Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lampetra planeri"
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: "Lampetra planeri"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Rozmieszczenie nadal słabo poznane. Ocena trendów w zasięgu nadal nie jest możliwa ze względu na skąpość współczesnych danych. To samo dotyczy zasięgu referencyjnego.
Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. ||
->Population: Liczbę zajętych pól siatki 1x1 km ustalono zliczając wszystkie pola takiej siatki, które znalazły się wewnątrz dużego pola 10x10 km z warstwy ilustrującej rozmieszczenie gatunku, w których znajduje się rzeka lub jezioro. Uwzględniono wyłącznie pola 1x1 km leżące w granicach Polski.
Ocena trendów nadal nie jest możliwa ze względu na skąpość współczesnych danych. ||
->HabInfo: Z uwagi na skąpe dane o rozmieszczeniu i skąpe dane monitoringowe trudno ocenić, czy powierzchnia i jakość siedlisk są w przypadku minoga strumieniowego czynnikiem ograniczającym w skali regionu. Na trzech stanowiskach gatunku monitorowanych w regionie alpejskim jakość siedlisk określono jako dobrą. ||
->Future: W sytuacji gdy trudno określić aktualny stan zasięgu, populacji i siedliska, perspektywy dla tych parametrów pozostają nieznane.
Na trzech stanowiskach minoga strumieniowego badanych w regionie alpejskim perspektywy dla gatunku można by określić jako dobre (stan siedliska dobry i brak jest poważniejszych zagrożeń w najbliższej perspektywie czasowej). ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie:
Ocena zasięgu i rozmieszczenia oraz trendów tych parametrów nie jest ciągle możliwa ze względu na skąpość współczesnych danych.

Populacja:
Ocena tego parametru nie jest ciągle możliwa ze względu na skąpość współczesnych danych.

Wartości referencyjne (zasięg i populacja):
Niewystarczające dane nie pozwalają na określenie wartości referencyjnych.

Siedlisko gatunku:
Ocena tego parametru nie jest ciągle możliwa ze względu na skąpość współczesnych danych. Ocena przedstawiona w poprzednim raporcie (FV) miała charakter wyłącznie ekspercki. Brak nowych danych weryfikujących tę ocenę skłania do uznania stanu tego parametru za nieznany.

Perspektywy ochrony:
W sytuacji skąpych danych o gatunku w regionie trudno oceniać perspektywy ochrony na poziomie regionu.
Ocena przedstawiona w poprzednim raporcie miała charakter wyłącznie ekspercki. Brak nowych danych weryfikujących tą ocenę skłania do uznania stanu tego parametru za nieznany.

Ocena ogólna:
Stan nieznany XX. Ocena ogólna bez zmian w stosunku do poprzedniego raportu.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lampetra planeri"
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: "Lampetra planeri"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: 6.6 Additional Population size estimates in ind/ha based on a set of 29 sites selected for species(all in Atlantic Flanders).
6.8 Mc Nemar test shows an increase of less than 2%
6.15 Steinmann I., Waterstraat A., Klinger H. & Schütz C. (2006). Kriterien zur Bewertung des Erhaltungszustandes der Populationen des Bachneunauges Lampetra planeri (BLOCH, 1784). In: Schnitter P., Eichen C., Ellwanger G., Neukirchen M. & Schröder E. Empfehlungen für die Erfassung und Bewertung von Arten als Basis für das Monitoring nach Artikel 11 und 17 der FFH-Richtlinie in Deutschland. p. 218-219. Berichte des Landesamtes für Umweltschutz
Sachsen-Anhalt (Halle) . Landesamt für Umweltschutz Sachsen-Anhalt in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Bundesamt für
Naturschutz, Halle (Saale).
