Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lucanus cervus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: There is too little data available for an evaluation of trend direction. ||
->Population: There is too little data available for an evaluation of trend direction. ||
->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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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. ||
->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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Species has strongly decreased its range when compared to the range reported in 2013. Comparison is made with the period 2000-2012 as in 2007-2012 the presence of the species was poorly investigated in some areas in the recent past.

FRR range is much >> than current range as the species has strongly declined in range since 1994. Also the G-IHD propose a larger range. ||
->Population: The species declined in the latest decades and several populations were lost. However, we cannot pinpoint the exact period of decline as data from 2000 -2012 is scarce for some areas. Consequently, period in 6.7 is a bit broader ||
->HabInfo: This species depends on half open mainly managed habitats and is in Flanders mainly restricted to gardens, sunken lanes and old orchards. Within gardens, it was often found in railway sleepers used at steep slopes but this habitat mainly disappeared completely in the last decades. Also in urban parks and other public green facilities, the effort to manage and maintain the habitat is still limited. Finally, severe habitat loss is often the result of constructing new houses and gardens, rarely for intensification of agriculture. At some populations efforts have been made to restart management of the habitat and creation of new (but artificial) habitat but till know these efforts do not outweigh habitat loss. ||
->Future: Despite a species action plan will be written in 2019 for Flanders and likely brought into practice between 2020-2025, it will likely not render a sufficient change to expect that the CS of the population and range will improve.
The habitat of the species can be improved locally and within a limited amount of time with the help of a species action plan or specific measures. However, it might be very difficult to manage and maintain the habitat in gardens and to halt habitat loss due to urbanisation. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Given the rarity of the species and the low density in the given area, no data have been received from 1 of 5 distribution areas, whereas there is an increase in data from the other four areas. ||
->Population: Last time population size was given in individuals, this time it is in grid cells.
De echte populatiegrootte (in individuen, in relatie tot de FRP) is onbekend, omdat er alleen een inschatting gemaakt kan worden op basis van losse waarnemingen.
De populatietrend is ingeschat door de expert op basis van de beschikbare gegevens. De gegevens uit het NEM waren onvoldoende voor het berekenen van een (statistisch betrouwbare) trend.
Alternatieve eenheid (individuen) is gebaseerd op de aanname dat elk km-hok (238) een populatie bevat en dat een populatie minimaal 10 en maximaal 130 individuen bevat. Dit maximum aantal is gebaseerd op Schut et al. (2014). ||
->HabInfo: Habitat needs to be managed in the right way for the stag beetle.
De grootte van het beschikbare habitat is voldoende, maar de kwaliteit ervan hangt sterk af van het beheer ter plaatse. De kwaliteit is nu niet voldoende bekend. De grootte van het bezet leefgebeid lijkt nu goed te zijn, en wellicht voldoende voor een duurzaam behoud van het vliegend hert in Nederland. Maar door de lange ontwikkelingsduur, met een ondergronds larvenstadium van 4 jaar en de slechte verspreidingscapaciteit, is de soort extreem gevoelig voor beheerfoutjes. Het verwijderen van dood hout zorgt voor een teloorgang van de populatie. Nog in de jaren 1990 kwam het vliegend hert bijvoorbeeld voor op de Utrechtse heuvelrug, door foutief beheer is ze verdwenen en is ze niet in staat om op eigen kracht dit gebied opniew te koloniseren, daarvoor is de afstand (>20 kilometer) tot de dichtstbijzijnde populatie te groot. ||
->Future: Er worden geen grote positieve of negatieve veranderingen verwacht. Vooral met het gebrek aan kennis over de populatiegrootte is het moeilijk om betrouwbare inschattingen te maken. De range is afhankelijk van het beheer en voldoende ontwikkelingshabitat nabij bestaande populaties vanwege de beperkte verspreidingscapaciteit van de soort. Over populatieomvang is geen zinnig woord te zeggen omdat we niet weten hoe groot een gemiddelde populatie is, de enige anekdotsiche informatiie die we hebben is uit 2014 van de populatie bij de Sint Jansberg, hier zijn in één seizoen 135 dieren geteld. Maar onduidelijk is of die populatie stabiel is, vooruit of juist achteruit gaat. Hiervoor is gestandardiseerde monitoring nodig. De toekomstpersepectief van geschikt habitat valt of staat bij een juits beheer en op korte afstand van bestaande populaties. In grote delen van Nederland is geschikt habitat aanwezig in de vorm van dood (eiken)hout, maar het vliegend hert kan er simpelweg niet komen vanwege de beperkte verspreidingscapaciteit. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lucanus cervus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: 6.12 - Although in distribution areas of the species local people tend to say that in past the species was much more abundant (Grosso-Silva 1999), the data available for this period (1994-2018) do not allow to infer with certainty about its population tendency. ||
->HabInfo: 7.1.a) - Sufficient area but habitat quality within the occupied area is variable.

