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: 5.5 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