This species' taxonomic status is uncertain (Kottelat & Freyhof 2007). It has been considered valid by some Russian authorities, but is referred to as a subpopulation or subspecies of the Arctic Charr (Salvelinus alpinus) in most published literature. The latter concept is supported by a recent genetic analysis (Makhrov et al. 2019).

In addition, it has been reported to occur in Finland, Norway and Sweden (Kottelat & Freyhof 2007), but is not recognised as a valid taxon by the relevant authorities in these countries.

At the broader scale, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the evolutionary relationships and taxonomy of the genus Salvelinus (Reist et al. 2013; Taylor 2016; Whiteley et al. 2019).

Members of this genus exhibit bewildering subpopulation-scale ecological and morphological variability throughout their global range. When such divergence occurs within a single lake system, the different sympatric forms are often referred to as “morphs”, “morphotypes”, "ecomorphs" or "ecotypes" (Snorrason et al. 1994; Adams et al. 1998; Knudsen et al. 2006; Klemetsen 2010; Muir et al. 2016).

Some of these subpopulations and sympatric forms have over time been described as nominal species, including at least 15 from North America, around 30 from Europe and 12 from Siberia and the Far East. However, these taxa encompass only a small fraction of charr distribution and diversity, and there exist significant differences in opinion regarding which of them should be considered valid (Savvaitova 1995; Adams & Maitland 2007; Kottelat & Freyhof 2007; Klemetsen 2010; Whiteley et al. 2019).

With the above in mind, there is an emerging consensus that the striking genetic and phenotypic diversity exhibited by members of this genus cannot be adequately represented by a single accepted taxonomic system (Whiteley et al. 2019).

The Red List currently follows the nomenclature provided by Fricke et al. (2024), albeit a species-oriented conservation management approach is unlikely to prove appropriate for members of this genus (Barthelemy et al. 2023; also see 'Conservation').

Global and European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)

Although this species' population trend may be decreasing due to habitat degradation, there is no clear evidence that the current rate of decline approaches the minimum threshold for Vulnerable under Criterion A (≥ 30% over the past three generations). It does not approach the range thresholds for Vulnerable under Criterion B (extent of occurrence (EOO) < 20,000 km², area of occupancy (AOO) < 2,000 km²) or D2. The population size far exceeds 10,000 mature individuals, hence it does not approach the thresholds for Criteria C or D. There exists no quantitative analysis which would permit application of Criterion E.

Therefore, Lepechin's Charr does not currently meet the thresholds for any Red List criteria, and it is assessed as Least Concern both globally and for the EU 27 member states.

This species has a disjunct range comprising parts of the Baltic and White sea basins in Norway, Sweden, Finland and northwestern parts of the Russian Federation (Leningrad Oblast, Republic of Karelia and Murmansk Oblast).

It thus inhabits a number of Europe's largest lake basins, including Vättern (Sweden), Saimaa (Finland), Ladoga and Onega (Russian Federation).

In the Republic of Karelia, it has become established at several locations outside of its original range.

It was reportedly stocked in Latvia during the 1900s and again during the 2000s, but its current status at these sites is unclear.

This species' population size is unknown, but it is understood to exceed the minimum threshold for Red List criteria (< 10,000 mature individuals). The current population trend has not been quantified, and the number of subpopulations is unclear.

Its abundance declined significantly during the 20^th century. During this period, more than 70% of the c. 100 subpopulations identified in southern Sweden have been extirpated. Major declines have also been reported in subpopulations inhabiting Karelia and the southern portion of the Kola Peninsula in Russia.

Notable declines in commercial catch sizes have been observed in lakes Vättern and Saimaa. During the 1900s, annual landings in lakes Ladoga and Onega exceeded 100 tonnes, but by the 1950s had decreased to c. 30 tonnes in Lake Ladoga and c. 10 tonnes in Lake Onega. The current total is c. 15 tonnes for both lakes combined, despite the implementation of stocking measures (see 'Conservation').

The Lake Imandra fishery in the Kola Peninsula had collapsed completely by the late 1980s, and the resident subpopulation is considered to be on the verge of extirpation.

This species inhabits cold, deep oligotrophic lakes formed after the last glacial period, and has occasionally been reported to enter affluent rivers.

It occupies the pelagic zone, where it feeds on smaller fishes such as Arctic Cisco (Coregonus albula) and European Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus), plus aquatic invertebrates.

Both the growth rate and adult size vary dramatically between locations, leading to individual subpopulations being referred to as "large", "normal" or "dwarf". In some Russian lakes, e.g., Ladoga, Onega, Segozero and Umbozero, a larger-growing epilimnetic form occurs sympatrically with a smaller profundal form (see 'Taxonomic Notes').

