Article 17 web tool

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: N/A

Open Original Report  

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: 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 of the habitat type was calculated on the basis of its mapped distribution and a gap distance equal to 10 km. ||
->Coverage: The value of area is based on the results of a mapping project of the 6220 habitat type implemented all over the area under Cyprus Government control (Georgiou et al. 2016) as well as on the results of other mapping projects. The resutls of Georgiou et al. (2016) were based on field and remote sensing methods. As the minimum value of the habitat type’s area, the area of the polygons, where the occurrence of the habitat type is consider as certain in Georgiou et al. (2016) (justified by field sampling), is given. In this value, also the area of polygons of the habitat type mapped in other projects (habitat types’ mapping projects in Natura 2000 sites) was added. The maximum value was calculated by adding in the above-mentioned area where the habitat type occurs with certainty, the area of the polygons, where the occurrence of the habitat type is consider of medium uncertainty (field observations or visual assessment in satellite images) (Georgiou et al. 2016). The area was calculated on the basis of the habitat type’s polygons. For the polygons where the habitat type occurs mixed with other habitat types, the area of the latter types has been excluded. ||
->HabCondition: The estimation of the habitat type’s area in good or not-good condition has been based on the results of sampling concerning the assessment of the conservation status of structure and functions per habitat type. ||
->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 high number of sampling plots (638) 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:
1) the structure and function as well as their prospects were revealed in poor conservation status on the basis of the sampling conducted during the period 2013-2018. ||
->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: Paramètres à prendre en compte pour évaluer ce paramètre : fragmentation, connectivité ; dynamique de renouvellement de la végétation ; "équilibre" agriécologique ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation du résultat des structures et fonction U1. L'habitat se retrouve de plus en plus fragmenté, à cause notamment d'une dynamique de renouvellement de la végétation qui ne lui est pas favorable. De plus la disparition des pratiques traditionnelles de pâturage extensif ne favorise pas le maintien d'un équilibre agri-écologique. Il reste cependant de belles zones où l'habitat est en bon état.
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: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Assumption: 90% of habitat area is estimated to be in 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: The surface area increased from the last reporting cycle due to the amalgamation of habitat 1510 - Mediterranean Salt Steppes with habitat 6220 - Pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals of the Thero-Brachypodietea. Refer to Section 6.8 for more information. ||
->HabCondition: The annual Mediterranean xeric vegetation classed as 6220 occurs all over the Maltese Islands, with considerable variability in relation to sub-types, range and frequency, as well as habitats it occupies. Such grasslands are found on various substrates ranging from clays which dry out in the dry season to very xeric karstic pockets with limited soil in limestone. The vegetation also varies and includes perennials, like for instance Lygeum spartum, Hyparrhenia hirta, Andropogon distachyos and Pipthatherum miliaceum, to nanotherophytes, which are very diverse and include various plant species, of which the Asteraceae, Fabaceae and Poaceae are particularly relevant.

The grasslands occurring in clay slopes were previously classed under habitat 1510 - Mediterranean Salt Steppes. These fall under the Lygeo-Stipetea class, which according to San Miguel (2008) and Brullo et al. (2010) are considered as a synonym of Thero-Brachypodietea. In view of this, areas with clay slopes previously identified as habitat 1510 are now classed under habitat 6220.

The habitat quality and species diversity vary according to the extent of disturbance; whether natural or man-made, the various sub-type(s) present, or the extent of grazing, mostly by wild Oryctolagus cuniculus and domestic sheep and goats. In general, the main impact is anthropogenic disturbance and where this increases, ermes vegetation may develop to the detriment of the nanotherophytic species. This is particularly relevant in marginal areas close to urban settlements or country lanes. Alien species impacting this habitat type have also been noted, with the main invading species being Oxalis pes-caprae.

Although the habitat in itself is widespread and overall common in the Maltese Islands, and that the range and area are considered as favourable, its structure and function are considered as Unfavourable – Bad in view of the various pressures and threats acting on the habitat. ||
->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: Although this habitat has been assessed as U1, the subtype dominated by Poa bulbosa is in bad coondition in relation to surface area and structure.

Open Original Report