Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Saxifraga hirculus"
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: "Saxifraga hirculus"
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: "Saxifraga hirculus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: FRR year = 1995. ETC’s (2018) range tool was used to generate a standardized grid map and to calculate the range. Observations registered in the national species database Artportalen (www.artportalen.se) were used to assess the distribution of the species. Sites monitored by flora guardians are included in the database. Changes compared with previous assessments are primarily due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data. One site omitted because it derives from planted material (Abisko). Data from 1985 and onwards is set to represent the current range because many sites have not been revisited since then. ||
->Population: Population size was estimated based on regional monitoring programmes. Most of the data has been accessed through the national database Artportalen (www.artportalen.se). The overall trend appears to be stable. No real monitoring performed yet. ||
->HabInfo: The habitat for the species is assumed to be sufficient for a species when both the current population size is equal to the favourable reference population (FRP) and the population trend is stable. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines. Changes compared with previous assessments are primarily due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Saxifraga hirculus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The range is the same as in the previous reporting period as no new records for Saxifraga hirculus have been found since then. One outlier cell was not linked to the core range as there is no suitable habitat occurring between them.
Short-term trend was estimated based on data from the current reporting period and the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013). No area losses or gains affecting range were recorded during these two reporting periods and the short-term trend of Range is therefore stable.
The Favourable Reference Range is the current range, reported in 5.1. ||
->Population: Full surveys at all known locations of Saxifraga hirculus were carried out.
Two figures are provided for population size. The smaller figure is an estimate of the number of reproductively mature plants (in bud, flowering or going to seed), extrapolated from average counts of flowers (including buds and seed heads) within 1mx1m monitoring plots up to site area to estimate the total number of flowers for the site, and divided by 2.5 to estimate the number of plants in flower (based on an average of 2-3 flowers per flowering stem, as stated by Muldoon (2011) and 1 flowering stem per plant). This is significantly lower than the larger figure, which is an estimate of the number of plants (as rosettes) at all growth stages, including seedlings and juveniles, only a proportion of which are likely to reach reproductive maturity.
For two sites with smaller, patchy populations of Saxifraga hirculus, Bellacorick and Sheskin A, absolute counts of rosettes (a proxy for number of individuals) were carried out to determine the population.
For the other sites, which had dense swathes of rosettes, populations were estimated. The average rosette density per square metre was first calculated based on counts from up to five 1mx1m monitoring plots (see O’Neill et al., in prep.). The average count per plot was then multiplied by the area in square metres of occupied habitat, obtained from polygons mapped in GIS, to estimate the population (as number of rosettes) in each site. This method assumes that every square metre of the mapped area is occupied by Saxifraga hirculus. In practice this may not always be the case, so the number of rosettes thus calculated may sometimes be an overestimate.
The national population was derived by summing up the population estimates from each site.
S. hirculus is a clonal species, so the number of genetically distinct individuals is likely to be much smaller than the number of rosettes.
A total of 19 populations (localities) were surveyed between 2016 and 2018. This number could be used as an alternative unit of measurement for the national metapopulation. Muldoon (2011) demonstrated high genetic diversity within and among populations and noted that, because S. hirculus can exist as large clonal patches, a decrease in rosette numbers is of less concern than a loss of an entire population and the genetic diversity it contains. Thus a decrease in the number of populations could have greater conservation implications than a decrease in rosette numbers, and it should therefore be reported.
Short-term trends were estimated by comparing the most recent surveys with the baseline surveys. A stable trend was indicated rather than improving because, despite some population increases, there were also instances of population decline. The populations may currently be fluctuating due to recent changes in grazing levels that have occurred since the previous monitoring period. Two populations, Bellacorick and Sheskin A, appear to have decreased significantly since the previous monitoring period. Bellacorick has decreased from 700 to just 23 individuals between this monitoring period and the last, a decrease of 97%. Sheskin A has decreased from 360 individuals to 73 over the two periods, a decrease of 80%. However, both of these populations had been in equilibrium for some years prior to the 2007-2012 monitoring period and the high counts reported in the last monitoring period appear to be somewhat of an anomaly compared to previous surveys and may have been a temporary fluctuation rather than a trend. The other populations appear to be stable or increasing, with some significant increases in density noted.
