Draft online platform (Fact Sheet) Habitat type




старонка3/3
Дата канвертавання24.04.2016
Памер269.49 Kb.
1   2   3

7. Synopsis
Please synthesize the relevant information obtained from the territorial data sheets and other sources in order to facilitate the assessment process.

Input data:

  • HELCOM Questionnaire raw data

  • Expert opinion

  • Subsequent expert discussions in the HELCOM Red List of Biotopes assessment

  • HELCOM Biotope information sheets for biotopes AA.J1B4 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by Charales’, AA.J1B5 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina)’ and AA.J1B7 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’


8. Red List assessment
Criterion A: Reduction in quantity

Please indicate in the table below the percentage of decline obtained after applying Criterion A, as far as data are available. Explain the percentage and provide any supporting evidence, including the map base or other source(s) used to estimate change in distribution. If A2b was applied, please also give the beginning and end (in years) of the 50-year period over which the decline was measured. Please cite data sets and other sources of information used; if the primary data has not been published, please provide a copy for archive to support future re-assessments.




Criterion A

A1

A2a

A2b

A3

EU 28

>25%

NoData

NoData

NoData

EU 28+

>25%

NoData

NoData

NoData



The values above were calculated based on collected data, expert judgement and expert discussions.

The assessment is only made on the subbiotopes AA.J1B4 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by Charales’, AA.J1B5 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina)’ and AA.J1B7 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ that have the highest threat category.


For the remaining subbiotopes the estimated decline was <20% during the past 50 years (A1).


Criterion B: Restricted geographic distribution

Please indicate in the table below the values obtained after applying Criterion B, as far as data are available. Explain the values and provide any supporting evidence. If B1a or B2a is used, please indicate which subcriteria (i, ii and/or iii) this is based on. If B1b or B2b is used, please explain the threatening processes and their effects. If B3 is used, please give the most serious plausible threat and justify how it will cause the habitat to become Critically Endangered or Collapsed, including the time frame in which this could occur. Please cite data sets and other sources of information used; if the primary data has not been published, please provide a copy for archive to support future re-assessments.





Criterion B

B1

B2

B3

EOO

a

b

c

AOO

a

b

c

EU 28

NoData

NoData

NoData

NoData

NoData

NoData

NoData

NoData

NoData

EU 28+

NoData

NoData

NoData

NoData

NoData

NoData

NoData

NoData

NoData








Criteria C and D: Reduction in abiotic and/or biotic quality

Please indicate in the table below the percentage of change in abiotic and/or biotic quality. Please report them together (criterion C/D), but if possible, also report abiotic (criterion C) and biotic (criterion D) percentages separately.


Please explain the resulting values obtained, and provide any supporting evidence. Whenever possible, please identify the abiotic environmental and/or biotic ecological factor(s) and data sources used to assess reduction in quality. If criteria C/D2, C2 or D2 are used, please define the 50-year time period over which the reduction was measured. Please cite data sets and other sources of information used; if the primary data has not been published, please provide a copy for archive to support future re-assessments.


Criteria C/D

C/D1

C/D2

C/D3

Extent affected (%)

Relative severity

Extent affected (%)

Relative severity

Extent affected (%)

Relative severity

EU 28

No data available

No data available

No data available

No data available

No data available

No data available

EU 28+

No data available

No data available

No data available

No data available

No data available

No data available

Criterion C

C1

C2

C3

Extent affected (%)

Relative severity (%)

Extent affected (%)

Relative severity (%)

Extent affected (%)

Relative severity (%)

EU 28

No data available

No data available

No data available

No data available

No data available

No data available

EU 28+

No data available

No data available

No data available

No data available

No data available

No data available

Criterion D

D1

D2

D3

Extent affected (%)

Relative severity (%)

Extent affected (%)

Relative severity (%)

Extent affected (%)

Relative severity (%)

EU 28

No data available

No data available

No data available

No data available

No data available

No data available

EU 28+

No data available

No data available

No data available

No data available

No data available

No data available






Criterion E: Quantitative analysis to evaluate risk of habitat collapse

Describe the method/model used to estimate risks of habitat collapse. Please explain the resulting values obtained, specify the basis and provide any supporting evidence. Please cite data sets and other sources of information used; if the primary data has not been published, please provide a copy for archive to support future re-assessments.




