Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: There are no continuous researches or monitoring program in Croatia for this species. All findings are either historical or result of one-season research. That is why short-term trend direction is unknown and short-term trend method is insuficient data. ||
->Population: There are no continuous researches or monitoring program in Croatia for this species. All findings are either historical or result of one-season research. That is why short-term trend direction is unknown and short-term trend method is insuficient data. ||
->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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Brak istotnych różnic na mapie rozmieszczenia w stosunku do poprzedniego raportu. Mało wiadomo na temat sytuacji gatunku w regionie ALP w ostatnich latach, a szczególnie na krańcach południowo-wschodnich. Można przypuszczać, że nastąpiła tam degradacja siedlisk gatunku, ale pewności nie ma, czy zasięg się skurczył. Trend krótkoterminowy określono więc jako niepewny.
Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. ||
->Population: W okresie od poprzedniego raportowania znaleziono nowe stanowisko gatunku, ale los wielu innych jest nieznany (brak danych, szczególnie z krańców południowo-wschodnich). Stąd trend krótkoterminowy określono jako niepewny. Określając wielkość populacji w liczbie zasiedlonych pól siatki 1x1 km, założono, że liczba zasiedlonych pól siatki 1x1 km jest większa o ok. 30% od liczby stanowisk (ekstrapolacja). ||
->HabInfo: Na czterech monitorowanych stanowiskach jakość siedlisk jest średnia, ale nie ulega znacznym zmianom. Ogólnie jednak w regionie alpejskim mamy do czynienia z degradacją wielu potencjalnych siedlisk w wyniku ich zarastania. W oparciu a takie dane można określić trend krótkoterminowy tylko jako niepewny. W szerszej skali czasowej trend wydaje się spadkowy. Wiele stanowisk wymaga potwierdzenia, trudno więc odpowiedzieć na pytanie, czy aktualnie zasiedlona powierzchnia jest wystarczająca dla przetrwania gatunku (bo nie wiadomo jako to jest powierzchnia). ||
->Future: Gatunek jest monitorowany zaledwie na czterech stanowiskach, co nie jest wystarczająca reprezentacją w skali bioregionu alpejskiego w kwestii oceny perspektyw dla gatunku. Dane o rozmieszczeniu wymagają zaktualizowania (badania inwentaryzacyjne) dlatego perspektywy dla zasięgu określono jako nieznane. Ponieważ w regionie alpejskim mamy do czynienia z degradacją wielu potencjalnych siedlisk w wyniku ich zarastania, perspektywy dla siedliska, a w konsekwencji dla populacji oceniono jako słabe. ||
->Conclusion: Gatunek jest monitorowany zaledwie na czterech stanowiskach, co nie jest wystarczająca reprezentacją w skali bioregionu alpejskiego. Sytuacja gatunku jest rozpoznana stosunkowo dobrze jedynie w Pieninach, a zdecydowanie mniej wiadomo odnośnie wschodniej części. W poprzednim raporcie była ocena stan zły, a kierunek zmian – pogorszenie. Aktualnie – ocena stan niezadowalający, co wynika z ostrożniejszego podejścia do określania stanu gatunku w sytuacji skąpych danych. Aczkolwiek wobec skąpych danych bardziej adekwatna byłaby ocena XX. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie: W okresie od poprzedniego raportu nie poprawiała się zasadniczo wiedza odnośnie występowania gatunku w bioregionie alpejskim i za wyjątkiem Pienin oraz trzech stanowisk monitoringowych położonych poza nimi mało wiadomo na temat aktualnego rozmieszczenia gatunku. W związku z tym stan zasięgu ponownie określono jako nieznany.
Wartości referencyjne (zasięg i populacja): Trudno określić referencyjną wielkość zasięgu, gdyż aktualne rozmieszczenie jest nieznane (ocena „x”). Liczba aktualnie znanych stanowisk jest niewielka. Tak więc populacja referencyjna powinna być większa od aktualnej, zakładając, że gatunek wyginął na części stanowisk, a na przynajmniej części innych nastąpiła redukcja liczebności.
Populacja: Wielkość populacji w poprzednim raporcie określono wyłącznie liczbą stanowisk, a w obecnym liczbą zasiedlonych kwadratów 1x1km siatki geograficznej oraz dodatkowo liczbą stanowisk, która jest niższa niż poprzednio, co wynika z tego, że w ostatnich latach dane o występowaniu gatunku w bioregionie poza stanowiskami monitorowanymi są bardzo skąpe.
