Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Plecotus auritus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: 5.1 Gap distance 20.000m

5.3 Change is due to methodological reasons ||
->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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: Se ha constatado la regresión de los hábitats forestales óptimos para la especie en las últimas décadas (Paz, 2007). ||
->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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Różnice na mapie rozmieszczenia gatunku w stosunku do raportu z 2013 r. wynikają z zastosowania innego podejścia do danych uznawanych za aktualne. W tym raporcie za aktualne przyjęto stwierdzenia datowane po roku 2000. Gacek brunatny jest gatunkiem eurytopowym. Luki na mapie rozmieszczenia spowodowane są brakiem badań chiropterologicznych na tych obszarach.
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 z 2013 r., w którym za aktualną powierzchnię zasięgu przyjęto powierzchnię regionu. ||
->Population: W związku z niewielkimi zdolnościami migracyjnymi gacka brunatnego można spodziewać się fragmentacji jego populacji. Badania struktury wiekowej, płciowej, rozrodu i śmiertelności tego gatunku nie są w Polsce systematycznie prowadzone.
Ostatnie badania monitoringowe w zimowych siedliskach gacka brunatnego w biogorgaficznym regonie alpejskim objęły okres od 1997 do 2012 r. (Piksa, Nowak 2013). W ramach monitoringu przeprowadzonego w latach 2007 i 2008 oraz 2015 – 2016 w tym regionie w ramach Państwowego Monitoringu Środowiska (http://www.gios.gov.pl/siedliska/) nie uwzględniono tego gatunku.
Wielkość populacji w obowiązujących w tym raporcie nowych jednostkach, czyli polach siatki 1x1 km, określono na min. 600, co wynika z przyjętego założenia, że w jednym polu siatki 10x10km, zaznaczonym na mapie rozmieszczenia jako miejsce występowania gatunku, zasiedlone są przez gatunek wszystkie pola siatki 1x1 km (6x100=800). Niemniej jednak w przypadku tego gatunku rozmieszczenie jest słabo poznane i zasiedlonych może być znacznie więcej takich pól. Wartość określona tą metodą odzwierciedla przede wszystkim słaby stan poznania gatunku w regionie alpejskim. Ponadto, nawet przyjmując tą wartość jako minimalną, nie można jej odnieść do rzeczywistej liczebności populacji. FRP przy obecnym stanie wiedzy nie do określenia. ||
->HabInfo: Ostatnie badania monitoringowe siedlisk gacka brunatnego w biogeograficznym regonie alpejskim objęły okres od 1997 do 2012 r. (Piksa, Nowak 2013) i istnieje pilna potrzeba uzupełnienia wiedzy w tym zakresie.
Gacek brunatny jest gatunkiem leśnym, związanym szczególnie z lasami liściastymi i mieszanymi, a także z terenami skalistymi. Kolonie rozrodcze gacka brunatnego zlokalizowane na strychach kościołów i budynków mieszkalnych.
Dostępność odpowiednich siedlisk można ocenić jako dobrą (ocena ekspercka). ||
->Future: Siedliska kolonii rozrodczych i żerowiska są wspólne z gatunkami nietoperzy, podlegającymi ochronie w ramach sieci Natura 2000. Z tego powodu perspektywy dla siedliska wydają się dobre. Perspektywy dla populacji określono jednak konsekwentnie do oceny jej stanu jako nieznane. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie:
Różnice na mapie rozmieszczenia gatunku w stosunku do raportu z 2013 r. wynikają z zastosowania innego podejścia do danych uznawanych za aktualne. W tym raporcie za aktualne przyjęto stwierdzenia datowane po roku 2000. 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 z 2013 r., w którym za aktualną powierzchnię zasięgu przyjęto powierzchnię regionu.

Populacja:
Wielkość populacji w obowiązujących w tym raporcie nowych jednostkach, czyli polach siatki 1x1 km, określono na min. 600, co wynika z przyjętego założenia, że w jednym polu siatki 10x10km, zaznaczonym na mapie rozmieszczenia jako miejsce występowania gatunku, zasiedlone są przez gatunek wszystkie pola siatki 1x1 km (6 x100=800). Niemniej jednak w przypadku tego gatunku rozmieszczenie jest słabo i zasiedlonych może być znacznie więcej takich pól. Trendy krótko- i długoterminowe są nieznane z powodu niewystarczających danych. Stan populacji oceniono jako nieznany (XX), biorąc pod uwagę jego niedostateczne rozpoznanie i spadkowy trend obserwowany w regionie kontynentalnym. Nastąpiła zmiana w stosunku do oceny w raporcie z 2013 r., w którym stan oceniono jako właściwy (FV).
Siedlisko gatunku:
Z powodu ogólnie lepszego stanu siedlisk w regionie alpejskim intensywność negatywnych oddziaływań na populację gacka brunatnego jest mniejsza niż w regionie kontynentalnym. Znaczenie obecnych oddziaływań jest istotne, dodatkowo z powodu szybkiego rozwoju gospodarczego należy się spodziewać, że będą się one utrzymywały w przyszłości a ich intensywność będzie rosła.
Stan siedlisk oceniono jako właściwy (FV), podobnie jak w raporcie z 2013 r. Powierzchnia i jakość zajmowanego siedliska są wystarczające, a trend jakości siedliska określono jako nieznany.
Perspektywy ochrony:
Brak przesłanek do zmiany oceny w raporcie z 2013 r. Perspektywy ochrony są dobre (FV).
Ocena ogólna:
FV. W raporcie 2013 była ocena FV.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: Se ha constatado la regresión de los hábitats forestales óptimos para la especie en las últimas décadas (Paz, 2007). ||
->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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Distribution records were collated for this species between 2007 and 2018. These records translated to 343 x 10km squares. Using the range tool, with gap closure set to 20km, an additional 279 grid cells were incorporated giving a total range of 622 cells or 62,200km2. This is thought to provide a reasonable representation of the species’ distribution in Ireland. It is interesting that some gaps apparent in the range in 2013 are still without records. In this regard, it is notable that the brown long-eared bat may not disperse to the same extent as other bat species since it is a slow flyer. Consequently, squares between known distribution records and that were not selected by the range tool may represent genuine gaps in range. That said, it is likely that the large gap in the mid-south (north and east Cork) could be reduced with some dedicated surveying.
The range of the brown long-eared bat in 2013, based on data from 2001-2012, was calculated as 60,600km2. Although the current range is slightly 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 overall 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 be a minimum estimate of the species’ distribution in Ireland and is not considered a useful reflection of population. The population estimate from the 2013 report (62,000 – 97,000) is retained for the present reporting period and provided in 6.4. Since all brown long-eared bat roosts are not known it is not possible to count the population based on a complete census. Therefore, the population of mature (volant) individuals was estimated using roost count data from the Republic of Ireland. This includes data from the Brown Long-eared Bat Roost Monitoring Scheme as well as ad hoc roost records. The average foraging distance observed by Entwistle et al. (1996) from Scottish roosts is used to determine average area used by individuals around a roost, in absence of similar data for Ireland. The modelled core area for the species in the Republic of Ireland was determined using Maximum Entropy modelling by Lundy et al. (2011). To calculate the population of brown long-eared bats in the country, the total core area for the species was divided by the average foraging area for each roost and multiplied by mean and median roost numbers to give a population estimate range. This kind of population estimate would be improved with more detailed information on size and shape of foraging areas around a roost, greater knowledge of foraging distances, more ad hoc roost counts and information on sex ratios in the roosts that are counted. However, it may be considered a starting point from which to refine future estimates. See Roche et al. (2013) for further details.
The brown long-eared bat is monitored through an annual roost monitoring programme which was started in 2007. The species has shown a significant increase of 32.5% (95% C.I. = +11 to +54%) over the monitoring period (11 years), equivalent to an average annual increase of 3.18%. See Aughney et al. (2018) for full details. Although the monitoring scheme has only been running for 11 years, the trend shown has been attributed to a 12-year period (2007-2018) to fit the short-term trend window requirements.
The Favourable Reference Population proposed in the previous reporting period (2013) for the species is retained (62,000). This estimate was derived from the median roost size along with the average foraging distance (based on Scottish data, Entwistle et al., 1996) and the available core area of favourable habitat in Ireland (Lundy et al., 2011). See Roche et al. (2013) for full details. The lower end of the estimated population range is selected as the Favourable Reference Population. It is considered to be sufficient for the long-term survival of the population. ||
->HabInfo: Habitat and roosting associations of the brown long-eared bat were modelled using a Maximum Entropy model by Lundy et al. (2011) to determine likelihood of occurrence in specific habitats in the Irish landscape and maternity roost preferences. This modelling was carried out using roost and bat detector location data 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.
Brown long-eared bat records were found to be associated broadly with broadleaved woodland, riparian habitats, mixed woodland and small amounts of urbanisation (Lundy et al. 2011). Aughney et al. (2018) in their more recent radio-tracking work found a similar picture of habitat usage, with parkland with mature trees also selected. Since these habitat types are generally stable or increasing (woodland) the habitat quality for the species is assessed as good and the trend overall is taken as stable. ||
->Future: The dedicated roost-based monitoring programme provides evidence of 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: Recent estimates put the Irish population of brown long-eared bats at 60,000-100,000 animals. Monitoring data suggests a recent significant increase in numbers and both Range and Habitat are considered to be stable and Favourable. There is no indication of any major pressures currently impacting the population 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: "Plecotus auritus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The increase in range is mainly due to improved knowledge. ||
->Population: Vorige keer gerapporteerd in individuen.
De populatietrend is berekend door het CBS op basis van wintertellingen uit het NEM. ||
->HabInfo: Population trend in hibernacula positive.
Roosting habitat in buildings however, especially for summer and maternity roosts, is under threat of zero-carbon-emission renovation and building and changes in lighting regime around churches.

Vliegroutes hebben actueel last van versnippering en verlichting.

Due to historical factors (maternity) tree roosts overrepresented in tree lanes, there is an existing gap in age between tree lanes and woodland. Although policy regarding woodland directed on increase of structure and age exists, measures to deal with tree lane management and woodland management need to address the function of roosting habitat. We do not know whether the protection following the Nature conservation law is implemented effectively. ||
->Future: 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 relatively well known. Due to historical factors (maternity) tree roosts are overrepresented in tree lanes; there is an existing gap in age between tree lanes and woodlands. Although policy regarding woodland is directed on increase of structure and age, measures to deal with tree lane management and woodland management need to address the function of roosting habitat. We do not know whether the protection following the Nature conservation law is implemented effectively.
The roosting habitat in buildings, especially for summer and maternity roosts, is under threat of zero-carbon-emission renovation and building and changes in lighting regime around churches. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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.
Brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus) is a common and widespread species, found throughout the UK. Gaps in distribution probably reflect an absence of survey data rather than an absence of the species, though it may be less common in upland areas. There have been no structured distribution surveys for this species and records are based on ad-hoc recording in the field, bat roost visits following enquiries to the statutory nature conservation agencies (SNCOs) and data from structured surveillance schemes. However, this species is often found in buildings and is easily recognised, so level of recording is likely to be high. ||
->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 estimates by Harris et al. (1995) for the previous reporting rounds were based on expert judgement and extrapolation from limited field surveys. The 1995 population estimate for GB was based on very limited information. The new estimate, taken from Mathews et al. (2018) is considered to be more robust. The current population (in individuals) is considered to be approximately equal to the FRP and is sufficient to maintain a viable population. ||
->HabInfo: Habitable area as given by Mathews et al. (2018) has been used as a proxy for occupied habitat and is considered sufficient. There is no reliable measure of the quality of the occupied habitat, but the population trend is not showing a decline and the species continues to be widespread across a mosaic of habitats. It is therefore assumed that quality is sufficient to support a viable population of the species and maintain FCS. ||
->Future: Future trend in Range is Overall stable; Future trend in Population is Overall stable; and Future trend in Habitat for the species is Overall stable. For further information on how future trends inform the Future Prospects conclusion see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document. ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is 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 unknown.

