Article 17 web tool

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

5.11 Difference in surface area between periods is mainly due to unequal sampling intensity. ||
->Population: 6.8 Population trend was calculated for hibernation roosts with rtrim 2.0.
1) Trend hibernation roosts: strong increase (p < 0.05), 13 % increase per year (SE 2.5), 59 sites, 404 counts ||
->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 daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
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 Vorkommenspunkte (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 daubentonii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Se han aportadonuevos datos correspondientes a la región de Aragón, por lo tanto el rango de la especie ha aumentado en este sexenio (2012-2018), debido a una mejora del conocimiento disponible. ||
->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 daubentonii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Il est vraisemblable que même avec 130000 individus la population est sous-estimée. De combien ? ||
->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 daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Nocek rudy jest gatunkiem eurytopowym i jego zasięg obejmuje prawdopodobnie cały region ALP. Brak danych w niektórych polach siatki 10x10 km jest spowodowany brakiem badań chiropterologicznych na tych obszarach. Różnice na mapie rozmieszczenia gatunku w stosunku do raportu z 2013 r. wynikają (1) z zastosowania innego podejścia do danych uznawanych za aktualne (w tym raporcie za aktualne przyjęto stwierdzenia datowane po roku 2000) oraz zastosowania do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. Stąd tak duża różnica w powierzchni zasięgu w stosunku do poprzedniego raportu. ||
->Population: W związku z dużymi zdolnościami migracyjnymi nocka rudego w Polsce (Rogowska, Kokurewicz 2007) nie obserwujemy fragmentacji jego populacji. Badania struktury wiekowej, płciowej, rozrodu i śmiertelności nie są systematycznie prowadzone w naszym kraju.
W związku ze spadkiem liczebności nocka rudego w regionie kontynentalnym jest prawdopodobne, że podobne zjawisko może dotyczyć również regionu alpejskiego. Brak jednak na to dowodów, dlatego krótkoterminowy trend w populacji określono ostrożnie jako niepewny.
Minimalną wielkość populacji w obowiązujących w tym raporcie jednostkach, czyli polach siatki 1x1 km, określono na 2 000, 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 rudego jest takich pól 20 (20x100=2000). ||
->HabInfo: W opinii eksperckiej powierzchnia i jakość zajmowanego siedliska są wystarczające dla utrzymania się gatunku, a trend jakości siedliska jest nieznany. ||
->Future: Perspektywy dla gatunku sa generalnie dobre. Jakość siedlisk dobra. Rozmieszczenie szerokie. Z powodu ogólnie lepszego stanu siedlisk w regionie alpejskim intensywność negatywnych oddziaływań na populację nocka rudego jest mniejsza niż w regionie kontynentalnym. ||
->Conclusion: Ostatnie systematyczne badania monitoringowe w zimowych siedliskach nocka rudego w biogorgaficznym regonie alpejskim objęły okres od 1997 do 2012 r. (Piksa, Nowak 2013) i wykazały słaby trend wzrostu liczebności populacji. Nocka rudego nie uwzględniono w ramach Państwowego Monitoringu Środowiska (http://www.gios.gov.pl/siedliska/). W związku ze spadkiem liczebności nocka rudego w regionie kontynentalnym istnieje podejrzenie, że podobne zjawisko może dotyczyć regionu alpejskiego. Z tego powodu zaniepokojenie budzi brak możliwości określenia krótkoterminowego trendu zmian liczebności populacji w regionie alpejskim. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie:
Różnice na mapie rozmieszczenia gatunku w stosunku do raportu z 2013 r. wynikają z zastosowania innego podejścia do danych uznawanych za aktualne. W tym raporcie za aktualne przyjęto stwierdzenia datowane po roku 2000.
Stan zasięgu oceniono jako właściwy (FV), tak jak w raporcie z 2013 r.
