Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: 5.1 Gap distance 20.000m

5.2 Due to few records in the recommended time period, a reasonable assessment was only possible within the extended time period. ||
->Population: 6.7 Due to few records in the recommended time period, a reasonable assessment was only possible within the extended time period. ||
->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: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: El área de distribución actual de la especie en la región Alpina se encuentra en áreas pirenaicas de Navarra, Aragón y Cataluña. Nuevas cuadrículas aportadas por Aragón han incrementado el rango de la especie. ||
->Population: Las poblaciones de este pequeño murciélago forestal se encuentran fragmentadas y dispersas por toda su área de distribución. No obstante, todavía no han sido identificadas en otras áreas potenciales y el esfuerzo de muestreo habría de incrementarse, por tanto las poblaciones podrían estar subestimadas actualmente. ||
->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: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Wiedza o rozmieszczeniu gatunku poprawiła się od czasu sporządzenia poprzedniego raportu (np. znacznie wzrosła liczba stwierdzeń gatunku). Zmiany na mapie rozmieszczenia gatunku w stosunku do raportu 2013 wynikają z zastosowania innego podejścia do danych uznanych za aktualne oraz poprawy stanu wiedzy o rozmieszczeniu gatunku.
Powierzchnię zasięgu określono jako powierzchnię całego regionu alpejskiego.
Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. ||
->Population: Znanych jest kilkanaście kolonii rozrodczych, dziesiątki zimowisk i miejsc rojenia. Corocznie w kilkudziesięciu regularnie kontrolowanych jaskiniach Tatr zimuje od ok. 1000 do ok. 2500 osobników tego gatunku, przy otworach jaskiń w okresie rojenia obserwowanych jest kilka tysięcy osobników. W skali całego regionu stan liczebność można oszacować na minimum 10 000 osobników (podobnie jak w poprzednim raporcie). W kluczowych zimowiskach obserwowany jest trend wzrostowy, odkrywane są także nowe zimowiska. Stan populacji określono jako właściwy FV (ocena jak w raporcie 2007 i 2013).
Wielkość populacji gatunku w obowiązujących aktualnie jednostkach – polach siatki 1x1 km – określono na podstawie wielkości powierzchni leśnej regionu ALP oraz całego obszaru Tatr. ||
->HabInfo: Potencjalnym siedliskiem tego gatunku w okresie letnim jest więc strefa leśna ALP oraz cały obszar Tatr. Powierzchnię tę można szacować na ok. 6600 km2.. Schronieniami letnimi nocka wąsatka mogą być szczeliny w budynkach drewnianych, miejsca za okiennicami, pod parapetami, inne typy szczelin. Liczba tego typu schronień wydaje się maleć. Generalnie jednak dostępność odpowiednich siedlisk wydaje się dobra. ||
->Future: Perspektywy ochrony są dobre (ocena jak w raporcie 2007, 2013) ze względu na szeroki zasięg, liczną populację, obecność licznych schronień zimowych i bardzo duże areały optymalnych żerowisk.
Istnieją zagrożenia mogące mieć negatywny wpływ na stan siedlisk (zwłaszcza dotyczący schronień letnich). Ich intensywność wydaje się jednak umiarkowana. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie. Wiedza o rozmieszczeniu gatunku poprawiła się od czasu sporządzenia poprzedniego raportu (np. znacznie wzrosła liczba stwierdzeń gatunku). Zmiany na mapie rozmieszczenia gatunku w stosunku do raportu 2013 wynikają z zastosowania innego podejścia do danych uznanych za aktualne oraz poprawy stanu wiedzy o rozmieszczeniu gatunku.
Powierzchnię zasięgu określono jako powierzchnię całego regionu alpejskiego. Stan zasięgu określono jako właściwy FV (ocena jak w raporcie 2007 i 2013).

