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: Ca. 60% of 7220 springs are situated within designated Natura 2000 areas in alpine region, based on records of bryophyte indicator species from springs and delineation Natura 2000 areas (GIS analysis). No significant changes, pressures or threats. Distribution map of the habitat is based on latest available mapping data.

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: W poprzednim raporcie powierzchnię zasięgu określono na podstawie 6 stanowisk tatrzańskich. Od tego czasu stan wiedzy uległ znaczniej poprawie. Aktualny raport uwzględnia liczne stanowiska stwierdzone w niemal pełnej rozciągłości polskich Karpat (Tatry, Podhale, Spisz, Gorce, Pieniny, Beskid Niski, Bieszczady). Mimo, że wykazana w raporcie całkowita powierzchnia zasięgu w obrębie regionu biogeograficznego uległa zmianie (wyraźnie wzrosła z 179 do 1000 km2), trend krótkoterminowy określono jako stabilny. Pozorny wzrost powierzchni wynika ze wzrostu wiedzy na temat siedliska.
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: Powierzchnię siedliska oszacowano na podstawie własnych obserwacji 75 stanowisk, uzupełnionych o informacje z projektu planu ochrony dla obszaru Natura 2000 Bieszczady (wartość mocno zawyżona, zweryfikowano ją korzystając z wiedzy ekspertów oraz informacji dostępnych w internecie). W ten sposób powierzchnię siedliska w regionie alpejskim określono jako 0,3 ha. Ponieważ są to dane niepełne, powierzchnie znanych stanowisk przyjęto jako powierzchnię minimalną, a powierzchnię maksymalną oszacowano na 1 ha (wartość podana w poprzednim raporcie). Dokładna wartość nie jest jednak znana. ||
->HabCondition: Przy ocenie struktury i funkcji siedliska korzystano przede wszystkim z własnych danych oraz informacji innych ekspertów, ponieważ z powodu słabego rozpoznania siedliska PMŚ ograniczał się do Tatr i od 2013 roku, Gorców (3 stanowiska).
Ponadto w wyniku doprecyzowania definicji siedliska zrezygnowano z monitoringu 5 z 6 stanowisk tatrzańskich, na których nie obserwowano procesu wytrącania się martwicy wapiennej. Ponieważ na podstawie monitoringu 4 stanowisk nie sposób ocenić stanu siedliska, na potrzeby aktualnego raportu przeanalizowano 76 znanych ekspertom stanowisk nie objętych monitoringiem PMŚ, które nie były badane zgodnie z metodyką przyjętą w monitoringu siedliska 7220. Przedstawiona ocena jest więc mocno szacunkowa.
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
Przyjęto, że: 70% stanowisk reprezentuje siedlisko o dobrej strukturze i funkcji (FV), 25% - niewłaściwej (U1) i 5% - złej (U2). Za 100% przyjęto powierzchnię minimalną (znane i przebadane stanowiska) 0,01km2. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Nastąpiła zmiana w ocenie powierzchni (z U1 na FV), specyficznej struktury i funkcji (z XX na FV), perspektyw (z U1 na FV), ogólnego stanu (z U1 na FV) oraz trendu ogólnego stanu (z „pogarszający się” na „stabilny”). Zmiany wynikają z poprawy stanu wiedzy o siedlisku oraz z faktu, że ocenie podlegały inne stanowiska (poprzednio brak wytrącania się martwicy wapiennej skutkował złą oceną zachowania stanowisk).
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
Przyjęto, że: 70% stanowisk reprezentuje siedlisko o dobrej strukturze i funkcji (FV), 25% - niewłaściwej (U1) i 5% - złej (U2). Za 100% przyjęto powierzchnię 0,01km2. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: W PMŚ w cyklu 2017-18 pojawiły się liczne wątpliwości co do identyfikacji siedliska 7220.
