Member State report / Art8-2024 / 2024 / D1-B / Portugal / NE Atlantic: Macaronesia
| Report type | Member State report to Commission |
| MSFD Article | Art8 |
| Report due | 2024-10-15 |
| GES Descriptor | D1 Birds |
| Member State | Portugal |
| Region/subregion | NE Atlantic: Macaronesia |
| Report date | 2026-01-14 17:07:17 |
Azores Subdivision (AMA-PT-SD-AZO)
Regional assessment area |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Component MRUs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GES component |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
Feature |
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Element |
Bulweria bulwerii |
Bulweria bulwerii |
Bulweria bulwerii |
Bulweria bulwerii |
Bulweria bulwerii |
Bulweria bulwerii |
Calonectris borealis |
Calonectris borealis |
Calonectris borealis |
Calonectris borealis |
Calonectris borealis |
Calonectris borealis |
Puffinus lherminieri |
Puffinus lherminieri |
Puffinus lherminieri |
Puffinus lherminieri |
Puffinus lherminieri |
Puffinus lherminieri |
Hydrobates castro |
Hydrobates castro |
Hydrobates castro |
Hydrobates castro |
Hydrobates castro |
Hydrobates castro |
Hydrobates monteiroi |
Hydrobates monteiroi |
Hydrobates monteiroi |
Hydrobates monteiroi |
Hydrobates monteiroi |
Hydrobates monteiroi |
Sterna dougallii |
Sterna dougallii |
Sterna dougallii |
Sterna dougallii |
Sterna dougallii |
Sterna dougallii |
Sterna hirundo |
Sterna hirundo |
Sterna hirundo |
Sterna hirundo |
Sterna hirundo |
Sterna hirundo |
Element extent |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trend element |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element 2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element source |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Criterion |
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
Parameter |
Other
|
Abundance
|
Fecundity rate
|
Rate survival
|
Distribution (range)
|
Other
|
Abundance
|
Fecundity rate
|
Rate survival
|
Distribution (range)
|
Other
|
Abundance
|
Fecundity rate
|
Rate survival
|
Distribution (range)
|
Other
|
Abundance
|
Fecundity rate
|
Rate survival
|
Distribution (range)
|
Other
|
Abundance
|
Fecundity rate
|
Rate survival
|
Distribution (range)
|
Other
|
Abundance
|
Fecundity rate
|
Rate survival
|
Distribution (range)
|
Other
|
Abundance
|
Fecundity rate
|
Rate survival
|
Distribution (range)
|
|||||||
Threshold value upper |
70.0 |
46.0 |
90.0 |
3.0 |
1.0 |
188000.0 |
90.0 |
90.0 |
97.0 |
8.0 |
250.0 |
41.0 |
90.0 |
5.0 |
90.0 |
90.0 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value lower |
50.0 |
300.0 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value operator |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value source |
Not applicable
|
MS in (sub)region; Not applicable
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
BD
|
MS in (sub)region
|
MS in (sub)region
|
MS in (sub)region
|
Other (specify)
|
BD
|
MS in (sub)region
|
BD
|
MS in (sub)region
|
MS in (sub)region
|
MS in (sub)region
|
BD
|
MS in (sub)region
|
MS in (sub)region
|
BD
|
MS in (sub)region
|
BD
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
BD
|
BD
|
MS in (sub)region
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
MS in (sub)region
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
||||||||||
Value achieved upper |
70.0 |
52.0 |
79.0 |
3.0 |
188000.0 |
1741.0 |
865.0 |
59.0 |
411.0 |
64.0 |
798.0 |
3411.0 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value achieved lower |
50.0 |
60.0 |
3.0 |
895.0 |
665.0 |
38.0 |
8.0 |
36.0 |
5.0 |
538.0 |
2442.0 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value unit |
individuals
|
Other
|
Other
|
individuals
|
individuals
|
individuals
|
Other
|
individuals
|
Other
|
Other
|
individuals
|
Other
|
Other
|
individuals
|
Other
|
individuals
|
Other
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion value achieved |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trend parameter |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
|||||||
Parameter achieved |
Yes |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Yes |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Yes |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Yes |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Yes |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Yes |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Yes |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
|||||||
Description parameter |
Não se registaram ocorrências de captura acidental nos vários programas de observação de pesca dos Açores (Fonte: dados reportados ao ICES WG BYC 2017-2021).
|
Mantém-se a estimativa populacional total dos Açores de cerca de 50-70 casais reprodutores, conforme Monteiro et al. (1999): 50 no ilhéu Vila, em Santa Maria, 0-10 no ilhéu de Baixo e 0-10 no ilhéu da Praia, na Graciosa.
|
O parâmetro em causa é o sucesso reprodutor e não a taxa de fecundidade e foi apenas estimado para a colónia do Ilhéu da Vila.
Durante o projeto MISTIC SEAS II (2017) estimou-se um sucesso reprodutor de 70%. O sucesso reprodutor não pode ser comparado com o período de amostragem prévio devido a diferenças metodológicas. Para avaliar o BEA é necessária uma série temporal maior, aplicando a mesma metodologia (MISTIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). A monitorização realizada entre 2018 e 2019 no âmbito dos projetos MSII e LuMinAves (Atchoi, 2021), bem como a estimativa do sucesso reprodutor integrada na ação D5.1, indicam que, com base nos dados de 2018 a 2022, a tendência de produtividade foi avaliada em 52% (valor médio). No ilhéu de Baixo a determinação do sucesso reprodutor (BS) não é possível devido à inacessibilidade dos ninhos. Conforme mencionado no relatório da Ação D5.1 do Projeto LIFE IP Azores Natura, a monitorização acústica ativa, realizada durante o período de incubação da espécie, baseia-se na premissa de que, se houver resposta, o ninho está ocupado, permitindo assim calcular a taxa de ocupação. Entre 2017 e 2023 (T. Pipa et al., dados não publicados), a alma-negra apresentou uma taxa de ocupação média de 74%, sendo este o valor de referência para a colónia.
|
A alma-negra, como todas as espécies de Procellariiformes com uma postura de apenas um ovo, apresenta uma taxa de sobrevivência (SR) superior a 90%. O indicador D1C3_DEM_SR estabelece para as colónias dos Açores uma SR de 90% como referência, enquanto a OSPAR considera que o limite deve ser superior a 80% para que a população se mantenha dentro do BEA. Cruz-Flores et al. (2022) estimaram uma SR de 76,6% para fêmeas e 81% para machos entre 2008 e 2016, resultando numa SR média de 79%, abaixo do esperado para espécies de grande longevidade, o que pode comprometer a viabilidade a longo prazo da espécie (Sanz-Aguilar et al., 2009). Conforme publicado no relatório da Ação D5.1 do Projeto LIFE IP Azores Natura, em 2021 a SR foi de 66% (estão disponíveis dados adicionais referentes a 2022-2023, que serão apresentados no próximo relatório de ciclo). Apesar da elevada fidelidade à colónia, superior a 85% (Bried, 2023), este critério é secundário e influenciado por fatores não avaliados. As estimativas apresentadas são preliminares e devem ser interpretadas com cautela. O esforço de CMR estava vinculado à capacitação dos PNIs, que foi concluída em 2023. Na próxima fase, um esforço consistente de captura e recaptura, realizado no período mais adequado, permitirá uma avaliação a longo prazo da SR da alma-negra e proporcionará uma tendência no final do projeto.
|
The same known breeding colonies as identified by Monteiro et al. (1999): Vila in Santa Maria, Baixo do magie de Praia na Graciosa.
The Azores Azores breeding population is only monitored on the island of Vila, Santa Maria, which houses the largest known population of the archipelago and where the University of Açores had a regular follow up between 2002 and 2012 (J. Briged, unpublished data). From 2013, some occasional visits took place.