6.15 b) 96% of this sites have a population > the reference population of 50/ind/ha. If there is a population, the population is big enough but there still are too less sites with lampetra planeri
Operator = > ||
->HabInfo: 7.1 Area is sufficient but quality and migration barriers are the limiting factor
7.4 More and more habitat becomes available for the species since water quality in general is increasing and migration barriers are gradually removed. However, the overall habitat quality still remains insufficient to allow sustainable populations. ||
->Future: c) Future prospects for population of the species is Poor in Flanders and Good in Wallonie so as long as they are not good for as well Atl Flanders as Atl.Wallonie we consider it as Poor ||
->Conclusion: 11.1 The range has remained stable and is about equal to the reference range.
11.2 Additional Population size estimates in ind/ha based on a set of 29 sites selected for species (all-in Atlantic Flanders) shows that for 96% of these sites the Favourable reference population is reached. Therefore we score U1. (in 2013 we scored U2 because we didn’t have that kind of information).
11.3 The area of habitat that is occupied by the species is too low and habitat quality is insufficient to allow sustainable populations.
11.4 Future prospects can be considered as U1 since slight increase in water quality conditions and efforts to improve river connectivity in recent years. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lampetra planeri"
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: "Lampetra planeri"
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: "Lampetra planeri"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Los cursos fluviales donde se ha registrado la especie en las 3 últimas décadas son el río Deva y el río Cares en Asturias, y el río Ugarana/Orabidea en Navarra. ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: La conservación de esta especie de lamprea en la Península Ibérica a largo plazo depende de la aplicación de medidas de preservación y rehabilitación del hábitat fluvial, así como la designación de nuevas áreas Red Natura 2000 para la protección de tramos fluviales (Ferreira et al., 2013). ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lampetra planeri"
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: "Lampetra planeri"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range was calculated using the range tool provided in the reference portal (http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/habitats_art17) and using a gap distance of 20km.
Repeat surveys of the catchments sampled in 2009-2012 were not carried out in the current reporting period. Instead, additional catchments were sampled to provide further baseline data on the distribution and population size of Lampetra sp. at a national level. Based on expert opinion, and taking account of the combined surveys for both reporting periods, the short-term trend is assessed as stable. While the short-term trend was assessed over the period 2009-2018, this is assumed to hold also for the default trend period of 2007-2018.
There was a decrease in the range between reporting periods. This does not represent an actual decline. In 2013 the Range encompassed the surface area of the state, minus a small number of coastal squares without freshwater, due to the fact that the species was recorded in all channels, from 1st-order streams to large 6th-order rivers. The current Range envelope has been drawn more conservatively around the current distribution.
Targeted electric-fishing surveys for larvae over the period 2009-2018 have demonstrated the widespread availability of suitable habitat (in terms of nursery and spawning habitat requirements) for brook lamprey. Based on these data, in addition to expert opinion, the FRR was estimated as being approximately equal to the current range. ||
->Population: The estimated population size (Field 6.2) was calculated from results of surveys for larval Lampetra sp. for the combined reporting periods (2009-2018). It represents the total number of 1 km grids where Lampetra sp. was recorded.
Two alternative population units (% occurrence and mean density/m2 of larval Lampetra sp. at sites with suitable nursery habitat) were used as part of the monitoring programme for larval lamprey. Based on the Common Standards Monitoring (CSM) guidance for freshwater fauna (JNCC, 2015) a mean density >5/m2 of larval Lampetra sp. in suitable habitat is one of the attribute targets used to assign favourable condition in SACs. Mean density was calculated from targeted electric fishing surveys of 1204 sites (1158 sites with suitable habitat) within 30 SAC and non-SAC catchments over the period 2009-2018 (https://www.fisheriesireland.ie/Projects/habitats-directive-and-red-data-book-fish-species.html). A mean density of 8/m2 larvae was obtained suggesting a favourable condition within the biogeographic area. Another target from the CSM guidance is that, as a minimum, Lampetra should be present in not less than 50% of all sampling sites surveyed with suitable habitat present within the natural range. Of the 1158 sites with suitable nursery habitat, Lampetra sp. occurred at 813 (70%) sites, again, suggesting a favourable condition.
