Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus nathusii"
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.

5.3 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: "Pipistrellus nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The Nathusius’ pipistrelle has undergone a range expansion across western Europe in recent decades. It is a relatively recent addition to the Irish fauna and the latest map shows that its range has increased here. However, a distribution pattern has yet to emerge, with very few locations returning records for more than one year (Roche et al., 2015), suggesting a mobile and perhaps migratory population. The initial period of rapid expansion across Ireland has not been followed by range consolidation and breeding populations have not been confirmed. Furthermore, despite extensive field surveys (e.g. BATLAS [Carden et al., 2010] and the Car Transect Bat Monitoring [Roche et al., 2018]) the species is still rarely recorded and its current known distribution is restricted and disjunct. It is unclear whether further range expansion is required to provide for the long-term survival of the species and consequently the Favourable Reference Range is considered to be unknown. Survey work is continuing and it is hoped that a clearer picture of the status of this species in Ireland will emerge in the coming years. ||
->Population: All distribution records from 2007 and 2018 for this species were mapped at the 1km level to provide the population estimate used in 6.2. This is considered to be an underestimate of the species’ disjunct distribution in Ireland and is not considered a useful reflection of population.
The population estimate from the 2013 report (3,000-5,000 animals) is retained for the present reporting period and provided in 6.4. This is based on limited data and is not considered a robust estimate (see Roche et al. 2013). The figures were extrapolated from the probability of encountering a Nathusius’ pipistrelle bat in any given area based on the rate it is encountered during the Car-based Bat Monitoring Scheme. However, Nathusius’ pipistrelle remains one of the least encountered species from the Car-based Bat Monitoring Scheme. It has been recorded less than 300 times since 2005 (Roche et al., 2015; Aughney et al., 2018). It may, however, be locally frequent in suitable areas (as is apparent around Lough Neagh) and could be missed by the random location of the car-based survey squares. Dedicated static monitoring and mist net surveys for this species have been undertaken in recent years with mixed results to date. In addition, as part of ongoing research into the distribution of the Nathusius’ pipistrelle bat in the Republic of Ireland, six individuals were trapped and ringed in Co. Cavan in September 2018. They included three males and three females. None were in breeding condition or appeared to have bred prior to capture (P. Scott, pers. comm.).
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. Due to its rarity there is considerable uncertainty about the trend for this species. The trend line from the latest report suggest that the species may be slightly increasing (Aughney et al. 2018), but the trends should be treated with caution due to the very large variability between years, wide error bars and the fact that the confidence intervals include zero (C.I. 95% = -7% to +69%).
Neither breeding nor hibernation roosts have been found in the Republic of Ireland despite extensive survey work in the last 10 years. It remains unclear whether the species is successfully reproducing in Ireland and also what level of population would be required to ensure long-term viability. Consequently, the Favourable Reference Population is considered unknown at this time. ||
->HabInfo: Lundy et al. (2011) demonstrated a positive association between Nathusius’ pipistrelle and broadleaved woodland, as well as a quadratic association with pasture and with freshwater. Although the modelled core area for the Nathusius’ pipistrelle is by far the smallest of all bat species on the island, it is clear that there is still a significant area of suitable habitat available to be colonised by the species. The area of these habitats appears to be stable and in general these habitats appear to be in good condition. Although breeding roosts have not been recorded here, there are many buildings similar to the ones used as nursery colonies in Northern Ireland, so this does not appear to be a limiting factor. Overall, habitat area and quality are considered good and the trend is considered stable. ||
->Future: The initial rapid expansion of this bat across Ireland, after it was first recorded here in 1997, was captured by the annual car transect surveys (Roche et al., 2011). However, more recent years of this survey suggest the species has not gone on to consolidate its range here (Roche et al., 2018). The Nathusius’ pipistrelle remains rare in the Republic of Ireland, its range is disjunct and its modelled core area of habitat is relatively small. While Lundy et al. (2010) predict an expansion in the area of suitable habitat for the species up to 2050 with increasing temperatures it is, as yet, unclear whether the species has a viable and breeding population in the Republic of Ireland. In terms of Future prospects, Habitat is assessed as Good, while Range and Population are assessed as Unknown. ||
->Conclusion: The initial period of range expansion across Ireland by Nathusius’ pipistrelle has not been followed by range consolidation and no breeding populations have been confirmed, despite extensive field surveys. It is unclear whether the current range is sufficient or whether further range expansion is required to provide for the long term survival of the species. Hence, despite the increase in range since the last assessment, Favourable Reference Range, and consequently Range, are assessed as Unknown.
The population of Nathusius’ pipistrelle in Ireland is cautiously estimated to be in the low thousands. It remains unclear whether the species is successfully reproducing here and also what level of population would be required to ensure long-term viability. Hence, Favourable Reference Population, and therefore Population, are assessed as Unknown at this time.
Lundy et al. (2011) demonstrated a positive association between Nathusius’ pipistrelle and broadleaved woodland, as well as a quadratic association with pasture and with freshwater. Although the modelled core area for the Nathusius’ pipistrelle is by far the smallest of all bat species on the island, it is clear that there is still a significant area of suitable habitat available to be colonised by the species. The area of these habitats appears to be stable and in general these habitats appear to be in good condition. Although breeding roosts have not been recorded here, there are many buildings similar to the ones used as nursery colonies in Northern Ireland, so this does not appear to be a limiting factor. Overall Habitat is considered to be Favourable.
Given the uncertainty about range and population, Future prospects are considered to be Unknown and overall the conservation status of the species is assessed as Unknown. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus nathusii"
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)

