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  

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: Is a very species rich, complex and diversified habitat. The identification of a group of typical species effective for the assessment of the conservation status at biogeographical scale is not useful for the assessment of the conservation status. It is necessary to identify the target species for the monitoring at regional scale basing on local floristic assemblages. ||
->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: N/A ||
->Coverage: Flanders has a good habitat mapping programme, but for this habitat type many knowledge gaps remain. We use minimum (= minimum of certain habitat), maximum (maximum of certain habitat + mean of uncertain habitat) and a best single value (mean of certain habitat).
3270 is a dynamic habitattype. Concerning the Schelde (only 10% of the total area of the habitat), the loss of this habitattype is mainly caused by natural succession to another vegetation type. New locations of the habitattype are probably underestimated due to the mentioned knowledge gaps. ||
->HabCondition: Information on typical species (Red List status) and spatial coherence of the habitat is determined directly on the regional level. As a consequence, this information cannot be integrated in the areas given in field 6.1, but it is used to assess the conclusions on specific structures and functions (field 10.3). ||
->Future: Through the implementation of the Sigma plan the area of 3270 will propably increase. There is also an increase of habitat 3270 along the river Maas but outside Natura 2000. ||
->Conclusion: Concerning the Schelde, the loss of this habitattype is mainly caused by natural succession to another vegetation type. New locations of the habitattype are probably underestimated due to the mentioned knowledge gaps (see field 5.15), especially along the river Maas where 90% of the habitat occurs. Using table 13 in the guidelines results in an unknown overall trend, which varies from the previous trend but we consider this as a result of the use of a different method. ||
->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: 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: L'aire de répartition actuellement calculée est sans doute plus proche de la réalité qu'elle ne l'était en 2012 (surestimée) et plus encore qu'en 2006 où elle était très très largement surestimée. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Les données manquent, mais il semblerait que la trophie excessive des milieux engendre une simplification des cortèges d'espèces en favorisant les espèces les plus eutrophiles/nitrophiles et certaines xénophytes envahissantes : cf. par exemple la forme "terrestre" récemment découverte de Ludwigia grandiflora qui peut affecter (affecte déjà ?) cet habitat. ||
->Future: Aucun programme ambitieux de gestion et de restauration dans un grand nombre d'espaces concernés par l'habitat n'a été mise en œuvre. Les perspectives futures ne sont donc pas favorables. Il convient de gérer l'habitat là où il se développe, mais aussi de veiller à de très substantielles améliorations des capacités d'expression de la dynamique fluviale des cours d'eau (les annexes hydrauliques ont besoin d'être régulièrement renouvelées pour permettre l'expression des espèces), mais également de la qualité de l'eau (trophie notamment). Par ailleurs, les espèces exotiques envahissantes (pas forcément identifiées dans le Règlement européen) exercent une pression très importante sur cet habitat, pression peut-être accentuée par les changements climatiques. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: Aucune perte significatif en surface de cet habitat n'est acceptable. ||
->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 this habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10km grid cells was used when running the range tool.
Short-term trend was estimated based on comparing data collated for the 2007 Article 17 assessment. ||
->Coverage: The Favourable Reference Area of 1.24 km2 reported in 2013 has been retained as it falls within the reported range (min-max: 1.18-1.45) for area. This area is considered to be sufficient for the long-term survival of the habitat.
All known sites were surveyed by Conaghan and Fuller (2018). Extent of habitat was estimated in the field. This is a difficult habitat to quantify accurately due to its seasonality and variable water levels.
Trends in habitat area are based on comparison of the Conaghan and Fuller (2018) estimate with earlier estimates reported in Goodwillie (2007) and elsewhere. As the area of habitat 3270 is expected to vary significantly, inter-annually, with flooding regime, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary the area was assumed to be stable. ||
->HabCondition: The full list of typical species list for Rivers with muddy banks with Chenopodion rubri p.p. and Bidention p.p. vegetation (3270) for 2013-2018 is as follows:
Callitriche palustris [VU]
Chenopodium rubrum (Oxybasis rubra)
Gnaphalium uliginosum
Limosella aquatica
Persicaria minor
Rorippa islandica
Alopecurus aequalis [NT]
Eleocharis acicularis
Riccia cavernosa
Regional Red List status (Wyse Jackson et al., 2016) is given, where relevant, in square brackets [].
Other species associated with habitat 3270 include Atriplex prostrata, Rorippa palustris, Persicaria hydropiper, Juncus bufonius and Bidens tripartita.
Notes from individual site reports compiled by Conaghan and Fuller (2018) were examined to estimate the area in poor condition.
Soil damage (poaching) and the occurrence of ‘weedy’ species were the only notable pressures, and were associated with heavy livestock grazing and trampling. Four sites were assessed as being in poor condition as a result of damage by livestock (see Lynn and O Connor, Appendix II in Conaghan and Fuller, 2018).
The remaining 14 sites were assessed as in good condition. The estimated areas of these 14 sites summed to 1.13-1.39 km2, or approximately 96% of the total minimum and maximum estimated areas. This figure was heavily influenced by three large sites (the Gearagh, Coole Lough, and Lough Funshinagh, which are excellent examples of this habitat.
There is no evidence of any major changes in condition since the last reporting period although this was largely based on expert opinion.
The non-native plant species, Cyperus eragrostis, was widespread at the Gearagh; however, there was no clear evidence of negative impacts on the habitat. The species is known from the Gearagh since at least 2001 and will be monitored for invasive behaviour and impacts on the Chenopodion vegetation. ||
->Future: Short-term trend direction of Range is assessed as stable.
Current range is equal to Favourable Reference Range.
Future trend of Range is assessed as stable, as no change in range is expected.
Future prospects of Range are therefore good.

