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: 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: 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: Previous and this reporting required a numerical assessment of the areas of habitat types. Because data for entire biogeographical regions are not available, we used data from accessible mappings of habitat types.
In case that larger new areas would be mapped or previously mapped areas would be remapped, these data could be used to compare the situation with previous reporting. Since new data were not available, we kept the size of the areas from the previous reporting. ||
->HabCondition: Previous and this reporting required a numerical assessment of the areas of habitat types in favorable and unfavorable conditions. Because data for entire biogeographical regions are not available, we used data from accessible mappings of habitat types. In order to estimate area of surfaces in favorable and in unfavorable condition, we used the ratio that was the result of the analysis of surfaces in a favorable and unfavorable condition in existing habitat type mappings.
In case that larger new areas would be mapped or previously mapped areas would be remapped, these data could be used to compare the situation with previous reporting. Since new data were not available, we kept the size of the areas from the previous reporting. ||
->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: Besides other phytosociological units, the habitat 6110 also includes association Poo badensis-Festucetum pallentis (alliance Bromo pannonici-Festucion pallentis) which is at the same time a part of the habitat 6190. This means, that the habitats 6110 and 6190 overlap partialy. A revision ot the Catalogue of habitats of Slovakia is needed. In the new version of the Catalogue, I suggest to include the association Poo badensis-Festucetum pallentis exclusively in the 6190 habitat - it is more an open dry grassland than a pionier vegetation (cf Janišová M.& Dúbravková D. 2010. Formalized classification of rocky Pannonian grasslands and dealpine Sesleria-dominated grasslands in Slovakia using a hierarchical expert system. Phytocoenologia 40: 267-291.)

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Habitat could be recreated, especially in quarries (cf LIFE in Quarries) ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Could be ameliorate outside the network, especially in quarries where measures could be initiated to preserve/restore/create the habitat (cf LIFE in Quarries) ||
->Conclusion: As no dedicated monitoring of the habitats structures and functions was set in the previous reporting period, we prefer to consider that trend for this parameter and thus for the conservation status is unknown ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Rare habitat frequently associated with old quarries.

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: Habitat dont le cortège floristique est plus riche à mesure que le climat s'adoucit, de part les influences méditerranéenne et/ou thermo-atlantique.
Végétations diverses même au sein d'une association de l'habitat élémentaire 6110-1: plus ou moins riche en annuelles, ponctuées ou non d'espèces rudérales, de recouvrement végétal variable... ||
->Future: Actions conservatoires à perdurer car la tendance semble être à la stabilisation en terme de surface.
Le développement de pratiques d'extraction de matière ou agricoles, sans pollution pourrait aider à renouveler, avec rotation des secteurs, des végétations pionnières respectivement pour les végétations des dalles affleurantes ou celles des sols très fins. ||
->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 6 years ago reported range is incorrect and should be 300; therefore the trend is stable.
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. ||
->Coverage: No reliable new data available ||
->HabCondition: S&F assessment based on NDFF analysis, in co-operation with CBS; NDFF analysis showed a positive trend; habitat profites from removal of neighbouring shrubs and trees. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: S&F: Functioning=U1; no TS analysis ||
->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  

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: There is no comprehensive mapping of 6110* in LV. Currently country wide habitat mapping is ongoing and 2/3 of territory is investigated. Distribution map is made from historical distribution of 6110* (known N2000 sites) and new sites found during habitat mapping. Information from nature data base "Ozols".
Latvia is outside the core distribution area of 6110* in terms of climatic parameters and appropriate geotopes. The main saites available for habitat has been destroyed by building HPS on river Daugava ||
->Coverage: Latvia is outside the core distribution area of 6110* in terms of climatic parameters and appropriate geotopes. The main saites available for habitat has been destroyed by building HPS on river Daugava ||
->HabCondition: During field inventory typical species for habitat has been reported. There are only some locations of this habitat, there no quality changes comparing with previously avaliable information ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: As currently habitat mapping covered 2/3 of Latvia territory, there is new additional information available and it is impossible to evaluate changes of habitat conservation statuss - it is impossible to compare data sets ||
->JustificationThreshold: It is impossible to compare data between both reporting periods - in previous report the assesment was based on N2000 monitoring data, but currently additional data about habitat occurence is available. ||
->Other: There is 0,01 km2 area reported in the previous report. Although the area has increased during habitat mapping in 2017–2018, increase is due to new information about habitat distribution.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The current habitat range was calculated with the Rangetool provided from the reference portal (European environment agency 2018). For the grasslands, information in different databases (e.g. Jordbruksverket 2018 and NNK 2018 and special inventories such as Glimskär 2018, Jacobson 2018, Toräng 2018a, 2018b) were included in an ArcGIS shape-file. Visual inspection of maps indicating which quadrates that were included in the calculations of surface area was conducted and apparent errors (most often quadrates without any land surface in the marine regions) were removed.
All changes in Range estimates compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, are due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as genuine changes from previous reporting periods.