Note: migratory species, also to be found on the (Southern North) sea ||
->Population: Vorige keer gerapporteerd in individuen.

A monitoring scheme, targeting – amongst others - the Nathusius pipistrelle, is ongoing since 2013, and has not revealed statistical robust data yet. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: Soort is deels afhankelijk van gebouwen in zowel zomer als winter en wordt daardoor deels bedreigd door de verduurzaming van gebouwen.

Relatively wide spread, numbers and trend not well known; wetland habitat is increasing; both effect on roosts in houses (energy transiation - wind energy, polecy towards zero carbon emmision of buildings) and in trees (age gap betwee oldest and follow up trees) are pottentialy negative; Populatietrend / NEM-VTT levert info over relatieve activiteit, maar loopt nog te kort (vanaf 2013) om, bij de gegeven abundantie en dus trefkans, al significante conclusies toe te laten. Wel is ondertussen bekend dat de ruige dwergvleermuis dé soort is die slachtoffer wordt van windturbines. Windturbines op land en op zee blijven toenemen.
Behalve in boomholtes huist de soort ook in gebouwen en is dus ook slachtoffer van de energietransitie. Het energiezuiniger maken van oude en nieuwe gebouwen (na-isolatie, NOM-renovatie en CO2-neutraal bouwen) nemen toe. De verwachting is dat dit een negatief effect gaat hebben op de populatie. ||
->Conclusion: Vorige keer is 11.6 niet ingevuld (want FV), nu wel. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus nathusii"
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 and also on expert opinion that the range is increasing in England, where the largest population occurs. For further details please see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document and country assessments. The FRR value 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.

In 2013 this species population was recorded as unknown. Due to increased observer effort, records of Nathusius' pipistrelle have increased to an extent, which would infer a genuine increase. However, it is unclear the extent to which records reflect individual migrants and vagrants rather than larger populations. The population is, therefore, currently still reported as unknown. ||
->HabInfo: Habitat for the species is unknown because there are insufficient data to make an assessment. ||
->Future: Future trend in Range is Positive - increasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; Future trend in Population is Unknown; and Future trend in Habitat for the species is Unknown. 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 increasing; 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 unknown; and (ii) the current Population size is unknown.

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

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 unknown.