The unit used to calculate population size has changed from ‘number of 10x10 km grids’ in the previous cycle to ‘number of occupied 1x1 km grids’. A repeat survey of the catchments between the previous and current reporting periods was not carried out. Instead, additional catchments were sampled to provide further baseline data on the distribution and population size of L. planeri at a national level. The short-term trend direction was based on expert opinion. While trend was assessed over the period 2009-2018, it is assumed to hold also for the default trend period of 2007-2018.
The change in the reported population size was due to the change in unit.
Based on data from an extensive targeted sampling programme for larval Lampetra sp. over the period 2009-2018, and best expert judgement, the FRP for brook lamprey is estimated at approximately equal to the current population (Field 6.2). ||
->HabInfo: Adult brook lamprey require well-oxygenated gravelled areas for spawning in the main channels and tributaries of rivers. Nursery habitat in the form of fine sands/silts in depositional areas is required for the larval life stage.
Habitat was assessed as part of the electric fishing surveys for larval lamprey in 2009-2018. Of the 1204 sites sampled, a high proportion (96%, n=1158) had suitable nursery habitat for brook lamprey. A smaller proportion (56%, n=678) of these sites were visually assessed for adjacent spawning habitat and, of these, 60% (n=406) had suitable habitat. Sites typically ranged in length from 20-50 m and it follows that only a localised assessment was possible for a given length of channel. Results give an adequate indication, however, of the availability of habitat types for these two major life stages of L. planeri.
While repeat surveys were not carried out in this reporting cycle, additional sites were sampled within SAC and non-SAC catchments. In combining these surveys, expert opinion assesses the short-term trend in area and quality of habitat as stable. While the trend was assessed over the period 2009-2018, it is assumed to hold also for the default trend period of 2007-2018. ||
->Future: The sampling programme for brook lamprey indicates that it has a widespread distribution with sufficiency of area and quality of habitat. While not reported here, data on population dynamics indicates a self-sustaining population with no recruitment issues. Depending on the catchment, the pressures and threats will have variable localised effects and have been assessed as having medium-level impacts. ||
->Conclusion: Target and non-target surveys for brook lamprey over the current reporting period indicate favourable status for each of the parameters of Range, Population and Habitat and, based on available evidence, L. planeri is predicted to maintain itself at favourable conservation status for the foreseeable future. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lampetra planeri"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Zowel door waterschappen (o.a. vanuit de KRW) als RAVON is meer onderzoek uitgevoerd naar het voorkomen van de soort t.o.v. de voorgaande periode. Hierdoor is de beekprik op meer plaatsen aangetroffen. In de Reusel is een herintroductieproject gestart waaruit natuurlijke voortplanting is voortgekomen (er kan echter nog niet van een duurzame populatie worden uitgegaan). In het Dommel-Keersop systeem lijkt de soort zich uit te breiden, dit kan echter ook een effect van de groter onderzoeksinspanning zijn.
De trend van de range is vastgesteld door te kijken naar de trend in verspreiding van 10x10 km-hokken over de periode 2006-2017. Deze trend houdt rekening met waarnemingendichtheid in ruimte en tijd, en geeft bovendien een foutenmarge, zodat de significantie van de trends kan worden getoetst. Deze trend is daarmee betrouwbaarder dan het verschil tussen het aantal hokken in de vorige en deze rapportage: dat aantal hokken wordt namelijk ook sterk beïnvloed door zwervers of kortdurende vestigingen, of door een lagere of juist hogere waarnemingsintensiteit (bijv. door doelgerichte SNL- inventarisaties). Zo kan het dus zijn dat het aantal hokken is toegenomen (in dit geval van 22 naar 29), dat dit een werkelijke verandering is, maar dat de trend toch als stabiel wordt berekend. ||
->Population: Vorige keer in individuen gerapporteerd, nu in km-hokken.