7.4 - Comparing results from the latest forest inventories (2005, 2010 and 2015), the oak area had increased slightly (north and center) but this increase corresponds to young stands that do not yet correspond to the habitat of L. cervus (large trees and dead wood). On the other hand, fires that have occurred in recent years in the center of the country have negatively affected the habitat of the species.

Lucanus cervus is associated with forest habitats, mainly deciduous forests with large trees, but can also be found in urban and periurban areas, as long as they are forested with species that meet the ecological requirements of the species (Soutinho et al. 2017). Larvae seem to have a clear predilection for decaying oak wood, with a high preference in Portugal for Quercus robur,- existing however records in wood of other species including conifers such as Pinus spp. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: In 2016 VACALOURA.pt project was implemented, a citizen science project 100% volunteer, which aims to involve citizens in the conservation of Lucanus cervus and other species of the Lucanidae family (Lucanus barbarossa, Dorcus parallelipipedus e Platycerus spinifer) existing in Portugal, by compiling data on the distribution and status of populations as well as environmental education.
It was born from a partnership between the Associação Bioliving, Unidade de Vida Selvagem do Departamento de Biologia (Universidade de Aveiro), Sociedade Portuguesa de Entomologia (SPEN) and Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e das Florestas (ICNF),a result of a shared interest. and the joining of different valences and areas of action of each entity for the conservation of these species (Soutinho et al. 2017).
Data collected over the three years of the project have doubled the known distribution area of L. cervus in Portugal. These data also allowed to understand the patterns of temporal activity of this species in the wild, relevant information for future monitoring and conservation studies of the species. Another goal is to get enough information to determine the main factors threatening the populations of this species in Portugal in order to devise more effective conservation strategies. There has also been a strong focus on environmental education and awareness activities to encourage the involvement of citizensin the conservation of this species and its habitat (Soutinho et al. 2017).

