]. Since the 1970s, conservation efforts, rewilding, and land use changes have enabled the return or expansion of wolves, bears, lynx, beavers, and many deer species [10,11]. Wild boar and deer populations have surged due to ecological flexibility, reintroductions, and hunting restrictions, leading to new conflicts with agriculture and forestry [121].
Most of the listed studies do not track continental-scale time series of native mammal richness or directly decompose community changes. National-level data are similarly scarce. For instance, Roslin and Laine [120] do not present any specific trends regarding Finnish mammals, yet they emphasize that integrating Finland’s long-term datasets could reveal how species respond to environmental changes. For example, over the course of three decades in boreal Sweden (1971–2003), the gray-sided vole (Clethrionomys rufocanus) population declined to the point of local extinction. While this decline was not directly linked to local clear-cutting, broader habitat fragmentation was likely a contributing factor [122].
A 50-year review of the mammal fauna in Ukraine’s Luhansk region revealed significant changes: 7 species disappeared, 10 new ones appeared, and only 28 of the original 74 species maintained their former abundance. The abundance of 21 species remained stable (28%), increased in 37 species (including nine new ones), and declined in 16 species (22%), with 7 going extinct [123].
In Lithuania over the past fifty years, small mammal communities have shifted from a pre-1990 state of low diversity and high dominance to a post-1990 state of higher diversity and lower dominance. This shift is marked by declines in traditional dominant species (C. glareolus, M. arvalis, and S. araneus) and compensatory increases in generalist species (A. flavicollis, especially A. agrarius). This change was largely driven by post-Soviet land use changes, such as agricultural abandonment, reforestation, and urbanization. Climate change was also noted, but it was not the main factor [61].
In the context of above information, the comparison of the mammalian fauna of three countries over several decades, while maintaining repeatability with the former survey, is of both theoretical and practical value.

4.2. Extinctions of Two Species in the Baltic Region Are Also Characteristic to Central and Central-Eastern Europe

Two mammal species, E. quercinus and M. lutreola, experienced extinction in the Baltic countries, despite reintroduction of the last one to Hiiumaa Island (Estonia) since 2000 [124].
A significant contraction in the geographical range of E. quercinus has been observed in recent decades. The species has disappeared from large parts of Central and Eastern Europe, including Finland, Slovakia, and Belarus [125], as well as Poland since 1961 [126]. The species is still common in southwestern Europe (e.g., France, Spain, and Italy), though its range in 2015 was only about half of what it was in 1978. The cause of the declines and extinctions in Central and Eastern Europe is unclear but is likely due to multiple interacting local and large-scale ecological factors [125].
The critically endangered, semi-aquatic carnivore M. lutreola is one of the most threatened mammal species in Europe. The current distribution of M. lutreola is restricted to small, isolated populations in three areas: Russia, the Danube Delta in Romania and Ukraine, and northern Spain and western France [127]. Small populations have also been introduced to the Hiiumaa and Saaremaa Islands in Estonia, the Kunashir Island in the Russian Far East, and Lower Saxony in Germany. Competitive exclusion by the invasive N. vison is the most significant threat to European mink wherever the species has survived [116,127].
Based on this information, it is evident that the extinctions of E. quercinus and M. lutreola were consistent with broader species dynamics and could hardly be prevented.

4.3. Declines in Number and Contractions of the Range

Several species whose populations were already declining in the late 20th century [15] continue to decline. The sharpest decline was experienced by P. volans; it has disappeared from Latvia and continues to abandon its remaining habitats in Estonia, being only found in a small area in northeastern part of the country [111].
To the south of Lithuania, where the species is absent, P. volans has experienced significant range contraction in Belarus and Ukraine. In Belarus, the species currently occupies less than 1% of the country’s territory. Its population is stable but localized. The species faces threats from habitat degradation and fragmentation [128]. In Ukraine, the species is considered extinct, with historical records limited to the 18th century. Its disappearance is likely linked to deforestation and climate constraints at the southern edge of its range [129].
In the Eastern Baltic region, P. hispida is also experiencing a continuous decline in population. The region is home to the southern population of the Baltic P. hispida [130]. The size of the population has decreased from approximately 1500 seals in 1996 to approximately 1000 seals in 2021 [131]. Population trend modeling predicts that the southern subpopulation of P. hispida will have only 75 ringed seals by 2100 [132].
European bat populations have declined sharply due to habitat loss, agricultural intensification, infrastructure development, and artificial lighting. Forest-dependent species like M. bechsteinii are particularly affected by woodland loss, while wind turbines and roads increase mortality. Climate change impacts remain poorly understood, highlighting the need for improved monitoring and targeted mitigation strategies [133].
Small mammal populations specialized in mature spruce and mixed forests have declined across Europe, including Finland and Sweden [134,135,136]. In western Finland (1977–2003), M. agrestis, M. rossiaemeridionalis, C. glareolus, and S. araneus cycled synchronously in three-year fluctuations driven largely by density-dependent predation; experimental predator reduction confirmed that fewer predators boosted vole densities during population lows and increases [135]. In boreal Sweden (1971–2002), populations of C. glareolus, C. rufocanus, and M. agrestis showed long-term declines in both abundance and cycle amplitude—most dramatically in C. rufocanus, which approached local extinction—due to harsher winter mortality disrupting typical multi-year build-ups, though the causes of these winter losses remain unknown [134]. These shifts have likely altered predator–prey dynamics and increased reliance on alternative prey.
The mountain hare, L. timidus, is found throughout northern and alpine Europe, including Norway, Sweden, Finland, and the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania). It is also found in northeastern Poland (the Augustów and Rominty forests), Scotland, Ireland, and the Isle of Man. In Central and Southern Europe, the species survives in alpine regions above 1300 m in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Italy, Slovenia, and Liechtenstein, where it is considered a relict population (L. t. varronis). The species has also been introduced to various British and Nordic islands [137]. Therefore, the decrease in the number and range of L. timidus in Lithuania was quite expectable. The range contraction of species in Europe is driven by several key factors. Climate change has reduced snow cover, rendering its white winter coat ineffective for camouflage. Habitat loss due to agriculture, forestry, and urban development has fragmented suitable environments. The species is also being outcompeted by the more heat-tolerant L. europaeus, which is expanding northward [138]. In areas where the two species overlap, hybridization threatens the genetic integrity of mountain hare populations [139]. Increased predation and hunting pressure also contribute to local L. timidus population declines [137].
The stoat, M. erminea, appears to be declining in the region based on incidental observations: only one GBIF record exists for Lithuania, none for Latvia, and around twenty for Estonia between 2000 and 2025 [140]. In northern Belarus, stoat populations dropped sharply after naturalized N. vison preyed on A. amphibius and M. oeconomus, leading to prey loss; as stoats declined, M. nivalis moved into marshlands, became more abundant, and exhibited greater body mass [141]. In Poland, M. erminea records are unevenly distributed, with higher numbers in the western and southern regions [142], and the species is decreasing across parts of its range [143].
The decline of E. europaeus in Latvia began in the 1990s [54]. Observations suggest that the range expansion of E. roumanicus has driven the retreat of E. europaeus in some areas [55,56]. While hedgehogs are generally not preyed on thanks to their spines, M. meles can regularly hunt them, especially in the UK, where high badger densities correlate with fewer hedgehogs. This relationship has not been studied in continental Europe, where M. meles numbers are lower [144,145]. Finally, climate warming and changes in forest structure may promote further northward expansions of E. europaeus into transformed and urbanized boreal regions [146].

4.4. New Mammal Species to the Region

Since the previous checklist was published [15], twelve additional mammal species have been recorded in the region. Nine of these species are entirely new to the Baltic States, and three have been newly documented within a single country (see Table 1). Three species, M. schisticolor, C. aureus, and P. lotor, appeared due to natural range expansion or human-facilitated invasion. The spread of C. aureus is attributed to natural expansion [147], whereas P. lotor is a significant threat to European biodiversity [116]. M. schisticolor has no prior records in the Baltic region [85].
The presence of C. nippon has been confirmed in Estonia and Lithuania [148]. Occasional sightings near fenced herds in both countries likely represent escapes. In Poland, two small populations introduced in 1910–1911 number approximately 250–300 in the north and 30 in the south. Other sightings are presumed to be escapes or releases [149]. In Lithuania, D. dama form an established and monitored population with low exploitation. In contrast, Estonia only hosts escapees from fenced herds, and Latvia lacks confirmed wild populations [150]. In Poland, where the species was introduced in the 13th century and expanded in the 19th century, the population reached ~35,000 by 2021. High D. dama densities were observed in the western regions, and the species is not considered invasive there [149]. Although C. nippon is listed as invasive in Poland due to the risk of hybridization with native red deer [149], it is not yet officially considered invasive in Lithuania [36]. Both C. nippon and D. dama are on the lists of invasive alien species in Estonia [151].

4.5. Presumed Drivers of Recent Changes

Timm et al. [15] identified increased forest cover, intensified forest management, and game management (including unintentional killings) as the main historical drivers of changes in mammal populations. These factors have intensified in the 21st century: Forest area and management intensity have increased due to large-scale land abandonment and natural afforestation since 1991, as well as rural depopulation, particularly in eastern Latvia [152,153,154]. Intensified forestry has increased the proportion of young stands, fragmenting mature forests [155,156].
Additional contemporary drivers include climate change and the globalization of wildlife diseases. The growth of medium-sized carnivore populations (e.g., P. lotor) has introduced new interspecific competition [116]. Historical accounts attest to the early recognition of threats to habitats. For example, forest logging was linked to declines in P. volans populations over a century ago [157], and predictions from the 1930s accurately foresaw local extinctions by 2000 [158].
Despite enhanced legal protections following EU accession and the Habitats Directive, intensified resource use continues to depress certain populations. Between 2003 and 2023, Latvia constructed 7700 km of new forest roads [159], which eliminated and fragmented forest habitats [160]. Major infrastructure projects, such as Via Baltica [161] and Rail Baltica [162], will bisect the region and impede large-mammal movements. A border fence along the eastern frontiers of all Baltic states [163] is expected to halt the cross-border movement of large species. Since 2021, Belarusian authorities have recorded 52 wildlife deaths along the Lithuanian, Latvian, and Polish borders [164].
Wind energy poses a growing threat to bats: Latvia plans to add 2,476 wind turbines to the existing 112 [165]. Lithuania is rapidly expanding its wind energy capacity as part of its renewable energy strategy, targeting 26 GW for offshore and 18 GW for onshore wind farms [166]. The potential of further development of alternative energy sources [167] for mammal populations has not yet been analyzed and understood.
Species-specific examples illustrate multiple interacting drivers:
  • M. avellanarius benefits from increased forest cover and current management practices [168].
  • S. betulina responds to land abandonment and intensified forestry.
  • O. zibethicus faces increased predation.
  • L. timidus are declining in Lithuania and are scarce in western Latvia due to climate change and elevated predation, mirroring trends elsewhere in Europe [167].
  • M. erminea is declining due to new predators, especially the invasive N. vison, and climate change.
  • Ungulate overpopulation and beaver declines are influenced by game management.
  • African swine fever impacts S. scrofa populations.
  • Large carnivores are subject to national action plans.
  • C. aureus is expanding due to conservation in southern Europe, climate change, and land abandonment.
  • H. grypus benefits from protection and environmental legislation.
  • P. hispida is threatened by climate change.
  • U. arctos is recovering due to land abandonment, rural depopulation, and intensified forestry, which create berry-rich clearings and suitable denning habitats.

4.6. Baltic Mammal Fauna Changes in a Broader Context

Studies of the development of European mammal fauna often focus on glacial–interglacial timescales [169,170], e.g., Timm et al. [15] provided an overview of the Holocene for the Eastern Baltic region. The European Mammal Assessment [171] found no extinctions on the continent in the 20th or 21st centuries. Instead, new Mediterranean endemics (e.g., Plecotus sardus and Mus cypriacus) and additional southern cryptic taxa have been described [172,173]. Consequently, regional checklist changes reflect national-level gains and losses. A similar pattern occurred in Belarus between 1961 and 2022, where taxonomic refinement drove many listing changes [174].
Spatial clustering analyses of European terrestrial mammals [175] divide the East Baltic region into two subregions: southern and northern. The Daugava River separates these subregions. Across Europe, approximately 27% of mammal populations are declining; in Romania, only 21 species remain stable, while 76 are in decline [176]. The Baltic region mirrors this proportion. For example, the garden dormouse lost 49% of its range between 1978 and 2015 [177], and the European mink lost 99% of its former range [127]. These local extinctions are part of broader European declines.
Conversely, approximately 25% of Baltic species have increased in number, far surpassing the European average of 8%, due to legal protection, rewilding, and changes in land use since the 1970s [10,11,118]. Wolves, bears, lynxes, beavers, and deer have recolonized or expanded their ranges. Meanwhile, wild boars and many deer species have surged in number due to ecological flexibility and hunting restrictions. This has led to new conflicts with agriculture and forestry [121].
According to Temple and Terry [171], habitat loss and degradation affect 27 out of 29 threatened European species and 94 species overall, making it the primary threat. Pollution (including climate change), human disturbance, accidental mortality (e.g., bycatch and vehicle collisions), invasive species, and overharvesting also play significant roles. In the East Baltic, most mammal population trends result from multiple interacting threats rather than a single dominant factor.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/d17070464/s1. Table S1: Some game species population numbers in Lithuania (LT), Latvia (LV), and Estonia (EE): 2000–2024. Data from [33,34,35]. Figure S1: Distribution of Pteromys volans in the Baltic countries during two monitoring periods: 1980–2010 (A) and 2010–2025 (B). Each filled square corresponds to a 10 × 10 km UTM grid cell where the species was recorded.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.B., V.P. and U.T.; formal analysis, L.B.; investigation, writing—original draft preparation, L.B., V.P. and U.T.; writing—review and editing, L.B., V.P. and U.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data supporting the findings of this study are cited in the Reference list; any additional datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are provided in the Supplementary Materials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
TRIMTrends and Indices for Monitoring Data
EMMAEuropean mammal atlas