Populacja:
Do oszacowania wielkości populacji zastosowano nową metodę tj. liczbę pól siatki geograficznej 1x1 km. Nową oszacowaną wartość wynoszącą 2 000 należy traktować jako minimalną. Trend krótkoterminowy (2007–2018) jest nieznany z powodu niewystarczających danych. W związku ze spadkiem liczebności nocka rudego w regionie kontynentalnym jest prawdopodobne, że podobne zjawisko może dotyczyć regionu alpejskiego. Stan populacji oceniono jako nieznany (XX). Nastąpiła zmiana w stosunku do oceny w raporcie z 2013 r., w którym stan oceniono jako właściwy (FV).
Siedlisko gatunku: stan właściwy (FV).
Powierzchnia i jakość zajmowanego siedliska są wystarczające dla przetrwania gatunku a trend jakości siedliska jest nieznany. Stan siedlisk oceniono jako właściwy (FV), podobnie jak w raporcie z 2013 r.
Perspektywy ochrony: dobre (FV)
Rozmieszczenie szerokie. Z powodu ogólnie lepszego stanu siedlisk w regionie alpejskim intensywność negatywnych oddziaływań na populację nocka rudego jest mniejsza niż w regionie kontynentalnym. Znaczenie obecnych oddziaływań jest istotne, dodatkowo z powodu szybkiego rozwoju gospodarczego należy się spodziewać, że będą się one utrzymywały w przyszłości a ich intensywność będzie rosła.
Nie nastąpiło pogorszenie oceny parametru w stosunku do oceny w raporcie z 2013 r.
Ocena ogólna: stan właściwy (FV)
Brak zmiany w stosunku do oceny w raporcie z 2013 r.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
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)
We are convinced that the reported increase in range is due to improved knowledge, the effective range is stable. ||
->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, …).
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). Due to the limited magnitude of the increase that is found in this study and the large expected bias we report the trend as uncertain
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.
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: 10.1.b future prospects for population: An assessment would be possible on the basis of structured monitoring data of hibernating animals. This data does exist but was not made available by Natuurpunt Vleermuizenwerkgroep, owner of the data ||
->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 daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: L'évaluation basée sur le nombre de mailles de 1*1 km occupées donne une valeur énorme ... mais qui est peut-être vraie ! ||
->HabInfo: Cette espèce est un peu délaissée par les naturalistes et très peu d'individus ont été équipés d'émetteurs. Malgré tout les captures au filets et les contacts ultrasonores permettent de connaître à peu près l'habitat de l'espèce ||
->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 daubentonii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Distribution records were collated for this species between 2007 and 2018. These records translated to 604 x 10km squares. Using the range tool, with gap closure set to 20km, an additional 138 grid cells were incorporated giving a total range of 742 cells or 74,200km2. This is thought to provide a good representation of the true extent of the species’ distribution in Ireland, although additional survey work in the extreme south-west might be expected to expand the species’ range there.
The range of the Daubenton’s bat in 2013, based on data from 2007-2012, was calculated as 69,800km2. Although the current range is somewhat greater, this is considered to be a reflection of better data following more concerted survey work, rather than a genuine increase due to range expansion. The trend is considered to be stable.
The Favourable Reference Range is taken to be the same as the Range. The 2013 figure was based on the known range of the species at that time but it has been updated for this assessment to reflect the improved data now available. It is considered to be large enough to allow the long term survival of the species. ||
->Population: The figure in 6.2 is derived from all known distribution records between 2007 and 2018. This is considered to reflect a minimum estimate of the species distribution in Ireland and is not considered a useful reflection of population.
