Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Euphydryas aurinia"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: There is a need for further exploration, the data available is outdated
and insufficient. ||
->Population: The FRP is more than the current population size based on historic records and expert opinion. There is a need for further exploration and data update for there are significant data gaps in Tyrol, Styria and Carinthia. The data available is outdated and insufficient. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: Expert opinion ||
->Conclusion: The trend of range is stable, the population trend is unknown (due to data gaps) and the habitat shows a deteriorating trend due to intensified cultivation, therefor the trend in conservation status is unknown, following the matrix of ANNEX B of the report format. There is a high demand for additional field research. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Methodik zur Ermittlung der Populationsgröße in EU-Einheit: Übernahme Länderangabe ||
->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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: W bioregionie alpejskim znane jest tylko jedno stanowisko gatunku, które zostało w ostatnim czasie lepiej rozpoznane (od 2014 jest w sieci monitoringu) pod względem jego granic. Obejmuje ono powierzchnię ok. 2 km2 . Trudno określić referencyjną wielkość zasięgu.
Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. ||
->Population: W bioregionie alpejskim znane jest tylko jedno stanowisko/populacja gatunku. Nie można też wykluczyć znalezienia kolejnych, choć wydaje się to dość mało prawdopodobne. Trudno określić referencyjną wielkość populacji.
Jedyne znane stanowisko zajmuje powierzchnię 2 km2. Jest to równocześnie wielkość populacji szacowana w liczbie pól siatki 1x1 km. ||
->HabInfo: Jakość siedliska na jedynym znanym w bioregionie stanowisku został uznany jako dobra w dwu seriach badań monitoringowych 2014 i 2017. Badania monitoringowe wskazują też na stabilność siedliska na tym stanowisku.
Niemniej jednak trudno powiedzieć, czy powierzchnia zajętego siedliska jest wystarczająca aby gatunek przetrwał w dłuższej perspektywie czasowej. ||
->Future: Badania monitoringowe pozwalają sądzić, że perspektywy populacji jak i siedliska rysują się dobrze w odniesieniu do jedynego znanego w bioregionie stanowiska. jednak w skali całego regionu należy je określić jako nieznane dla wszystkich parametrów. ||
->Conclusion: W poprzednim raporcie dokonano oceny w oparciu o dane z jednego stanowiska i biorąc pod uwagę izolację populacji określono stan gatunku jako niezadowalającą. Obecna ocena XX wynika ze zmiany podejścia do oceny. Z uwagi na marginalne występowanie gatunku w regionie alpejskim, powinno się oceniać stan gatunku jedynie w skali regionu kontynentalnego. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: W okresie od poprzedniego raportu w bioregionie alpejskim nie znaleziono żadnego innego stanowiska gatunku.. Bioregion alpejski ma marginalne znaczenie dla ogólnokrajowych zasobów gatunków.
W poprzednim raporcie dokonano oceny w oparciu o dane z jednego stanowiska i biorąc pod uwagę izolacje populacji określono stan gatunku jako niezadowalająca. Obecna ocena XX wynika ze zmiany podejścia do oceny. Z uwagi na marginalne występowanie gatunku w regionie alpejskim, powinno się oceniać stan gatunku jedynie w skali regionu kontynentalnego.

Uwaga: Jedyne znane aktualnie stanowisko znajduje się na obszarze N2000.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Zakšek B., Verovnik R., Zakšek V., Kogovšek N., Govedič M., Šalamun A., Grobelnik V., Lešnik A. (2017): Monitoring izbranih ciljnih vrst metuljev v letu 2017. Center za kartografijo favne in flore, Miklavž na Dravskem polju. 102 str.

Short-term trend population decrease of Euphydryas aurinia due to wet sub-populations decrease. ||
->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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Methodik zur Ermittlung der Populationsgröße in EU-Einheit: Übernahme der Popgröße DE ||
->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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Les faibles effectifs de certaines populations dans le nord du domaine rendent le maintien de l’espèce incertain car vulnérable. ||
->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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The Marsh Fritillary can potentially occur throughout Ireland as its food plant (Succisa pratensis) is recorded from virtually every hectad and the habitats occupied by the species are not limited by climate or geology. There are, however, areas where the species has always been scarce or absent including the north-east (covering counties Meath, Louth, southern Monaghan and eastern Cavan), the south (Waterford, south Wexford, south Kilkenny and the coastal regions of Cork), much of Co. Kerry, western Mayo and northern and eastern parts of Donegal (compare maps in Ní Lamhna, 1980; Heath et al., 1984; Lavery, 1993; Asher et al., 2001; Fox et al., 2006; Nash et al., 2012).