References

  1. Alagador, D. Dependence of Europe’s most threatened mammals on movement to adapt to climate change. Conserv. Biol. 2025, 39, e14315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Anderson, B.J.; Akçakaya, H.R.; Araújo, M.B.; Fordham, D.A.; Martinez-Meyer, E.; Thuiller, W.; Brook, B.W. Dynamics of range margins for metapopulations under climate change. Proc. R. Soc. B 2009, 276, 1415–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Büntgen, U.; Greuter, L.; Bollmann, K.; Jenny, H.; Liebhold, A.; Galvan, J.D.; Mysterud, A. Elevational range shifts in four mountain ungulate species from the Swiss Alps. Ecosphere 2017, 8, e01761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fialas, P.C.; Santini, L.; Russo, D.; Amorim, F.; Rebelo, H.; Novella-Fernandez, R.; Marques, F.; Domer, A.; Vella, A.; Martinoli, A.; et al. Changes in community composition and functional diversity of European bats under climate change. Conserv. Biol. 2025; ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Roche, N.; Langton, S.; Aughney, T.; Lynn, D.; Marnell, F. Elucidating the consequences of a warming climate for common bat species in north-western Europe. Acta Chiropterol. 2020, 21, 359–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Festa, F.; Ancillotto, L.; Santini, L.; Pacifici, M.; Rocha, R.; Toshkova, N.; Amorim, F.; Benítez-López, A.; Domer, A.; Hamidović, D.; et al. Bat responses to climate change: A systematic review. Biol. Rev. 2023, 98, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hatfield, J.H.; Davis, K.E.; Thomas, C.D. lost, gained, and regained functional and phylogenetic diversity of European mammals since 8000 years ago. Glob. Change Biol. 2022, 28, 5283–5293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Santos, A.M.C.; Cianciaruso, M.V.; Barbosa, A.M.; Bini, L.M.; Diniz--Filho, J.A.F.; Faleiro, F.V.; Gouveia, S.F.; Loyola, R.; Medina, N.G.; Rangel, T.F.; et al. Current climate, but also long--term climate changes and human impacts, determine the geographic distribution of European mammal diversity. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2020, 29, 1758–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Davoli, M.; Kuemmerle, T.; Monsarrat, S.; Crees, J.; Cristiano, A.; Pacifici, M.; Svenning, J.C. Recent Sociocultural Changes Reverse the Long--Term Trend of Declining Habitat Availability for Large Wild Mammals in Europe. Divers. Distrib. 2024, 30, e13921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Carpio, A.J.; Apollonio, M.; Acevedo, P. Wild ungulate overabundance in Europe: Contexts, causes, monitoring and management recommendations. Mamm. Rev. 2021, 51, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Di Bernardi, C.; Chapron, G.; Kaczensky, P.; Álvares, F.; Andrén, H.; Balys, V.; Blanco, J.C.; Chiriac, S.; Ćirović, D.; Drouet-Hoguet, N.; et al. Continuing recovery of wolves in Europe. PLOS Sustain. Transf. 2025, 4, e0000158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rondinini, C.; Visconti, P. Scenarios of large mammal loss in Europe for the 21st century. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 1028–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Hof, A.R.; Jansson, R.; Nilsson, C. Future Climate Change Will Favour Non-Specialist Mammals in the (Sub)Arctics. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e52574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bragina, E.V.; Ives, A.R.; Pidgeon, A.M.; Balčiauskas, L.; Csányi, S.; Khoyetskyy, P.; Kysucká, K.; Lieskovsky, J.; Ozolins, J.; Randveer, T.; et al. Wildlife population changes across Eastern Europe after the collapse of socialism. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2018, 16, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Timm, U.; Pilāts, V.; Balčiauskas, L. Mammals of the East Baltic. Proc. Latv. Acad. Sci. 1998, 52, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  16. Mitchell-Jones, A.J.; Amori, G.; Bogdanowicz, W.; Krystufek, B.; Reijnders, P.J.H.; Spitzenberger, F.; Stubbe, M.; Thissen, J.B.M.; Vohralik, V.; Zima; et al. The Atlas of European Mammals; T & AD Poyser: London, UK, 1999; pp. 1–484. [Google Scholar]
  17. Balčiauskas, L.; Trakimas, G.; Juškaitis, R.; Ulevičius, A.; Balčiauskienė, L. Lietuvos Žinduolių, Varliagyvių ir Roplių Atlasas. Atlas of Lithuanian Mammals, Amphibians and Reptiles, 2nd ed.; Akstis: Vilnius, Lithuania, 1999; pp. 1–112. [Google Scholar]
  18. Balčiauskas, L.; Kawata, Y.; Balčiauskienė, L. Moose Management Strategies under Changing Legal and Institutional Frameworks. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L.; Litvaitis, J.A.; Tijušas, E. Citizen Scientists Showed a Four-Fold Increase of Lynx Numbers in Lithuania. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L.; Litvaitis, J.A.; Tijušas, E. Adaptive monitoring: Using citizen scientists to track wolf populations when winter-track counts become unreliable. Wildl. Res. 2021, 48, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Balčiauskas, L.; Kawata, Y. Red Deer in Lithuania: History, Status and Management. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Balčiauskas, L. Roe Deer, Lithuania’s Smallest and Most Abundant Cervid. Forests 2024, 15, 767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kawata, Y.; Ozolins, J.; Andersone-Lilley, Z. An analysis of the game animal population data from Latvia. Balt. For. 2008, 14, 75–86. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kawata, Y.; Baumanis, J.; Ozoliņš, J. Eirāzijas bebrs (Castor fiber L.) Latvijā un tā apsaimniekošanas ekonomiskais pamatojums. MežzināTne 2011, 23, 41–57. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kawata, Y. Extended model of the natural resource input-output market: Game meat in Latvia as an example. South-East. Eur. J. Econ. 2011, 9, 167–185. [Google Scholar]
  26. Mishkova, D.; Trencsényi, B. Introduction. In European Regions and Boundaries: A Conceptual History; Mishkova, D., Trencsényi, B., Eds.; Berghahn Books: New York, NY, USA, 2023; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. O’Connor, K.C. The history of the Baltic States; Bloomsbury Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 109–148. [Google Scholar]
  28. Čivilytė, A.; Podėnas, V.; Minkevičius, K.; Luiki, H. New insights on Bronze Age metallurgy in the eastern Baltic Region: Archeometallurgical investigations based on EDXRF and lead-isotope. Archaeol. Anthropol. 2023, 4, 627–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hallanaro, E.L.; Pylvänäinen, M. Nature in Northern Europe—Biodiversity in a Changing Environment; Nordic Council of Ministers: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2001; pp. 1–384. [Google Scholar]
  30. Population and Population Change Statistics. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Population_and_population_change_statistics (accessed on 21 May 2025).
  31. Climate Zones in Europe and the Mediterranean. Available online: https://www.barenbrug.biz/climate-zones-europe-and-mediterranean (accessed on 28 May 2025).
  32. Meier, H.E.M.; Kniebusch, M.; Dieterich, C.; Gröger, M.; Zorita, E.; Elmgren, R.; Myrberg, K.; Ahola, M.P.; Bartosova, A.; Bonsdorff, E.; et al. Climate change in the Baltic Sea region: A summary. Earth Syst. Dyn. 2022, 13, 457–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Game Animal Census. Available online: https://am.lrv.lt/lt/veiklos-sritys-1/gamtos-apsauga/medziokle/ (accessed on 20 April 2025).
  34. Medījamo Dzīvnieku Populācijas. Available online: https://www.vmd.gov.lv/lv/medijamo-dzivnieku-populacijas (accessed on 20 April 2025).
  35. Veeroja, R.; Männil, P.; Jõgisalu, I.; Kübarsepp, M. Ulukiasurkondade seisund ja küttimissoovitus 2024 (Status of Game Populations in Estonia and Proposal for Hunting in 2024); Estonian Environment Agency: Tartu, Estonia, 2024; pp. 36–49+125–128. Available online: https://keskkonnaportaal.ee/sites/default/files/SEIREARUANNE_2024.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2025).