The judgement is that the short-term trend in range is stable. Given the coarse method to calculate surface area, large changes in habitat area are usually needed to affect this parameter significantly. It is unlikely that changes of sufficient magnitude to motivate any other assessment but ‘stable’ (or ‘unknown’) have occurred over the last 12 years. ||
->Coverage: The area estimates for 6110 and 8240 are the same as reported 2013. They were calculated by a combination of the areas reported inside Natura 2000 in the Standard Data Form for the County of Västra Götaland, and the total areas for the whole landscape reported 2007 by the County Administrative Boards of Gotland, Kalmar and Örebro (Västra Götaland did not report any total area estimates 2007). The total area estimates for the Natura 2000 habitats were delivered by the County Administrative Boards on commission by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency prior to the article 17 reporting 2007. These estimates are uncertain but are assumed to be the most accurate available for 6110 and 8240 in the BOR region.

The trend is assumed to be stable as habitat degeneration is a relatively slow process in this open, rocky, and relatively stable habitats. ||
->HabCondition: Conservation status (or condition) is generally not characterized or recorded in current databases or national inventory programs. Habitat area in good and not-good condition is with few exceptions therefore not known in any habitat. Area assessments and the short-term trend were thus estimated from indirect information. Available information sources were the NNK database (NNK 2018), the TUVA database (Jordbruksverket 2018), a monitoring program supervised by Anders Glimskär at the Department of Ecology, SLU, and data on the proportion of TUVA-objects with subsidies in recent years (A. Nordberg, unpublished data).
Given the lack of direct information, it is obvious that a precise estimate of the proportion of habitat area in good condition cannot be assessed. However, it is suggested that an expert judgement of the overall assessment of the Structure and functions parameter will be robust given the broad categories (i.e. Favourable, Inadequate-poor, and Inadequate-bad). An approximate proportion of habitat area in good condition based on information from NNK, TUVA, and the monitoring program was therefore estimated by the Swedish Species Information Centre (ArtDatabanken, SLU).

The presence of two H-ranked and one M-ranked pressures and threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution), support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

Information from biogeographical monitoring of these habitats also suggests that their condition may be less favourable than previously assumed (Glimskär et al. 2018, Glimskär et al. unpublished data). This monitoring is in an early phase and the data is still quite uncertain.

The trend was denoted based on information of pressures acting on structures and functions in the habitats. Extant semi-natural grasslands are small and fragmented compared with the historical state, and habitat quality is easily eroded in periods of abandonment or disadvantageous management. As a result, several indicators of grassland biodiversity indicate an unsatisfactory conservation status and a negative trend (Naturvårdsverket 2018). It is also suggested that the 2020 Swedish environmental quality objective “A Varied Agricultural Landscape” will not be reached with current practices and funding systems (https://www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/Undre-meny/About-the-Environmental-Objectives/13-A-Varied-Agricultural-Landscape/). As there are several pressures acting on structures and functions in semi-natural grasslands (see paragraph 7), the trend for structures and functions of most habitat types is assumed to be negative. This assumption is supported by a recent report that indicate that the number of agricultural holdings is decreasing, especially in less productive regions where much of the grasslands rich in biodiversity are located (Naturvårdsverket 2018). Also, empirical studies indicate an ongoing and significant abandonment of semi-natural grasslands (Spörndly & Glimskär 2018), that populations of many species tied to the agricultural landscape in general and semi-natural grasslands in particular, are declining or threatened (e.g. Berg et al. 2015, Sandström et al. 2015, Green et al. 2017, Jakobsson 2018, Tyler et al. 2018), and by data that suggests decreased biodiversity due to fragmentation among remaining objects (Lennartsson et al. 2013, Wallander & Karlsson 2015). ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as ‘bad’ to ‘good’. Consequently, the assessment of future prospect is equal to the current conservation status for all parameters. ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines. ||
->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: Rare habitat associated with natural outcrops and old quarries. Calcareous grasslands and associated habitats have been restored with the help of LIFE projects. Specific structures and functions should thefore be ameliorated.

