Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Aphanius fasciatus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: The estimate of population size 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. The population estimate is provided as a range whose minimum and maximum values are thus calculated:
• Minimum: as the intersection between the 1x1km grid, the main hydrographic network and the species' 10x10km distribution.
• Maximum: as the intersection between the 1x1km grid, the whole hydrographic network (the main plus the secondary till the 3rd order) and the species' 10x10km distribution. ||
->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: "Aphanius fasciatus"
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: "Aphanius fasciatus"
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: "Aphanius fasciatus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Most data are described as semi-quantitative or qualitative. Few quantitative data. Too much variability between existing samples, especially between different river basins, making it difficult to extrapolate a number or a class for reporting population unit. ||
->HabInfo: The surface area of the habitat is estimated at 1445 km2 and its quality is moderate. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: The % threshold could not be used for the assessment since: a) a different method for assessing range was employed, compared to the 2nd Reporting Period or b) no data were reported in the 2nd Reporting Period ||
->Other: 1.Basic Assumptions:
i) "Surface Area Range" (field 5.1) = value extracted from "Range Map" (field 2.5).
ii) "Favourable Reference Range" (field 5.10a) = a) "Surface Area Range" (field 5.1) OR b) value extracted from "Additional Reference Range Map" (provided). Depends on whether the Favourable range is equal or larger than actual species range.
iii) "Population Size" (field 6.2 or 6.4) = value extracted from "Distribution Map" (field 2.3) or "Additional Distribution Map" (field 2.5) (when provided).
iv) "Favourable Reference Population" (field 6.15a) = a) "Population Size" (field 6.2 or 6.4) OR b) value extracted from "Additional Reference Range Map" (provided). Depends on whether the Favourable population is equal or larger than actual species population.
v) Habitat "Area Estimation" (field 7.9) = "Distribution Map" (field 2.3) or "Additional Distribution Map" (field 2.5) (when provided).
2. Aphanius fasciatus is a widespread species, unfortunately poorly surveyed, since there are scant scientific surveys of transitional waters – brackish water environments – so far. Epanomi Lagoon (GR1220012) and the Strymonas Estuary (GR1260002), near Amphipoli, have not been adequately surveyed recently. However, it is true that the species is known to be present there (so these sites are included in the maps).

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Aphanius fasciatus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: This species has a discontinuous distribution range along fresh and brackish waters the entire coast. Additional range research are needed. ||
->Population: There were no monitoring during reporting period. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: It inhabits brackish habitats which are under pressures regarding spreading of urban area and touristic infrastructure. Additionaly, it has disjunct distribution, all populations are isolated on very small patches of adecvate habitat. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Aphanius fasciatus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: The estimate of population size 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. The population estimate is provided as a range whose minimum and maximum values are thus calculated:
• Minimum: as the intersection between the 1x1km grid, the main hydrographic network and the species' 10x10km distribution.
• Maximum: as the intersection between the 1x1km grid, the whole hydrographic network (the main plus the secondary till the 3rd order) and the species' 10x10km distribution. ||
->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: "Aphanius fasciatus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Aphanius fasciatus lives in euryhaline waters in habitat 1150 - Coastal Lagoons, and is reported from all localities where the mentioned habitat is found. These sites are all part of the national Natura 2000 network, and consist namely of MT0000006 - Is-Simar (limiti ta’ San Pawl il-Baħar), MT00000007 – Is-Salini, MT0000015 - L-Inħawi tal-Għadira, and MT0000023 - Il-Magħluq tal-baħar ta’ Marsaskala.

In the past however, the species was also known from other localities, including Kalafrana (St. George’s Bay, Birżebbuġa), Marsaxlokk, and il-Marsa, all on mainland Malta (Deidun, 2002). Records of A. fasciatus from il-Qawra (on the island of Gozo) however, are most likely an introduction of the species by aquarists (Cilia, 1986, as cited in Deidun, 2002). Despite the decrease in species’ range over the last decades, the short-term trend of the parameter is considered to be stable. ||
->Population: The populations at is-Simar and l-Għadira were reported by Zammit-Mangion (2009) as having very good populations. Although fluctuations were noted during the period under review, with unusually high mortalities reported during summer 2015, these were most likely due to the unusually warm and dry winter during the same year. Following 2015, the species seems to have recovered - as was confirmed by the respective site managers of is-Simar and l-Għadira (M. Gauci, personal communication, February 10, 2019; R. Vella, personal communication, April 25, 2019).

The population at is-Salini was reported to have increased following some works along the is- Sukkursu Canal in 2011-2012, and appear to have established two relatively stable, isolated sub-populations within the site (E. Mallia, personal communication, February 11, 2019).

On the other hand, the population at il-Magħluq ta’ Marsaskala was reported by Zammit-Mangion et al. (2011) as supporting a highly vulnerable population due to anthropogenic pressures, mainly due to its close proximities to the road network, leisure establishments and agricultural areas.

Efforts for the improvement of the latter two populations initiated during the period under review, with and ex-situ breeding programme under the Killifish Conservation Project being the main measure affecting directly this parameter (Department of Fisheries & Aquaculture, n.d.). More information on this breeding programme can be found under section 9 ‘Conservation Measures’.

The population has overall remained relatively stable in the short-term. The largest two populations, at is-Simar and l-Għadira, exceed the effective population size, with normal age structure, mortality and reproduction (Zammit-Mangion, 2009). This is however not the case with the population at il-Magħluq ta’ Marsaskala, which whilst having a reproduction cycle which is in the norm, juvenile reproduction, recruitment and juvenile mortality appear to be deviating from such (Zammit-Mangion, Deidun, Vassallo-Agius & Magri, 2011). No information is available on the age structure, mortality and reproduction of the is-Salini population. ||
->HabInfo: Aphanius fasciatus lives in euryhaline waters mostly in habitat 1150 - Coastal Lagoons, tolerating significant fluctuations in both temperature and salinity. From research studies (Zammit-Mangion, 2009; Zammit-Mangion & Deidun, 2010 & Zammit-Mangion et al., 2011), the habitat at l-Għadira and is-Simar (which sites contain the majority of the habitat nationally) is good. This was confirmed for the period under review by the respective site managers. On the other hand, the habitats at is-Salini and il-Magħluq ta’ Marsaskala were assessed as not in good condition. At is-Salini, it has been noted that following works along the is-Sukkursu Canal in 2011-2012, the habitat showed improvement. The same was noted at il-Magħluq ta’ Marsaskala through the implementation of various measures (refer to Section 9 ‘Conservation Measures’) aimed to reduce some of the anthropogenic pressures, and restore the habitat structure and function. For this reason, the area of the habitat might not be sufficiently large, and the habitat quality is assessed as not good enough for the long-term survival of the species. ||
->Future: At present, all parameters of Aphanius fasciatus are assessed as having an ‘Unfavourable – Inadequate’ status. Hence, according to the guidelines, at best these should have their future prospects assessed as 'Poor'. However, the measures that are planned for the species and its habitat for the coming years are expected not just to maintain the status of the parameters, but actually improve them. These measures include the increase in the range and improvement of its habitat condition through restoration in one of the localities from where the species was known in the past, as well as the subsequent introduction of the species back in this restored habitat. This is why the future prospects of all the parameters for A. fasciatus are being assessed as 'Good'. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report