The overall total number of rosettes (the figure given in 6.2) is significantly higher in this monitoring period than the previous. Increases thought to be due to relaxation of grazing were noted by surveyors at some sites. The difference in numbers may also be partly due to extrapolating rosette numbers up from plots to whole populations as this method assumes that there are no gaps in coverage. However, S. hirculus occurs in dense swathes across most of the sites surveyed and gaps are therefore expected to be relatively few, so the main reason for the change is assumed to be because of genuine increases in rosette numbers. ||
->HabInfo: While area and quality of habitat for the species are deemed on the whole to be sufficient for the species’ long-term survival, two populations are in a precarious position, with higher cover of negative species (e.g. Holcus lanatus), taller swards because of undergrazing, and drier hydrology than in the previous monitoring period. The most threatened population at Bellacorick (Bellacorick Iron Flush SAC) is being consistently monitored but specific action is likely to be required to prevent further deterioration of the habitat and local extinction of the population.
For the other 17 sites, area and quality of occupied habitat are sufficient for long-term survival of Saxifraga hirculus, and the species appears to be faring well. Some populations appear to have improved slightly, at least in the short term, with higher numbers of rosettes, more suitable grazing levels and higher frequency of positive indicator species such as Sagina nodosa.
Optimal habitat for the species is mineral flushes in ombrotrophic blanket bog. The flushes should be moderately grazed by sheep, enough to keep small areas open but not so high as to reduce flowering or fruiting. Vegetation should not be too tall or rank, and cover of more competitive species such as Holcus lanatus and Molinia caerulea should not be excessive. The presence of Sagina nodosa in the Saxifraga hirculus habitat is taken as a sign that the habitat is in good condition. Very wet flushes that are vulnerable to damage by even low numbers of grazers may not require any grazing as the hydrology may be sufficient to keep the habitat open for Saxifraga hirculus.
Assessment of habitat for the species was via seven criteria: area occupied by Saxifraga hirculus, hydrology, frequency of Sagina nodosa, cover of Molinia caerulea, cover of Holcus lanatus, grazing levels, and vegetation height.
Short-term trend was estimated by comparing the area and quality of the occupied habitat with baseline data. ||
->Future: Range is stable, equal to Favourable Reference Range, with no loss since the last monitoring period, and the Future prospects of Range are assessed as Good.
Nationally, the population of Saxifraga hirculus is higher in this monitoring period than the previous, despite decreases at two sites since the last monitoring period. The Future prospects of Population are assessed as Good. However, it should be noted that, as the loss of one population would represent a loss of national genetic diversity, the situation at these two sites should be monitored closely and remedial action taken in the next monitoring period to secure their future.
The area and quality of Habitat for the species on a national basis are both good. Some pressures and threats such as drainage and undergrazing / abandonment are causing deterioration in habitat quality for the species at some small sites but nationally these are relatively minor. Therefore the Future prospects of Habitat for the species have been assessed as Good. There is evidence of habitat decline at two small sites and this could impact on the long-term survival of the species at these locations. As noted in the previous paragraph, the situation at these sites should be monitored closely and any remedial action taken without delay.
Taking the individual parameter assessments into account as well as the pressures and threats operating on the habitat for the species, the overall Future prospects for Saxifraga hirculus have been assessed as Good. ||
->Conclusion: The survey for this monitoring period compared this period’s data with the baseline survey to derive a trend. A stable trend was indicated rather than improving because, despite some population increases and habitat improvement, there were also instances of population and habitat decline. Both the populations and the habitat may currently be in a state of fluctuation due to changes in grazing levels that have occurred since the previous monitoring period.
Deterioration in population numbers and habitat quality at two sites, Bellacorick and Sheskin A, has been significant. However, as population numbers have been generally stable at these sites since the 1980s, and because current numbers, though lower than historic levels, may be broadly in line with them, it is not considered enough to warrant the poorer assessment of Unfavourable-Inadequate for Saxifraga hirculus for this monitoring period. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Saxifraga hirculus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The surveying of remote upland areas in Scotland has resulted in the addition of two new geographically distinct sites. Consequently, the increase in range is considered as a result of improved knowledge and therefore the short-term trend is set as 'stable'. ||
->Population: The UK population estimate of individuals is a composite of both ramets (772,377) and genotypes (87). It has not been possible to use a common unit due to differences in survey method across the UK. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Population is Overall stable; and Future trend of Habitat for the species is Overall stable. For further information on how future trends inform the Future prospects conclusion see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document. ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is not less than the Favourable Reference Range.

