Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: 7. 3 Due to few records in the recommended time period, a reasonable assessment was only possible within the extended time period. ||
->Future: Expert opinion ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Zmiany na mapie rozmieszczenia gatunku w stosunku do raportu 2013 wynikają z zastosowania innego podejścia do danych uznanych za aktualne (w obecnym raporcie za aktualne uznano wyłącznie dane uzyskane po roku 2000) oraz poprawy stanu wiedzy o rozmieszczeniu gatunku.
W obecnym raporcie do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. Stąd tak duża różnica w powierzchni zasięgu podawanej w tym i poprzednim raporcie, w którym za aktualną powierzchnie zasięgu przyjęto powierzchnię regionu. ||
->Population: Wielkość populacji w obowiązujących w tym raporcie jednostkach, czyli polach siatki 1x1 km, określono na 1200, 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 karlika malutkiego jest takich pól 12 (12x100=1200).
Zarówno trend krótkoterminowy, jak i właściwą referencyjną populację trudno określić (x). ||
->HabInfo: Gatunek związany z mozaikowym krajobrazem rolniczym i obszarami zabudowanymi, ale kolonie rozrodcze tworzy także w pojedynczych budynkach wewnątrz dużych kompleksów leśnych. Żeruje licznie nad wodami i w śródpolnych alejach drzew, ale również w wielu innych typach siedlisk (skraje lasów, tereny zabudowane). Kryjówki kolonii rozrodczych znajdują się niemal wyłącznie w budynkach (gatunek silnie synantropijny), również w obiektach nowych. Gatunek eurytopowy (powierzchnię siedliska potencjalnego można określić jako powierzchnię zasięgu). Dlatego też dostępność odpowiednich siedlisk można określić jako dobrą. ||
->Future: Karlik ten jest gatunkiem synantropijnym. Perspektywy dla wszystkich parametrów można oceniać jako dobre, zwłaszcza przy postępującym rozwoju zabudowy. ||
->Conclusion: Rozmieszczenie gatunku jest niedostatecznie poznane. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie. Karlik malutki jest gatunkiem synantropijnym, zasiedlającym przede wszystkim różnego rodzaju budynki, w tym domy mieszkalne; występuje do wysokości ok. 1100 m n.p.m. W standardowym monitoringu schronień zimowych nie jest wykazywany, gdyż zimuje w nadziemnych częściach budynków (przynajmniej w zachodniej części Polski), zaś we wschodniej Europie prawdopodobnie odbywa sezonowe wędrówki między kryjówkami letnimi i zimowymi. W okresie wiosna – jesień jest dość często wykazywany przy użyciu detektorów ultrasonicznych (np. w Beskidzie Sądeckim i Niskim) – chociaż takie badania w regionie alpejskim są nadal rzadkie.
Na skutek zastosowania IT-tool do obliczania powierzchni zasięgu, jego obecna powierzchnia jest znacznie mniejsza niż podana w raporcie 2013. Rozmieszczenie gatunku jest niedostatecznie poznane.

Populacja. Do dokładniejszej oceny liczebności populacji wymagane badania w okresie trwania kolonii rozrodczych; do rozrodu gatunek ten wykorzystuje niemal wyłącznie budynki, w tym domy mieszkalne). Gatunek kryje się głównie w szczelinach dachów i ścian, co zwykle uniemożliwia jego stwierdzanie w ramach standardowych kontroli strychów, wykorzystywanych w Karpatach do inwentaryzacji nietoperzy.
Gatunek możliwy do policzenia jedynie podczas obserwacji wieczornego wylotu z kryjówki (wymaga to połączenia kontroli kryjówek z detekcją ultradźwięków). W Karpatach (Beskid Sądecki, Niski, Bieszczady Zachodnie) jest gatunkiem częstym i najprawdopodobniej jedynym karlikiem tworzącym tam kolonie rozrodcze. Właściwą referencyjną populację trudno określić (x). Stan populacji określono jako nieznany, podobnie jak w raporcie 2013.