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lucanus cervus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: There is no systematic way of assessing the habitat for the species required by stag beetles. This is due to the species' preference for damp, decaying timber subterranean habitats upto 50cm underground, mainly in broadleaved woodlands, and urban locations generally not open for scrutiny (such as decaying wood of artifical structures/fence posts and in compost heaps in gardens). Despite this, expert opinion suggests that the area and quality of occupied habitat for the species is sufficient. ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Population is Overall stable; and Future trend of Habitat for the species is Overall stable. For further information on how future trends inform the Future Prospects conclusion see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document. ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Population reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Population size is stable; and (ii) the current Population size is not less than the Favourable Reference Population.
Conclusion on Habitat for the species reached because: (i) the area of occupied habitat is sufficiently large and (ii) the habitat quality is suitable 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 good; (ii) the Future prospects for Population are good; and (iii) the Future prospects for Habitat for the species are good.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Favourable because all of the conclusions are Favourable.
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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 increase is mainly due to better knowledge about prior unknown localities. Locally an expansion of range might be in progress due to warmer climate, i.e. genuine change.
FRR same as 2013. ||
->Population: Population is calculated from data reported by the public and monitoring programs financed by authorities. Data from a representative time frame is used to calculate the number of localities present. From monitoring programs population sizes from certain localities can be estimated. By multiplying these two assessments a value of the total population is attained.
Population has been fairly stable since 1995. An initial decline is probable, but this has been counteracted by an increase probably due to warmer climate. Favourable reference population is calculated to an estimated present population, which is similar to the assumed population 1995. Population was 2013 reported as inhabited trees/logs (with adults hatching), 2019 this parameter is used in the additional population size 6.4, trends, and FRP. Number of inhabited trees/logs is defined as the number of trees/logs with adult individuals, e.g. trees/logs from which adult individuals hatch a given year. ||
->HabInfo: The species use oak forest with sun exposed trees, mainly 9070 Fennoscandian wooded pastures.
Within the species core-area, south-eastern part of Sweden, the occupied habitat is sufficient large and reasonable quality. The area occupied is fairly constant, but the quality is maybe slowly deteriorating. The amount of substrate will probably decreasing in the future since there is a low recruitment in some area, however this is maybe counteracted by warmer climate making new areas in the northern limit suitable. The assessment is; area ‘stable’ /quality ‘stable’ on short term as well as long term.
The species is not severely fragmented within the core area, south-eastern part of Sweden. Outside this area the localities are smaller and more fragmented. ||
->Future: Current status is favourable for range, population and habitat. All three parameters have a stable short-term trend. No major changes are expected during the next 12 years, except for possible effects of climate change. Climate change can during the next 12 years improve the species range to the north and thus increase population and occupied habitat. Future prospect is similar to present conclusions. ||
->Conclusion: Current status is favourable for range, population and habitat. All three parameters have a stable short-term trend. No major changes are expected during the next 12 years, except for possible effects of climate change. Climate change can during the next 12 years improve the species range to the north and thus increase population and occupied habitat. Future prospect is similar to present conclusions. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: L. cervus is not redlisted, least concern (LC), in Sweden (2015, 2010), in earlier redlist as near threatened (NT) (2005) and vulnerable (VU) (2000). Suggested redlist category 2020 is LC. Change in national red list assessment is due to better knowledge.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lucanus cervus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: There is too little data available for an evaluation of trend direction. ||
->Population: There is too little data available for an evaluation of trend direction. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: expert opinion ||
->Conclusion: There is too little data available for an evaluation of trend direction. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lucanus cervus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Despite increased search and greater citizen survey involving more than a doubling of the number of data in one period relative to the previous three, some isolated data in the periphery were not renewed. ||
->Population: In 2013-2018, there were more occupied squares than before, but the investment in search effort and citizen science action was much more important. Most of the new squares are located along the Meuse valley, especially at the confluence with the Ourthe, Vesdre and Sambre. The presence of the species is confirmed in Rochefort. It is assumed that their occupation was pre-existing and not the result of recent colonization.
In Wallonia, the number of isolated squares decreases. The loss is especially marked in Lorraine and the Ourthe upstream of Tilff, in the towns of Esneux, Anthisnes and Comblain-au-Pont. ||
->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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: regional Abnahme an den Verbreitungsrändern und ungünstige Habitatqualität

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: 6.6. and 6.10. are Based mainly on expert opinion with very limited dana and Insufficient because most dana came from record reported by general public, and not scientific research.