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 – stable, 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 stable 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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Population trend estimates are based on hibernation counts. For period 1994-2018, the population trend is -0.7%/year (-1.9..+0.4). For period 2007-2018, the population trend is -6.9%/year (-5.0..+1.9). However, the results could be probably the effect of insufficient sampling. ||
->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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Species is found also in all adjacent countries. Distribution map reflects mainly winter distribution of P.auritus in small vegetable storage cellars that is common in Latvia. ||
->Population: Population estimation method differs from previous Report (individuals vs 1x1 grids). Population trends based on monitoring of hibernating bats in Latvia (1993-now) in 149 underground or semi-underground sites and lately (2014-2018) also in about 100 small vegetable cellars. TRIM analysis shows moderate decrease both in 24 years and 12 years datasets. ||
->HabInfo: Habitat trend marked “unknown”, although 1) intensive logging may reduce availability of older forest growths and therefore – potential bat roosts in trees; 2) during last 5-10 years there is an increasing tendency to remove old alleys along roads (potential roost sites, transition routes) and dead/dying trees or their parts in old parks. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: Monitoring of wintering bats covers only small part of the available winter roosts for this species. It indicates general trend, however, the data are not sufficiently precise to estimate exact threshold of the population trend. ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Plecotus auritus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Since the abundance of bats varies a lot within Sweden we divided Sweden into 7 regions. In southern Sweden (1) the abundance is high and all species occur. At the island Gotland (2), the abundance is generally also high, but the species composition is a little bit different. In south-central Sweden, the abundance is still relatively high but a little bit lower than in region 1, and all species occur. In central Sweden (4), both the abundance and species number is much lower. In coastal areas along the Bothnian Sea (5) the abundance is higher than in inland central Sweden (region 4) and more species occur. In coastal areas along the Bothnian Bay (region 6) the abundance and species number decrease. In inland northern Norrland (region 7) the abundance of bats is very low, and there are only one species present.

Deciding habitat preferences for each species, and compiling data on the area of these habitats (H) in each of the seven regions. The habitat preferences were divided into optimal habitat (Ho), first sub-optimal habitat (Hsub1), second sub-optimal habitat (Hsub2), third sub-optimal habitat (Hsub3) and avoided habitat (Havoid).
Estimating an average abundance of colonies (CA) for different species in each region (CAreg), and estimating an average number of individuals in a colony (nc) for each species.

The density of bats in different habitats was calculated based of following assumptions: Different individuals in a colony are able to select any habitats within the home-range area of the. They use a number of habitats, but some habitats (optimal habitats) are selected more often than others (sub-optimal habitats), and some habitats are avoided. The density of bats (nd) within the home-range is calculated based on home-range size (a) and number of individuals in the colony (nc): nd = nc/a. We assumed that bats use optimal habitats, and three types of sub-optimal habitat (first sub-optimal, second suboptimal and third suboptimal) in the relation 4:3:2:1 (i.e. optimal habitats were used four times more than third sub-optimal). Thus, the abundance of bats in different habitats nh was calculated as: nh = ((3 * Ho) + (2 * Hsub1) + (1 * Hsub2) + (1 * Hsub3) 0 * Havoid). The population size of bats in each region (Nr) was then calculated as: Nr = CAreg * nh.
To summarize, the calculations of population size require knowledge on habitat preferences and area of these habitats in each region, colony size of different species, home-range area for colonies of different species and abundance of colonies in different geographical regions. Area of different habitats is calculated by using available GIS data. All other variables are set mainly based on expert judgement, in some cases supported by data from telemetry studies.