Short-term trend direction of Area is assessed as stable.
Current area is equal to the Favourable Reference Area.
Future trend of Area is assessed as stable, as no change in area is expected.
Future prospects of Area are therefore good.

Current Structure and functions are assessed as Favourable as >90% of habitat is in “Good” condition.
There are some minor issues relating to animal stocking and non-native species.
Short-term trend direction is stable (for habitat that is in good condition).
Future prospects of Structure and functions are therefore good. ||
->Conclusion: All attributes are assessed as Favourable and there has been no notable change since the last reporting period. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Distribution map is based on vegetation maps within Natura 2000-sites and relevé data in- and outside Natura 2000-sites over a period of 12 years. Some vegetation maps still contain uncertainties and relevé data may have gaps, but we assume that total distribution is well covered for 90% or more. A change of 10% is used as a threshold for positive or negative trends. Favourable Reference Values are based on Bijlsma et al. (2014), WOt report 125. Range data and trends are based upon maps in Dutch Rijksdroehoek co-ordinates, while distribution maps have been delivered in ETRS co-ordinates. ||
->Coverage: No reliable new data on area available, but the area of the habitat may have increased slightly. ||
->HabCondition: S&F assessment based on NDFF analysis, in co-operation with CBS; new habitat has been created ('Ruimte voor de Rivier' project) which gradually becomes occupied by characteristic species; NDFF analysis showed a positive trend, and score U1; Typical Species (with few species) score FV; overall assessment by expert = FV. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Functioning = U1, TS = FV (based on relatively few species); overall assessed as favourable (by expert knowledge) after positive trends; habitat type needs time to saturate. ||
->JustificationThreshold: 10% decrease/increase is used as threshold for all trends, due to uncertainty in data; a formula with 75%/25%-thresholds is used for conservation status of Structure & Function and Typical species. ||
->Other: Report by Joop Schaminée (WEnR)

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  

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: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: No data are available to evaluate trends of habitat change. ||
->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  