Siedlisko. Gatunek związany z mozaikowym krajobrazem rolniczym i obszarami zabudowanymi, ale kolonie rozrodcze tworzy także w pojedynczych budynkach wewnątrz dużych kompleksów leśnych. Żeruje licznie nad wodami i w śródpolnych alejach drzew, ale również w wielu innych typach siedlisk (skraje lasów, tereny zabudowane). Kryjówki kolonii rozrodczych znajdują się niemal wyłącznie w budynkach (gatunek silnie synantropijny), również w obiektach nowych. Gatunek eurytopowy (powierzchnię siedliska potencjalnego można określić jako powierzchnię zasięgu). Ocena stanu siedliska dobra, jak w raporcie 2013.

Perspektywy ochrony. Perspektywy ochrony, podobnie jak w przypadku pozostałych gatunków synantropijnych, można oceniać jako dobre, zwłaszcza przy postępującym rozwoju zabudowy.

Ocena ogólna. Stan gatunku jest właściwy (ocena jak w raporcie 2013).

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: No se han realizado estimas poblacionales robustas que puedan dibujar tendencias y evolución de las poblaciones. ||
->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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: A total of 14,084 distribution records were collated for this species between 2007 and 2018. These records translated to 679 x 10km squares. Using the range tool, with gap closure set to 20km, an additional 114 grid cells were incorporated giving a total range of 793 cells or 79,300km2. This is thought to provide a good representation of the true extent of the species’ distribution in Ireland.
The range of the common pipistrelle bat in 2013, based on data from 2001-2012, was calculated as 69,500km2. Although the current range appears significantly greater, this is considered to be a reflection of better data following more dedicated survey work (e.g. surveys on Aran Islands), 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 current 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 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 reflect 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 (1.07 million - 2.4 million) is retained for the present reporting period and provided in 6.4. This population estimate is calculated based on the detection distance for echolocating common pipistrelles from the Car-based Bat Monitoring Scheme 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 common pipistrelle 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 (30m) while the maximum end is based on the closer detection range (20m). 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 common pipistrelle 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.
The short-term trend is also based on the Car-based Bat Monitoring Scheme data. Common pipistrelles have shown a significant increase from the start of the scheme. In the past twelve years (2006-2017) this species has increased by 37.5% in total (95% C.I. = 15.5-62%), equivalent to a per-annum increase of 2.7% (Aughney et al., 2018).
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 in 2013 (~1.07 million individuals) is retained for the current reporting period. ||
->HabInfo: Habitat and roosting associations of the common pipistrelle 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. Common pipistrelle bat records were widespread but found to be associated broadly with broadleaved woodland, riparian habitats and small amounts of urbanisation (Lundy et al. 2011). Since the species is widespread and these habitat types are currently stable or increasing, the habitat area and quality for the species are considered sufficient. ||
->Future: Ongoing car-based bat monitoring provides evidence for a significant 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: This species has a very wide distribution across the island including some off-shore islands and there is no evidence of any decline in Range or in Habitat. The most recent estimates suggest a population size in the order to 1-2 million animals, making it one of the most common mammals in Ireland. Ongoing car-based bat monitoring indicates that the population is increasing. Furthermore, there is no indication of any major pressures currently impacting populations 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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Increase in number of positive grid cells is due to:
- increase in survey work to comply with nature conservation law since 2002 and
- new monitoring scheme since 2013 (http://www.netwerkecologischemonitoring.nl)

Changes in the number of occupied grid cells are a result of changes in survey intensity; the species is expected to be present in all grid cells. ||
->Population: Vorige keer gerapporteerd in individuen.
De gegevens uit het NEM zijn onvoldoende voor het berekenen van een (statistisch betrouwbare) trend. ||
->HabInfo: The roosting habitat, especially for summer and maternity roosts, is under threat of zero-carbon-emission renovation, demolition and building i.e. of different policies related to the energy transition = negative effect of unknown magnitude. ||
->Future: Soort is geheel of voornamelijk afhankelijk van gebouwen in zowel zomer als winter en wordt daardoor sterk bedreigd door de verduurzaming van gebouwen.