The map for the previous assessment covering the period 1995-2012 showed 239 occupied hectads. The map for this assessment for 2007-2018 has 314 occupied hectads, a net increase of 75 hectads.
Given the scale of the change in occupied hectads over the short term, the trend is assessed as increasing. Genuine increase appears to be occurring in the western counties, with colonies being discovered in areas where the species has never been recorded before. In other areas, especially in the eastern and midland counties, there has been an increase in the number of occupied hectads and this is considered to be a combination of genuine increase, natural shifts in the occupied sites in response to the availability of habitat, and improved knowledge through survey effort. There is too much uncertainty and lack of precision in the data to estimate the magnitude of the trend. This uncertainty also applies to long-term trend, which is assessed as uncertain. ||
->Population: There has never been a population estimate for the Marsh Fritillary and one is unlikely to ever be produced. The biology of the species is such that there is no stage in the life cycle stage that can meaningfully be used to produce a population estimate. Counts of adult butterflies along monitoring transects is an accepted and reliable method for determining population trends but perform poorly for this species due to its short flight period and metapopulation colony structure. As transect counts use fixed routes they are inefficient when breeding areas move around an area of habitat. The Irish Butterfly monitoring scheme has been running for over 10 seasons but as there are fewer than 10 transects with Marsh Fritillary an index cannot be calculated.
Counting Marsh Fritillary webs in autumn provides an effective method of monitoring breeding performance and an assessment of habitat quality on each site, and in the long term it is hoped that a reliable trend in population will be produced from these counts. A dedicated Marsh Fritillary web count project run by the NBDC commenced in Ireland in 2015. This has not been running long enough to produce a reliable trend. However, with four years of data, the trend, although highly uncertain, suggests a stable population trend. However, because of the short time series and the high level of uncertainty, it is unwise to extrapolate from this to a national level.
Given that the range has increased over the 2007-2018 assessment period, population measured by 1km occupancy has also increased. The short-term trend is therefore assessed as increasing.
The trend for the long term is assessed as uncertain. The short-term trend in the last assessment was uncertain. Expert opinion in the Red List assessment was that the species was declining but there is too much uncertainty and lack of precision in the long-term data to determine a long-term trend. ||
->HabInfo: Marsh Fritillary colonies can be found on many types of site and the habitat it occupies can be difficult to define. The presence of Succisa pratensis is an essential factor. This plant species is very widespread, occurring in virtually every hectad in Ireland. Theoretically the Marsh Fritillary could also occupy this range. What prevents occupancy of apparently suitable habitat is not known, but a key aspect may be connectivity of sites: sites may be too isolated from the nearest colonies for them to be occupied within a viable metapopulation.
As the Marsh Fritillary occupies the landscape in a metapopulation structure there is a need for a network of sites within a region to allow the species to survive in the long term. In England the figure of 50ha of suitable habitat within an area of 16km2 is indicated by Bulman et al. (2007). The modelling suggests that the species may persist in areas with less than the minimum amount of habitat for decades but will eventually go extinct if there is no additional habitat provided. More information is needed on this aspect in Ireland.
Marsh Fritillary colonies occur in many habitats that have short to medium height vegetation (10-25cm is optimal) with abundant Succisa pratensis. Sites typically have a hummocky topography. Colonies are found in the following Annex I habitats: 2130 Fixed dunes (grey dunes), 2190 Humid dune slacks, 21A0 Machair, 4010 Wet heath, 6210 Orchid rich/calcareous grassland, 6410 Molinia meadows, 7120 Degraded raised bogs, 7140 Transition mires and 7230 Alkaline fens; and in the following Fossitt habitats: GS4 Wet grassland, PB4 Cutover bog, HH3 Wet heath, PF1 Rich fen and flush, GS1 Dry calcareous and neutral grassland, HH2 Dry calcareous heath, PF2 Poor fen and flush, GS2 Dry meadows and grassy verges, PF3 Transition mire and quaking bog, GS3 Dry-humid acid grassland, CD3 Fixed dunes, CD6 Machair, PB2 Upland blanket bog, CD5 Dune slacks, ER2 Exposed calcareous rock, and HH4 Montane heath. However many colonies exist in sites that do not fit in these categories or are examples that are not considered of high quality. Most Marsh Fritillary sites in Ireland are therefore undesignated.
