Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lopinga achine"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The FRR is more than the current range based on historic records and expert opinion. ||
->Population: The FRP is more than the current population size based on historic records and expert opinion. ||
->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 a change in forest cultivation and management, therefor the trend in conservation status is unknown, following the matrix of ANNEX B of the report format. The reason of change being a more adequate data analysis, misleadingly called 'more accurate data’, for there is still additional field data to be researched. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lopinga achine"
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: "Lopinga achine"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: It´s trend is unknown, as the only population present at Alpine region was discovered in 2018. For the moment it has not been ecologically studied. ||
->Population: It´s trend is unknown, as the only population present at Alpine region was discovered in 2018. For the moment it has not been ecologically studied. ||
->HabInfo: The only population present at Alpine region was discovered in 2018. For the moment it has not been ecologically studied. So, trends, sufficiency of the area and the quality of the habitat remains unknown. Apparently there is a large area of unoccupied habitat, but microclimate conditions could have an important role and just very limited places could have the perfect conditions. ||
->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: "Lopinga achine"
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: "Lopinga achine"
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: "Lopinga achine"
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: "Lopinga achine"
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: "Lopinga achine"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: No monitoring of this species established on a national level. ||
->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: "Lopinga achine"
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: "Lopinga achine"
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: "Lopinga achine"
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: "Lopinga achine"
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: "Lopinga achine"
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: "Lopinga achine"
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: "Lopinga achine"
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: No data to justify thresholds. ||
->Other: The species was not included as a species to be monitored in the Natura 2000 sites, therefore information on species population, habitats etc. is approximate.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lopinga achine"
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 Lopinga achine started to decline in Sweden already in the early 20th century and resulted in extinction in parts of its former range in boreal and continental region. It is hard to detect any genuine decrease in range during the last 24 years, not even extending the period 50 years back. The reference value for range (FRR) has been raised in comparison to the previous reporting period, this to acquire a less fragmented distribution and to spread risks (e.g. synchronous population fluctuations). ||
->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 complete monitoring every 5:th year was used for estimating population size in Östergötaland. From Gotland monitoring program of population sizes from certain localities were used to estimate total population size.
A decline in population is detected in the complete surveys done every 5:th year in Östergötaland, Gotland seems to be fairly stable. The decline in population is within the range of reported individuals. Thus, there is no major change compared to 2013 in the number of reported individuals. Population was 2013 reported as individuals, 2019 this parameter is used in the additional population size 6.4, trends, and FRP. ||
->HabInfo: L. achine is divided into two separated populations in the Swedish boreal region, one on the mainland, and one on the island Gotland. The typical habitat in Östergötland is partly open oak woodland with hazel. This habitat is an often a successional stage after cutting and grazing. The habitat on Gotland is different, being partly open coniferous forest with a well-developed scrub layer.
The main threat to the species occurrences on the mainland today is that the majority of the sites are unmanaged. The area and quality is probably decreasing due changes in forest and grassland management. So the assessment is; area ‘decreasing’ / quality ‘decreasing’ on short term as well as long term. The habitat on Gotland is on the other hand probable stable.
The species is not severely fragmented according to IUCN criteria. ||
->Future: Current status is bad in range and population and inadequate for 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, however habitat will get bad future prospects according to guidelines. ||
->Conclusion: No changes compared to previous report. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: L. achine is divided into two separated populations in the Swedish boreal region, one on the mainland, and one on the island Gotland. The mainland population is threatened while the population on Gotland is judged to have a favourable conservation status. Thus, several of the judgements here is compromises.
L. achine is redlisted as near threatened (NT) in Sweden (2015), same as in earlier redlists (2000, 2005, 2010). Suggested redlist category 2020 is near threatened (NT).

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lopinga achine"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The FRR is more than current range based on historic records and expert opinion. ||
->Population: The FRP is more than the current population size based on expert opinion. ||
->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: "Lopinga achine"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Methodik zur Ermittlung der Populationsgröße in EU-Einheit: Hochrechnung aus Länderangaben in DE- und EU-Populationseinheit ||
->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: "Lopinga achine"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Pour la Franche-Comté il ne se dégage pas une tendance à la régression très marquée. L’analyse des cartes par décade ne montre pas de régression significative en dehors de sa disparition en Haute-Saône où l’espèce était historiquement déjà très localisée, et ce malgré la présence d’habitats en apparence favorables mais sans doute trop froids et humides.