Criterion E

E

EU 28

No data available

EU 28+

No data available



No quantitative analysis has been carried out for this habitat.




Overall assessment “Balance sheet” for EU 28 and EU 28+ 1

Please complete the table below, indicating the Red List Category that the habitat type qualifies for, after assessing the habitat types against all criteria for which data is available. If any criteria were not applied, the habitat type should be considered Data Deficient (DD) under those criteria.







Category




Category




Category




Category




Category




Category

Overall Category & Criteria

EU 28

EU 28+

EU 28

EU 28+

EU 28

EU 28+

EU 28

EU 28+

EU 28

EU 28+

EU 28

EU 28+

EU 28

EU 28+

A1

NT

NT

B1

DD

DD

C/D1

DD

DD

C1

DD

DD

D1

DD

DD

E

DD

DD

NT

A1

NT

A1

A2a

DD

DD

B2

DD

DD

C/D2

DD

DD

C2

DD

DD

D2

DD

DD













A2b

DD

DD

A3

DD

DD

B3

DD

DD

C/D3

DD

DD

C3

DD

DD

D3

DD

DD














  • Synthesis

Provide a summary of the reasons why the habitat type qualifies for the Category and Criteria recorded above, justifying assessment decisions, limits of data quality, reliability of assessment, etc.), using the information from above.

This habitat type has been listed as Near Threatened A1 based on the subbiotopes AA.J1B4 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by Charales’, AA.J1B5 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina)’ and AA.J1B7 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ that have the highest threat category. During the last 50 years the distribution of the three Near Threatened biotopes has declined >25%. The biotopes have declined to varying extents in the different Baltic Sea regions with the strongest decline in the Western and Southern Baltic Sea. In some bays and lagoons conditions have changed so intensively that the biotopes have disappeared completely.

The other subbiotopes have been assigned threat category Least Concern based on A1 (HELCOM Red list assessment 2013). The assessment was based on collected data, expert judgement and expert discussions.






  • Please indicate the confidence in the assessment; please tick () one box only:




Low

(mainly based on uncertain or indirect information, inferred and suspected data values, and/or limited expert knowledge)




Medium

(evenly split between quantitative data/literature and uncertain data sources and assured expert knowledge)




High

(mainly based on quantitative data sources and/or scientific literature)







  • Sub-habitat types that may require further examination

Indicate and specify if any sub-types of the assessed habitat type may require further examination due to their particular character or potentially threatened status. These may be subtypes in a specific region, or thematic subtypes, having a certain specific species composition or structure.

AA.J1B1 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by pondweed (Potamogeton perfoliatus and/or Stuckenia pectinata)’
AA.J1B2 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by Zannichellia spp. and/or Ruppia spp. and/or Zostera noltii’
AA.J1B3 Baltic photic sand dominated by watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum and/or Myriophyllum sibiricum)’
AA.J1B4 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by Charales’
AA.J1B5 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina)’
AA.J1B6 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by Ranunculus spp.’
AA.J1B7 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’
AA.J1B8 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by spikerush (Eleocharis spp.)’




  • Assessors

Please indicate the names of the individuals that have assessed the status of the habitat type (the working group members, first name is the member tasked to write up the draft assessment).

HELCOM RED LIST Biotope Expert Team 2013 and Baltic Sea Working Group for the European Red List of Habitats 2014 and Sofia Wikström.


  • Contributors

Please indicate the names of the individuals that have contribute to the assessments (including providers of territorial data, and providers of descriptions of types, and any other contributors).

HELCOM RED LIST Biotope Expert Team, November 2013.


  • Reviewers

Please indicate the names of the individuals that have reviewed the assessment.


  • Dates of the assessment

Please indicate the date when the habitat type was assessed (WG assessment workshop and/or synthesis workshop if changes are made in a later stage).

November 2013.


Please indicate the date when the habitat type assessment was peer-reviewed.
9. References

Provide a list of all published and unpublished reference sources used for the information recorded above, including data sets and other sources of information. If the primary data has not been published, please provide a copy for archive to support future re-assessments. Please provide full references, and try to avoid abbreviations (e.g. write Conservation Biology rather than Cons. Biol.).



HELCOM 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 138.



1 This table possibly will be filled automatically in the online platform

1   2   3


База данных защищена авторским правом ©shkola.of.by 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка