Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Methodik zur Ermittlung der Populationsgröße in EU-Einheit: Verschneidung der Vorkommenspunkte (Distribution) mit grids1x1 und Habitatmaskierung mit CorineLandCover-Klassen ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: No se han realizado estimas poblacionales robustas que puedan dibujar tendencias y evolución de las poblaciones. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: A total of 14,084 distribution records were collated for this species between 2007 and 2018. These records translated to 679 x 10km squares. Using the range tool, with gap closure set to 20km, an additional 114 grid cells were incorporated giving a total range of 793 cells or 79,300km2. This is thought to provide a good representation of the true extent of the species’ distribution in Ireland.
The range of the common pipistrelle bat in 2013, based on data from 2001-2012, was calculated as 69,500km2. Although the current range appears significantly greater, this is considered to be a reflection of better data following more dedicated survey work (e.g. surveys on Aran Islands), rather than a genuine increase due to expansion. The trend is considered to be stable.
The Favourable Reference Range is taken to be the same as the current range. The 2013 figure was based on the known range of the species at that time but it has been updated for this assessment to reflect the improved data now available. It is considered to be large enough to allow the long term survival of the species. ||
->Population: The 2007 to 2018 distribution records held by Bat Conservation Ireland for this species were mapped at the 1km level to provide the population estimate used in 6.2. This is considered to reflect a minimum estimate of the species distribution in Ireland and is not considered a useful reflection of population.
The population estimate from the 2013 report (1.07 million - 2.4 million) is retained for the present reporting period and provided in 6.4. This population estimate is calculated based on the detection distance for echolocating common pipistrelles from the Car-based Bat Monitoring Scheme and the approximate area that is detectable. The area of Ireland is divided by the approximate detectable area and multiplied by the probability of detecting a common pipistrelle bat along any given roadside (2007-2012) on any given evening, from Car-based Bat Monitoring data. The minimum end of the range is based on the wider detection range (30m) while the maximum end is based on the closer detection range (20m). This population estimate uses a number of assumptions which may be only approximately correct and it could be improved with more detailed information on size and shape of detectable areas, better knowledge of common pipistrelle habitat use around roadsides and other factors. However, it may be considered a starting point from which to refine future estimates. See Roche et al. (2013) for further details.
The short-term trend is also based on the Car-based Bat Monitoring Scheme data. Common pipistrelles have shown a significant increase from the start of the scheme. In the past twelve years (2006-2017) this species has increased by 37.5% in total (95% C.I. = 15.5-62%), equivalent to a per-annum increase of 2.7% (Aughney et al., 2018).
The short-term trend was based on data from 2006-2017 but it is assumed to be the same for the default trend period 2007-2018.
The Favourable Reference Population used in 2013 (~1.07 million individuals) is retained for the current reporting period. ||
->HabInfo: Habitat and roosting associations of the common pipistrelle were modelled using a Maximum Entropy model by Lundy et al. (2011) to determine likelihood of occurrence in specific habitats in the Irish landscape and maternity roost preferences. This modelling was carried out using roost and bat detector location data from 2000-2009 which is stored on the Bat Conservation Ireland bat database and included records from monitoring schemes, BATLAS 2010 and records contributed by ecologists, academics and volunteers, among others. CORINE landcover, altitude, climate data, soil pH and human bias layers were included in the model. Common pipistrelle bat records were widespread but found to be associated broadly with broadleaved woodland, riparian habitats and small amounts of urbanisation (Lundy et al. 2011). Since the species is widespread and these habitat types are currently stable or increasing, the habitat area and quality for the species are considered sufficient. ||
->Future: Ongoing car-based bat monitoring provides evidence for a significant increase in the population; there is no evidence of any decline in Range or Habitat. In general the Future prospects of these parameters are considered to be good. ||
->Conclusion: This species has a very wide distribution across the island including some off-shore islands and there is no evidence of any decline in Range or in Habitat. The most recent estimates suggest a population size in the order to 1-2 million animals, making it one of the most common mammals in Ireland. Ongoing car-based bat monitoring indicates that the population is increasing. Furthermore, there is no indication of any major pressures currently impacting populations and Future prospects are considered good. Overall, the species is assessed as Favourable and the overall trend is demonstrating an on-going increase. There were no qualifiers for Favourable assessments in 2013. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Increase in number of positive grid cells is due to:
- increase in survey work to comply with nature conservation law since 2002 and
- new monitoring scheme since 2013 (http://www.netwerkecologischemonitoring.nl)

Changes in the number of occupied grid cells are a result of changes in survey intensity; the species is expected to be present in all grid cells. ||
->Population: Vorige keer gerapporteerd in individuen.
De gegevens uit het NEM zijn onvoldoende voor het berekenen van een (statistisch betrouwbare) trend. ||
->HabInfo: The roosting habitat, especially for summer and maternity roosts, is under threat of zero-carbon-emission renovation, demolition and building i.e. of different policies related to the energy transition = negative effect of unknown magnitude. ||
->Future: Soort is geheel of voornamelijk afhankelijk van gebouwen in zowel zomer als winter en wordt daardoor sterk bedreigd door de verduurzaming van gebouwen.

Wide spread, numbers and trend not well known; without active adaptation of zero-carbon-emission building and renovation with respect to existing and potential roosting habitat, we risk losing roosting habitat and future will be uncertain; more explicit: many but unknown number of roosts are being lost to energy transition e.g. many hospitals and homes for the elderly, which often harbour mass hibernacula with hundreds or thousands of individuals, are being renovated without proper attention to the bats.
Policies to increase area of wetlands will have positive effect of unknown magnitude. ||
->Conclusion: De gewone dwergvleermuis is de meest algemene soort... Tegenwoordig weten we dat we door maatregelen voor CO2-reductie (slopen/nieuwbouw, na-isolatie en nul op de meter renovatie) veel verblijfplaatsen en waarschijnlijk ook dieren verliezen ... met name gebouwen die als massa-winterverblijf worden gebruikt, worden op een schrikbarend hard tempo ''verbeterd'' qua CO2. Ondertussen draait het NEM-programma waarin de soort wordt gevolgd net te kort om significante uitspraken te doen.... dus unknown is feitelijke inschatting, maar het kan bijna niet anders dan dat de trend negatief is of aan het worden is. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: GIS data and information on micro-habitat requirements is generally insuficient to provide a reliable and meaningful estimate. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Trend in range has been assessed by using the 2019 distribution data and the 2013 method for calculating range, and comparing that with range surface area in 2013. For further details please see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document and country assessments. ||
->Population: The 1km square count has been calculated from the UK count of 1km squares where the species has been recorded. This is a minimum count because it only includes number of recorded occupied 1km squares. UK population estimates have been derived from the GB estimate in Mathews et. al., 2018, and the Northern Ireland estimate from the 2013 Article 17 report. The UK National Bat Monitoring Programme (NBMP) has recorded a statistically significant increase in P. pipistrellus between 2006-2017. Knowledge of the species has improved. The change is also due to a different method for calculating population size. The current population (in individuals) is considered to be approximately equal to the FRP and is sufficient to maintain a viable population. ||
->HabInfo: The species requires a complex mosaic of habitats to support foraging, roosting and commuting behaviour. The stable habitat trend is based on limited data and expert opinion. ||
->Future: Future trend in Range is Overall stable; Future trend in Population is Very Positive - increasing >1% (more than one percent) per year on average; and Future trend in Habitat for the species is Overall stable. For further information on how future trends inform the Future Prospects conclusion see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document. ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is not less than the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Population reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Population size is increasing; and (ii) the current Population size is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Population.
Conclusion on Habitat for the species reached because: (i) the area of occupied habitat is sufficiently large and (ii) the habitat quality is suitable for the long-term survival of the species; and (iii) the short-term trend in area of habitat is stable.
Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future prospects for Range are good; (ii) the Future prospects for Population are good; and (iii) the Future prospects for Habitat for the species are good.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Favourable because all of the conclusions are Favourable.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Population - increasing, and Habitat for the species - stable.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status has not changed since 2013.
Overall trend in conservation status was not reported for this species in 2013. However, from the information available the overall trend would have been improving in 2013 and so there has been no change since the last reporting round. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report