Wide spread, numbers and trend not well known; without active adaptation of zero-carbon-emission building and renovation with respect to existing and potential roosting habitat, we risk losing roosting habitat and future will be uncertain; more explicit: many but unknown number of roosts are being lost to energy transition e.g. many hospitals and homes for the elderly, which often harbour mass hibernacula with hundreds or thousands of individuals, are being renovated without proper attention to the bats.
Policies to increase area of wetlands will have positive effect of unknown magnitude. ||
->Conclusion: De gewone dwergvleermuis is de meest algemene soort... Tegenwoordig weten we dat we door maatregelen voor CO2-reductie (slopen/nieuwbouw, na-isolatie en nul op de meter renovatie) veel verblijfplaatsen en waarschijnlijk ook dieren verliezen ... met name gebouwen die als massa-winterverblijf worden gebruikt, worden op een schrikbarend hard tempo ''verbeterd'' qua CO2. Ondertussen draait het NEM-programma waarin de soort wordt gevolgd net te kort om significante uitspraken te doen.... dus unknown is feitelijke inschatting, maar het kan bijna niet anders dan dat de trend negatief is of aan het worden is. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Trend in range has been assessed by using the 2019 distribution data and the 2013 method for calculating range, and comparing that 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. 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 UK National Bat Monitoring Programme (NBMP) has recorded a statistically significant increase in P. pipistrellus between 2006-2017. Knowledge of the species has improved. The change is also due to a different method for calculating population size. The current population (in individuals) is considered to be approximately equal to the FRP and is sufficient to maintain a viable population. ||
->HabInfo: The species requires a complex mosaic of habitats to support foraging, roosting and commuting behaviour. The stable habitat trend is based on limited data and expert opinion. ||
->Future: Future trend in Range is Overall stable; Future trend in Population is Very Positive - increasing >1% (more than one percent) per year on average; 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 increasing; 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 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 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 - increasing, 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 improving 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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: N/A ||
->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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: This is a relatively rare migratory species found also in all neighbouring countries. According to present knowledge it can be observed in different habitats covering all territory of country. ||
->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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: 7.3 Due to few records in the recommended time period, a reasonable assessment was only possible within the extended time period. ||
->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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Establishment of acoustic monitoring in 2015. Preliminary results show no signi fi cant trend. Common and widespread species in CON Belgium ||
->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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Widespread and rather common species, covering the whole territory ||
->Population: Based on expert opinion: species underwent a long-term decline; although the distribution of the species in terms of occupied grids 1x1 is nationwide, densities of population in terms of individuals are likely to be decreasing over decades, so that the FRP in terms of individuals should be set to "more than". ||
->HabInfo: Based on expert opinion: long-term decrease/degradation of habitat due to economic pressure resulting in habitat area & quality loss, and insect decline ||
->Future: Based on expert opinion: long-term decrease/degradation of population due to economic pressure resulting from habitat area & quality loss, and insect decline, but future prospects for the habitat are unknown (but likely declining?) ||
->Conclusion: Widespread and rather common species, but densities of population in terms of individuals are likely to be decreasing since decades; degradation of habitat due to economic pressure resulting in habitat area and quality loss, as well as insect decline; although the short-term population trend is uncertian, following to experts' opinion on long-term decline, the overall trend in conservation status is therefore assessed as deteriorating ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Pipistrellus pipistrellus is a rather common and widespread species in Luxembourg, but following to experts' opinion it underwent a long-term decline and future prospects are unknown, hence the actual favorable conservation status is assessed as "favourable", but likely not secured for long-term future

