Article 17 web tool

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Des prospections de terrain spécifiques seront nécessaires pour confirmer la présence de cet habitat sur de nombreux sites complexes ou très dynamiques (plages sablo-graveleuses en pied de petites falaises, dunes érigées sur d'anciens cordons de galets que l'érosion marine peut faire localement réapparaître, ...), ceci afin de bien le différencier des végétations de laisses de mer sur sables fins. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range was calculated using the range tool, based on the current known distribution of the 1210 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10 km grid cells was used when running the range tool. Thirteen 10 km grid cells generated by the range tool that had no coastline were removed.
Short-term trend was estimated based on data from the current reporting period and the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013). None of the area losses recorded during these two reporting periods led to a contraction in the range.
The number of 10 km squares in the range (188) is six squares higher than the last monitoring period (NPWS, 2013). These changes are due to the use of a slightly different methodology with all 10 km grid cells with a coastline retained within the range within the current reporting period.
The Favourable reference range has been increased since the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013) due to the use of a different methodology. ||
->Coverage: The period over which the surface area of the habitat was determined begins in 1996 (Crawford et al., 1996) when the first baseline survey was carried out and incorporates updates made by surveys carried out between 1996 and 2016 that are listed in Section 3.2.
Favourable Reference Area (FRA) was not determined exactly, but is estimated to be <10% more than the current area. FRA is deemed to be greater than the current area, given that some anthropogenic losses have occurred since the Directive came into force and there have also been losses due to natural processes.
During the current reporting period seven 1210 sites were visited, six by Martin et al. (2017) and one by Devaney et al. (2014). This represents only a small proportion of the 19 sites surveyed by Delaney et al. (2013) and the 71 sites with 1210 habitat that were surveyed by Ryle et al. (2009) and any conclusions that can be made based on this small sample are limited.
In this reporting period the polygons utilised for the 1210 distribution map (sources listed in Section 2.5) were also used to calculate the habitat area, with the exception of seven polygons with a certainty of only 1 that were judged to be too inaccurate to contribute to area calculations.
Short-term trend in Area was deemed to be decreasing due to the loss of 0.09 ha due to anthropogenic impacts reported during the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013). The magnitude of the known loss is approximately -0.027% per annum, measured over a period of 12 years (2007-2018). This figure is calculated by expressing the 0.09 ha area that was lost as a per-annum percentage of the 28.19 ha area surveyed in the last two reporting periods.
The long-term trend in Area was estimated as decreasing based on the fact that in the last round of reporting an area of 0.09 ha of 1210 was reported to be lost due to anthropogenic activities (NPWS, 2013).
There was a net loss of 4.6 ha across the seven 1210 sites surveyed during the current reporting period, but all losses were considered to be due to the natural fluctuations in a dynamic habitat. Martin et al. (2017) reported a reduction in the area of the 1210 habitat at two west of Ireland sites, with 7.7 ha of the habitat lost from the Magharees Peninsula due to winter storm activity. Martin et al. (2017) reported a net increase in the area of the 1210 habitat at the two east coast sites where it was recorded.
The difference in habitat extent between the area of 0.55 km2 reported during this reporting period and the figure of 1.0 km2 reported during the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013) is in small part due to a net loss in the area of the 1210 habitat due to storm activity on the west coast of Ireland but mostly due to improved knowledge and more accurate data. A review of all 1210 polygons mapped during NPWS (2013), using remote imagery, showed that the majority of certainty 1 polygons were inaccurate with only small areas that could potentially include the 1210 habitat. One large, certainty=1, 1210 polygon of 104.9 ha, that was used to calculate the habitat area during the last reporting period (NPWS (2013), was deleted from the shapefile as the polygon was inaccurate and the data had been superseded by the 1210 area mapped by Martin et al., (2017) at Ballyteige Burrow SAC Co. Wexford (site code 000696). Five other, certainty=1, 1210 polygons were also deleted due to the fact that the data had been superseded by data collected during recent field surveys (Ryle et al. 2009; Delaney et al. 2013; Martin et al. 2017). ||
->HabCondition: During the current reporting period seven 1210 sites were visited, six by Martin et al. (2017) and one by Devaney et al. (2014). This represents a smaller proportion of the total habitat area than the 19 sites that were surveyed by Delaney et al. (2013) and the 71 sites with 1210 habitat that were surveyed by Ryle et al. (2009) and any conclusions that can be made based on this small sample are limited.
