Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Liparis loeselii"
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: "Liparis loeselii"
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: "Liparis loeselii"
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: "Liparis loeselii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Liparis loeaselii in the Alpine region is stable, and the observed reduction is due to improved taxonomic knowledge as several populations are now attributed to Liparis kumokiri subsp. nemoralis. ||
->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. Field 6.2. Minimum calculated as all 8 occupied cells contain 1 single ramet; maximum calculated as all 8 occupied cells contain 50 ramets, which is the size of the largest known population. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Change of the overall conservation status is due to the fact that several populations should be ascribed to L. kumokiri subsp. nemoralis, which further reduce the overall population of Liparis loeselii ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Liparis loeselii"
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: "Liparis loeselii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: We took the number of grids 1x1 km as the minimum number of individuals. ||
->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: "Liparis loeselii"
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: "Liparis loeselii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: 5.10 Favourable reference range includes the Coastal Dunes ||
->Population: 6.2 Counts of flowering and non-flowering shoots (counts for location Haazop in 2013 (n=2989) and for location Buitengoor in 2015(n=323))
6.8 Huge annual fluctuations in population-size due to groundwater fluctuations at the location (Haazop) of the largest of the two populations makes trend direction uncertain. 2017 and 2018 surveys showed a dramatic decline in the largest of the two populations (location Haazop).
6.15 Only two population of which one with very large fluctuation doesn’t guarantee the long term survival (recent decline from 3300 in 2013 tot 40 individulas in 2018 at the Haazop population)
6.16 Highly fluctuating annual numbers ||
->HabInfo: 7.4 One new population in Buitengoor.
Groundwater fluctuation at the site of the largest population is too high for long time survival.

Van Landuyt et al. (2014). Groenknolorhis (Liparis loeselii) in Vlaanderen. Ecologie, populatiedynamica en potenties. Rapporten van het Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek 2014 (INBO.R.2014.2942320). Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek, Brussel.https://pureportal.inbo.be/portal/nl/publications/groenknolorchis-liparis-loeselii-in-vlaanderen(a30b8cd1-fbb8-4734-b686-baf5aedf1b6b).html ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: 11.2 & 11.6 Biggest population in Haazop declined from 3000 individuals in 2013 to 40 individuals in 2018. Population in Buitengoor is stable (about 250 individuals).
11.4 Largest of the two populations is at the edge of extinction.
11.7 Long periods of drought in spring causes declines in the largest of the two populations in Flanders (Haazop), the groundwater level in the population in Buitengoor is more stable. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Liparis loeselii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Methodik zur Ermittlung der Populationsgröße in EU-Einheit: Übernahme aus DE-Einheit ||
->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: "Liparis loeselii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: Le phénomène de sécheresse va probablement s'accentuer dans les pannes dunaires, ce qui laisse présager une perte de surface et de qualité d'habitat donc une baisse d'effectifs à l'horizon 2030 ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Liparis loeselii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: In de periode 2006-2012 is de inventarisatieinspanning (vanuit NEM) lager geweest dan beide omliggende perioden, daarom nu een hogere range. ||
->Population: De populatietrend is berekend door het CBS op basis van verspreidingsgegevens (1x1 km) uit de NDFF, aangevuld met gegevens uit het NEM.
Dit is een soort met grote variatie in (bloeiende en dus telbare) individuen. Ik heb de aantalsschattingen over 6 jaar gedaan door de beschikbare hoogste schattingen van individuele populaties bij elkaar op te tellen. Hoewel je daarmee een landelijk dekkend beeld krijgt, kan het voorkomen dat er op een aantal plekken precies geteld is tijdens een populatiedip. Daarmee is het dus geen echt betrouwbare schatter. Ik zie geen reden of heb geen aanwijzingen om aan te nemen dat de populatie-omvang echt afneemt, dat zou dus mijn eindoordeel zijn. Zeker omdat het een algemenere soort is die zeker op het niveau van km-hokken goed dekkend wordt waargenomen blijft de trend in het aantal km-hokken een goede ondersteunende schatter van een stabiele populatie-omvang. ||
->HabInfo: Door natuurbeheer gericht op het ontstaan van eerdere successiestadia (in trilveen en duinvallei) is er in veel natuurterreinen meer geschikt habitat aanwezig. Vormen van cyclisch beheer waar deze soort van profiteert zijn meer gangbaar geworden in het terreinbeheer. ||
->Future: Bij voortzetting van huidige beheer in natuurterreinen kunnen zowel range, habitat als populatie worden behouden. In de verre toekomst zou verzilting in verband met zeespiegelstijging een rol kunnen gaan spelen.