Information on management of sites is limited. Grazing is a common practice on many sites but a significant proportion appears unmanaged or only subject to occasional management. Many different types of management create and maintain sites in suitable condition for the Marsh Fritillary, from natural exposure on western islands and headlands, to wet and low-nutrient conditions creating the low-growing vegetational structure, extensive grazing, responses to disturbance (for example burning or peat extraction) and land abandonment. Sites therefore often come into suitable condition after cessation of a management practice. The Marsh Fritillary Monitoring Scheme gathers data on habitat quality. This has not been running long enough to produce a reliable trend but the four-year trend is stable.
Given the evidence that the Range is increasing in the short term and short-term trend in Population is increasing, the trend in Habitat for the species is also assessed as stable. There is insufficient information to determine a long-term trend. ||
->Future: The Range and Population of the Marsh Fritillary in Ireland are assessed to have increased over the short term. However robust data on these trends, especially Population, are lacking. The key to maintaining the species across the range is the sufficiency of habitat patches to maintain the colony structure. The implication from the increase in range is that currently there is a sufficient habitat resource and it is not a limiting factor.
The significant pressures affecting Marsh Fritillary in Ireland are related to habitat quality and its extent and there is no reason to consider that they will reduce in the foreseeable future. As the impact on the species is not direct and immediate it may be some time before there is an observable reduction in range.
The majority of the habitats that the Marsh Fritillary is associated with are declining and in poor conservation status. The majority of the range and occupied sites are also found in undesignated sites and receive no protection. It is expected that the area of habitat will decline and that this will have an impact on range and population over the next 12 years.
The impact of the pressures may increase as habitat patches become more fragmented and isolated and metapopulations cease to function. The pressures could be mitigated by implementation of appropriate policies at the landscape level to address the needs of the species. At the site level, conservation measures are well understood, especially to improve and maintain the quality of habitat. However there is a lack of management action specifically for the species currently in Ireland. ||
->Conclusion: Range is Favourable and has shown an increasing trend in the short term. The species is present in all the areas it has been present in since 1994 but there has also been genuine spread into areas where there have not been previous records.
Population is also assessed as Favourable reflecting the increase in Range.
Habitat for the species is also assessed as Favourable as the species has been able to spread and the range is being maintained.
Future prospects have been assessed as Unfavourable as there are no effective landscape-scale management measures in place to prevent loss of metapopulations and maintain the availability of suitable habitats.
Range and Population have both increasing trends and Habitat is stable, so leading to an Improving Overall trend in Conservation Status. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Euphydryas aurinia"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: 6.12 - According to Maravalhas (2003), the species is very dispersed and has large populations, especially in mountainous areas. In more urbanized areas and on the coast, where human pressure is greatest, it is declining. Being the ATL region quite urbanized, it is very likely that there has been a decline in this biogeographical region but not evaluated. ||
->HabInfo: The Gerês area has habitats of adequate quality for the species, in opposition to the coastal and periurban areas. ||
->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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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 - 62,933km2. The FRR in 2013 was 60,833km2. 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 has been set as 'Less than' for this species as there have been increases over the short-term trend period in Wales and Northern Ireland. This species experiences substantial variations among years within single populations and among multiple populations in a single year (Zimmermann et al. 2011). Large variations are expected over time due to metapopulation dynamics. In some cases, rates of population turnover are so great that small, fragmented habitats may not be viable in the long term (Hula et al. 2004, Schtickzelle et al. 2005). ||
->HabInfo: The sufficiency of the quantity and quality of habitat for the species varies across its distribution, with insufficiency reported in Wales and England. ||
->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 Negative - decreasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average. 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 not less than the Favourable Reference Population.
Conclusion on Habitat for the species reached because the sufficiency: (i) of the area of occupied and unoccupied habitat is unknown and (ii) of 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 poor; and (iii) the Future prospects for Habitat for the species are poor.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-inadequate because two of the conclusions are Unfavourable-inadequate.
