Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: The population sizes in the alpine biogeographical regions of neighbouring countries such as Italy, Germany and Slovenia are only marginal and are dependent on the source population in Austria. In contrast to the situation in the Continental biogeographical region of Austria, no support from the Alpine populations of neighbouring countries is to be expected. These populations are rather considered as sink populations, which may subtract individuals from the Alpine biogeographical Region of Austria. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: Future prospects for 'population' is assessed as 'unknown' as the potential decrease of food resources e.g. due to proliterative kidney disease (PKD), intensified fencing of fish farms or general decrease of autochthonous fish populations due to habitat degradation is considered as the limiting factor for otter populations. ||
->Conclusion: The otter was originally spread over the entire national territory. While the otter is already widespread in the federal states of Lower Austria, Upper Austria, Styria, Salzburg and Carinthia, a westward expansion of the area to the provinces of Tyrol and Vorarlberg has only taken place to a small extent. In Tyrol, the otter is permanently settled only in the upper reaches of the Drau and for Vorarlberg there is no recent evidence. Therefore, parameter "Range" is assessed as "U1". ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: The alpine population is climate limited ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: La volonté de développer des micro-centrales en montagne, la gestion de l'eau pour l'électricité dans les barrages, les captages d'eau pour les cabanes et stations de ski, le changement climatique, tout cela va affecter de manière importante à moyen terme la qualité de l'habitat. Même si une amélioration de la gestion des berges se fait jour, notamment en piémont, même si les dispositifs de franchissement de barrages et obstacles se multiplient, l'augmentation du trafic routier (et en montagne les routes sont souvent à côté des rivières) et l'accroissement de la pression humaine en montagne vont venir contrebalancer les effets positifs de la gestion des cours d'eau. Et y aura t'il encore assez d'eau toute l'année pour permettre le maintien de ressources piscicoles suffisantes hormis sur les lacs et grosses rivières. ||
->Future: Confirmation de défavorable inadéquat (U1) de l'incertitude sur les cours d'eau est forte pour les 10 ans venir et la sous utilisation de son aire de répartition potentielle ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation de l'évaluation Défavorable-inadéquat U1 pour les Perspectives futures - Même si la dynamique est positive, si les pressions ont diminué, la population est encore top faible et vulnérable, l'aire de répartition est encore sous-utilisée notamment dans les Alpes, et l'incertitude sur les cours d'eau est forte pour les 10 ans à venir. ||
->JustificationThreshold: Basés surtout sur l'évolution des mailles occupées, mais aussi sur le taux d'évolution d''occupation des réseaux hydrographiques ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Wydra w przybliżeniu występuje w całym kraju. Z tego powodu, można przyjąć, że powierzchnia zasięgu pokrywa się z powierzchnią regionu alpejskiego w Polsce. W górach występuje względnie równomiernie.
Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. Różnica w powierzchni w stosunku do poprzedniego raportu wynika z zastosowania IT-tool. ||
->Population: Określając wielkość populacji w liczbie pól siatki 1x1km, przyjęto założenie, że gatunek występuje w tych polach siatki 1x1 km, które przecinają się z ciekami i zbiornikami wodnymi w obrębie pól siatki 10x10 km wskazanych na mapie rozmieszczenia. Brak informacji o negatywnych trendach populacyjnych. ||
->HabInfo: Wydra zasiedla różne typy wód i jest względnie plastyczna. Występuje również w wodach znacznie zmodyfikowanych przez człowieka. Dostępność siedlisk o odpowiedniej jakości i powierzchni oceniono pozytywnie. Nie odnotowano negatywnych trendów w tym parametrze. ||
->Future: Pomimo pewnych negatywnych oddziaływań i zagrożeń, przy obecnym stanie populacji, zasięgu i siedliska perspektywy dla poszczególnych parametrów są dobre. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie:
Wydra w przybliżeniu występuje w całym kraju. Z tego powodu, można przyjąć, że powierzchnia zasięgu pokrywa się z powierzchnią regionu alpejskiego w Polsce. W górach występuje względnie równomiernie. Ocena zasięgu w stosunku do poprzedniego etapu raportowania nie zmieniła się i nadal jest właściwa – FV.
