Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pygmaeus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: 5.1 Gap distance

5.3 Difference in surface area between periods is mainly due to unequal sampling intensity.

5.6 This species was first described 1997. ||
->Population: 6.11 This species was first described 1997. ||
->HabInfo: 7.6 This species was first described 1997. ||
->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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Zmiany na mapie rozmieszczenia gatunku w stosunku do raportu 2013 wynikają zarówno z zastosowania innego podejścia do danych uznanych za aktualne (w obecnym raporcie za aktualne uznano wyłącznie dane uzyskane po 2000 r.), jak i z poprawy stanu wiedzy o rozmieszczeniu gatunku. Rozmieszczenie gatunku jest nadal słabo poznane. Trend w zasięgu i zasięg referencyjny – nieznane.
Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. ||
->Population: Wielkość populacji w obowiązujących w tym raporcie jednostkach, czyli polach siatki 1x1 km, określono na 700, 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 7 (7x100=700). W raporcie 2013 określono wielkość populacji liczbą pól siatki 10x10 km; takich pól na mapie rozmieszczenia było 5.
Gatunek wędrowny, znaczna część populacji odbywa długodystansowe migracje na zimowiska w kierunku południowym i południowo-zachodnim. Ocene stanu populacji utrudnia współwystępowanie gatunku bliźniaczego karlika malutkiego (P. pipistrellus). Stan populacji aktualnej nieznany, FRP również nie do określenia przy obecnym stanie wiedzy. ||
->HabInfo: Gatunek związany z dolinami rzecznymi i zbiornikami wodnymi, jako miejscami żerowania. W regionie alpejskim brak jest stwierdzeń kolonii rozrodczych karlika drobnego, prawdopodobnie z uwagi na znaczną wysokość nad poziomem morza, ponieważ obecne są tam odpowiednie dla tego gatunku siedliska (np. duże zbiorniki, doliny rzeczne i tereny podmokłe). Potencjalne siedliska pokrywają cały region ALP, prawdopodobnie w wyjątkiem Tatr. Dostępność odpowiedniego siedliska można więc ocenić jako dobrą. ||
->Future: Generalnie perspektywy dla gatunku są dobre ze względu na obecność dużych powierzchni odpowiednich siedlisk (lasy, tereny zabudowane) oraz charakterystykę występowania gatunku (przynajmniej sezonowe pojawy podczas migracji). ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie. Karlik drobny jest gatunkiem rzadziej stwierdzanym dotychczas w regionie alpejskim niż karlik malutki, ale sytuacja taka wynika najprawdopodobniej z braku ukierunkowanych badań akustycznych. Rozmieszczenie gatunku jest słabo poznane. Stwierdzenia dotyczą głównie rejestracji sygnałów echolokacyjnych. Gatunek migruje na dalekie odległości miedzy schronieniami letnimi a zimowymi, w większości spędzając zimę prawdopodobnie poza granicami Polski.
Gatunek ten jest spotykany w okresie migracji w górskich dolinach na terenie Beskidu Śląskiego i Żywieckiego (K. Sachanowicz, dane niepubl.). Najprawdopodobniej osobniki tego gatunku pojawiają się sezonowo (późne lato-jesień) w całym regionie alpejskim, migrując na południe przez Karpaty.
Zmiany na mapie rozmieszczenia gatunku w stosunku do raportu 2013 wynikają zarówno z zastosowania innego podejścia do danych uznanych za aktualne (w obecnym raporcie za aktualne uznano wyłącznie dane uzyskane od 2000 r.), jak i z poprawy stanu wiedzy o rozmieszczeniu gatunku.
Ocena stanu zasięgu –nieznany XX, podobnie jak w raporcie 2013.