An actual population estimate is provided in 6.4. Since all Daubenton’s bat roosts are not known it is not possible to count the population based on a complete census. Therefore, the population of mature (volant) individuals has been estimated using data from the Waterway Monitoring Scheme dataset. This population estimate is calculated based on the estimated detection range for echolocating Daubenton’s bats and the approximate length of waterway and lake perimeter across the country, multiplied by the probability of detecting a Daubenton’s bat in any given moment in time. The minimum end of the range is based on a smaller estimate for river length based on Water Framework Directive Data, while the maximum end is based on data for river length classified according to average widths from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Both estimates include lake perimeter data from the EPA. This population estimate uses a number of assumptions which may be only approximately correct and it could be improved with more detailed information on size and shape of detectable areas, and greater knowledge of the extent of Daubenton’s bat use of lakes. However, it may be considered a starting point from which to refine future estimates. These are the same figures provided in 2013. See Roche et al. (2013) for further details.
The short-term trend is also based on data from the Waterways Bat Monitoring scheme which has been operating since 2006. The species abundance has hovered slightly above the baseline since then. Although the lower 95% confidence interval currently overlaps the 2007 baseline (i.e. 0), the 12-year trend indicates a total increase of 10.91% (C.I. 95% = -7 to +31%), which represents a yearly increase of 1.04%. See Aughney et al. (2018) for full details. No longer-term trend is available.
The short-term trend was based on data from 2006-2017 but it is assumed to be the same for the default trend period 2007-2018.
The Favourable Reference Population used for the 2013 report is retained. It is the lower end of the estimated population range calculated for this species (see Roche et al., 2013 for full details). The higher population estimate (79,000) is derived from EPA stream order data (2012); however, this may include some streams that are insufficiently wide to support the species. Therefore, the lower of the two estimates is selected as a minimum Favourable Reference Population. ||
->HabInfo: Daubenton’s bat forages over water and is particularly associated with slow-moving rivers and with lake shores; it can also be found on wide streams, canals and ponds. It favours waterways with riparian vegetation, particularly broadleaf woodlands, and is positively associated with good water quality and invertebrate diversity. It is less likely to be present where there are street lights. It also tends to avoid areas of peatland and is negatively associated with increasing altitudes.
Habitat and roosting associations of Daubenton’s bat were modelled using a Maximum Entropy model by Lundy et al. (2011) to determine likelihood of occurrence in specific habitats in the Irish landscape and maternity roost preferences. This modelling was carried out using roost and bat detector location data from 2000-2009 which is stored on the Bat Conservation Ireland bat database and includes records from monitoring schemes, BATLAS 2010 and records contributed by ecologists, academics and volunteers, among others. CORINE landcover, altitude, climate data, soil pH and human bias layers were included in the model. Modelling was carried out to a 5km scale. Daubenton’s bat records were found to be associated broadly with riparian habitats, broadleaved woodland, and small amounts of urbanisation (Lundy et al., 2011). Since these habitat types are currently stable or increasing, the habitat quality for the species is considered good and the habitat trend is taken as stable. ||
->Future: The Daubenton’s bat is widespread across Ireland and its population is showing signs of increase. The species exploits a habitat niche which is widely available in Ireland and despite some local reductions in quality (e.g. due to light pollution) there appears to be sufficient suitable habitat going forward. ||
->Conclusion: The Daubenton’s bat is widespread across all parts of the country and Range is assessed as Favourable as there is no evidence of any decline since the Directive came into force.
Recent estimates for this species suggest a population size in the order to 57,000-79,000 animals. Ongoing monitoring indicates that the population is stable or even slightly increasing and there is no evidence of decline in suitable habitat. Although some pressures/threats have been noted, there is no indication of any major pressures currently impacting on the species and future prospects are considered good. Overall, the species is assessed as Favourable and the overall trend is demonstrating an on-going increase. There were no qualifiers for Favourable assessments in 2013. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis daubentonii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The increase in range is mainly due to improved knowledge and more accurate data. ||
->Population: Change in method is to estimate ‘’population size’’ in occupied grid cells, in stead of # individuals as last time.
De populatietrend is berekend door het CBS op basis van wintertellingen uit het NEM. ||
->HabInfo: Due to historical factors (maternity) roosts overrepresented in tree lanes, there is an existing gap in age between tree lanes and woodland. Although policy regarding woodland directed on increase of structure and age exists, measures to deal with tree lane management and woodland management need to address the function of roosting habitat. We do not know whether the protection following the Nature conservation law is implemented effectively. Policies to increase area of wetlands will be positive effect of unknown magnitude. ||
->Future: Soort is deels afhankelijk van gebouwen in de zomer en wordt daardoor enigszins bedreigd door de verduurzaming van gebouwen.

Wide spread, numbers not well known; trend in hibernacula OK; Due to historical factors (maternity) roosts are overrepresented in tree lanes; there is an existing gap in age between tree lanes and woodlands. Although policy regarding woodland is directed on increase of structure and age, measures to deal with tree lane management and woodland management need to address the function of roosting habitat. We do not know whether the protection following the Nature conservation law is implemented effectively. ||
->Conclusion: Vorige keer is 11.6 niet ingevuld, nu wel. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Short term trend in range has been assessed by using the 2019 distribution data and the 2013 method for calculating range and comparing the result with range surface area in 2013. For further information see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document and country assessments. ||
->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. UK population estimates have been derived from the GB estimate in Mathews et. al., 2018 and the Northern Ireland estimate from the 2013 Article 17 report. The estimates by Harris et al (1995) for the previous reporting rounds were based on expert judgement and extrapolation from limited field surveys. The 1995 population estimate for GB was based on very limited information. The new estimate, taken from Mathews et. al., (2018) is considered to be more robust. The current population (in individuals) is considered to be approximately equal to the FRP and is sufficient to maintain a viable population. ||
->HabInfo: The estimated area of suitable habitat for this species appears to have increased since 2013, but that is likely to be due to a change in method of calculation. It is assumed that this species, which can occupy a wide variety of habitat types, could be present throughout the habitable area. ||
->Future: Future trend in Range is Overall stable; Future trend in Population is Unknown; and Future trend in Habitat for the species is Overall stable. For further information on how future trends inform the Future Prospects conclusion see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document. ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.

Conclusion on Population reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Population size is stable; and (ii) the current Population size is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Population.

Conclusion on Habitat for the species reached because: (i) the area of occupied habitat is sufficiently large and (ii) the habitat quality is suitable for the long-term survival of the species; and (iii) the short-term trend in area and quality of habitat is stable.

Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future prospects for Range are good; (ii) the Future prospects for Population good; and (iii) the Future prospects for Habitat for the species are good.

Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Favourable because all of the conclusions are Favourable.

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

Overall assessment of Conservation Status has not changed since 2013.

Overall trend in conservation status 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 daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Increase in range is due to better spatial coverage of monitoring sites (pond bat monitoring). ||
->Population: The population trends from hibernation counts indicate stable trends for both, short-term and long-term periods. The population trends from summer counts (detector surveys) indicate also stable trends. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Previous assessment (2007-2012): FV. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Species is common in Latvia and also found in all adjacent countries. ||
->Population: Population size method different from previous reporting period (individuals vs 1x1 km grids). Population trends based on monitoring of hibernating bats in Latvia (1993-now) in 149 underground or semi-underground sites. Population size unknown, very rough calculations based on the area of potentially suitable habitats. ||
->HabInfo: Habitat trend marked “unknown”, although 1) intensive logging may reduce availability of older forest growths and therefore – potential bat roosts in trees; 2) during last 5-10 years there is an increasing tendency to remove old alleys along roads (potential roost sites, transition routes) and dead/dying trees or their parts in old parks. ||
->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 daubentonii"
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 daubentonii is considered to have been stable. ||
->Future: Future prospects are considered as good for Myotis daubentonii ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

5.11 Difference in surface area between periods is mainly due to unequal sampling intensity. ||
->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 daubentonii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: The species seems always common. Unlike many bats followed in hibernation, daubenton's bat shows some stability in numbers. The slight measured increase ( 1 % in the short periode) seems insignificant. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: The method and the sites taken into account for the population estimate was slightly different in the previous reporting (the entire population of St Pieterberg limestone mine was previously counted as ATL).

Even if the general status seems good again, the slow positive trends in the winter counts (compare with other taxa) could be worrying. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: La population peut sembler énorme ais vue la surface couverte, la présence partout de cette espèce, à peine moins commune que la Pipistrelle commune, l'estimation n'est pas si aberrante. ||
->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 daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range based on records and experts' opinion (buffering primary and secondary river systems, plus wetlands and wintering sites) ||
->Population: Possible slight decrease;
Only 2 reproduction colonies known, but many more expected as Myotis daubentonii is a rather common species near water bodies in Luxembourg;
Population size in reporting unit (grids 1x1) estimated on records and estimated distribution from experts' opinion by buffering larger rivers, water bodies and hibernating sites ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Rather common species, covering the whole territory near larger water bodies and hibernating sites in Luxembourg ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis daubentonii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Różnice na mapie rozmieszczenia gatunku w stosunku do raportu z 2013 r. wynikają z zastosowania innego podejścia do danych uznawanych za aktualne (w tym raporcie za aktualne przyjęto stwierdzenia datowane po roku 2000) oraz z poprawy stanu wiedzy o rozmieszczeniu gatunku.
Nocek rudy jest gatunkiem eurytopowym i jego zasięg obejmuje teoretycznie obszar całej Polski ( i tak określono jego powierzchnię w raporcie 2013). Brak danych w niektórych kwadratach jest spowodowany brakiem badań chiropterologicznych na tych obszarach.
Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. Stąd tak duża różnica w powierzchni zasięgu podawanej w obecnym i poprzednim raporcie. ||
->Population: W opracowaniu raportu posłużono się wynikami monitoringu największego zimowiska nocka dużego w Polsce zlokalizowanego na obszarze Natura 2000 PLH 080003 „Nietoperek” oraz na opublikowanych wynikach analizy trendów w lokalnych populacjach w innych częściach regionu. W jaskini Szachownica, największym zimowisku nietoperzy w środkowej Polsce, w latach 1981–2010 odnotowano nieznaczny trend wzrostowy w populacji nocka rudego (Lesiński et al. 2011). W sztucznych schronieniach w środkowej Polsce w latach 1987 – 2009 trend liczebności populacji nocka rudego był stabilny, a w niektórych zimowiskach wykazywał niewielki spadek (Fuszara et al. 2010).
Badania prowadzone od 1999 r. przy użyciu tych samych metod i przez ten sam zespół w największym zimowisku nocka rudego w Polsce zlokalizowanym w podziemiach obszaru Natura 2000 ‘Nietoperek” powinny umożliwić wiarygodne określenie aktualnego trendu zmian liczebności populacji tego gatunku w kontynentalnym regionie biogeograficznym. W latach 1999–2007 w rezerwacie ‘Nietoperek” zimowało od 6 200 do 8 900 osobników, a w 2018 r. ok. zaledwie 4 800 osobników, co świadczy o znacznym spadku liczebności populacji tego gatunku w zachodniej Polsce. Modelowanie wieloletniego trendu (1999 – 2018) w podziemiach obszaru Natura 2000 ‘Nietoperek” (linear GAM model, P(efekt czasowy) < 0,001) wykazało, że liczebność zmniejszyła się istotnie w całym okresie badań. Wynik ten, jako najbardziej aktualny stał się podstawą do oszacowania trendu zmian liczebności populacji w kontynentalnym regionie biogeograficznym oraz do oceny stanu ochrony populacji jako niezadowalający (U1).
Nie można wykluczyć, że z powodu postępującego globalnego ocieplenia klimatu spadek liczebności populacji nocka rudego w dużych zimowiskach może być spowodowany przenoszeniem się na zimowanie do słabiej izolowanych termicznie i wilgotniejszych schronień, takich jak bunkry, piwnice, dziuple drzew, które nie są objęte monitoringiem. W tej sytuacji obserwowane spadki liczebności stanowiące podstawę oceny stanu ochrony należałoby uznać za efekt zmian klimatycznych, a nie za rzeczywisty spadek liczebności populacji. Wstępne wyniki modelowania zależności między zmianami liczebności nietoperzy w rezerwacie „Nietoperek” a ociepleniem klimatu (Kokurewicz, T., Kirkpatrick, L., Glover, A., Haddow, J., Schmidt, C., Schofield, H., Bongers, F., Willems, K., G. Apoznański. 2017. An influence of climatic factors on numbers of bats hibernating underground – the consequences for methodology of winter monitoring. Pp. 122, in: Abstract book of the 14th European Bat Research Symposium - EBRS 2017, 1-5 August 2017. Donostia, The Basque Country) wskazują na taką możliwość, jednak przy obecnym stanie wiedzy nie można jednoznacznie rozstrzygnąć tego problemu.
Minimalną wielkość populacji w obowiązujących w tym raporcie jednostkach, czyli polach siatki 1x1 km, określono na 21 600, 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 rudego jest takich pól 216 (216x100=21 600). ||
->HabInfo: Podsumowanie trendu zmian liczebności nocka rudego w Europie w ramach projektu „Prototype biodiversity indicator” wykazało nieznaczny wzrost w latach 1993–2011 w 2 125 monitorowanych stanowiskach zimowych (Haysom et al. 2013).
W tej sytuacji spadki liczebności obserwowane w Polsce w tym samym czasie i utrzymujące się obecnie są najprawdopodobniej rzeczywistym trendem spadkowym spowodowanym pogorszeniem jakości siedlisk tego gatunku. Niekorzystne zmiany dotyczą przede wszystkim siedlisk zimowych i polegają na ich wysychaniu (być może spowodowanym globalnym ociepleniem) i/lub celowym osuszaniu, co powoduje zmniejszenie względnej wilgotności powietrza, której wysoka wartość (90–100%) jest konieczna do zimowania nocka rudego. Dodatkowym niekorzystnym czynnikiem może być brak dostatecznego zabezpieczenia przed niepokojeniem w największych schronieniach zimowych. W związku z tym stan siedlisk nocka rudego w regionie biogeograficznym kontynentalnym został uznany za niezadowalający (U1). ||
->Future: Zasięg jest szeroki, perspektywy jego utrzymania w najblizszych 12 latach wydaja się dobre. Spadek liczebności populacji (z drugiej strony szerokie rozmieszczenie gatunku, co, według autora, umożliwia także wystawienie oceny XX perspektywom dla populacji).
Spadek jakości siedlisk stwierdzony w okresie 2013 – 2018, w obliczu obserwowanych negatywnych oddziaływań i zagrożeń, skłania do uznania obecnych perspektyw dla siedliska za niezadowalające. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie:
Różnice na mapie rozmieszczenia gatunku w stosunku do raportu z 2013 r. wynikają z zastosowania innego podejścia do danych uznawanych za aktualne (w tym raporcie za aktualne przyjęto stwierdzenia datowane po roku 2000) oraz z poprawy stanu wiedzy o rozmieszczeniu gatunku. Powierzchnię zasięgu określono w poprzednim raporcie, jako powierzchnię całego regionu kontynentalnego. W obecnym raporcie zastosowano IT-tool, stąd różnica. Stan zasięgu oceniono jako właściwy FV, tak jak w raporcie z 2013 r.
Populacja:
Do oszacowania wielkości populacji zastosowano nową metodę tj. liczbę pól siatki geograficznej 1x1 km. Nową oszacowaną wartość wynoszącą 21 600 należy traktować jako minimalną. Trendy krótkoterminowe (2007–2018) i długoterminowe (1994–2018) są spadkowe. Właściwa populacja referencyjna FRP na poziomie populacji aktualnej. Z powodu trendu spadkowego stan populacji oceniono jako niezadowalający (U1). Nastąpiło pogorszenie w stosunku do oceny w raporcie z 2013 r.
Siedlisko gatunku:
Krótkoterminowy trend jakości siedliska należy uznać za spadkowy, co rzutuje na ocenę ogólną dotyczącą tego parametru oceny. Stan siedlisk oceniono jako niezadowalający (U1), a więc nastąpiło pogorszenie w stosunku do oceny w raporcie z 2013 r. (wtedy nieznany (XX).
Perspektywy ochrony: Niezadowalające (U1)
Spadek jakości siedlisk stwierdzone w okresie 2013 – 2018, w obliczu obserwowanych negatywnych oddziaływań i zagrożeń skłaniają do uznania obecnych perspektyw jego ochrony za niezadowalające. Nastąpiło pogorszenie w stosunku do oceny w raporcie z 2013 r., w którym perspektywy ochrony uznano za dobre (FV).
Ocena ogólna:
Z uwagi na niezadowalające oceny populacji, stanu siedliska i perspektyw ochrony stan gatunku określono jako niezadowalający (U1), a więc gorzej niż w raporcie 2013 r. (stan właściwy, FV). Ocena ta może ulec poprawie w rezultacie minimalizacji najważniejszych zagrożeń, do których należą: (1) utrata schronień kolonii letnich, (2) osuszanie podziemnych siedlisk, (3) płoszenie w okresie zimowania, (4) adaptacja podziemnych schronień nietoperzy do celów turystycznych. W raporcie z 2013 r. sygnalizowano spadek liczebności nocka rudego w regionie kontynentalnym i sugerowano, że jest on prawdopodobnie wynikiem naturalnych procesów biologicznych nie zagrażających przetrwaniu gatunku, w szczególności zmniejszeniem bazy pokarmowej w wyniku rozpoczętego po 1989 roku programu poprawy czystości wód i dostosowywaniem się liczebności populacji do zmniejszonej zasobności bazy pokarmowej. Posługując się zasadą przezorności, w sytuacji utrzymywania się trendów spadkowych w kolejnym pięcioletnim okresie należy przyjąć rzeczywisty spadek liczebności populacji, do czasu przeprowadzenia dodatkowych badań nad ekologią hibernacji nocka rudego w regionie kontynentalnym.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis daubentonii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Hilbers et al. (2016) ||
->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 daubentonii"
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 daubentonii is considered to have been stable. ||
->Future: Future prospects are considered as good for Myotis daubentonii. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: La especie se distribuye ampliamente por toda la región Mediterránea. Se ha descubierto en Islas Baleares recientemente como nuevas citas (Conselleria d'Agricultura, Medi Ambient i Territori, 2012). ||
->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 daubentonii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: La population alternative a été estimée sur la base des estimations faites dans les autres régions et comparativement ||
->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 daubentonii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Method used for population estimates in 5X5 grid cells from ecological niche modelling: all 5X5 grid cells inside current species distribution were selected with probability of occurrence greater than 0,3 (p>0,3) for minimum population estimate and greater than 0,2 (p>0,2) for maximum population estimate.
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 24550 km2, the area of suitable habitat is 32125 km2 and its quality is good.
Although foraging mainly above water surfaces, it may be tolerant and flexible species. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: For this species not enough data were collected during the period 2001-2014. Thus, the distribution, range, population size, habitat area and suitable habitat area were calculated or estimated using the most recent qualitative and quantitative data.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Myotis daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
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 daubentonii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Real Overall trend in Conservation Status is deteriorating but it does not fit to the matrix (decreasing habitat has stronger weight than stabil trend of range) ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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