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: Problematický habitat, který má velkou dynamiku, čili rychle vzniká a zaniká. Jeho přítomnost je závislá na ročním období a průběhu počasí v daném roce, např. za vysokého stavu vody jej nelze zaznamenat. Proto nemusely být některé jeho výskyty v konkrétním termínu mapování zaznamenány. V původním mapování byl často přehlížen a nové výskyty nemusí být zaznamenávány. Rozloha habitatu proto si neodpovídá realitě. Ohrožen je bagrováním sedimentů ve vodních tocích řek. Habitat je také náchylný k rostlinným invazím a eutrofizaci.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Lücken in weiten Teilen des Verbreitungsgebiets bzw. fehlende Größenanteile gehen auf fehlende aktuelle Daten zurück, bedeuten aber im Regelfall keine tatsächlichen Verluste im Verbreitungsgebiet des LRT. ||
->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: 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: Very species rich, complex and diversified habitat. The identification of a group of typical species effective for the assessment of the conservation status at biogeographical scale is not useful for the assessment of the conservation status. It is necessary to identify the target species for the monitoring at regional scale basing on local floristic assemblages ||
->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: Zasięg określony został na podstawie obserwacji siedliska w ramach inwentaryzacji 2006, monitoringu GIOŚ i PZO obszarów dla obszarów Natura 2000, zaktualizowany w 2018.
Wartość podana w polu 4.1 (94 400km2) jest niższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (117 235 km2), ale faktyczny zasięg nie uległ zmianie w porównaniu z poprzednim okresem raportowania. 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 wyliczaniu zasięgu za pomocą Range Tool wzięto pod uwagę mniejszy „gap distance” niż w raporcie opracowanym w 2013 roku. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski.
Rzeczywista powierzchnia zasięgu trudna do określenia ze względu na pionierski charakter siedliska. Występuje nad brzegami rzek, a także wzdłuż rowów i kanałów, w astatycznych zbiornikach wodnych, często na siedliskach stworzonych przez człowieka (świeży szlam z oczyszczanych rowów, ujścia ścieków). Ich obecność w określonym roku i na określonym stanowisku wiąże się ściśle z wahaniami stanu wód. Jest to siedlisko bardzo dynamiczne i w dużej mierze zależne od warunków meteorologicznych panujących w danym sezonie wegetacyjnym. ||
->Coverage: Na potrzeby raportowania w 2007 i 2013 roku powierzchni siedliska nie oszacowano (brak danych). W 2018 roku powierzchnia oszacowana na podstawie badań monitoringowych oraz danych ze standardowych formularzy danych dla obszarów na 38 km2 z pewnością nie wyczerpuje zasobów siedliska w Polsce. Ponieważ wiele stanowisk siedliska leży poza obszarami Natura2000, powierzchnia zajmowana przez siedlisko jest większa niż wynikająca z danych PZO. Dodatkowo, siedlisko ma charaktery pionierski i efemeryczny, zatem może spontanicznie pojawiać się i zanikać w przypadku wystąpienia lub ustąpienia warunków korzystnych do jego wykształcenia. ||
->HabCondition: Wykształcanie i funkcjonowanie siedliska determinowane jest przez ustrój hydrologiczny rzek, nad którymi się rozwija, w tym występowanie powodzi, mających wpływ na odnawianie siedliska. Stąd stan siedliska może podlegać fluktuacjom (odnowa po powodzi) i jest trudny do analizowania pod kątem trendów zmian oraz prowadzenia działań ochronnych. Na podstawie wyników PMŚ można stwierdzić, że trend jest stabilny.
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: Perspektywy struktury i funkcji określono jako niezadowalający wobec narastającej presji na koryta rzeczne. ||
->Conclusion: Monitoring siedliska przyrodniczego prowadzono w 2016 roku na 69 stanowiskach. Stan siedliska oceniony jako niezadowalający (U1). Decydowały o tym przede wszystkim niezadowalające specyficzna struktura i funkcje, w tym wzrost udziału gatunków niepożądanych (wkraczających spontanicznie lub na skutek naturalnej sukcesji) oraz wkraczanie obcych gatunków inwazyjnych.
W porównaniu z poprzednimi wynikami raportu nie zaobserwowano istotnych zmian trendów zachowania siedliska.
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: 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: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: "Critères pour évaluer ce paramètre : fonctionnement hydrologique ; qualité physico-chimique des eaux (teneur en azote assimilable) ; fragmentation, connectivité ; invasions biologiques ; structure (importance des thérophytes, optimum de développement fin été / début automne) ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation de l'évaluation "En détérioration" de la tendance générale à dire d'expert (au moins une tendance à court terme négative) ||
->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: Is a very species rich, complex and diversified habitat. The identification of a group of typical species effective for the assessment of the conservation status at biogeographical scale is not useful for the assessment of the conservation status. It is necessary to identify the target species for the monitoring at regional scale basing on local floristic assemblages ||
->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: Problematický habitat, který má velkou dynamiku, čili rychle vzniká a zaniká. Jeho přítomnost je závislá na ročním období a průběhu počasí v daném roce, např. za vysokého stavu vody jej nelze zaznamenat. Proto nemusely být některé jeho výskyty v konkrétním termínu mapování zaznamenány. V původním mapování byl často přehlížen a nové výskyty nemusí být zaznamenávány. Rozloha habitatu proto si neodpovídá realitě. Ohrožen je bagrováním sedimentů ve vodních tocích řek. Habitat je také náchylný k rostlinným invazím a eutrofizaci.

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: 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: Surface area of range is different (decreasing) compared to the first report. In the first report (2012), another method for Range area was used. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report