Populacja
Obecnie wielkości populacji nie podaje się w osobnikach, a polach siatki 1x1km. W raporcie przyjęto że gatunek występuje w tych polach siatki 1x1 km, które przecinają się z ciekami i zbiornikami wodnymi (w obrębie pól siatki 10x10 km wskazanych na mapie rozmieszczenia). Brak informacji o negatywnych trendach populacyjnych. Stan populacji oceniono tak jak w 2013 jako właściwie zachowany – FV.
Wartości referencyjne (zasięg i populacja):
Wartość referencyjną zasięgu, oceniono tak jak w poprzednim raporcie, jako w przybliżeniu równą aktualnemu. Referencyjną populację w roku 2013 oceniono w liczbie osobników, jednak obecnie ze względu na zastosowanie innej jednostki liczebności populacji oceniono FRP jako zbliżoną do aktualnej.
Siedlisko gatunku:
Wydra zasiedla różne typy wód i jest względnie plastyczna. Występuje również w wodach znacznie zmodyfikowanych przez człowieka. Siedlisko oceniono, zatem jako właściwe – FV, podobnie jak w poprzednim okresie raportowania. Nie odnotowano przy tym negatywnych trendów w tym parametrze.
Perspektywy ochrony:
Pomimo pewnych negatywnych oddziaływań i zagrożeń, przy obecnym stanie populacji, zasięgu i siedliska perspektywy wydają się właściwe – FV, czyli tak samo jak w poprzednim okresie raportowania.
Ocena ogólna:
Ocena ogólna nie uległa zmianie w stosunku do poprzedniego okresu raportowania. Nie stwierdza się również, aby miała się pogorszyć w najbliższym czasie i ze względu na ocenę FV wszystkich parametrów, również ocena ogólna jest właściwa.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: APORT FINAL PROIECTUL: Elaborarea seturilor de măsuri de
agement, la nivel naţional, pentru speciile Castor fiber
Lutra lutra şi Mustela lutreola, 2014. Beneficiar Fundatia Carpati.
Mustela lutreola
http://www.clman.fundatiacarpati.ro/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77&Itemid=113&lang=ro ||
->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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Its just the new range tool behind this change ||
->Population: Rebounding population, monitoring is relatively intense, but creates no measure of abundance. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: A growing population will probably soon reach FRP. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Lutra lutra has increased its distribution range in the biogeographical region since the 1990'ies. The slight increase in the estimated range since the 2007-2012 reporting period is due to improved monitoring of the species' occurrence in the region and SACs. ||
->Population: Lutra lutra has increased its distribution range since the 1990'ies, which parallelled a positive long-term trend in population size. The species is now widely distributed and during the two last reporting period all suitable habitats have been occupied throughout the regions.
The occurrence of the species in 10x10km squares or number of locations is an insensitive, inaccurate method to estimate population trends unless the distribution and range areas are increasing. Thus, the short-term trend for the Lutra lutra population in the region is unknown.
In the previous reporting periode the number of positive locations was used to assess population size and trends. Comparable data is not available for the present reporting period due to a reduction in the monitoring intensity. ||
->HabInfo: Reduction in pollution levels from agriculture, other industries and sevage water, improved physical environmental conditions in waterways and implementation of measures to reduce incidential killings in fishing gears in most of the species range during the late 1980'ies and 1990'ies have probably improved the quality of available habitats for Lutra lutra. ||
->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: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: Le développement de l'usage de produits phytosanitaires, qui se retrouvent dans l'eau, la diminution des zones humides, l'augmentation du trafic routier viennent contrebalancer les efforts faits pour la qualité de l'eau, la continuité écologique des cours d'eau et la meilleure gestion des berges. Il y a eu une évolution positive de 1989 à 2010, mais dans le même temps la perte d'habitats, le développement des infrastructures ont freiné cette évolution. Qu'en sera t'il dans le futur ? ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Malgré des perspectives plutôt bonnes pour l'espèce, des menaces persistent et les tendances pourraient rapidement s'inverser si les habitats favorables ou les ressources alimentaires venaient à disparaître ou à régresser ou si l'acceptation de l'espèce se dégradait. Il est également nécessaire d'être attentif aux possibles conséquences de certaines molécules (dérivés d'hormones, pollutions chimiques et organiques) sur les capacités de reproduction à long terme des individus. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: More than 5,000 distribution records were collated for this species between 2007 and 2018. This translated to 718 x 10km squares. Using the range tool, with gap closure set again to 20km, an additional 118 grid cells were incorporated giving a total range of 836 cells or 83,600km2.
The range in 2013 (based on data from 2007-2013) was calculated as 812 cells (10km squares). The current range, based on all data from 2007-2018 is slightly larger, but this is considered to be a reflection of better data and a longer time period, rather than a genuine increase due to expansion. On the basis of previous national surveys and the current distribution of records, range is considered to have remained stable over both the short and long term.
The Favourable Reference Range is taken to be the same as the Range. The 2013 figure was based on the known range of the species at that time but it has been updated for this assessment to reflect the improved data now available. It is considered to be large enough to allow the long term survival of the species and is greater than the estimated range of the species when the Habitats Directive came into force in Ireland. ||
->Population: The 2007 to 2018 distribution records held by NBDC for this species were mapped at the 1km level to provide the population estimate used in 6.2. This is considered to be a minimum estimate of the species distribution in Ireland and is not considered a useful reflection of population.
Number of adult (breeding) females was used as the population unit in 2013. No new data on population size has emerged since then and the population is considered to have remained stable since then. Hence, these figures are used again in 6.4. The breeding female population estimate is based on the number of female otter territories available (assuming no overlap) and occupied across Ireland. Female territory sizes in coastal, lake and river habitats were estimated based on a combination of radio-tracking, GSM tracking, modelling and extrapolation. This allowed an estimate of the total carrying capacity of the country for female otters to be made (i.e. the total number of available territories). This figure was multiplied by the proportion of positive survey sites as observed during the most recent national survey (after correcting for biases), i.e. x 0.93. See Reid et al. (2013a) for full details. The methods are the same as those used in the 2007 and 2013 reports. There are some indications (e.g. from tracking studies in Roaringwater Bay) that female territories may overlap to some extent in certain situations. Where overlapping territories do occur, higher densities of otters may be present, implying that our current population figure is an underestimate. Further work is required to shed more light on this issue. More research on otter territory size in different habitats across Ireland would also be useful.
An increase in population between the 2004/05 national survey and the 2010/11 survey was demonstrated in Reid et al. (2013a). Since 2011 the population is assumed to have remained relatively stable. The 12 years over which the short-term trend is reported (2007-2018) is assumed to have taken in some of that population increase and so the short-term trend is reported as increasing. Reid et al. (2013a) provided estimates of population increase (min and max) compared to the 2004/05 survey, but given that extensive corrections for survey biases are built into the 2010/11 survey results and are not available for the 2004/05 survey, the true extent of the increase is unclear and the max and min figures calculated by Reid et al. (2013a) are not included here.
The 1991 national survey results (Lunnon & Reynolds, 1991) are taken as the starting point for the 24-year trend (1991 – 2015). Despite an apparent dip in otter numbers in 2004/05 (Bailey & Rochford 2006), the otter population had recovered by 2011. If, as we expect, the population has remained stable since the 2010/11 survey, this indicates a stable overall trend, although some fluctuations may have occurred within the 24-year period. Although the trend was examined between 1991 and 2015, the results are assumed to apply also to the default period of 1994-2018.
The Favourable reference population figure (for adult females) calculated in 2007 and used in 2013 is still valid. This was based on returning all otter SACs to the population levels recorded in the Chapman & Chapman survey (1982), while simultaneously ensuring that no loss of status occurs outside SACs (see Background document to Lutra lutra (1355) Conservation Status Assessment, 2007 for full details). ||
->HabInfo: The otter is widespread in Ireland, occupying lotic and lentic freshwater systems from headwaters to estuaries, remote mountain lakes to city canals. It is also present along the coast including many off-shore islands.
Expert judgement was used to assess habitat availability/quality based on overall assessment of riparian, lacustrine and coastal waters, the species’ catholic and adaptable diet (Reid et al. 2013c), plus the widespread nature of otters and the apparent population recovery seen over the short term.
Given the widespread and adaptable nature of the otter (e.g. Reid et al., 2013a, b), habitat availability/quality is not considered to be or to have been a limiting factor in the species’ range. Hence, the underlying trend in habitat is assumed to have remained stable. ||
->Future: Range is extensive and stable. Population is also considered to be currently stable having recovered from previous decline. Broad habitat niche is occupied and is generally considered to be in good condition. No significant pressures or threats were identified. ||
->Conclusion: The most recent distribution data shows that the otter continues to be widespread throughout Ireland and present nationwide in a wide variety of habitat types. Although recent studies on territory overlaps and animal movements suggest that refinements to the population estimation formula are needed, the otter population is considered to be stable and none of the threats or pressures identified is considered likely to impact significantly on the species. Overall, the species is assessed as Favourable and the overall trend is demonstrating an on-going increase. There were no qualifiers for Favourable assessments in 2013. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range incomplete due to information deficiency ||
->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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Trend in range has been assessed by using the 2019 distribution data and the 2013 method for calculating range and comparingthe result with range surface area in 2013. For further information see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document and country assessments. ||
->Population: The new population estimate for this species in the UK is lower than the previous estimate in 2013. This is not a real decrease, but due to a change in method for estimating populations.

Estimates of population size for GB have been taken from Mathews et al. (2018) and are considered to be more robust than previous estimates. Northern Ireland data have been added to the GB estimate to obtain a UK population estimate.

The current population is considered to be above the FRP, is stable and is sufficient to maintain a viable population. ||
->HabInfo: There is no reliable measure of the quality of the occupied habitat, but the population and range trends for the species are considered relatively stable. Therefore, the area and quality of occupied habitat are likely to be sufficient to maintain the species at FCS. ||
->Future: Future trend in Range is Overall stable; Future trend in Population is Overall stable; and Future trend in 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 greater 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 and quality 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 is the same as in 2013.

Overall trend in conservation status has changed since 2013 because trend in range has changed from increasing to stable, trend in population has changed from increasing to stable and trend in habitat for the species has changed from increasing to stable. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: APORT FINAL PROIECTUL: Elaborarea seturilor de măsuri de
agement, la nivel naţional, pentru speciile Castor fiber
Lutra lutra şi Mustela lutreola, 2014. Beneficiar Fundatia Carpati.
Mustela lutreola
http://www.clman.fundatiacarpati.ro/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77&Itemid=113&lang=ro ||
->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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Previous range estimate was given as total area of inland, not in number of range grid cells. ||
->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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The data come from permanent monitoring routes (Natural Resources Institute Finland) and casual observations by Metsähallitus workers and amateur ornithologists; databases of Metsähallitus and Finnish Environment Institute.
New data from Varsinais-Suomi (southwestern Finland) fill the range gap in the southwestern corner of mainland Finland also for the former reporting period (improved data; part of the new data come from the previous reporting period). ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: The population seems be near the carrying capacity of Finnish natural ecosystems. The density is roughly one individual per hundred square kilometers. In winter the individuals have to, and they do, move much within the largish home range, and as they are solitary (except for females with previous year cubs), higher density might increase conflicts between them. ||
->Conclusion: Protected since 1974 ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: New range tool + expanding population ||
->Population: Rebounding population, monitoring is relatively intense, but creates no measure of abundance. ||
->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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: Future prospects for 'population' is assessed as 'unknown' as the potential decrease of food resources e.g. due to proliterative kidney disease (PKD), intensified fencing of fish farms or general decrease of autochthonous fish populations due to habitat degradation is considered as the limiting factor for otter populations. ||
->Conclusion: On the one hand, the otter population in the continental biogeographical region in Austria is positively affected by its connection and genetic exchange with the populations in neighbouring countries north of Austria.
On the other hand, Austria is considered as beeing too small in total surface area to host an isolated viable population. Therefore, effective conservation and management measures (including predator control) require proper coordination between neighbouring countries. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: In the CON region, the number of watersheds on which Lutra lutra was present in the nineties has decreased but it is rather obvious that the species could be undetected (subdetected) in a part of them due to the low population level. It would be wiser to speak about a better detection of the species than about a range increase between the reporting periods 2007-2012 and 2013-2018. ||
->Population: the recommended unit for the population size (grids 1 x1 ) is probably not appropriate for such mobile mammals. ||
->HabInfo: improvement of water quality, removal of obstacles to fish movement, etc. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: It does not seem that the situation was worse in the previous reporting session because, during the period 2006-2012, we also collected data on several watersheds that are now confirmed again for the otter but at the previous periode, we decided to use only validable data (pictures of individuals or footprints,...) ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Growing population of otter and range across almost entire Czech territory, as well as the high economic damage caused by otter, implies necessary evaluation of these damages and to application of the procedure under Article 16 of the Habitats Directive . The same applies also according to the possibly influenced species, including protected ones. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Änderung des Referenzwertes; es liegt keine Verschlechterung des Zustandes des Verbreitungsgebiets gegenüber 2013 vor; es findet eine fortgesetzte Arealerweiterung statt. ||
->Population: Methodik zur Ermittlung der Populationsgröße in EU-Einheit: Verschneidung der Vorkommenspunkt (Distribution) mit grids1x1 und Habitatmaskierung mit CorineLandCover-Klassen ||
->HabInfo: günstiger Zustand des Habitats setzt fortgesetzte Maßnahmen zur Reduzierung von Verlusten durch Verkehr und Fischerei voraus ||
->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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Lutra lutra has increased its distribution range in the biogeographical region since the 1990'ies, including during the present short-term trend period. The species is widely distributed and most suitable habitats in Jutland has been occupied throughout the region during the two last reporting periods , and it has consolidated it occurrence on the island of Fynen. However, the species has still not re-occupied the whole reference range on the island of Zealand. ||
->Population: Lutra lutra has increased its distribution range since the 1990'ies, which is assumed to parallel a positive long-term trend in the population size.
The occurrence of the species in 10x10km squares or number of locations is an insensitive, inaccurate method to estimate population trends unless the distribution and range areas are increasing.
In the previous reporting periode the number of positive locations was used to assess population size and trends. Comparable data is not available for the present reporting period due to a reduction in the monitoring intensity. Comparable data is not available for the present reporting period due to a reduction in the monitoring intensity. ||
->HabInfo: Reduction in pollution levels from agriculture, other industries and sevage water, improved physical environmental conditions in waterways and implementation of measures to reduceincidential killings in fishing gears in most of the species range during the late 1900'ies have probably improved the quality of the available habitats for Lutra lutra. ||
->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: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: Habitat area and quality are potentially sufficient for a small population, based on experts' opinion, due to river and stream morphological situation and water quality ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Habitat area and quality are potentially sufficient for a small population, due to river and stream morphological situation and water quality ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Wydra jest w Polsce szeroko rozpowszechnionym gatunkiem, a jej zasięg obejmuje w przybliżeniu cały obszar kontynentalny kraju. Rozmieszczenie jest względnie równomierne, a białe, niewielkie plamy na mapie wynikają raczej z braku prowadzenia badań niż faktycznego braku gatunku.
Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. ||
->Population: Wielkość populacji w liczbie zasiedlonych pól siatki 1x1km określono w następujący sposób: , przyjęto, że gatunek występuje w tych polach siatki 1x1 km, które przecinają się z ciekami i zbiornikami wodnymi (w obrębie pól siatki 10x10 km wskazanych na mapie rozmieszczenia). Brak informacji o negatywnych trendach populacyjnych. ||
->HabInfo: Wydra zasiedla różne typy wód i jest względnie plastyczna. Występuje również w wodach znacznie zmodyfikowanych przez człowieka. Dostępność odpowiedniego siedliska określono więc jako dobrą. Nie odnotowano przy tym negatywnych trendów w tym parametrze. ||
->Future: Pomimo pewnych negatywnych oddziaływań i zagrożeń, przy obecnym stanie populacji, zasięgu i siedliska perspektywy dla wszystkich parametrów są dobre. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie:
Wydra jest w Polsce szeroko rozpowszechnionym gatunkiem, a jej zasięg obejmuje w przybliżeniu cały obszar kontynentalny kraju. Rozmieszczenie jest względnie równomierne, a białe, niewielkie plamy na mapie wynikają raczej z braku prowadzenia badań niż faktycznego braku gatunku. Zasięg podobnie jak w raporcie z 2013 oceniono jako właściwy – FV.
Populacja:
Obecnie wielkości populacji nie podaje się w osobnikach, a polach siatki 1x1km. W raporcie przyjęto że gatunek występuje w tych polach siatki 1x1 km, które przecinają się z ciekami i zbiornikami wodnymi (w obrębie pól siatki 10x10 km wskazanych na mapie rozmieszczenia). Brak informacji o negatywnych trendach populacyjnych. Stan populacji oceniono tak jak w 2013 jako właściwie zachowany – FV.
Wartości referencyjne (zasięg i populacja):
Wartość referencyjną zasięgu, oceniono tak jak w poprzednim raporcie, jako w przybliżeniu równą aktualnemu. Referencyjną populację w roku 2013 oceniono w liczbie osobników, jednak obecnie ze względu na zastosowanie innej jednostki liczebności populacji oceniono FRP jako zbliżoną do aktualnej.
Siedlisko gatunku:
Wydra zasiedla różne typy wód i jest względnie plastyczna. Występuje również w wodach znacznie zmodyfikowanych przez człowieka. Siedlisko oceniono, zatem jako właściwe – FV, podobnie jak w poprzednim okresie raportowania. Nie odnotowano przy tym negatywnych trendów w tym parametrze.
Perspektywy ochrony:
Pomimo pewnych negatywnych oddziaływań i zagrożeń, przy obecnym stanie populacji, zasięgu i siedliska perspektywy wydają się właściwe – FV, czyli tak samo jak w poprzednim okresie raportowania.
Ocena ogólna:
Ocena ogólna nie uległa zmianie w stosunku do poprzedniego okresu raportowania. Nie stwierdza się również, aby miała się pogorszyć w najbliższym czasie i ze względu na ocenę FV wszystkich parametrów, również ocena ogólna jest właściwa.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: APORT FINAL PROIECTUL: Elaborarea seturilor de măsuri de
agement, la nivel naţional, pentru speciile Castor fiber
Lutra lutra şi Mustela lutreola, 2014. Beneficiar Fundatia Carpati.
Mustela lutreola
http://www.clman.fundatiacarpati.ro/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77&Itemid=113&lang=ro ||
->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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: New range tool + expanding population ||
->Population: Rebounding population, monitoring is relatively intense, but creates no measure of abundance. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Increasing population ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: Les populations sont encore trop faibles et trop diffuses sur cette zone. De petite taille elles sont encore fortement vulnérables localement. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: To estimate the population a range of values is given, approximating the number of cells deriving from selection of 5X5 grid cells overlapping with water bodies inside the current distribution of the species.
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 quality of the surface area of the habitat is good. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Improving trend in range and habitat area is due to improving / expanding research (field sampling) which leads to inventory of new occurrences of the species. In fact the habitat of the species is considered to be stable (water intake and gaps created on the river bed by dams can reduce the habitat area). ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range incomplete due to information deficiency ||
->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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Growing population of otter and range across almost entire Czech territory, as well as the high economic damage caused by otter, implies necessary evaluation of these damages and to application of the procedure under Article 16 of the Habitats Directive . The same applies also according to the possibly influenced species, including protected ones. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: APORT FINAL PROIECTUL: Elaborarea seturilor de măsuri de
agement, la nivel naţional, pentru speciile Castor fiber
Lutra lutra şi Mustela lutreola, 2014. Beneficiar Fundatia Carpati.
Mustela lutreola
http://www.clman.fundatiacarpati.ro/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77&Itemid=113&lang=ro ||
->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: "Lutra lutra"
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: "Lutra lutra"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: APORT FINAL PROIECTUL: Elaborarea seturilor de măsuri de
agement, la nivel naţional, pentru speciile Castor fiber
Lutra lutra şi Mustela lutreola, 2014. Beneficiar Fundatia Carpati.
Mustela lutreola
http://www.clman.fundatiacarpati.ro/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77&Itemid=113&lang=ro ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report