Populacja. Gatunek wędrowny, znaczna część populacji odbywa długodystansowe migracje na zimowiska w kierunku południowym i południowo-zachodnim. Do dokładniejszej oceny liczebności populacji wymagane badania w okresie trwania kolonii rozrodczych; do rozrodu gatunek ten wykorzystuje głównie budynki, w tym domy mieszkalne. Dodatkowa trudność to współwystępowanie dwóch gatunków bliźniaczych: karlika malutkiego (P. pipistrellus) i karlika drobnego (P. pygmaeus). Gatunek kryje się głównie w szczelinach dachów i ścian, co zwykle uniemożliwia jego stwierdzanie w ramach standardowych kontroli strychów, wykorzystywanych w Karpatach do inwentaryzacji gatunków nietoperzy. Kolonie karlików są możliwe do policzenia jedynie podczas obserwacji wieczornego wylotu z kryjówki (wymagają połączenia kontroli kryjówek z detekcją ultradźwięków). Wielkość populacji w obowiązujących w tym raporcie jednostkach, czyli polach siatki 1x1 km, określono na 500, 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 5 (5x100=500). W raporcie 2013 określono wielkość populacji liczbą pól siatki 10x10 km; takich pól na mapie rozmieszczenia było również 5.
Ocena stanu populacji - nieznany XX - bez zmian w stosunku do raportu 2013.

Siedlisko. Gatunek związany z dolinami rzecznymi i zbiornikami wodnymi, jako miejscami żerowania. W regionie alpejskim brak jest stwierdzeń kolonii rozrodczych karlika drobnego, prawdopodobnie z uwagi na znaczną wysokość nad poziomem morza, ponieważ obecne są tam odpowiednie dla tego gatunku siedliska (np. duże zbiorniki, doliny rzeczne i tereny podmokłe). Potencjalne siedliska pokrywają cały region ALP, prawdopodobnie w wyjątkiem Tatr. Jakość siedliska oceniona jako właściwą. W raporcie 2013 r. – nieznana.

Perspektywy ochrony. Oceniono jako nieznane ze względu na slabo rozpoznane rozmieszczenie oraz stan populacji karlika drobnego.

Ocena ogólna. Stan gatunku określono tak jak w raporcie 2013 r. -XX - nieznany.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The species was not reported in 2013 ||
->Population: The species was not reported in 2013 ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: The species was not reported in 2013 ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Esta especie está ampliamente distribuida por toda la Península Ibérica, ligada a hábitats riparios, siendo uno de los murciélagos más abundantes y con poblaciones de un gran número de efectivos. Destaca la gran capacidad de colonización de cajas nido (Alcalde et al., 2013). ||
->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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: A total of 9,906 distribution records were collated for this species between 2007 and 2018. These records translated to 720 x 10km squares. Using the range tool, with gap closure set to 20km, an additional 79 grid cells were incorporated giving a total range of 799 cells or 79,900km2. This is thought to provide a good representation of the true extent of the species’ distribution in Ireland.
The range of the soprano pipistrelle bat in 2013, based on data from 2007-2012, was calculated as 74,100km2. 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 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: Almost 10,000 distribution records collated by Bat Conservation Ireland between 2007 and 2018 for this species were mapped at the 1km level to provide the population estimate used in 6.2 (3,759 x 1km grid cells). 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 (0.5-1.2 million) is retained for the present reporting period and provided in 6.4. This population has been estimated using data from the Car-based Bat Monitoring Scheme and is calculated based on the detection distance for echolocating pipistrelles 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 soprano 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 Monitoring Scheme data. In the past twelve years (2006-2017) the soprano pipistrelle population has increased by 105.8% (C.I. 95% = 61-151%), equivalent to a per-annum increase of 6.2% (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 million individuals) is retained for the current reporting period. This rounded figure at the higher end of the estimated population range has been chosen because the soprano pipistrelle echolocates at a higher frequency, and is consequently less detectable, than the common pipistrelle. Therefore, the detection radius for this species is likely to be smaller and the higher end of the estimate range is considered to be more accurate. ||
->HabInfo: Habitat and roosting associations of the soprano 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. Soprano 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; Dick and Roche 2017).
Since these habitat types are currently stable or increasing, the habitat area and quality for the species are considered sufficient. Although population is increasing, range appears to be stable and the trend overall for habitat was taken, conservatively, as stable. ||
->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: The soprano pipistrelle is the most widespread bat species on the island of Ireland. Recent estimates for this species suggest a population size in the order of 500,000 – 1,000,000 animals. 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. 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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Short-term trend in range has been assessed by using the 2019 distribution data and the 2013 method for calculating range and comparing the result with range surface area in 2013. For further information see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document and country assessments. ||
->Population: The 1km square count has been calculated from the UK count of 1km squares where the species has been recorded. This is a minimum count because it only includes number of recorded occupied 1km squares.