Populacja. Znanych jest kilkanaście kolonii rozrodczych, dziesiątki zimowisk i miejsc rojenia. Centrum występowania tego gatunku w regionie, w Polsce i w Europie Środkowej stanowią Tatry. Corocznie w kilkudziesięciu regularnie kontrolowanych jaskiniach Tatr zimuje od ok. 1000 do ok. 2500 osobników tego gatunku, przy otworach jaskiń w okresie rojenia obserwowanych jest kilka tysięcy osobników. W skali całego regionu stan liczebność można oszacować na minimum 10 000 osobników. W kluczowych zimowiskach obserwowany jest trend wzrostowy, odkrywane są także nowe zimowiska. Stan populacji określono jako właściwy FV (ocena jak w raporcie 2007 i 2013).

Wartości referencyjne (zasięg i populacja). Właściwy referencyjny zasięg jest równy aktualnemu. Właściwa referencyjna populacja – zgodnie z przyjętą w raporcie 2007 i 2013.

Siedlisko. Nocek wąsatek jest gatunkiem eurytermicznym. Zimuje w partiach jaskiń, jaskiniach charakteryzujących się stabilnymi jak i labilnymi warunkami mikroklimatycznymi. W regionie znajduje się kilkaset jaskiń, w których nietoperz ten może hibernować. Miejscem żerowania tego gatunku mogą być drzewostany zarówno liściaste jak i drzewiaste, większe zakrzewienia, wyjątkowo tereny otwarte. Potencjalnym siedliskiem tego gatunku w okresie letnim jest więc strefa leśna ALP oraz cały obszar Tatr. Powierzchnię tę można szacować na ok. 6600 km2.. Schronieniami letnimi nocka wąsatka mogą być szczeliny w budynkach drewnianych, miejsca za okiennicami, pod parapetami, inne typy szczelin. Liczba tego typu schronień wydaje się maleć. Generalnie jednak stan siedlisk wydaje się właściwy FV (ocena jak w raporcie 2007 i 2013).

Perspektywy ochrony. Perspektywy ochrony są dobre (ocena jak w raporcie 2007, 2013) ze względu na liczną obecność schronień zimowych, bardzo duże areały optymalnych żerowisk.
Istnieją zagrożenia mogące mieć negatywny wpływ na stan siedlisk (zwłaszcza dotyczący schronień letnich). Ich intensywność wydaje się jednak umiarkowana.