Propozycja definicji 7220:
Wypływy wód podziemnych o wysokiej zawartości związków wapnia, z których wytrącają się osady wapienne w postaci trawertynów lub innych postaci martwic wapiennych. Z reguły są punktowe lub liniowe, zajmują niewielką powierzchnię i wyróżniają się dużym udziałem mszaków (Cratoneurion commutati).

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Area covered by habitat is different (increasing) compared to the first report. In the first report (2012) another method for Surface area was used. ||
->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: 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 with some knowledge gaps (remaining old fieldwork, amount of the habitat in a polygon with several vegetation types not exactly known, …). Therefore, 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). ||
->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: 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: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Habitat rare et spécialisé, vulnérable, conditionné principalement par la permanence et la qualité des eaux d'alimentation. ||
->Future: Compte-tenu de la dépendance extrême de cet habitat vis-à-vis de l'alimentation en eau (qualité et quantité), ses perspectives futures sont très négatives en contexte atlantique dominé par une agriculture intensive et des besoins en eau croissants (augmentation de la population, multiplication des activités récréatives consommatrices d'eaux, développement du bois-énergie...). A ces problèmes s'ajouteront les déficits liés aux sécheresses répétées et à la baisse significative du niveau moyen de diverses nappes superficielles ou plus profondes. ||
->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 7220.
Short-term trend direction was estimated as ‘stable’ based on expert opinion. While there may have been some losses of both habitat area and habitat quality within the reporting period, these are thought to be small in comparison to the overall range size. This habitat generally occupies a small area within what is often unproductive and/or inaccessible land, making it difficult to farm or develop. Also, this is an uncommon but yet relatively widespread habitat type in Ireland. These factors combined suggest that the range is unlikely to be affected by such losses/decreases in quality.
The number of 10km squares in the range (189) differs from the last monitoring period (132) due to the integration of new information. Some new data were assessed and integrated as part of this work, meaning that our understanding of the range of petrifying springs in Ireland has been improved.
The Favourable Reference Range has been set as approximately equal to the current range as it is based on more complete data being available on the distribution of petrifying springs across Ireland than was available in the last monitoring round. The FRR is considered to encompass all ecological and geographical variation of the habitat and is likely to be sufficiently large to allow the long-term viability of the habitat. ||
->Coverage: As mentioned above, there are 433 mappable data points in the database on petrifying springs. Of these, 43 had no area assigned. In order to be able to calculate the total area for the habitat, a subset of those points/polygons with known areas was used to help generate a median area (with confidence intervals) for those points with unknown area (via multiple imputation method, see Denyer and Long (2018) for further details).
Short-term trend direction was estimated as ‘stable’ based on both expert opinion and survey reports. Expertise within the team, as well as data sources available, suggest that there have been losses at a few sites, but mostly the changes relate to condition rather than loss of area.
The difference in habitat extent between this reporting period and the last is due to new information being available, as well as a new method used for calculation of area for those data points without an area available.
Although some small losses of habitat area may have occurred since the Directive came into force, and during the current reporting period, the magnitude of the decline is thought to be small. It is unlikely that >10% of the resource has been lost since 1994. Most changes are likely to be relating to condition, rather than area. Thus the Favourable Reference Area is set as ≈ the current area. ||
->HabCondition: Lyons and Kelly (2016) report that a total of 157 petrifying spring locations were assessed for Structure and functions during the PhD project, with a combined area of 8.76 ha. They reported that Structure and functions were favourable at 74% of sites (6.5 ha).
Condition assessment data following the same methodology were available for a further 16 spring sites (surveyed by Denyer in 2017 and 2018). The total area of these sites was 0.097 ha, and the area in good condition was 0.075 ha (9 springs). This equates to 77% of the area.
Using a weighted average calculation based on 157 sites being 90% of the total number which were assessable for Structure and functions, and 16 being 10%, gives a result of 74.3% in good condition [ (74x0.9) + (77x0.1) = 74.3% ]. Expert judgement was used to round this up to 75%, the lower end of the threshold for an overall assessment for Structure and functions of Inadequate.
