Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Barbus barbus"
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: "Barbus barbus"
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: "Barbus barbus"
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: "Barbus barbus"
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: "Barbus barbus"
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: "Barbus barbus"
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: "Barbus barbus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: VL reports that the deteriorating conservation status is similar to previous one. But I observe that in the 2012 reporting the conservation status was stable. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Barbus barbus"
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: "Barbus barbus"
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: "Barbus barbus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Vorige keer zijn IJsselmeer en Markermeer wel meegeteld in de range, deze keer niet omdat dit eigenlijk geen serieus leefgebied is voor de soort. Daarom is de range kleiner geworden zonder dat er werkelijk iets is veranderd. IJsselmeer en Markermeer worden ook niet meer meegerekend in de FRR. De huidige range blijft daardoor ongeveer gelijk aan de FRR. ||
->Population: Vorige keer in individuen gerapporteerd, nu in km-hokken.
In de monitoring op grote rivieren is een afnemende trend te zien. De oorzaak hiervoor is niet goed bekend. ||
->HabInfo: Grensmaas is belangrijk gebied voor barbeel. De aantallen barbeel nemen hier in recente jaren af. Er is hier sprake van habitatdegradatie door de aanleg van drempels en de WKC bij Lixhe zorgt voor onnatuurlijke peilschommelingen, exotische grondels zorgen mogelijk voor predatie van eieren, larven en juvenielen. Afname komt in mindere mate ook in NL rijntakken voor. ||
->Future: Grensmaas is belangrijk gebied voor barbeel. De aantallen barbeel nemen hier in recente jaren af. Er is hier sprake van habitatdegradatie door de aanleg van drempels en de WKC bij Lixhe zorgt voor onnatuurlijke peilschommelingen, exotische grondels zorgen mogelijk voor predatie van eieren, larven en juvenielen . Afname komt in mindere mate ook in NL rijntakken voor. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Barbus barbus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The current range surface area calculation does not represent the real range surface area. Change in availability of underpinning mapping data has resulted in an apparent decrease in range area compared to 2013, but this is not due to genuine change. Expert opinion considers the trend in range to be stable. The real range surface area is considered to be the range in 2013 - 35,236km2, which is the same as the FRR in 2013. The FRR has been changed to an operator 'approximately equal to current' for this reporting period. For further information see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document. ||
->Population: Due to varying levels of survey effort throughout the natural range of barbel and during different time periods, it is not possible to accurately assess population variations between reporting periods. However, as the species has been consistently recorded across much of its natural range and pressures have not increased, the species is considered to be maintaining a self-sustaining, viable population. Barbel have expanded outside their natural range in the UK due to 'successful' stocking programmes, indicating that the habitat will support expanding populations. For further information see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Positive - increasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; Future trend of Population is Positive - increasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; and Future trend of Habitat for the species is Positive - slight/moderate improvement. 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 approximately equal to 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) and the short-term trend in both area and quality 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 recorded for this species in 2013, but it is likely it would have been either stable or increasing. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Barbus barbus"
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: "Barbus barbus"
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: "Barbus barbus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: The declining of the range is a concern and dominates other parameters ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Barbus barbus"
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: "Barbus barbus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Because we have increased significantly information about current and previous distribution of Barbel, the range for period 2007-2012 was recreated according the current knowledge and compared with current one. The surface range for previous reporting period was assessed as 15 300 sq km.
The current range was estimated as 14400 sq km. However the data shows decreasing trend, the previous and current range are most probably similar thanks to Barbel stocking by angling union. From these reasons the short-term trens is has been evaluated as stable. ||
->Population: Because we have increased significantly information about current and past distribution of barbel, the population size for the past reporting period (2007-2012) was recreated according the current knowledge and compared with current one. The population size for past reporting period was assessed as 169 grids 1*1 sq km.
