Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lycaena helle"
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: "Lycaena helle"
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: "Lycaena helle"
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: "Lycaena helle"
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: "Lycaena helle"
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 Lycaena helle started to decline in Sweden already in the second half of the of the 20th century and have resulted in large extinctions in parts of its former southern boreal range during the 1980-1990:s. It is hard to detect any genuine decrease during the last 12 years, but when extending the period around 24 years apparent losses have occurred. ||
->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 a representative time frame is used to calculate the number of localities present. From monitoring programs data can population sizes from certain localities can be estimated. By multiplying these two assessments a value of the total population is attained.
In alpine region the population is concentrated to the county Jämtland.
The trend of the population is hard to assess due to a large increase in knowledge the last 10 years, thus trend is reported as unknown. Due to better knowledge there is a slight upgrading of the population value 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: The habitat for violet copper is humid meadows and marshes, especially calcareous sites.
The hostplant of the larvae is Bistorta vivipara. In the alpine region the butterfly, and its hostplant, is less dependent on agricultural habitats and the alternative habitats are assumed to be more stable than in boreal region.
The area and quality are hard to assess due to lack of data. So, the assessment is; area ‘unknown’ / quality ‘unknown’ on short term as well as long term.
The species is probably severely fragmented according to IUCN criteria. ||
->Future: Current status is bad for population and inadequate for range and habitat. All parameters have unknown short-term trends. The trend will probably be stable over a future 12 year period. Future prospect is poor for all three parameters. Information about the species range and population are still improving so new knowledge might give changes in the assessments within the next 12 year period. ||
->Conclusion: Changes compared to previous report. Range has a higher category (Inadequate) due to an increase in known range, which is over 90% of FRR. This don't change the overall conservation status. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: L. helle is redlisted as endangered (EN) in Sweden (2015, 2010), in earlier redlist as vulnerable (VU) (2005) and near threatened (NT) (2000). Suggested redlist category 2020 is endangered (EN). Change in national red list assessment is due to better knowledge. The red list assessment includes also boreal region where the species has its main population.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lycaena helle"
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: "Lycaena helle"
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: "Lycaena helle"
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 Lycaena helle started to decline in Sweden already in the second half of the of the 20th century and have resulted in large extinctions in parts of its former southern boreal range during the 1980-1990:s. It is hard to detect any genuine decrease during the last 12 years, but when extending the period around 24 years apparent losses have occurred. ||
->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 a representative time frame is used to calculate the number of localities present. From monitoring programs data can population sizes from certain localities can be estimated. By multiplying these two assessments a value of the total population is attained.
Lycaena helle has disappeared from the southernmost parts of its range, and the core region is now the county Jämtland. Localities are small with very sparse distribution and rather small population sizes.
A decline in population is probable due to ongoing changes in management of meadows and pastures. The assumed decline in population is within the range of reported individuals. Due to better knowledge there is a slight upgrading of the population value 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: The habitat for violet copper is humid meadows and marshes, especially calcareous sites.
The hostplant of the larvae is Bistorta vivipara, which previously was a common plant in mowed meadows in the northern half of Sweden. Bistorta vivipara has declined sharply in recent decades as usage of grasslands have changed. Today the species occurs at remaining suitable meadows but also in suitable areas below power lines and along roadsides.
The area and quality is probably decreasing due changes in grassland management. So the assessment is; area ‘decreasing’ / quality ‘decreasing’ on short term as well as long term.
The species is probably severely fragmented according to IUCN criteria. ||
->Future: Current status is bad in all three parameters. All parameters 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. ||
->Conclusion: No changes compared to previous report. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: L. helle is redlisted as endangered (EN) in Sweden (2015, 2010), in earlier redlist as vulnerable (VU) (2005) and near threatened (NT) (2000). Suggested redlist category 2020 is endangered (EN).
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: "Lycaena helle"
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: "Lycaena helle"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: New habitats have been restored recently, in the framework of Life projects (butterfly,…) ||
->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: "Lycaena helle"
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 (Minimum Reduktion auf besetzte 10x10grid-Viertel) ||
->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: "Lycaena helle"
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: "Lycaena helle"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The range of the species has been well surveyed at the scale of the short-term trend. Range is directly based on species observations (no species distribution modelling).
Change in reported values is mainly due to the use of a different resolution in the range tool (grids5x5 in 2013 and grids10x10 in 2019), and the method of extrapolation (species distribution model in 2013 and field observations in 2019). ||
->Population: The species has been intensively searched in the frame of conservation projects and dedicated monitoring.
Population size: the species has been observed in 42 grid cells. Regarding the intensive prospections, this number is considered as a very good estimate.
Short-term trend: based on the comparison of species distribution model for the periods 2007-2012 and 2013-2018.
Long-term trend: based on the comparison of squares surveyed at least two times during both the following periods: 1990-2009 and 2010-2016.