Finally an index is presented for each species. This is simply based on number of 1 x 1 km squares in which the species is reported, without any effort to transfer these figures into population size.
To be able to calculate long-term population index, the method requires that squares in which the species not is observed between the reporting periods is removed.

There are indications of a decreasing population size for Plecotis auritus in south-western Sweden, but this has not been confirmed from other parts of the country. ||
->HabInfo: In general, both the short-term trend (2007-2018) and the long-term trend (1994-2018) for the habitat for Plecotus auritus is considered as stable. ||
->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: "Plecotus auritus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: 5.1 Gap distance 20.000m

5.3 Change is due to methodological reasons ||
->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: "Plecotus auritus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: the models of trends shows a moderate annual increase between 6 and 7 %.
This increase is imputated at the group plecotus sp (with P. austriacus and P. auritus ) but Plecotus austriacus is very rarely seen during the winter sensus) ||
->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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Population size in reporting units (grids 1x1) are based on field data and estimated on experts' opinion, taking into account mainly deciduous broad-leaved forests ||
->HabInfo: Forest and forest edges are less affected, as the peri-urban and semi-open habitats (mainly orchards, scrubs, hedges, tree rows…) ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Formerly rather common species which nowadays has become rather rare, mainly in peri-urban and semi-open habitats (mainly orchards, scrubs, hedges, tree rows…) whereas forest and forest edges are less affected ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Plecotus auritus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Różnice na mapie rozmieszczenia gatunku w stosunku do raportu z 2013 r. wynikają z zastosowania innego podejścia do danych uznawanych za aktualne (w tym raporcie za aktualne przyjęto stwierdzenia datowane po roku 2000) oraz z poprawy stanu wiedzy o rozmieszczeniu gatunku.
Gacek brunatny jest gatunkiem eurytopowym. Brak danych w niektórych polach siatki 10x10 km jest spowodowany brakiem badań chiropterologicznych na tych obszarach. Trend w zasięgu stabilny. FRR równy w przybliżeniu aktualnemu.
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: Minimalną wielkość populacji w obowiązujących w tym raporcie jednostkach, czyli polach siatki 1x1 km, określono na 32 500, 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 nocka rudego jest takich pól 325 (325x100=32 500).
W związku z niewielkimi zdolnościami migracyjnymi gacka brunatnego można spodziewać się fragmentacji jego populacji.
W ocenie trendów posłużono się wynikami monitoringu największego zimowiska gacka brunatnego w Polsce zlokalizowanego na obszarze Natura 2000 PLH 080003 „Nietoperek” oraz na opublikowanych wynikach analizy trendów w lokalnych populacjach w innych częściach regionu.
W jaskini Szachownica, największym zimowisku nietoperzy w środkowej Polsce, w latach 1981–2010 odnotowano istotny statystycznie trend wzrostowy populacji gacka brunatnego (Lesiński et al.. 2011).
Podsumowanie trendu zmian liczebności nocka rudego w Europie w ramach projektu „Prototype biodiversity indicator” wykazało stabilny trend w latach 1993 – 2011 w 3 655 monitorowanych stanowiskach zimowych w 9 krajach (Haysom K., Dekker J., Russ J., van der Meij T., A. van Strien. 2013. European bat population trends, a prototype biodiversity indicator. EEA Technical report No 19/2013. doi:10.2800/10311).
Badania prowadzone od 1999 r. przy użyciu tych samych metod i przez ten sam zespół w największym zimowisku gacka brunatnego w Polsce zlokalizowanym w podziemiach obszaru Natura 2000 ‘Nietoperek” powinny umożliwić wiarygodne określenie aktualnego trendu zmian liczebności populacji tego gatunku w kontynentalnym regionie biogeograficznym. W latach 1999 – 2007 w rezerwacie ‘Nietoperek” zimowało od 500 do 650 osobników, a w 2018 r. ok. zaledwie 400 osobników, co świadczy o znacznym spadku liczebności populacji tego gatunku. Modelowanie wieloletniego trendu (1999 – 2018) w podziemiach obszaru Natura 2000 ‘Nietoperek” (GAM model, P(efekt czasowy) < 0,001) wykazało, że liczebność gacka brunatnego była stabilna do 2010 r., w którym rozpoczął się trwający do dzisiaj spadek jego liczebności. Wynik ten, jako najbardziej aktualny stał się podstawą do oszacowania krótko- i długoterminowego trendu zmian liczebności populacji w kontynentalnym regionie biogeograficznym oraz do oceny stanu ochrony populacji jako niezadowalający (U1). ||
->HabInfo: Trwający od 8 lat spadek liczebności gacka brunatnego jest zjawiskiem niepokojącym spowodowanym prawdopodobnie pogorszeniem jakości siedlisk tego gatunku, dlatego trend w siedlisku oceniono jako spadkowy. Gacek brunatny jest gatunkiem światłofobnym a jego kolonie rozrodcze są zlokalizowane na strychach kościołów i budynków mieszkalnych. W związku z tym bardzo prawdopodobnym zagrożeniem może być zanieczyszczenie światłem. Intensywność tego zagrożenia wzrosła znacząco w ostatniej dekadzie zarówno w Polsce jak i w innych krajach Unii Europejskiej (Boldogh et al. 2007; Rydell et al. 2017). Problem ten wymaga dalszych specjalistycznych badań.
Powierzchnia i jakość zajmowanego siedliska wydają się wystarczające, aby gatunek przetrwał w dłuższej perspektywie czasowej. ||
->Future: Spadek liczebności populacji i spadek jakości siedlisk skłania do uznania obecnych perspektyw jego ochrony za niezadowalające. Dodatkowym niekorzystnym czynnikiem może być brak dostatecznego zabezpieczenia przed niepokojeniem w największych schronieniach zimowych. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie:
Różnice na mapie rozmieszczenia gatunku w stosunku do raportu z 2013 r. wynikają z zastosowania innego podejścia do danych uznawanych za aktualne (w tym raporcie za aktualne przyjęto stwierdzenia datowane po roku 2000) oraz z poprawy stanu wiedzy o rozmieszczeniu gatunku. 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.
Trend zasięgu w opinii autora raportu jest stabilny.