Ocena ogólna. Stan gatunku jest właściwy; ocena jak w raporcie 2007 i 2017.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: 5.5 ST trend method: we consider the sampling effort as sufficient to determine the range and the ST trend in the range (hence the score a) but a more structured/extensive survey would be needed to determine the real distribution within the range (hence the score b for the distribution maps under 2.4)” ||
->Population: 6.2 and 6.3 Population size and type of estimate: Based mostly on individual non structured observations (citizen science data) with a highly varying sampling effort through the Flemish region: some areas are severely underrepresented and others not sampled at all. Unvalidated data was not taken into account which creates additional gaps (NE Limburg, Voeren, Brabant, …). Only observations assigned to M. mystacinus (and thus not to the complex with M. brandtii) were used.
6.4 Additional population size: data do exist about the number of hibernating individuals counted during an annual structured census but this data was not made available by Natuurpunt Vleermuizenwerkgroep, owner of the data
6.8 ST trend: The trend based on differences in 1*1 km grids is increasing but this is most probably the result of an increased sampling effort. An estimate of the ST term would be possible using the existing structured monitoring data of hibernating animals in buildings and underground sites. This data was not made available by Natuurpunt Vleermuizenwerkgroep, owner of the data, so we report the trend as uncertain.
6.12 LT trend: Based on a statistical analysis of the hibernation data described in Nyssen (2017).
6.15 Favourable ref pop: regional conservation targets are defined for the number of hibernating individuals counted during the structured annual census (Paelinckx et al. 2009). Since the existing hibernation data was not made available, we cannot use the defined favourable reference population to assess the state of the population for the current reporting period. The reference population in Paelinckx et al. (2009) applies to the complex M. mystacinus + M. brandtii but since the majority of the individuals in Flanders have been shown to be M. mystacinus s.s. (Fairon et al. 1982, Verkem & Van der Wijden 2003), we assume that the value can be used for M. mystacinus.
6.16 Change: Since the existing hibernation data was not made available, the population size and ST trend could not be assessed for the present reporting period. The reported change is the result of a change in data availability. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: 11.6 and 11.7 overall trend in conservation status and change: Since the existing hibernation data was not made available, the trend could not be assessed for the present reporting period. The reported change is the result of a change in data availability. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: El área de distribución actual de la especie en la región Atlántica se encuentra en Galicia, País Vasco, Navarra y la cornisa cantábrica. Recientes estudios y muestreos de campo realizados en País Vasco y Galicia han constatado la presencia de la especie en nuevas cuadrículas por lo que el área de distribución está en aumento, bien por expansión de la propia especie o bien por mejora del conocimiento, lo cual parece más probable. ||
->Population: Las poblaciones de este pequeño murciélago forestal se encuentran fragmentadas y dispersas por toda su área de distribución. No obstante, todavía no han sido identificadas en otras áreas potenciales y el esfuerzo de muestreo habría de incrementarse, por tanto las poblaciones podrían estar subestimadas actualmente. ||
->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: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: A total of 258 distribution records were collated for this species between 2001 and 2018. These records translated to 125 x 10km squares. Using the range tool, with gap closure set to 20km, an additional 145 grid cells were incorporated giving a total range of 270 cells or 27,000km2. This is thought to under-represent the true extent of the species distribution in Ireland.
The range of the whiskered bat in 2013, based on data from 2001-2012, was calculated as 93 x 10km squares. Although the current range appears significantly greater, this is considered to be a reflection of better data and the longer time period used for the data collection, rather than any actual change in range. The new range, though still considered a minimum figure, is thought to better reflect the true distribution of the species and this figure is now taken to also represent the FRR. The value is considered to be large enough to support a viable whiskered bat population and is higher than the estimated range of the species when the Habitats Directive came into force in Ireland. ||
->Population: The figure in 6.2 is derived from all known distribution records between 2001 and 2018 intersected with the 1x1km grid. It is considered to be an underestimate of the true spread of the species and not a useful indicator of population size. The 2013 report used 10km grid cells as a proxy for population.