This figure of 75% was applied to the total habitat area in the country because the survey by Lyons was a representative sample of the national resource, and its findings are bolstered by the similar findings in the more recent assessments by Denyer.
Among the main issues encountered when assessing the Structure and functions of petrifying springs were (here Lyons and Denyer sites are combined):
phosphate levels too high (21 sites);
alteration of natural water flow (14 sites);
negative woody indicator species presence in non-wooded springs (13 sites);
nitrate levels too high (13 sites);
positive indicator species number too low (12 sites);
negative bryophyte indicator species cover/ frequency too high (8 sites);
vegetation height was too tall (6 sites);
trampling/ dung too high (e.g. overgrazing) (5 sites);
invasive species present (4 sites); and
negative herbaceous indicator species cover/ frequency too high (2 sites).
Short-term trend direction was estimated as ‘decreasing’ based on data available in site reports from both Lyons and Denyer, and on experience in the field. These sources suggest that there are ongoing issues and pressures at many spring sites, and that these issues are having, and will continue to have, an effect on habitat condition.
For detailed information on what constitutes good condition for petrifying springs in Ireland, section 4.2 of Lyons and Kelly (2016) should be consulted. Detailed information is provided on: species composition; high-quality indicator species; positive indicator species; typical accompanying species; invasive species; negative indicator species; algae and cyanobacteria; spring water composition and flow; and impacts of grazing. ||
->Future: The Future prospects for the Range and the Area of the habitat have both been assessed as good, because while there may continue to be some small losses of habitat area and/or habitat quality in the next 12 years, these are likely to be relatively small in comparison with the overall range and area, and so these parameters are unlikely to be affected by such losses/decreases in quality.
The Future prospects for the Structure and functions are assessed as poor. Available data, coupled with expertise and experience within the team, suggest that there are ongoing issues and pressures at many spring sites, and that these issues are having, and will continue to have, an effect on habitat condition.
Thus, overall, the Future prospects for petrifying springs in Ireland have been assessed as poor given that a significant proportion of the habitat is in ‘not-good’ condition (~25%), coupled with the fact that there are few to no conservation measures in place. ||
->Conclusion: Range: While there may have been some losses of both habitat area and habitat quality within the reporting period, these are unlikely to be large, and as this is an uncommon but widespread habitat, the range is unlikely to have been affected by such losses/decreases in quality since the Directive came into force. Thus Range was assessed as Favourable, with a ‘stable’ trend.
Area: There have been some losses of habitat area since the Directive came into force, but the effect on habitat area is thought to be small. Area was assessed as Favourable, with a ‘stable’ trend.
Structure and Functions: Information from both survey reports and expert knowledge suggest that pressures acting on petrifying springs are affecting Structure and functions, and so this was assessed as Inadequate. These continuing pressures and threats, particularly in the absence of a suite of wide-ranging conservation measures, results in a trend of ‘decreasing’.
Future prospects: Based on the assessments in section 9 (in summary: range = good; area = good; structure and functions = poor), the overall assessment for the Future prospects for petrifying springs is Inadequate.
Overall: Based on the results above, a combined overall Conservation Status of Inadequate applies.
Overall trend direction: Based on the fact that two of the assessment parameters have a trend of stable (Range, Area), with one decreasing (Structure and functions), the overall trend for the habitat is ‘deteriorating’. ||
->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 should be 500, and 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. The 2013-map contained one cell that was incorrect (Vaesrade), and therefore there is no change. Range data and trends are based upon maps in Dutch Rijksdroehoek co-ordinates, while distribution maps have been delivered in ETRS co-ordinates. ||
->Coverage: Area data is corrected compared to the previous report, based on a detailed survey in 2014 (Ramaekers, I. 2014. Oppervlaktebepaling kalktufbronnen (H7220). Report Ecologica, Maarheeze). There is no genuine change in area, therefore trend is reported to be stable. ||
->HabCondition: Area with good S&F was based on area with high moss cover versus area with low moss cover according to Ramaekers (2014). However, the applied methodology needs improvement. Besides, it was shown that the water quality is deteriorating (Smolders et al. 2014), which is the reason for a negative trend. ||
->Future: Pollution of ground water is a kind of time bomb which may suddenly strongly affect the quality of the habitat. So far no measures have been taken to reduce water eutrophication. Therefore it is expected that area and structure & function will deteriorate in future. ||
->Conclusion: No TS analysis; however, very characteristic macro-fauna exists and should be included in analyses. S&F score U2 given %area in not good condition but this area estmate is based on a single variable with uncertain indicative value (moss cover); therefore a conservative overall score U1 is reported.
The area trend (increase) is no genuine change, therefore overall trend is negative. ||
->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 John Janssen (WEnR)

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The short term trend direction is considered to be decreasing by 1%/yr or less, based on the rate of decline identified in England. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Area is Negative - decreasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; and Future trend of Structure and functions is Overall stable ||
->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 approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Area covered by habitat reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Area is decreasing by 1% per year or less; 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 good; (ii) the Future prospects for Area covered by habitat are poor; 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 - decreasing, and Structure and functions - decreasing.
The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the Area trend has changed from unknown to decreasing, and the Structure and functions trend has changed from increasing to decreasing. ||
->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: Knowledge on the range and distribution has improved to some degree during 2012-2018. It is still evident that considerable portion of 7220 springs still suffer from past and present land use practises, especially those related to forestry (structure and function). Restoration activities have improved the habitat locally within the Natura 2000 network. Ca. 60% of 7220 springs are situated within designated Natura 2000 areas in the boreal region, based on records of the indicator species (bryophytes) and delineation Natura 2000 areas (GIS analysis). Distribution map of the habitat is based on latest available mapping data.

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: Actually mapped 31 ha of habitat, but several historical sites are still must be revised, therefore the area covered by habitat might be quite similar to the area reported before ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: No data to make trend assessment is available as total habitat inventory has been started. ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: FRV is set based on calculation based on distribution data using range tool. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: The habitat is assumed to be in the same status as habitat 7160 where status is based on the field survey of springs (Götbrink 2016). Expert judgement by the compiler of the reporting, communicated with an reference group. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: The pressure and threat are moderate in the region and the structure and functions are in risk to be deteriorated.Many redlisted organisms inhabit this habitat and the typical species are decrasing and inunfavourable status. There is a moderate pressure and threat in the region and many habitat is in risk to be deteriorated. Many structures and functions and complete habitats are destroyed by e.g., forestry and road constructions etc. The area may be both an under/overestimation due to the difficulty to discern the area of the actual habitat. There is probably even more objects than included here. The habitat is considered to be in unfavourable conservation status. ||
->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 0.84 figure comes from 2013 sources, part of which (watercourses < C.
Keulen) were not available. Anyway the area on the watercourses must not have
suffered great changes in 6 years time. ||
->HabCondition: DEMNA (éd.) (2013) – Les Cahiers d'Habitats d'intérêt communautaire de Wallonie. A paraître.

Field survey providing from the mapping work inside the
“Natura 2000 network” or from the reference watercourses in Wallonia. These
reference watercourses have been selected during the Intercalibration Exercise
required for the Water Framework Directive ( see the IC report of the Working
Group ECOSTAT). The reference communities were selected for each
watercourse type (see Galoux & Sossey, 2012, in press).

For travertine springs other species taken into account are: Aneura pinguis, Conocephalum conicum, Jungermannia atrovirens, Leiocolea badensis, Pellia endiviifolia, Preissia quadrata, Brachythecium rivulare, Bryum pseudotriquetrum, Ctenidium
molluscum, Cratoneuron filicinum, Dichodontium pellucidum, Didymodon
tophaceus, Fissidens adianthoides, Fissidens crassipes, Gymnostomum
calcareum,)Philonotis calcarea, Plagiomnium ellipticumPlagiomnium rostratum,
Plagiomnium undulatum, Hymensostylium recurvirostrum (RR), Seligeria
trifaria(RR).

