Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Epidalea calamita"
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: "Epidalea calamita"
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: "Epidalea calamita"
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: "Epidalea calamita"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Trend estimation by list-length analysis reveals -9,6 % decline of the species observation probability when visiting favourable grids within 24 years (-0,4 % per year) in Wallonia; the decreasing trend is not significant and the best model exclude a distinct and significant trend between atlantic and continental part of the territory, but include a different (significant) baseline ||
->HabInfo: Some habitat networks are insufficient for long-term survival and metapopulation functioning. Habitat quality is good in the largest populations but smaller populations often suffer from inferior habitat, both in terms of area and quality, especially in anthropogenic habitat types. There, most often, the lack of appropriate management -mimicking pioneer conditions- makes habitat quality gradually unsuitable for survival. Habitat destruction was recently globally compensated by offsets (creation of new reproduction habitats) ||
->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: "Epidalea calamita"
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: "Epidalea calamita"
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: "Epidalea calamita"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Garin-Barrio, I., San Sebastián, O., Océn-Ratón, M., Rubio, X. (2007). Estado de conservación de las poblaciones de sapo corredor (Bufo calamita) de la costa vasca. Munibe, 26: 292-301.

Pleguezuelos, J. M., Márquez, R., Lizana, M. (Eds.). (2002). Atlas y libro rojo de los anfibios y reptiles de España. Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza - Asociación Herpetológica Española, Madrid. ||
->Population: Garin-Barrio, I., San Sebastián, O., Océn-Ratón, M., Rubio, X. (2007). Estado de conservación de las poblaciones de sapo corredor (Bufo calamita) de la costa vasca. Munibe, 26: 292-301.

Gomez-Mestre, I. (2014). Sapo corredor – Epidalea calamita. En: Enciclopedia Virtual de los Vertebrados Españoles. Salvador, A., Martínez-Solano, I. (Eds.). Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid. (http://www.vertebradosibericos.org) [Acceso 01/04/19] ||
->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: "Epidalea calamita"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Un déclin est mis en évidence dans de nombreux secteurs de la zone biogéographique atlantique ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Epidalea calamita"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The current range of the natterjack toad is well known following many years of intensive survey work. That said, some new breeding sites, normally adjacent to known populations, are discovered from time to time (see Reyne et al., in prep.). Natterjacks are concentrated in a small number of locations on the Dingle and Iveragh peninsulas. [The translocated population in Wexford, being outside the natural range of the species, is not considered in this assessment.] The range map is based on all the data collated by NPWS for the period 2016-2018. Most of the data was collected as part of a three-year monitoring project in 2016-2018 (Reyne et al., in prep.). It includes records of adult toads as well as spawn, tadpoles and juveniles. The data was collected by a team of trained ecologists and the quality of the data is very good. Distribution records correspond to 7 x 10km grid cells (see Map 1).
To allow a better appreciation of this restricted distribution and the changes to it over time, the assessment of range is also presented at the 2km level (as was done in 2013) (Map 2). The current distribution extends to 19 x 2km grid cells (up from 16 cells in 2013). With the Range Tool extending that to 23 x 2km cells – 92km2 – this is the figure used in 5.1. The increase in range is the result of better data arising from more comprehensive surveys at known sites (Inch, Lough Yganavan), rather than true range expansion.
The Favourable Reference Range (43 x 2km grid cells = 172km2) has been retained from the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013) and is based on the known historical range of the species in Kerry. In brief the FRR is based on the maintenance of the current range (92km2) plus the reinstatement of toads around Castlemaine Harbour (approx 80km2), thereby providing linkages between the isolated Inch and Roscullen populations on the north side of the Harbour, with the existing populations on the south side. See Beebee (2002) for full details. Although larger than the range when the Directive came into force, it is considered necessary to restore the toad’s range to this extent to ensure its long-term survival. Trend in range was assessed over the period 2006-2017 but the result is assumed to be the same for the default trend of 2007-2018. ||
->Population: The number of occupied 1x1km cells is provided in 6.2 as required, however this is not considered to be a useful measure of population size or trend for this species. A more useful estimate is provided in 6.4, i.e. the mean number of adults calculated over three consecutive breeding seasons - 2016-2018 (Reyne et al., in prep.).