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: aktualizace není schopna postihnout rychlé změny: habitat je značně dynamický v závislosti na chodu počasí

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: 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: Data is based on the country wide survey of habitats outside wooded areas (2007 - 2012), the results of the monitoring of some 15% of all habitats (2016-2018) and the results of a country wide survey of forest habitats (2014 - 2018, 67% surveyed so far).
The area of the habitat type was extrapolated from a mixed habitat type used in the country-wide survey grouping a mosaic of rupicolous calcareous or
basophilic grasslands of the Alysso-Sedion albi (6110) with semi-natural dry
grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (6210) and siliceous
rock with pioneer vegetation of the Sedo-Scleranthion or of the Sedo albi-
Veronicion dillenii (8230) with acid nutrient poor grasslands (nationally
protected). Especially in the old mining region of the Minette in the south of
Luxembourg, these types are very interlinked. During the monitoring from 2016 to 2018, the proportion of the different habitat types within the mixed habitat type was estimated. This was used to estimate the total area of the different habitat types based on the complete inventory of the mixed habitat type as surveyed from 2007 to 2012.
We estimated minimum area as being the sum of the original, not monitored area, the area within the 67% of surveyed forests, the estimated proportion of this habitat type within the monitored complexe biotopes, the area discovered by chance and the monitored area. The maximum area was estimated as being the sum of the original area multiplied by the positive trend determined within the random sample plus the area within wooded areas extrapolated to 100% plus the area discovered by chance plus the estimated proportion of this habitat type within all concerned complexe biotopes.
Because of an improved gain in knowledge, we do not consider the reduced area compared to the last reporting period as a real loss but rather as more accurate data.
During the initial survey, 0,0161 ha of this habitat type were mapped. 0% of this area was monitored between 2016 and 2018 (not considering biotope complexes). Within concerned biotope complexes, 42% were considered as corresponding to 6110. This habitat type has not been surveyed within wooded areas so far.
The national biodiversity strategy envisages an improvement of 10 ha of this habitat type in the short term and 20 ha in the long term. ||
->HabCondition: Area in good/not good condition was estimated using the same method as for minimum/maximum area.
0% of the originally surveyed area of 6110 and 98% of the concerned biotop complex area were in good condition. Outside of biotop complexes this habitat type was not monitored so far (2016 - 2018). Indications concerning short-term trend are based on the short-term trend observed within biotope complexes.
The national biodiversity strategy envisages an improvement of 10 ha of this habitat type in the short term and 20 ha in the long term. ||
->Future: In recent years, much has been invested in nature conservation measures in the former open-cast mining areas in the south of Luxembourg in order to restore and improve the quality of habitat type 6110 (and other habitat types). Since most of these areas are within the Natura 2000 network, further improvements can be expected in the future. ||
->Conclusion: The area of the habitat type was extrapolated from a mixed habitat type used in the country-wide survey grouping a mosaic of rupicolous calcareous or
basophilic grasslands of the Alysso-Sedion albi (6110) with semi-natural dry
grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (6210) and siliceous
rock with pioneer vegetation of the Sedo-Scleranthion or of the Sedo albi-
Veronicion dillenii (8230) with acid nutrient poor grasslands (nationally
protected). Especially in the old mining region of the Minette in the south of
Luxembourg, these types are very interlinked. During the monitoring from 2016 to 2018, the proportion of the different habitat types within the mixed habitat type was estimated. This estimation was used to estimate the total area of the different habitat types based on the complete inventory of the mixed habitat type as surveyed from 2007 to 2012.
We estimated minimum area as being the sum of the original, not monitored area, the area within the 67% of surveyed forests, the estimated proportion of this habitat type within the monitored complexe biotopes, the area discovered by chance and the monitored area. The maximum area was estimated as being the sum of the original area multiplied by the positive trend determined within the random sample plus the area within wooded areas extrapolated to 100% plus the area discovered by chance plus the estimated proportion of this habitat type within all concerned complexe biotopes.
Because of an improved gain in knowledge, we dont consider the reduced area compared to the last reporting period as a real loss but rather as more accurate data.
During the initial survey, 0,0161 ha of this habitat type were mapped. 0% of this area was monitored between 2016 and 2018 (not considering biotope complexes). Within concerned biotope complexes, 42% were considered as corresponding to 6110. 98% of the concerned biotope complexes were evaluated as being in good condition. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Siedlisko występuje na terenie regionu w kilku skupieniach, głównie w Sudetach i ich Pogórzach, oraz w północnej części Jury Krakowsko-Częstochowskiej.
Nastąpiło zmniejszenie powierzchni (było 4200 km2, aktualnie 3 400 km2 ) zasięgu głównie w wyniku weryfikacji rozmieszczenia siedliska oraz użycia innej metody wyliczenia wartości zasięgu. 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. ||
->Coverage: Siedlisko związane z odkrywkami wapienia o charakterze sztucznym lub naturalnym.
Powierzchnia siedliska w regionie w 2013 roku została oszacowana na podstawie danych własnych eksperta z terenu Sudetów i literatury, łącznie na ok. 3 km2; W 2018 roku, po inwentaryzacji w ramach prac nad PZO powierzchnię siedliska określono łącznie na 3,71 ha (ok. 0,04 km2). Składają się na nią:
Góry i Pogórze Kaczawskie: 2,48 ha z PZO; 3,5ha wg danych GDOŚ
Góra Świętej Anny: 0,01 ha (PZO i GDOŚ)
Dobromierz: 0,98 ha wg PZO; 0,17 ha wg GDOŚ
Masyw Ślęży: 0,03 ha wg PZO; 0,0 wg. GDOŚ
Góry Kamienne: 14,46 ha wg GDOŚ (wg PZO 0ha - Zmiana klasyfikacji na 6190 na pow. 0,14 ha)
Pasmo Krowiarki 0,35 ha wg PZO, wg danych GDOŚ - brak
Siedlisko podane też z Małych Pienin 0,52 ha, błędnie (poza zasięgiem siedliska, dotyczy płatów klasyfikowanych dotąd jako kadłubowe formy 6170 lub 6120).
Do obliczeń przyjęto dane z PZO i jest to wartość minimalna. W powierzchni tej nie uwzględniono ewentualnych powierzchni siedliska na Jurze Krakowsko-Częstochowskiej ze względu na brak danych. Założono, że powierzchnia w tym rejonie może przyjąć podobne wartości co w Sudetach i sumę tych wartości uznano za wartość maksymalną.
Na Górze Św. Anny w PZO już nie potwierdzono występowania siedliska.
Także w południowej części Jury nie potwierdzono występowania siedliska, być może poprzednio podane było błędnie. Brak danych z wiekszości jurajskich obszarów Natura 2000, w Ojcowskim PN siedlisko w planie ochrony nie wykazane.
Trend powierzchni zajętej przez siedlisko określono jako spadkowy (w poprzednim okresie sprawozdawczym stabilny); obserwuje się pogorszenie oceny parametru Powierzchnia siedliska na części stanowisk. Na ponad 40% stanowisk oceniono powierzchnię jako FV, czyli powierzchnia siedliska nie zmniejszyła się od poprzednich obserwacji (poprzednio na 25%, ale także 16% ocenionych na XX). Na 36% stanowisk jako U2, co oznacza jej zmniejszenie (poprzednio 33%), także zmniejszenie następuje na 23% stanowisk ocenionych na U1 (poprzednio 25%). Zachodzi zarastanie siedliska przez drzewa i krzewy, jak również likwidacja jego powierzchni w wyniku wydobycia kopalin.
Powierzchnia referencyjna określona została na większą niż aktualnie, tak jak w poprzednim okresie sprawozdawczym. ||
->HabCondition: Monitoring prowadzono na 22 stanowiskach.
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
- za stan nieznany przyjęto hipotetyczną powierzchnię na Jurze Krakowsko-Częstochowskiej czyli maksymalnie 0,04 km2, co do której brak danych (o występowaniu, powierzchni, stanie ochrony).