See also: COUVREUR J.-M., SAN MARTIN G. & SOTIAUX A. (2016) : Factors
affecting the presence and the diversity of bryophytes in petrifying sources
habitat (7220) in Wallonia and the Brussels Capital Region, Belgium. International
Journal of Agronomy, Volume 2016, Article ID 5365412, 18 p. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The assessment of the habitat’s area and the conservation status are based on
the monitoring network settled for the WFD in Wallonia.

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: Aufgrund der hohen regionalen Variabilität des Lebensraumtyps, sind die Flächenanteile der Zustände nur schwer einschätzbar. Es ist davon auszugehen, dass der relativ hohe unbekannt-Anteil eine ähnliche Verteilung von guten und schlechten Zuständen aufweist wie der bekannte Anteil und somit die angenommene Schwelle von 75 % der Flächen in gutem Zustand überschritten wird. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Abweichend von der Empfehlung in den Guidelines bei einer FV-Bewertung der Spezifischen Strukturen und Funktionen einen Schwellenwert von 90 % Flächenanteil in gutem Zustand anzuwenden, wurde in Deutschland im Regelfall der Schwellenwert von 80 % beibehalten, um unter anderem die Kontinuität zu den vorherigen Bewertungen zu wahren. ||
->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:

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: Increased range is due to the results of the country wide survey in forest areas (67% surveyed from 2014 to 2018) where most of Petrifying springs with tufa formation have been found. We consider this increase as more accurate data rather then a real gain in range area. Short-term trend direction is thus given as "stable". ||
->Coverage: Increased area is due to the results of the country wide survey in forest areas (67% surveyed from 2014 to 2018) where most of Petrifying springs with tufa formation have been found.
The indicated information concerning short-term trend direction are based on a monitoring program (random sample) outside woodlands (data from 2016 - 2018, ongoing).
During the initial survey, 0,112 ha of this habitat type were mapped. 2% of this area was monitored between 2016 and 2018 showing a stable situation for this this habitat type. Additional 1,232 ha were surveyed from 2014 - 2018 within wooded areas.
We estimated minimum area as being the sum of the original, not monitored area, the area within the 67% of surveyed forests, area discovered by chance and the monitored area. The maximum area was estimated as being the sum of the original area plus the area within wooded areas extrapolated to 100%. ||
->HabCondition: Data concerning habitat condition is based on the country wide survey of habitats outside wooded areas (2007 - 2012), the results of the monitoring of some 2% of this habitat type (2016-2018) and the results of a country wide survey of forest habitats (2014 - 2018, 67% surveyed so far).
8% of the originally surveyed area, 100% of the monitored area and 0% of the surveyed area within woods were in good condition.
The area in good condition was estimated at around 0,0001 km2.
Area in good/not good condition was estimated using the same method as for minimum/maximum area. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: During the initial survey, 0,112 ha of this habitat type were mapped with only 8% in good condition. 2% of this area was monitored between 2016 and 2018 showing a stable situation for this this habitat type. All of the monitored petrifying springs with tufa formation were in good condition. Additional 1,232 ha were surveyed from 2014 - 2018 within wooded areas none in good condition. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Powierzchnię zasięgu oszacowano głównie na podstawie danych własnych i innych ekspertów. Posiłkowano się informacjami z bazy danych obszarów Natura 2000 GDOŚ, choć korzystano z nich z dużą ostrożnością (bardzo często informacje o występowaniu siedliska są podawane błędnie).