UK population estimates have been derived from the Great Britain estimate in Mathews et al. (2018) and the Northern Ireland estimate from the 2013 Article 17 report. The new estimate, taken from Mathews et al. (2018) is considered to be more robust than the previous estimate.

The current population is considered to be approximately equal to the FRP and is sufficient to maintain a viable population and at least the value in 1994 when the Habitats Directive came into force in the UK. For further details see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document. ||
->HabInfo: This species can occupy a wide variety of habitat types and could be present throughout its entire habitable area. Expert opinion considers the trends to be stable. ||
->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 approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.

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

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

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

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

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

Overall assessment of Conservation Status has not changed since 2013.

Overall trend in conservation status was not reported for this species in 2013. However, from the information available the overall trend would have been increasing 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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: We assume that the species occurs in all territory of country despite the missing observations in NE part (see the map). The species has been recorded in Estonia in areas situated to the north from the “blank area” in NE Latvia. The missing data can be explained by the overall relative rarity of the species in Latvia. ||
->Population: 1X1 km grids are used for population estimate instead of individuals in previous Report The maximum population size is estimated as the potential presence of species in all territory of country. P.pygmaeus is a migratory species and probably cross all kinds of habitats in spring and autumn. The minimum size of the population is estimated according to habitat preferences of the species in summer, e.g. avoidance of agricultural landscape and urban habitats. In our calculation we excluded also about 15000 1X1 km grids because of the lack of records of P.pygmaeus in the northern part of country. ||
->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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: 5.1 Gap distance