Toad populations will fluctuate naturally from year to year in response to their boom-or-bust breeding ecology (Beebee & Griffiths, 2000). Population estimates, which are normally derived from egg string counts, are further complicated by the need to assume a ratio of males to females plus variations in the proportion of the total adult population that breeds in any particular year. Bécart et al. (2007) and Sweeney et al. (2013) assumed a 1:1 male to female sex ratio and that 35% of females did not spawn in an average year. They included correction factors to account for these assumptions in their adult population calculations – in effect multiplying the egg-string count by 3.077. However, in dry years, when many breeding sites fail to form, the proportion of non-breeding females may be considerably higher than 35% (T. Beebee, pers. comm.) and in wet years it may be lower. The intensive surveys in 2011 and 2012 were impacted by unseasonably dry conditions. The resulting population estimates [3,385 (2011); 3,446 (2012)] were likely to be underestimates of the true population, although to what extent is not clear. Using the same assumptions Reyne et al. (in prep.) calculated the population of toads in Kerry over their three-year study as 9,914 (2016), 4,458 (2017) and 8,250 (2018) respectively. These are higher than 2011 and 2012, but lower than 2005 and 2006. They go on to examine the enormous potential for uncertainty when extrapolating from egg string numbers to adult population “the total population could have been as low as 3,578 and as high as 30,905” before concluding that population trends should in future be directly based on egg-string counts without extrapolation.
We have good data on toad spawning activity from eight of the last 15 years. Nonetheless, we have had to conclude that population trend is uncertain. In this species, estimates of population trend are complicated by: a) inter-annual fluctuations in population size due to its boom-or-bust reproductive strategy; b) the variable proportion of females breeding in any given year; and c) the absence of validated sex ratio figures for natterjacks at Irish breeding sites. A better understanding of these variables in the Irish context is required to allow robust assessments of population trend in the future.
The number of egg strings has been demonstrated as the best available method of tracking population change (Reyne et al., in prep.) and this is the parameter that we will continue to measure in Ireland. For the purposes of Art. 17 reports, unless egg strings is added as an alternative reporting unit, the number of egg strings will be multiplied x3.077 (see above) to provide a rough number of adults. The Favourable Reference Population of c. 13,000 adult toads (i.e. 4225 egg strings) that was calculated for the 2007 reporting period and used again in 2013 is based on an average population estimate of c. 9,000 adults from all breeding sites for the 2004-2006 breeding seasons (Bécart et al., 2007) plus an additional estimate of the lower density of toads required in the connecting habitat between main breeding sites necessary to ensure long-term viability of the species (see NPWS, 2007). The FRP from the previous reporting period is retained. The current population (in 6.4(d)) is estimated to be roughly 40% below FRP. ||
->HabInfo: Toads require suitable waterbodies for breeding as well as suitable terrestrial habitat for foraging, dispersal and overwintering. Some excellent breeding areas occur within the current range with complexes of ponds connected by good feeding habitat, e.g. Magharees, Roscullen, Inch. However, in other areas ponds are isolated, or surrounded by unsuitable vegetation, or the ponds are overgrown or prone to early desiccation. NPWS’s pond creation scheme has led to 100 new ponds being dug for toads and areas around these being managed for toads. Some of these have already proved suitable and been colonised but others have not and the habitat management at several sites has been questioned (Reyne et al., in prep.).