Although roost surveys are widely used to count whiskered bat across its European range (Battersby, 2010), this species roosts in small numbers in Ireland making monitoring based on roost counts unviable. Furthermore, bat detector records of this species are difficult to tell apart from other Myotis species. In 2016 and 2017, testing of woodland-based monitoring (Boston et al., 2017) indicated that dedicated surveys for whiskered bat could provide robust population trends in time. However, the roll out of this new monitoring scheme has not been possible to date due to the associated costs and the limited number of bat surveyors available. Until an effective method of population assessment is developed, the same method as used in 2013 – number of 10km grid cells in the range – is provided (in 6.4) as a proxy for population.
No population trend data is available. Although the number of 10km cells occupied is higher than that shown in 2013, this reflects the longer time period used, allowing a more complete representation of the species distribution and is not considered to be an indication of population increase. In the absence of data to the contrary, and using best expert judgement, the trend is assumed to be stable. This is based on data from 2006-2017 but it is assumed to be the same for the default trend period 2007-2018.
The current population as presented in 6.4 (270 x 10km squares) is considered to be large enough to maintain the long-term viability of the species and is also taken as the Favourable Reference Population. ||
->HabInfo: Old stone buildings and masonry bridges provide the main roosting habitats for whiskered bats. Broadleaf woodland, mixed forests, riparian woods and pasture have been identified as the main foraging habitats for this bat in Ireland, with some evidence of urban areas and scrub being used too (Lundy et al., 2011).
It is hard to assess the ongoing availability of roosting habitats. Although some roosts are being lost due to natural deterioration and on occasion due to destruction, the gradual decline and deterioration of old stone buildings is offset to some extent by maintenance grants (e.g. the Heritage Council’s Buildings at Risk and Traditional Farm Buildings schemes – both of which take bats into account during assessments and resulting works). Maintenance of old masonry road bridges by local authorities is ongoing, but generally an informed approach is used, with appropriate consideration and mitigation put in place for bats.
The area of forest habitats is steadily increasing in Ireland. Although much of the forest estate is conifer plantation (and therefore sub-optimal for bats), the area of broadleaved and mixed woodland is also slowly expanding (DAFM, 2018). If the area of pasture is taken as stable, the area of foraging habitat overall may even be increasing.
Overall, however, it is assumed that the habitat area and quality required by this bat is stable. ||
->Future: The range of the species is stable and is not smaller than the Favourable Reference Range. There are no indications that this parameter will disimprove.
The current population is equal to the Favourable Reference Population and is considered to be large enough to maintain the long-term viability of the species.
This bat uses a range of foraging habitats including woodlands and pastures. These habitats are widespread and increasing. Some declines in roosting opportunities may be happening but more information is needed on this issue. Overall, habitat is considered to be good. ||
->Conclusion: The current range of the species is stable and favourable. The current population is equal to the Favourable Reference Population and the habitats used by this bat are stable or increasing.
Building renovation and loss of foraging habitat are potential threats for this species, but are not considered to be significant. The most recent Red Data List for Irish Mammals (Marnell et al., 2009) lists whiskered bat as least concern and, overall, the conservation status of this species has been assessed as Favourable. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The number of grid cells positive for the species has increased ; this is however due to increased effort and enhanced methods. So the increase in range is mainly due to improved knowledge. Because of this improved knowledge it is not clear what FRR should be. ||
->Population: Note: In the population monitoring scheme based on hibernation counts, the sibling species Myotis mystacinus & Myotis brandtii are combined. Discriminating between the species would require handling, which is disturbing during hibernation and prohibited. M. mystacinus is perceived as much more abundant than M. brandtii, so data and derived trend information can be seen as a proxy for the population development of M. mystacinus.
The short term trend for M. mystacinus/brandtii is calculated for the last 12 years (2006-2017). This trend is stable. However, 2012 was a peak year, with highest observed numbers of hibernating Whiskered bats in the Netherlands and in the hibernaculum Westerbork. Between 2012 and 2018 a decline of >90% of the population in the hibernacula Westerbork has been observed, from > 1000 to < 50 individuals (Jansen et al. 2016, 2017). Calculating a short term trend for a period of 10 years back from 2017 would render a negative trend (communication with CBS/Central Bureau for Statistics). Therefore it is more appropriate to assess the current situation of the species as having declining short term trend.