Siedlisko gatunku: Ogólnie w regionie alpejskim mamy do czynienia z degradacją wielu potencjalnych siedlisk w wyniku ich zarastania. Tak więc w szerszej skali czasowej trend wydaje się spadkowy. Wiele stanowisk wymaga potwierdzenia, trudno więc odpowiedzieć na pytanie, czy aktualnie zasiedlona powierzchnia jest wystarczająca dla przetrwania gatunku. Jakość siedlisk na czterech badanych w latach 2014 i 2017 stanowiskach jest niezadowalająca. Nie są one jednak wystarczająco reprezentatywne dla bioregionu. Adekwatna dla stanu siedlisk wydaje się być aktualnie ocena XX (poprzednio U2).
Perspektywy ochrony: Gatunek jest monitorowany zaledwie na czterech stanowiskach, co nie jest wystarczająca reprezentacją w skali bioregionu alpejskiego w kwestii oceny perspektyw. Dane o rozmieszczeniu wymagają zaktualizowania (badania inwentaryzacyjne) dlatego perspektywy dla zasięgu określono jako nieznane. Ponieważ w regionie alpejskim mamy do czynienia z degradacją wielu potencjalnych siedlisk w wyniku ich zarastania, perspektywy dla siedliska, a w konsekwencji dla populacji oceniono jako słabe. Perspektywy wydają się więc generalnie niezadowalające (poprzednia ocena – U2).
Ocena ogólna: Stan ochrony gatunku w regionie alpejskim ocenia się jako niezadowalający U1. Poprzednia ocena – stan zły U2. Różnica wynika z ostrożniejszego podejścia do określania stanu gatunku w sytuacji skąpych danych.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The current Range surface area calculation does not represent the real range surface area. That is considered to be at least the range in 2013 - approximately equal to 800 km2. Change in availability of underpinning mapping data compared to 2013 has resulted in an apparent decrease in range area. Expert opinion considers the trend to be increasing. The increase in range has been due to a further successful re-introduction over the reporting period, as well as natural spread from existing colonies to adjacent areas with suitable habitat. The species now occurs in 33 colonies. For further information see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document. ||
->Population: The current population is above the FRP and is increasing. Overall, numbers have increased due to better habitat management, and more suitable weather conditions over the reporting period. For further details see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document. ||
->HabInfo: The habitat for the species has steadily increased as the reintroduction programme continues and more sites are brought into suitable condition. Area of habitat is sufficiently large and increasing and habitat quality is suitable for the long-term survival of the species. For further details see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document. ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Positive - increasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; Future trend of Population is Very Positive - increasing >1% (more than one percent) per year on average; and Future trend of Habitat for the species is Positive - slight/moderate improvement. There are no pressures and the main threats to the species are not significant; the species will remain viable on the long-term. The main reason for a predicted postitive (rather than very positive) future trend for Range is due the known impacts of the extension of habitat management at the current sites, rather than any impact due to potential future reintroductions. The main reason for population increase (10.1. b i) being very positive is the excellent response of the species to better habitat management on many of the sites over the reporting period. For further information on how future trends inform the Future Prospects conclusion see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document. ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is increasing and (ii) the current Range surface area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Population reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Population size is increasing and (ii) the current Population size is 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 increasing.
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 - improving, Population - improving, and Habitat for the species - improving.
Overall assessment of conservation status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because population and habitat for the species have changed from Unfavourable-inadequate to Favourable.
Overall trend in Conservation Status has not changed since 2013
||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: There have been more translocations of this species since the last reporting round in 2013, and a few natural colonisations. The FRP (of 20 colonies) has been met or exceeded in each of the years of this reporting round and so the Conservation Status can now be considered as Favourable.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: No exact data to set a threshold values. ||
->Other: The species was not monitored, that is why data are very fragmentary. The species should be included in the monitoring programmes.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Maculinea arion"
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 Phengaris arion started to decline in Sweden already in the first half of the 20th century and has later resulted in complete extinction in many parts of its former range. The present range has been rather stable the last 12 years, but when extending the period around 24 years losses have occurred in periphery of present range of boreal region of Sweden. These areas went extinct in the late 1980 or early 1990-ties and is included in the FRR. FRR same as 2013. ||
->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 be estimated. By multiplying these two assessments a value of the total population is attained.
Phengaris arion occurred earlier locally on warm sandy grassland with Thymus serphyllum in southern half of Sweden. Population has declined sharply during the second half of the 20th century. On the islands Gotland and Öland the species still have rather strong, and stable, populations on open calcareous bedrocks. On the contrary, the mainland population is fragmented, weak and declining. ||
->HabInfo: P. arion is divided into separated populations in the Swedish boreal region. On the eastern half of the mainland, and one on the island Öland and another on the island Gotland. The typical habitat on mainland is dry and nutrient-poor grasslands. The habitat on Öland and Gotland is open calcareous bedrocks (alvar).
The habitat has gradually declined during the 20th century. The habitat on the mainland has gradually deteriorated due to changes in grazing of dry and nutrient-poor grasslands. On contrary, good habitat is still exists in open calcareous bedrocks of Gotland island. The habitat is still declining in the mainland in a short-term, as well as long-term period.