Development is generally slow, and adult individuals mature at age 4-8+, depending on location. The generation length is thus variable, but three generations clearly exceeds 10 years.

The annual reproductive period extends from late August to early November, when mature individuals develop an intense epigamic colour pattern.

The precise duration and onset of spawning are apparently dependant on water temperature and also vary somewhat between locations. In lakes where different forms occur sympatrically, they exhibit divergent nuptial colour patterns and the profundal form normally spawns slightly later than the epilimnetic form.

Spawning itself takes place in shallow littoral or sublittoral habitats with well-washed stony substrata, and the incubation period lasts for c. two months.

This species' decline has been driven by a combination of factors, the effects of which may have been compounded by overharvesting.

These include eutrophication due to domestic or industrial pollution, and acidification through afforestation, peat-cutting or mining in areas with rock-types of low pH-buffering capacity (e.g., granite) and acidic soils (e.g., peat).

The widespread impoundment of lakes for urban water supply or hydroelectricity generation has in some cases led to fluctuating water levels and subsequent declines due to dewatering of spawning and nursery sites.

The stocking or invasion of the predatory Northern Pike (Esox lucius) has been widely destructive, while introduction of whitefishes and/or ciscoes (Coregonus spp.) to improve fisheries yields has driven the extirpation of some subpopulations through resource competition.

In Norway and Sweden, introduction of the benthopelagic crustacean Mysis relicta to a number of lakes from the 1950s-1980s resulted in the decline of some subpopulations due to competition for zooplankton.

The introduction of modern monofilament gill nets in the mid-20^th century led to overfishing of some subpopulations, e.g., lakes Vättern, Saimaa, Ladoga and Onega.

However, in some cases the cause of decline cannot be unambiguously attributed to any of these factors.

Increasing water temperatures due to climate change represents a plausible ongoing and future threat.

This species is harvested commercially throughout most of its range, although landings have declined significantly since the mid-20^th century (see 'Population').

Fisheries no longer operate at some locations, e.g., Lake Imandra, whereas in other cases, e.g., lakes Ladoga and Onega, they are maintained by artificial stocking (see 'Conservation').

In Sweden, the development of net-pen rearing schemes in large mountain lakes and hydropower reservoirs has increased significantly since the turn of this century. At present, c. 3,000 metric tonnes are produced annually, and output is predicted to increase. The practice is controversial due to fish escapes and the release of nutrients to oligotrophic lake systems.

This species is also a popular game fish in some parts of its range. Widespread efforts to boost recreational fisheries in Norway and Sweden since the mid-19^th century have resulted in extensive stocking. For example, in Sweden 122 lakes were stocked with c. 4 million fry obtained primarily from Lake Vättern between 1850-1916, but only three of these locations are inhabited by viable subpopulations today.

Outside of its native range, it is cultured by at least one hatchery in Latvia, and was from 2007-2009 stocked to supply the recreational fishery of Lake Kāla Ezers.

In the Russian Federation, this species is included in the Red Data Book of the Republic of Karelia.

In Lake Vättern, abundance may be increasing due to a reduction in commercial fishing efforts. Minimum landing size restrictions are established in Sweden, Finland and possibly elsewhere. In Lake Vättern, private anglers are permitted to keep just two individuals per day.

Some subpopulations in Finland and Sweden have been boosted by stocking programmes in order to compensate for the negative impacts of hydropower development.

The subpopulations inhabiting lakes Ladoga and Onega have been supplemented by stocking with hatchery-reared individuals since the early 1980s. Gametes are obtained by artificially stripping ripe adult individuals, with 30,000-86,000 juveniles released into Lake Ladoga and 10,000-25,000 into Lake Onega on an annual basis.

It has been widely recommended that the conservation management of Eurasian charrs must be considered independent of their systematic classification, due to a lack of consensus regarding their taxonomy plus the existence of notable subpopulation-scale genetic and phenotypic diversity (see 'Taxonomic Notes'). Each subpopulation should therefore be assessed individually, taking into account its evolutionary and genetic significance coupled with the ongoing population trend and threats, to result in a priority ranking permitting the effective allocation of conservation resources through the development of site-specific, catchment-scale management plans. Sympatric morphological forms should also be managed separately, depending on their respective habitat preferences, diets and life histories. The abundance trends of many subpopulations remain unknown, and their individual assessments should ideally form the basis of future research efforts in order to ensure appropriate prioritisation. In practice, such efforts will be most efficiently coordinated at local, national or regional scales.