5.3 Difference in surface area between periods is mainly due to unequal sampling intensity.

5.6 This species was first described 1997. ||
->Population: 6.11 This species was first described 1997. ||
->HabInfo: 7.6 This species was first described 1997. ||
->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 pygmaeus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: It's the first time, this species is reported in Wall CON. it's likely that the range of this species didn't change for a while. Acoustic data show that the P. pygmaeus seems widespread even if the records are always scarced and difficult to validate with certainty. ||
->Population: New species, poorly studied in Continental Belgium.
We only have some capture data and acoustic records with no indication of a local breeding.
This situation may explain some paradox in the conservation status. ||
->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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: Gestion des ripisylves et ds gîtes dans le futur ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
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.
Mimo iż karlik drobny jest w skali kraju gatunkiem stwierdzonym na mniejszej liczbie stanowisk (w regionie kontynentalnym) niż karlik malutki, to najprawdopodobniej jego liczebność i rozmieszczenie jest znacznie niedoszacowane. Karlik drobny jest jedynym gatunkiem z tej pary stwierdzonym (z dostateczną pewnością) na znacznych obszarach Polski północno-wschodniej i wschodniej, gdzie karlik malutki wydaje się być nieobecny lub bardzo rzadki. Znany jest z mniej niż 100 stanowisk rozproszonych po terenie całego regionu; w niektórych rejonach Polski (zachód i południe) występuje sympatrycznie z karlikiem malutkim, w innych jako jedyny przedstawiciel tej pary (większość Mazowsza i Podlasia).
Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. ||
->Population: Wielkość populacji w obowiązujących w tym raporcie jednostkach, czyli polach siatki 1x1 km, określono na 8 400, 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 drobnego jest takich pól 84 (84x100=8400).
Gatunek wędrowny, cała lub większość populacji odbywa długodystansowe migracje na zimowiska w kierunku południowym i południowo-zachodnim. Rozmieszczenie i liczebność tego karlika są najprawdopodobniej niedoszacowane. ||
->HabInfo: Gatunek związany z wodami i terenami podmokłymi, a także z lasami, zwłaszcza liściastymi (gdzie żeruje – nisza siedliskowa podobna do karlika większego), znane kryjówki kolonii rozrodczych znajdują się w budynkach, w tym również nowych, gdzie gatunek ten zajmuje głębokie szczeliny. Prawdopodobnie znacznie bardziej stenotopowy niż karlik malutki, ale bardziej od niego wędrowny, zatem jego wymagania siedliskowe mogą różnić się sezonowo. Potencjalne siedliska pokrywają cały region CON.
W związku z tym dostępność odpowiednich siedlisk można ocenić jako dobrą. ||
->Future: Można je ocenić jako dobre ze względu na szeroki zasięg gatunku, obecność dużych powierzchni odpowiednich siedlisk (lasy, tereny zabudowane) oraz charakterystykę występowania gatunku (przynajmniej sezonowe pojawy podczas migracji).
Rozmieszczenie i liczebność tego karlika są najprawdopodobniej niedoszacowane w związku z czym perspektywy dla populacji oceniono na XX. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie. Mimo iż karlik drobny jest w skali kraju gatunkiem stwierdzonym na mniejszej liczbie stanowisk (w regionie kontynentalnym) niż karlik malutki, to najprawdopodobniej jego liczebność i rozmieszczenie jest znacznie niedoszacowane. Karlik drobny jest jedynym gatunkiem z tej pary stwierdzonym (z dostateczna pewnością) na znacznych obszarach Polski północno-wschodniej i wschodniej, gdzie karlik malutki wydaje się być nieobecny lub bardzo rzadki. Znany jest z mniej niż 100 stanowisk rozproszonych po terenie całego regionu; w niektórych rejonach Polski (zachód i południe) występuje sympatrycznie z karlikiem malutkim, w innych jako jedyny przedstawiciel tej pary (większość Mazowsza i Podlasia). Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool.
Stan parametru określono jako właściwy (poprzednia ocena – nieznany).

Populacja. Gatunek wędrowny, cała lub większość populacji odbywa długodystansowe migracje na zimowiska w kierunku południowym i południowo-zachodnim. Do dokładniejszej oceny liczebności populacji wymagane badania w okresie trwania kolonii rozrodczych; do rozrodu gatunek ten wykorzystuje budynki, także domy mieszkalne oraz dziuple drzew i skrzynki lęgowe. Dodatkowa trudność to współwystępowanie dwóch gatunków bliźniaczych: karlika malutkiego (P. pipistrellus) i karlika drobnego (P. pygmaeus). Gatunek kryje się głównie w szczelinach dachów i ścian, co zwykle uniemożliwia jego stwierdzanie w ramach standardowych kontroli strychów – kolonie karlików są możliwe do policzenia jedynie podczas obserwacji wieczornego wylotu z kryjówki (wymagają połączenia kontroli kryjówek z detekcją ultradźwięków). Wielkość populacji w obowiązujących w tym raporcie jednostkach, czyli polach siatki 1x1 km, określono na 8 400, 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 drobnego jest takich pól 84 (84x100=8400). W poprzednim raporcie wielkość populacji oszacowano liczba pól siatki 10x10 km.
Stan parametru określono jako nieznany, podobnie jak w raporcie 2013.