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 – stable.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status has not changed since 2013.
Overall trend in Conservation Status has not changed since 2013. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: Number of records increased in comparison with the previous report, but the quality of habitats decreased. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: No thresholds stated. ||
->Other: The species should be much common and number of localities larger. The species was found mainly during the focused inventories of protected territories. A butterfly is not conspicuous and, opposite to bright-coloured species, is not easy distinguishable from other nymphalid species. Species conservation plan should be developed.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Euphydryas aurinia"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range is calculated from observations recorded in Swedish Species Observation System, 'Artportalen'. Known range has increased since 2013 due to new reports from previously unknown localities.
The range of Euphydryas aurinia started to decline in Sweden already in the second half of the 20th century and has resulted in extinction in parts of its former range. It is hard to detect any decrease during the last 24 years, but when extending the period 50 years back some losses have occurred.
FRR same as 2013. ||
->Population: Population is calculated from data reported by the public and monitoring programs financed by authorities. Data accessed from Swedish Species Observation System, 'Artportalen'. Data from a representative time frame is used to calculate the number of localities present. From monitoring programs data can population sizes from certain localities can be estimated. By multiplying these two assessments, a value of the total population is attained.
Population was 2013 reported as adult individuals (mandatory). Adult individuals were calculated from the monitoring parameter larval colonies. In 2019 the monitoring parameter larval colonies are used, instead of adult individuals, in additional population size 6.4, trends, and FRP.
A decline in population is probable due to ongoing overgrowth of localities in some areas and extensive grazing in others. However, there is a increase in reported population size due to better knowledge. There is also a change due to modified additional reporting unit. ||
->HabInfo: The species occurs in wet grassy meadows or in fens.
The habitat of the species have gradually declined during the 20th century. The habitat has deteriorated due to changes in management of pastures but also in changes in forestry. Drainage of fens and wet pastures have also affected habitat negatively. On the islands of Öland and Gotland the habitat is still sufficient. The loss of habitats have been largest on the mainland and a large part of the population is today restricted power line clearings. The habitats here occur as patches in areas with mineral rich soil and are often close to small streams, wetlands or surfacing ground water where the bedrock comes close to the ground surface.
The area and quality is probably decreasing due changes in grassland management. So the assessment is; area ‘decreasing’ / quality ‘decreasing’ on short term as well as long term.
The species is not severely fragmented according to IUCN criteria. ||
->Future: Current status is bad for population and inadequate for range and habitat. Population and habitat have a negative short-term trends. Restoration of the species habitat is a relatively slow process so if habitat reduction ceases the situation will probably not change much over a relative short period of 12 years. Thus future prospect is similar to present conclusions. A deterioration in the aftermath of the extremely bad year 2018 due to drought and local intensive grazing is possible. ||
->Conclusion: Changes compared to previous report. Range has a higher category (Inadequate) due to an increase in known range, which is over 90% of FRR. This don't change the overall conservation status. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: E. aurinia is redlisted vulnerable (VU) in Sweden (2015), same as in earlier redlists (2000, 2005, 2010). Suggested redlist category 2020 is vulnerable (VU).

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Euphydryas aurinia"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: The figures given are optimistic as they result from the addition of a six year cycle, while the number of remaining populations has fallen to 5 populations in 2018 ||
->HabInfo: Some Life projects have increased the area of suitable habitats and would permit long-term survival; however habitat networks are not sufficient on every remaining metapopulations ||
->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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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 (Minimum Reduktion auf besetzte 10x10grid-Viertel) ||
->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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The range and the trends are based on observations of the species (no species distribution modelling). Butterflies are well surveyed in the FRR of the species and the short-term trend reported in 2019 is a genuine change.
The value reported in 2013 was based on a species distribution model. There are too few observation in 2013-2018 to make a model. In addition, the range has been calculated using a different resolution (grids5x5). The change in reported values is therefore due to the use of different methods. ||
->Population: The species have been well targeted in Luxembourg for decades. A decrease has been observed in the number of both occupied sites and individuals by sites. No species distribution model could be done (unlike in 2013) due to the low number of species observations. ||
->HabInfo: The species is originally found in farmland, forest and industrial wastelands (dry grasslands). The decline of the species has been observed in all these habitat types. The decline in habitat quality is steeper in farmland and forest areas, and could not be countered in industrial wastelands despite the designation as nature reserves. ||
->Future: All trends in parameters are declining, and there is a lack of measures efficiently targeting the species. ||
->Conclusion: This species, close to the extinction in Luxembourg, disappeared from farmland and forest habitats. Last individuals were observed in industrial wastelands covered by the Natura 2000 network. Conservation measures are lacking in farmland and forest habitats. Conservation measures in nature protection areas are not sufficient to counter the decline. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Euphydryas aurinia"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Wiele stanowisk zostało odkrytych dopiero w ostatniej dekadzie np. w Puszczy Knyszyńskiej, które są najdalej wysuniętymi na północ stanowiskami we wschodniej Polsce (zasięg uległ pozornemu powiększeniu), ale nie jest to wynikiem ekspansji. Jednocześnie udokumentowane jest wyginięcie gatunku na niektórych izolowanych stanowiskach w zachodniej części zasięgu (lub istnieje duże prawdopodobieństwo, że do wyginięcia doszło), a więc zasięg może się w rzeczywistości kurczyć.
Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. ||
->Population: W okresie od poprzedniego raportowania znaleziono kolejne stanowiska gatunku w czasie różnych prac o charakterze inwentaryzacyjnym, ale kilka innych znanych populacji z dużym prawdopodobieństwem zanikło. W perspektywie długoterminowej nie ulega wątpliwości, że doszło do lokalnych ekstynkcji, szczególnie w zachodniej części zasięgu, ale także w Puszczy Białowieskiej (obszar N2000). Wydaje się w związku z tym, że referencyjna populacja powinna być większa niż obecna.
Szacując wielkość populacji w liczbie zasiedlonych pól siatki 1x1 km, założono, że liczba zasiedlonych pól 1x1km jest o ok. 25% większa od liczby stanowisk (ekstrapolacja). ||
->HabInfo: Z danych monitoringowych wynika, że w przypadku wielu stanowisk obserwuje się degradację siedlisk będącą wynikiem intensyfikacji użytkowania lub też jego braku. ||
->Future: Wiele stanowisk gatunku zostało znalezionych dopiero w ostatnich kilkunastu latach, a w związku z tym trudno prognozować ewentualne zmiany zasięgu. Wydaje się, że najbardziej zagrożone będą marginalne/izolowane populacje położone na zachodnich krańcach. Na większości stanowisk brakuje celowych i efektywnych zabiegów ochronnych, co sprawia że perspektywy dla siedliska, a co za tym idzie i populacji nie są najlepsze. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie: W okresie od poprzedniego raportu zasięg uległ rozszerzeniu na północny-wschód co jest efektem odkrycia stanowiska w Puszczy Knyszyńskiej. Zmiana ta jednak jest wynikiem poprawy stanu wiedzy. Jednocześnie obserwuje się proces zanikania gatunku na zachodnich krańca zasięgu. Proces ten jest widoczny jednak bardziej przy analizie danych z odleglejszych przeszłości, które są przy tym mniej precyzyjne ze względu ogólnie gorszy stan wiedzy. Obecne rozpoznanie nie również jeszcze prawdopodobnie kompletne, ale zdecydowanie lepsze. Ogólna ocena zasięgu (U1) nie uległa zmianie w porównaniu z poprzednim raportem.
Populacja: Wielkość populacji w poprzednim raporcie określono szacowaną liczbą stanowisk, a w obecnym liczbą zasiedlonych kwadratów 1x1km siatki geograficznej oraz dodatkowo liczbą stanowisk, która to liczba nie uległa raczej zmianie (biorąc pod uwagę pozorne przyrosty oraz lokalne ekstynkcje. Należy również pamiętać o sezonowych wahaniach liczebności – przykładowo sezon ostatniej serii badań monitoringowych (2017) sprzyjał większym liczebnościom, co może nieco zacierać rzeczywisty obraz. Ocena pozostaje na poziomie U1.
Wartości referencyjne (zasięg i populacja): Trudno określić referencyjną wielkość zasięgu jak i populacji, ale wydaje się, że powinny być większe niż obecne z uwagi na lokalne ekstynkcje na zachodnich granicach zasięgu.