  36. Biologinės Įvairovės Informacinė Sistema. Moduliai. Available online: https://biip.lt/moduliai/ (accessed on 10 April 2025).
  37. Gudžinskas, Z.; Petrulaitis, L.; Uogintas, D.; Vaitonis, G.; Balčiauskas, L.; Rakauskas, V.; Arbačiauskas, K.; Butkus, R.; Karalius, S.; Janulaitienė, L.; et al. Invazinės ir svetimžemės rūšys Lietuvoje; Gamtos Tyrimų Centras: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2023; pp. 1–44. [Google Scholar]
  38. Nature Data Management System OZOLS. Available online: https://www.daba.gov.lv/en/nature-data-management-system-ozols (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  39. Dabasdati.lv. Available online: https://dabasdati.lv/en/ (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  40. Estonian Red List. Available online: https://kliimaministeerium.ee/eesti-punane-nimestik (accessed on 30 May 2025).
  41. Leivits, A. Eesti liikide punane nimestik: Muutused ja suundumused. Eesti Loodus 2020, 9, 20–23. [Google Scholar]
  42. Estonian Nature Information System (EELIS). Available online: https://eelis.ee/artikkel/-71852320 (accessed on 30 May 2025).
  43. eElurikkus. Available online: https://elurikkus.ee/en (accessed on 30 May 2025).
  44. Prūsaitė, J. (Ed.) Fauna of Lithuania. Mammals; Mokslas: Vilnius, Lithuania, 1988; pp. 12–18. [Google Scholar]
  45. Rašomavičius, V. (Ed.) Mammals. In Red Data Book of Lithuania. Animals, Plants, Fungi; Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2021; pp. 293–308. [Google Scholar]
  46. Pilāts, V.; Taube, L.; Pilāte, D. Threat assessment for dormice in Latvia—Facts and assumptions (Rodentia: Gliridae). Lynx New Ser. 2023, 54, 121–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Timm, U.; Maran, T. Kui palju on muutunud imetajate fauna Eestis? Eesti Loodus 2020, 3, 12–21. [Google Scholar]
  48. Red List Species in Estonia. Available online: https://elurikkus.ee/app/taxon-lists/Red%20List%20species%20in%20Estonia (accessed on 10 April 2025).
  49. Ozoliņš, J.; Pilāts, V. Distribution and status of small and medium-sized carnivores in Latvia. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 1995, 32, 21–29. [Google Scholar]
  50. Maran, T. Muutused Eesti kärplaste faunas. Eest. Ulukid 2020, 13, 99–110. [Google Scholar]
  51. Pilāts, V.; Pilāte, D.; Timm, U. Methods and results of hazel dormouse range mapping in Latvia with short remark about Estonia. In Monitoring of the Hazel Dormouse Under the EU Habitats Directive in Member States Around the Baltic Sea; Ludwig, M., Sutcliffe, L., Büchner, S., Eds.; BfN-Skripten 621; Bundesamt für Naturschutz: Bonn, Germany, 2022; pp. 20–22. [Google Scholar]
  52. Pilāts, V. Medījot lidvāveres. Medības. Makšķerēšana. Daba 2007, 11, 32–35. [Google Scholar]
  53. Pilāts, V. Results of flying squirrel survey in Latvia. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Practical Workshop “Wildlife Census Methods: Reliability and Application”, Žemaitija National Park, Plateliai, Lithuania, 4–5 November 2010; p. 30. [Google Scholar]
  54. Pilāts, V.; Kampe, G. Distribution and variation in coloration of the eastern European hedgehog (Erinaceus concolor M.) and the western European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus L.) in Latvia. Proc. Latv. Acad. Sci. Sect. B 1999, 53, 96–100. [Google Scholar]
  55. Tauriņš, E. Latvijas zīdītājdzīvnieki; Zinātne: Rīga, Latvia, 1982; p. 256. [Google Scholar]
  56. Bolfíková, B.; Hulva, P. Microevolution of sympatry: Landscape genetics of hedgehogs Erinaceus europaeus and E. roumanicus in Central Europe. Heredity 2012, 108, 248–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Pannekoek, J.; van Strien, A. TRIM 2.0 for Windows (Trends & Indices for Monitoring Data); Statistics Netherlands: Voorburg, The Netherlands, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  58. Pētersons, G.; Vintulis, V. Dīķu Naktssikspārņu Monitorings. Atskaite par 2024. Gadu; SIA “Dabas eksperti”: Jelgava, Latvia, 2024; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  59. Vintulis, V. Ziemojošo Sikspārņu Fona Monitorings. Atskaite par 2023./2024. Gadu; SIA “Dabas eksperti”: Jelgava, Latvia, 2024; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  60. Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L. The Long-Term Dynamics of Shrew Communities: Is There a Downward Trend? Life 2024, 14, 1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L. Small Mammal Diversity Changes in a Baltic Country, 1975–2021: A Review. Life 2022, 12, 1887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Balčiauskas, L.; Jasiulionis, M.; Stirkė, V.; Balčiauskienė, L. Temporal Changes in Bank Vole Populations Indicate Species Decline. Diversity 2024, 16, 546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Avotiņš, A.; Avotiņš, A., Sr.; Ķerus, V.; Auniņš, A. Numerical Response of Owls to the Dampening of Small Mammal Population Cycles in Latvia. Life 2023, 13, 572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Occurrence Records. Available online: https://elurikkus.ee/app/occurrences/search/charts?country=Estonia&species=Lepus+timidus&offset=0 (accessed on 10 April 2025).
  65. Schulz, K.; Oļševskis, E.; Viltrop, A.; Masiulis, M.; Staubach, S.; Nurmoja, I.; Lamberga, K.; Seržants, M.; Malakauskas, A.; Conraths, F.J.; et al. Eight Years of African Swine Fever in the Baltic States: Epidemiological Reflections. Pathogens 2022, 11, 711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Veeroja, R.; Männil, P.; Jõgisalu, I.; Kübarsepp, M. Ulukiasurkondade Seisund ja küttimissoovitus 2015 (Status of Game Populations in Estonia and Proposal for Hunting in 2015); Estonian Environment Agency: Tartu, Estonia, 2015; pp. 28–40. [Google Scholar]
  67. Lithuania Has Started a Mass Cull of Its Wild Boar Population, Due to an Outbreak of African Swine Fever. Available online: https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/35584/lithuania-has-started-a-mass-cull-of-its-wild-boar-population-due-to-an-outbreak-of-african-swine-fever?srsltid=AfmBOoprKBxmuWUaohhDbCfjiQp8xFOQ2YRm4icN8zKNPsV7Sf8iHQJA (accessed on 25 May 2025).
  68. Männil, P. Suurkiskjad (hunt, karu, ilves, ahm ja šaakal). Eest. Ulukid 2020, 13, 78–93. [Google Scholar]
  69. Ozoliņš, J.; Lūkins, M.; Ornicāns, A.; Stepanova, A.; Žunna, A.; Done, G.; Pilāte, D.; Šuba, J.; Howlett, S.J.; Bagrade, G. Action Plan for Brown Bear Ursus Arctos Conservation; LSFRI Silava: Salaspils, Latvia, 2018; pp. 1–58. [Google Scholar]
  70. Bagrade, G.; Done, G.; Krivmane, B.; Ornicāns, A.; Ozoliņš, J.; Pilāte, D.; Ruņģis, D.E.; Stepanova, A. Lāču Monitorings 2023.-2025.gadā: Pārskats par 2024. Gadu; LVMI “Silava”: Salaspils, Latvia, 2024; pp. 1–30. [Google Scholar]
  71. Lietuvoje Meška Atsivedė Jauniklį: Turėsime Dar Vieną Gyvūnų Rūšį. Available online: https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/laisvalaikis/13/2527051/lietuvoje-meska-atsivede-jaunikli-turesime-dar-viena-gyvunu-rusi (accessed on 4 April 2025).
  72. Marine mammals in the Baltic Sea in Relation to the Nord Stream 2 Project. Available online: https://dce2.au.dk/pub/SR236.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2025).
  73. Jüssi, I. Riigihanke, Riikliku Keskkonnaseire Eluslooduse Mitmekesisuse ja Maastike Seire Allprogrammi Seiretööd 2024”. Available online: https://kese.envir.ee/kese/downloadReportFile.action?fileUid=35542208&monitoringWorkUid=34349021 (accessed on 15 May 2025).
  74. Ozoliņš, J.; Bagrade, G.; Done, G.; Ornicāns, A.; Pilāte, D.; Ruņģis, D.E.; Stepanova, A.; Šuba, J.; Žunna, A. Pārskats par Medību Saimniecības Attīstības Fonda Atbalstītu Projektu par Pelēkā Vilka Canis Lupus Sugas Aizsardzības plāNā Paredzēto Pētījumu Izmantošanu Populācijas Adaptīvas Aizsardzības un Apsaimniekošanas Sistēmas Izstrādē; LVMI “Silava”: Salaspils, Latvia, 2024; pp. 1–31. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sumedžioti Vilkai. Available online: https://am.lrv.lt/lt/veiklos-sritys-1/gamtos-apsauga/medziokle/sumedzioti-vilkai/ (accessed on 12 May 2025).
  76. Ozoliņš, J.; Bagrade, G.; Männil, P.; Balčiauskas, L. Eurasian lynx in Latvia: Experience gained and future challenges at a population level. CATnews 2022, 75, 37–41. [Google Scholar]