During the current reporting period data were only available to assess the Structure and functions at four 1210 sites surveyed by Martin et al. (2017) and at all four sites the Structure and functions was assessed as Favourable with all six assessment criteria passing at every site. Although based on a smaller sample size this result does not deviate significantly from the findings of the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013) presented below.
During the last reporting period 95% of the 1210 was assessed as Favourable (NPWS, 2013). The most frequent criteria to fail the assessment were ‘interference with sediment dynamics’ and ‘damage due to disturbance’. Based on expert judgement 95% was utilised when calculating the current area of 1210 habitat in good condition (Section 6.1), as the figure is based on a larger sample and considered to be more accurate than the figure of 100% calculated during the current reporting period.
Although during the current reporting period Structure and functions were assessed at only four sites the short-term trend of habitat area in good condition is taken to be stable based mainly on expert opinion.
Typical species: Atriplex spp., Beta vulgaris ssp. maritima, Cakile maritima, Galium aparine, Honckenya peploides, Polygonum oxyspermum, Salsola kali, Tripleurospermum maritimum ||
->Future: Short-term trend direction of Range is assessed as Stable.
Current Range is equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conservation status of Range is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Range is assessed as Stable, as no change in Range is expected based on an assessment of the pressures and threats.
Future prospects of Range are therefore Good.

Short-term trend direction of Area is assessed as Decreasing as NPWS (2013) reported a loss in area of 0.09 ha due to anthropogenic impacts during the last reporting period.
Current Area is <10% less than the Favourable Reference Area (FRA).
Conservation status of Area is therefore Unfavourable-Inadequate.
Future trend of Area is assessed as Stable, there is no evidence to suggest that the minor losses reported in the 2013 will continue.
Future prospects of Area are therefore Poor.

Short-term trend direction of Structure and functions is Stable for habitat that is in Good condition.
Current Structure and functions are assessed as Favourable as >90% of the habitat is in Good condition.
Conservation status of Structure and functions is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Structure and functions is assessed as Stable.
Future prospects of Structure and functions are therefore Good. ||
->Conclusion: The Conservation Status of Range is Favourable in this reporting period, as it was in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Area and Future prospects are Unfavourable-Inadequate, as they were in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Structure and functions is assessed as Favourable during this reporting period, whilst it was assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate in the previous reporting period. This was due to a change in methodology with Structure and functions now assessed as Favourable if >90% of the habitat area is in ‘Good’ condition, whereas previously >99% was required for ‘Good’ condition. During the last reporting period Structure and functions was reported to be declining due to a decrease from 99% to 95% of the 1210 area in good condition. Structure and functions are reported as stable during the current reporting period.
The Overall assessment of Conservation Status was assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate, as it had been during the last reporting period. The status of Unfavourable-Inadequate during the current reporting period was due to area losses reported in the previous reporting period and the fact that the current area is still below the favourable reference area.
Trend in Overall assessment of Conservation Status was assessed as deteriorating, as it had been during the last reporting period. This assessment was due to the fact that 0.09 ha of 1210 habitat had been lost due to anthropogenic causes in the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013). ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Area is Unknown; and Future trend of Structure and functions is Negative - slight/moderate deterioration ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is not more than 10% below the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Area covered by habitat reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Area is uncertain; and (ii) the current Area is not more than 10% below the Favourable Reference Area.
Conclusion on Structure and functions reached because habitat condition data indicates that more than 25% of the habitat is in unfavourable (not good) condition.
Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future prospects for Range are poor; (ii) the Future prospects for Area covered by habitat are unknown; and (iii) the Future prospects for Structure and functions are bad.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-bad because one or more of the conclusions is Unfavourable-bad.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Area covered by habitat - uncertain, and Structure and functions - uncertain.