Przyjęto, że powierzchnia całkowita badanego siedliska to 0,06 km2 (wartość pośrednia pomiędzy minimum a maksimum).

Zdecydowanie wzrosła liczba stanowisk ocenionych na U2 kosztem U1 i FV; Dlatego trend krótkotrwały siedliska w dobrym stanie określono jako spadkowy. ||
->Future: Perspektywy zasięgu w regionie określono jako dobre, gdyż powierzchnia zasięgu jest w miarę stabilna. Siedlisko wymaga jednakże badań inwentaryzacyjnych, zwłaszcza na Jurze
Powierzchnia zmniejsza się głównie w wyniku sukcesji krzewów i drzew oraz eksploatacji surowców – trend ten prawdopodobie się utrzyma.
Struktura i funkcje ocenione jako złe i perspektywy dla nich także jako złe. Głównym naturalnym zagrożeniem jest sukcesja, a antropogenicznym pozyskiwanie surowców. ||
->Conclusion: Aktualnie ocena stanu ochrony na podstawie monitoringu prowadzonego na 22 stanowiskach w regionie to U2 - stan zły. Poprzednio ocena (U1) wynikała z oceny wszystkich parametrów na U1. Aktualnie zarówno Perspektywy ochrony jak i Struktura i funkcja zostały ocenione na U2. W 2018 roku 59% stanowisk monitorowanych ocenionych na U2 (ocean ogólna).
W obu okresach sprawozdawczych (2013 i 2019) trend stanu ochrony określono jako pogarszający się.
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: The current habitat range was calculated with the Rangetool provided from the reference portal (European environment agency 2018). For the grasslands, information in different databases (e.g. Jordbruksverket 2018 and NNK 2018 and special inventories such as Glimskär 2018, Jacobson 2018, Toräng 2018a, 2018b) were included in an ArcGIS shape-file. Visual inspection of maps indicating which quadrates that were included in the calculations of surface area was conducted and apparent errors (most often quadrates without any land surface in the marine regions) were removed.
All changes in Range estimates compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, are due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as genuine changes from previous reporting periods.