Change in reported values is due to the use of a different method of population size estimate. ||
->HabInfo: Potentially suitable habitats have been highlighted thanks to the use of a species distribution model, and targeted by field surveys. Field visits confirmed that the country provides suitable environmental conditions for the species, and that limitation of species occurence was mainly driven by human activities (direct and indirect). Climate change might be a major threat. ||
->Future: Several actions implemented in the frame of the conservation projects are showing promising results in habitat restoration. Two populations are highly threatened by their isolation, the range is therefore susceptible to decline even more in the future. The climate change is expected to be a key limiting factor of the three parameters. ||
->Conclusion: The population of this boreo-alpine species in Luxembourg is part of the largest european population. Its conservation is of very high importance to prevent the extinction of the species. Conservation projects allowed substantial improvements of its habitat and appropriate habitat management. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lycaena helle"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Różnice na mapie rozmieszczenia w stosunku do poprzedniego raportu wynikają z poprawy stanu wiedzy. W ostatniej dekadzie odkryto nowe stanowiska. Brak danych dla oceny trendów.
Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. Różnica w powierzchni zasięgu w stosunku do poprzedniego raportu wynika głównie z zastosowania IT-tool. ||
->Population: Wielkość populacji w obecnym raporcie szacowano liczbą zasiedlonych pól siatki geograficznej 1x1km, ekstrapolując dane o liczbie stanowisk. Założono, że liczba zasiedlonych kwadratów 1x1km jest o ok. 20% większa od liczby znanych stanowisk (ekstrapolacja).
Zasadniczo, wielkość populacji jest bez większych zmian w stosunku do poprzedniego raportu. ||
->HabInfo: Jakość siedlisk nie uległa zmianie w czasie kolejnych serii badań monitoringowych (2011, 2014, 2017) i jest oceniana w skali kraju jako niezadowalający U1. W przypadku wielu stanowisk obserwuje się degradację siedlisk, będącą wynikiem intensyfikacji użytkowania lub też jego braku. ||
->Future: Wiele stanowisk gatunku zostało znalezionych dopiero w ostatnich kilkunastu latach, a w związku z tym trudno prognozować ewentualne zmiany zasięgu. Na większości stanowisk brakuje celowych skutecznych zabiegów ochronnych, co sprawia że perspektywy dla siedliska, a co za tym idzie i populacji nie są najlepsze. Ponadto czerwończyk fioletek związany jest z wilgotnymi, a w związku z tym narażony na obniżenie poziomu wód gruntowych będące skutkiem nie tylko melioracji, ale również długotrwałych susz (efekt zmian klimatycznych). ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie: W okresie od poprzedniego raportu nie odnotowano znaczących zmian, jeśli chodzi o rozmieszczenie i zasięg gatunku pomijając odkrycie nowych stanowisk na wschodzie Polski m.in. w okolicach Puszczy Białowieskiej. Trudno jednak określić czy stanowiska te istniały wcześniej czy też pojawiły się w wyniku kolonizacji terenów, a na których poprawił się stan siedliska wskutek zabiegów ochrony czynnej (np. usuwanie trzciny w dolinach rzecznych). Należy przypuszczać, że wiedza na temat rozmieszczenia gatunku w Polsce jest wciąż niekompletna, choć poprawiła się znacznie w ostatnich dwóch dekadach. Stan zasięgu określono, podobnie jak w raporcie 2013, jako właściwy FV.
Wartości referencyjne (zasięg i populacja): Tak jak w poprzednim raporcie FRR był określony jako w przybliżeniu równy aktualnemu, a FRP jako nieznana. Aktualny zasięg i populacja bez większych zmian w stosunku do poprzedniego raportu.
Populacja: Wielkość populacji w obecnym raporcie szacowano liczbą zasiedlonych pól siatki siatki geograficznej 1x1km, ekstrapolując dane o liczbie stanowisk. Opierając się na ekstrapolacji założono, że ta pierwsza estymacja jest o ok. 20% większa od drugiej. Stan populacji określono, podobnie jak w raporcie 2013, jako nieznany XX (brak danych o trendach, FRP nieznana). Należy jednak zwrócić uwagę, że na wielu stanowiskach gatunek jest jednak bardzo nieliczny lub też stan populacji ulega pogorszeniu (wskazują na to dane z monitoringu, który prowadzony jest aktualnie na 36 stanowiskach).
Siedlisko gatunku: Jakość siedlisk określono jako niezadowalającą w oparciu o prace monitoringowe prowadzone w latach 2014 i 2017 na 36 stanowiskach. Całościowa ocena stanu siedliska U1 bez zmian w stosunku do poprzedniego raportu.
Perspektywy ochrony: Ocena U1, identyczna jak w poprzednim raporcie. Na większości monitorowanych stanowisk perspektywy gatunku są niezadowalające, głównie z uwagi na brak celowych/skutecznych zabiegów ochrony czynnej. Dodatkowym negatywnym czynnikiem, pogarszającym stan siedlisk, jest lokalnie melioracja. Gatunek jest również narażony na zmiany klimatyczne, szczególnie negatywnym czynnikiem są susze.
Ocena ogólna: Ogólny stan ochrony gatunku ocenia się podobnie jak w raporcie 2011 (U1).
Uwaga: Wiele stanowisk znajduje się na obszarach N2000, w przypadku tych objętych monitoringiem (22 z 36), a więc teoretycznie istnieje możliwość poprawy stanu gatunku, a przynajmniej jego siedlisk, zabiegami ochronnymi biorąc pod uwagę, ze gatunek jest przedmiotem ochrony dla obszarów N2000.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Lycaena helle"
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