  77. Sumedžioti Žvėrys ir Paukščiai. Available online: https://am.lrv.lt/lt/veiklos-sritys-1/gamtos-apsauga/medziokle/sumedzioti-zverys-ir-pauksciai/ (accessed on 12 May 2025).
  78. Avotiņš, A. Informācijas Ieguve par Īpaši Aizsargājamo Sugu Meža Sicista Sicista Betulina. Latvijas Vides Aizsardzības Fonda Projekta Gala Atskaite; Latvijas Pūču Izpētes Biedrība: Nagļi, Latvia, 2017; pp. 1–42. [Google Scholar]
  79. Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L. Mediterranean water shrew, Neomys anomalus Cabrera, 1907—A new mammal species for Lithuania. N. W. J. Zool. 2012, 8, 367–369. [Google Scholar]
  80. Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L.; Timm, U. Mediterranean water shrew (Neomys anomalus): Range expansion northward. Turk. J. Zool. 2016, 40, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Barlow, K.E.; Jones, G. Roosts, echolocation calls and wing morphology of two phonic types of Pipistrellus pipistrellus. Z. Saugetierkd. 1999, 64, 257–268. [Google Scholar]
  82. Balčiauskas, L. New mammal species for Latvia, the root vole (Microtus oeconomus). Zool. Ecol. 2014, 24, 187–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Baltrūnaitė, L. Microtus subterraneus de Sélys-Longchamps, 1836: A new mammal species for the Latvian fauna. Acta Zool. Litu. 2010, 20, 37–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Juškaitis, R.; Baranauskas, K.; Mažeikytė, R.; Ulevičius, A. New data on the pygmy field mouse (Apodemus uralensis) distribution and habitats in Lithuania. Acta Zool. Litu. 2001, 11, 349–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Nummert, G.; Timm, U.; Maran, T. Wood lemming (Myopus schisticolor)—A newcomer in Estonian mammal fauna? Mamm. Res. 2022, 67, 251–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Männil, P.; Ranc, N. Golden jackal (Canis aureus) in Estonia: Development of a thriving population in the boreal ecoregion. Mamm. Res. 2022, 67, 245–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Dzērve, L. Latvijā, Iespējams, Atrasts Šakālis. 2014. Available online: https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/dzive--stils/veseliba/latvija-iespejams-atrasts-sakalis.a74406/ (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  88. LATMA. Zeltainais Šakālis Latvijā. 2014. Available online: https://www.latma.lv/lv/aktualitates/2014/zeltainais-sakalis-latvija-277/ (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  89. Paulauskas, A.; Ražanskė, I.; Radzijevskaja, J.; Nugaraitė, D.; Gedminas, V. The golden jackal Canis aureus—A new species in the Baltic countries. Biologija 2018, 64, 203–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Paprastasis Meškėnas. Available online: https://inva.biip.lt/invazine-rusis/paprastasis-meskenas/1586/ (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  91. Ziemeļamerikas Jenots. Available online: https://ozols.gov.lv/kartes/apps/sites/#/invazivo-sugu-parvaldnieks/pages/3cd76bbd9a824ed8a14974469b838a42 (accessed on 30 April 2025).
  92. Pilāts, V. Valzirgs—Jauna Zvēru Suga Latvijas Faunā! 2022. Available online: https://dabasdati.lv/lv/article/valzirgs-ndash-jauna-zveru-suga-latvijas-fauna/2022/ (accessed on 26 April 2025).
  93. Pihlström, H.; Halkka, A.; Sainmaa, S.; Lanki, M.; Simola, O.; Oksanen, A.; Pilāts, V.; Vesterinen, E.; Pohjoismäki, J.; Puolakoski, A.; et al. A vagrant walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) in Finland. Mem. Soc. Fauna Flora Fenn. 2024, 100, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  94. Pilāts, V. Vai Sākusies Afalīnu Invāzija? Otrā Daļa. 2023. Available online: https://dabasdati.lv/lv/article/vai-sakusies-afalinu-invazija-otra-dala (accessed on 26 April 2025).
  95. Neįtikėtina: Baltijos Jūroje Prie Klaipėdos Šėlsta Delfinai. 2015. Available online: https://www.delfi.lt/grynas/gamta/neitiketina-baltijos-juroje-prie-klaipedos-selsta-delfinai-68734414 (accessed on 26 April 2025).
  96. Kopli Lahes Nähti Siinmail Haruldast Külalist Silmikdelfiini. 2020. Available online: https://www.delfi.ee/artikkel/90049765/foto-kopli-lahes-nahti-siinmail-haruldast-kulalist-silmikdelfiini (accessed on 26 April 2025).
  97. BNS. Rīgas Līcī Atrastais Valis, Visticamāk, Sadūries ar Kuģi. 2006. Available online: https://www.apollo.lv/4936842/rigas-lici-atrastais-valis-visticamak-saduries-ar-kugi (accessed on 26 April 2025).
  98. Rīgas Jūras Līcī Novērots Nezināms Peldošs Objekts—Visticamāk Kuprvalis. 2012. Available online: https://dabasdati.lv/lv/printpreview/rigas-juras-lici-noverots-nezinams-peldoss-objekts-ndash-visticamak-kuprvalis/ (accessed on 26 April 2025).
  99. A Rare White-Beaked Dolphin Swims Around Tallinn Bay. Available online: https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/51143187/tallinna-lahes-ujub-ringi-haruldane-valgekoon-delfiin (accessed on 26 April 2025).
  100. HELCOM. Distribution of Baltic Seals—Grey Seals. HELCOM Core Indicator Report. 2023. Available online: https://indicators.helcom.fi/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Distribution-of-Baltic-Seals-Grey-seals_Final_October_2023.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2025).
  101. HELCOM. Distribution of Baltic Seals—Harbour Seals. HELCOM Core Indicator Report. 2023. Available online: https://indicators.helcom.fi/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Distribution-of-Baltic-Seals-Harbour-seals_Final_April_2023-1.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2025).
  102. Pilats, V. Seals in Latvia: Residents or visitors? Ekologija 1995, 2, 86–89. [Google Scholar]
  103. Bacevičius, E. Patikslintas pietryčių Baltijos jūrinių žinduolių rūšių sąrašas. In Proceedings of the Jūros ir Krantų Tyrimai–2010: 4-oji Mokslinė-Praktinė Konferencija, Palanga, Lithuania, 13–16 April 2010; Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla: Klaipėda, Lithuania, 2010; pp. 12–15. [Google Scholar]
  104. HELCOM. Distribution of Baltic Seals—Ringed Seals. HELCOM Core Indicator Report. 2023. Available online: https://indicators.helcom.fi/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Distribution-of-Baltic-Seals-Ringed-seals_April_2023.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2025).
  105. Skeiveris, R. Ruoniai ir delfinai Lietuvos pajūryje XX amžiaus paskutiniame dešimtmetyje. Theriol. Litu. 2001, 1, 119–124. [Google Scholar]
  106. Petersons, G. Erstnachweis des Mausohres (Myotis myotis) in Lettland. Nyctalus 1995, 5, 485–487. [Google Scholar]
  107. LOD. New Bat Species Recorded in Lithuania—Greater Mouse-Eared Bat (Myotis myotis). 2015. Available online: https://birdlife.lt/new-bat-species-recorded-in-lithuania-greater-mous/ (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  108. Pētersons, G.; Vintulis, V. Migrējošo Sikspārņu Monitorings: Atskaite par 2024. Gadu; SIA “Dabas eksperti”: Jelgava, Latvia, 2024; pp. 1–35. [Google Scholar]
  109. Mazais vakarsikspārnis, Nyctalus leisleri. Available online: https://dabasdati.lv/lv/observation/4e1c27750a2c0f71d2b8243df8c22792/ (accessed on 30 May 2025).
  110. Andrén, H. Gulo gulo (Europe Assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2025, e.T9561A216872666. Available online: https://apistaging.iucnredlist.org/species/9561/216872666 (accessed on 24 April 2025).
  111. Timm, U. Muutused putuktoiduliste ja näriliste faunas viimase saja aasta jooksul. Eest. Ulukid 2020, 13, 27–48. [Google Scholar]
  112. Balčiauskas, L. Lithuanian mammal fauna review. Hystrix 1996, 8, 9–15. [Google Scholar]
  113. Laanetu, N. Ondatra, kobras ja saarmas eestis. Eest. Ulukid 2020, 13, 49–68. [Google Scholar]
  114. Kanadinė Audinė. Available online: https://inva.biip.lt/invazine-rusis/kanadine-audine/1581/ (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  115. How Much Has the Mammal Fauna in Estonia Changed? Available online: https://loodusveeb.ee/en/themes/species-and-their-distribution/how-much-has-mammal-fauna-estonia-changed (accessed on 29 May 2025).