The current range was estimated as 139 grids 1*1 sq km. However the data shows decreasing trend, the population size is most probably similar and the difference results from different samling effort. From these reasons is the short-term trend in population evaluated as decreasing. ||
->HabInfo: The barbel is currently integrated in restocking plans of local organizations of Angling union which artificialy increased its occurrence area. Therefore it is hard to assess the current habitat in terms of its suitability. Because the status of rivers in the Czech Republic was evaluated as significantly altered by canalisation and fragmentation and only limited number of projects of river restoration were realized during the reporting period, the habitat of the species is assessed as Unfavourable - Inadequate. ||
->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: "Barbus barbus"
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: regional sich verschlechternde Habitatqualität, insbesondere die Laichhabitate betreffend

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Barbus barbus"
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: "Barbus barbus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: Since species is distributed throughout large area, on some locations there is a decline in quality of occupied habitat, but the impacts are not permanent or significant for the entire population. ||
->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: "Barbus barbus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Historically quite common and widespread species of larger rivers, based on literature, and actual range is close to FRR, but some rivers are unoccupied due to ecological discontinuity and insufficient habitat quality ||
->Population: Historically quite common species of larger rivers, but population numbers in terms of individuals and distribution in terms of occupied grids 1x1 are both declining, based on monitoring data and experts' opinion;
Based on monitoring data and experts' opinion, 294 grids 1x1 are occupied ||
->HabInfo: Further restoration efforts are needed to improve ecological continuity and habitat quality to reach historical distribution of the species ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Historically quite common and widespread species of larger rivers, mid-distance migrant, declining and suffering from ecological discontiunity and inadequate habitat quality; distribution restoration targeted by conservation measures ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Barbus barbus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. Stąd różnica w powierzchni zasięgu w stosunku do poprzedniego raportu.
W granicach regionu biogeograficznego brzana występowała bądź występuje do wysokości około 300 m n.p.m., w średnich i dużych rzekach dorzecza Odry, Wisły i Pregoły, oraz w niektórych rzekach przymorskich (Łupawa, Reda, Pasłęka).
Dane o rozmieszczeniu, będące podstawą określenia zasięgu, pochodzą ze źródeł literaturowych i obserwacji terenowych odnoszących się do okresu po 1980. Data 2007 to data opracowania I raportu. W każdym kolejnym raporcie weryfikowane są dane dot. rozmieszczenia.

FRR - zasięg referencyjny został określony jako „większy niż aktualny” (>), ponieważ powinien dodatkowo obejmować Wartę (do ujścia do Odry), Odrę (powyżej ujścia Warty) oraz Noteć (do ujścia Gwdy). ||
->Population: Wielkość populacji w nowych jednostkach – polach siatki 1×1 km – ustalono, zliczając te pola 1×1 km, które znalazły się wewnątrz pola siatki 10×10 km z warstwy ilustrującej rozmieszczenie gatunku, i w których znajduje się ciek o szerokości >5 m. Uwzględniono wyłącznie pola 1×1 km leżące w granicach Polski.
Brzana jest gatunkiem trudno wykrywalnym w dużych i głębokich rzekach nizinnych przy zastosowaniu elektropołowów, a jest przy tym gatunkiem częstym w ukierunkowanych połowach wędkarskich i prowadzone są zarybienia tym gatunkiem.

FRP - Właściwa referencyjna populacja jest nieznana. ||
->HabInfo: Wyniki monitoringu gatunków ryb i minogów PMŚ wskazują na niezadowalającą jakość siedlisk gatunku w regionie kontynentalnym, głównie z uwagi na niezadowalającą jakość morfologiczną rzek, dlatego zaznaczono NO. Na dobrą sprawę trudno byłoby jednak jednoznacznie stwierdzić, że aktualna powierzchnia i jakość siedlisk jest niewystarczająca do przetrwania gatunku. ||
->Future: W oparciu o aktualną wiedzę trudno ocenić perspektywy dla zasięgu i populacji gatunku. W przypadku perspektyw dla siedliska określono je jako słabe, biorąc pod uwagę wyniki monitoringu gatunków ryb i minogów PMŚ, wskazujące na obniżoną jakość hydromorfologiczną części badanych cieków, a także na obserwowane oddziaływania i zagrożenia, związane głównie z zanieczyszczeniami, regulacją i zabudową poprzeczną koryt. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie:
Brzana może występować na obszarze do wysokości około 300 m n.p.m. W granicach regionu biogeograficznego występowała bądź występuje w średnich i dużych rzekach dorzecza Odry, Wisły i Pregoły, oraz w niektórych rzekach przymorskich (Łupawa, Reda, Pasłęka). Brak nowych danych pozwalających na zmianę oceny U1 stanu zasięgu (niezadowalający) w stosunku do raportu 2013.