Zowel door waterschappen (o.a. vanuit de KRW als RAVON is meer onderzoek uitgevoerd naar het voorkomen van de soort t.o.v. de voorgaande periode. Hierdoor is de beekprik op meer plaatsen aangetroffen. In de Reusel is een herintroductieproject gestart waaruit natuurlijke voortplanting is voortgekomen (er kan echter nog niet van een duurzame populatie worden uitgegaan). In het Dommel-Keersop systeem lijkt de soort zich uit te breiden, dit kan echter ook een effect van de groter onderzoeksinspanning zijn. De populatietrend is berekend door het CBS op basis van verspreidingsgegevens (1x1 km) uit de NDFF, aangevuld met gegevens uit het NEM. ||
->HabInfo: Geschikt habitat voor de soort is beperkt en in veel gebieden versnipperd aanwezig. Bovendien worden deze habitats bedreigd door factoren als verdroging en lozingen van verontreinigde stoffen (meststoffen, chemische afvalstoffen). De afgelopen jaren zijn er veel meldingen van illegale chemische lozingen (drugsafval, er is een mestsilo geknapt lang de Geul en afgelopen zomer (2018) bleek dat verdroging een groot risico is voor de beekprik.
Ten opzichte van de vorige periode is de habitattrend nog als stabiel ingeschat omdat door de waterbeheerders gewerkt is aan habitatherstelmaatregelen. Ondanks genoemde (potentiële) negatieve effecten kan daarom gesteld worden dat er geen achteruitgang in habitat is opgetreden. ||
->Future: Verdroging, watervervuiling, beeknormalisatie en intensief beekonderhoud vormen ook in de toekomst nog een bedreiging voor de vaak relatief kleine en versnipperd aanwezige beekprikpopulaties. Bij calamiteiten (lozingen, droogval, te intensief baggeren) kunnen lokale populaties verdwijnen . De duurzaamheid van beekprik populaties in Nederland is hierdoor in het verleden sterk achteruit gegaan. Veel populaties zijn tegenwoordig nog steeds kwetsbaar voor o.a. onnatuurlijke verdroging. Omdat populaties vaak maar zeer lokaal aanwezig zijn (vaak in één beek)
is de kans op locale en regionale extinctie groot.
Aan de andere kant zijn er in de periode 2012-2017 stappen gezet door de inspanningen van de waterbeheerders waaruit bleek dat het verspreidingsgebied van beekprik in een aantal stroomgebieden toenam. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lampetra planeri"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: It is not possible to distinguish between Brook and River lamprey juvenilles (amnocetes), so many records are at the Lampetra genus level. Therefore, there is inherent uncertainty in the Brook lamprey distribution, in England the distribution is thought to be under-represented. ||
->Population: Currently there is not enough information for this species to assess true population size and trends, and, therefore to set an FRP. It is not possible to distinguish between river lamprey and brook lamprey at the ammocoetes life stage. Although ammocoete density measures are available for many rivers, ammocoetes cannot be identified to species. ||
->HabInfo: Brook lamprey have complex habitat requirements as their eggs are laid in well oxygenated gravels, the ammocoetes require soft sediments and upstream migratory passage, with relatively low flow velocities and turbulence, must be maintained for adults. These factors, combined with the widespread distribution of brook lamprey, make a detailed assessment of habitat quality trends impossible at the present time ||
->Future: N/A ||
->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 unknown; and (ii) the Favourable Reference Population is unknown.
Conclusion on Habitat for the species reached because: (i) 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 unknown.
Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future prospects for Range are good; (ii) the Future prospects for Population are unknown; and (iii) the Future prospects for Habitat for the species are unknown.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unknown because three of the conclusions are Unknown.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Population - unknown, and Habitat for the species - unknown.
The Overall assessment of Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the conclusion for Habitat for the species has changed from Favourable to Unknown and the conclusion for Future Prospects has changed from Favourable to Unknown.