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

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

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 unknown 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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 trend estimates are based on summer counts (detector surveys). ||
->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 nathusii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: The overall trend should be U but the drop down menu is not active in the reporting tool, thus it is not techinically possible to select the trend. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus nathusii"
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 nathusii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: his is a migratory species and can be observed in all territory of country. Less suitable habitats like open farmland can be used by this species during seasonal movements and commuting flights as well. ||
->Population: We used number of 1X1 km grids to calculate the population size instead of number of individuals used in previous Reports.
The Nathusius’ pipistrelle is one of the most common bat species in summer according to acoustic surveys and colony counts. The maximum population size is assessed with assumption that during seasonal migrations this species use all types of habitats. The minimum population size has been calculated with assumption, that this species is widely distributed in forest, freshwater and riparian habitats. The open and urban habitats are selected less common and we used index 0.3 to calculate the number of 1X1 km grids in the latest habitats. The increase of population is assessed because of strong increase of acoustic activity of P.nathusii in monitoring of the autumn migration of this species at the Baltic Sea coast in SW of country. The origin of migrants is not known but a part of them most likely are from local summer populations. ||
->HabInfo: The decreasing quality of habitats estimated because of increased logging activities, increasing number of colony roosts are negatively affected by artificial lighting. ||
->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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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.

5.3 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: "Pipistrellus nathusii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range is stable, species is widespread.
the development of acoustic monitoring explains a large increase in the number of data and apparent range. ||
->Population: The sightings of Pipistrelles de Nathusius show a fairly marked autumnal peak witnessing an important migratory passage. A sedentary population surely exist but we don't exactly know the nature of this population (isolated males, immatures,...). For now, no breeding colonies are known in Continental Belgium. ||
->HabInfo: Recent habitat modeling based on acoustic monitoring data shows that available habitat appears to be common and widely distributed. The species sembe particularly attracted by the large valleys and wetlands (Flipo, 2018) ||
->Future: the development of wind farms could be a significant threat to populations and habitats of the species. (Eurobat pub n°6 -https://www.eurobats.org/publications/eurobats_publication_series) ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation de l'évaluation Défavorable-inadéquat U1 des Perspectives futures - Les tendances négatives et perspectives médiocre sont imputables à la mortalité déjà avérée sous les éoliennes et l'augmentation planifiée ces prochaines années de leurs implantations, sans qu'aucune mesure drastique de réduction de cette mortalité ne soit encore envisagée.

La diminution des biomasses d'insectes, le développement de l'énergie éolienne, inshore et offshore, sans l'adoption de mesures de réduction et/ou de compensation efficaces menacent effectivement les populations et justifie cette évaluation "défavorable". ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Les tendances négatives et perspectives médiocre sont imputables à la mortalité déjà avérée sous les éoliennes et l'augmentation planifiée ces prochaines années de leurs implantations, sans qu'aucune mesure drastique de réduction de cette mortalité ne soit encore envisagée.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 (przybyło nowych stwierdzeń od czasu opracowania poprzedniego raportu).
Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool (gap distance 90 km). 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 28 400, 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 większego jest takich pól 284 (284x100=28 400).
Gatunek uznawany za pospolity.; w północnej Polsce jest jednym z najliczniej i najczęściej stwierdzanych nietoperzy. Populacja wydaje się być przynajmniej stabilna. ||
->HabInfo: Gatunek leśny (dziuple), obserwowany bardzo często w skrzynkach nietoperzowych i ptasich oraz budynkach (szczeliny ścian budynków, w tym domów mieszkalnych) gdzie zakłada kolonie rozrodcze i gdzie odbywają się gody (w trakcie migracji jesiennej). Związany ze zbiornikami wodnymi (rzekami, jeziorami) jako miejscem żerowania. Dostępność odpowiednich siedlisk jest dobra, ponieważ jest to gatunek wędrowny, a powierzchnię siedliska zajmowanego można by określić jako powierzchnię zasięgu. ||
->Future: Są dobre dla wszystkich parametrów z uwagi na dużą plastyczność ekologiczną i dużą liczebność, przynajmniej w Polsce północnej. Pas północnych pojezierzy, główna ostoja karlika większego w Polsce, cechuje się wysoką lub bardzo wysoką lesistością i jeziornością, zaś rozwijająca się zabudowa wciąż dostarcza mu nowych kryjówek. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie. Rozmieszczenie gatunku jest jeszcze niedostatecznie rozpoznane w środkowej i południowej części regionu. Stwierdzenia dotyczą głównie rejestracji akustycznych, odłowów i letnich kryjówek kolonii rozrodczych. Stanowiska rozrodu koncentrują się w północnej i zachodniej Polsce. W południowej części kraju, ubogiej w wody powierzchniowe, liczba stanowisk i częstość występowania jest znacznie niższa. W ostatnich 15 latach zanotowano dość regularne zimowanie karlika większego w zachodniej Polsce; znanych jest ok. 15 stwierdzeń zimowych. Gatunek migruje na dalekie odległości miedzy schronieniami letnimi a zimowymi, w większości spędzając zimę prawdopodobnie poza granicami Polski. Pobrzeżem Bałtyku i dolinami wielkich rzek (zwłaszcza Odry) przebiegają szlaki jego długodystansowych wędrówek sezonowych. Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool (gap distance 90 km). Stąd tak duża różnica w powierzchni zasięgu podawanej w tym i poprzednim raporcie, w którym za aktualną powierzchnie zasięgu przyjęto powierzchnię regionu. Stan zasięgu (FV) określono podobnie, jak w raporcie 2013.