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Zmiany na mapie rozmieszczenia gatunku w stosunku do raportu 2013 wynikają z zastosowania innego podejścia do danych uznanych za aktualne (w obecnym raporcie za aktualne uznano wyłącznie dane uzyskane po 2000 r.) oraz poprawy stanu wiedzy o rozmieszczeniu gatunku. W tym raporcie do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. Stąd tak duża różnica w powierzchni zasięgu podawanej w tym i poprzednim raporcie. ||
->Population: Wielkość populacji w obowiązujących w tym raporcie jednostkach, czyli polach siatki 1x1 km, określono na 16 800, 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 karlika malutkiego jest takich pól 168 (168x100=16800).
Zarówno trend krótkoterminowy, jak i właściwą referencyjną populację trudno określić (x). ||
->HabInfo: Gatunek związany z mozaikowym krajobrazem rolniczym i obszarami zabudowanymi, ale kolonie rozrodcze tworzy także w pojedynczych budynkach wewnątrz dużych kompleksów leśnych. Żeruje licznie nad wodami i w śródpolnych alejach drzew, ale również w wielu innych typach siedlisk (skraje lasów, tereny zabudowane). Kryjówki kolonii rozrodczych znajdują się niemal wyłącznie w budynkach (gatunek silnie synantropijny), również w obiektach nowych. Gatunek eurytopowy, dlatego powierzchnię siedliska potencjalnego można określić jako powierzchnię zasięgu a dostępność odpowiednich siedlisk - jako dobrą. ||
->Future: Podobnie jak w przypadku pozostałych gatunków synantropijnych perspektywy dla wszystkich parametrów można ocenić jako dobre, zwłaszcza przy postępującym rozwoju zabudowy. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie. Gatunek pospolity w zachodniej, nizinnej części Polski (lokalnie jeden z najczęściej notowanych nietoperzy), (Pomorze, Wielkopolska, Dolny Śląsk) oraz w Sudetach. Na większości obszaru północno-wschodniej i wschodniej Polski gatunek ten nie był dotychczas stwierdzony z dostateczną pewnością (okazy dowodowe, odłowione osobniki); notowania są oparte głównie na stwierdzeniach akustycznych, w których najprawdopodobniej jego głosy echolokacyjne są mylone powszechnie z głosami karlika większego. Status i rozmieszczenie gatunku we wschodniej Polsce pozostają nieznane, wiadomo jedynie, że karlik malutki jest dość rozpowszechniony w Karpatach. Oba małe gatunki karlików są powszechnie mylone przez obserwatorów, nawet w oparciu o cechy morfologiczne. Badania w woj. mazowieckim pokazują, że jedynym gatunkiem z tej pary jest tam karlik drobny. Nie wiadomo, czy populacje z Europy wschodniej (ostrzejszy klimat) są wędrowne, ponieważ status tego gatunku pozostaje tam niewyjaśniony, np. w Rosji występuje on tylko w południowo-zachodniej części, w pobliżu Kaukazu. Populacja z Europy zachodniej jest osiadła (przypuszcza się, że granica miedzy populacjami przebiega przez Polskę) – jedyne znane historyczne stwierdzenie zimowania karlika malutkiego (oznaczenie gatunku wątpliwe, lata 50-60. XX wieku) ze wschodniej Polski pochodzi z Puław, natomiast stwierdzenia zimowe z Polski zachodniej są dość częste w ostatnich latach.
Powierzchnię zasięgu określono przy użyciu IT-tool

Populacja. Do oceny liczebności i trendów populacyjnych wymagany jest monitoring na obszarze występowania uwzględniający kryjówki letnie, a w szczególności występowanie i liczebność kolonii rozrodczych. Kolonie karlików są możliwe do policzenia jedynie podczas obserwacji wieczornego wylotu z kryjówki (wymaga to połączenia kontroli kryjówek z detekcją ultradźwięków), gdyż kryją się głębokich szczelinach dachów i ścian. Lokalnie jest jednym z najczęstszych nietoperzy (wschodnia część Pobrzeża Bałtyku i Pojezierza Pomorskiego). Także w Karpatach lokalnie jest gatunkiem częstym i najprawdopodobniej jedynym karlikiem tworzącym tam kolonie rozrodcze. Gatunek w ostatnich latach stwierdzany w okresie hibernacji coraz częściej, znany z >20 stanowisk w zachodniej Polsce (kolonie zimowe liczą do ok. 300 i 900 osobników – Świdnica, Twierdza Kłodzko). Schronienia zimowe znajdują się najczęściej w szczelinach nadziemnych części budynków, przez co nie nadają się zwykle do stałego monitoringu. Dodatkowym utrudnieniem jest współwystępowanie na niektórych terenach karlika malutkiego Pipistrellus pipistrellus i drobnego P. pygmaeus, obydwa trudne do rozróżnienia na podstawie cech morfologicznych. Stan populacji określono podobnie jak w raporcie 2013 - nieznany.