Populacja:
Stan populacji został oceniony jako nieznany. W raporcie 2013 była ocena U2 ze względu na znaczny ubytek populacji w okresie od połowy XXw., jak również ze względu na wyniki badań monitoringowych przeprowadzonych w latach 2009-2010. Choć wyniki badań monitoringowych w latach 2015-2016 potwierdzają niskie zagęszczenia gatunku i brak na części monitorowanych stanowisk, to należy wziąć pod uwagę, że brzana jest gatunkiem trudno wykrywalnym w dużych i głębokich rzekach nizinnych przy zastosowaniu elektropołowów, a jest przy tym gatunkiem częstym w ukierunkowanych połowach wędkarskich i prowadzone są zarybienia tym gatunkiem. Poprzednia niska ocena wydaje się więc nieadekwatna do sytuacji gatunku.
Wartości referencyjne (zasięg i populacja): bez zmian w stosunku do raportu 2013
Siedlisko gatunku:
Wyniki monitoringu gatunków ryb i minogów PMŚ wskazują na niezadowalającą jakość siedlisk gatunku w regionie kontynentalnym, głównie z uwagi na niezadowalającą jakość morfologiczną rzek. Ocena stanu siedlisk wyższa niż w raporcie 2013 – było U2.
Perspektywy ochrony:
W świetle wyników monitoringu gatunków ryb i minogów PMŚ ogólne perspektywy ochrony gatunku w regionie kontynentalnym należy okreslic jako nieznane z uwagi na nieznane perspektywy dla dwóch parametrów (por. 10.1). Perspektywy dla samego siedliska ocenione jako słabe z uwagi na obniżoną jakość hydromorfologiczną części badanych cieków, a także obserwowane oddziaływania i zagrożenia, związane głównie z zanieczyszczeniami, regulacją i zabudową porzeczną koryt. W poprzednim raporcie ocena U1.
Ocena ogólna:
Stan niezadowalający (ocena wyższa niż w raporcie 2013 – U2). Badania monitoringowe przeprowadzone w latach 2009-2010 oraz 2015-2016 pokazują, że brzana jest gatunkiem trudno wykrywalnym w dużych i głębokich rzekach nizinnych przy zastosowaniu elektropołowów, a jest przy tym gatunkiem częstym w ukierunkowanych połowach wędkarskich i prowadzone są zarybienia tym gatunkiem.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Barbus barbus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Management plans:
Plan de management al Parcului Natural Comana
Planul de management al siturilor Natura 2000 ROSPA0011 Blahnița, ROSCI0173 Pădurea Stârmina, ROSCI0306 Jiana și ROSPA0024 Gruia-Gârla Mare, doar trupul care se suprapune parțial cu ROSCI0306 Jiana
Planul de management Integrat al ariilor naturale protejate ROSCI0045 - Coridorul Jiului, ROSPA0023 Confluența Jiu-Dunăre, ROSPA0010 Bistreț și Rezervațiile Naturale Locul Fosilifer Drănic - 2.391 și Pădurea Zăval - IV.33 ||
->Population: Management plans:
Plan de management al Parcului Natural Comana
Planul de management al siturilor Natura 2000 ROSPA0011 Blahnița, ROSCI0173 Pădurea Stârmina, ROSCI0306 Jiana și ROSPA0024 Gruia-Gârla Mare, doar trupul care se suprapune parțial cu ROSCI0306 Jiana
Planul de management Integrat al ariilor naturale protejate ROSCI0045 - Coridorul Jiului, ROSPA0023 Confluența Jiu-Dunăre, ROSPA0010 Bistreț și Rezervațiile Naturale Locul Fosilifer Drănic - 2.391 și Pădurea Zăval - IV.33 ||
->HabInfo: Management plans:
Plan de management al Parcului Natural Comana
Planul de management al siturilor Natura 2000 ROSPA0011 Blahnița, ROSCI0173 Pădurea Stârmina, ROSCI0306 Jiana și ROSPA0024 Gruia-Gârla Mare, doar trupul care se suprapune parțial cu ROSCI0306 Jiana
Planul de management Integrat al ariilor naturale protejate ROSCI0045 - Coridorul Jiului, ROSPA0023 Confluența Jiu-Dunăre, ROSPA0010 Bistreț și Rezervațiile Naturale Locul Fosilifer Drănic - 2.391 și Pădurea Zăval - IV.33 ||
->Future: Management plans:
Plan de management al Parcului Natural Comana
Planul de management al siturilor Natura 2000 ROSPA0011 Blahnița, ROSCI0173 Pădurea Stârmina, ROSCI0306 Jiana și ROSPA0024 Gruia-Gârla Mare, doar trupul care se suprapune parțial cu ROSCI0306 Jiana
Planul de management Integrat al ariilor naturale protejate ROSCI0045 - Coridorul Jiului, ROSPA0023 Confluența Jiu-Dunăre, ROSPA0010 Bistreț și Rezervațiile Naturale Locul Fosilifer Drănic - 2.391 și Pădurea Zăval - IV.33 ||
->Conclusion: Management plans:
Plan de management al Parcului Natural Comana
Planul de management al siturilor Natura 2000 ROSPA0011 Blahnița, ROSCI0173 Pădurea Stârmina, ROSCI0306 Jiana și ROSPA0024 Gruia-Gârla Mare, doar trupul care se suprapune parțial cu ROSCI0306 Jiana
Planul de management Integrat al ariilor naturale protejate ROSCI0045 - Coridorul Jiului, ROSPA0023 Confluența Jiu-Dunăre, ROSPA0010 Bistreț și Rezervațiile Naturale Locul Fosilifer Drănic - 2.391 și Pădurea Zăval - IV.33 ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Barbus barbus"
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: "Barbus barbus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: Le barbeau joue un rôle écologique majeur puisqu'il représente souvent le constituant principal de la faune cyprinicole. Contrairement à la Belgique où la régression des populations des grands fleuves a nécessité sa reproduction en pisciculture pour le besoin de repeuplements, le barbeau fluviatile ne
semble pas menacé en France. Toutefois, anthropisation et évolution climatique peuvent modifier les équilibres écologiques qui ont limité l'hybridation entre barbeaux fluviatile et méridional à quelques zones hybrides actuellement stabilisées dans le domaine méditerranéen.
||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Barbus barbus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Because we have increased significantly information about current and past distribution of Barbel, the range for past reporting period (2007-2012) was recreated according the current knowledge and compared with current one. The surface range for past reporting period was assessed as 3300 sq km.
The current range was estimated as the same (3300 sq. km) and the short-term trend in range has been evaluated as stable. ||
->Population: Because we have increased significantly information about current and past distribution of barbel, the population size for the past reporting period (2007-2012) was recreated according the current knowledge and compared with current one. The population size for past reporting period was assessed as 25 grids 1*1 sq km, 18 grids 10*10 sq km.
The current range was estimated as 35 grids 1*1 sq km, 21 grids 10*10 sq km. However the data shows increasing trend, the population size is most probably similar and the difference results from different samling effort. ||
->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: "Barbus barbus"
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: "Barbus barbus"
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: "Barbus barbus"
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: "Barbus barbus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Management plan Parcul Natural Balta Mică a Brăilei ||
->Population: Management plan Parcul Natural Balta Mică a Brăilei ||
->HabInfo: Management plan Parcul Natural Balta Mică a Brăilei ||
->Future: Management plan Parcul Natural Balta Mică a Brăilei ||
->Conclusion: Management plan Parcul Natural Balta Mică a Brăilei ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report