Stan zasięgu oceniono jako właściwy FV, tak jak w raporcie z 2013 r.

Populacja:
Do oszacowania wielkości populacji zastosowano nową metodę tj. liczbę pól siatki geograficznej 1x1 km. Nową oszacowaną wartość wynoszącą 32 500 należy traktować jako minimalną. Z powodu trendu spadkowego trwającego od 2010 r. stan populacji oceniono jako niezadowalający (U1). Nastąpiło pogorszenie w stosunku do oceny w raporcie z 2013 r.
Siedlisko gatunku:
Spadek liczebności gacka brunatnego jest spowodowany prawdopodobnie pogorszeniem jakości siedlisk tego gatunku. Gacek brunatny jest gatunkiem światłofobnym a jego kolonie rozrodcze są zlokalizowane na strychach kościołów i budynków mieszkalnych.
Krótkoterminowy trend jakości siedliska należy uznać za spadkowy, co rzutuje na ocenę ogólną dotyczącą tego parametru oceny. Stan siedlisk oceniono jako niezadowalający (U1), a więc nastąpiło pogorszenie w stosunku do oceny w raporcie z 2013 r. (wtedy właściwy (FV).
Perspektywy ochrony:
Spadek liczebności populacji i spadek jakości siedlisk zmusza do uznania obecnych perspektyw jego ochrony za niezadowalające. Nastąpiło pogorszenie w stosunku do oceny w raporcie z 2013 r., w którym perspektywy ochrony uznano za dobre (FV).
Ocena ogólna:
Z uwagi na niezadowalające oceny populacji, stanu siedliska i perspektyw ochrony stan ochrony gatunku określono jako niezadowalający (U1), a więc gorzej niż w raporcie 2013 r. (stan właściwy, FV). Ocena ta może ulec poprawie w rezultacie minimalizacji najważniejszych zagrożeń, do których należą: (1) zanieczyszczenie światłem, (2) niszczenie siedlisk kolonii rozrodczych w budynkach, (3) płoszenie w okresie zimowania i rozrodu, (4) adaptacja podziemnych schronień nietoperzy do celów turystycznych.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Since the abundance of bats varies a lot within Sweden we divided Sweden into 7 regions. In southern Sweden (1) the abundance is high and all species occur. At the island Gotland (2), the abundance is generally also high, but the species composition is a little bit different. In south-central Sweden, the abundance is still relatively high but a little bit lower than in region 1, and all species occur. In central Sweden (4), both the abundance and species number is much lower. In coastal areas along the Bothnian Sea (5) the abundance is higher than in inland central Sweden (region 4) and more species occur. In coastal areas along the Bothnian Bay (region 6) the abundance and species number decrease. In inland northern Norrland (region 7) the abundance of bats is very low, and there are only one species present.