Populacja. Gatunek uznawany za pospolity. Na północy Polski jest jednym z najliczniej i najczęściej stwierdzanych nietoperzy. Często odnajdywane są jego kolonie rozrodcze w budynkach i skrzynkach lęgowych, największe przekraczają 700 osobników. Populacja wydaje się być przynajmniej stabilna, a perspektywy jej zachowania są dobre. Trudno porównać dane o wielkości populacji z poprzednim raportem, bo zastosowano nowe jednostki pola siatki 1x1 km. Gdyby porównać liczbę pól siatki 10x10 km ze stwierdzeniami gatunku na mapach rozmieszczenia z obu raportów, to aktualnie jest takich pól 284, a poprzednio było ich 225. Wzrost liczby stwierdzeń wynika najprawdopodobniej z poprawy stanu wiedzy.
Ocena stanu populacji podobna, jak w raporcie 2013 (FV).

Siedlisko. Gatunek leśny (dziuple), obserwowany bardzo często w skrzynkach nietoperzowych i ptasich oraz budynkach (szczeliny ścian budynków, w tym domów mieszkalnych) gdzie zakłada kolonie rozrodcze i gdzie odbywają się gody (w trakcie migracji jesiennej). Związany ze zbiornikami wodnymi (rzekami, jeziorami) jako miejscem żerowania. Stan siedliska gatunku jest dobry. Ponieważ jest to gatunek wędrowny, powierzchnię siedliska zajmowanego można by określić jako powierzchnię zasięgu. Ocena stanu siedliska podobna jak w raporcie 2013 (FV).

Perspektywy ochrony. Są dobre (ocena jak w raporcie 2013), z uwagi na znaczną plastyczność ekologiczną i dużą liczebność, przynajmniej w Polsce północnej. Pas północnych pojezierzy, główna ostoja karlika większego w Polsce, cechuje się wysoką lub bardzo wysoką lesistością i jeziornością, zaś rozwijająca się zabudowa wciąż dostarcza mu nowych kryjówek.

Ocena ogólna. Stan gatunku określono jako właściwy (FV), podobnie jak w raporcie z 2013 r.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: A falta de otra información, se ha considerado el número de celdas 10x0 km como valor más representativo del tamaño poblacional ||
->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 nathusii"
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: Seraient nécessaires:De meilleures évaluation et prises en compte de la mortalité éolienne, ainsi que les modélisations réalisées ailleurs sur l'évolution des populations. Une meilleure appréciation de la diminution des ressources en insectes.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus nathusii"
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 21650 km2, the area of suitable habitat is 29625 km2 and its quality is good.
Roosts on trees which are abundant, but threatened. Forages on forests and wetlands which are abundant, but threatened. ||
->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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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: "Pipistrellus nathusii"
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 nathusii"
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