The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the Habitat for the species trend has changed from stable to unknown [note that the reason for change is due to less information/accuracy or certainty in the information available].
||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lampetra planeri"
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: "Lampetra planeri"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Improved data coverage. ||
->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: "Lampetra planeri"
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: "Lampetra planeri"
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: Better indicator for population assessment would be relative density of ammocetes, not absolute number.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lampetra planeri"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Alpine region is included in Boreal since ALP is marginal occurrence ||
->Population: LC on national red list 2015; probably misidentified as L. fluviatilis in some inventories, Population size for Lampetra planeri was estimated based on the frequency of occurrence (not density) from the SERS (Electrofishing in rivers and streams) reported for all regions (CON, BOR and ALP) for 1995-2018. For ALP region the frequency of 0.040 individuals for the period 2013-2018 was divided to the frequency of 0.011 ind. the previous period 2007-2012 and multiplied with the number of individuals reported for 2013 (range 10 000 to 50 000). These values provided a range of 36364 and 181818 number of individuals with a current estimate of 109091 (average of the range) for the rivers and streams in the ALP region for Lampetra planeri in 2018. For BOR region the frequency of 0.11 individuals for the period 2013-2018 was divided to the frequency of 0.089 ind. the previous period 2007-2012 and multiplied with the number of individuals reported for 2013 (range 3 800 000 to 7 500 000). These values provided a range of 4 696 629 and 9 269 663 number of individuals with a current estimate of 6 983 146 (average of the range) for the rivers and streams in the BOR region for Lampetra planeri. The current value for BOR and ALP was reported as one value by adding up the current estimate for the two regions (ALP: 109091 + BOR: 6 983 146) 7 092 237 for Lampetra planeri in 2018.

To estimate current population size in the required reporting format (km2) the following procedure was done in ArcGIS. First a Range Map is constructed using the Range Tool, then a layer displaying water occurrences is applied (From SMHI, For freshwater:  surface areas for lakes (object ID 50), dams (Object ID 51) and larger watercourses (Object ID 60), and lines for rivers (Object ID 10,11) and channels (Object ID 30,31); for Baltic Sea the SMHI water basin map). Finally a grid with 1km2 squares is applied and for all biogeographic regions the number of 1 km2 squares that is within the species range and contains water is counted. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: No trend given in 2013 report since then considered FV ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: ETC’s (2018) range tool is used to generate a standardized grid map and to calculate the range. The distribution is based on verified reports from several datasources in Analysportalen (https://www.analysisportal.se; excerpt made in 2018), complimented with commercial landings in 2017 for Vendace and whitefish in MBAL, and adding previous reported range for all species when expert judgement (Reference group for fishes; Mikael Svensson, SLU artdatabnken, Erik Degerman SLU Aqua, Zeynep Peckan Hekim, SLU Aqua, Ann-Britt Florin SLU Aqua, Micael Söderman, Sportfisheries organisation) deemed that the species most probably where still in the area although nobody had reported it during the last assessment period since there had been no monitoring in the area. The short term trend was estimated comparing size of range in 2013 report and current report. For fish only populations reproducing within the biogeographical region and within Sweden’s territorial boundaries are counted. This means that for MBAL only the populations in the coastal area is counted. Furthermore for anadromous fish only the part of the population migrating into rivers for spawning is counted. This means that salmon in the Skagerrak/Kattegat area is assessed in the BOR and CON region and not in MBAL or MATL.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lampetra planeri"
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: "Lampetra planeri"
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: "Lampetra planeri"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Because we have increased significantly information about the current and past distribution of brook lamprey, the range for period 2007-2012 was recreated according the current knowledge and compared with current one. The range surface for last reporting period was assessed as 22300 sq. km.
The current range surface was estimated as 22100 sq. km and the short-term trend has been evaluated as stable. ||
->Population: Because we have increased significantly information about the current and past distribution of brook lamprey, the population size for the last reporting period (2007-2012) was recreated according the current knowledge. The population size for the last reporting period was assessed as 319 grids 1x1 km and 148 grids 10x10 km.