Siedlisko. Gatunek związany z wodami i terenami podmokłymi, a także z lasami, zwłaszcza liściastymi (gdzie żeruje – nisza siedliskowa podobna do karlika większego), znane kryjówki kolonii rozrodczych znajdują się w budynkach, w tym również nowych, gdzie gatunek ten zajmuje głębokie szczeliny. Prawdopodobnie znacznie bardziej stenotopowy niż karlik malutki, ale bardziej od niego wędrowny, zatem jego wymagania siedliskowe mogą różnić się sezonowo. Potencjalne siedliska pokrywają cały region CON.
Jakość siedliska jest w opinii eksperta właściwa. W raporcie 2013 r. była ocena stan nieznany.

Perspektywy zachowania. Oceniono jako właściwe ze względu na szeroki zasięg gatunku, obecność dużych powierzchni odpowiednich siedlisk (lasy, tereny zabudowane) oraz charakterystykę występowania gatunku (przynajmniej sezonowe pojawy podczas migracji). W raporcie 2013 r. były określone jako nieznane.

Ocena ogólna. Stan gatunku oceniono jako właściwy. Wydaje się, że ocena XX w raporcie 2013 r. była zbyt ostrożna.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
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. Recently it was found in a number of new sites. ||
->Population: The species population size was poorly known before 2012. Thus, estimation of a population trend is not possible. Available intervals (individuals) are provided in 6.4. The known number of occupied 1X1 cells is given in 6.2d. ||
->HabInfo: The species habitat sufficiency (area and/or quality) was poorly known before 2012 and still remains unknown. Thus, estimation of a habitat trend is not possible. ||
->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 pygmaeus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Esta especie está ampliamente distribuida por toda la Península Ibérica, ligada a hábitats riparios, siendo uno de los murciélagos más abundantes y con poblaciones de un gran número de efectivos. Destaca la gran capacidad de colonización de cajas nido (Alcalde et al., 2013). ||
->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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
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 77675 km2, the area of suitable habitat is 96575 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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Pipistrellus pygmaeus is sedentary with only few records available for long distance flights, although it is considered to undertake some short range migrations (SLR Consulting Ltd., 2011). Inter-island movements have not been recorded so far. Roosting sites for the species might be rather localised, and exchanges between different roosts are frequent; movements usually occur in the same building or block. The range of the species is set as equivalent to its distribution on the basis of the existing data, and is most likely an overlap of data belonging to the species, and two species with which it was previously confused; i.e. P. pipistrellus and Hypsugo savii. However, foraging may cause this species to cover a larger area than that being actually reported. ||
->Population: Pipistrellus pygmaeus was previously confused with P. pipistrellus and Hypsugo savii. The fact that the species was never recorded in works conducted by Mifsud & Vella (2018) between February and October 2013–2015 and 2017, using bioacoustic surveys and morphological analyses, takes them back to the premise that previous records of the species from Malta were possibly confused with P. pipistrellus. This is because the latter species uses slightly higher peak frequencies when compared to its counterparts in mainland Europe.

The same authors further conclude that the species is likely to be locally absent as its preferred riparian habitat is atypical of the Maltese Islands. Contrastingly, according to M. Zammit (personal communication, March 06, 2019) the species is present locally; however, it is definitely much less abundant than the other Pipistrelle species and H. savii. Noting the above, one has to acknowledge the possibility of the species not being locally present, and if the species occurs, the data available on the species is most likely an overlap of data belonging to all the three species mentioned above. ||
->HabInfo: Although the presence of Pipistrellus pygmaeus goes confirmed, records available to date, and which are most likely an overlap of data belonging to the species together with P. pipistrellus and Hypsugo savii, show that the species can be found in all types of habitats, especially urban ones, where it has been reported to hibernate and roost, as well as in valleys, cliffs and woodlands. Being associated with man-made structures, restoration projects are a major pressure for the species. However, as habitat specificity does not seem 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: Due to the lack of clarity on the species in the Maltese Islands, as outlined in section 6.17, further research is required to shed more light on its actual presence or absence.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Pipistrellus pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
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 pygmaeus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Our knowledge was significantly increased about the distribution and other parameters of the species because of expansively used new method based on ultrasound detection. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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