RWS heeft plannen voor zoet-zout gradiënt in de Grevelingen, maar voorlopig is de inschatting dat er op landelijke schaal geen serieuze krimp van de populatie zal optreden. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Liparis loeselii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The 'increasing' short term trend recognises the re-establishment of fen orchid on a new dune slack at Whiteford National Nature Reserve (NNR) in Wales. It had been lost from this dune system in the previous reporting round. ||
->Population: Due to the species' ecology, there are significant flucutations in population size across years. Counts of fen orchid have shown an increase in the number of individuals across the current reporting period, but has not reached parity with historic levels. ||
->HabInfo: Fen orchid are restricted to open slack habitats. Over stabilisation of dune systems has led to a decline in suitable habitat. Work is ongoing to increase sufficiency of habitat, including creation of early successional dune slacks. ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Positive - increasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; Future trend of Population is Very Positive - increasing >1% (more than one percent) per year on average; and Future trend of Habitat for the species is Positive - slight/moderate improvement. For further information on how future trends inform the Future prospects conclusion see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document. ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is increasing; and (ii) the current Range surface area is more than 10% below 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 more than the Favourable Reference Population.
Conclusion on Habitat for the species reached because: (i) the area of occupied and unoccupied habitat is unknown and (ii) the habitat quality is inadequate 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 bad; (ii) the Future prospects for Population are good; and (iii) the Future prospects for Habitat for the species are unknown.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-bad because two of the conclusions are Unfavourable-bad and one is Unknown.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - increasing, Population - increasing, and Habitat for the species - unknown.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status has not changed since 2013.
The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the Range trend had changed from decreasing to increasing, the Population trend has changed from decreasing to increasing, the Habitat for the species trend has changed from decreasing to increasing. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Liparis loeselii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Each shoot, flowering or nonflowering have taken as individual even some of them might be clonal some times. There are only some locations with population abundance exeeding 1000 individuals. covering almost half of total population of Estonia. Only very approximate estimation of population size of these larger sparsely distributed populations can be done. Most of other nearly 160 populations vary in size up to 200 individuals. Notable annual fluctuation in population size exists. ||
->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: "Liparis loeselii"
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: "Liparis loeselii"
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: "Liparis loeselii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Belogrudova I., Grauda D., Lapina L., Jakobsone G., Roze D., Ornicāns R., Rashal I. 2018. Genetic diversity of Latvian Liparis loeselii population. Proceedings of the Latvian Academy of Sciences. Section B Natural, Exact and Applied Sciences” 72(6): 341‒348 - information about genetic diversity of different populations and factors increasing populations stability and polymorfism.
Jakobsone G., Osvalde A. 2019. Peculiarities of Calcium and Iron Effects on Some Wild Terrestrial Orchids In Vitro Compared to In Vivo. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology – Plant 55 (1): 121‒131 (DOI: 10.1007/s11627-019-09959-5); ISSN online: 1475-2689, print: 1054-5476 (Scopus un Thomson Reuters Master journal list (Web of Science)) = the results indicates that species has relatively higher adaptation potential to growth in habitats with different pH levels and describes methods for species preservation in vitro.

Researches and monitoring data shows that number of individuals decreases in several locations. Only in some cases in past the extinction of species in some locations is reported, while new locations has been discovered time by time. No references population size is known. ||
->HabInfo: The habitat quality has not improved. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: No data prove neither a significant decline, nor increase of the population within the last six years (2013-2018), except natural fluctuations. Several new species localities were discovered within the reporting period, the species has been declining in some sites where monitored. ||
->Other: The species in Latvia is mostly found in transitional mires (7140), mostly on lake shores, in alkaline fens (7230) and in some cases in fens on the petrifying springs with tufa formation if covered by fen vegetation (7220*), in populations where the number of individuals vary from few to several hundreds. Some large populations are found in abandoned dolomite, gravel and peat quarries. The populations in transitional mires and undisturbed natural fens are not significantly threatened, except some natural disturbances, e.g. casual disturbances by animals, beaver-caused hydrological modifications, etc., while the populations occurring in alkaline fens are in some cases threatened by hydrological modifications (e.g. drainage, lowering of lake water table), changes in vegetation induced by natural succession (overgrowing with shrubs, reed, etc.) due to lack of appropriate management (abandonment) or modifications in water table or beaver activities. In a long-term perspective, the site conditions may become unsuitable for the species due to natural succession (e.g. natural succession of lakes, gradual transformation toward raised bog vegetation, etc.).

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Liparis loeselii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: FRR year = 1995. ETC’s (2018) range tool was used to generate a standardized grid map and to calculate the range. Observations registered in the national species database Artportalen (www.artportalen.se) were used to assess the distribution of the species. Sites monitored by flora guardians are included in the database. Changes compared with previous assessments are primarily due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data. Range slightly reduced cf. 2013 mainly because of higher accuracy of coordinates and that grid squares in the sea have been omitted. ||
->Population: Population size was estimated based on regional monitoring programmes. Most of the data has been accessed through the national database Artportalen (www.artportalen.se). More detalied quantitaive information indicate a much higher number of plants than previously known, especially since the largest population was found to contain around 80% of the Swedish population in 2017 (150 000 then, but perhaps a very good year for establishment since the proportion of juvenile, non-flowering plants was 90%). In northern Uppland and south-eastern Gästrikland, where the vast majority of the population and most sites occur, a majority (average of 55% at 11 sites in Uppsala county during seven yrs in 2011-2017) of the plants are juvenile and non-flowering. An anlysis of the number of plants during the first and last year they were surveyed indicates a slight increase by 4900 plants (3-20% depending on whether the largest site is included or not) in the number of plants during an averge span of seven years at 133 sites (or 11 yrs for 85 sites surveyed more than once).

The only reason for the population not being assessed as favourable is the loss of the then largest known population on Gotland (Millumträsk), probably due to drainage and over-grazing, between the mid-1980s to mid-1990, originally containing up to 10 000 plants. ||
->HabInfo: Since the species is not subjected to any major human intrusion or exploitation activities, or known diseases, it is assumed that the insufficient population size is a consequence of a reduced suitability of the habitat, i.e. the habitat has a reduced area and/or quality.

That habitat quality and future prospects being insufficient depends mainly on that several of the southernmost sites show signs of decreasing populations (e.g. at the sole site of Östergötland county), and from some of the sites on Öland the species may have disappeared during the past decade (Ulla-Britt Andersson, pers.com.). Also some populations furter north are deteriorating for yet unknown reasons. 7 M-ranked recorded pressures and threats suggest that the Habitat for the species is Inadequate-poor. ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as ‘poor’ or ‘bad’ to ‘good’. Consequently, the assessment of future prospect is equal to the current conservation status for all parameters. ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines. Changes compared with previous assessments are primarily due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Liparis loeselii"
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: "Liparis loeselii"
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: "Liparis loeselii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Methodik zur Ermittlung der Populationsgröße in EU-Einheit: 1. Ermittlung der durchschnittlichen Anzahl (bester Einzelwert) adulter Weibchen der Monitoringflächen mit unterem und oberem Wert des Konfidenz-intervalls (Minimum- und Maximum-Wert)
2. Produkt aus durchschnittlicher Anzahl (bester Einzelwert) adulter Weibchen sowie Minimum- und Maximum-Wert pro Monitoringfläche und Anzahl Vorkommen und Faktor 2 (Verdoppelung, damit Männchen mit berücksichtigt werden) ||
->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: "Liparis loeselii"
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: "Liparis loeselii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: Seules des mesures efficaces de renaturation hydrologique et prise en compte de l'hydrologie à échelle du bassin versant peuvent garantir la stabilité de la population dans le contexte de changement climatique actuel. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Liparis loeselii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Field 6.2. Minimum calculated as all 4 occupied cells contain 1 single ramet; maximum calculated as all 4 occuied cells contain 50 ramets, which is the size of the largest known population. ||
->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: "Liparis loeselii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Podana w pkt. 5.1. wartość zasięgu jest większa od raportowanej w roku 2013 (52404 km kw.) i wyliczona została z użyciem nowego narzędzia. ||
->Population: Ad.6.2. W poprzednim raporcie (2013) podano większe wartości: 40000 i min. i 60000 i - maks. populacja. Wyniki tego monitoringu wskazują, że populacja gatunku w ostatnich latach uległa istotnemu obniżeniu.
Ad. 6.15. W poprzednim raporcie referencyjną wielkość populacji (FRP) określono na poziomie 40 000 - 60 000 osobników. Obecnie jako wartość referencyjną przyjęto minimum tj. 40 000 osobników. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: W raporcie 2013 parametr populacja uzyskał ocenę U1, natomiast w raporcie 2019 ocenę tę obniżono do złej (U2), co wynika z uwzględnienia wyników prac monitoringowych wykonanych w latach 2013 i 2017. W trakcie tych badań stwierdzono znaczne pogorszenie się wkaźników ilościowych u większości zbadanych populacji gatunku, a co jest szczególnie niepokojące, na części stanowisk nastąpił już całkowity zanik populacji. Na dołączonych do monitoringu stanowiskach ("nowych") stan populacji gatunku był bardziej zróżnicowany. Na niektórych były to populacje liczebnie duże, ale na innych widoczne były wyraźne objawy ich zaniku, wyrażające się zwłaszcza małą liczbą rosnących osobników. W raportach 2013 i 2019 oceny parametów siedlisko i perspektywy ochrony są takie same. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Liparis loeselii"
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: "Liparis loeselii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: FRR year = 1942. ETC’s (2018) range tool was used to generate a standardized grid map and to calculate the range. Observations registered in the national species database Artportalen (www.artportalen.se) were used to assess the distribution of the species. Sites monitored by flora guardians are included in the database. Changes compared with previous assessments are primarily due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data. Range slightly reduced cf. 2013 mainly because of higher accuracy of coordinates and that grid squares in the sea have been omitted. ||
->Population: Population size was estimated based on regional monitoring programmes. Most of the data has been accessed through the national database Artportalen (www.artportalen.se). In the continental region, the total population at the seven remaining sites seems to have been stable oven the past 15 yrs. This is mainly because of restoration activities and management at two of the sites that have led to increases, while at the other five sites the populations are at best stable or decreasing (see figures in the Word-file 'Conservation status & trend of vascular plant species in Sweden' that includes documentation of the assessements). All known populations in Skåne have been visited and counted annually since the mid-1990s by the Flora guardians. ||
->HabInfo: Since the species is not subjected to any major human intrusion or exploitation activities, or known diseases, it is assumed that the insufficient population size is a consequence of a reduced suitability of the habitat, i.e. the habitat has a reduced area and/or quality. Even though the total populations has remained stable during the past 12 yrs (due to the restoration and proper mangement of today's largest population), there is a decreasing population tendency at the majority of the sites (mostly due to lack of proper management, remaining ditches and eutrophication). This is the reason behind the assessment of a decreasing habitat quality of the species. 2 H- and 5 M-ranked recorded pressures and threats suggest that the Habitat for the species is Inadequate-bad. ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as ‘poor’ or ‘bad’ to ‘good’. Consequently, the assessment of future prospect is equal to the current conservation status for all parameters. ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines. Changes compared with previous assessments are primarily due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Liparis loeselii"
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: "Liparis loeselii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: Les tendances futures sont inconnues; la valeur stable est liée à un problème informatique. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Liparis loeselii"
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: "Liparis loeselii"
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