6.8. is uncertain because there are no long-lasting research and we don't know yet are changes result of fluctuation in population or result of desreasing of 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: "Lucanus cervus"
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. ||
->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: "Lucanus cervus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Zasięg obejmuje prawdopodobnie większość obszaru niżowej Polski. Brak jest jednak nowszych publikacji, które poszerzałyby naszą wiedzę na temat rozmieszczenia jelonka w Polsce. Nieliczne opracowania o charakterze ogólnym powołują się na dane wcześniej publikowane, w tym na wyniki monitoringów. Pewne obszary występowania gatunku można uznać już za historyczne, ale też pojawiają się nowe dane. Brak istotnych różnic w rozmieszczeniu gatunku w stosunku do raportu 2013.
W obecnym raporcie do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. W poprzednim raporcie przyjęto, że powierzchnia zasięgu jest równa powierzchni zajętych pól siatki 10x10 km na mapie rozmieszczenia. ||
->Population: Wielkość populacji oszacowano na 850 pól siatki 1x1 km w oparciu o mapę rozmieszczenia w następujący sposób: na mapie rozmieszczenia zaznaczonych jest 85 pól siatki 10x10km ze stwierdzeniami gatunku. Przyjęto, że jedno pole siatki 10x10 km odpowiada jednemu stanowisku gatunku. Z obserwacji autora raportu (Marek Bunalski) wynika, że w przypadku większości stanowisk ich powierzchnia nie przekracza 10 km2, co odpowiada 10 polom siatki 1x1 km.
Na obecnym etapie prac monitoringowych nie można jeszcze określić kierunku zmian w populacji na poziomie regionu biogeograficznego (krótkoterminowy trend w populacji określono więc ostrożnie jako nieznany). Niemniej obserwacje wskazują na utrzymywanie się w miarę stabilnych populacji jedynie w Polsce Zachodniej. Na południu Polski i krańcach wschodnich populacje są rozrzedzone i izolowane.
Trudno określić wielkość populacji referencyjnej z uwagi na niedostatecznie rozpoznane rozmieszczenie gatunku. ||
->HabInfo: Do chwili obecnej nie dokonano pełnej inwentaryzacji występowania jelonka rogacza w Polsce, więc trudno dokonań prawidłowych ocen stanu siedliska lub wskazać określone trendy. Wyniki badań monitoringowych prowadzonych w latach 2010-2011 i 2016 na 20 stanowiskach wskazują, że jakość siedlisk na większości monitorowanych stanowisk jest niezadowalająca lub słaba (niski udział dębów w drzewostanach oraz mała dostępność miejsc rozwoju w postaci pniaków dębowych). Niepokojące jest też zmniejszanie się udziału dębów w zasiedlonych drzewostanach na skutek zmian sukcesyjnych. ||
->Future: Trudno jednoznacznie ocenić perspektywy utrzymania się zasięgu gatunku w związku z niepełnym rozpoznaniem jego rozmieszczenia.
Perspektywy dla populacji określono jako słabe, ponieważ populacje zlokalizowane na południu Polski i krańcach wschodnich są rozrzedzone i izolowane, co grozi ich zanikiem; zachodzą tez niekorzystne zmiany w siedliskach.
Aktualna ocena stanu siedlisk, oparta na dotychczas przeprowadzonych pracach monitoringowych, oraz stwierdzane oddziaływania i zagrożenia każą szacować perspektywy tego parametru jako słabe (zmniejszanie się udziału dębów w drzewostanach. ||
->Conclusion: Na obecnym etapie prac monitoringowych nie można jeszcze określić kierunku zmian w populacji na poziomie regionu biogeograficznego (krótkoterminowy trend w populacji określono ostrożnie jako nieznany). Niemniej obserwacje wskazują na utrzymywanie się w miarę stabilnych populacji jedynie w Polsce Zachodniej. Na południu Polski i krańcach wschodnich populacje są rozrzedzone i izolowane. Z tego też powodu zdecydowano się określić stan populacji jako niezadowalający (U1). W poprzednim raporcie ocena była ostrożna (XX stan nieznany). ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Gatunek objęty w Polsce ochroną, na Czerwonej Liście Gatunków Zagrożonych i Ginących w Polsce oraz w Polskiej Czerwonej Księdze Zwierząt posiada kategorię VU.
Zasięg: Zasięg obejmuje prawdopodobnie większość obszaru niżowej Polski. Brak jest jednak pełnych aktualnych danych o rozmieszczeniu gatunku. Z jednej strony pewne obszary występowania gatunku można uznać za historyczne, z drugiej strony pojawiają się nowe dane. Brak istotnych różnic w szacowanej powierzchni zasięgu w stosunku do raportu 2013. W przypadku jelonka rogacza przyjęto, że mapa zasięgu jest równa mapie rozmieszczenia. Ocena stanu zasięgu tak jak poprzednio – XX (stan nieznany).