Furthermore, Monteiro et al (1999) also identified the lowtech island and the Praia island of Praia, in Graciosa, as potential colonies (with < 10 breeding pairs each), and the reproduction was confirmed in 2017 by SPEA, the Baixo Ehora in the context of the MISC SEAS II project and, in 2019, by Neves (unpublished data), in Praia.
The Atlas team. 2008. Atlas of Birds Nirentes in Portugal (1999-2005). Instituto da Conservação da Natureza (Instituto da Conservação da Natureza), Sociedade Portuguesa (Instituto da Conservação da Natureza), a Portuguese Society for the Study of Birds, the Madeira Nature Park and the Regional Secretariat for the Environment and the Sea. Assyrian
|
Houve apenas 3 registos de captura acidental de cagarro na pescaria de salto e vara, em 2020, durante o período 2016-2021 (Fonte: dados reportados ao ICES WG BYC 2017-2021).
|
Mantém-se a estimativa populacional total dos Açores de cerca de 188 000 casais reprodutores. A ilha do Corvo tem o maior número de casais reprodutores por área com mais de 6.000 casais reprodutores (IC = 3.735 – 10.524) determinados em 2012. A abundância atual da colónia parece estável. Nos Capelinhos (Faial) durante 2017 e 2018 foram identificados 24 casais reprodutores em 0,006 km2 de área monitorizada. Apesar da aparente estabilidade a tendência da colónia só será avaliada após 6 anos. Em 2017, foram identificados 43 casais reprodutores e em 2018 após a redução da área monitorizada foram identificados 24 casais reprodutores, em 47 ninhos monitorizados numa área de 0,019 km2. No Monte (Pico) o número máximo de casais reprodutores para esta colónia foi determinado em 96 casais reprodutores (obteve-se contagens de 42 (2017) e 62 casais reprodutores (2018)). Na colónia Mistério da Prainha (Pico) em 2017 foram ocupados 75 ninhos, mas apenas 26 casais reprodutores foram identificados. Em 2018, contaram-se 39 casais nesta colónia numa área de 0,015 km2. No Ilhéu da Praia (Graciosa) foram contados 320 casais reprodutores e 219 CR em 2019. No Ihéu de Vila Franca do Campo (S. Miguel) foram estimados 500 CR, em 2017, nas zonas acessíveis. Este valor será utilizado como referência para futuras avaliações. No Ilhéu da Vila (Santa Maria) a verificação de ninhos realizou-se anualmente, entre 2003 e 2012, pela Universidade dos Açores, gerando uma estimativa de 331 casais reprodutores, que foi estabelecida como referência. A monitorização foi interrompida e reiniciada em junho de 2017, como parte do projeto MISTIC SEAS II, em que foram contabilizados 272 casais reprodutores. A estimativa populacional do ilhéu da Vila é de 330 casais, com base no censo global realizado entre 2003 e 2012 (Bried) e repetido em 2019. A monitorização da abundância de ninhos permitiu registar uma média de 113 ninhos ocupados/casais entre 2017 e 2021, incluindo dados de 2017 a 2019 (117 ninhos/casais, valor de referência médio) e de 2020 a 2021, com 116 e 95 ninhos ocupados/casais, respetivamente.