The area and quality are probably decreasing due changes in grassland management. So, the assessment for mainland is; area ‘decreasing’ / quality ‘decreasing’ on short term as well as long term. The habitat on Gotland is stable.
The species is not severely fragmented according to IUCN criteria. ||
->Future: Current status is bad for population and inadequate for range and habitat. Population and habitat have negative short-term trends, while range is stable. Large restoration of habitats might have ceased habitat reduction, and the trend might change during future 12 year period. Thus future prospect is similar to present conclusions, however range and habitat will get poor future prospects. ||
->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: M. arion is redlisted as near threatened (NT) in Sweden (2015, 2010), in earlier redlists as vulnerable (VU) (2000, 2005). Suggested redlist category 2020 is near threatened (NT).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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: There is no proof of any presence of reproductive population in Wallonia during the last two periods; the individuals seen could have fly from neighbouring regions of Northern France ||
->HabInfo: The Life projects have recreated potential new habitats suitable for the species, with short swards ||
->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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: The species may do well regionally, if the management of localities is improved. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: There are no continuous researches or monitoring program in Croatia for this species. All findings are either historical or result of one-season research. That is why short-term trend direction is unknown and short-term trend method is insuficient data. ||
->Population: There are no continuous researches or monitoring program in Croatia for this species. All findings are either historical or result of one-season research. That is why short-term trend direction is unknown and short-term trend method is insuficient data. ||
->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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The range area and short-term trend are based on species distribution models for the periods 2007-2012 and 2013-2018.
Change in reported values are mainly due to the use of a different unit in the range tool (grids5x5 in 2013 and grids1x1 in 2019). ||
->Population: Population size is based on a species distribution model for the period 2013-2018. ||
->HabInfo: The species is related to habitats 6110 and 6210, respectively assessed as favourable and unfavourable.
Based on repeated surveys on a sample of sites occupied by the species, the habitat quality is considered as stable. ||
->Future: The range is highly susceptible to decline due to the isolation of a small population (Rosport). Conservation measures have been taken in several nature reserves, but could not counter the loss of the species in a site (Niederkorn). An improved understanding of the species, its habitat and relation with the host (Myrmica sp.) is required to adapt conservation measures and ensure the connection between populations (species has low dispersal abilities). ||
->Conclusion: Historically, the species was found in a much larger area. It is now restricted to one main area (Esch/Alzette-Dudelange), and a small isolated site (Rosport). A high proportion of its occupied area is under protection. Short-term trends are considered as stable, but the species underwent a long-term decline. ||
->JustificationThreshold: The overall trend in conservation status is considered as deteriorating instead of stable due to the long-term decline in population. ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Maculinea arion"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: W ostatnim czasie po półwiecznej przerwie znaleziono ponownie stanowiska gatunku w Sudetach oraz dodatkowo w okolicach Wałbrzycha. Wydaje się jednak mało prawdopodobne, aby były wynikiem ostatniej kolonizacji. Z drugiej strony nie ma danych o występowaniu gatunku na Roztoczu (m.in. nie został znaleziony w czasie ostatniej serii badań monitoringowych), co może sugerować skurczenie się zasięgu w tej części Polski. W związku z tym zasięg referencyjny określono jako większy od aktualnego.

Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. ||
->Population: W okresie od poprzedniego raportowania znaleziono stanowiska gatunku w woj. dolnośląskim oraz małopolskim, co jest wynikiem głównie poprawy stanu wiedzy. Z drugiej strony stwierdzono wyginięcie gatunku na dwóch stanowiskach monitoringowych, co jest realną zmianą. Określając aktualna wielkośc populacji, założono, że liczba zasiedlonych pól siatki 1x1 km jest większa o ok. 30% od liczby znanych obecnie stanowisk. ||
->HabInfo: Wyniki monitoringu wskazują na niewłaściwą jakość siedlisk na większości badanych stanowisk. Biorąc jednak pod uwagę odkrycie nowych stanowisk w ostatnim czasie trend krótkoterminowy uznano za niepewny. Trend długoterminowy jest spadkowy ze względu na powolne pogarszanie się stanu siedlisk w wielu rejonach. ||
->Future: Część stanowisk gatunku zostało znalezionych dopiero w ostatnich kilku latach, a w związku z tym trudno jednoznacznie 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. ||
->Conclusion: Stan gatunku oceniono lepiej niż poprzednio. Poprawa stanu wiedzy. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie: W okresie od poprzedniego raportu odnotowano istotną zmianę odnośnie rozmieszczenia związaną z odkrycie stanowisk gatunku w woj. dolnośląskim po kilkudziesięcioletniej przerwie. Wydaje się jednak, że stanowiska te raczej istniały już wcześniej aniżeli doszło w ostatnim czasie do (re)kolonizacji terenów. Z drugiej strony wydaje się, że gatunek zanika w niektórych częściach Polki jak np. na Roztoczu i zasięg w bioregionie CON może mieć charakter dyzjunktywny. Biorąc pod uwagę wcześniejsze wymarcie gatunku w prawie całej zachodniej Polsce stan zasięgu określono jako niezadowalający, podobnie jak w 2013 roku.