Populacja: Na potrzeby raportu wielkość populacji określono w oparciu o dane dotyczące rozmieszczenia jako liczbę zasiedlonych pól siatki 1 x 1 km (850). Na obecnym etapie prac monitoringowych nie można jeszcze określić kierunku zmian w populacji na poziomie regionu biogeograficznego (krótkoterminowy trend w populacji określono ostrożnie jako nieznany). Niemniej obserwacje wskazują na utrzymywanie się w miarę stabilnych populacji jedynie w Polsce Zachodniej. Na południu Polski i krańcach wschodnich populacje są rozrzedzone i izolowane. Z tego też powodu zdecydowano się określić stan populacji jako niezadowalający (U1). W poprzednim raporcie ocena była ostrożna (XX stan nieznany).

Wartości referencyjne. Brak danych dla określenia referencyjnych wielkości populacji i zasięgu. Podobnie jak w poprzednim raporcie określono je, jako nieznane.
Siedlisko: Jelonek zasiedla różne siedliska charakteryzujące się obecnością różnowiekowych, świetlistych drzewostanów liściastych i mieszanych, znacznie rzadziej inne typy zadrzewień. Jelonek związany jest w swym rozwoju przede wszystkim z karpami dębowymi, w mniejszym stopniu z karpami innych drzew liściastych o twardym drewnie (buk, grab, wiąz, drzewa owocowe). Preferuje gleby lekkie lub niezbyt zwięzłe. W przypadku obecności bazy pokarmowej radzi sobie jednak dobrze również na innych typach gleb. Spośród typów siedlisk wymienionych w załączniku 1 Dyrektywy Siedliskowej w grę wchodzą: 9160, 9170, 9190, 91F0. Powierzchnia zajmowanego siedliska trudna do określenia. Jakość siedlisk jest niezadowalająca, na co wskazują wyniki monitoringu (na części stanowisk stwierdzono niski udział dębów w drzewostanach oraz mała dostępność miejsc rozwoju w postaci pniaków dębowych). Niepokojące jest zmniejszanie się udziału dębów w zasiedlonych drzewostanach na skutek zmian sukcesyjnych.
Podobnie jak w poprzednim raporcie stan siedlisk określono jako niezadowalający.