Pour le Doubs et le Jura, il ne semble pas y avoir de tendance très fiable non plus : cette espèce précoce est parfois difficilement détectable si l’on ne se prête pas à une recherche ciblée. Mais le noyau jurassien semble encore stable et dynamique, probablement en partie grâce à une architecture paysagère accidentée où s’installent des mosaïques de pelouses enfrichées et de forêts souvent sans grande valeur sylvicole. Dans la partie septentrionale du Jura et le Doubs, les populations sont plus fragmentées et réduites. ||
->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: "Lopinga achine"
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: "Lopinga achine"
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: "Lopinga achine"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Gatunek o słabo rozpoznanym rozmieszczeniu. Aktualny zasięg gatunku nieznany (to samo dotyczy zasięgu referencyjnego). W ciągu ostatniej dekady obserwuje się wzrost liczebności gatunku, co przyczynia się do zasiedlania nowych stanowisk, a tym samym do stopniowego powiększania zasięgu.
Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. ||
->Population: Aby określić wielkość populacji w obowiązujących jednostkach – polach siatki 1x1 km, przyjęto w uproszczeniu, że jedno takie pole odpowiada jednemu stanowisku gatunku, rozumianemu jako izolowany obszar na którym obserwowano motyle. Szacowana liczebność dorosłych motyli na stanowisku to 50-200 osobników.
W ciągu raportowanego okresu notowany jest wzrost liczebności populacji gatunku, którego przyczyny nie są znane. Mogą one być wynikiem zarówno zmian klimatycznych jak i mniejszego wpływu organizmów ograniczających liczebność populacji. ||
->HabInfo: Powierzchnia właściwego siedliska, którym są lasy liściaste i mieszane, jest duży i w dłuższej perspektywie nie należy spodziewać się jego ograniczenia czy istotnej degradacji. Także rośliny pokarmowe, głównie turzyce nie są zagrożone, a główna roślina pokarmowa gąsienic – turzyca drżączkowa (Carem brizoides) jest nawet w ekspansji. ||
->Future: Biorąc pod uwagę aktualny właściwy stan zasięgu, populacji i siedliska oraz brak istotnych oddziaływań i zagrożeń perspektywy dla wszystkich 3 parametrów określono jako dobre. ||
->Conclusion: Zmiany w stosunku do poprzedniego raportu są nieznaczne, tak wiec praktycznie można uznać, że sytuacja jest stabilna ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie:
Zasięg wykazuje niewielką tendencję wzrostową, doszły dwa nowe stanowiska, ale potencjalnych stanowisk jest wiele i stopień zasiedlania nowych miejsc może być większy niż wynika to z obserwacji terenowych (zbyt mała liczba obserwatorów). Ocena stanu zasięgu (FV), taka jak w raporcie 2013.
Populacja:
W ostatnim okresie obserwuje się wzrost populacji, który wynika z większej częstotliwości notowań gatunku. Należy jednak podkreślić, że osadnik wielkooki nie jest łatwym obiektem do obserwacji, gdyż jest to gatunek leśny i zastosowanie standardowej metody transektu nie daje się w jego przypadku zastosować. Ocena parametru (FV) bez zmian w stosunku do raportu 2013.
Siedlisko gatunku:
Siedlisko gatunku w skali mezoregionów geograficznych jest stabilne, a przy obecnie prowadzonej gospodarce leśnej siedliska pozostają w zasadzie bez większych zmian. Ocena parametru (FV) bez zmian w stosunku do raportu 2013.
Perspektywy ochrony:
Perspektywy ochrony wydają się aktualnie dobre (FV). W poprzednim raporcie była ostrożna ocena XX.
Ocena ogólna:
Ocena ogólna: Stan gatunku oceniono podobnie jak w poprzednim raporcie z 2013 r. jako właściwy.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lopinga achine"
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: "Lopinga achine"
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: "Lopinga achine"
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: "Lopinga achine"
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: "Lopinga achine"
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: "Lopinga achine"
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: "Lopinga achine"
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