Populacja: Wielkość populacji w poprzednim raporcie określono liczbą stanowisk, a w obecnym liczbą zasiedlonych kwadratów 1x1km siatki geograficznej. Poprzednio podano przedział, a tym czasem wartość minimalną, która jest niższa niż wcześniej, co wynika z lepszego rozpoznania. Stan populacji określono jako niezadowalający U1 (poprzednia ocena była U2, ale różnica wynika z zastosowania formalnych reguł wyprowadzania oceny w obecnym raporcie).
Wartości referencyjne (zasięg i populacja): Referencyjną wielkość zasięgu oraz populacji określono jako większą od obecnej biorąc pod uwagę dane o występowaniu gatunku.
Siedlisko gatunku: Stan siedliska określono jako niezadowalający w oparciu o prace monitoringowe prowadzone w latach 2014 i 2017. Ocena bez zmian w stosunku do poprzedniego raportu.
Perspektywy ochrony: Ocena U1 jest wyższa niż w poprzednim raporcie (U2). Mimo odnotowania kilku lokalnych ekstynkcji to wydaje się, że na wielu stanowiskach sytuacja gatunku jest względnie stabilna i gatunkowi nie grozi raczej wymarcie w skali bioregionu na terenie Polski w najbliższym czasie. Odkryto także nowe stanowiska/ Problemem jest brak celowych ochronnych, których podjęciu nie sprzyja fakt, że modraszek arion nie jest tzw. gatunkiem naturowym.
Ocena ogólna: Ogólny stan ochrony gatunku ocenia się jako niezadawalający, tj. lepiej niż w raporcie 2013 (U2), co jest wynikiem lepszej oceny perspektyw ochrony.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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 Phengaris arion started to decline in Sweden already in the first half of the 20th century and has later resulted in complete extinction in many parts of its former range. The present range has been rather stable the last 12 years, but when extending the period around 24 years losses have occurred in the south eastern part of continental region of Sweden. This area went extinct in the late 1980 or early 1990-ties and is included in the FRR. Adjustment of FRR compared to 2013 due to increase in known range outside desired FRR as a result of new knowledge. ||
->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.
Phengaris arion occurred earlier locally on warm sandy grassland with Thymus serphyllum in southern half of Sweden. Population has declined sharply during the second half of the 20th century. On the island Öland the species still have rather strong, and stable, populations on open calcareous bedrocks. ||
->HabInfo: P. arion is divided into two separated populations in the Swedish continental region. On the eastern half of the mainland county Skåne, and one on the southern part of the island Öland. The typical habitat in mainland is dry and nutrient-poor grasslands on sandy soil. The habitat on Öland is open calcareous bedrocks (alvar).
The habitat has gradually declined during the 20th century. The habitat on the mainland has gradually deteriorated due to changes in grazing of dry and nutrient-poor grasslands. On contrary, good habitat is still exists in open calcareous bedrocks of southern Öland. The habitat is still declining in the mainland in a short-term, as well as long-term period.
The area and quality are probably decreasing due changes in grassland management. So, the assessment for mainland is; area ‘decreasing’ / quality ‘decreasing’ on short term as well as long term. The habitat on southern Öland is stable.
The species is not severely fragmented according to IUCN criteria. ||
->Future: Current status is bad for range and population and inadequate for habitat. Population and habitat have negative short-term trends, while range is stable. Large restoration of habitats might have ceased habitat reduction, and the trend might change during future 12 year period. Thus future prospect is similar to present conclusions, but habitat will get poor future prospects. ||
->Conclusion: No changes compared to previous report. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: M. arion is redlisted as near threatened (NT) in Sweden (2015, 2010), in earlier redlists as vulnerable (VU) (2000, 2005). Suggested redlist category 2020 is near threatened (NT).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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Sampling localities were visited only once in 2014 and 2015. In absence of time series data, we considered (a) expert opinion of known population localities since 2007, (b) population localities from the Greek butterfly atlas and other bibliographic or unpublished records, (c) the proportion % of species presence in the localities visited in 2014 and 2015 (filtering only for adequate localities in terms of phenology), in order to provide an estimation of minimum and maximum population size (population classes).
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 1645 km2, the area of suitable habitat is 4679 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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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: "Maculinea arion"
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