Perspektywy ochrony: Wiele populacji jest izolowanych. Niektóre z dawnych lokalizacji jelonka rogacza zostały zweryfikowane negatywnie w trakcie prac monitoringowych. W zasiedlonych drzewostanach zmniejsza się udział dębów.
Podobnie jak w poprzednim raporcie perspektywy ochrony jelonka rogacza określono jako niezadowalające.
Działania ochronne: W celu odbudowy zasięgu występowania i wielkości populacji niezbędna jest przebudowa drzewostanów, a szczególnie zwiększanie udziału dębu. Wbrew rozpowszechnionej opinii racjonalna gospodarka leśna nie stanowi zagrożenia dla jelonka. W rejonach stwierdzonego występowania gatunku ważne jest, aby dąbrowy były zróżnicowane wiekowo, a pozyskanie surowca prowadzone było metodą przerębową, z pozostawieniem karp. Odnawiania i nasadzenia powinny następować sukcesywnie, z zachowaniem znacznego udziału dębu i innych gatunków drzew liściastych. Na stanowiskach trudnych do odnowienia zalecane jest prowadzenie dębu metodą odroślową.
Ocena ogólna: Pozostaje bez zmian w stosunku do raportu 2013 – stan niezadowalający – U1.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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 increase is mainly due to better knowledge about prior unknown localities. Locally an expansion of range might be in progress due to warmer climate, i.e. genuine change.
FRR same as 2013. ||
->Population: Population is calculated from data reported by the public and monitoring programs financed by authorities. Data from a representative time frame is used to calculate the number of localities present. From monitoring programs population sizes from certain localities can be estimated. By multiplying these two assessments a value of the total population is attained.
Population has been fairly stable since 1995. An initial decline is probable, but this has been counteracted by an increase probably due to warmer climate. Favourable reference population is calculated to an estimated present population, which is similar to the assumed population 1995. Population was 2013 reported as inhabited trees/logs (with adults hatching), 2019 this parameter is used in the additional population size 6.4, trends, and FRP. Number of inhabited trees/logs is defined as the number of trees/logs with adult individuals, e.g. trees/logs from which adult individuals hatch a given year. ||
->HabInfo: The species use oak forest with sun exposed trees, mainly 9070 Fennoscandian wooded pastures.
Within the species core-area, south-eastern part of Sweden, the occupied habitat is sufficient large and reasonable quality. The area occupied is fairly constant, but the quality is maybe slowly deteriorating. The amount of substrate will probably decrease in the future since there is a low recruitment in some area, however this is maybe counteracted by warmer climate making new areas in the northern limit suitable. The assessment is; area ‘stable’ /quality ‘stable’ on short term as well as long term.
The species is not severely fragmented within the core area, south-eastern part of Sweden. Outside this area the localities are smaller and more fragmented. ||
->Future: Current status is favourable for range, population and habitat. All three parameters have a stable short-term trend. No major changes are expected during the next 12 years, except for possible effects of climate change. Thus, future prospect is similar to present conclusions. ||
->Conclusion: Changes compared to previous report. Population has a higher category (favourable) due to an increase in known population (better knowledge), which is now above of FRP. Habitat has a higher category (favourable) for the same reason. The range and population has reached reference values and the trend is stable. Thus, future prospects is also favourable. This results in a change in the overall conservation status from inadequate to favourable. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: L. cervus is not redlisted, least concern (LC), in Sweden (2015, 2010), in earlier redlist as near threatened (NT) (2005) and vulnerable (VU) (2000). Suggested redlist category 2020 is LC. Change in national red list assessment is due to better knowledge.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Sampling localities were visited twice in 2014 & 2015. Time series data and exact population data are missing. Therefore, we used grid cell 10x10km as the population unit as a safe alternative. Minimum population size equals the number of grid cells resulting from its distribution, while the maximum population size equals the number of grid cells resulting from its range.
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 188.82 km2, the area of suitable habitat is 309.35 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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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. ||
->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: "Lucanus cervus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: 6.12 - Although in distribution areas of the species local people tend to say that in past the species was much more abundant (Grosso-Silva 1999), the data available for this period (1994-2018) do not allow to infer with certainty about its population tendency. ||
->HabInfo: 7.1.a) - Sufficient area but habitat quality within the occupied area is variable.

7.4 - Comparing results from the latest forest inventories (2005, 2010 and 2015), the oak area had increased slightly (north and center), but this increase corresponds to young stands that do not yet correspond to the habitat of L. cervus (large trees and dead wood). On the other hand, fires that have occurred in recent years in the center of the country have negatively affected the habitat of the species.

Lucanus cervus is associated with forest habitats, mainly deciduous forests with large trees, but can also be found in urban and periurban areas, as long as they are forested with species that meet the ecological requirements of the species (Soutinho et al. 2017). Larvae seem to have a clear predilection for decaying oak wood, with a high preference in Portugal for Quercus robur,- existing however records in wood of other species including conifers such as Pinus spp. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: In 2016 VACALOURA.pt project was implemented, a citizen science project 100% volunteer, which aims to involve citizens in the conservation of Lucanus cervus and other species of the Lucanidae family (Lucanus barbarossa, Dorcus parallelipipedus e Platycerus spinifer) existing in Portugal, by compiling data on the distribution and status of populations as well as environmental education.
It was born from a partnership between the Associação Bioliving, Unidade de Vida Selvagem do Departamento de Biologia (Universidade de Aveiro), Sociedade Portuguesa de Entomologia (SPEN) and Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e das Florestas (ICNF),a result of a shared interest. and the joining of different valences and areas of action of each entity for the conservation of these species (Soutinho et al. 2017).
Data collected over the three years of the project have doubled the known distribution area of L. cervus in Portugal. These data also allowed to understand the patterns of temporal activity of this species in the wild, relevant information for future monitoring and conservation studies of the species. Another goal is to get enough information to determine the main factors threatening the populations of this species in Portugal in order to devise more effective conservation strategies. There has also been a strong focus on environmental education and awareness activities to encourage the involvement of citizensin the conservation of this species and its habitat (Soutinho et al. 2017).

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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: "Lucanus cervus"
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