Siedlisko gatunku: Stan siedliska określono jako niezadowalający w oparciu o prace monitoringowe prowadzone w latach 2014 i 2017. Ocena bez zmian (U1).
Perspektywy ochrony: Ocena U1, identyczna jak w poprzednim raporcie. Na większości monitorowanych stanowisk perspektywy gatunku są niezadowalające, głównie z uwagi na brak celowych/skutecznych zabiegów ochrony czynnej, choć wydaje się, że sytuacja ta zaczyna się nieco poprawiać (więcej stanowisk z zabiegami ochrony czynnej).
Ocena ogólna: Ogólny stan ochrony gatunku ocenia się podobnie jak w raporcie 2013 (U1).
Uwaga: Zdecydowana większość aktualnie monitorowanych stanowisk znajduje się na obszarach N2000.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: La valeur de l’air a baissé de près de 37% par rapport au dernier rapportage, mais il s’agit peut-être d’une mauvaise remonté des données ou d’une baisse des prospections. ||
->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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Sampling localities were visited only once in 2014 and 2015. In absence of time series data, we considered (a) expert opinion of known population localities since 2007, (b) population localities from the Greek butterfly atlas and other bibliographic or unpublished records, (c) the proportion % of species presence in the localities visited in 2014 and 2015 (filtering only for adequate localities in terms of phenology), in order to provide an estimation of minimum and maximum population size (population classes).
The population size in 6.2.d has been calculated in GIS using spatial information from the distribution data (10x10 km or smaller grids if additional data were available). Following the conversion of the available data in 1x1 km grid unit, marine or terrestrial grid cells have been deleted and thus excluded from the calculation, depending on the biogeographical region where the species occurs (MED or MMED, respectively). ||
->HabInfo: The surface area of the habitat is estimated at 701 km2, the area of suitable habitat is 1924 km2 and its quality is unknown. ||
->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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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: "Euphydryas aurinia"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: 6.12 - E. aurinia populations appear to show some stability in the northern and central mountain ranges. In contrast, it appears to have experienced a slight decline in the mid-altitude areas of the entire range and a moderate decline in the low-altitude, coastal and peri-urban areas. ||
->HabInfo: E. aurinia populations associated with mountainous areas occurs in well preserved habitats, in opposition to the coastal and periurban areas. Continuous distribution in some Protected Areas with predominance of forest areas but fragmented distribution in most of the range and very fragmented on the coast, especially in the Algarve. The urban expansion of the last decades is responsible for the significant loss of habitat in the lowlands. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Distribution - According to Maravalhas (2003), the species is distributed throughout the national territory. However, the species does not appear to have the same distribution pattern in Alentejo, where it seems to be very localized, being almost exclusively in mountainous areas where there are patches of preserved native vegetation.

The distribution map presented took into consideration the data collected for the period 2013-2018, as well as part of the squares presented in the previous report for which no recent observations were collected but considered as areas of current occurrence of the species. The data come from localized works and occasional personal communications, and there is no systematic prospecting of the species. Only in mid-2018, as part of the Red List of Invertebrates project, did systematic exploration work begin, with particular focus on classified areas, but the results of which will only be reflected in the next report.

The project "Red List for Terrestrial and Freshwater Invertebrate groups in mainland Portugal" started in mid-2018. This operation will be carried out over 3 years, covering the entire national territory of the continent, with particular focus on Sites of Community Importance (SCI)and on terrestrial and freshwater invertebrate species belonging to the annexes of the Habitats Directive but the results will only be reflected in the next report.
The main objectives of this project are:
(a) assess the conservation status, according to IUCN criteria, of species for some terrestrial and freshwater invertebrate taxonomic groups in mainland Portugal;
(b) to fill knowledge gaps in terrestrial and freshwater invertebrate species protected by the Habitats Directive to enable conservation status to be assessed under that Directive;
c) to elaborate and publish the Red List of Terrestrial and Freshwater Invertebrate groups of mainland Portugal in physical and digital support;
d) create a websig platform for storing information, publishing and disseminating results.
This operation will be carried out over 3 years, covering the entire national territory of the continent, with particular focus on Sites of Community Importance (SCI)and on terrestrial and freshwater invertebrate species belonging to the annexes of the Habitats Directive but the The results will only be reflected in the next report.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Euphydryas aurinia"
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