  116. Tedeschi, L.; Biancolini, D.; Capinha, C.; Rondinini, C.; Essl, F. Introduction, spread, and impacts of invasive alien mammal species in Europe. Mamm. Rev. 2022, 52, 252–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Stope, M.B. The Raccoon (Procyon lotor) as a Neozoon in Europe. Animals 2023, 13, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Hearn, R. Gains and losses in the European mammal fauna. In Europe’s Changing Woods and Forests: From Wildwood to Managed Landscapes; Kirby, K.J., Watkins, C., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2015; pp. 193–206. [Google Scholar]
  119. Andermann, T.; Faurby, S.; Turvey, S.T.; Antonelli, A.; Silvestro, D. The past and future human impact on mammalian diversity. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eabb2313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Roslin, T.; Laine, A.L. The changing fauna and flora of Finland–discovering the bigger picture through long-term data. Mem. Soc. Fauna Flora Fenn. 2022, 98, 40–53. [Google Scholar]
  121. Ledger, S.E.H.; Rutherford, C.A.; Benham, C.; Burfield, I.J.; Deinet, S.; Eaton, M.; Freeman, R.; Gray, C.; Herrando, S.; Puleston, H.; et al. Wildlife Comeback in Europe: Opportunities and Challenges for Species Recovery; Rewilding Europe: Nijmegan, The Netherlands, 2022; Available online: https://coilink.org/20.500.12592/2w4d13 (accessed on 24 April 2025).
  122. Hörnfeldt, B.; Christensen, P.; Sandström, P.; Ecke, F. Long-term decline and local extinction of Clethrionomys rufocanus in boreal Sweden. Landsc. Ecol. 2006, 21, 1135–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Загoрoднюк, І.В. Ссавці схoду України: зміни переліку й ряснoти видів від oгляду І. Сахна (1963) дo сучаснoсті. Вісник Харківськoгo націoнальнoгo університету імені В.Н. Каразіна. Серія: Біoлoгія 2012, 16, 93–104. [Google Scholar]
  124. Nummert, G.; Nemvalts, K.; Maran, T. How Was Genetic Diversity Transferred with Translocations from ex situ to in situ? A Case Study of the European Mink Translocation to Hiiumaa Island in Estonia. Zoo Biol. 2023, 42, 557–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Bertolino, S. Distribution and Status of the Declining Garden Dormouse Eliomys quercinus. Mammal Rev. 2017, 47, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Cichocki, J.; Ważna, A.; Klimaszewski, K.; Sobczuk, M.; Suchecka, A.; Wojtowicz, B. Historical Distribution of the Garden Dormouse Eliomys quercinus (Linnaeus, 1766) (Rodentia: Gliridae) in Poland. Acta Zool. Bulg. 2024, 19, 87–93. [Google Scholar]
  127. Croose, E.; Hanniffy, R.; Harrington, A.; Põdra, M.; Gómez, A.; Bolton, P.L.; Lavin, J.V.; Browett, S.S.; Pinedo, J.; Lacanal, D.; et al. Mink on the Brink: Comparing Survey Methods for Detecting a Critically Endangered Carnivore, the European Mink Mustela lutreola . Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2023, 69, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Abramchuk, A.V. The Siberian flying squirrel (Pteromys volans) in Belarus: Distribution, abundance, threats, and conservation. Theriol. Ukr. 2021, 22, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Zagorodniuk, I. The Siberian flying squirrel (Pteromys volans) in south of Eastern Europe: Distribution boundaries and its changes. Theriol. Ukr. 2022, 23, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Halkka, A.; Tolvanen, P. (Eds.) The Baltic Ringed Seal—An Arctic Seal in European Waters; WWF Finland Report No. 36; WWF Finland: Helsinki, Finland, 2017; pp. 1–32. [Google Scholar]
  131. HELCOM. Ringed Seal Census the Southern Populations. In Proceedings of the 15th Meeting of HELCOM Expert Group on Marine Mammals, Online, 14–16 September 2021; HELCOM: Helsinki, Finland, 2021. Document 3–5 (Unpublished). [Google Scholar]
  132. Sundqvist, L.; Härkönen, T.; Svensson, C.J.; Harding, K.C. Linking climate trends to population dynamics in the Baltic ringed seal: Impacts of historical and future winter temperatures. Ambio 2012, 41, 865–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Browning, E.; Barlow, K.E.; Burns, F.; Hawkins, C.; Boughey, K. Drivers of European bat population change: A review reveals evidence gaps. Mamm. Rev. 2021, 51, 353–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Hörnfeldt, B. Long-term decline in numbers of cyclic voles in boreal Sweden: Analysis and presentation of hypotheses. Oikos 2004, 107, 376–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Cornulier, T.; Yoccoz, N.G.; Bretagnolle, V.; Brommer, J.E.; Butet, A.; Ecke, F.; Elston, D.A.; Framstad, E.; Henttonen, H.; Hörnfeldt, B.; et al. Europe-wide dampening of population cycles in keystone herbivores. Science 2013, 340, 63–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Korpimäki, E.; Norrdahl, K.; Klemola, T.; Pettersen, T.; Stenseth, N.C. Predator-induced synchrony in population oscillations of coexisting small mammal species. Proc. R. Soc. B 2005, 272, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Angerbjörn, A.; Schai-Braun, S.C. Mountain hare Lepus timidus Linnaeus, 1758. In Primates and Lagomorpha; Iskowitz, B.G., Smith, L.M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 191–219. [Google Scholar]
  138. Martino, G.; Chiatante, G.; Ferloni, M.; Meriggi, A. Population trend and distribution of mountain (Lepus timidus) and brown hares (Lepus europaeus) in Central Alps (N-Italy, 1980–2020). Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2024, 70, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Reid, N.; Hughes, M.F.; Hynes, R.A.; Montgomery, W.I.; Prodöhl, P.A. Bidirectional hybridisation and introgression between introduced European brown hare, Lepus europaeus and the endemic Irish hare, L. timidus hibernicus. Conserv. Genet. 2022, 23, 1053–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Mustela erminea Linnaeus. 1758. Available online: https://www.gbif.org/species/5219019 (accessed on 30 April 2025).
  141. Sidorovich, V.E.; Solovej, I.A. The stoat Mustela erminea population decline in northern Belarus and its consequences for weasels Mustela nivalis. N. Z. J. Zool. 2007, 34, 9–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Atlas Ssaków Polski. Gronostaj. Available online: https://www.iop.krakow.pl/Ssaki/gatunek/111 (accessed on 30 April 2025).
  143. Konradsen, S.N.; Havmøller, L.W.; Krag, C.; Møller, P.R.; Havmøller, R.W. Elusive mustelids—18 months in the search of near--threatened stoat (Mustela erminea) and weasel (M. nivalis) reveals low captures. Ecol. Evol. 2024, 14, e11374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Hubert, P.; Julliard, R.; Biagianti, S.; Poulle, M.L. Ecological factors driving the higher hedgehog (Erinaceus europeaus) density in an urban area compared to the adjacent rural area. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 103, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Hof, A.R.; Allen, A.M.; Bright, P.W. Investigating the Role of the Eurasian Badger (Meles meles) in the Nationwide Distribution of the Western European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europeus) in England. Animals 2019, 9, 759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Belkin, V.V.; Fyodorov, F.V.; Ilyukha, V.A.; Futoran, P.A. Modern Records of the European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europeus, Erinaceidae, Eulipotyphla) in Southeastern Fennoscandia. Biol. Bull. Russ. Acad. Sci. 2023, 50, 2405–2415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Trouwborst, A.; Krofel, M.; Linnell, J.D.C. Legal implications of range expansions in a terrestrial carnivore: The case of the golden jackal (Canis aureus) in Europe. Biodivers. Conserv. 2015, 24, 2593–2610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Mori, E.; Viviano, A.; Ferri, M.; Ancillotto, L.; Grignolio, S.; Merli, E.; Ciuffardi, L.; Baratti, M. Sika deer Cervus nippon out of the blue: A cryptic invasion in Italy. Mamm. Biol. 2024, 104, 215–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Dziech, A.; Wierzbicki, H.; Moska, M.; Zatoń-Dobrowolska, M. Invasive and Alien Mammal Species in Poland—A Review. Diversity 2023, 15, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Bijl, H.; Csányi, S. Fallow Deer (Dama dama) Population and Harvest Changes in Europe since the Early 1980s. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. List of Alien Species That Threaten the Natural Balance. Available online: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/12828512 (accessed on 25 May 2025).