Conclusion on Population reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Population size is stable; and (ii) the current Population size is not less than the Favourable Reference Population.

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

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 – increasing.

Overall assessment of Conservation Status has not changed since 2013.

Overall trend in Conservation Status has not changed since 2013. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Saxifraga hirculus"
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: "Saxifraga hirculus"
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: "Saxifraga hirculus"
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: "Saxifraga hirculus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The species several years has not been found in Kemeri National Park, but as species can reappear even after several years, if only habitat is still available, it is assumed that species can be found. ||
->Population: In 2016 special monitoring and project was conducted. Accordingly to the monitoring data, the condition of the S.hirculus in the surveyed areas is good to poor. In 9 of the 15 areas surveyed, the species was not found in 2016, and in 4 of them the species was not found in previous years, too. Nevereless the habitat quality in surveyed areas are still suitable for S. hirculus growth and no clear evidence that population would be extinct in these sites.
In the N2000 sites "Bednes purvs" and "Vesetas palienes purvs" the quality of the species habitat quality has been reduced and significantly smaller number of specimens have been found than in previous years - in 2016 in Bednes purvs 136 specimens counted (previously 563) and in Vesetas palienes purvs 18 specimens (previously 108). The population of N2000 site "Ances purvi un meži" is stable with tendency to improve (150 plants in both monitoring periods). The number of plants in the Krustkalni Nature Reserve is also not significantly increasing or decreasing (2-6 plants). Vital and stable population of S. hirculus is found in the NR "Mežole" (75 plants) and in the protected landscape area "Veclaicene" (29 plants) in 2016, where in previous monitoring perioud species was not found. Therefore short time trend evaluated as to be stable.
Species has been located mainly in N2000 sites. ||
->HabInfo: See comments on box.6 ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Additional research is necessary to investigate species ecological needs and genetical diversity to identify necessary activities for species conservation. Althought there is decrease of population in some localities, in the same time after several years populations has been re-found in other locations. Therefore monitoring must be improved to better cover evaluation needs. ||
->JustificationThreshold: Trend assessment on species number is based on comparison of Natura 2000 monitoring data (for locations where data was available). ||
->Other: Country-wide mire inventory has not been carried out in Latvia, therefore new information might appear.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Saxifraga hirculus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: FRR year = 1985. ETC’s (2018) range tool was used to generate a standardized grid map and to calculate the range. Observations registered in the national species database Artportalen (www.artportalen.se) were used to assess the distribution of the species. Sites monitored by flora guardians are included in the database. Changes compared with previous assessments are primarily due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data. The species has been reassessed as not being in a favourable conservation status due to the disappearance from its last site in the county/province of Dalarna during the latter half of the 1980s. Range slightly extended because of new sites being found. Data from 1985 and onwards is set to represent the current range because many sites have not been revisited since then. ||
->Population: Population size was estimated based on regional monitoring programmes. Most of the data has been accessed through the national database Artportalen (www.artportalen.se). The overall trend appears to be stable. Not much systematic quantitative information has been obtained during the past six yrs across the whole Swedish distribution. The population appears stable, while the two sites in southern Sweden are managed and regularly monitored. ||
->HabInfo: The habitat for the species is assumed to be sufficient for a species when both the current population size is equal to the favourable reference population (FRP) and the population trend is stable. ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as ‘poor’ or ‘bad’ to ‘good’. Consequently, the assessment of future prospect is equal to the current conservation status for all parameters. ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines. Changes compared with previous assessments are primarily due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data.

The reason for U1 instead of FV is that Range (and hence Future prospects) is affected negatively by that the species vanished from its only site in Dalarna between the mid 1980s and mid 1990s. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Saxifraga hirculus"
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: "Saxifraga hirculus"
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: "Saxifraga hirculus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: Les tendances peuvent être présagées positives si les actions de restauration du milieu et de renforcement des populations se réalisent. Toutefois, les perspectives peuvent au mieux être considérées comme médiocres dans l'attente de résultats de suivis et d'une évaluation des programmes eu égard à la pression générée par le changement climatique. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Saxifraga hirculus"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Podana w pkt. 5.1. wartość zasięgu jest większa od raportowanej w roku 2013 (5231 km kw.) i wyliczona została z użyciem nowego narzędzia. ||
->Population: Ad. 6.2. Według poprzedniego raportu (2013) wielkość populacji skalnicy torfowiskowej w Polsce szacowano na 26 000 - 28 000 osobników. Taką wartość przyjęto jako zbliżoną do referencyjnej. Obecnie wielkość populacji w regionie prawdopodobnie jest mniejsza. Wykonując w latach 2017-2018 monitoring gatunek znaleziono na 8 z 12 przebadanych stanowisk. Obecnie populacja skalnicy torfowiskowej w regionie to między 6 200 osobników (na stanowiskach monitorowanych) a 15 700 osobników (po uwzględnieniu dostępnych danych dla pozostałych stanowisk) ||
->HabInfo: Bez zmian w porównaniu do poprzedniego raportu (Raport 2018). ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Ad. 11.4. Pogorszeniu uległy perspektywy ochrony, które w poprzednim raporcie (2013) ocenione zostały jako niezadowalające (U1), natomiast obecnie są złe (U2) ze względu na przewidywane wystąpienie silnych zagrożeń. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report