Overall, although some habitat in good condition is available and some new breeding habitats have been created and are being managed, the absence of suitable habitat from extensive areas of the favourable range is limiting the potential for this species to thrive. Habitat area and quality are estimated, based on expert judgement, as inadequate but improving. ||
->Future: A number of breeding sites have worryingly low numbers of spawn strings recorded in recent years and are vulnerable to extinction. On the other hand, the pond creation scheme is continuing to bring some benefits and additional conservation measures (i.e. translocation and captive rearing) have begun in recent years. Overall the threats and conservation measures are expected to balance each other out, with no significant change expected in the short term for the status of Range, Population or Habitat.
While a continuation of the current conservation measures will help to offset the pressures on the toad population, significant additional investment will be needed to effect a marked improvement in the status of the natterjack in the medium to long term. This might take the form of a well-resourced and designed agri-environment scheme aimed at toad habitat creation and management in the relevant areas of Kerry. ||
->Conclusion: The toad’s range has increased since the Directive came into force. However, its current range is still significantly less than the historical range of the species due to an extensive contraction in distribution in the first half of the 20th century. Reinstatement of the historical range is deemed necessary to ensure the long-term survival of this species in Ireland. Range is considered Unfavourable-Bad.
Natterjack populations are difficult to assess (see 6.17) and while the recent trend is uncertain, sustained improvement is clearly needed before FRP is reached. Population is assessed as Unfavourable-Bad.
Habitat is considered Inadequate. A substantial amount of toad breeding habitat was lost due to drainage in the first half of the 20th century and although there are significant areas of suitable terrestrial habitat, suitable water bodies for spawning remain limited over much of its range. The last decade has seen a major programme of pond creation for the toad with 100 ponds dug and 22 colonised to date. Although there are still large areas of the favourable range without breeding waters, the pond scheme has significantly increased the availability of breeding sites for the species both within its current range and the wider area of its favourable reference range. Further pond creation is required and a stronger focus on habitat management around and between ponds will be necessary to allow toads to colonise and to thrive in these areas.
The overall status of the toad is Unfavourable-Bad. The change in overall trend (from increasing to stable) reflects the most recent survey data, which indicates that the uptake of constructed ponds has not continued at the rate seen in the previous report.
While a continuation of the current conservation measures will help to offset the pressures on the toad population, they will not on their own produce the necessary enhancements to restore conservation status. Significant additional investment is going to be needed to effect a marked improvement in the status of the natterjack in the medium to long term. This might take the form of a well-resourced and tailored agri-environment scheme aimed at toad habitat creation and management across the species’ historical range in Kerry. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Epidalea calamita"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Vorige rapportage was de range 28.800, nu range 26.900. De schijnbare afname in range moet vooral gezien worden als een inventarisatie-effect. ||
->Population: Vorige keer in individuen gerapporteerd, nu in km-hokken.
Vorige keer waarschijnlijk iets te pessimistisch ingeschat. Met de kennis van nu had populatie toen ook U1 moeten zijn. De trend is stabiel, dus er is in feite niets veranderd.
De populatietrend is berekend door het CBS op basis van verspreidingsgegevens (1x1 km) uit de NDFF, aangevuld met gegevens uit het NEM. ||
->HabInfo: Populaties van deze pionier zijn per definitie op veel plaatsen instabiel.
Met name de populaties in het binnenland (bijv. in rivierengebied) fluctueren nogal en zijn vaak zeer sterk afhankelijk van ontgrondingen of voldoende rivierdynamiek. De conclusie vorige keer was op basis van aantallen waarbij er met name voor het rivierengebied de nodige aanwijzingen waren voor relatief veel kwijnende populaties. Is vorige keer dus waarschijnlijk wel wat te pessimistisch ingeschat. ||
->Future: Range is ook voor de toekomst nog redelijk goed, vermoeden is ook dat de soort in lage dichtheden in het landschap zit en daar kansen grijpt in pioniersitaties. Populaties voor deze pionier van nature erg fluctuerend.
Habitat is pioniermilieu en deels afhankelijk van menselijke activiteiten. In duinen en vennen meer natuurlijke habitats ||
->Conclusion: De rugstreeppad is vorige keer waarschijnlijk te pessimistisch ingeschat. De expert van nu (different method) zou met de kennis van nu (improved knowledge) de vorige keer voor populatie, habitat en future ook U1 hebben gekozen i.p.v. U2. De conclusie vorige keer was op basis van aantallen waarbij er met name voor het rivierengebied de nodige aanwijzingen waren voor relatief veel kwijnende populaties, er zijn verhoudingsgewijs weinig stabiele populaties. De soort verdwijnt echter niet zomaar op grote schaal en het risico daarop is van een andere orde van grootte dan bijv. geelbuikvuurpad of vroedmeesterpad. Populatietrend is iets verbeterd (van D naar stabiel, genuine change), maar dat is niet de oorzaak van de kleurverandering. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Epidalea calamita"
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: "Epidalea calamita"
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 - 5,096.28km2. The FRR in 2013 was 4,100km2. The FRR has been changed to an operator 'approximately equal to current' to reflect this. For further information see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document. ||
->Population: The FRP in 2013 was 1,000 breeding females. Data in this population unit is not available for population in the current reporting population. Therefore the FRP was set as an operator. ||
->HabInfo: In England, which holds the majority of the resource (c.76% of the population), whilst there is sufficient habitat to support a viable population there is no evidence to suggest this is sufficient in quantity and quality to achieve Favourable Conservation status (FCS). ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Negative - decreasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; Future trend of Population is Negative - decreasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; and Future trend of 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 stable; and (ii) the current Population size is more than 25% below the Favourable Reference Population.

Conclusion on Habitat for the species reached because: (i) the area of occupied habitat is not sufficiently large and the area of occupied and unoccupied habitat is unknown, and (ii) the habitat quality is unknown 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 poor; (ii) the Future prospects for Population are bad; and (iii) the Future prospects for Habitat for the species are poor.

Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-bad because two conclusions are Unfavourable-bad.

Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range – stable, Population – stable, and Habitat for the species – uncertain.

The Overall assessment of Conservation Status has not changed since 2013.

The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the Habitat for the species trend has changed from stable to uncertain [note that the reason for change is due to less information/accuracy or certainty in the information available, and because of the removal of the Future prospects trend from the 2019 method used to assess Overall trend. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Epidalea calamita"
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: "Epidalea calamita"
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: "Epidalea calamita"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The species range calculated using the Range Tool for 2007-2018 records, gap distance 50 km (in the previous reporting period calculations were for 1985-2012 data). Estimated maximum surface range changes in short-time trend = range for 2007-2018 less range for 2013-2018. Short-time range decrease and the presence of a long-time decrease confirmed by the published data (Čeirāns, Pupiņš 2019). ||
->Population: Short term population decline – 8 known 1x1 km grids with species records in 2013-2018 against 16 grids in 2007-2013.; decline or disappearance of 4 from 8 surveyed populations reported in 2016-2018 amphibian and reptile state monitoring report ||
->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: "Epidalea calamita"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The new range tool leads to some minor range changes, otherwise range is calculated based on documented finds in Species Observation System - Artportalen. ||
->Population: The reported number of 1*1 grid cells is calculated based on estimated 10*10 grid cells, so likely an overestimation. The inventories are based on the number of tadpoles found, however the dry summer spoiled much of the reproduction, and if we were to just use those numbers, we end up at around 160 adults. However, since we have earlier estimates, and know the ecology of the species, we estimate a higher population. The population is estimated over both the CON and BOR zone, and then the older expert estimate of the BOR zone is subtracted from the CON numbers. ||
->HabInfo: For E. calamita, grazing may be necessary for the habitat to have sufficient quality in many localities. The potential effect on the habitat quality of chytridiomycosis that is now present in many places is still unknown. ||
->Future: Probable slow decline due to lack of browsing. The question here is the effect of chytridomycosis, and how the species will be affected. The fungi is spreading through Swedens amphibian populations, and many ponds are already infected, yet we have little or no data on population effects. ||
->Conclusion: Better inventories makes us more certain of the uncertainties. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Epidalea calamita"
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: "Epidalea calamita"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: Some habitat networks are insufficient for long-term survival and metapopulation functioning ||
->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: "Epidalea calamita"
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: "Epidalea calamita"
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: "Epidalea calamita"
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: "Epidalea calamita"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: La tendance générale de l'aire de répartition de l'espèce dans la zone biogéographique continentale est difficile à estimer mais un déclin semble se dessiner dans de nombreux secteurs, alors qu'aucune expansion notable n'est mentionnée. ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback - Confirmation de l'évaluation Défavorable-mauvais U2 pour les Perspectives futures - Un déclin se dessine assez clairement avec des perspectives plutôt négatives ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Epidalea calamita"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Area: the species is found in the same populations as reported in 2013. The change in range area (502 reported in 2013 to 400 reported in 2019) comes from the observation of dispersing individuals in the vicinity of a population. ||
->Population: Based on 1x1 km², the short-term trend in population size is stable. From the known populations, the trend is however contrasted: one declining, one stable and one likely increasing. The estimation of the number of individuals comes from counts of calling males.