The current population size has been estimated larger (452 and 176, respectively). However the short-term trend seems to be increasing, we assume that population size in past and current reporting periods are similar and the increase is only due to increased intensity of brook lamprey mapping. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: There is established intensive monitoring framework of brook lamprey population in Czech Republic with more than 108 sampling sites surveyed twice during reporting period.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lampetra planeri"
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: "Lampetra planeri"
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: "Lampetra planeri"
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: "Lampetra planeri"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: The estimate of population size is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. The population estimate is provided as a range whose minimum and maximum values are thus calculated:
• Minimum: as the intersection between the 1x1km grid, the main hydrographic network and the species' 10x10km distribution.
• Maximum: as the intersection between the 1x1km grid, the whole hydrographic network (the main plus the secondary till the 3rd order) and the species' 10x10km distribution. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lampetra planeri"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Historically widespread species in most of the rivers in Luxembourg, but nowadays the range is about 2/3 of the FRR ||
->Population: Based on monitoring data and experts' opinion, 471 grids 1x1 are occupied by the species ||
->HabInfo: Habitat area and quality are insufficient, due to pollution of rivers, high fine sediment charge, missing natural hydromorphological conditions (mainly gravel and sand banks), artificialisation of rivers and ecological discontinuity between habitat types ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Historically widespread species, occupying nowadays a range of only 2/3 of the FRR; habitat area and quality are insufficient, due to pollution of rivers, high fine sediment charge, missing natural hydromorphological conditions (mainly gravel and sand banks), artificialisation of rivers and ecological discontinuity between habitat types ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lampetra planeri"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Nieznaczny wzrost zasięgu minoga strumieniowego w regionie kontynentalnym wynika z poprawy stany wiedzy o rozmieszczeniu gatunku, wynikającej m.in. z wykorzystania danych monitoringowych oraz dużej, aktualnej i kompletnej bazy danych dotyczących rozmieszczenia gatunków (Kotusz J, De Wever A (2017). Freshwater fishes of Poland. Version 2.2. BioFresh. Occurrence dataset https://doi.org/10.13148/bfcf8 accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-07-10)
Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. Różnica w powierzchni w stosunku do poprzedniego raportu wynika głównie z zastosowania IT-tool. ||
->Population: Liczbę zajętych pól siatki 1x1 km ustalono zliczając wszystkie pola takiej siatki, które znalazły się wewnątrz dużego pola 10x10 km z warstwy ilustrującej rozmieszczenie gatunku, w których znajduje się rzeka lub jezioro. Uwzględniono wyłącznie pola 1x1 km leżące w granicach Polski. ||
->HabInfo: W ocenie eksperckiej powierzchnia i jakość aktualnie zajmowanego siedliska są wystarczające do przetrwania gatunku. ||
->Future: Szeroki zasięg, stabilny trend w populacji gatunku, dobra jakość i duża powierzchnia siedlisk, brak silnych oddziaływań i zagrożeń pozwalają uznać, że perspektywy ochrony dla poszczególnych parametrów są również są właściwe. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie:
Nastąpiła poprawa stany wiedzy o rozmieszczeniu gatunku, wynikająca m.in. z wykorzystania danych monitoringowych oraz dużej, aktualnej i kompletnej bazy danych dotyczących rozmieszczenia gatunków (Kotusz J, De Wever A (2017). Freshwater fishes of Poland. Version 2.2. BioFresh. Occurrence dataset https://doi.org/10.13148/bfcf8 accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-07-10). Odnotowano nieznaczny wzrost liczby stanowisk minoga strumieniowego w regionie kontynentalnym. Ocena stanu zasięgu bez zmian w stosunku do raportu 2013 -_FV.

Populacja:
Nieznaczny wzrost liczby poznanych stanowisk gatunku w ostatnich latach (głównie dzięki prowadzonym monitoringom GIOŚ) może być interpretowany jako związany ze wzrostową tendencją w populacji, na skutek polepszenia stanu wiedzy.

Wartości referencyjne (zasięg i populacja):
Właściwy stan zasięgu i populacji wynikające z ocen ekspertów oraz ze zwiększenia ilości danych dokumentujących występowanie gatunku w regionie można przyjąć za odpowiadające wartościom referencyjnym. W poprzednim raporcie obie wartości referencyjne określono jako nieznane.

Siedlisko gatunku:
Parametr oceniony jako właściwy przez ekspertów prowadzących monitoring, zwykle wyżej niż pozostałe parametry. Rezultaty monitoringu dostarczyły nowych danych uzasadniających zmianę oceny.

Perspektywy ochrony:
Właściwe oceny aktualne zasięgu, populacji i siedliska pozawalają uznać, że perspektywy ochrony również są właściwe. Brak istotnych oddziaływań i zagrożeń. Ocena perspektyw ochrony bez zmian w stosunku do raportu 2013 -_FV.

Ocena ogólna:
Stan gatunku ocenia się aktualnie jako właściwy FV, na co wskazują oceny wszystkich parametrów. W raporcie 2013 była ocena niższa U1, wynikająca z niezadowalającej oceny stanu siedliska.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lampetra planeri"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Previous reference value 17 100 based on current value 2013; difference between 2013 and 2018 due to new method & better knowledge. ||
->Population: LC on national red list 2015, probably misidentified as L. fluviatilis in some inventories. Population size for CON region the frequency of 0.054 individuals for the period 2013-2018 was divided to the frequency of 0.066 ind. the previous period 2007-2012 and multiplied with the number of individuals reported for 2013 (range 230000 to 500000). These values provided a range of 188 182 and 409 091 number of individuals with a current estimate of 298 636 (average of the range) for the rivers and streams in the CON region for Lampetra planeri in 2018.

To estimate current population size in the required reporting format (km2) the following procedure was done in ArcGIS. First a Range Map is constructed using the Range Tool, then a layer displaying water occurrences is applied (From SMHI, For freshwater:  surface areas for lakes (object ID 50), dams (Object ID 51) and larger watercourses (Object ID 60), and lines for rivers (Object ID 10,11) and channels (Object ID 30,31); for Baltic Sea the SMHI water basin map). Finally a grid with 1km2 squares is applied and for all biogeographic regions the number of 1 km2 squares that is within the species range and contains water is counted. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: No trend given in 2013 report since then considered FV ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: ETC’s (2018) range tool is used to generate a standardized grid map and to calculate the range. The distribution is based on verified reports from several datasources in Analysportalen (https://www.analysisportal.se; excerpt made in 2018), complimented with commercial landings in 2017 for Vendace and whitefish in MBAL, and adding previous reported range for all species when expert judgement (Reference group for fishes; Mikael Svensson, SLU artdatabnken, Erik Degerman SLU Aqua, Zeynep Peckan Hekim, SLU Aqua, Ann-Britt Florin SLU Aqua, Micael Söderman, Sportfisheries organisation) deemed that the species most probably where still in the area although nobody had reported it during the last assessment period since there had been no monitoring in the area. The short term trend was estimated comparing size of range in 2013 report and current report. For fish only populations reproducing within the biogeographical region and within Sweden’s territorial boundaries are counted. This means that for MBAL only the populations in the coastal area is counted. Furthermore for anadromous fish only the part of the population migrating into rivers for spawning is counted. This means that salmon in the Skagerrak/Kattegat area is assessed in the BOR and CON region and not in MBAL or MATL.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lampetra planeri"
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: "Lampetra planeri"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: The estimate of population size is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. The population estimate is provided as a range whose minimum and maximum values are thus calculated:
• Minimum: as the intersection between the 1x1km grid, the main hydrographic network and the species' 10x10km distribution.
• Maximum: as the intersection between the 1x1km grid, the whole hydrographic network (the main plus the secondary till the 3rd order) and the species' 10x10km distribution. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lampetra planeri"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: 5.11 Mateus et al (2013) describe three new species from L.planeri, that represent a complex of cryptic species, which occupy sub-basins that were described (last report) as belonging to the range of L.planeri. ||
->Population: 6.16 Mateus et al (2013) describe three new species from L.planeri, that represent a complex of cryptic species, which occupy sub-basins that were described (last report) as belonging to the range of L.planeri. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report