The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the Area trend has changed from decreasing to uncertain, and the Structure and functions trend has changed from increasing to uncertain [note that the reason for change is due to less information/accuracy or certainty in the information available]. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Quality was measured with the help of reed amount. From 1108 measured drift line, only 62 contained reed more than 50%. This is 6% of all measured occurences. Because measured occurences consentrate to outer archipelago, the procentage was doubled. Over 90% of drift lines seems to be in good condition. However the size (surface area) of drift lines affects the function of drift lines. Surface area decline is however evaluated at section 5. ||
->Future: There is possibility to function collaps, when surface area of drift lines (fucus amounts) continue decreasing. According to expert opinion, small sized occurences don't maintain the same community as large ones. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The habitat is distributed on the coast of the Gulf of Riga and on the coast close to the Irbe Strait. Habitat is very rare and in small areas on the open Baltic Sea coast. The coastal line has been divided into 15 sections, which are important for the protection of this habitat, the priority sections are Gipka - Roja, Mērsrags horn, Mērsrags canal - Bērzciems, Vitrupe – Šķīsterrags - Uņģēnurga, Svētciems - Salacgrīva un Kuiviži - Ainaži. The habitat is related to and located in other coastal habitats - embryonic dunes, wet beaches, lagoon and grassland complexes, etc., as it develops on algae sedimentations from previous years. Compared to earlier studies, a special study conducted in 2018 found that the quality of habitat 1210 has deteriorated - changes in composition of plant communities, low vitality and reed expansion. Habitat formation is threatened by relocation of algae sediments and existing practice of beach management, etc. The risk of fragmentation of this habitat type is increasing. During project "Nature Census" around 90% of potential sites has been mapped and evaluated and current habitat area is at least ​​24 ha and taotal area could be clouse to the prevosly reported 26 ha. ||
->HabCondition: Compared to earlier studies, a special study conducted in 2018 found that the quality of habitat 1210 has decreased - there are changes in composition and presence of annual plants, low plant vitality and reed expansion. Invasive plant species such as the Lactuca tatarica has negative impact on habitat quality. ||
->Future: Future prospects can be influenced by more intensive recreational use of coastal line that can cause habitat fragmentation ||
->Conclusion: There have not been specific changes during reporting perioud ||
->JustificationThreshold: There are no detected differences on habitat distribution. It is not possible to measure a change of 1%, as previous assessments were based mainly on N2000 sites assesment, but now assessment inludes almoustly all state area. ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The favourable reference range is expected to be the same as the current value and is changed due to more accurate data compare to last reporting period. Some new sites could have been added and the tool/grid could make minor changes. ||
->Coverage: Reference values as actual value. Changes compare to last report due to more accurate data. ||
->HabCondition: None of the Typical species is redlisted in the last or second last redlist. ||
->Future: Structure and functions assessed as poor due to removal of habitat and changing sources for creation of the habitat. ||
->Conclusion: The proposed negativ trend last reporting could not be proved with more data from the last six years ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The estimate of habitat area is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Wartość podana w polu 4.1 (4 800km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (3 231 km2), ale faktyczny zasięg nie uległ zmianie w porównaniu z poprzednim okresem raportowania.W aktualnym okresie raportowym wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km, a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski.. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Monitoring siedliska przyrodniczego prowadzono na 25 stanowiskach.
Na jednym stanowisku (Ujście Wisły Śmiałej – rezerwat) – wprowadzono działania ochronne, które przyniosły poprawę parametru struktura i funkcje.
Do określenia powierzchni siedliska w dobrym, złym lub nieznanym stanie (pkt. 6.1) wykorzystano rozkład ocen parametru struktura i funkcje na stanowiskach monitoringowych oraz wartość powierzchni siedliska w regionie podaną w pkt. 5.2 c). Przyjęto następujące założenia:
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV i U1
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U2
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U1 i U2
- minimalna i maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska o nieznanym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na XX ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Przy określaniu oceny parametru struktura i funkcje stosowano inne progi wartości niż podane w wytycznych. Przyjęto następującą waloryzację parametru:
- Jeśli na ponad 50% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako właściwy FV i jednocześnie na mniej niż 20% stanowisk został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena FV
- Inne kombinacje – ocena U1
- Jeśli na ponad 33% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena U2 ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The favourable reference range is expected to be the same as the current value and is changed due to more accurate data compare to last reporting period. Some new sites could have been added and the tool/grid could make minor changes. ||
->Coverage: Reference values as actual value. Changes compare to last report due to more accurate data. ||
->HabCondition: None of the Typical species is redlisted in the last or second last redlist. ||
->Future: Structure and functions assessed as poor due to removal of habitat and changing
sources for creation of the habitat. ||
->Conclusion: The Unfavourable bad situation reported last time is not supported by more data from the last six years. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Changing the surface due to a change in the state border. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Surface in good condition is 0,006 km² ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The reduction of the range in the last years is due to a sequence of intense autumn marine storms and tropical cyclones that change the coastal ecological and geological condition affecting the range and the distribution of this habitat. ||
->Coverage: The redution of the habitat area in the last years is due to a sequence of intense autumn marine storms and tropical ciclones that change the coastal ecological and geological condition affecting the area and the distribution of this habitat. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: The reduction of the range, area and structure, in the last years, of this habitat, is due to a sequence of intense autumn marine storms and tropical cyclones, that change the coastal ecological and geological condition. The studies of these phenomena’s tend to associate the increase of intense events to global change, and the near future previsions are the maintenance of this tendency. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: The reduction of the range in the last years is due to a sequence of intense autumn marine storms and tropical cyclones that change the coastal ecological and geological condition affecting the range and the distribution of this habitat. ||
->Other: Change on the coastal ecological and geological condition affecting the area and the distribution of this habitat. The studies of these phenomena’s tend to associate the increase of intense events to global change, and the near future previsions are the maintenance of this tendency.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range has been calculated on the basis of 1x1 km grid cells, using 4 km gap distance. Only cells that include coastal areas have been considered (cells having unsuitable ecological conditions, e.g. coastal, steep, rocky cliffs have been excluded). ||
->Coverage: The area covered by the habitat type is reported on the basis of the area of
recent mapping polygons of the habitat type. However, due to lack of extensive mapping of the habitat, more data is needed to provide more detailed information. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Future prospects for the range and area were estimated by best expert
judgment, while for structure and function on the basis of the pressures and
threats recorded in a limited number of sampling plots (16) and the algorithm
cited in Tsiripidis et al. (2018). ||
->Conclusion: The difference in the Conservation status of the habitat type from the previous
reporting period is due to the following facts:
a) the structure and functions were reveale in bad conservation status
on the basis of the sampling conducted during the period 2013-2018,
b) the reference values for range and area was judged as higher than the
recorded values for these parameters on the basis of expert judgement and
taking into account the reduction of the habitat type’s distribution the last
decades due to land use changes and human-caused disturbances at the coastline. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: La méthode statut livre rouge inclus la liste rouge iucn France. Les critères à regarder pour évaluer ce paramètres sont principalement la qualité de la laisse de mer (organique ou "anthrophique") et la dynamique des communautés inféodées à l'habitat ||
->Future: Perspectives futures : favorable pour l’aire de répartition et la surface de l’habitat mais défavorable inadéquat pour les structures et fonctions. En effet il semble plausible d’envisager le maintien de l’habitat dans ses stations actuelles. En revanche si l’effet des déchets non naturels et de la pollution diffuse sur les communautés de l’habitat est aujourd’hui mal connu, il semble devoir perdurer (et sans doute empirer) un certain temps – surtout si rien n’est fait pour inverser la tendance. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Assumption: 20% of habitat area is estimated to be in not-good condition. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The estimate of habitat area is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: A reduction in range is observed from the last reporting cycle due to the very small size and impoverished communities which were previously considered as Cakiletea. Furthermore, 'Ix-Xatt l-Aħmar' in Gozo was removed due to the natural regeneration of Sarcocornetea communities, which took over habitat 1210 in this location. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: The ‘Annual vegetation of drift lines’ habitat is not frequent in the Maltese Islands, and most sand dune systems lack well-developed Cakiletea communities due to their small size. In view of this, an impoverished version of this community is present in many beaches. These communities are usually found along drift lines and embryo dunes or foredunes close to the sea, often with a considerable input of organic matter, particularly from seagrasses (mostly Posidonia residues but also Cymodocea and Halophila). These Cakiletea communities generally occupy fringe communities, and are often intermixed with shifting dune communities. Various drift line community sub-types are known from the Maltese Islands, mostly dependent on which of the ‘differential’ species is dominant.

In order to assess the structure and function of the habitat in all locations, various factors were taken into consideration. These include the presence of the typical species and their relative coverage; the extent of sand mobility and saltation processes; the presence/absence of species more vulnerable to human impact; and invasive alien species (e.g. Carpobrotus spp. and Oxalis pes-caprae). ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The data in this report has been mostly updated through habitat surveys carried out by the Environment and Resources Authority in 2017 and 2018. This exercise has enabled the assessment of the distribution and habitat condition with considerable accuracy. Field surveys were also complemented with desk studies, focussing on orthophoto analysis, and additional ground truthing, where possible. In this regard, the Authority has acquired drones with the aim to facilitate and assist future monitoring and surveying of all Annex I habitats.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report