  152. Ruskule, A.; Nikodemus, O.; Kasparinska, Z.; Kasparinskis, R.; Brūmelis, G. Patterns of afforestation on abandoned agriculture land in Latvia. Agrofor. Syst. 2012, 85, 215–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Daugaviete, M. Meži Latvijā laiku lokos un Meža dienu fenomens. Akad. DzīVe 2019, 55, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Statistical Yearbook of Latvia 2024. Available online: https://stat.gov.lv/en/statistics-themes/economy/national-accounts/publications-and-infographics/21279-statistical (accessed on 25 May 2025).
  155. Jansons, J.; Šņepsts, G. Meža Resursu Monitoringa Rezultāti. Available online: https://www.silava.lv/petnieciba/nacionalais-meza-monitorings (accessed on 25 May 2025).
  156. Teder, M.; Mizaraite, D.; Mizaras, S.; Nonic, D.; Nedeljkovic, J.; Sarvašová, Z.; Vilkriste, L.; Zalite, Z.; Weiss, G. Structural changes of state forest management organisations in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Serbia and Slovakia since 1990. Balt. For. 2015, 21, 326–339. [Google Scholar]
  157. Stoll, F.E. Die Verbreitung des Flughörnchens in den Ostseeprowinzen. Korr.-Bl. Naturforscher-Ver. Zu Riga 1906, 49, 61–70. [Google Scholar]
  158. Siliņš, J. Mūsu faunas retums—lidvāvere (Sciuropterus russicus Tied.). Mednieks Un Makšķernieks 1933, 11, 325–327. [Google Scholar]
  159. 20 Gadu Laikā ir Uzbūvēti 7700 Kilometri Meža Ceļu. Available online: https://nra.lv/neatkariga/lasamgabali/370077-20-gadu-laika-ir-uzbuveti-7700-kilometri-meza-celu.htm (accessed on 25 May 2025).
  160. Mirušās Joslas Mežā. Available online: https://vkerus.blogspot.com/2024/03/mirusas-joslas-meza.html (accessed on 25 May 2025).
  161. Via Baltica. Available online: https://3si.politic.edu.pl/via-baltica/ (accessed on 25 May 2025).
  162. Rail Baltica. Available online: https://www.railbaltica.org/ (accessed on 25 May 2025).
  163. The Baltic States and Finland: Fencing Themselves off from Russia and Belarus. Available online: https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2023-09-15/baltic-states-and-finland-fencing-themselves-russia-and (accessed on 25 May 2025).
  164. Vēl Viens Saspringtu Attiecību Upuris? Novērošanas Kamerās Fiksēts Traģisks Negadījums uz Lietuvas un Baltkrievijas robežas. Available online: https://jauns.lv/raksts/arzemes/654608-vel-viens-saspringtu-attiecibu-upuris-noverosanas-kameras-fiksets-tragisks-negadijums-uz-lietuvas-un-baltkrievijas-robezas-video (accessed on 25 May 2025).
  165. Plānotie un Esošie Vēja Parki Latvijā. Available online: https://static.lsm.lv/media/2025/02/large/1/pr91.jpg (accessed on 25 May 2025).
  166. Mikalauskas, I. Social Acceptance of Green Infrastructure Adoption in Lithuania. E3S Web Conf. 2025, 608, 05002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Brodny, J.; Tutak, M. Multi-Criteria Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Implementation of Energy Policies in the EU-27 Member States. Eng. Sci. 2025, 34, 1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Juškaitis, R. Why are hazel dormice common while edible dormice are endangered in Lithuania? The importance of forest management for dormouse conservation. J. Vertebr. Biol. 2024, 73, 24113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Markova, A.K.; Vislobokova, I.A. Mammal faunas in Europe at the end of the Early–Beginning of the Middle Pleistocene. Quat. Int. 2016, 420, 363–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Hackländer, K.; Zachos, F.E. (Eds.) Mammals of Europe—Past, Present, and Future; Springer: London, UK, 2020; pp. 1–118. [Google Scholar]
  171. Temple, H.J.; Terry, A. European mammals: Red List status, trends, and conservation priorities. Folia Zool. 2009, 58, 248–269. [Google Scholar]
  172. Wauters, L.A.; Amori, G.; Aloise, G.; Gippoliti, S.; Agnelli, P.; Galimberti, A.; Casiraghi, M.; Preatoni, D.; Martinoli, A. New endemic mammal species for Europe: Sciurus meridionalis (Rodentia, Sciuridae). Hystrix 2017, 28, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Kryštufek, B.; Nedyalkov, N.; Astrin, J.J.; Hutterer, R. News from the Balkan refugium: Thrace has an endemic mole species (Mammalia: Talpidae). Bonn Zool. Bull. 2018, 67, 41–57. [Google Scholar]
  174. Шакун, В.В.; Сoлoвей, И.А.; Крищук, И.А.; Велигурoв, П.А.; Машкoв, Е.И.; Ларченкo, А.И. Фауна млекoпитающих Беларуси и ее изменения в 1961–2022 гг. Прирoдные ресурсы 2023, 1, 38–45. [Google Scholar]
  175. Heikinheimo, H.; Fortelius, M.; Eronen, J.; Mannila, H. Biogeography of European land mammals shows environmentally distinct and spatially coherent clusters. J. Biogeogr. 2007, 34, 1053–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Murariu, D. Revised and commented checklist of mammal species of the Romanian fauna. Trav. Inst. Spéol. “ÉMile Racovitza” 2015, 54, 67–92. [Google Scholar]
  177. Bertolino, S.; Colangelo, P.; Mori, E.; Capizzi, D. Good for management, not for conservation: An overview of research, conservation and management of Italian small mammals. Hystrix 2015, 26, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 17 00464 g001
Figure 1. Study region. CORINE land use class 1 is shown as background (https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/corine-land-cover-1990-by-country/legend, accessed on 5 January 2025). System of coordinates: ETRS_1989_LAEA. Projection: Lambert_Azimuthal_Equal_Area. WKID: 3035 Authority—EPSG.
Figure 1. Study region. CORINE land use class 1 is shown as background (https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/corine-land-cover-1990-by-country/legend, accessed on 5 January 2025). System of coordinates: ETRS_1989_LAEA. Projection: Lambert_Azimuthal_Equal_Area. WKID: 3035 Authority—EPSG.
Diversity 17 00464 g001
Diversity 17 00464 g002
Figure 2. Wild boar population dynamics in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia: 2000–2024. Data from [33,34,35].
Figure 2. Wild boar population dynamics in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia: 2000–2024. Data from [33,34,35].
Diversity 17 00464 g002
Diversity 17 00464 g003
Figure 3. Roe deer, red deer, and moose population dynamics in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia: 2000–2024. Data from [33,34,35].
Figure 3. Roe deer, red deer, and moose population dynamics in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia: 2000–2024. Data from [33,34,35].
Diversity 17 00464 g003
Table 1. List of mammals in three Baltic countries with indication of changes in distribution area and number trend in the 21st century. Status: + breeding population present or there are individuals from the breeding population residing in the territory, – breeding population not present, e—extinct, v—vagrants have been recorded. Numbers: ? unclear, ↓ decrease, ↑ increase, ↑↓ fluctuate, = stable.
Table 1. List of mammals in three Baltic countries with indication of changes in distribution area and number trend in the 21st century. Status: + breeding population present or there are individuals from the breeding population residing in the territory, – breeding population not present, e—extinct, v—vagrants have been recorded. Numbers: ? unclear, ↓ decrease, ↑ increase, ↑↓ fluctuate, = stable.
NoSpeciesStatus Range
in XXI		Number
in XXI		Number
in XX 1
EELVLT
1European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus)+?–↓↓↓ (?)
2Northern white-breasted hedgehog (E. roumanicus)+++↑↑= (?)
3European mole (Talpa europaea)+++===/↑
4Common shrew (Sorex araneus)+++=↓=
5Laxmann’s shrew (S. caecutiens)+––==?
6Eurasian pygmy shrew (S. minutus)+++===
7Eurasian water shrew (Neomys fodiens)+++=== (?)
8Miller’s water shrew (N. milleri)+–+==
