Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Nyctalus leisleri"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: 6.15 favourable reference population: there is only little information about colonies in Flanders (only a few known in Limburg, others suspected in Brabant and in other provinces) and almost no information about hibernating animals which makes it difficult to estimate the population size. We expect the population to be below the population size needed for the long-term survival. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: 10.1c
The future prospects for habitat are unknown. On the one hand an increase in habitat area and quality can be expected given the aging forests and the more ecological management of these forests. On the other hand, the migratory behaviour and the foraging in open landscape makes the species very vulnerable to wind energy production, a threat that can be expected to increase in importance. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Nyctalus leisleri"
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: "Nyctalus leisleri"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Navarra ha llevado a cabo la colocación de cajas para la especie, con los siguientes resultados durante el seguimiento:
en 2012 se detectaron 16 individuos en 181 cajas (0,088 indiv/caja)
en 2013 se detectaron 51 individuos en 121 cajas (0,42 indiv/caja)
El aumento de individuos (31%) puede deberse a una progresiva colonización de las cajas-refugio.

Alcalde, J. T., Campion, D., Fabo, J., Marín, F., Artázcoz, A., Martínez, I., & Antón, I. (2013). Occupancy of bat-boxes in Navarre Ocupación de cajas-refugio por murciélagos en Navarra. Barbastella, 6(1), 34-43. ||
->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: "Nyctalus leisleri"
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: "Nyctalus leisleri"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Leisler’s bat is one of the most common and widespread bat species in Ireland. Over 7,000 distribution records were collated for this species between 2007 and 2018. These records translated to 629 x 10km squares. Using the range tool, with gap closure set to 20km, an additional 133 grid cells were incorporated giving a total range of 762 cells or 76,200km2. This is thought to provide a good representation of the true extent of the species’ distribution in Ireland. Dedicated survey work in certain 10km squares (e.g. M54, M64, V67, V68) might fill the apparent gaps within the range, but it may be that these squares do not contain suitable habitat.
The range of the Leisler’s bat in 2013, based on data from 2001-2012, was calculated as 69,900km2. Although the current range appears greater, this is considered to be a reflection of better data following more concerted survey work, rather than a genuine increase due to 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. ||
->Population: The 2007 to 2018 distribution records held by Bat Conservation Ireland for this species were mapped at the 1km level to provide the population estimate used in 6.2. This is considered to be a minimum estimate of the species’ distribution in Ireland and is not considered a useful reflection of population.
The population estimate from the 2013 report (63,000-113,000) is retained for the present reporting period and provided in 6.4. It is not possible to count the population based on a complete census. Instead, the population of mature (volant) individuals has been estimated using data from the Car-based Bat Monitoring Scheme. This population estimate is calculated based on the detection distance for echolocating Leisler's bats (60-80m) and the approximate area that is detectable. The area of Ireland is divided by the approximate detectable area and multiplied by the probability of detecting a Leisler's bat along any given roadside (2007-2012) on any given evening, from Car-based Bat Monitoring data. The minimum end of the range is based on the wider detection range (80m) while the maximum end is based on the closer detection range (60m). 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, better knowledge of Leisler's bat habitat use around roadsides and other factors. However, it may be considered a starting point from which to refine future estimates. See Roche et al. (2013) for further details.
Data from the Car-based Bat Monitoring Scheme (2003-2017) shows that this species experienced a significant increase from 2003 until 2014 when the trend turned downwards. The lower 95% confidence interval around the smoothed trend currently overlaps the 2006 baseline index. In the latest twelve-year period (2006-2017) this species has increased by 29.7% in total (95% C.I. = -1% to +65%), equivalent to a per-annum increase of 2.2%. See Aughney et al. (2018) for full details.
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 for the species from 2013 is retained for the current reporting period, i.e. 63,000 volant individuals. ||
->HabInfo: Habitat and roosting associations of the Leisler’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 included 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.
Leisler's bat records were widespread but found to be associated broadly with broadleaved woodland, mixed woodland and riparian habitats and small amounts of urbanisation (Lundy et al., 2011). Since these habitat types are at least stable or, in the case of woodlands, increasing, the habitat area and quality for the species is considered good and the trend is taken, conservatively, to be stable. ||
->Future: Ongoing car-based bat monitoring provides evidence for a steady increase in the population; there is no evidence of any decline in range or habitat. In general the future prospects of these parameters are considered to be good. ||
->Conclusion: Leisler’s bat is widespread across Ireland, but monitoring indicates it is more abundant in the east and south of the country. The most recent estimates for this species suggest a population size of ~60,000-110,000 animals with monitoring over the last 12 years indicating an increasing trend. Two threats/pressures have been identified and need to be investigated further. However, there is no evidence of decline in range or habitat 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: "Nyctalus leisleri"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: This migratory species can also to be found at sea (MATL)

Range is favourable maar alleen als onderdeel van een grensoverschrijdend netwerk.

Operator for FFR based on information in Ottburg, F.G.W.A. & C.A.M. van Swaay (red., 2014). For Nyctalus leisleri a FRR of 3100 km2 was given, however this is not a viable range. The number of grid cells positive for the species has increased ; this is however due to increased effort.
Some bat species such as Nyctalus leisleri were difficult to survey leading to lack of data regarding occurrence and distribution. FRR values in Ottburg & van Swaay (2014) are based on incomplete data.
Changes in information on occurrence are likely to be a result of increased survey intensity and new methods. The known range is therefore unsuited to assess a FRR. ||
->Population: Change in method is to estimate a ‘’population size’’ via the proxy of occupied grid cells, in stead of # individuals.
De gegevens uit het NEM zijn onvoldoende voor het berekenen van een (statistisch betrouwbare) trend. ||
->HabInfo: Species probably benefits from maturing forests for roosting. But specific requirements are unknown. Policies to increase area of wetlands will be positive effect of unknown magnitude; De soort heeft op zijn vliegroutes te maken met het risico van windturbines.

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. ||
->Future: De bosvleermuis is vrijwel geheel afhankelijk van bomen en wordt daardoor niet bedreigd door de verduurzaming van gebouwen.
Relatively wide spread but rare, numbers and trend not well known; 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: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Nyctalus leisleri"
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: "Nyctalus leisleri"
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 details please 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. There is no recent population estimate available for this species across the UK, and there are limited accurate data on trends, so it is not possible to comment on population changes or trends for this species at this time. Lack of a population estimate and trend information and inability to set an FRP mean that the population status of this species is currently unknown. ||
->HabInfo: The habitable area has been taken from Mathews et al. (2018). Whilst there is very little information on habitat area for this species, expert opinion is that there is sufficient quantity and quality of habitat available. ||
->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 more than the Favourable Reference Range.

Conclusion on Population reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Population size is unknown; and (ii) the Favourable Reference Population 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 in Unknown.

Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range -stable, Population - unknown, 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. It is not clear from the information available, what the overall trend would have been in 2013 but there has been little change since the last reporting round. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report