Siedlisko. Gatunek związany z mozaikowym krajobrazem rolniczym i obszarami zabudowanymi, ale kolonie rozrodcze tworzy także w pojedynczych budynkach wewnątrz dużych kompleksów leśnych. Żeruje licznie nad wodami i w śródpolnych alejach drzew, ale również w wielu innych typach siedlisk (skraje lasów, tereny zabudowane). Kryjówki kolonii rozrodczych znajdują się niemal wyłącznie w budynkach (gatunek silnie synantropijny), również w obiektach nowych. Gatunek eurytopowy, dlatego powierzchnię siedliska potencjalnego można określić jako powierzchnię zasięgu. Ocena stanu siedliska dobra, jak w raporcie 2013.

Perspektywy zachowania. Podobnie jak w przypadku pozostałych gatunków synantropijnych oceniono jako dobre, zwłaszcza przy postępującym rozwoju zabudowy.

Ocena ogólna. Stan gatunku w ocenie eksperta jest raczej dobry. Gatunek jest pospolity w pewnych regionach kraju. W poprzednim raporcie była ocena FV.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The species range was poorly known before 2012. Thus, estimation of a range trend is not possible. The species surface area of range was miscalculated in the previous report.
The species range and population size may have been underestimated due to difficulties in identification. ||
->Population: The species population size was poorly known before 2012. Thus, estimation of a population trend is not possible.
The species range and population size may have been underestimated due to difficulties in identification. ||
->HabInfo: The species habitat sufficiency (area and/or quality) was poorly known before 2012. Thus, estimation of a habitat trend is chancy, but there is no data to justify that it has improved the past 12 years. ||
->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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Este es el murciélago más abundante de la península Ibérica. Ubicuo en todas los entornos humanos, está muy ligado a edificios, y huecos en árboles añosos. ||
->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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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 77725 km2, the area of suitable habitat is 101950 km2 and its quality is good.
Generalist 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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: In 2010, Borg (2010) as cited in MEPA (2010) stated that the species has a limited distribution and range to mainland Malta and that it is threatened and declining, primarily as it roosts in walls and is thus subject to pressures related to building restoration. However according to J.J. Borg (personal communication, June 6, 2013), since 2010, further data collection confirmed that the species has a wider distribution and range than previously thought, being also reported in Malta's sister islands: Gozo and Comino.

Furthermore, P. pipistrellus is considered as a sedentary species, with distances travelled between summer and winter roosts being less than 20km (Dietz et al., 2007 as cited in SLR Consulting Ltd., 2011). Although roosting sites for this species might be rather localised, according to Borg (personal communication, 2013), foraging causes this species to be virtually, temporarily found anywhere over the Maltese islands, hence why the range extends all over the Maltese Islands. ||
->Population: This sedentary species was previously reported as rare up until 2010, where J. J. Borg (personal communication, June 6, 2013), highlights that data on this species does exists. In fact, the species is now reported as a common and frequently occurring bat species around the Maltese Islands (Mifsud & Vella, 2018; Greenhouse Malta, 2018; M. Zammit, personal communication, March 6, 2019). ||
->HabInfo: According to SLR Consulting Ltd. (2011) this species is one of the most flexible in terms of habitat suitability. Where it occurs, its ecology is very similar to that of other Pipistrelle species occurring locally. Being associated with man-made structures, restoration projects are a major pressure for the species. However, as habitat specificity seems not to be a problem with the species, and considering that the area of suitable habitat covers the whole extent of the Maltese islands, one can say that the area of unoccupied habitat is sufficiently large and of suitable quality for the long-term survival of the species. ||
->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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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: "Pipistrellus pipistrellus"
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