Use of a different unit in 2013 (i) and 2019 (1x1 km²). ||
->HabInfo: The area and the quality of the habitat for the species is considered as insufficient, as much smaller than the FRR.
The habitat of the species is considered to be degraded in one population, stable in the second one and stable to increasing in the third one. The species colonised a new site close to the latter one. The general short-term trend is therefore considered as stable. ||
->Future: Range and population are currently reported as much smaller than the respective FRV. Habitat conservation measures taken to date are failing to counter a decline in 1/3 of the populations. Range conservation measures did not provide yet successful results. Populations are highly isolated from each other. ||
->Conclusion: Historically widespread and locally common species, which underwent a long-term decline, nowadays almost completely conservation dependent, as primary habitats are missing and secondary habitats are abandoned ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The species has been reintroduced in new sites with secondary habitats, by translocation of spawn from national populations. In the frame of the present reporting, these sites have not yet been considered, as evidence of successful establishment is missing for the moment, although promising results have been made.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Epidalea calamita"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Gatunek szeroko rozpowszechniony jednak na ogół lokalnie rzadki lub populacje występują w znacznym rozproszeniu. W przybliżeniu zajmuje cały obszar kontynentalny, stąd można przyjąć, że obecny zasięg jest na poziomie referencyjnego.
Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. ||
->Population: Minimalną wielkość populacji podano w oparciu o liczbę pól 1x1km.
Obecny stan populacji może być uznany za zbliżony do referencyjnego. Gatunek najprawdopodobniej nie jest zagrożony i nagłe załamanie się populacji jest mało prawdopodobne. Stosunkowo mała liczba stanowisk jest sytuacją normalną dla Polski. ||
->HabInfo: Gatunek zajmuje różnorodne siedliska, często również antropogeniczne i te mało atrakcyjne dla innych gatunków płazów. Stanowiska muszą być jednak we wczesnym etapie sukcesji lub być zbiornikami nietrwałymi (np. zalane łąki). O ile prawdopodobnie nie nastąpi szybki zanik siedlisk antropogenicznych, to można się spodziewać ograniczenia rozrodczości w siedliskach naturalnych z powodu regulacji rzek i ocieplania się klimatu. Warto odnotować, że dla gatunku ważna jest dynamika pojawiania się siedlisk antropogenicznych. Te, które uległy sukcesji i są dogodne dla innych gatunków płazów, mogą przestać być wartościowe, dla ropuchy paskówki. Gatunek ten będzie natomiast odbywał rozród w nowo tworzonych siedliskach np. czynnych piaskowniach i żwirowniach. ||
->Future: Pomimo zagrożeń, oddziaływań i niepokojących trendów w części siedlisk obecne rozmieszczenie, populacja i stan siedliska pozwalają przypuszczać, że gatunek przetrwa w dłuższej perspektywie czasowej. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie:
Gatunek o szerokim rozmieszczeniu i zasięgu na niżu Polski. W przybliżeniu występuje w całej Polsce niżowej. Unika gór. Ocena zasięgu nie uległa zmianie od poprzedniego okresu raportowania i nadal jest właściwa – FV.
Populacja:
Populacja wydaje się być na poziomie właściwym. Według różnych obserwacji, gatunek nie wykazuje spadków liczbie populacji w kraju.
Podobnie jak poprzednio, uznano, że obecna populacja jest w stanie właściwym i najprawdopodobniej taka sytuacja się utrzyma.
Wartości referencyjne (zasięg i populacja):
Zarówno populacja jak i zasięg, zostały ocenione, jako właściwe. Wartości referencyjne dla obydwu parametrów są zbliżone do aktualnych, tak jak w poprzednim okresie raportowania. Obecny zasięg i populacja zapewnia trwanie populacji w dłuższej perspektywie czasowej.
Siedlisko:
Ocena siedliska nie uległa zmianie i nadal jest ona właściwa.
Gatunek najprawdopodobniej przetrwa w różnych siedliskach antropogenicznych. Niepokój budzi jednak możliwe zanikanie siedlisk rozrodczych naturalnych np.. Związanych z okresowo zalewanymi terenami nadrzecznymi.
Perspektywy ochrony:
Pomimo zagrożeń, oddziaływań i niepokojących trendów w części siedlisk obecne rozmieszczenie, populacja i siedliska pozwalają przypuszczać, że gatunek przetrwa w dłuższej perspektywie czasowej. Ocena perspektyw jest taka sama jak w poprzednim okresie raportowania – FV.
Ocena ogólna:
Ocena ogólna jest taka sama jak w poprzednim okresie raportowania. Wszystkie parametry oceniono obecnie na FV. Należy jednak śledzić wpływ zaniku części naturalnych siedlisk gatunku na stan populacji i zasięgu. Istnieje spore prawdopodobieństwo, że obecna sytuacja może nie być utrzymana przy postępującej degradacji środowiska.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Epidalea calamita"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The new range tool leads to some minor range changes, otherwise range is calculated based on documented finds in Species Observation System - Artportalen. ||
->Population: The reported number of 1*1 grid cells is calculated based on estimated 10*10 grid cells, so likely an overestimation. The inventories are based on the number of tadpoles found, however the dry summer spoiled much of the reproduction, and if we were to just use those numbers, we end up at around 160 adults. However, since we have earlier estimates, and know the ecology of the species, we estimate a higher population. The population is estimated over both the CON and BOR zone, and then the older expert estimate of the BOR zone is subtracted from the CON numbers. ||
->HabInfo: For E. calamita, grazing may be necessary for the habitat to have sufficient quality in many localities. The potential effect on the habitat quality of chytridiomycosis that is now present in many places is still unknown. ||
->Future: Probable slow decline due to lack of browsing. The question here is the effect of chytridomycosis, and how the species will be affected. The fungi is spreading through Swedens amphibian populations, and many ponds are already infected, yet we have little or no data on population effects. ||
->Conclusion: Better inventories makes us more certain of the uncertainties. Also it seems to be stabilizing a bit. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Epidalea calamita"
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: "Epidalea calamita"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: Tendance incertaine (au sens de légèrement négative): la propension de Epidalea calamita à se reproduire dans les pièces d'eau temporaires, avec un cycle de développement larvaire extrêmement court, lui permet d'éviter la compétition avec des espèces liées à l'eau toute l'année (Grenouilles vertes du genre Pelophylax) ou à cycle larvaire plus long (Bufo spinosus, Hyla meridionalis). Cet avantage est contrecarré par deux tendances négatives : le possible recul du Calamite face à la progression naturelle de la forêt, et bien sûr l'urbanisation; et la compétition que lui oppose le Discoglosse peint, au moins en Languedoc-Roussillon. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Epidalea calamita"
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