9Siberian flying squirrel (Pteromys volans)+ee↓↓↓
10Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris)+++===
11European beaver (Castor fiber)+++=↑↓↑
12Edible dormouse (Glis glis)–++==↓ (?)
13Hazel dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius)e++==↓ (?)
14Garden dormouse (Eliomys quercinus) eee ↓
15Forest dormouse (Dryomys nitedula)–++↓↓=/?
16Northern birch mouse (Sicista betulina)+++=↑/== (?)
17House mouse (Mus musculus)+++===
18Striped field mouse (Apodemus agrarius)+++↑↑=
19Yellow-necked mouse (A. flavicollis)+++===
20Wood mouse (A. sylvaticus)––+==?
21Pygmy field mouse (A. uralensis)+++===
22Harvest mouse (Micromys minutus)+++===
23Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus)+++↓↓↓/↑(?)
24Water vole (Arvicola amphibius)+++===/↓(?)
25Bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus)+++=↓=
26Short-tailed field vole (Microtus agrestis)+++=↓= (?)
27Common vole (Microtus arvalis)+++===
28Tundra vole (Alexandromys oeconomus)–++=↓↑/?
29East European gray vole (M. rossiaemeridionalis)+++=??
30Subterranean vole (M. subterraneus)++–=↓?
31Black rat (Rattus rattus)+++↓↓↓ (?)
32Brown rat (R. norvegicus)+++===/↑
33Wood lemming (Myopus schisticolor)+––↑?
34European hare (Lepus europaeus)+++==/↑=/↑
35Mountain hare (L. timidus)+++=↓= (?)
36Daubenton’s bat (Myotis daubentonii)+++===/?
37Pond bat (M. dasycneme)+++=↓↓/?
38Brandt’s bat (M. brandtii)+++=↑=/?
39Whiskered bat (M. mystacinus)+++=↑?
40Natterer’s bat (M. nattereri)+++==?
41Greater mouse-eared bat (M. myotis) 2–vv
42Common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus)+++==?
43Nathusius’s pipistrelle (P. nathusii)+++===/?
44Soprano pipistrelle (P. pygmaeus)+++=?
45Common long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus)+++=↓=/↓(?)
46Lesser noctule (Nyctalus leisleri)–v+ ?
47Common noctule (N. noctula)+++===/?
48Greater noctule bat (N. lasiopterus) 3–v–
49Northern bat (Eptesicus nilssonii)+++===/?
50Serotine (E. serotinus)–++↑↑?
51Parti-colored bat (Vespertilio murinus)+++==?
52Barbastelle (Barbastella barbastellus)–++=??
53Pine marten (Martes martes)+++=↑↑
54Beech marten (M. foina)+++↑↑=/?
55Polecat (Mustela putorius)+++=↑↓=
56European mink (M. lutreola) +ee↑↑↓
57Stoat (M. erminea)+++=↓=/↓(?)
58Least weasel (M. nivalis)+++??=
59American mink (Neogale vison)+++===/↑(?)
60Badger (Meles meles)+++=↑↑
61Wolverine (Gulo gulo) 4vv–
62Otter (Lutra lutra)+++==↑
63Brown bear (Ursus arctos)+++↑↑=
64Golden jackal (Canis aureus)+++↑↑
65Gray wolf (Canis lupus)+++=↑↑
66Red fox (Vulpes vulpes)+++==↑
67Raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides)+++==↑
68Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 5––+↑↑
69Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx)+++=↑↑
70Gray seal (Halichoerus grypus)+++=↑=/↑
71Ringed seal (Pusa hispida) ++–=↓↓(?)
72Common seal (Phoca vitulina)–vv
73Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) 3–v–
74Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) 3–v–
75Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) 4vv–
76White whale (Delphinapterus leucas) 6vvv
77Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) 3–v–
78White-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris) 4vv–
79Bottle-nosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) 6vvv
80Common porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)–++??
81Wild boar (Sus scrofa)+++=↓↑
82Moose (Alces alces)+++=↑↓
83Red deer (Cervus elaphus)+++↑↑↑
84Sika deer (C. nippon)+–+↑↑=
85Fallow deer (Dama dama)––+↑↑=
86Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus)+++=↑↓
87European bison (Bison bonasus)–v+=↑=
1 according to Timm et al [15]. 1998. 2 M. myotis has been recorded in LT and LV but has no breeding population. 3 N. lasiopterus, O. rosmarus, B. physalus, D. delphis have been recorded in LV but have no breeding population. 4 G. gulo, M. novaeangliae, L. albirostris have been recorded in EE and LV but have no breeding population. 5 P. lotor: LV recorded once, but no breeding population yet. 6 D. leucas, T. truncatus have been recorded in all 3 countries but have no breeding population.
Table 2. Changes in ungulate and beaver numbers, 2000–2024, CAGR, and densities in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
Table 2. Changes in ungulate and beaver numbers, 2000–2024, CAGR, and densities in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
CountrySpeciesNumbers inIncreaseAbundance per 10 sq. km
20002024TimesCAGROf AreaOf Forest
EstoniaC. capreolus30,00080,0002.70.04217.734.8
C. elaphus200011,0005.50.0742.44.8
A. alces900011,0001.20.0082.44.8
S. scrofa12,50017,0001.40.0133.87.4
C. fiber10,00012,0001.20.0082.75.2
LatviaC. capreolus55,551230,0004.10.06135.668.5
C. elaphus22,53369,0003.10.04810.720.5
S. scrofa21,75521,0001.0−0.0013.36.3
A. alces10,59519,0001.80.0252.95.7
C. fiber42,72056,0481.30.0118.716.7
LithuaniaC. capreolus68,571162,5922.40.03724.973.9
C. elaphus15,18196,9376.40.08014.844.1
A. alces543921,0493.90.0583.29.6
S. scrofa23,17128,7201.20.0094.413.1
C. fiber35,92047,2481.30.0117.221.5
D. dama10013,316133.20.2262.06.1
B. bonasus3030810.30.1120.00.1
Table 3. List of mammal species with the edge of distribution in Baltic countries.
Table 3. List of mammal species with the edge of distribution in Baltic countries.
DistributionLithuaniaLatviaEstonia
Northern edgeA. sylvaticus, P. lotor, B. bonasus 1B. barbastellus, E. serotinus, D. nitedula, G. glis, M. avellanarius, A. oeconomusE. roumanicus, M. dasycneme, A. uralensis, M. Subterraneus 2, C. aureus, C. nippon
Southern edgeL. timidus 3 P. volans 4, M. schisticolor
Patchy M. rossiaemeridionalis 5, N. milleri, R. rattus
1 herd of escaped animals is also present in Pape, SW of Latvia. 2 present also in Latvia but not Lithuania. 3 situation in Belorussia not clear. 4 no longer present in Latvia. 5 lack of targeted investigations, e.g., genetic identification of M. arvalis.
Table 4. Main historical and recent drivers of mammal fauna changes in Europe.
Table 4. Main historical and recent drivers of mammal fauna changes in Europe.
DriverImpactSources
Human population growthHigh human population density reduced available habitat, increased exploitation of natural resources, and intensified human–wildlife conflict.[119]
Overhunting and persecutionExtermination efforts, especially in medieval and early modern Europe were most important to large carnivores, overhunting to herbivores.[11,118]
Habitat loss and fragmentationFragmentation reduced viable population sizes, disrupted movement, and isolated populations, making them more vulnerable to stochastic events and genetic decline.[118,120]
Climate change (historical)The role of climate becomes more significant when combined with human pressure, but rarely on its own.[119]
Invasive speciesIntroduced mammals, displaced native species through competition and disease. Other invasives have altered predator–prey dynamics and degraded ecosystems through herbivory or predation. [116,118]
Rewilding Enabled by legal protection and conservation programs (e.g., EU Habitats Directive, Bern Convention), resulted in species reintroductions and increase in numbers[10,11,121]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Balčiauskas, L.; Pilāts, V.; Timm, U. Mammal Fauna Changes in Baltic Countries During Last Three Decades. Diversity 2025, 17, 464. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17070464

AMA Style

Balčiauskas L, Pilāts V, Timm U. Mammal Fauna Changes in Baltic Countries During Last Three Decades. Diversity. 2025; 17(7):464. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17070464

Chicago/Turabian Style

Balčiauskas, Linas, Valdis Pilāts, and Uudo Timm. 2025. "Mammal Fauna Changes in Baltic Countries During Last Three Decades" Diversity 17, no. 7: 464. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17070464

APA Style

Balčiauskas, L., Pilāts, V., & Timm, U. (2025). Mammal Fauna Changes in Baltic Countries During Last Three Decades. Diversity, 17(7), 464. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17070464

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop