action plan for the conservation of the danube...

Action Plan for the Conservation of the European Ground Squirrel Spermophilus citellus in the European Union

EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2013

EU Species Action Plan – Spermophilus citellus – second draft 2

1. Compilers: Milan Janák (Daphne/N2K Group, Slovakia), Pavel Marhoul (Daphne/N2K Group, Czech Republic) & Jan Matějů (Czech Republic).

2. List of contributors Michal Adamec, State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic, Slovakia Michal Ambros, State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic, Slovakia Alexandru Iftime, Natural History Museum „Grigore Antipa”, Romania Barbara Herzig, Säugetiersammlung, Naturhistorisches Museum Vienna, Austria Ilse Hoffmann, University of Vienna, Austria Andrzej Kepel, Polish Society for Nature Conservation ”Salamandra”, Poland Yordan Koshev, Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Science, Bulgaria Denisa Lőbbová, Poznaj a chráň, Slovakia Mirna Mazija, Oikon d.o.o.Institut za primijenjenu ekologiju, Croatia Olivér Váczi, Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Nature Conservation, Hungary Jitka Větrovcová, Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic Dionisios Youlatos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

3. Lifespan of plan/Reviews 2013 - 2023

4. Recommended citation including ISBN Janák M., Marhoul P., Matějů J. 2013. Action Plan for the Conservation of the European Ground Squirrel Spermophilus citellus in the European Union. European Commission. ©2013 European Communities Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged

Cover photo: Michal Ambros

Acknowledgements for help and support: Ervín Hapl (Slovakia), Rastislav Lasák (Slovakia), Peter Lindtner (Slovakia) Polish Society for Nature Conservation “Salamandra” – for organizing a workshop on the Action Plan during the IV. European Ground Squirrel Meeting in Poland 2012.


CONTENTS

Preface/Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 4

Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 4

Species’ functions and values ................................................................................................................ 5

Action plan geographical scope and target audience ............................................................................ 5

1. Biological information and status review ................................................................................... 6

1.1 Description of the species ............................................................................................................ 6

1.2 Species life history, ecology and habitat requirements ................................................................ 7

1.3 Distribution, populations size and trends ................................................................................... 12

1. 4 Threats ...................................................................................................................................... 19

2. Species conservation and legal status across its geographic range ...................................... 23

2.1 International status ..................................................................................................................... 24

2.2 National status ........................................................................................................................... 26

2.3 Existing conservation actions and identified priorities ............................................................... 27

2.4 Gaps in knowledge ..................................................................................................................... 30

3. Framework for action ............................................................................................................... 31

3.1 Goal ............................................................................................................................................ 31

3.2 Objectives................................................................................................................................... 31

3.3 Actions ........................................................................................................................................ 33

3.4 Monitoring and review ................................................................................................................ 38

3.5 Other species that may benefit from the SAP ............................................................................ 38

References: .......................................................................................................................................... 39

ANNEXES............................................................................................................................................. 46


Preface/Introduction

The European Ground Squirrel, Spermophilus citellus is endemic to Europe. Its populations became increasingly fragmented and are facing serious declines across most of its range throughout last decades. Only a coordinated conservation effort at the European level may sustain the species viability. With this respect this European Species Action Plan has been prepared with the support of the European Commission. The aim of this action plan is to support the development of national or local action plans and conservation measures as appropriate

1. The purposes of this action plan are as follows:

To provide up-to date baseline information about species ecology, status and threats

To provide scientifically-based recommendations to those who can promote and support species conservation

To establish priorities in species conservation

To provide a common framework and focus for a wide range of stakeholders The information and solutions presented within this action plan have been prepared in consultation with a group of species experts from majority of the countries in the European Ground Squirrel’s distribution range, as well as through a review of available literature. The proposed action plan therefore represents the best available up-to-date collective knowledge on the species. Within the frame of this action plan, an expert workshop has taken place during the IV. European Ground Squirrel Meeting in Poland 2012, where the analysis of information on the species, including threats and possible conservation priorities were discussed with the experts in order to define a conservation strategy and identify the most important actions. Summary The European Ground Squirrel, Spermophilus citellus is a ground dwelling rodent associated with open non-forest steppe grassland habitats including the ‘cultural’ steppe of nowadays - the short-stalked grasslands on field airports, golf courses, playgrounds etc. The distribution range of S. citellus consists of two distinct parts divided by Carpathian Mountains. The western part extends from southern Poland, through Czech Republic, east of Austria, through Slovakia and Hungary into Pannonian part of Serbia and Croatia. The eastern part of the range includes Transcarpathian region of Ukraine, Romania, part of Moldova, Bulgaria, south-east of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), north-east of Greece and European part of Turkey. According to the 2008 IUCN Red List vers. 3.1, the species is considered Vulnerable, with a decreasing population trend. In 2007 reporting to the Habitats Directive 92/43/EC the species has been evaluated in unfavourable-bad status for Alpine and Continental biogeographical regions and in unfavourable-inadequate status for Mediterranean and Pannonic regions. International group of experts on research and conservation of S. citellus declared in 2006 that the species is threatened over most of its range, so coordinated conservation effort is needed for its survival. Dominant part of distribution area of S. citellus belongs to the European Union, so concerned member states have high responsibility for the survival of the world’s population of S. citellus. The most serious threats to the species reported include habitat loss and fragmentation especially in connection with land use changes which in synergy with adverse natural factors such as long winters, floods etc. increase mortality in the populations of this obligatory hibernant and in small isolated populations quickly leed to extinction. The overall goal of this action plan is to improve conservation status of Spermophilus citellus to a favourable level within the European Union. The objectives include stopping the decline in S. citellus populations by ensuring necessary management of habitats at existing localities, restoring metapopulations by adding new/restored habitats, creating corridors and stepping stones, supporting

1 The EU Species Action Plans are not of a binding nature; species action plans are drafted and implemented at the discretion of Member States.


populations by repatriation of animals. It is also necessary to fill in the identified gaps in knowledge and to support the species conservation by public awareness activities. In order to achieve these objectives, a list of recommended actions has been prepared taking into account the specific situation and threats in each country. The actions are divided into six categories: habitat management and land use, species recovery, mapping and monitoring, scientific research, coordination and funding of the Action Plan implementation, and public awareness, education and information. Species’ functions and values European Ground Squirrel, Spermophilus citellus is endemic to Europe. It is undoubtedly an important natural element of the steppic grassland ecosystem. In the short grass steppe habitat S. citellus represents one of the main prey for several top predators listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive, such as the Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca, Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina, Saker Falcon Falco cherrug etc. and also other species of community importance such as the Steppe Polecat Mustela eversmanii or Marbled Polecat Vormela peregusna. Some rare invertebrates are specialized to co-existence with S. citellus, such as the coprofagous beetles Ontophagus vitulus, Aphodius citellorum feeding on excrements of S. citellus. Old burrows of S. citellus are used by other protected species, such as Green Toad Bufo viridis or smooth snake Coronella austriaca. In some habitats it might be also an important consumer of primary production able to limit spreading of some plant species, including invasive plants, such as the Silver-leaved Nightshade Solanum elaeagnifolium. In line with these, keystone species function is probable though still not proven in the case of S. citellus. However, at least in some countries S. citellus can serve as an umbrella species for extensively used grassland habitats and associated species. Its usefulness as an umbrella species is supported by the fact that it is a species which can be brought to the attention of people through its attractive appearance and social diurnal activities above the ground. Action plan geographical scope and target audience Within the EU this plan is intended for implementation in: Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. Outside of the EU this plan is recommended for implementation in: Croatia, F.Y.R. of Macedonia, Moldova, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine. Information has also been compiled for Germany.


1. Biological information and status review

1.1 Description of the species

Taxonomy The European Ground Squirrel Spermophilus citellus has been first described as a species by Linné as Mus citellus in 1766 (LINNAEUS, 1766). The valid genus name Spermophilus was introduced by CUVIER, F. in 1825. The name Citellus Oken, 1816 was in routine use for the genus throughout the world until HERSHKOVITZ (1949) argued that Oken’s work was invalid, and that Spermophilus Cuvier, 1825 was the oldest available name for the genus. The opinion was supported by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1956; Opinion 417), and has been generally adopted by American authors. However, some European, and especially Russian authors, continued to use Citellus until as recently as 1995, although others adopted Spermophilus (HARRISON et al. 2003). Altogether nine subspecies of European Ground Squirrel were recognized within its distribution area (overview according to MATĚJŮ et al. 2010): The nominotypical subspecies Spermophilus citellus citellus (LINNAEUS, 1766) is distributed in the Czech Republic, Austria, Slovakia and Hungary (RUŽIĆ 1978). The occurrence of S. c. gradojevici (MARTINO & MARTINO, 1929) is limited to lowlands in the surroundings of Vardar River and Dojran Lake in Macedonia (KRYŠTUFEK 1993). The subspecies S. c. karamani (MARTINO & MARTINO, 1940) is also found only in Macedonia, namely in the area of Karadžica Mountains, at altitudes of approximately 2,000 m, on meadows and pastures in the Patiška River basin (KRYŠTUFEK 1993, 1996). The subspecies S. c. istricus (CALINESCU, 1934) from Romania has been described, distributed in the Muntenia area on the left bank of Danube River (RUŽIĆ 1978). Another subspecies, S. c. laskarevi (MARTINO & MARTINO, 1940) has been described in Serbia, specifically in the southeast part of the Pannonian Lowlands, in the Banat and Syrmien areas (RUŽIĆ 1978). PEŠEV (1955) also classifies some Bulgarian populations as belonging to this subspecies. Compared to S. c. citellus, S. c. laskarevi differs in its smaller size and shorter tail. The validity of the following two subspecies, S. c. martinoi (PEŠEV, 1955) and S. c. balcanicus (MARKOV, 1957) described in the Bulgarian Mountains has been called into question. ONDRIAS (1966) synonymizes both these subspecies with the subspecies S. c. karamani. RUŽIĆ (1978) considers S. c. balcanicus and S. c. martinoi as a single subspecies. Based on different physical size and length of the lower jawbone, the subspecies S. c. thracius (MURSALOGLU, 1964) has been described in the easternmost part of its area, the European part of Turkey. The subspecies S. c. macedonicus (FRAGUEDAKIS-TSOLIS et ONDRIAS, 1985) has been recognized based on immunological research into ground squirrel populations found in the Pontokomi area, in Greek Macedonia (FRAGUEDAKIS-TSOLIS 1977). A subsequent detailed study led to the discovery of morphological differences and to the description of this subspecies (FRAGUEDAKIS-TSOLIS & ONDRIAS 1985).

Nowadays only 4 subspecies are considered to be valid: S. c. citellus, S. c. gradojevici, S. c. istricus

and S. c. martinoi (WILSON & REEDER 2005; HELGEN et al. 2009). However existence of subspecies

needs further revision according to published information on the genetic diversity of the species (KRYŠTUFEK et al. 2009). For instance KRYŠTUFEK et al. (2009) described only three separate S.citellus phylogeographical lineages (south, north and Jakupica) and suggest treating them as independent conservation units. KRYŠTUFEK (1996) found no diagnostic differences in skull characters, ratios and colouration to support formal division of S. citellus into subspecies. Hybridization with other species has not been studied yet in S. citellus.


Description As its name suggests the European Ground Squirrel Spermophilus citellus is a ground dwelling (living in burrows) rodent resembling the squirrel but with the tail far shorter and thinner and the body colour of mottled ochre-yellow. The body length of full grown wild animal is about 18 - 24 cm (GRULICH 1960, RUŽIĆ 1978) and the weight of adults is highly variable, being lowest after the hibernation and highest in the late summer prior to onset of hibernation – 145 to 520g (MATĚJŮ 2008), 150 to >400g (MILLESI et al. 1999). Males are significantly heavier than females (MILLESI et al. 1999, MATĚJŮ 2008). S. citellus forms colonies of various sizes. It is a mammal with diurnal activity and an obligatory (true) hibernant.

1.2 Species life history, ecology and habitat requirements

Habitat requirements S. citellus is originally associated with open non-forest steppe grassland habitats, though it is less adapted to typical steppe conditions than the more East-distributed S. suslicus. S. citellus nowadays inhabits different types of grassland habitats, both semi-natural and artificial, though with strong preference to grasslands with permanent short-stalk vegetation (10-20 cm) developed on different soil types, from light, fine-grained soils (such as those developed on sand) to heavy soils and both on deep as on shallow soils with presence of soil skeleton, but usually with good water retention and medium aeration (JANDERKOVÁ et al. 2011). Vegetation height around 20 cm provides cover while not obstructing sight (STRASCHIL 1972, cf. HOFFMANN et al. 2008). Current localities represent mainly different types of mown grassland and pastures, artificial habitats include lawns, playgrounds, golf courses, river embankments (dykes), etc. For nowadays, grassy airports are important refuge areas of the species (VÁCZI & ALTBÄCKER 1999, MATĚJŮ et al. 2008). In periods of population gradation it pervades also to sub-optimal habitats such as mesophile, humid or temporarily flooded grasslands, grasslands with scrubs etc. In the past it often occupied grassy stripes along roads, railway ramparts, field balks and also perennial fodder crops – clovers, lucerne (GRULICH 1960; RUŽIĆ 1978; HULOVÁ 2001). Apart from grasslands S. citellus usually avoids intensively cultivated land, although it occurs also in vineyards, orchards and gardens in some parts of its range (SPITZENBERGER 2001; ENZINGER et al. 2006, HERZIG-STRASCHIL 2007; HOFFMANN et al. 2008, MATĚJŮ et al. 2008, 2010; YOULATOS in litt.). The analysis of the Natura 2000 database (end 2011 version) does not show a representative result in terms of habitat classes cover on 427 S. citellus sites (sites where S. citellus is listed among conservation targets or among non-target species) – in total 21.57% of the overall area is covered by broad-leaved deciduous woodland. This is obviously because of the character of Sites of Community Importance listed in the database, which are often multi-purpose, with many conservation targets and thus covering a variety of different habitat types. In any case some approximation can be derived for these sites – 19.07% of the total area of all sites is formed by dry grasslands and steppes, other arable land covers 8.85%, salt marshes, salt pastures and salt steppes cover 6,43%, both humid grasslands and mesophile grasslands and improved grasslands cover 5,4% of the total area of SCIs with S. citellus. The relation of S. citellus to Habitats Directive Annex I habitat types as estimated by local experts is summarized below (S – significant, IS – insignificant, UN – unknown/uncertain):

Habitat type Country

AT BG CZ EL HU PL RO SK

1340 * Inland salt meadows

1530 * Pannonic salt steppes and salt marshes IS S 2330 Inland dunes with open Corynephorus and Agrostis grasslands

IS

2340 * Pannonic inland dunes UN UN IS

4060 Alpine and Boreal heaths S

4070 * Bushes with Pinus mugo and Rhododendron S


Habitat type Country

AT BG CZ EL HU PL RO SK hirsutum (Mugo-Rhododendretum hirsuti)

40A0 * Subcontinental peri-Pannonic scrub IS IS

5210 Arborescent matorral with Juniperus spp. UN

5420 Sarcopoterium spinosum phryganas IS 6110 * Rupicolous calcareous or basophilic grasslands of the Alysso-Sedion albi

S

6120 * Xeric sand calcareous grasslands UN

6170 Alpine and subalpine calcareous grasslands IS 6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) (* important orchid sites)

S S UN S S S

6220 * Pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals of the Thero-Brachypodietea

S

6230 * Species-rich Nardus grasslands, on silicious substrates in mountain areas (and submountain areas in Continental Europe)

UN UN (Ex)

S

6240 * Sub-Pannonic steppic grasslands S S UN S S IS

6250 * Pannonic loess steppic grasslands S S S S S

6260 * Pannonic sand steppes S S S 62A0 Eastern sub-Mediterranean dry grasslands (Scorzoneratalia villosae)

UN

62C0 * Ponto-Sarmatic steppes S

62D0 Oro-Moesian acidophilous grasslands S 6410 Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae)

UN

6510 Lowland hay meadows (Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis)

S S S S S

6520 Mountain hay meadows S IS IS 91I0 * Euro-Siberian steppic woods with Quercus spp.

UN

91N0 * Pannonic inland sand dune thicket (Junipero-Populetum albae)

IS

Ground squirrels are often described as relying on open grassland habitats. Yet, they appear to be capable of adapting to variations in the structure of the habitat (RUŽIĆ 1978) and are likely to thrive as long as minimal habitat requirements are fulfilled. Apart basic requirements concerning climate, water table, soil depth and plant cover (SPITZENBERGER 2001), particular conditions are required to sustain a viable population, such as minimal habitat size and adequate resource availability (HOFFMANN et al. 2008). Studies conducted so far suggest that short-stalk vegetation cover is more important for presence of S. citellus than specific vegetation types of plant species at their localities (KIS et al. 1998; GEDEON et al. 2011). According to MATĚJŮ et al. 2011 the vegetation of S. citellus localities in Czech Republic can be is classified in three main types characterized by presence of (i) Lolium perenne, (ii) Festuca rupicola and Poa angustifolia and (iii) Festuca rubra agg. KOÓSZ (unpublished data) found that Trifolium spp. are also important components of the vegetation of S. citellus habitat. The localities in mountain environment usually represent pastures with dominant Nardus stricta (RUŽIĆ 1978). According to her, “lowland” S. citellus localities from the territory of former Yugoslavia could be characterized by presence of: (i) Poa bulbosa, Euphorbia seguieriana, Botriochloa ischaemum, Cynodon dactylon, Medicago ninima, M. lupulina or (ii) Festuca rupicola, Chrysopogon gryllus, Stipa capillata, Paeonia tenuifolia. Food consumption analysis based on faeces epidermal remains shows that Trifolium campestre, T. arvense, T. repens, T. media, T. pratense, Medicago minima, Coronilla varia, Ononis spinosa, Plantago lanceolata, P. media, Pimpinella saxifrage, Festuca spp., Dactylis glomerata and Agropyron repens represent important nutrition of S. citellus in lowland areas (KOÓSZ 2002; KOÓSZ unpublished data). Also other studies (GRULICH 1960, DANILA 1984, LEŠŠOVÁ 2010) described a wide variety of plant species and their parts consumed by the S. citellus, ranging from leaves and seed of grasses


(Poaceae), through radix of dandelion (Taraxacum sp.), plantain (Plantago sp.) seeds, yarrow (Achillea millefolium agg.). Different species of cereals or even potatoes or fallen apricots, are known to be consumed by S. citellus (MATĚJŮ et al. 2011). HERZIG-STRASCHIL (1976) recorded in colonies of S. citellus in Burgenland (Austria) more than 40 “foodplants” by direct observations. As nest material of S. citellus in lowland localities nearly exclusively the leaves of fescue (Festuca pseudovina) were found (GEDEON et al. 2010). Though the presence of permanent short-stalk grass cover or a vegetation cover at the height, which allows good on-site view for the animal seem to be a principal factor for S. citellus occurence, it was also recorded on some localities where grass cover regularly reaches height of 30 cm (MRLÍKOVÁ 1999). On such localities instead of trod up paths the tunnels made in higher grass connecting single burrows were observed (AMBROS in litt.). In the case of newly introduced populations extremely short vegetation can affect negatively on the survival of the individuals (GEDEON et al 2011). Yearly precipitation and temperature has been also reported as factors determining the suitable habitats for S. citellus. Almost all localities of S. citellus in the Czech Republic and Slovakia fall in the zone with boundary set by the July isotherm of 17 °C, in Poland (historical range) - of 18 °C. Sites with high population density do not exceed to areas cooler than 18.5 °C July isotherm (GRULICH 1960). GRULICH (l. c.) furthermore found a relation between the S. citellus distribution and yearly precipitation of 500 mm. Only on some sites, the occurrence was limited by yearly precipitation of 800 mm. However, according to HULOVÁ (2001), these limits are not completely accurate. According to KOSHEV et KOCHEVA (2007) the yearly precipitation on S. citellus localities in Bulgaria varies between 500-700 mm. Data from the Czech Republic and Slovakia (GRULICH 1960) confirm this range, locally culminating to 1000 mm per year (locality Kráľova hoľa in Nízké Tatry Mts., SLÁDEK 1963). In Austria data collected in 1968 to 1971 showed a distribution of S. citellus bordered by the 18 °C July isotherm but the greater density of colonies was within the area bordered by the 20°C July isotherm. The yearly precipitation in the area was 600 to 800 mm (STRASCHIL 1972). In Poland, on the northern edge of the species range, the yearly precipitation varies between 550 and 650 mm (historical locations). According to WERT (1932) the overall distribution of Spermophilus spp. in Europe is limited by July isotherm 19°C (species prefer hot and dry continental summer) and January isotherm 0°C (species prefer cold and dry continental winter). Altitude of the S. citellus colonies differs across countries. For example in Bulgaria it inhabits localities from the sea level to an altitude of 2300 – 2600 m a.s.l. (the highest located colony on 2592 m a.sl is near Belmeken peak in Rila Mts.) (KOSHEV – pers. comm.). In Slovakia the highest known locality of S. citellus was located on the South-East mountainside of Kráľova skala in 1250 m a.s.l., nowadays the highest located locality is near Telgárt village in 960 m a.s.l. (AMBROS 1998). Although S. citellus lives in colonies, it is not truly a social animal. While home ranges are overlapping (TURRINI et al. 2008), each individual inhabits its own burrow system, apart from maternal care. In principle there are two types of burrows which S. citellus uses during its life cycle – permanent or nesting burrows and temporary or shelter burrows. The temporary burrows used for a short-time shelter in case of danger have usually only one exit, it is 30 – 40 cm long and 5-7 cm in diameter; it is without branches and only widened at the terminal part to allow the animal to turn around (GRULICH, 1960, RUŽIĆ 1978). A permanent burrow is created by expansion of a shelter burrow and it consists of a horizontal corridor 30-50 cm below the ground, which may branch to various directions and can continue also deeper underground (see BRINKMANN 1951, GRULICH, 1960, KRATOCHVÍL 1964, RUŽIĆ 1978, HUT and SCHARFF 1998 for examples). In suitable places S. citellus digs a nesting burrow which consists of several cavities 17-30 cm in diameter, filled with bedding (e.g. from fescue grass Festuca sp., GEDEON et al. 2010). When preparing for hibernation S. citellus creates a new vertical corridor with dead end just below the surface. The material dug out of this new corridor is used to plug the entrance to the burrow and thus insulating the nesting chamber. When emerging from the hibernation S. citellus penetrates the new corridor to the ground and thus opens a new entrance to the nesting burrow (GRULICH 1960). After the mating period, when females moved to breeding burrows and adapted them for parturition, individual males were observed digging at the female's burrow. In most of the cases the male was identified as the female's previous mate, in the others the potential father was unknown. Paternal behavior was more frequent in males with lower reproductive success (1-2 mates). Parental behavior had costs for males in terms of lower foraging time and, correspondingly, delayed body-mass


increase after the stressful mating period. These data give a new insight to the variation and flexibility of a so-called asocial species (HUBER et al. 2002). Life history The active period of S. citellus starts in early March – April (depending on the altitude and longitude) when temperature in the nesting chamber reaches 6-8 °C (GRULICH, 1960). Males emerge first followed by females and young from previous year (MILLESI and HOFFMANN et al. 2008, MILLESI et al. 1999a).

Fig 1. Typical annual activity cycle of S. citellus (VÁCZI 2005). Reproduction starts right after emerging from the hibernation. Mating lasts 20-25 days (28 days according to Millesi et al. 1999b) and gestation lasts 25-30 days, on average 29 days (ASCHAUER et al. 2006; MILLESI et al. 1999b). The freshly born young S. citellus are around 50 mm long with weight of 4.7 to 6.6 g (Ružić, 1978). The number of young in utero is 2-9 (Ružić 1978), per litter usually 3-7. Litter sizes at emergence from the natal burrow vary from 2-5 (ASCHAUER et al. 2006), 4-7 (STRAUSS et al. 2007), 3-10 (HUBER et al. 2001), 2-6 (MILLESI et al. 1999b), and 2-9 (KRYŠTUFEK and VOHRALÍK (2005). Duration of lactation varies among females, ranging from 22-52 days (ASCHAUER et al. 2006; MILLESI et al. 1999b) and 45-61 days (HUBER et al. 2001; ÖZKURT et al. 2005). When young reach an age of 17-21 days (when the incisors start to cut through) the female leaves the nesting burrow and returns only to feed the young. When they reach an age of 25-28 days the young leave the burrow for the first time and start to feed on vegetation. When they reach 140-150 mm of body length, at nine weeks of age, respectively (HOFFMANN et al. 2004), juveniles start to depart from their birth sites aiming at digging their own burrow (or occupy an abandoned one) at a distance of 200-500 m from the maternal burrow. When preparing for hibernation the animals increase their body fat reserves. Pre-hibernation fattening starts first in males – right after reproduction – while in females and young it starts after weaning (MATĚJŮ et al. 2010). The weight of their subcutaneous fat often increases to 1/3 of their body weight (GRULICH 1960). Hibernation of S. citellus starts between August and October. Immergence dates seem to vary throughout the species range: In Austria, non-reproducing females terminate surface activity as early as at the end of July, followed by reproducing females during August. Males immerge into hibernation during September up to early October, while young animals start to hibernate last


(MILLESI et al. 1999a). Similar results were reported also from the Czech Republic (MATĚJŮ 2008). In Hungary the adult males with highest body mass start immergence in the first part of August, depending on food availability in the respective year. Non-reproducing females, reproducing females and finally the young of the actual year immerge till the end of October (VÁCZI 2005). The duration of hibernation is highly variable and ranges from 180 to 240 days (MATĚJŮ 2004). Similar median lengths (days) were reported by MILLESI et al. (1999a), with females hibernating longer (228) than males (185), yearling males (178) and juveniles (191). Body temperature of the animal decreases to 19.8–22 °C at the beginning of hibernation and continues decreasing down to 3.1–4.5 °C during deep torpor (RUŽIĆ 1978). Similar to other obligate hibernators, S. citellus exhibits a typical torpor-arousal rhythm during the hibernation phase (STRIJKSTRA 1999, NÉMETH 2010). Under non-natural circumstances hibernation may be interrupted by long-term increase in temperature of the environment. When temperature drops again S. citellus falls back into lethargy. Awaking from hibernation and warming up, respectively, is highly energy-demanding and exhausts the body fat of the hibernating animal. In average they cause 86% of energy costs during the hibernation season (STRIJKSTRA 1999). If repeated too frequently it may cause its death. According to GRULICH (l. c.) and RUŽIĆ (1978), the maximum life span of the S. citellus is 3 to 5 years. Life span in the field was four years for males and six years for females (HOFFMANN et al. 2003), and may be more than nine years under laboratory conditions (ANDJUS et al. 2000, ŽIVADINOVIĆ and ANDJUS 1996). While most females are sexually mature after their first hibernation, timing of puberty in males is facultative (MILLESI et al. 1998), becoming sexually active either as yearlings or as 2-year olds (MILLESI et al. 1999a). Plants represent at least 80% of the diet of S. citellus and it includes leafs, shoots, flowers, fruits and stems of various grasses and herbs (see also above). The animal food includes insects, especially suborders Caelifera, Ensifera, Lepidoptera, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera. In the food of pregnant females, the animal component may represent 1/3 to 2/3 of the total food volume, while in males it reaches a maximum of 1/5 (GRULICH 1960). Remains of Saltatoria and Formicidae were also identified in gut contents and droppings (HERZIG-STRASCHIL 1976). Vertebrates are found occassionally in the diet of S. citellus. They are represented especially by the rodents Microtus arvalis, Mus spicilegus, the insectivores Talpa europaea, Sorex araneus, young of the hedgehog Erinaceus concolor, eggs of ground-nesting birds (DANILA 1989, HERZIG-STRASCHIL 1976, VÁCZI 2005) as well as reptiles Lacerta sp. (PASPALEV et PESHEV 1957, STRAKA 1961), Anguis fragilis, Coronella austriaca (WOJTASZYN et al. 2012). Home ranges may exceed 1 ha in adult males throughout the year (HOFFMANN in litt.), but usually extend between >0.1 and <0.4 ha area, depending on reproductive state, sex, age, population density and habitat attributes (HUBER 1996, TURRINI et al. 2008). Correspondingly, home-range spans range from 39 to 338 m (TURRINI et al. 2008). According to SUTHERLAND et al. (2000), allometric relationships between body mass and dispersal distance result in <1 km for S.-citellus. However, dispersal is possible when the population is growing and environments are suitable (HULOVÁ and SEDLÁČEK 2008). Natal dispersal occurs when juveniles start to explore their surroundings at nine weeks of age, departing up to approximately 350 metres from the maternal burrow, which may result in establishing a new home range (HOFFMANN et al. 2004). In a nearly natural habitat in Austria, minimum home-range span was 71 m in juveniles and 39 m in nonjuveniles, and maximum home-range span was 338 m in juveniles and 203 m in nonjuveniles. In a strongly altered alfalfa meadow, home-range span ranged between 40 m and 136 m in juveniles and between 45 m and 93 m in nonjuveniles (TURRINI et al. 2008). Dispersal of young males up to 1–2 km cannot be excluded either (RUZIĆ 1978; MATĚJŮ unpubl.). Scarce evidence suggests that also juvenile females and yearling males may cover distances between 350 and 750 m (HOFFMANN et al. 2004, TURRINI et al. 2008). In Bulgaria probably the habitats around rivers represented dispersal corridors for the species. The average distance between active S. citellus colonies is 3.25±1.4 km and 5.95±2.37 km of inactive ones (KOSHEV 2009). Species is a carrier for number of zoonoses such as plague (Yersinia pestis) (PESHEV 1955). GENOV (1984) reported 9 species of parasitic helminths, two of which found only in the region of town Pirdop. STEFANOV et al. (2001) examined 67 individuals in the period 1998-2001 from seven locations in Bulgaria for endoparasites and found 4 helminth species and a new parasite for S. citellus – Ctenotaenia marmotae – present in mountain populations of the species (STEFANOV et al. 2001).


The most frequent ectoparasites of the S. citellus are fleas (Siphonaptera), especially the following species: Citellophilus simplex, C. martinoi, Ctenophthalmus orientalis, Neopsylla sctosa and occasionally Ctenophthalmus assimilis (see e.g. CYPRICH 1986). Some mites also parasitize S. citellus such as Hirstionyssus criceti and Haemogamassus citelli. Of ticks, only the species Ixodes laguri has been found in Czech and Slovak S. citellus populations (GRULICH 1960). Data in the literature on endoparasites are sporadic. GRULICH (l. c.) mentions the intestinal parasites Hymenolepis fraterna and Moniliformis moniliformis found in large numbers in infertile females. GOLEMANSKY, KOSHEV (2007, 2009) examined faecal samples collected from 109 individuals of S. citellus from 10 different localities in Bulgaria for a presence of Eucoccidians: Eimeria citelli Kartchner & Becker, 1930, E. callospermophilli Henry, 1932, E. cynomysis Andrews, 1928 and Klossia sp. The results showed that 96 samples were positive for presence of coccidian oocysts, an infestation percentage of 88.05%.

1.3 Distribution, population size and trends

Species range Spermophilus citellus is distributed throughout central and south-eastern Europe, where it occurs approximately south of 50°

northern latitude. The species range reached its historical maximum

probably in the warmer period of last glacial period würm (interstadial würm 1-2) when it extended from the Baltic Sea and the territories of current Britain in the north to Italy and Bulgaria in the south. It is assumed that the current central-European distribution is a result of expansion conditioned by human activities in historical times. The current species range is divided in two by the Carpathian Mountains. The north-western part extends through Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, northern Serbia and western Romania, whilst the south-eastern part extends from eastern Serbia, Macedonia and northern Greece through Bulgaria, southern and western Romania to European Turkey, Moldova and Ukraine. The distribution of S. citellus in most of its range is however disjunctive (KRYŠTUFEK 1999). In the 20

th century the species has become extinct in peripheral parts

of its range in Germany (FEILER 1988, HAUER et al. 2009) and Poland (at the turn of 1970s and 1980s) although the species has recently been reintroduced here.


Map 1 – Spermophilus citellus range. (Data source: IUCN 2008

2)

EU member states with current occurrence Austria The recent distribution of European ground squirrels in Austria is confined to about 13,000 km² gross of the continental area (Pannonian zone) in the country’s easternmost states (Burgenland, Lower Austria, Vienna), which is equivalent to the south-western periphery of the species’ geographic range. The area of occurrence is limited by the Bohemian Massif in the northwest (crystalline and metamorphic rocks like granite, gneiss, slate etc.), and the easternmost foothills of the Alps in the southwest and south (limestone and crystalline, respectively). The first semiquantitative information on the distribution of S. citellus in Austria derives from the time between 1968 till 1972 (STRASCHIL 1972). During following years further colonies were discovered while others disappeared especially around 1970 in Burgenland when areas of large colonies were turned into intensive agriculture or building areas. The information was stored in a data bank at the Mammal Collection at the Museum of Natural History in Vienna. In 2001, SPITZENBERGER published a map containing this information. In 2006 (ENZINGER et al. 2006) reported in detail on distribution, habitats and status of S. citellus in Lower Austria, HERZIG-STRASCHIL did the same for the Burgenland in 2007. Since then a volunteer monitoring was established in Lower Austria and a scientific monitoring is going on in Burgenland. The Viennese colonies of S. citellus were last mapped once in the South (HOFFMANN 2002) and once in the North (HOFFMANN 2005). Since 2011, a few hectares of

2 IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) 2008. Spermophilus citellus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1 (http://maps.iucnredlist.org/map.html?id=20472)

http://maps.iucnredlist.org/map.html?id=20472


the distribution range in the Viennese North have been monitored (HOFFMANN 2011, HOFFMANN et al. 2012).

In the frame of her research projekt (www.fwf.ac.at/en/abstracts/, www.fwf.ac.at/en/finals/), I.E.

HOFFMANN launched a home page (www.univie.ac.at/ziesel) where sightings and other occurrences of S. citellus can be reported, and established a data set based on these reports. Up to now, the data base contains over 300 notifications, which were used for modeling the potential distribution of S. citellus in Europe (HEITHER et BLOMENKAMP 2012). At present times there are altogether more than 280 known sites of S. citellus with about 15.000 – 30.000 individuals. Most of the Austrian ground-squirrel sites are in agricultural areas, some on artificial surfaces like golf courses and parks, and an evanescent minority in (semi-)natural areas. Virtually the whole area of occurrence is fragmented, which is not surprising as Austria has the second highest density of roads per km² in Europe. Recent findings suggest that complex, patchy cultivation patterns represent a considerable part of available ground-squirrel habitat in Austria (HOFFMANN in litt.). Conservation measures should be aimed at promoting and preserving agricultural mosaics, and connecting such heterogeneous habitat clusters with dispersal corridors. Bulgaria There is no comprehensive overview of the overall past and current S. citellus distribution in the country available. The data are available only from different parts of the country, collected in different periods and by using different methods, therefore only a comparison of some regional populations' status is possible. KOSHEV (2008) established that the percentage of extinct colonies was highest in the Sofia field (58%) and in mountain region (32%). There are also extinct S. citellus colonies around south-western corner of Bulgaria. The study of STEFANOV et MARKOVA (2009) established that after 1985 the species has been found only on 15 localities in Sofia valley (38.5% of the total number of territories confirmed for the region). KOSHEV (2009) carried out assessment of distribution of the species in Trakia valley and he found out that 18% of all known colonies perished. KOSHEV (2008) established that the distribution of the species in Bulgaria in the period 1990-2008 included 275 sites covering 212 UTM squares (10x10km

2) or 16.9% of the country's territory, but

these are probably underestimated (KOSHEV unpubl.). Czech Republic An integrated image of the distribution of S. citellus within Czech Republic was provided by GRULICH (1960). Based on a questionnaire project in 1948 and 1949, field investigations and verifying of the questionnaire data from 1948 to 1953, the overall distribution of the species in former Czechoslovakia was established. At that time S. citellus was widely distributed almost all over the Bohemian basin with the exception of the South Bohemian basins, the Brdy Mts. area and part of the Českomoravská vysočina Highlands. It was not found in border mountain regions except for part of the Krušné hory Mts. In Moravia, S. citellus was found especially in the south and central parts, while it was missing completely in the Ostrava Region. During 1947–1952, the population reached its peak in Czech lands and the ground squirrel was even considered to be a significant field pest (GRULICH 1960). Approximately since the beginning of the 1960s a gradual decline of this species’ numbers has been recorded, similarly as it occurred in surrounding countries – Germany, Poland and Slovakia. In 1972, the presence of S. citellus was confirmed in 330 map squares (ANDĚRA et HANZAL 1995) while in 2007 it has been recorded only in 27 map squares representing in total 34 more or less isolated localities, distributed irregularly throughout the entire territory of the Czech Republic except East Bohemia and North Moravia (AOPK ČR, MATĚJŮ et al. 2010). Current (2011) population size represents 33 localities/colonies with 3700 – 3900 individuals estimated in total, but only at 11 localities the population is estimated at 100 individuals or more (MATĚJŮ et SCHNITZEROVÁ 2011). Greece Historically, the species was ranging continuously and according to available habitats from western Macedonia to Thrace, with the southernmost range reaching the prefecture of Pieria in central Macedonia. Currently, the species occurs in three different and possibly disjoint areas in Greece: (a)

http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/abstracts/abstract.asp?L=E&PROJ=P18108

http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/finals/final.asp?L=E&PROJ=P18108

http://www.univie.ac.at/ziesel_hamster/


western Macedonia (prefecture of Kozani), (b) central Macedonia (prefectures of Imathia, Pella, Pieria, Thessaloniki, Kilkis) and (c) Thrace (prefectures of Rodopi, Evros). There might be isolated population enclaves in the adjacent areas between the confirmed ones, but this remains to be proven in the field. Total population size is difficult to estimate as densities vary depending on habitats and areas, and therefore extrapolating could be very erroneous. Thus far, no survey to this end has been ever performed in Greece. A very approximate estimate of covered area by the current population would be around 4319.1 km² (YOULATOS in litt). Hungary No country-wide data on historical range are available, but indirect indications show that there was a drastic population collapse around the middle of the last century. National monitoring data, which are available since 2000, show relative stability of the population with high asynchronous local fluctuation and threatening local extinctions. There is an on-going work on updating of map of the current distribution. Population size indicated in the Habitats Directive Article 17 reporting in 2007 is 156-434 (min-max number of) localities. Populations are highly isolated from each other (VÁCZI in litt). Poland In Poland, the species became extinct in late 1970s or beginning of 1980s (MECZYNSKI 1985), but the historical range extended approximately in the Odra River valley in south-western part of the country. In last few years a successful repatriation was implemented to several localities near Kamień Śląski, Głębowice and Jakubowo Lubińskie. The national wild population according to the monitoring in 2012 is estimated at 850 –900 individuals (KOŃCZAK et al. 2012). For historical distribution see JACOBI (1902) and WERTH (1932).

Romania Historical range includes all plain and low hill areas, except for the intra-Carpathian basin: eastern and southern Moldova, entire Dobroudja, eastern and southern Wallachia, the western plain of Banat and Crişana (along the western border of Romania with Serbia and Hungary). The current distribution is on a large extent identical with the historical range but it is more fragmented and also some major gaps occurred as a consequence of local extinction (IFTIME in litt.). According to distribution surveys completed mainly in 2006-2009, in the Pannonian part of the country S. citellus was recorded in 79 UTM grids of 10x10 km. The localities and thus the colonies are mostly isolated, which represents a serious threat for S. citellus populations. Extinction has been proven in few cases and suspected for many more. The Balkan population of S. citellus (Oltenia, Muntenia, Moldavia and Dobrudja regions) has been surveyed in 2009-2010 and the species was present in 379 UTM grids, with relatively large populations in Dobrudja and some parts of Moldavia, but with considerable gaps in the southern part of the country (HEGYELI et al. 2012). Slovakia Current knowledge on the distribution of S. citellus in Slovakia is based on mapping of the species since 1996 (AMBROS 2008). Also literature data as well as unpublished information from other scientific projects (for example epidemiological) were used to create a distribution map and detect the present state of the population. Between 1996 and 2008 altogether 120 localities were recorded in the country. Visits of localities of S. citellus listed in older literature showed that majority (87%) of these had been altered and the species did not occur there anymore. Some localities where S. citellus was still registered were in different succession stages as a consequence of changed farming practices or land use and extinction of these local populations may happen within 3 or 4 years. On the basis of literature data the distribution of S. citellus in Slovakia till 1970 and from 1971-1995 was reconstructed. When comparing the data from field mapping with the literature data it can be concluded that the species’ range in Slovakia has lost its continuous pattern since 1950 and has become fragmented into several more or less separated segments. Continuous mapping with the application of monitoring elements providing further observation of S. citellus population shows progressing isolation of the existing colonies with continuing fragmentation of the species’ range in Slovakia. The situation gradually gets into a state when immediate action is needed to preserve the S. citellus in the country (AMBROS et ADAMEC in litt).


EU member states with extinct populations Germany According to THALLWITZ (1898) and JACOBI (1902) at the end of 19th century S.citellus occurred all over Silesia up to the border of Brandenburg in the North (Silesia west of the River Neisse now belongs to Germany, e.g. the area of Oberlausitz). In Saxony S. citellus occurred in east Erzgebirge Mts. next to border with Bohemia in a limited area ca. 10 km

2 (HAUER et al. 2009). THALLWITZ (1898)

and JACOBI (1902) named localities Olsen, Oelsengrund, Breitenau, Liebenau, Lauenstein and Hellendorf respectively Markersbach and Lauenstein. Werth (1932) add to this list also localities Fürstenwalde, Fürstenau, Hartmannsbach and Zuschendorf by Pirna. Distribution of S. citellus in Silesia in 1920s was described by Wert (1932), who provide detailed description of localities and map of distribution. Until 1933, S. citellus had disappeared from Reichenbach, Zittau and Bischofswerda (Saxonian Oberlausitz), and until 1944 from Görlitz, Rothenburg and Hoyerswerda (Silesian Oberlausitz; BRINKMANN 1951). Decline of S. citellus population in Saxony was first recorded in 1930s and the last population by Geising persisted for sure until the 1968, possibly until the 1980s (FEILER 1988, HAUER et al. 2009). Non-EU states with recent populations F.Y.R. of Macedonia The Jakupica phylogeographic lineage (also referred to as S. citellus karamani) of central Macedonia is the smallest of the three major evolutionary lines of S. citellus. This lineage is an important reservoir of within-species diversity and should be regarded as an independent unit for conservation management purposes. It is endemic to Mt. Jakupica, where it lives in mountain pastures at 1,500–2,250 m altitude. The total area occupied by S. citellus (884 ha) is fragmented and 94% of individuals occur in four colonies. Densities (0.8–5.5 adults ha

−1) are lower than those reported elsewhere for the

species, with the total population probably <2,000 adults. One large colony, reportedly of app. 1,000 animals, was decimated in 2007 by a catastrophic fire and had still not recovered by 2010 (KRYŠTUFEK et al. 2012). Lowlands of the River Vardar and the Dojran region of south-eastern Macedonia are inhabited by different subspecies – Spermophilus citellus gradojevici. In 2010 the population was surveyed by HABERL et al. (2012). Altogether 70 settlements in 15 colonies were mapped, all patchily distributed and imbedded between fields and vineyards. These could be attributed to four distinct populations, more or less isolated by topographic barriers (HABERL et al. 2012). Serbia In Serbia, the species is distributed in Vojvodina region what represents the southernmost part of its distribution in the Pannonian lowland. S. citellus populations in Vojvodina are highly fragmented, but their genetic variation is still higher than in peripheral populations in Central Europe (ĆOSIĆ et al. 2013). In the period 2004–2008 ĆIROVIĆ et al. (2008) had monitored the population of S. citellus in Serbia at the localities: Neradin, Krušedol and Banatska Palanka. Abundance and density of the local populations were determined by census method on experimental 50×50 m sample plots. The determined abundance per plot was then recalculated for the total surface area of each habitat, resulting in the total abundance of the population. Population density of S. citellus showed pronounced fluctuations, from only 4 to 88 individuals/ha. The mean value of density at all three localities was 41.6 individuals/ha. In spite of these fluctuations at the study sites, authors consider these populations viable, though pointing that future survival of the species in Serbia is exclusively determined by conservation of its natural habitats. Non-EU states with extinct populations or unclear status Croatia In the past, S. citellus inhabited the easternmost part of Croatia where occurred in high population densities. It inhabited pastures, steppe grasslands, high sloped river banks, house backyards etc. Since the beginning of the 1980s, degradation, fragmentation, isolation and succession of steppe


habitats, similar as in the rest of Europe, led to a significant decline of the species population size. It persisted only on individual, isolated localities in the Baranja region and around Osijek, Vukovar and Ilok, until the beginning of the Homeland War in the 1990s. During the war, those areas were abandoned by the local population and the grasslands and pastures were left to overgrow. It seems that this period lead the species to extinction. During 2010 and 2011, intensive efforts were made to reveal live individuals or any other signs of their possible presence. Research involved interviews with local inhabitants, especially shepherds, detailed research of localities known to be inhabited by S. citellus in the past and preliminary habitat analyses. On some sites the steppe vegetation had recovered as they are now frequently used as pastures or are traditionally burned once a year (mostly at the end of summer or the beginning of autumn), but not a single individual of S. citellus was found. The closest populations are in Vojvodina area (Serbia) but they are divided by the Danube River which represents an insuperable natural barrier for eventual spreading of the species to Croatia. In the future, actions will be focused on detailed habitat research on possible sites where this species could be reestablished (MAZIJA in litt.). Ukraine In Ukraine, distribution of S. citellus was restricted to southwestern part of Transcarpathian region, where it reached the easternmost limit of its distribution. Earlier it occurred also in northwestern part of the region, but as back as 1950ies the species disappeared from most localities except the area on the confluence of the Latorica and Tisa rivers. Also in this area it became missing for 50 years while in 2006 a small colony in Uzhorod area was discovered. Having considered the fact that grazing on this last remaining locality has ceased in recent years extinction of the species in the country is highly probable (BASHTA & POTISH, 2007).

Bosnia and Herzegovina Data not available Moldova Southern limit of the species distribution passes over Moldova. In the Red book of Moldova from 2002 the species has been considered as critically endangered (COROIU et al. 2008). Population data are not available. Turkey (European part) Distribution of the species is restricted to European part of Turkey, where it reaches the southern limit of its distribution. Detailed data on the population size are lacking WOJTASZYN et al. 2012).

Table 1.

Country Biogeog. region

Population size Date of estimation

Data quality

1

Trend**

Period for estimation of pop. trend

Data quality on population trend

Source

EU countries

Austria Alpine and Continental

15.000-30.000 2001-2006 G - 2001-2006 G Artic.17 report

Bulgaria

Continental Alpine Black sea region

About 200 - 300 localities About 50-100 colonies About 50-100 colonies

2005-2012 M =/- 2005-2012 M

Koshev, Kocheva 2007; Koshev 2008; Koshev 2009 Stefanov & Markova 2009 Stefanov in press

Czech Republic

Continental and Pannonic

3600-3950 individuals (31-35 localities)

2008-2011 G = 2008-2011 G

Větrovcová in litt. ex Matějů et al. 2008, 2010;


Matějů and Schnitzerová 2011

Germany Continental Extinct last observ. 1968 (1980???)

Greece Mediterranean 4319.1 km2 2002-2006 M = / - 2002-2012 G

Youlatos in litt. ex Art.17 report

Hungary Pannonic 156-434 localities 2001-2006 M = 2000-2006 M Váczi in litt. ex Art.17 report

Poland Continental

Extinct last observ: at the turn of the 70s and 80; Reintroduced population: 850-900 in 3 localities, program ongoing

07/2012 G + 2005-2012 G

Wojtaszyn et al. 2012, KOŃCZAK et al. 2012

Romania

Steppic Ca. 86 localities 1950-present B -

1950-present (but

decreasing all along, i.e.

also decreasing

during 2000-present)

M Iftime in litt.

Continental Ca. 155 localities 1950-present B -

1950-present (but


also decreasing


M Iftime in litt. ex Art.17 report

Pannonic Ca. 58 localities 1950-present B -

1950-present (but


also decreasing


M Iftime in litt. ex Art.17 report

Slovakia Pannonic 77 sites 1996 - 2008 G - 1970-1995 M/B Ambros 2008

Alpine 94 sites 1996 - 2008 G - 1996-2008 M/B Ambros 2008

Non-EU countries

Croatia Continental Probably extinct Mazija in litt.

FYRo Macedonia

S. citellus karamani <2,000 adults S. c. gradojevici – ca. 15 colonies

Kryštufek et al. 2012 Haberl et al. 2012

Moldova Data not available

Serbia Continental Data not available

Turkey Data not available

Ukraine Probably extinct

Bashta et Potish 2007 via Wojtaszyn et al. 2012

* G: good, actual and based on extensive research and monitoring M: moderate, older data but based on extensive research and monitoring or actual data, but based only on

expert opinion B: bad, all the other possibilities ** (+, = or -, if possible indicate increase or decrease percentage


1. 4 Threats

The major part of critical threats to Spermophilus citellus is linked to agriculture – the most important factor shaping the current habitats of S. citellus. The critical threats are connected either to lack of grassland management – such as low (insufficient) intensity of grazing or mowing, or a total absence of those – i.e. land abandonment. Also inappropriate practices such as monoculture / absence of crop rotation, over-fertilisation (e.g. using of muck), use of chemicals, but also change in agriculture practices including agriculture intensification and conversion of grasslands to arable land or their afforestation are mentioned among critical or very important threats across member states concerned. Second group of critical threats also has an impact on habitat availability for S. citellus. Urbanisation, residential and commercial development as well as traffic development (with subsequent problems such as the barrier effect, mortality due to collision with vehicles, pollution etc.) are causing fragmentation and degradation of habitat for S. citellus, reduced habitat connectivity, reduced dispersal, reduced genetic exchange and reduced fecundity / genetic depression. At the very end coincidence of these factors leads to extinction of local S. citellus populations. Other critical and very important threats which usually concern only some of the range countries include flooding/inappropriate water regime, fire, increased predation (also by domestic animals), diseases and parasites, trapping, poisoning and poaching, but also missing or wrongly directed conservation measures. Special emphasis should be put on the agri-environment schemes (AES) for grasslands, which in some countries are not flexible enough. For instance if the payments in AES require late mowing of grasslands due to focus on some bird species, this can harm some species which need short grass throughout the vegetation season (end of May and June) – like European Ground Squirrel.

Table 2: Identified threats for EU member states with present populations


Agriculture

Cultivation C C

Modification of cultivation practices

C ? VI

Agricultural intensification C C I VI C

Crop change VI VI

Grassland removal for arable land

C C C C C

Mowing / cutting of grassland

Insufficient mowing intensity VI VI C I C

Abandonment / lack of mowing

VI C C C C C

Grazing

Insufficient grazing intensity I VI C C

Abandonment of pastoral systems, lack of grazing

I VI C ? C C I

Livestock farming and animal breeding (without grazing)

VI I

Lack of animal breeding VI

Annual and perennial non-timber crops

Intensive annual crops for food production/ intensification

I I

Biofuel-production C C

Use of biocides, hormones and chemicals VI VI ? ? VI

Fertilisation I VI ? VI

Restructuring agricultural land holding (e.g. land clearance)

I ? I

Sylviculture, forestry Forest planting on open ground I I I I I



Mining, extraction of materials and energy production

Mining, quarrying, extraction of oil or gas ? I

Solar energy production I

Wind energy production ? I

Transportation and service corridors

Motorways, roads, railroads, solidified car parks etc. acting as migration barriers

I VI ? I I VI I

Death or injury by collision VI ?

Urbanisation, residential and commercial development

Continuous urbanization and/or dispersed habitation C ? I ? I VI VI

Industrial or commercial areas VI VI

Discharges I VI

Hunting and collection of wild animals

Trapping, poisoning, poaching and other forms of taking animals

? VI VI VI

Sports and leisure activities and structures

Off-road motorized driving I ? ? VI ?

Golf course I I ?

Other human intrusions and disturbances

Trampling, overuse VI

Conservation Missing or wrongly directed conservation measures I C C

Pollution

Pollution to groundwater (point sources and diffuse sources)

? VI

Soil pollution and solid waste (excluding discharges) ? I ? VI

Natural System modifications

Fire and fire suppression

Burning down I ?

Lack of fires I ?

Changes in hydraulic conditions

Flooding I VI C

Raising the groundwater table ? ? VI

Anthropogenic reduction of habitat connectivity, migration and dispersal

I C ? I C C C



Reduction in genetic exchange I ? VI

Natural biotic and abiotic processes

Succession of vegetation I VI I VI

Competition with other animal species ?

Parasitism ? ? ? ?

Introduction of disease (microbial pathogens) ? ? ? ? I

Predation C I I

Antagonism with domestic animals (cats, dogs) I VI ?

Reduced fecundity/ genetic depression ? ? ? ? ?

Climate change Temperature changes (e.g. rise of temperature & extremes)

? I ? ?

Droughts and less precipitations I ?

Rising precipitations (rapid torrential rains), rapid snow melting

I I I ? ? ? I

Notes: C – Critical; VI – Very Important; I – Important; ? – Unknown; Empty cell - not applicable

Probable effects of climate change

Possible factor affecting the species on a global scale may be the climate change. However its effects on the species are barely known and only assumptions can be derived from the known effects of climate change on precipitation, temperature, vegetation etc. (e.g. STRIJKSTRA et al. 2006). A significant scientifically tested knowledge is missing in this field. High temperature and dry clime can be well tolerated by S. citellus, and daily extremes avoided by retreat into the burrow (VÁCZI 2005, VÁCZI et al. 2006). Extreme environmental events as excess amount of rain in a short time period can kill high number of specimen or even destroy whole populations. Also high amount of winter precipitation in combination with mild temperature can be dangerous because of the raising ground water level, which can flood hibernation chambers. Climate change may also impact the species' biology. Raised temperature may shift hibernation and activity periods earlier in the year with important impact on diet and resource availability and on overall recruitment and survival. Shortening of the hibernation period may reduce gamete maturation with significant impact on reproduction rates and fertility. STRIJKSTRA et al. (2006) saw a negative effect of global warming on the hibernation energetics of S. citellus. NÉMETH et al. (2009) found that ambient temperature had an independent influence on torpor-bout length and euthermic phases in hibernating specimen of S. citellus and that the loss in body mass was higher in higher ambient temperatures. Thus higher winter temperature might have a negative affect on hibernating S. citellus.

Management conflicts with other conservation targets

As Spermophilus citellus is a steppe species preferring open and short-stalked grasslands over most of the vegetation period a management conflict may arise with some natural elements requiring other types of management, which prefer different management regime, such as different period or intensity of grazing or mowing. This may include certain plant species such as orchids, invertebrate species, e.g. Orthoptera, Lepidoptera: Polyommatus damon, Chazara briseis, but also vertebrates such as Emberiza hortulana, Lanius collurio or other species preferring semi-open grassland habitats with scattered shrubs and trees. In such cases management conflict may also arise from the different required management (conservation goal) for some Annex I habitat types such as forest steppes, e.g. 91N0 * Pannonic inland sand dune thicket (Junipero-Populetum albae), 91I0 * Euro-Siberian steppic woods with Quercus spp. or scrub habitats such as 4070 * Bushes with Pinus mugo and Rhododendron hirsutum (Mugo-Rhododendretum hirsuti) etc. Such management conflicts should be solved by setting conservation priorities for the site’s management plan, but considering the overall status of the species on the biogeographical level in the respective country. Management options such as mosaic mowing, fencing of grazing fields (rotation grazing) etc. may become useful.

In situations where a local population of S. citellus is near to extinction a conflict with predators including rare raptors such as eagles or falcons or with some protected small carnivores such as Steppe Polecat or Marbled Polecat may also become a serious threat. The predator-prey relation should be however considered as important element of the natural ecosystems and no intervention to this relation should be preferred in management decision, especially in case of autochtonous rare predators as mentioned above.

In some countries (e.g. Poland) agri-environment schemes (AES) are focused only on some bird species. AES payments for land owners and users depend there on the late mowing (no earlier than in July). As most of extensively used grasslands are included in AES, it is harmful for S. citellus, which needs short grass in the end of May – June. Adaptation of moving regime in AES in case of S. citellus localities should be possible.


2. Species conservation and legal status across its geographic range

2.1 International status

EU Habitats Directive The species is listed in Annexes II and IV Bern Convention The species is listed in Appendix II (strictly protected fauna species) CITES Not included. IUCN Red List The species is endemic to Europe and assessed as Vulnerable A2bc with decreasing population (COROIU et al. 2008). EU conservation status (from Article 17 reporting) on biogeographical level and Member States. The conservation status of S. citellus has been reported in 2007 reporting only by six MS and in four biogeographical regions – Alpine, Continental, Mediterranean and Pannonic. The reporting does not contain data from Bulgaria and Romania, neither from Germany.


MS Region

Conservation status assessment

Range Population Habitat Future

prospects Overall

AT ALP

SK ALP AT CON CZ CON PL CON EL MED CZ PAN HU PAN SK PAN

The species’ conservation status on the biogeographical level is assessed as ‘unfavourable-bad’ for the Alpine and Continental biogeographical regions and ‘unfavourable-inadequate’ for the Mediterranean and Pannonic regions. Assessment of relatively good conservation status of S. citellus in Poland is due to the specifics of the Art. 17 reporting and not the actual status of the species in the country. At the time of reporting (2007) the only (the first) reestablished population of this species was included in the Natura 2000 network and in good condition. The number of animals had grown last years (from zero) in this country. However the actual status of the population of this species in Poland is still very bad (worse than in other reporting countries) and the species is still critically endangered. NATURA 2000 network S. citellus is listed among Habitats Directive Annex II species. The most valuable sites for the species should be covered by Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) according to article 4 of the Directive. According to Natura 2000 database 2011 version S. citellus is listed as a target species in altogether 429 SCIs and in addition for 1 SCI it is listed among other important species present (see also table and the map in Annex 2). When considering the species conservation status in the EU it is worth mentioning what is the actual coverage of the national populations in Natura 2000 network (though this data is not available for all EU range countries): AT: approximately 45% of the national population is covered by Natura 2000 network (ENZINGER et al. 2006, HERZIG-STRASCHIL 2007, MIKOCKI 2012 in litt.). CZ: as of 2011 – cca 24 % of localities and 61 % individuals covered by Natura 2000 (8 localities out of 33 with a sum of estimates of 2 365 out of total estimate of 3 879 indiv. for the entire country)

MS

Region

Conservation status assessment Population

size unit

Population trend

Range Population Habitat

Future prospects

Overall

EU 25 ALP 159 grids -

EU 25 CON 131 grids -

EU 25 MED -

EU 25 PAN 688 grids -


PL: Though 100% of national population is included in Natura 2000 network it is “Kamień Śląski” – the first and so far the most important locality of the species, which is designated especially for this species (75-85% of national population). The two other localities have also Natura 2000 site status, but S. citellus is not yet included among the target species for these sites. SK: based on data compiled in 2010 the actual coverage of the species localities by SCIs had been calculated at 17% for Alpine and 18% for Pannonian region

3. The species remains assessed as

Insufficient Moderate for both regions after Biogeographic seminar organized in 2012. In contrast, a model approach revealed that existing Natura 2000 areas are mainly located outside potential S. citellus habitat, since most of the protected areas were located in woodland. A Maxent species distribution modeling showed that on average, only 0.65% of suitable ground-squirrel habitat overlap with Natura 2000 areas. E.g. in Austria there is almost no overlap of potential S. citellus habitat with Natura 2000 (HEITHER & BLOMENKAMP 2012 - see this source also for other countries of the distribution range), which effectively applies to Vienna, where only a minor part of the northern population dwells in Natura 2000 area (Bisamberg) (HOFFMANN in litt.).

2.2 National status

The species is protected according to national law in every EU country of its current range. It is also enlisted in the national red lists of threatened species of the EU range countries except for Hungary

4.

Table 3.

National law National Red List

Austria

NÖ Artenschutzverordnung, LGBl. 5500/2, Wiener Naturschutzgesetz LGBl. 45/1998 amend. LGBl. 29/2012; Bgld. Naturschutzgesetz LGBl. 36/2001, amend. LGBl. 7/2010, Bgld. Artenschutzverordnung LGBl 36/2001 amend. LGBl 24/2008

EN (SPITZENBERGER 2005)

Bulgaria Bulgarian Biodiversity Act (State gazzete, бр.77, 2002) – Appendix II

VU A1c (STEFANOV – in press)

Czech Republic critically endangered species (Decree Nr. 395/1992 to Act Nr. 114/1992)

CR (ANDĚRA ET ČERVENÝ 2003)

Greece protected species according to national law VU

Hungary strictly protected species according to national law (Act Nr. 13/2001)

-

Poland Strictly protected according to the Minister of Environment regulation from 12 October 2011 on animal species protection

EX in Poland (PROFUS 2001) – requires update

Romania strictly protected species (Act Nr. 49/2011) VU

Slovakia

protected species (of European importance) according to Annexes 4b and 6b of the Regulation Nr. 24/2003 to the Act Nr. 543/2002

EN (ŽIAK et URBAN 2001)

3 Daphne (2012), http://n2k.daphne.sk/zoo.php?n=50 4 update of the national red list is considered necessary (Váczi in verb.)

http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/Download?id=WDU20112371419&type=2

http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/Download?id=WDU20112371419&type=2

http://n2k.daphne.sk/zoo.php?n=50


2.3 Existing conservation actions and identified priorities

Protected areas Except protection within Natura 2000 network some localities of S. citellus are located within nationally protected areas and thus are subject to special protection – such as in Bulgaria in National parks Rila and Central Balkan and Nature parks Vitosha, Strandzha, Sinite kamani, Rusenski lom, etc. Part of recent localities of S. citellus however are found outside protected areas, similarly as in the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary or Slovakia. This is no doubt caused by the fact that these localities often represent man-made habitats, such as airports, gardens, playgrounds, etc. In Hungary measures for protection of S. citellus are included among conservation priorities for a number of protected areas and Natura 2000 sites. Action plans at national level A national action plan for S. citellus exists in Czech Republic and Poland. Action Plan for the European Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) in the Czech Republic (MATĚJŮ et al. 2010) was developed in 2006 and approved by the Ministry of Environment in 2008. Conservation goals of this Action Plan include: 1. Ensure the existence of the European ground squirrel in the highest possible number of existing localities, while focusing on Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) and more numerous populations with a positive development perspective and with the possibility of enlarging the area of the colony; 2. Create a total of 5 metapopulation systems of European ground squirrel occurrence in the Czech Republic, with a total number of at least 2,500 individuals in each of the 5 metapopulations for at least 10 years). The Action Plan also contains specific conservation measures grouped along major topics such as habitat management, species management, monitoring, research, education and other measures. A major review of the action plan is after 10 years therefore the evaluation of the plan’s effectiveness is not available yet. In Poland the “National management plan for the species – European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus)” (KEPEL & KALA 2007) was developed in 2006-2007 with the participation of all interested stakeholders and published by the Polish Ministry of Environment. However it is not legally binding in any way. Main goal of the plan is the implementation of the S. citellus reintroduction program in Poland. As a minimum, the program assumes reestablishment of 6 metapopulations of this species in the four regions (voivodeships) of Poland, within the historical range of the species. It also anticipates educational activities in the local communities and the use of the S. citellus as an umbrella species for conservation of rare and protected grassland habitats and associated species. In Austria an action plan for S. citellus exists for the province of Lower Austria (GROSS et al. 2006). It is funded by Provincial and Austrian Government (Ministry of Agriculture and Environment) and the European Union. It consists of management of habitats, mediation of conflicts, monitoring by volunteers and raising of public awareness. A similar project of the Burgenland league for Nature Conservation (Naturschutzbund Burgenland) also funded by Provincial and Austrian Government (Ministry of Agriculture and Environment) and the European Union is mainly focused on a scientific monitoring of all S. citellus colonies within the province, but includes also management of habitats, mediation of conflicts and raising of public awareness. An action plan for localities in Vienna is in preparation. No specific action plan at national level exists yet for Bulgaria, Hungary, Greece and Romania. In Slovakia, such action plan is in preparation. Translocation and repatriation actions Repatriations (Reintroductions) and translocations seem to be one of the most common conservation activities implemented for S. citellus during the last 20 years. Some repatriations were done in order to save populations at localities where some development/construction was planned to take place or there was other conflict with planned or ongoing use of the area (such as at airports – risk of collisions with raptor birds). In Slovakia and in Hungary as a part of a LIFE project on conservation of Saker Falcon (Falco cherrug) specific guidelines for species reintroductions were prepared (HAPL et al. 2006) as a result of experience from reintroduction actions. MATĚJŮ et al. (2010) summarized and evaluated a number of reintroduction and repatriation (rescue transfer) projects implemented in the Czech Republic and Slovakia in the last 20 years. In the 1990s,


mapping of the occurrence of European S. citellus took place in Slovakia (BALÁŽ et al. 2008). Based on the data obtained, several regions were chosen which should become part of a network of species’ gene pool localities in Slovakia used for future reintroductions. In 1992 – 1993 reintroduction of 200 specimens to 3 historical localities in Košická Basin in Eastern Slovakia took place. The project delivered important experience with reintroduction methods, released animals populated the localities and their numbers increased in the following years (except for one locality which was destroyed). In 2000 – 2004 release of S. citellus to several localities in National Park Muránska Planina took place and in 2005 – 2006 similar activity took place in the western part of Slovakia – locality Kuchyňa. The released animals originated from airports of Košice and Bratislava, and included relatively high number of released individuals – 444 in case of Muránska Planina NP and 350 in case of Kuchyňa locality. In 2007 during a survey made at Kuchyňa locality however only 30 individuals were found out of which one half were juveniles (AMBROS & HAPL 2008). Several reintroduction projects were implemented in the Czech Republic, most of them, however, not successful. This was due to several reasons, mainly because of low number of released individuals, but also due to low or not existent support for the newly established populations in the years subsequent to release (by releasing more individuals), isolation of new populations from the existing ones, parasites and increased predation of captive-bred animals. However, these projects also delivered important experience for the future reintroduction programmes, such as the positive experience with using a release cage for adapting the released animal to new environment on a locality of release. Since 2005 a successful project of reintroduction of S. citellus after their extinction in 1970ies is taking place in Poland. To the locality near Kamień Śląski (near the town Opole) altogether 250 individuals were released in the course of 2005 to 2007. Animals originated from Hungary and Slovakia from where they were transported to ZOO in Poznań for captive breeding. At the locality of release the animals were put into acclimatization cages, from which they dug themselves out (soft release, cf. TRUETT et al. 2001). Based on an estimate from 2012, about 770 individuals are found at this locality. In 2008-2012 S. citellus reintroduction in two other localities was started (in Głębowice and Jakubowo Lubińskie, both in the Lower Silesia region). In both of these localities the estimated number of animals starting the hibernation in 2012 is still much lower than in Kamień Śląski (probably doesn’t exceed 100 individuals on any of these sites). In Hungary, many reintroduction and translocation actions were implemented in last decades as well (VÁCZI in litt). Around 2002 approximately 700 individuals of S. citellus were transferred to a new locality due to the abolishment of a field airport. The animals were released individually into pre-drilled holes, the openings of which were then closed with a bottle. This forced the released individuals to stay under the ground and dig a new entrance, allowed them to calm down and thus prevented them to leave quickly the new locality. In the following year more than 300 individuals were observed and reproduction was successful as well (VÁCZI in verb.; GEDEON et al. 2011). In Bulgaria reintroduction projects for S. citellus exist in Nature parks Vitosha, Sinite kamani, Bulgarka and Vrachanski Balkan (KOSHEV in litt.). In Austria there are no reintroduction projects existing or planned at present and reintroductions are regarded only as an exceptional measure in Lower Austria. Considering that the vast majority of reintroduction events have been unsuccessful or their results are uncertain or unknown, EU legislation (Art. 12 of the Habitats Directive 92/42/EC) should be thoroughly applied to verify whether future translocations are de facto expedient or necessary. To this, a strict set of rules is required to be developed and agreed among experts before executing any further translocation, repatriation or reintroduction. This set of rules should be based on a critical review of the experience and unconditionally include monitoring of the released animals (at least until the next reproductive season after release).


Species inventory and monitoring In many countries, such as Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary or Slovakia a country-wide inventory of S. citellus took place in the past 20-30 years. However, in other countries a coordinated inventory is still missing and only results of regional-based surveys are available (Bulgaria, Greece). Results of such surveys however may get quickly outdated as numerous examples show. When the agricultural activities – grazing or mowing – ceases, especially small and isolated populations become vulnerable to extinction. As the species is in decrease in its entire range except for Hungary, monitoring of remaining S. citellus localities is necessary. Programmes for monitoring of S. citellus exist for example for most of Austria, in Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. In Austria the monitoring of S. citellus is carried out in Lower Austria and Burgenland, but it is not yet implemented in Vienna. The Lower Austrian League for Nature Conservation (Naturschutzbund NÖ) created the “Ground Squirrel Network” in 2009. A team of volunteers, like friends of nature, farmers, winegrowers, huntsmen and biologists, provide surveillance of “their” S. citellus colonies. Animals and their burrow entrances are counted – following one and the same method – each year in April. The Lower Austrian League for Nature Conservation (Naturschutzbund NÖ) makes an analysis and derives conservation measures from the results. In Burgenland all colonies of S. citellus are being monitored by scientists as part of a project run by the Burgenland League for Nature Conservation (Naturschutzbund Burgenland). In the Czech Republic detailed monitoring of S. citellus has been going on since 2000 and since 2006 it is being implemented as part of the national species action plan. Besides surveillance of known localities it also revealed new localities of the species. In Hungary, S. citellus is being monitored as part of the Hungarian Biodiversity Monitoring System since 2000

5 at 63 permanent sample localities representing both natural sites and grassy airports

visited at least once a year in mid April. A method of active burrow holes counting on a 1000 m long and 1m wide belt transect is being used. Except the number of active burrow holes a set of additional information is being collected as well. In Poland the exact monitoring of all existing S. citellus sites is part of the approved national reintroduction program. Census of the population is done in April and August. In Bulgaria S. citellus is included in the National System for Monitoring of Biological Diversity (STEFANOV – in press). In Slovakia, monitoring programme for S. citellus is in preparation (AMBROS pers. com.). Conservation of habitats and implications of the Common Agriculture Policy Protection of the S. citellus habitats mainly involves preservation/support or establishment of grazing or mowing on S. citellus sites. According to current knowledge the most favourable seems to be grazing of mixed herds of sheep and goats though grazing of cattle is also possible and quite common. Occasional overgrazing by cattle, however, causes trampling and degradation of soil and it can destroy burrow systems of S. citellus and therefore is not welcome. Number of grazing animals must therefore be supervised. In some localities, such as on Kamień Śląski in Poland grazing of horses is practiced. In Bulgaria local activities concerning conservation of habitats (mowing, support or establishment of grazing, creating suitable habitats etc.) are implemented in Nature parks Vitosha, Bulgarka and Vrachanski Balkan and in the National park Centralen Balkan. In some countries, such as Bulgaria, Hungary or Slovakia the local populations of S. citellus and their habitats were subject to actions of conservation projects targeting other species, such as birds of prey – Imperial Eagle or Saker Falcon. Protection of S. citellus habitats in Lower Austrian is being ensured through the Austrian agri-environment programme (ÖPUL) of the Rural Development Policy 2007 – 2013. Farmers taking part

5 http://www.termeszetvedelem.hu/_user/downloads/biomon_eng/EGS.pdf

http://www.termeszetvedelem.hu/_user/downloads/biomon_eng/EGS.pdf


on the scheme have to preserve and cultivate fallow land like meadows till 2013, which includes cutting them appropriately (2x or 4x/year), to get funded. Till today at least 150 farmers take part in the programme conserving and managing about 200 ha of non cultivated land for S. citellus in Lower Austria. Therefore from S. citellus conservation point of view, it makes a difference, if European Agricultural Policy obliges farmers to keep 10% set-asides in their farming area (most of them mown regularly 2-3 times/year) or if it is only 2% of set-asides, which are cut once in August. It is estimated, that in the period of 2007 – 2013 in Lower Austria S. citellus have lost about 80% of actual or potential fallow land habitat at once, because of the change in European Agricultural Policy (ZULKA in prep.). Vineyards turned out to be the most important habitat for S. citellus in Lower Austria at present. One third of the colonies are situated in vineyards. The suitability of vineyards for S. citellus largely depends on the presence of short grassland stripes between the grapevine rows. This permanent green space protects the ground from soil erosion. Since this type of soil conservation has been promoted by the Lower Austrian Chamber of Agriculture several years ago, nowadays it's often to be found. In years with low precipitation the portion of vineyards with short grassland between the grape wine rows declines, which may be unfavourable for the S. citellus colonisation. As there is no possibility for winegrowers to get ÖPUL-funds to protect habitats of S. citellus in their vineyards, the Lower Austrian League of Nature Conservation (Naturschutzbund NÖ) launched a marketing campaign for them. Wine growers, who have "ground squirrel vineyards" and who cultivate their vineyards while keeping short grassland striped between the grapevine rows, will be allowed to use a badge to mark these souslik-friendly vineyards, which signalizes, that the winegrower protects habitat for S. citellus in his vineyards. Moreover the winemaker is allowed to label his respective wine bottles with Naturschutzbund NÖ label, if he accepts additional sponsorship conditions. Similarly in the province of Burgenland, the appropriate measures on fallow land and vineyards are financed through “ÖPUL” and directly from funds of the conservation department of the provincial government. Moreover, for establishing large scale S. citellus habitats, decisions of EU Common Agricultural Policy (e.g. 2014 – 2020) as a whole are very important.

2.4 Gaps in knowledge

The current state of knowledge is considered sufficient to start with actions aimed at conservation of the species. Despite the increased scientific attention some gaps remain in specific topics connected to S. citellus biology, ecology etc. The most important gaps in knowledge are listed below. Some are specifically relevant for only some of the range countries (indicated by country code). If not indicated otherwise the identified gap is relevant for all range countries:

Mapping and monitoring: - country-wide species inventory (update) – species distribution and size/state of the

populations – BG, EL - launching of regular monitoring programme in EL, RO, SK - update of the knowledge on species range, distribution and population status in non-EU range

countries - mapping of the habitats potentially suitable for S. citellus (for sake of reintroduction or

translocation) – PL, SK Biology of S. citellus - parasitism - EL - feeding habits - EL Ecology of S. citellus: - minimal viable population sizes and minimum size of habitat - reproductive and mortality rates, demography of the populations – population models - ecology of (meta)populations – dispersal potential of the species and movements between

habitat patches, habitat connectivity - adaptation, orientation in the new environment (for emergency transfers) - effects of climate change on species biology, behaviour, etc. - intra- and inter-specific effects


Habitat structure and management: - effects of climate change on habitat (availability) for S. citellus (changes in range and density)

as well as effects on the species itself (biology, ethology, etc.) - habitat preference – BG - impact of threats / human activities, e.g. different grazing/mowing regimes, effects of

mulching, using of biocides in vineyards, etc. - response to conservation-driven management - best practice parameters of translocation, reintroduction actions – PL

3. Framework for action

3.1 Overall Goal

The overall goal of this EU species Action Plan is: To improve conservation status of Spermophilus citellus to a favourable level within the European Union The European Ground Squirrel Spermophilus citellus is endemic to Europe. It is undoubtedly an important natural element of the steppic grassland ecosystem in Europe. Thus the EU certainly has a special responsibility for the conservation of this highly endangered species. Therefore steps for the survival of S. citellus need to be taken immediately. It has already disappeared from many localities of its former European distribution – especially at the western edge of its range. Most of the remaining colonies throughout the European Union went down in numbers so if actions are not taken immediately, the species will continue declining, maybe to a degree from which it cannot recover anymore. The longer we wait, the harder it will get to achieve the survival of the species.

3.2 Objectives

Objective 1: Stop further decline of S. citellus populations by ensuring of necessary habitat management at existing localities (colonies). Management of S. citellus habitat can be based on the present knowledge of habitat requirements. Habitat conservation measures of already existing national and regional action plans for S. citellus could be evaluated for fine-tuning of the EU Action Plan in subsequent years. Habitat conservation measures can only be implemented by reflecting S. citellus needs in agri-environmental programmes as by convincing farmers – the most important stakeholders for nature conservation – to take part in proper management of S. citellus localities (mowing, grazing). Through these programmes farmers may get funded and so as get rewarded for nature conservation activities. The priority is to develop and support agricultural systems that maintain habitats with a certain amount of short grasslands. Actions are needed at EU level to support appropriate systems of High Nature Value farming. Flexible agri-environment schemes are necessary. Such measures have to go on also when the present programming period ends (i.e. after 2013). Where agri-environmental measures for S. citellus already exist, these should be renewed starting from 2014 and farmers should be encouraged to take part. Objective 2: Restore metapopulations of S. citellus in parts of the range where its distribution is fragmented. Individual populations have to be stabilized by restoring source populations within metapopulations and providing adequate habitat size and quality at a landscape scale. This includes directly adjacent areas as well as habitat patches that may be reached by the ground squirrel. Within the next CAP programming period (2014-2020), the suitable habitat should increase considerably in all defined localities (e.g. two source populations in each metapopulation unit). Individuals from different populations should be able to move between populations. Populations should be able to grow and to spread. Habitats and colonies should be prevented from fragmentation and isolation. Dispersal routes need to be detected, stepping stone habitats between colonies of S.


citellus should be preserved or restored. Changes in land use should be avoided and if necessary mitigated (e.g. by means of spatial planning). Objective 3: Ensure recovery of S. citellus populations in areas where it became extinct. If habitat connectivity is irreversibly interrupted or next vital metapopulation is too far away for successful recolonisation, reintroduction of S. citellus could be considered. This reintroduction should only take place in regions within the natural range of the species, where it has become extinct in recent years. Habitat quality and size as well as source populations should be considered carefully in advance: only if the current quality and the size of habitat is sufficient (for reintroduction) and its proper management is secured from a long-term perspective and the source population is not negatively affected, reintroduction could take place. The reintroduction actions should reflect situation and priorities on a level of the species range and therefore cooperate of all range countries is necessary. Objective 4: Fill in the identified gaps in knowledge. Good quality data are needed on the actual range of the species, on the size of colonies, populations and on the size and quality of habitats, which are used. As the size of populations changes over years and the species may disperse to as well as disappear from certain localities, data has to be updated regularly (e.g. every 3 years). In countries or regions with outdated or no data basic surveys should start immediately and has to be updated at least once in 6 years period (as required by Art. 17 reporting). This should be a baseline for continuous monitoring of the species status to be established over large parts of its range. In order to get comparable results, common standards for monitoring need to be developed and agreed among countries. An advisory/working group for Spermophilus citellus based on the informal European Ground Squirrel Meeting platform may serve as a scientific panel for developing and discussing such standards as well as standards/programme for reintroductions etc. Good quality data are needed on certain aspects of the species’ ecology and its environment e.g. to improve the management on existing localities (e.g. response of the species to different management options, response to translocations, effects of climate change, etc.). These data are also crucial for the restoration of the sites from which the species has disappeared. Research must include management experiments to learn more about real-time reactions of the species. Results have to be implemented in the management of the localities immediately. Objective 5: Increase public awareness and involve key stakeholders in S. citellus conservation. Stakeholders – national, regional and local authorities, land owners, farmers and other land users of S. citellus localities – are key players in the species conservation. They need to be provided with all relevant information concerning the species ecology and the required management of its habitat. Training workshops, informative seminars, factsheets, etc. may be relevant means for disseminating information. Information) shall go on or shall s be started. It is also very important to provide information to general public and to improve the public relation towards the species using different kinds of media, e.g. local and provincial press. Folders, reports and information desks at certain local events help to raise public awareness on the species, its needs and on nature conservation in general. Involving volunteers into conservation work (e.g. into monitoring of S. citellus colonies) helps to build positive relation and local ownership for the species. To support populations of S. citellus living in vineyards and orchards a special information campaign for vineyard and orchard operators may be considered. The public relation activities may involve local branding.

3.3 Actions

No. Action Indicator MS Priority6

Time scale

7

Responsible organisations

1. Habitat management and land-use

1.

Ensure proper management (regular mowing, extensive grazing, removal of bushes on overgrown pastures) on all sites with regular S. citellus occurrence.

Number of appropriately managed sites with regular occurrence of S. citellus versus total number of sites

all MS essential permanent

Conservation agencies, site

managers, land owners and

users

2. Where appropriate enlarge existing localities of S. citellus by restoring habitats on border

and adjacent areas.

Area of restored habitats for S. citellus

all MS essential medium-long



users

3.

Enhance connectivity between S. citellus

populations by creating line corridors and stepping stones with appropriate habitat and its management, especially in areas with fragmented populations.

Number and area of new corridors and stepping stone habitats all MS high permanent



users

4.

Restore metapopulation structure of S. citellus populations by creating and maintaining new suitable habitat patches in the vicinity of source populations in areas with highly fragmented distribution.

Number and area of new habitats, estimated metapopulations benefiting from new habitats all MS essential

medium-long



users

5. Support suitable management in vineyards, extensive orchards and set-aside patches to become suitable habitat for S. citellus

Area of vineyards and orchards with management adapted according to needs of S. citellus all MS high permanent



users

6. Halt the fragmentation of S. citellus populations by avoiding of habitat conversion.

Number of S. citellus populations

influenced by habitat conversion reported in 2013 and 2019

BG, EL, HU, RO, SK

essential permanent

National/regional authorities,

conservation agencies

6 Priority: Essential, High, Medium, Low. 7 Time scale: Immediate: action should be completed in 1 year; Short: action completed in 3 years; Medium: completed in 5 years; Long: completed in 10 years; Ongoing: currently being implemented and should continue, Permanent: need to be repeated, e.g. monitoring.



Time scale

7


7. Promote reduction of fertilisation (including manure) and application of chemicals in areas with S. citellus occurrence.

Number of S. citellus populations influenced by fertilisation and chemicals reported in 2013 and 2019

all MS medium permanent

National/regional conservation and

agricultural authorities,


8.

Support management of overabundant allochtonous predators (stray dogs, cats etc.) and prevent human hunting for S. citellus

where appropriate.

Management actions reported

all MS high permanent



2. Species recovery

9.

Prepare S. citellus reintroduction plan common for all MS considering entire species range and assessing reintroduction priorities. Taking of S. citellus from the wild, captive

breeding and reintroduction must be based on IUCN reintroduction guidelines.

Reintroduction plan prepared and adopted

all MS high medium-long

European Commission, European S.

citellus advisory/working group, national

authorities, Conservation

agencies, research

institutions, NGOs

10. Coordinate reintroduction programmes on national level applying common reintroduction plan.

Number of coordinated national reintroduction programmes reported

all MS high medium-long



3. Mapping and monitoring

11. Conduct detailed mapping of the S. citellus

distribution in areas where data is lacking.

Number/area of mapped localities of S. citellus; size of total mapped

(checked) area (eventually number of map sheets checked)

BG, EL, RO, SK

high short-medium

Research institutions,

conservation agencies, NGOs

12. Conduct mapping/identification of potential habitats for S. citellus for the sake of reintroductions or translocations

Number/area of potential S. citellus habitats mapped; size of total mapped (checked) area (eventually number of map sheets checked)

PL, SK high short-medium





Time scale

7


13. Work out and adopt minimal monitoring standards for natural and translocated S. citellus populations.

Minimal monitoring standards developed and adopted by Habitats Committee

all MS essential short-medium

European Commission,

research institutions,

conservation authorities,


14. Establish new or maintain existing monitoring programmes in each MS based on common standards.

Number of monitoring programmes functioning

all MS high, essential: EL, RO, SK

permanent

National/regional conservation authorities,


15. Specify the species range by supporting the mapping of S. citellus distribution in non EU

states.

Number/area of mapped localities of S. citellus; size of total mapped (checked) area (eventually number of map sheets checked) in non EU states

EU medium short-medium


research institutions,


4. Scientific research

16.

Promote research on the ecology of S. citellus metapopulations, mainly on minimum

viable populations and habitat, reproduction and mortality rates, dispersal potentials, habitat preferences and movements of S. citellus between habitat patches. Population

viability analysis.

Number of new researches executed. Population viability analysis prepared.



conservation agencies,

foundations, NGOs

17. Promote research on impact of human activities affecting S. citellus habitat including conservation-driven management practice.

Number of new researches executed.




foundations, NGOs

18. Describe environmental conditions and other factors affecting occurence of S. citellus in vineyards and orchards.

Research on factors affecting occurrence of S. citellus in vineyards and orchards executed. AT, CZ high

short-medium



foundations,



Time scale

7


NGOs

19.

Promote research on best practice parameters of S. citellus translocations and

releasing of reared individuals including research on adaptations of S. citellus to new environment on release sites.

Research on best practice parameters of S. citellus

translocations executed. all MS essential

short-medium



foundations, NGOs

20. Promote survey on effects of the climate change on habitat availability and ecology of S. citellus.

Number of surveys on climate change effects on S. citellus executed.

all MS medium short-medium



foundations, NGOs

5. Coordination and funding of the Action Plan implementation

21. Distribute S. citellus EU SAP and ensure its implementation through national action plans and programmes.

Number of national action plans or similar instruments established



national/regional nature

conservation authorities

22. Ensure legal protection of S. citellus core localities through their inclusion into Natura 2000 network.

Number of S. citellus core localities include in /population covered by Natura 2000 network





23.

Establish European S. citellus

advisory/working group based on the European Ground Squirrel Meeting platform, which may supervise EU SAP implementation and will be a partner for governments, authorities and stakeholders in EU SAP implementation.

European S. citellus

advisory/working group functional

all MS high short-medium




24.

Prepare and implement S. citellus specific

agri-environmental schemes (AES). Ensure compatibility of other AES implemented on S. citellus localities.

Number of ha included under specific AES, population number included under specific AES






Time scale

7


users

25.

Identify appropriate funding resources for the actions outlined in the SAP and inform all potential beneficiaries. Systemic solution for SAP funding.

Proposal for financing of S. citellus SAP/ analysis of funding

possibilities developed and adopted by Habitats Committee

all MS high short-medium



conservation authorities, S.

citellus working group

6. Public awareness, education and information

26.

Promote S. citellus as flagship species and implement awareness raising campaign targeted on both stakeholders and general public.

Awareness raising campaign on stakeholders and general public implemented


National/regional nature


27. Implement awareness raising campaign for farmers to reduce chemical inputs close to S. citellus colonies.

Awareness raising campaign on farmers and chemicals implemented




28.

Implement awareness raising campaign among wine and fruit producers on habitat requirements and ecology of S. citellus and possibilities for its conservations in vineyards and orchards.

Awareness raising campaign on wine and fruit producers implemented all MS high permanent



3.4 Monitoring and review

This plan should be reviewed, at the latest, ten years after publication (2023). Nevertheless, a continuous review of data on the species should allow for adjustments and adaptations in areas where the Plan would been found ineffective or outdated.

3.5 Other species and habitats that may benefit from the SAP

From keeping the population of Spermophilus citellus in a favourable conservation status, many other species of conservation interest will benefit. S. citellus represents an important prey for many predators - birds of prey such as the Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca, Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos, Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina, Saker Falcon Falco cherrug, Long-legged Buzzard Buteo rufinus and other raptors; small carnivores such as Steppe Polecat Mustela eversmanii, Marbled Polecat Vormela peregusna and possibly even reptiles such as Four-lined Snake Elaphe quatuorlineata. Other species sharing the same habitat may also benefit from the conservation of S. citellus and its habitats such as Romanian Hamster Mesocricetus newtoni, European Hamster Cricetus cricetus, Grey Hamster Cricetulus migratorius, invertebrate species e.g. Stenobothrus eurasius, Eresus cinnaberinus, Xysticus marmoratus, Sisyphus schaefferi, Plagiolepis vindobonensis, Zygaena laeta, many species of gossamer-winged butterflies Lycaenidae, bees Apidae, etc. Some species are directly dependent on S. cittelus occurrence, such as the rare coprophagous (dung) beetles Ontophagus vitulus, Aphodius citellorum feeding on excrements of S. citellus. Old burrows of S. citellus serve as a refuge for Green Toad Bufo viridis and perhaps also Adder Vipera berus, the Hungarian Meadow Viper Vipera ursinii rakosiensis, smooth snake Coronella austriaca or other amphibians and reptiles. Also many plant species can benefit from the protection of S. citellus. For instance Gentiana cruciata, Stachys germanica, Inula conyza and many other. Keeping the habitat of S. citellus in a good condition may also help to protect several priority natural habitats of Community importance listed in the Annex I of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EC – such as 6110* Rupicolous calcareous or basophilic grasslands of the Alysso-Sedion albi, 6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) (* important orchid sites), 6240* Sub-Pannonic steppic grasslands, 6250 * Pannonic loess steppic grasslands, 6260* Pannonic sand steppes - the habitats which similarly as S. citellus benefit from regular grazing of domestic animals (mainly sheep and goats). Moreover, since S. citellus feeds on shoots of Solanum elaeagnifolium increased populations may regulate the spread of this invasive plant species in natural habitats (YOULATOS in litt).


References:

Ambros M., 1998: Poznámky k rozšíreniu a výskytu sysľa pasienkového (Spermophilus citellus Linnaeus, 1758) na Slovensku a perspektívy jeho ochrany. pp.: 133–142. In: Urban P. (ed.): Výskum a ochrana cicavcov na Slovensku III. Zborník referátov z konferencie, Zvolen 10.–11. 10. 1997. Slovenská agentúra životného prostredia, Banská Bystrica, 156 pp. (in Slovak). Ambros M., 2008: Stav poznania rozšírenia sysľa pasienkového (Spermophilus citellus) na Slovensku v rokoch 1996 až 2008. Lynx n.s., Praha, 39, 2: 219-233 (in Slovak). Ambros M., Hapl E., 2008: Výsledky transferu sysľa pasienkového (Spermophilus citellus) z letiska v Bratislave na vybrané lokality na západnom Slovensku., pp: 72-85. In: Adamec M., Urban P. & Adamcová M. (eds.), Výskum a ochrana cicavcov na Slovensku 8. Zborník referátov z konferencie (Zvolen 12.-13.10.2007), Banská Bystrica, 248 p (in Slovak). Anděra M., Červený J., 2003: Červený seznam savců České republiky [The Red List of Mammals of the Czech Republic]. Příroda, 22: 121–129 (in Czech, with summaries in English and German). Anděra M., Hanzal V., 1995: Projekt “Sysel”. Podúkol A: Mapování výskytu sysla obecného (Spermophilus citellus) na území České republiky. Zpráva o řešení I. a II. etapy, 1994-1995. AOPK ČR Prague, 41 pp (in Czech). Andjus, R.K., Živadinović D., Marjanović M., 2000: Hypometabolism and longevity: a 9-year study in laboratory-born ground squirrels. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B 126: S1-S108. Aschauer A, Hoffmann I.E., Millesi E., 2006: Endocrine profiles and reproductive output in European ground squirrels after unilateral ovariectomy. Animal Reproduction Science 92, 392–400. Baláž I., Jančová A., & Ambros M., 2008: Reštitúcia sysľa pasienkového (Spermophilus citellus) na Slovensku. Lynx n.s., Praha, 39, 2: 235-240 (in Slovak). Bashta A.T., Potish L., 2007: Mammals of the Transcarpathian Region (Ukraine). Spermophilus citellus (Linnaeus, 1766). Lviv: 106–107. Brinkmann M., 1951: Über die Zieselkolonien in Oberschlesien. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 3-4: 191-216 (in German). Coroiu C., Kryštufek B., Vohralík V., Zagorodnyuk I., 2008: Spermophilus citellus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 30

th

August 2012. (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/20472/0) Cyprich D., 1986: Rozšírenie a revízia špecifických bĺch (Siphonaptera) sysľa obyčajného (Citellus citellus L.) s dôrazom na územie Slovenska, Ctenophtalmus orientalis (WAGNER, 1898). Acta Facultatis Rerum Naturalium Universitatis Comenianae, Zoologia , 12: 3-21. (in Slovak). Ćirović D., Ćosić N., Penezić A., 2008: Population monitoring of the European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) in Serbia. Lynx n.s. - 39(2): 343-344. Ćosić N., Říčanová Š., Bryja J., Penezić A., 2013: Do rivers and human-induced habitat fragmentation affect genetic diversity and population structure of the European ground squirrel at the edge of its Pannonian range? Conservation Genetics February 2013. Abstract available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10592-013-0466-y Danila I., 1984: La composition de la nourriture de nature végétale chez la spermophile (Citellus citellus L.) en Roumanie. Travaux du Museum d’histoire naturelle “Grigore Antipa”, 25 : 347-360 (in French, with an abstract in English). Danila I., 1989: Food of animal nature in the ground squirrel (Citellus citellus L.) in Romania. Analele stiintifice ale Universitatii “Al. I. Cuza” dis Iasi, Ser. II, 35:68-70.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/20472/0

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10592-013-0466-y


Enzinger K., Walder Ch., Gross M., Berg H-M., Moser D., Herzig B., 2006: Vorkommen und Schutz des Ziesels (Spermophilus citellus) in Niederösterreich. Final project report. Lower Austrian League of Nature Conservation (Naturschutzbund NÖ). 125 pp. (in German) Feiler A., 1988: Über das ehemalige Zieselvorkommen in der DDR (Rodentia, Sciuridae, Spermophilus citellus L. 1766). Rudolfstädter Naturhistorischen Schriften, 1: 115–118. (in German) Fraguedakis-Tsolis S.E., 1977: An immunological study of the Ground squirrel Citellus citellus in Greece. Mammalia 41: 62-66. Fraguedakis-Tsolis S.E., Ondrias J.C., 1985: Geographic variation of the ground squirrel Citellus citellus (Mammalia: Rodentia) in Greece with a description of a new subspecies. Säugetierkundliche Mitteilungen, 32: 185-198. Gedeon C. I., Markó G., Németh I., Nyitrai V., Altbäcker V., 2010: Nest material selection affects nest insulation quality for the European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus). Journal of Mammalogy: June 2010, Vol. 91, No. 3, pp. 636-641. Gedeon C. I., Váczi O., Koósz B., Altbäcker V., 2011: Morning release into artificial burrows with retention caps facilitates success of European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) translocations. Eur J Wildl Res. 57 (5): 1101-1105. Gedeon C. I., Boross G., Németh A., Altbäcker V., 2011: Release site manipulation to favour European ground squirrel Spermophilus citellus translocations: translocation and habitat manipulation. Wildl. Biol. 17: 97-104. Genov T. 1984. Helminths of insectivores and rodents in Bulgaria. Sofia: Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 348 pp. (in Bulgarian). Golemansky V., Koshev Y., 2007: Coccidian parasites (Eucoccidia: Eimeriidae) of European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus L., 1766) (Rodentia: Sciuridae) from Bulgaria. – Acta Zoologica Bulgarica, 59 (1): 81-85. Golemansky V., Koshev Y., 2009: Systematic and ecological survey on coccidians (Apicomplexa: Eucoccidida) in European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus L.) (Rodentia: Sciuridae) from Bulgaria. – Acta Zoologica Bulgarica, 61 (2): 141-148. Gross M., Berg H.-M., Walder Ch., 2006: Aktionsplan Ziesel. Naturschutzbund NÖ. www.noe.naturschutzbund.at. (in German). Grulich I., 1960: Sysel obecný Citellus citellus L. v ČSSR. Práce Brněnské základny ČSAV, 32(11): 473-563 (in Czech, with a summary in English). Haberl W., Petkovski S., Hoffmann I.E., 2012: Distribution and assessment of endangered European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus gradojevici) populations in south-eastern Macedonia (FYROM). Oral presentation abstract. IV. European Ground Squirrel Meeting. Polish Society for Nature Conservation Salamandra, Poland: 15. Hapl E., Ambros M., Olekšák M., Adamec M., 2006: Reštitúcia sysla pasienkového (Spermohilus citellus) v podmienkach Slovenska. Metodická príručka, Štátna ochrana prírody SR, Banská Bystrica, 40 pp (in Slovak). Harrison, R. G., Bogdanowicz S. M., Hoffmann R. S., Yensen E., Sherman P. W., 2003: Phylogeny and evolutionary history of the ground squirrels (Rodentia: Marmotinae). Journal of Mammalian Evolution 10:249-275. Hauer S., Ansorge H., Zöphel U., 2009: Atlas der Säugetiere Sachsens. Sächsischen Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie, Dresden, 416 pp. (in German).

http://www.noe.naturschutzbund.at/


Hegyeli Z., Nagy A., Daróczi S.J., Kecskés A., Latková H., 2012: Current distribution and status of the European ground squirrel in Romania. Oral presentation abstract. IV. European Ground Squirrel Meeting. Polish Society for Nature Conservation Salamandra, Poland: 14. Heither H., Blomenkamp S., 2012: European Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) conservation: a potential distribution approach. Bachelor thesis, Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. Helgen K.M., Cole R.F., Helgen L.E., Wilson D.E. 2009: Generic Revision in the Holarctic Ground Squirrel Genus Spermophilus. J. Mammal. 90: 270–305. Hershkovitz P., 1949: Status of names credited to Oken (1816): Journal of Mammalogy 30:289–301. Herzig-Straschil B., 1976: Nahrung und Nahrungserwerb des Ziesels. Acta Theriol. 21, 131-139. Herzig-Straschil B., 2007: Zieselschutz – Erhaltung der notwendigen landestypischen Natur- und Kulturlandschaft . Nöhrer Verlag, Wolfau. 90 pp. ISBN978-3-902632-04-3 Hoffmann I.E., 2002: Wiener Arten- und Lebensraumschutzprogramm Netzwerk Natur,Grundlagenerhebung zum Artenschutzprojekt Ziesel. MA22-3827/2002. Vienna Hoffmann I.E., 2005: Wiener Arten- und Lebensraumschutzprogramm Netzwerk Natur,Grundlagenerhebung zum Artenschutzprojekt Ziesel. MA22-1691/2005. Vienna Hoffmann I.E., 2011: Artenkartierung Europäisches Ziesel und Heldhamster in Wien 21 – Heeresspital und Umgebung östlich Brünner Straße. MA22 – 1422/2010. Vienna Hoffmann I.E., Millesi, E., Brenner, M., 2012: European ground squirrels on land zoned for urbanisation: mediating conflicting demands of conservation, public interest and construction industry. Oral presentation, IV. European Ground Squirrel Meeting. Polish Society for Nature Conservation „Salamandra”, Poland, abstract:16. Hoffmann I.E., Millesi E., Huber S., Everts L. G., Dittami J.P., 2003: Population dynamics of European ground squirrels (Spermophilus citellus) in a suburban area. Journal of Mammalogy 84:615–626. Hoffmann I.E., Muck E., Millesi E., 2004: Why males incur a greater predation risk than females in juvenile European sousliks (Spermophilus citellus). Lutra 47:85–94. Hoffmann I. E., Turrini T., Brenner M., 2008: Do European Ground Squirrels (Spermophilus citellus) in Austria adjust their life history to anthropogenic influence?. Lynx, n.s., 39 (2), 241-250. Huber S., 1996: Lebensraumnutzung, Verhalten und ihre Bedeutung für die Fortpflanzungsbiologie beim Europäischen Ziesel (Spermophilus citellus citellus). Ph.D. thesis. University of Vienna (in German with English summary). Huber S., Hoffmann I. E., Millesi E., Dittami J., Arnold W., 2001: Explaining the seasonal decline in litter size in European ground squirrels. Ecography 24, 205 – 211. Huber S., Millesi E., Dittami J., 2002: Paternal effort and its relation to mating success in the European ground squirrel. Animal Behaviour 63, 157 – 164. Hulová Š., 2001: Rozšíření a biotop sysla obecného (Spermophilus citellus) v současných podmínkách na území Čech. Bakalářská práce, Biologická fakulta JČU, České Budějovice, 29 pp (in Czech) Hulová Š., Sedláček F., 2008: Population genetic structure of the European Ground squirrel in the Czech Republic. Conservation Genetics 9:615-625. Hut R.A., Scharff A., 1998: Endoscopic observations on tunnel blocking behaviour in the European ground squirrel. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 63: 377-380.


Jacobi A., 1902: Der Ziesel in Deutschland. Arbeiten aus der Biologischen Abteilung für Land- und Forstwirtschaft am Kaiserlichen Gesundheitsamte, 2(4): 506–511. Janderková J., Matějů J., Schnitzerová P., Petruš J., Sedláček J., Uhlíková J., 2011: Soil characteristics at Spermophilus citellus localities in the Czech Republic (Rodentia, Sciuridae). Lynx n. s. (Praha), 42: 99-111. Kepel A., Kala B., 2007: Krajowy plan zarządzania gatunkiem – suseł moręgowany (Spermophilus citellus). Ministerstwo Środowiska, Warszawa: 36 pp. Kis J., Váczi O., Katona K., Altbacker V., 1998: A növényzet magasságának hatása a cinegési ürgék élőhelyválasztására. [The effect of vegetation height on the density of European ground squirrels (Spermophilus citellus) in a Hungarian reintroduced population.] TermészetvédelmKi özlemények7 : 117-123. (In Hungarian with English summary). Kończak, J., Wojtaszyn G., Hebda G., 2012: Conservation of the European ground squirrel as a chance for rare species of plants and animals. Poster, IV EGSM, Poland. Koshev Y. 2008. Distribution and status of European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) in Bulgaria. – Lynx (Praha), n.s., 39 (2): 251-261. Koshev Y. 2009. Distribution, isolation and recent status of European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus L.) in Pazardzhik district, Bulgaria. – Annual of Shumen University “Konstantin Preslavsky”, Shumen, Faculty of Natural Science, Vol. XIX B6: 97-109. Koshev Y., Kocheva M., 2007: Environmental factors and distribution of European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) in Bulgaria. Journal "Ecology. & Safety. International Scientific Publications", 1: 276-287. Koósz, B. 2002. Food choice of the European ground squirrel in three habitats treated by different ways., University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary (In Hungarian with English summary). Kratochvíl J., 1964: K poznání teritorií sysla obecného (Citellus citellus). Zoologické listy, 13: 99-106 (in Czech, with a summary in German). Kryštufek B., 1993: European Sousliks (Spermophilus citellus, Rodentia, Mammalia) of Macedonia. Scopolia, 30: 1-39. Kryštufek B., 1996: Phenetic variation in the European souslik, Spermophilus citellus (Mammalia: Rodentia). Bonner zoologische Beiträge, 46: 93-109. Kryštufek B., 1999: Spermophilus citellus. In: A. J. Mitchell-Jones, G. Amori, W. Bogdanowicz, B. Kryštufek, P. J. H. Reijnders, F. Spitzenberger, M. Stubbe, J. B. M. Thissen, V. Vohralík and J. Zima (eds), The Atlas of European Mammals, pp. 190–191. Academic Press, London, UK. Kryštufek B., Bryja J., Bužan E. V., 2009: Mitochondrial phylogeography of the European ground squirrel, Spermophilus citellus, yields evidence on refugia for steppic taxa in the southern Balkans, Heredity 103 (2009): 129-135. Kryštufek B., Glasnović P., Petkovski S., 2012: The status of a rare phylogeographic lineage of the Vulnerable European souslik Spermophilus citellus, endemic to central Macedonia. – Oryx, 46 (3): 442-445. Kryštufek B., Vohralík V., 2005: Mammals of Turkey and Cyprus. Rodentia I: Sciuridae, Dipodidae, Gliridae, Arvicolinae. Knjiznica Annales Majora, Koper, Slovenia. Leššová H., 2010: Potravní ekologie a prostorová struktura populace sysla obecného na Vyškovsku. Diplomová práca, Přírodovědecká fakulty Univerzity Palackého, Kateda ekologie a životního prostředí, Olomouc, 84 pp.


Markov G., 1957: Izsledvanija varchu systematikata na Citellus citellus L. Izvestija na Zoologičeskija Institut, Sofia, 6: 453-490 (in Bulgarian, with summaries in German and Russian). Matějů J., 2004: Ekologická studie zbytkové populace sysla obecného (Spermophilus citellus). Unpublished MSc. thesis, Přírodovědecká fakulta UK, Praha, 98 pp (in Czech). Matějů J., 2008: Ecology and space use in a relict population of the European Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) at the north-western edge of its distribution range. Lynx n. s. (Praha), 39: 263-276. Matějů J., Nová P., Uhlíková J., Hulová Š., Cepáková E., 2008: Distribution of the European Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) in the Czech Republic in 2002-2008. Lynx n. s. (Praha), 39: 277-294. Matějů J., Hulová Š., Nová P., Cepáková E., Marhoul P., Uhlíková J., 2010: Action plan for the European Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) in the Czech Republic. Charles University and Agency for Nature and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic, Prague: 80 pp. Matějů J., Říčanová Š., Ambros M., Kala B., Hapl E., Matějů K., 2010: Reintroductions of the European Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) in Central Europe (Rodentia, Sciuridae). Lynx n. s. (Praha), 41: 175-191. Matějů J., Šašek J., Vojta J., Poláková S., 2011: Vegetation of Spermophilus citellus localities in the Czech Republic (Rodentia, Sciuridae). Lynx n. s. (Praha), 42: 133-143. Matějů J., Schnitzerová P., 2011: Monitoring sysla obecného (Spermophilus citellus) v ČR v roce 2011 – závěrečná zpráva. AOPK ČR, 10 pp, (in Czech). Męcziński S., 1985: Czy susel moregowany, Spermophilus citellus Linnaeus, 1766, wystepuje jeszcze w Polsce? Przeglad Zoologiczny, 29: 521–526. Millesi E., Hoffmann I. E., 2008: Body mass and timing of the ctive season in European Ground Squirrels (Spermophilus citellus) at high and low population density. Lynx, n.s., 39 (2), 305-315. Millesi E., Huber S., Dittami J. P., Hoffmann I. E., Daan S., 1998: Parameters of mating effort and success in male European Ground Squirrels Spermophilus citellus Ethology 104, 298-313. Millesi E., Strijkstra A. M., Hoffmann I. E., Dittami J. P., Daan S., 1999a: Sex and age differences in mass, morphology and annual cycle in European ground squirrels, Spermophilus citellus. Journal of Mammalogy 80:218–231. Millesi E., Huber S., Everts L. G., Dittami J. P., 1999b: Reproductive decisions in female European ground squirrels: factors affecting reproductive output and maternal investment. Ethology 105:163–175. Mrlíková Z., 1999: Etoekologické a sociobiologické vztahy v populaci sysla obecného (Spermohilus citellus L.) na lokalite Mimoň – hřebčín v letech 1996 a 1997. Sborník Bezděz, 8: 227 – 241 (in Czech). Németh I., 2010: Factors Affecting the Hibernation in European Ground Squirrel Spermophilus citellus. Physiological, Behavioral and Ecological Aspects. Készült az Eötvös Loránd Tudomány Egyetem. PhD thesis: 133 pp. Németh, I., Nyitrai V., Altbäcker V., 2009: Ambient temperature and annual timing affect torpor bouts and euthermic phases of hibernating European ground squirrels (Spermophilus citellus). Can. J. Zool. 87(3), 204-210. Ondrias J.C., 1966: The taxonomy and geographical distribution of the rodents of Greece. Säugetierkundliche Mitteilungen, 14 (Sonderheft): 1-136.


ÖZKURT Ş., YIGIT N., COLAK E., SÖZEN M., GHARKHELOO M. M., 2005 : Observations on the ecology, reproduction and behavior of Spermophilus Bennet, 1835 (Mammalia: Rodentia) in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology 29: 91-99. Paspalev G., Peshev Tz., 1957: Prinos varhu ecologiata na Citellus citellus L. v Bulgaria [Beitrag zur Okologie des Citellus citellus L. in Bulgarien]. Izv. Poch. Inst., BAS, 4:175-189. (in Bulgarian with summary in German and Russian). Peshev C., 1955 : Sistematični i biologični izsledvanija varchu Citellus citellus L. v Balgarija. Izvestija na Zoologičeskija Institut, Sofia, 4-5 : 277-325 (in Bulgarian, with summaries in Russian and English). Profus P., 2001: Spermophilus citellus (Linné, 1766) Suseł moręgowany [W:] Z. Głowaciński (red). Polska Czerwona Księga Zwierząt. Kręgowce. PWRiL. Warszawa: 62–64. Ružić A., 1978: Citellus citellus (Linnaeus, 1766) – Der oder das Europäische Ziesel. Pp. 123-144. In: Niethammer J. & Krapp F. (eds.): Handbuch der Säugetiere Europas. Band 1. Rodentia I (Sciuridae, Castoridae, Gliridae, Muridae). Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Wiesbaden, 476 pp. Sládek J., 1963: K výškovému rozšíreniu sysla obyčajného (Citellus citellus L.) na Slovensku. Lynx, n. s., 2: 17-19 (in Slovak, with a summary in German). Spitzenberger F., 2001: Die Säugetierfauna Österreichs. Grüne Reihe des BMLFUW Band 13, 895 pp. Spitzenberger F., 2005: Rote Liste der Säugetiere Österreichs. 45 -62 in: Rote Listen gefährdeter Tiere Österreichs. Grüne Reihe des BMLFUW Band 14/1, 406 pp. Stefanov V. 2012 (in press). European souslik, Spermophilus citellus Linnaeus 1766. In: Golemansky V. (Ed): Red data book of the Republic of Bulgaria. Volume – 2: Animals. Downloaded on 06 July 2012 from: http://e-ecodb.bas.bg/rdb. Stefanov V., Georgiev B., Genov T., Chipev N., 2001: New data on the species composition and distribution of heminth parasites of Spermophilus citellus L. (Rodentia, Sciuridae) in Bulgaria. In: Program and abstracts of Sixth National Conference of Parasitology, 5-7.10.2001, Sofia, Bulgaria, Sofia-Moskva Pensoft Publishers, 31. Stefanov V., Markova E. 2009: Distribution and current status of the European souslik (Spermophilus citellus L.) in Sofia valley and the adjacent areas. – Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment, 23 (2) Special edition: 381- 384. Straka F., 1961: Prinos varhu bioekologijata i borbata s evropejskija laluger (Citellus citellus L.) v Balgarija. Izvestija na centralnija naučnoizsledovatelski institut za zaščita na rastenijata, Sofia, 1: 25-63. (in Bulgarian, with summaries in German and Russian). Straschil B., 1972: Citellus citellus L. (Europäisches Ziesel) in Österreich (Zur Biologie und Ökologie eines terrestrischen Säugetieres an der Grenze seines Verbreitungsgebietes). Diss. Univ. Wien. 159 pp. Strauss A., Hoffmann I. E., Millesi E., 2007: Effects of nutritional factors on juvenile development in male European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus). Mammalian Biology 72:354-363. Strijkstra A.M., 1999: Causes and Consequences of Periodic Euthermy during Hibernation. [W:] A.M. Strijkstra (red.). Periodic Euthermy during Hibernation in the European Ground Squirrel: Causes and Consequences. University of Groningen, Netherlands: 146–148. Strijkstra A.M., Hut R., Millesi E., 2006: Hibernation energetics in European susliks: negative effects of global warming. 1

st European Ground Squirrel Meeting 2006, Felsotarkany, Hungary

Sutherland G.D., Harestad A.S., Price K., Lertzman K. P., 2000: Scaling of natal dispersal distances in terrestrial birds and mammals. Conservation Ecology 4: 16. http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art16/

http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art16/


Thallwitz, J. 1898: Über das Vorkommen des Ziesels in Sachsen. – Sitz. Ber. Naturw. Ges. ISIS Dresden: 95 – 96. Truett J.C., Dullum J.A.L.D., Matchett M.R., Owens E., Seery D., 2001: Translocating Prairie dogs: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29, 863-872. Turrini T. A., Brenner M., Millesi E., Hoffmann I.E., 2008: Home ranges of European Ground Squirrels (Spermophilus citellus) in two habitats exposed to different degrees of human impact. Lynx 39:323-332. Váczi O., 2005: The effects of abiotic environmental factors on spatio-temporal activity pattern of the European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus). PhD thesis, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. Váczi O., Altbäcker V., 1999: Füves repülőterek ürgeállományának felmérése. Természetvédelmi Közlemények, 8: 205-214 (In Hungarian with English summary). Váczi O., Koósz B., Altbäcker V., 2006: Modified ambient temperature perception affects daily activity patterns in the European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus). Journal of Mammalogy 87, 54-59. Werth E., 1932: Zur Verbreitung und Geschichte des Ziesels. Arbeiten aus der Biologischen Reichsanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, 21: 255-267; 637. Willson, D. E., Reeder, D. M., 2005: Mammal species of the World. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2142 pp. Wojtaszyn G., Kończak J., Kepel A., Kala B., 2012: Susł moręgowany. PTOP "Salamandra", Poznań: 111 pp. (in Polish). Žiak D., Urban P., 2001: Červený (ekosozologický) zoznam cicavcov (Mammalia) Slovenska. pp.: 154–156. In: Baláž D., Marhold K. & Urban P. (eds.): Červený zoznam rastlín a živočíchov Slovenska. Ochrana Prírody, 20, Supplement, 160 pp. (in Slovak). Živadinović D., Andjus, R.K., 1996: Life span of the European ground squirrel Spermophilus citellus under free-running conditions and entrainment. In: Adaptations to the cold (Geiser F., Hulbert A.J., Nicol S.C. (eds.)). University of New England Press, Armidale, pp 103–108.


ANNEXES

Annex 1 – Map of SCIs where Spermophilus citellus is a target species8.

8 Prepared based on Natura 2000 End 2011 Shapefile.

Annex 2 – List of SCIs where Spermophilus citellus is a target species9.

Country Site code Site name Site area

(ha) Population Conservation Isolation Global

Importance Resident Map code

AUSTRIA AT1110137 Neusiedler See – Nordöstliches Leithagebirge 57124,56 B B B A C

AT1106218 Siegendorfer Pußta und Heide 27,86 C C B C R

AT1103112 Parndorfer Heide 7,38 C B B B C

AT1220000 Feuchte Ebene-Leithaauen 5086,32 C A B B R

AT1216000 Tullnerfelder Donau-Auen 17533,32 D P

AT1215000 Bisamberg 360,5 C C C C P

AT1214000 Hundsheimer Berge 2135,10 C B B B P

AT1213000 Pannonische Sanddünen 2523,63 C B B B P

AT1212A00 Nordöstliche Randalpen: Hohe Wand-Schneeberg-Rax 64084,57 C C B B R

AT1211A00 Wienerwald-Thermenregion 52168,59 B C B A R

AT1202000 March-Thaya-Auen 8879,95 C C B C R

AT1204000 Donau-Auen östlich von Wien 9516,26 C C B C R

AT1205A00 Wachau 18063,42 C B B B R

AT1206A00 Weinviertler Klippenzone 3144,97 C C B C R

AT1207A00 Kamp- und Kremstal 14495,27 B B B B P

AT1209A00 Westliches Weinviertel 2982,32 B B B C R

AT1210A00 Steinfeld 3018,33 B B B B

AT1304000 Bisamberg (Wiener Teil) 340 B B B B C

BULGARIA BG0000102 Dolinata na reka Batova 18459,24 C B C B C

BG0000103 Galata 1623,72 D P

BG0000104 Provadiysko - Royaksko plato 50158,59 C B C B C

BG0000106 Harsovska reka 36756,7 C A C A C

BG0000107 Suha reka 62528,73 C A C A C

BG0000113 Vitosha 27102,11 C B C A V

BG0000116 Kamchia 12919,94 D P

BG0000117 Kotlenska planina 69058,92 D P

BG0000119 Trite bratya 1021,99 D P

BG0000130 Kraymorska Dobrudzha 6520,74 C B C A R

9 Prepared based on Natura 2000 End 2011 database, except for Austria – data provided by Austrian authorities





BG0000132 Pobitite kamani 231,35 C A C C C

BG0000133 Kamchiyska i Emenska planina 63678,47 C B C C V

BG0000136 Reka Gorna Luda Kamchia 2276,93 C B C C V

BG0000137 Reka Dolna Luda Kamchia 2460,7 C B C B V

BG0000138 Kamenitsa 1455,71 C B C B C

BG0000139 Luda Kamchia 6111,06 C B C C V

BG0000141 Reka Kamchia 158,84 D V

BG0000151 Aytoska planina 29379,4 C A C A C

BG0000154 Ezero Durankulak 5050,79 C B C A R

BG0000164 Sinite kamani 12288,91 C B C C V

BG0000166 Vrachanski Balkan 35981,25 D P

BG0000168 Ludogorie 59447,46 C A C A C

BG0000169 Ludogorie - Srebarna 5223,8 C A C A C

BG0000171 Ludogorie - Boblata 4836,45 C A C C C

BG0000173 Ostrovche 6749,19 C B C B V

BG0000180 Boblata 3216,87 D P

BG0000181 Reka Vit 5717,17 C B C A C

BG0000182 Orsoya 2949,41 D P

BG0000190 Vitata stena 2630,19 D P

BG0000192 Reka Tundzha 1 9503 C A C A C

BG0000194 Reka Chaya 650,62 C B C B V

BG0000195 Reka Tundzha 2 5953,32 C B C C V

BG0000196 Reka Mochuritsa 8702,83 C B C C V

BG0000198 Sredetska reka 707,78 D P

BG0000199 Tsibar 2971,73 C B C C V

BG0000205 Straldzha 882,02 C B C C V

BG0000206 Sadievo 516,67 D P

BG0000211 Tvardishka planina 38649,53 C B C B R

BG0000212 Sakar 132117,76 C B C A R

BG0000213 Tarnovski visochini 4434,61 C B C B V

BG0000216 Emen 490,37 D P

BG0000217 Zhdreloto na reka Tundzha 7856,99 D P

BG0000218 Derventski vazvishenia 1 38696,5 C B C A C

BG0000219 Derventski vazvishenia 2 55036,13 C B C B R

BG0000230 Fakiyska reka 4104,72 D P





BG0000233 Studena reka 5301,57 C B C A C

BG0000239 Obnova - Karaman dol 10750,81 C A C A C

BG0000240 Studenets 27946,08 C B C A C

BG0000241 Srebarna 1448,22 D R

BG0000242 Zaliv Chengene skele 190,02 D P

BG0000247 Nikopolsko plato 18503,18 C A C A C

BG0000254 Besaparski vazvishenia 6743,06 C B C A C

BG0000255 Gradinska gora 439,9 D P

BG0000261 Yazovir Koprinka 876,33 C B C C C

BG0000263 Skalsko 2189,47 D P

BG0000270 Atanasovsko ezero 7210,02 D P

BG0000275 Yazovir Stamboliyski 9355,55 D P

BG0000279 Stara reka 146,17 D P

BG0000280 Zlatarishka reka 67,69 D P

BG0000282 Dryanovska reka 183,16 D P

BG0000287 Merichlerska reka 509,9 D P

BG0000289 Trilistnik 616,95 C B C A V

BG0000298 Konyavska planina 9671,95 C B A A R

BG0000322 Dragoman 21357,18 C B C A V

BG0000334 Ostrov 3918,6 C B C A R

BG0000335 Karaboaz 13659,86 D P

BG0000336 Zlatia 3194,78 C B C B R

BG0000340 Tsar Petrovo 1908,74 D P

BG0000365 Ovchi halmove 1309,66 C B C A R

BG0000377 Kalimok - Brashlen 7550,18 C B C C R

BG0000382 Shumensko plato 4490,62 C B C B R

BG0000396 Persina 25684,2 C B C C V

BG0000399 Bulgarka 23996,75 C B C B R

BG0000401 Sveti Iliyski vazvishenia 8464,27 C B C A R

BG0000402 Bakadzhitsite 4504,87 C B C A C

BG0000418 Kermenski vazvishenia 2107,81 D P

BG0000420 Grebenets 9884,53 C B C A C

BG0000421 Preslavska planina 14060,01 C A C C C

BG0000424 Reka Vacha - Trakia 550,32 C B C C V

BG0000425 Reka Sazliyka 991,77 C B C C V





BG0000426 Reka Luda Yana 474,08 C B C C V

BG0000427 Reka Ovcharitsa 1163,72 D P

BG0000429 Reka Stryama 4078,38 D P

BG0000432 Golyama reka 7451,74 D P

BG0000434 Banska reka 77,3 D P

BG0000435 Reka Kayaliyka 71,4 D P

BG0000437 Reka Cherkezitsa 144,75 C B C C V

BG0000440 Reka Sokolitsa 141,54 D P

BG0000441 Reka Blatnitsa 1079,1 C B C C V

BG0000442 Reka Martinka 722,68 D P

BG0000443 Reka Omurovska 532,31 C B C C V

BG0000444 Reka Pyasachnik 1879,97 C B C C V

BG0000494 Tsentralen Balkan 72021,07 C B C A C

BG0000495 Rila 77927,17 C B A A C

BG0000497 Archar 808,65 D P

BG0000498 Vidbol 1305,14 D P

BG0000500 Voynitsa 3107,14 D P

BG0000501 Golyama Kamchia 216,69 D P

BG0000503 Reka Lom 1441,13 D P

BG0000507 Deleyna 2257,54 D P

BG0000509 Tsibritsa 962,68 C B C B R

BG0000517 Portitovtsi - Vladimirovo 664,38 D P

BG0000518 Vartopski dol 987,42 D P

BG0000521 Makresh 2061,25 D P

BG0000523 Shishentsi 572,85 D P

BG0000524 Orizishteto 475,74 D P

BG0000528 Ostrovska step - Vadin 301,29 D P

BG0000529 Marten - Ryahovo 1172,74 D P

BG0000530 Pozharevo - Garvan 6304,92 C A C B R

BG0000569 Kardam 918,92 C A C A C

BG0000570 Izvorovo - Kraishte 1082,27 C A C A C

BG0000572 Rositsa - Loznitsa 1811,98 C A C A C

BG0000573 Kompleks Kaliakra 44128,26 C B C A R

BG0000574 Aheloy - Ravda - Nesebar 3928,38 D P

BG0000578 Reka Maritsa 14693,1 C B C A C





BG0000608 Lomovete 32488,93 C B C A C

BG0000609 Reka Rositsa 1440,86 C B C B C

BG0000610 Reka Yantra 13900,41 C B C A C

BG0000611 Yazovir Gorni Dabnik 2539,29 C B C B R

BG0000612 Reka Blyagornitsa 1522,94 C B C B R

BG0000613 Reka Iskar 9458 C B C A C

BG0000614 Reka Ogosta 1365,74 C B C A R

BG0000615 Devetashko plato 14997,07 C A C A C

BG0000616 Mikre 15447,16 D P

BG0000620 Pomorie 2085,15 D P

BG0000621 Ezero Shabla - Ezerets 2623,53 C B C A R

BG0000627 Konunski dol 779,06 C B C A C

BG0000628 Chirpanski vazvishenia 12321,42 C B C A C

BG0001004 Emine - Irakli 11282,8 C B C C V

BG0001007 Strandzha 118225,03 C B C A V

BG0001014 Karlukovo 28841,93 C B C A R

BG0001030 Rodopi - Zapadni 272851,41 D V

BG0001031 Rodopi - Sredni 155107,68 C B C A R

BG0001032 Rodopi - Iztochni 217446,89 C B C A R

BG0001033 Brestovitsa 2670,58 C B C B V

BG0001034 Ostar kamak 15994,31 C B C B R

BG0001036 Balgarski izvor 2618,99 D P

BG0001037 Pastrina 3551,58 C B C A R

BG0001039 Popintsi 20906,72 C B C B V

BG0001040 Zapadna Stara planina i Predbalkan 219753,26 C B B A R

BG0001043 Etropole - Baylovo 27448,25 D P

BG0001375 Ostritsa 4429,5 D P

BG0001389 Sredna gora 110373,64 C B C A C

BG0001493 Tsentralen Balkan - bufer 138363,82 C B C A C

CZECH REPUBLIC CZ0113774 Praha - Letnany 75,17 A B C A 400

CZ0213078 Trhovky 17,7 B B C B 100

CZ0213776 Bezdecin 81,18 B B C B 100

CZ0213796 Kolin - letiste 22,36 B B C B 50

CZ0413188 Olsova vrata 46,13 A B B A P





CZ0424033 Rana - Hradek 168,94 B B B A 70-100

CZ0623018 Milotice - letiste 26,96 A B C A 101-250i

CZ0623370 Letiste Marchanice 20,88 A A C A 300

GREECE GR1110002 DASOS DADIAS - SOUFLI 41111,58 A A A A P

GR1110003 TREIS VRYSES 9912,62 C A A A R

GR1110005 VOUNA EVROU 42372,5 C B A B R

GR1110006 DELTA EVROU 12557,92 B B A B R

GR1110007 DELTA EVROU KAI DYTIKOS VRACHIONAS 9857,56 B B A B R

GR1120003 OROS CHAINTOU - KOULA KAI GYRO KORYFES 3491,99 C A A A R

GR1210001 OROS VERMIO 25555,14 C B A B R

GR1210002 STENA ALIAKMONA 3623,73 B C A B P

GR1220002 DELTA AXIOU - LOUDIA - ALIAKMONA - EVRYTERI PERIOCHI - AXIOUPOLI 33676,35 B C A B P

GR1220009 LIMNES KORONEIAS - VOLVIS, STENA RENTINAS KAI EVRYTERI PERIOCHI 161631,33 C B C C R

GR1220010 DELTA AXIOU - LOUDIA - ALIAKMONA - ALYKI KITROUS 29647,09 A C A A P

GR1230005 PERIOCHI ELOUS ARTZAN 1717,78 P

GR1240004 LIMNI AGRA 1249,75 C C A C R

GR1240006 LIMNI KAI FRAGMA AGRA 1385,76 C C A C R

GR1250001 OROS OLYMPOS 19139,59 C B A B R

GR1250002 PIERIA ORI 16640,29 C B A B R

GR1250004 ALYKI KITROUS - EVRYTERI PERIOCHI 1440,56 C C A C R

GR1260001 LIMNI KERKINI - KROUSIA - KORYFES OROUS BELES, ANGISTRO - CHAROPO 78303,96 C B A B R

GR1260004 KORYFES OROUS MENOIKION - OROS KOUSKOURAS - YPSOMA 23288,69 C B A B R

GR1260005 KORYFES OROUS ORVILOS 4871,04 D R

GR1260007 ORI VRONTOUS - LAILIAS - EPIMIKES 6799,47 C B A B R

GR1260009 KOILADA TIMIOU PRODROMOU-MENOIKION 29650,86 D P

GR1320001 LIMNI KASTORIAS 4732,5 C C A C R

GR1320002 KORYFES OROUS GRAMMOS 34357,03 C A A A R

GR1330001 OROS VOURINOS (KORYFI ASPROVOUNI) 764,05 C C A C R

GR1340003 ORI VARNOUNTA 6076,62 C A A A R

GR1340004 LIMNES VEGORITIDA - PETRON 12569,02 C C A C R

GR1340005 LIMNES CHEIMADITIDA - ZAZARI 4064,39 C C A C R

GR1340006 OROS VERNON - KORYFI VITSI 8202,13 C A A A R

GR1340008 LIMNES ChEIMADITIDA KAI ZAZARI 5193,17 C C A C R





GR1420001 KATO OLYMPOS - KALLIPEFKI 12437,76 D P

HUNGARY HUAN10001 Aggteleki-karszt 23619,6 D R

HUAN10002 Putnoki-dombság 7115,98 C C C C R

HUAN20001 Aggteleki-karszt és peremterületei 23103,73 D R

HUAN20002 Rakaca-völgy és oldalvölgyei 2082,23 C B C C V

HUAN20004 Hernád-völgy és Sajóládi-erdõ 5038,17 C C C B R

HUBF20001 Keleti-Bakony 22650,16 C A C A 5000

HUBF20002 Papod és Miklád 7734,76 C B B B 1000

HUBF20003 Kab-hegy 8075,84 B A C A 9000

HUBF20006 Tihanyi-félsziget 773,72 D 300

HUBF20008 Csatár-hegy és Miklós Pál hegy 1607,02 C B C B 500

HUBF20012 Sásdi-rét 393,45 D 1000-2000

HUBF20017 Kádártai dolomitmezõk 793,45 D 500

HUBF20018 Megye-hegy 242,83 D 300

HUBF20021 Péti-hegy 363,52 C B C B 1000

HUBF20023 Hajmáskéri Törökcsapás 901,16 D 500

HUBF20026 Tótvázsonyi Bogaras 235,6 C B C B 1000

HUBF20031 Szentkirályszabadja 493,01 B A C A 15000

HUBF20033 Dörögdi-medence 899,96 D 300

HUBF30003 Kis-Balaton 13344,2 D 250

HUBN10001 Bodrogzug–Kopasz-hegy–Taktaköz 19911,88 D P

HUBN10002 Borsodi-sík 36239,85 D <500

HUBN10003 Bükk-hegység és peremterületei 66207,67 D R

HUBN10004 Hevesi-sík 77016,28 D P

HUBN10005 Kesznyéten 6352,96 D R

HUBN20005 Kisgyõri Ásottfa-tetõ–Csókás-völgy 2424,19 D 200

HUBN20009 Tard környéki erdõssztyepp 461,84 C C C C 300

HUBN20030 Hejõ mente 457,91 D 50

HUBN20034 Borsodi-Mezõség 14849,84 C B C B <2500

HUBN20036 Kétútközi-legelõ 182,7 D 100

HUBN20038 Kerecsendi Berek-erdõ és Lógó-part 142,79 D >5

HUBN20069 Kesznyéteni Sajó-öböl 4729,32 D P

HUBN20089 Füzéri Pál-hegy 732,77 D 20

HUDD20011 Szekszárdi-dombvidék 2446,15 C C C C P

HUDD20020 Közép-mezõföldi löszvölgyek 1597,93 D P





HUDD20023 Tolnai Duna 7161,69 D P

HUDD20024 Aparhanti sztyepp 21,45 D P

HUDD20026 Lengyel-hõgyészi erdõk 3635,99 D R

HUDD20028 Koppány menti rétek 362,79 D P

HUDD20029 Kisszékelyi-dombság 2979,07 C C C C 200

HUDD20034 Balatonendrédi dombok 158,97 C C C C 500

HUDD20040 Tengelici homokvidék 5788,12 D P

HUDD20050 Szenes-legelõ 380,07 C C C B 100

HUDD20058 Látrányi-puszta 981,4 C B C C R

HUDD20064 Ságvári dombok 2343,81 C C A B 500-1000

HUDD20069 Paksi ürgemezõ 352,14 C C C C 200

HUDD20070 Tengelici rétek 466,35 D R

HUDD20072 Dunaszentgyörgyi-láperdõ 328,03 D P

HUDI20005 Bársonyos 1209,66 C C C B 100-500

HUDI20006 Belsõbárándi löszvölgy 280,69 C C C C 1-50

HUDI20009 Budai-hegység 9522,14 C B C B 500-1000

HUDI20011 Csépi gyepek 334,94 C B C B 1-50

HUDI20013 Csolnoki löszgyepek 410,76 C B C B 500-1000

HUDI20015 Déli-Gerecse 4815,13 C B C B R

HUDI20016 Epöli szarmata vonulat 1577,49 C B C B 100-200

HUDI20018 Északi-Gerecse 2687,12 C C C C 10-50

HUDI20019 Felsõ-Tápió 2047,64 C B C B 200

HUDI20021 Gerje-mente 3343,07 D 51-100

HUDI20022 Gógány- és Kõrös-ér mente 817,73 D P

HUDI20024 Tápiógyörgye-újszilvási szikesek 1743,58 C B C B 50-100

HUDI20025 Hajta mente 5794 D 100-150

HUDI20026 Ipoly völgye 2936,79 D 100-500

HUDI20029 Kocsi gyepek 47,25 C B A B 100-500

HUDI20032 Mocsai ürgés legelõ 86,26 C A A B 500-1000

HUDI20034 Duna és ártere 16573,52 C B C B 10-20

HUDI20043 Rekettyés 305,68 C B C B 50

HUDI20046 Székek 3616,3 C B B B 100

HUDI20047 Szigeti homokok 848,9 D P

HUDI20048 Szomódi gyepek 295,04 C B B B 100

HUDI20050 Alsó-Tápió és patakvölgyek 1801,41 D 11-50





HUDI20051 Turjánvidék 12213,44 C B C B R

HUDI21056 Jászkarajenõi puszták 6968,26 D V

HUDI30001 Vértes 25553,63 C B C B 500-1000

HUDI30002 Zámolyi-medence 2595,09 C B C B 500-1000

HUFH20002 Fertõ tó 11298,94 C A A C 501-1000

HUFH20007 Péri-repülõtér 214,96 C B A B 1000-1500

HUHN20002 Hortobágy 105170,03 B B C B 1000-5000

HUHN20005 Nagy-Széksós–Rakottyás 248,75 C B C B 250-500

HUHN20006 Pocsaji csordalegelõ 168,97 C B C B 500-1000

HUHN20007 Szentpéterszeg-hencidai gyepek 1018,82 C C C B 100-500

HUHN20008 Kismarja–Pocsaj–Esztári-gyepek 2427,05 C B C B 100-1000

HUHN20009 Derecske–konyári gyepek 3787,9 C B C B 100-1000

HUHN20011 Hencidai Csere-erdõ 121,1 D 30-50

HUHN20013 Közép-Bihar 12045 C B C C P

HUHN20014 Kismarjai Nagy-szik 848,18 C C C C 500-500

HUHN20016 Kék-Kálló-völgye 1504,03 B B C B 2000-10000

HUHN20017 Hajdúbagosi-legelõ 308,08 B B C B 100-500

HUHN20018 Mikepércsi Nyárfáshegyi-legelõ 229,16 C A C B 1000-3000

HUHN20020 Monostorpályi-legelõ 150,52 C C C C 500-1000

HUHN20024 Martinkai-legelõ 368,26 C B B B 100-500

HUHN20036 Bátorligeti Nagy-legelõ 450,72 D V

HUHN20042 Napkori legelõ 161,29 C B A B 250-500

HUHN20059 Bika-rét 66,02 D 100-500

HUHN20060 Nyíregyházi lõtér 189,31 B B B B 2000-4000

HUHN20062 Ófehértói lõtér 159,06 C B B B 500-1000

HUHN20064 Rohodi-legelõ 52,74 C B B B 200-800

HUHN20065 Nyírturai-legelõ 28,87 C B B B 50-100

HUHN20069 Hajdúszoboszlói szikes gyepek 553,96 C A C A 500-1000

HUHN20071 Nyírmihálydi-legelõ 67,08 C B B B 500-1000

HUHN20072 Bökönyi Közös-legelõ 84,68 C B C B 500-1000

HUHN20076 Borsóhalmi-legelõ 1555,53 D P

HUHN20081 Újszász-jászboldogházi gyepek 1963,84 C C C B 50100

HUHN20092 Hajdúszováti gyepek 344,78 C B C B 100-500

HUHN20093 Kaba-földesi gyepek 5079,5 C B C B 10-30





HUHN20098 Dél-ásványi gyepek 1483,15 C C C C P

HUHN20100 Gatály 713,55 D P

HUHN20101 Bihari-legelõ 2644,04 C B C B 100-500

HUHN20103 Berekböszörmény–körmösdpusztai legelõk 1370,99 D P

HUHN20105 Csökmõi gyepek 607,48 D P

HUHN20121 Czakó-tó 177,85 C B C B 500-1000

HUHN20122 Tócó völgye 125,5 C B C B 500-3000

HUHN20125 Nyírgyulaji Kis-rét 156,71 C B B B 200-800

HUHN20133 Balkányi Libegõs 139,17 C B C B P

HUHN20134 Kállósemjéni Csordalegelõ 31,27 C B C B 500-1000

HUHN20144 Kenderesi-legelõ 526,12 C B C B 500-1500

HUHN20145 Kecskeri-puszta és környéke 1538,4 C B C B 500-2000

HUHN20146 Hegyesbor 1369,85 C C C B B

HUHN20157 Tiszaugi Körtvélyes és Bokros 417,05 C B C B 100-500

HUHN20161 Sámsoni úti Bellegelõ 24,52 C C C C 500-1000

HUHN21164 Liget-legelõ 2206,81 C A C B 2000-10000

HUKM10001 Kígyósi-puszta 8771,93 D 1-15

HUKM10002 Kis-Sárrét 8340,35 D V

HUKM10003 Dévaványai-sík 25214,04 C B C B V

HUKM10004 Hódmezõvásárhely környéki és csanádi-háti puszták 21832,54 D V

HUKM10005 Cserebökényi-puszták 28074,66 C B C B R

HUKM20001 Hódmezõvásárhely környéki és csanádi-háti puszták 16419,46 D V

HUKM20014 Dévaványa környéki gyepek 14027,2 C B C B V

HUKM20019 Dél-Bihari szikesek 6521,54 D V

HUKN10001 Felsõ-kiskunsági szikes puszták és turjánvidék 15776,02 C B C B 1400-2200

HUKN10002 Kiskunsági szikes tavak és az õrjegi turjánvidék 35722,19 C B C B 300-500

HUKN20001 Felsõ-kiskunsági szikes puszta 15780 C B C B 400-800

HUKN20003 Felsõ-kiskunsági turjánvidék 14436,47 C B C B 1600-1800

HUKN20004 Dél-Bácska 781,46 D P

HUKN20007 Solti ürgés gyep 110,21 C B C B 250-350

HUKN20009 Felsõ-kiskunsági szikes tavak és Miklapuszta 19679,72 C B C B 200-400

HUKN20010 Szabadszállási ürgés gyep 74,01 C B C B 300-500

HUKN20011 Fülöpházi homokbuckák 2117,13 D P

HUKN20012 Szegedi ürgés gyep 187,88 B B A B 6000





HUKN20014 Hajósi-homokpuszta 463,31 D P

HUKN20015 Ágasegyháza–orgoványi rétek 4321,14 D P

HUKN20016 Matkópusztai ürgés gyep 155,66 C C A C 501-1000

HUKN20024 Bócsa-bugaci homokpuszta 11660,45 C C B C 150-300

HUKN22037 Kékhegyi Lõtér 460,05 C C B C R

HUON20011 Kenyeri reptér 698,76 C C A B 50-200

POLAND PLH160003 Kamień Śląski 832,4 A B A A ok. 70

ROMANIA ROSCI0005 Balta Albă - Amara - Jirlău - Lacul Sărat Câineni 6300,3 C B C B C

ROSCI0012 Braţul Măcin 10235,4 C B C B P

ROSCI0020 Câmpia Careiului 23596,8 B B C A 500-800 i

ROSCI0021 Câmpia Ierului 21282,7 C B C B P

ROSCI0039 Ciuperceni - Desa 39764,7 C B C B C

ROSCI0043 Comana 26480,8 C B B B P

ROSCI0044 Corabia - Turnu Măgurele 9255,6 C B C B P

ROSCI0045 Coridorul Jiului 71451,9 C B C B P

ROSCI0057 Dealul Istriţa 576,6 C B B C C

ROSCI0058 Dealul lui Dumnezeu 578,8 C B C B P

ROSCI0060 Dealurile Agighiolului 1433,3 C B C B RC

ROSCI0064 Defileul Mureşului 34149,1 D 40-80 i

ROSCI0065 Delta Dunării 454037,3 C B C B P

ROSCI0067 Deniz Tepe 413,7 C B C B P

ROSCI0068 Diosig 384 C B C C C

ROSCI0071 Dumbrăveni - Valea Urluia - Lacul Vederoasa 17971 B A C A C

ROSCI0076 Dealul Mare - Hârlău 25112,4 C B B B P

ROSCI0077 Fânaţele Bârca 144 C A C B C

ROSCI0083 Fântâniţa Murfatlar 577,5 C B C B C

ROSCI0088 Gura Vedei - Şaica - Slobozia 9513,6 C B C B P

ROSCI0103 Lunca Buzăului 6986,5 C B C B P

ROSCI0108 Lunca Mureşului Inferior 17456,7 C B C B 500-1000 i

ROSCI0114 Mlaştina Hergheliei - Obanul Mare şi Peştera Movilei 232,2 C A C B P

ROSCI0115 Mlaştina Satchinez 2290,1 C B C B 25-30 p

ROSCI0117 Movila lui Burcel 12,7 C B B B 2-10 i

ROSCI0123 Munţii Măcinului 16893,9 B B C B C

ROSCI0135 Pădurea Bârnova - Repedea 12216 C B C B RC

ROSCI0149 Pădurea Eseschioi - Lacul Bugeac 2965,7 C B C B C





ROSCI0157 Pădurea Hagieni - Cotul Văii 3617,7 C B C B RC

ROSCI0162 Lunca Siretului Inferior 25080,7 P

ROSCI0171 Pădurea şi pajiştile de la Mârzeşti 200 C B A B C

ROSCI0172 Pădurea şi Valea Canaraua Fetii - Iortmac 13630,9 C B C B P

ROSCI0173 Pădurea Stârmina 2768,6 C B C B P

ROSCI0191 Peştera Limanu 12,4 C B C B P

ROSCI0201 Podişul Nord Dobrogean 84811,5 A A C A RC

ROSCI0213 Râul Prut 11861,1 C B C B <1000 i

ROSCI0215 Recifii Jurasici Cheia 5686,2 C B C B P

ROSCI0231 Nădab - Socodor - Vărşad 6661,4 C B B A P

ROSCI0259 Valea Călmăţuiului 17922,9 C B C B P

ROSCI0265 Valea lui David 1434,7 C B C B P

ROSCI0272 Vulcanii Noroioşi de la Pâclele Mari şi Pâclele Mici 928,9 C B C B RC

ROSCI0277 Becicherecu Mic 2066,7 C B B B P

ROSCI0287 Comloşu Mare 2668,5 C B B B P

ROSCI0290 Coridorul Ialomiţei 26726,8 C B C B P

ROSCI0299 Dunărea la Gârla Mare – Maglavit 9421,8 C C B C C

ROSCI0306 Jiana 13415,8 C B C B P

ROSCI0330 Oseşti - Bârzeşti 1448,9 C B B B P

ROSCI0345 Pajiştea Cenad 6031,2 C B B B P

ROSCI0349 Pajiştea Pesac 148,2 C B A B P

ROSCI0353 Peştera - Deleni 2508,1 C B B B P

ROSCI0360 Râul Bârlad între Zorleni şi Gura Gârbăvoţulu 2569,4 C B C B P

ROSCI0363 Râul Moldova între Oniceni şi Miteşti 3214,8 C B C B C

ROSCI0364 Râul Moldova între Tupilaţi şi Roman 4719,9 C B C B C

ROSCI0370 Râul Mureş între Lipova şi Păuliş 618,7 C B B C P

ROSCI0376 Râul Olt între Mărunţei şi Turnu Măgurele 12146 C B C B P

ROSCI0380 Râul Suceava Liteni 1254,4 C B C B P

ROSCI0389 Sărăturile de la Gura Ialomiţei - Mihai Bravu 3449,4 P

ROSCI0398 Straja-Cumpăna 1117 C B C B RC

SLOVAKIA SKCHVU003 Cerová vrchovina- Porimavie 30187,7 A B C B

SKCHVU014 Malé Karpaty 50633,6 C B C B P

SKCHVU015 Medzibodrožie 33753,7 C B A B R

SKCHVU017 Muránska planina- Stolica 25796,46 C A A A 200-250

SKCHVU018 Nízke Tatry 98168,52 C B C C 51-100i





SKCHVU027 Slovenský kras 43860,24 B B C B 251-500i

SKCHVU036 Volovské vrchy 121420,65 C B C B P

SKUEV0030 Horešské lúky 84,43 B B A B 251-500i

SKUEV0051 Kyjovský prales 397,42 C B C B p

SKUEV0072 Detvice 88,99 D

SKUEV0092 Dolnovážske luhy 211,38 C B C B

SKUEV0105 Spišskopodhradské travertíny 231,37 B B A B 251-500i

SKUEV0112 Slovenský raj 16864,99 C B A B 11-50 i

SKUEV0183 Veľkolélsky ostrov 327,82 C B C B

SKUEV0201 Gavurky 68,04 C B C B >50

SKUEV0225 Muránska planina 20257,37 C A A A 200-250(i)

SKUEV0259 Stará hora 2400,18 C B C B V

SKUEV0265 Suť 9041,33 C C B C 6-10

SKUEV0345 Kečovské škrapy 354,55 C C C C P

SKUEV0356 Horný vrch 6027,69 B B C B 251-500i

SKUEV0357 Cerová vrchovina 2628 C C A C <50i

SKUEV0358 Soví hrad 41,66 C B A B 101-250i

SKUEV0360 Beležír 61,59 B A A A >300i

SKUEV0361 Vodokáš 137,22 C B A B > 100i

SKUEV0784 Mašianské sysľovisko 19,83 B B B B 100-200i

Legend (taken from EU Standard Data Form)

Population: Size and density of the population of the species present on the site in relation to the populations present within national territory. A: 100 % ≥ p > 15 %, B: 15 % ≥ p > 2 %, C: 2 % ≥ p > 0 %. Conservation: Degree of conservation of the features of the habitat which are important for the species concerned and possibilities for restoration. A. conservation excellent:


elements in an excellent condition, independent of the grading of the possibility of restoration, B: good conservation

elements well conserved independent of the grading of the possibility of restoration,

elements in average or partially degraded condition and easy to restore, C: average or reduced conservation

all other combinations. Isolation: Degree of isolation of the population present on the site in relation to the natural range of the species.

A: population (almost) isolated, B: population not-isolated, but on margins of area of distribution, C: population not-isolated within extended distribution range.

Global Importance: Global assessment of the value of the site for conservation of the species concerned.

A: excellent value, B: good value, C: significant value.

Resident :

V: very rare R: Rare C: Common P: Present

action plan for the conservation of the danube...

Documents