Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Arnica montana"
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: "Arnica montana"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Surface area is somewhat higher than in last report. This changing is explained mainly by the implementation of Belgian LIFE projects actions related to restauration of 6230* and 6430 habitats and Arnica montana populations. ||
->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: "Arnica montana"
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: "Arnica montana"
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 Vorkommenspunkt (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: "Arnica montana"
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: "Arnica montana"
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: "Arnica montana"
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: "Arnica montana"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Field 6.2: Minimum calculated as all occupied cells contain 1 cell single population (1x1 km); maximum calculated as all occupied cells contain 100 cell single population (1x1 km). ||
->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: "Arnica montana"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The species has been reintroduced in new, formerly occupied sites. In the frame of the present reporting, only sites showing promising evidences of establishment are considered. ||
->Population: The species has been reintroduced in new, formerly occupied sites. In the frame of the present reporting, only sites showing promising evidences of establishment are considered. ||
->HabInfo: Habitat area and quality are evaluated as "bad", although nature conservation projects and measures taken in frame of single species action plan show promising results, but generally high pressures from agriculture remain; unoccupied habitats (spruce forests) on formerly occupied sites are potentially available for reintroduction projects ||
->Future: Conservation measures and species action plan will improve the future prosects for the habitat and the population, while the range will still be hard to reach the favourable reference value. ||
->Conclusion: Species underwent long-term decline in range, population and habitat; conservation measures taken in the frame of species action plan show promising results, although pressures from agriculture persist outside project areas; species meanwhile entirely conservation dependent. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The species (with autochton seeds but also material originating from neighbouring regions) has been reintroduced in new, formerly occupied sites. In the frame of the present reporting, only sites showing promising evidences of establishment are considered.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Arnica montana"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Podana w pkt. 5.1. wartość zasięgu jest większa od raportowanej w roku 2013 (58649 km kw.) i wyliczona została z użyciem nowego narzędzia. W poprzednim raporcie krótkoterminowy trend zasięgu był nieznany, natomast obecnie został określony jako stabilny (gatunek wymarł tylko na 1 z 33 monitorowanych stanowisk). Wartość referencyjna pozostała niezmieniona w stosunku do poprzedniego raportu. ||
->Population: Ad. 6.2. Od obecnego raportu jednostką populacji jest kwadrat 1x1 km. Poprzednio (Raport 2013) wielkość populacji szacowano na 20 000 - 30 000 osobników. Podany przedział wielkości populacji jest bardzo szeroki ale dane na temat wpółczesnego rozmieszczenia arniki górskiej w Polsce są wciąż bardzo niepełne. Wartość FRP ze względu na brak odpowiedniej liczby danych pozostaje nieznana (tj. tak jak raporcie 2013). W roku 2013 i 2014 monitoring prowadzono na stanowiskach położonych na Podlasiu, Sudetach i w Górach Świętokrzyskich (znajdując 11 285 osobników) ale "stanowiska te są jedynie uzupełnieniem wiedzy o zasobach gatunku, nie uprawniają do oceny stanu ochrony w całym regionie kontynentalnym" (Wyniki monitoringu w latach 2013-2014, str. 2). Oceny takiej jednak dokonano "Stan populacji w regionie kontynentalnym jest niezadowalający (Wyniki monitoringu w latach 2013-2014, str. 24), "ocena ogólna stanu ochrony arniki w regionie kontynentalnym jest zła U2" (Wyniki monitoringu w latach 2013-2014, str. 27) . Wielkość populacji obecnie nie jest większa niż 150 pól 1 x 1 km. Być może populacja gatunku liczy jedynie około 100 pól 1 x 1 km, ale wymaga to sprawdzenia. ||
->HabInfo: 7.1. Wyniki monitoringu sugerują, że krótkookresowy trend siedliska ma charakter spadkowy. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: W stosunku do poprzedniego raportu (2013) nie zanotowano zmian ocen oceny ogólnej, jej parametrów i ogólnego trendu stanu ochrony. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Arnica montana"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: ETC’s (2018) range tool was used to generate a standardized grid map and to calculate the range. Observations registered in the national database Artportalen (www.artportalen.se) were used to assess the distribution of the species. Sites monitored by flora guardians are included in the database. Changes compared with previous assessments are primarily due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data. ||
->Population: Population size was estimated based on regional monitoring programmes. Most of the data has been accessed through the national database Artportalen (www.artportalen.se). More detalied quantitaive information from several sites indicate a higher number of plants but also higher rate of decline than previously known (5% per year). The alarming rate of decline suggests that the Population parameter should be assessed as Inadequate-bad. ||
->HabInfo: As the species is not subjected to any major human intrusion or exploitation activities, or known diseases it is assumed that the insufficient population size and declining populations are both consequences of a reduced suitability of the habitat, i.e. the habitat has a reduced area and/or quality.
One H-ranked and five M-ranked pressures and threats suggest that the Habitat for the species is Inadequate-bad. ||
->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  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Arnica montana"
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