Change in method is to estimate ‘’population size’’ in occupied grid cells, in stead of # individuals as last time. ||
->HabInfo: Roosting habitat (e.g. Attics) under pressure (preservation of wooden constructions and lighting around churches). Fouraging habitat probably increasing due to maturing forests and sustainable forest management. Foraging habitats apart from woodland are not studied well enough. ||
->Future: Soort is geheel of voornamelijk afhankelijk van gebouwen in de zomer en wordt daardoor bedreigd door de verduurzaming van gebouwen.
Roosts in houses as well as in trees; unknown specifics of especially hunting habitat. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The range surface area for this species has been calculated using the UK 2013 approach and not the new approach outlined in Mathews et al. (2018). The trend in range is based on comparing current range with range in 2013 and expert opinion. Apparent change in the surface area of the range is due to a different method of data collection and is not genuine change.

The difficulty of separating this species from Brandt's bat (Myotis brandtii) in terms of physical appearance and echolocation calls limits the availability of data. The estimated range is therefore likely to be less reliable for this species than for other UK bat species.

There is no evidence to suggest that this species range has declined for the specified time period. The current range is above the FRR value and is considered to be large enough to support a viable population. ||
->Population: The 1km square count has been calculated from the UK count of 1km squares where the species has been recorded. This is a minimum count because it only includes number of recorded occupied 1km squares. Accurate predictions of population size cannot be made as very few roosts are known, and it is highly likely that there is considerable misidentification of the species, which is very similar to Brandt's bat (Myotis brandtii) in physical appearance and echolocation calls. Trend information suggests the species populations are currently stable. However, lack of a population estimate and inability to set an FRP mean that the population status of this species is currently unknown. ||
->HabInfo: There is some detailed information on the habitat requirements/ limitations of this species. As this is a generalist species, using a mosaic of habitats across a large area this parameter is thought to be stable. It is assumed that there is sufficient habitat for the species, which does not appear to have declined in range or population. ||
->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 not less than 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 unknown.

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 unknown; and (iii) the Future prospects for Habitat for the species are good.

Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Favourable because three of the conclusions are Favourable and one is Unknown.

Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range – stable Population – stable, and Habitat for the species – stable.

Overall assessment of Conservation Status has not changed since 2013.

Overall trend in conservation status was not reported for this species in 2013. However, from the information available the overall trend would have been stable in 2013 and so there has been no change since the last reporting round. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The distribution and range numbers for period 2007-2012 included data from detector surveys. That means, the previus distribution/range represented the range of species complex Myotis mystacinus/brandtii + Myotis mystacinus. Current distribution and range parameters are calculated purely on the data of Myotis mystacinus. The actual range is possiby larger. ||
->Population: According to two surveys (2010-2011, 2016-2017), the frequency of occurence of Myotis brandtii is amongst all trapped brandtii/mystacinus individuals 3-4%. This species is extremely rare compared to the similar species Myotis brandtii. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Previous assessment (2007-2012): XX. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: The overall trend should be U but the drop down menu is not active in the reporting tool, thus it is not techinically possible to select the trend. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Species is rare and difficult to identify in the field. In most cases (census of hibernating bats) it is not distinguished from M.brandtii in the field. Although only few records of the species are known during the reporting period (observations during migration period not included in the map), there is no reason to assume that its distribution is restricted only to the areas of observations. Species is found in all adjacent countries. ||
->Population: There are only a few occasional data on this species. The only one summer record of M.mystacinus registered during 2013-2018 period is near one of the swarming places (young female, 06.07.2018); few individuals were caught also at the Baltic Sea coast (2014-2018). It is not distinguished from the twin species M.brandtii in the monitoring counts of the hibernating bats to avoid disturbance. Population estimate in 1x1 grids (vs individuals in previous Report) is based on the available area of potentially suitable habitats (forests, wetlands, water bodies and part of the urban areas). ||
->HabInfo: There is almost complete lack of data about summer habitats used by this species in Latvia. See also comments at 6.17. There are few known hibernation sites where species has been recorded at the latest in 2010 (no attempts to identify hibernating bats to species level later). ||
->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: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Since the abundance of bats varies a lot within Sweden we divided Sweden into 7 regions. In southern Sweden (1) the abundance is high and all species occur. At the island Gotland (2), the abundance is generally also high, but the species composition is a little bit different. In south-central Sweden, the abundance is still relatively high but a little bit lower than in region 1, and all species occur. In central Sweden (4), both the abundance and species number is much lower. In coastal areas along the Bothnian Sea (5) the abundance is higher than in inland central Sweden (region 4) and more species occur. In coastal areas along the Bothnian Bay (region 6) the abundance and species number decrease. In inland northern Norrland (region 7) the abundance of bats is very low, and there are only one species present.

Deciding habitat preferences for each species, and compiling data on the area of these habitats (H) in each of the seven regions. The habitat preferences were divided into optimal habitat (Ho), first sub-optimal habitat (Hsub1), second sub-optimal habitat (Hsub2), third sub-optimal habitat (Hsub3) and avoided habitat (Havoid).
Estimating an average abundance of colonies (CA) for different species in each region (CAreg), and estimating an average number of individuals in a colony (nc) for each species.

The density of bats in different habitats was calculated based of following assumptions: Different individuals in a colony are able to select any habitats within the home-range area of the. They use a number of habitats, but some habitats (optimal habitats) are selected more often than others (sub-optimal habitats), and some habitats are avoided. The density of bats (nd) within the home-range is calculated based on home-range size (a) and number of individuals in the colony (nc): nd = nc/a. We assumed that bats use optimal habitats, and three types of sub-optimal habitat (first sub-optimal, second suboptimal and third suboptimal) in the relation 4:3:2:1 (i.e. optimal habitats were used four times more than third sub-optimal). Thus, the abundance of bats in different habitats nh was calculated as: nh = ((3 * Ho) + (2 * Hsub1) + (1 * Hsub2) + (1 * Hsub3) 0 * Havoid). The population size of bats in each region (Nr) was then calculated as: Nr = CAreg * nh.
To summarize, the calculations of population size require knowledge on habitat preferences and area of these habitats in each region, colony size of different species, home-range area for colonies of different species and abundance of colonies in different geographical regions. Area of different habitats is calculated by using available GIS data. All other variables are set mainly based on expert judgement, in some cases supported by data from telemetry studies.

Finally an index is presented for each species. This is simply based on number of 1 x 1 km squares in which the species is reported, without any effort to transfer these figures into population size.
To be able to calculate long-term population index, the method requires that squares in which the species not is observed between the reporting periods is removed. ||
->HabInfo: In general, both the short-term trend (2007-2018) and the long-term trend (1994-2018) for the habitat for Myotis mystacinus is considered to have been stable. ||
->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: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: 5.1 Gap distance 20.000m

5. 2 Due to few records in the recommended time period, a reasonable assessment was only possible within the extended time period. ||
->Population: 6.7 Due to few records in the recommended time period, a reasonable assessment was only possible within the extended time period. ||
->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: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: In 2019, The data are strictly limited at M. mystacinus (Myotis mystacinus/brandtii excluded) ||
->Population: As Myotis mystacinus is clearly the most abundant species of the species complex, observations of M. mystacinus/brandtii were also used for the range (5.1) and population estimate (6.2), as had been done in the 2007 report. The estimate of the population trends is based entirely on hibernation census counts. The population of M. mystacinus s.l. seems to know an annual increasing between 7,2 and 7,9 % (depend on the model). As It been assumed that M. Mystacinus represent more than 70 % of the complexe, it's likely that this species is in a quite good state. ||
->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: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range based on records and experts' opinion (surroundings of low density urban areas) ||
->Population: Population size (in reporting units) based on field data and experts' opinion, buffering urbanized areas ||
->HabInfo: Based on experts opinion: econominc and agricultural pressures on the habitat are increasing constantly, hence habitat area and quality are evaluated insufficient ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Rather common and widespread species, but habitat area and quality suffer from agricultural and economic pressure ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Differentiation during hibernation roost sensus of Myotis brandtii and Myotis mystacinus is not possible without perturbation
Bat detector surveys can not differenciate both sibling species, hence accurate data of both species is defficient, but Myotis mystacinus is more common and pressures on the habitat are better known

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Gatunek częściej notowany w centralnej Polsce i południowej części regionu kontynentalnego. Z północnej części regionu kontynentalnego znany z pojedynczych stanowisk. Aktualna mapa rozmieszczenia uwzględnia wyłącznie dane uzyskane po roku 2000 (Atlas ssaków Polski 2018). Wiedza o rozmieszczeniu gatunku poprawiła się od czasu sporządzenia raportu 2013. Wzrosła liczba stwierdzeń gatunku, zwłaszcza w pd.-zach. części regionu.
Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. Stąd tak duża różnica w wielkości aktualnej powierzchni zasięgu w stosunku do poprzedniego raportu. ||
->Population: Minimalną wielkość populacji w obowiązujących w tym raporcie jednostkach, czyli polach siatki 1x1 km, określono na 8 900, co wynika z przyjętego założenia, że w każdym polu siatki 10x10km, zaznaczonym na mapie rozmieszczenia jako miejsce występowania gatunku, zasiedla on wszystkie pola siatki 1x1 km W przypadku nocka wąsatka jest takich pól 89 (89x100=8900). Trend w populacji wydaje się stabilny. ||
->HabInfo: Aktualna powierzchnia siedliska gatunku jest wystarczająco duża (przy tym stabilna), a jakość tego siedliska jest na tyle dobra, aby zapewnić trwałą egzystencję gatunku. ||
->Future: Perspektywy ochrony są dobre ze względu na szeroki zasięg, brak negatywnych trendów w populacji, dostępność schronień zimowych, bardzo duże areały potencjalnych żerowisk. Istnieje szereg zagrożeń mogących mieć negatywny wpływ na stan siedlisk (zwłaszcza dotyczący schronień letnich). Ich intensywność wydaje się jednak umiarkowana. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie. Aktualna mapa rozmieszczenia uwzględnia wyłącznie dane uzyskane po roku 2000 (Atlas ssaków Polski 2018). Wiedza o rozmieszczeniu gatunku poprawiła się od czasu sporządzenia raportu 2013. Wzrosła liczba stwierdzeń gatunku, zwłaszcza w pd.-zach. części regionu. Właściwy referencyjny zasięg jest równy aktualnemu. Ocena stanu zasięgu FV bez zmian w stosunku do raportu 2013.

Populacja. Znanych jest kilkadziesiąt stanowisk z okresu letniego i zimowego. Centrum występowania tego gatunku w regionie stanowią Sudety gdzie gatunek licznie zimuje i odławiany jest licznie w okresie rojenia. Na podstawie dostępnych danych trudno ocenić wielkość populacji w liczbie osobników. Minimalną wielkość populacji w obowiązujących w tym raporcie jednostkach, czyli polach siatki 1x1 km, określono na 8 900, co wynika z przyjętego założenia, że w każdym polu siatki 10x10km, zaznaczonym na mapie rozmieszczenia jako miejsce występowania gatunku, zasiedla on wszystkie pola siatki 1x1 km W przypadku nocka wąsatka jest takich pól 89 (89x100=8900).
Referencyjna wielkość populacji trudna do określenia.
Ocena stanu populacji FV bez zmian w stosunku do raportu 2013.

Siedlisko. Nocek wąsatek jest gatunkiem eurytermicznym. Zimuje w partiach jaskiń, jaskiniach charakteryzujących się stabilnymi jak i labilnymi warunkami mikroklimatycznymi. W regionie znajduje się kilkadziesiąt jaskiń i schronień antropogenicznych (głównie sztolnie), w których nietoperz ten może hibernować. Miejscem żerowania tego gatunku mogą być drzewostany zarówno liściaste jak i drzewiaste, większe zakrzewienia. Odpowiednim siedliskiem tego gatunku w okresie letnim jest strefa leśna CON. Powierzchnię potencjalnego siedliska w regionie można szacować na ok. 90 000km2. Schronieniami letnimi nocka wąsatka mogą być szczeliny w budynkach drewnianych, miejsca za okiennicami, pod parapetami, rzadko strychy budynków. Liczba tego typu schronień wydaje się maleć. Niemniej jednak, generalnie stan siedlisk gatunku wydaje się dobry.
Ocena stanu siedlisk FV bez zmian w stosunku do raportu 2013.

Perspektywy ochrony. Perspektywy ochrony są dobre ze względu na dostępność schronień zimowych, bardzo duże areały potencjalnych żerowisk. Istnieje szereg zagrożeń mogących mieć negatywny wpływ na stan siedlisk (zwłaszcza dotyczący schronień letnich). Ich intensywność wydaje się jednak umiarkowana.
Ocena perspektyw ochrony FV bez zmian w stosunku do raportu 2013.

Ocena ogólna. Stan gatunku jest właściwy. Ocena ogólna, jak również ocen wszystkich parametrów składających się na ocenę ogólną, są takie same, jak w raporcie 2007 i 2013 roku.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Since the abundance of bats varies a lot within Sweden we divided Sweden into 7 regions. In southern Sweden (1) the abundance is high and all species occur. At the island Gotland (2), the abundance is generally also high, but the species composition is a little bit different. In south-central Sweden, the abundance is still relatively high but a little bit lower than in region 1, and all species occur. In central Sweden (4), both the abundance and species number is much lower. In coastal areas along the Bothnian Sea (5) the abundance is higher than in inland central Sweden (region 4) and more species occur. In coastal areas along the Bothnian Bay (region 6) the abundance and species number decrease. In inland northern Norrland (region 7) the abundance of bats is very low, and there are only one species present.

Deciding habitat preferences for each species, and compiling data on the area of these habitats (H) in each of the seven regions. The habitat preferences were divided into optimal habitat (Ho), first sub-optimal habitat (Hsub1), second sub-optimal habitat (Hsub2), third sub-optimal habitat (Hsub3) and avoided habitat (Havoid).
Estimating an average abundance of colonies (CA) for different species in each region (CAreg), and estimating an average number of individuals in a colony (nc) for each species.

The density of bats in different habitats was calculated based of following assumptions: Different individuals in a colony are able to select any habitats within the home-range area of the. They use a number of habitats, but some habitats (optimal habitats) are selected more often than others (sub-optimal habitats), and some habitats are avoided. The density of bats (nd) within the home-range is calculated based on home-range size (a) and number of individuals in the colony (nc): nd = nc/a. We assumed that bats use optimal habitats, and three types of sub-optimal habitat (first sub-optimal, second suboptimal and third suboptimal) in the relation 4:3:2:1 (i.e. optimal habitats were used four times more than third sub-optimal). Thus, the abundance of bats in different habitats nh was calculated as: nh = ((3 * Ho) + (2 * Hsub1) + (1 * Hsub2) + (1 * Hsub3) 0 * Havoid). The population size of bats in each region (Nr) was then calculated as: Nr = CAreg * nh.
To summarize, the calculations of population size require knowledge on habitat preferences and area of these habitats in each region, colony size of different species, home-range area for colonies of different species and abundance of colonies in different geographical regions. Area of different habitats is calculated by using available GIS data. All other variables are set mainly based on expert judgement, in some cases supported by data from telemetry studies.

Finally an index is presented for each species. This is simply based on number of 1 x 1 km squares in which the species is reported, without any effort to transfer these figures into population size.
To be able to calculate long-term population index, the method requires that squares in which the species not is observed between the reporting periods is removed. ||
->HabInfo: In general, both the short-term trend (2007-2018) and the long-term trend (1994-2018) for the habitat for Myotis mystacinus is considered to be unkown. ||
->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: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: El área de distribución actual de la especie en la región Mediterránea se extiende en la mitad Norte peninsular, aunque recientes estudios y muestreos de campo realizados en Andalucía o Castilla la Mancha han constatado la presencia de la especie en nuevas cuadrículas por lo que el área de distribución está en expansión (Nogueras et al., 2013). Además, nuevas cuadrículas han sido aportadas por administraciones regionales por lo que el rango ha aumentado, debido a una mejora del conocimiento disponible. ||
->Population: Las poblaciones de este pequeño murciélago forestal se encuentran fragmentadas y dispersas por toda su área de distribución. No obstante, todavía no han sido identificadas en otras áreas potenciales y el esfuerzo de muestreo habría de incrementarse, por tanto las poblaciones podrían estar subestimadas actualmente. ||
->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: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: GIS data and information on micro-habitat requirements is generally insuficient to provide a reliable and meaningful estimate. ||
->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: "Myotis mystacinus"
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: "Myotis mystacinus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: There was high level of misidentification in the data on of the species (many of the earlier records of the species can be on Myotis alcatoe) ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis mystacinus"
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