Mimo, że wykazana w raporcie całkowita powierzchnia zasięgu w obrębie regionu biogeograficznego uległa zmianie (wzrost z 1467 do 1600 km2), trend krótkoterminowy określono jako stabilny. Zmiana powierzchni wynika zarówno z przyjęcia bardziej restrykcyjnej niż dotychczas definicji (użycie innej metody), jak i ze wzrostu wiedzy na temat siedliska i odnalezienia nowych stanowisk we wschodniej części kraju. Natomiast stanowiska w środkowo-zachodniej i północno-zachodniej Polsce uznawane dotychczas jako siedlisko 7220, takimi nie są z uwagi na brak procesu wytrącania się martwicy wapiennej.
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: Powierzchnię siedliska oszacowano na podstawie obserwacji własnych oraz innych ekspertów. W ten sposób powierzchnię w regionie kontynentalnym określono jako 0,5 ha. Ponieważ są to dane niepełne, powierzchnie znanych stanowisk przyjęto jako powierzchnię minimalną, a maksymalną oszacowano na 2 ha. Dokładna wartość nie jest jednak znana.
W poprzednim raporcie powierzchnię określono na 4 ha. Od tego czasu zrezygnowano z monitoringu ponad 30 stanowisk, ponieważ nie reprezentowały siedliska (brak wytrącania martwicy wapiennej). Poprzednio proces wytrącania martwicy nie był obligatoryjny do identyfikacji siedliska 7220, obecnie zawężono definicję siedliska do źródlisk petryfikujących (użycie innej metody).
Informacja nt. występowania siedliska w obszarach Natura 2000 (baza danych GDOŚ) wydaje się w dużej części błędna, a podawane powierzchnie przeszacowane. W związku z powyższym zmniejszono o połowę wykazaną w poprzednim raporcie wartość, co nie wynika z zaniku siedliska, a z lepszej wiedzy na jego temat. ||
->HabCondition: SStan siedliska oceniono biorąc pod uwagę 35 spośród 44 stanowisk monitorowanych w PMŚ. 9 stanowisk, nie reprezentujących siedliska 7220 ( U2), nie uwzględniono w analizie ponieważ błędnie obniżałyby ocenę stanu siedliska w kraju.
Oceny struktury i funkcji na monitorowanych stanowiskach: 20% - FV, 54% - U1, 6%- U2, 20% XX.
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: Zmiany w ocenie stanu powierzchni (z U1 na FV), specyficznej struktury i funkcji (z XX na U1) wynikają z poprawy stanu wiedzy o siedlisku, nie z rzeczywistych zmian.
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: W PMŚ w cyklu 2017-18 pojawiły się liczne wątpliwości co do identyfikacji siedliska 7220.
Propozycja definicji 7220:
Wypływy wód podziemnych o wysokiej zawartości związków wapnia, z których wytrącają się osady wapienne w postaci trawertynów lub innych postaci martwic wapiennych. Z reguły są punktowe lub liniowe, zajmują niewielką powierzchnię i wyróżniają się dużym udziałem mszaków (Cratoneurion commutati).

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Area covered by habitat is different (increasing) compared to the first report. In the first report (2012) another method for Surface area was used. ||
->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: FRV is set based on calculation based on distribution data using range tool. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: The habitat is assumed to be in the same status as habitat 7160 where status is based on the field survey of springs (Götbrink 2016). Expert judgement by the compiler of the reporting, communicated with an reference group. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: The pressure and threat are high in the region and the structure and functions are in risk to be deteriorated.Many redlisted organisms inhabit this habitat and the typical species are decrasing and inunfavourable status. There is a moderate pressure and threat in the region and many habitat is in risk to be deteriorated. Many structures and functions and complete habitats are destroyed by e.g., forestry and road constructions etc. The area may be both an under/overestimation due to the difficulty to discern the area of the actual habitat. There is probably even more objects than included here. The habitat is considered to be in unfavourable conservation status. ||
->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: Critère pour évaluer ce paramètre : qualité physico-chimique des eaux ; fragmentation, connectivité ; dépôts actifs de calcaires ; fonctionnement hydrologique ||
->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