Deciding habitat preferences for each species, and compiling data on the area of these habitats (H) in each of the seven regions. The habitat preferences were divided into optimal habitat (Ho), first sub-optimal habitat (Hsub1), second sub-optimal habitat (Hsub2), third sub-optimal habitat (Hsub3) and avoided habitat (Havoid).
Estimating an average abundance of colonies (CA) for different species in each region (CAreg), and estimating an average number of individuals in a colony (nc) for each species.

The density of bats in different habitats was calculated based of following assumptions: Different individuals in a colony are able to select any habitats within the home-range area of the. They use a number of habitats, but some habitats (optimal habitats) are selected more often than others (sub-optimal habitats), and some habitats are avoided. The density of bats (nd) within the home-range is calculated based on home-range size (a) and number of individuals in the colony (nc): nd = nc/a. We assumed that bats use optimal habitats, and three types of sub-optimal habitat (first sub-optimal, second suboptimal and third suboptimal) in the relation 4:3:2:1 (i.e. optimal habitats were used four times more than third sub-optimal). Thus, the abundance of bats in different habitats nh was calculated as: nh = ((3 * Ho) + (2 * Hsub1) + (1 * Hsub2) + (1 * Hsub3) 0 * Havoid). The population size of bats in each region (Nr) was then calculated as: Nr = CAreg * nh.
To summarize, the calculations of population size require knowledge on habitat preferences and area of these habitats in each region, colony size of different species, home-range area for colonies of different species and abundance of colonies in different geographical regions. Area of different habitats is calculated by using available GIS data. All other variables are set mainly based on expert judgement, in some cases supported by data from telemetry studies.

Finally an index is presented for each species. This is simply based on number of 1 x 1 km squares in which the species is reported, without any effort to transfer these figures into population size.
To be able to calculate long-term population index, the method requires that squares in which the species not is observed between the reporting periods is removed.

There are indications of a decreasing population size for Plecotis auritus in south-western Sweden, but this has not been confirmed from other parts of the country. ||
->HabInfo: Both the short-term trend (2007-2018) and the long-term trend (1994-2018) for the habitat for Plecotus auritus is stable. ||
->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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: Se ha constatado la regresión de los hábitats forestales óptimos para la especie en las últimas décadas (Paz, 2007). ||
->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: "Plecotus auritus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Potentiellement des zones de présence pourraient exister dans l'Aude et le nord de l'Hérault et on peut penser qu'en PACA des zones restent encore à découvrir ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: Même si la zone ne correspond pas à l'optimum écologique de l'espèce, il y a à priori assez d'espace d'habitat pour la population actuelle ||
->Future: La qualité de l'habitat forestier et la fermeture des gîtes en Paca sont les deux inconnues en termes de perspectives ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Plecotus auritus"
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 14150 km2, the area of suitable habitat is 16150 km2 and its quality is moderate.
Dependent on old growth forests which are 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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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: "Plecotus auritus"
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