The judgement is that the short-term trend in range is stable. Given the coarse method to calculate surface area, large changes in habitat area are usually needed to affect this parameter significantly. It is unlikely that changes of sufficient magnitude to motivate any other assessment but ‘stable’ (or ‘unknown’) have occurred over the last 12 years. ||
->Coverage: In the Continental region, this habitat type only occur on the Baltic island Öland and most localities are within the Natura 2000 sites Stora Alvaret and Ottenby. Estimates of habitat areas were taken from information in the conservation plans for the two Natura 2000 sites (Länsstyrelsen Kalmar län 2016a, 2016b). The estimates are relatively definite given that the information in the conservation plans is correct.

As a large portion of the habitat area is within protected Natura 2000 reserves, the trend is assumed to be relatively stable. ||
->HabCondition: Conservation status (or condition) is generally not characterized or recorded in current databases or national inventory programs. Habitat area in good and not-good condition is with few exceptions therefore not known in any habitat. Area assessments and the short-term trend were thus estimated from indirect information. Available information sources were the NNK database (NNK 2018), the TUVA database (Jordbruksverket 2018), a monitoring program supervised by Anders Glimskär at the Department of Ecology, SLU, and data on the proportion of TUVA-objects with subsidies in recent years (A. Nordberg, unpublished data).
Given the lack of direct information, it is obvious that a precise estimate of the proportion of habitat area in good condition cannot be assessed. However, it is suggested that an expert judgement of the overall assessment of the Structure and functions parameter will be robust given the broad categories (i.e. Favourable, Inadequate-poor, and Inadequate-bad). An approximate proportion of habitat area in good condition based on information from NNK, TUVA, and the monitoring program was therefore estimated by the Swedish Species Information Centre (ArtDatabanken, SLU).

The presence of only one M-ranked pressures and threat , and no threatened typical species (ArtDatabanken 2015), support the assessment as Favourable.

As a large portion of the habitat area is within protected Natura 2000 reserves, the trend is assumed to be relatively stable. ||
->Future: The assessment of future prospect is equal to the current conservation status for all parameters. ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Previous and this reporting required a numerical assessment of the areas of habitat types. Because data for entire biogeographical regions are not available, we used data from accessible mappings of habitat types.
In case that larger new areas would be mapped or previously mapped areas would be remapped, these data could be used to compare the situation with previous reporting. Since new data were not available, we kept the size of the areas from the previous reporting. ||
->HabCondition: Previous and this reporting required a numerical assessment of the areas of habitat types in favorable and unfavorable conditions. Because data for entire biogeographical regions are not available, we used data from accessible mappings of habitat types. In order to estimate area of surfaces in favorable and in unfavorable condition, we used the ratio that was the result of the analysis of surfaces in a favorable and unfavorable condition in existing habitat type mappings.
In case that larger new areas would be mapped or previously mapped areas would be remapped, these data could be used to compare the situation with previous reporting. Since new data were not available, we kept the size of the areas from the previous reporting. ||
->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 permettant d'évaluer ce paramètre : fragmentation, connectivité ; couverture du sol ; dynamique de renouvellement de la végétation. ||
->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: 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: 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: aktualizace není schopna postihnout rychlé změny: habitat je značně dynamický v závislosti na chodu počasí

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: Besides other phytosociological units, the habitat 6110 also includes association Poo badensis-Festucetum pallentis (alliance Bromo pannonici-Festucion pallentis) which is at the same time a part of the habitat 6190. This means, that the habitats 6110 and 6190 overlap partialy. A revision ot the Catalogue of habitats of Slovakia is needed. In the new version of the Catalogue, I suggest to include the association Poo badensis-Festucetum pallentis exclusively in the 6190 habitat - it is more an open dry grassland than a pionier vegetation (cf Janišová M.& Dúbravková D. 2010. Formalized classification of rocky Pannonian grasslands and dealpine Sesleria-dominated grasslands in Slovakia using a hierarchical expert system. Phytocoenologia 40: 267-291.)

Open Original Report