|
O sucesso reprodutor na ilha do Corvo foi estimado entre 2014 e 2018, o sucesso reprodutor de 39%. Nos Capelinhos (Faial) não há estimativas de abundância de anos anteriores, portanto, atribuiu-se o valor de referência para esta colónia com base nos resultados do primeiro ano do trabalho de campo do projeto LuMinAves (2017). Durante 2017 e 2018 foram identificados 24 casais reprodutores em 0,006 km2 de área monitorizada. Apesar da aparente estabilidade a tendência da colónia só será avaliada após 6 anos. Durante o projeto LuMinAves, calculou-se um sucesso reprodutor de 96% em 2017 e de 87% em 2018, usando a mesma metodologia MISTIC SEAS. No Morro de Castelo Branco (Faial) durante o projeto LuMinAves, foi estimado um sucesso reprodutor de 81% em 2017 e de 67% em 2018. No Monte (Pico) no MISTIC SEAS II, determinou-se um sucesso reprodutor de 60% (2017) e de 53% (2018) para esta colónia. No Mistério da Prainha (Pico) no MISTIC SEAS II, calculou-se um sucesso reprodutor de 65% em 2017. No ilhéu da Praia (Graciosa) o sucesso reprodutor foi estimado em 76,7% para esta colónia em agosto de 2018 por Neves e colaboradores, tratando-se de um valor máximo, pois até final de outubro e início de novembro, período durante o qual não houve monitorização, poderá ter havido crias que não se tornaram voadoras (V. Neves, comunicação pessoal). Considerou-se como valor de referência o obtido para uma colónia semelhante, sem predadores, o ilhéu da Vila, 58,6%. Através do projeto LIFE IP AZORES NATURA, foram obtidos resultados de 76% em 2020 e 88% em 2021. Dados adicionais relativos aos anos de 2022 e 2023 estão disponíveis e serão apresentados no próximo relatório de ciclo. No ilhéu de Vila Franca do Campo (S. Miguel) durante o MISTIC SEAS II, calculou-se um sucesso reprodutor de 81,5% (2018), baseado na monitorização dos 37 ninhos escolhidos. Considerou-se 58,6% o valor de referência para esta colónia livre de predadores, que corresponde ao valor obtido para uma colónia semelhante, o Ilhéu da Vila. No Ilhéu da Vila (Santa Maria) a estimativa de sucesso reprodutor apresenta um valor médio de referência de 69% no período 2017 a 2021.
|
O valor de referência da taxa de sobrevivência foi definido com base nos dados de Fontaine et al. (2011), que indicam uma taxa de 0,93, superior aos 0,90 estabelecidos para a Macaronésia (MSII Consortium, 2018). A taxa de sobrevivência atual ainda não foi calculada, pois, apesar do esforço de captura em 2020, não foi possível mantê-lo em 2021 devido à limitação da equipa em processo de capacitação, priorizando-se a monitorização do sucesso reprodutor (Monitorização de aves marinhas Procellariiformes 2020-2023: Relatório da Ação D5.1. Projeto LIFE IP AZORES NATURA - LIFE17 IPE/PT/00010).
|
As colónias nidificantes de cagarro distribuem-se ao longo da costa das ilhas e nos ilhéus por todo o Arquipélago dos Açores.
Bolton, M. (2001a). Census of Cory's shearwaters Calonectris diomedea in the Azores archipelago 2001. Final Report. University of the Azores.
Magalhães MC 2008. Calonectris diomedea Cagarra In Atlas das Aves Nidificantes em Portugal (1999-2005) (Equipa Atlas eds.). Instituto da Conservação da Natureza, Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves, Parque Natural da Madeira e Secretaria Regional do Ambiente e do Mar. Assírio & Alvim. Lisboa.
Monteiro LR, JA Ramos, RW Furness. 1996. Past and Present Status and Conservation of the Seabirds Breeding in the Azores Archipelago. Biological Conservation. 78, 319 – 328.
Paiva VH, Geraldes P, Ramírez I, Meirinho A, Garthe S, Ramos JA (2010) Oceanographic characteristics of areas used by Cory’s shearwaters during short and long foraging trips in the North Atlantic. Mar Biol 157:1385−1399
|
Não se registaram ocorrências de captura acidental nos vários programas de observação de pesca dos Açores (Fonte: dados reportados ao ICES WG BYC 2017-2021).
|
No Ilhéu da Praia (Graciosa) fez-se uma estimativa de 50 casais para a população nidificante nesta colónia (Monteiro et al., 1999). Devido à instalação de ninhos artificiais para painhos, a população tem potencial para aumentar (Bried e Neves, 2015). Em janeiro de 2018 também se contabilizaram 50 casais, no entanto na segunda contagem de ninhos só se encontraram 15 casais reprodutores. Apesar desta diminuição é necessária uma série temporal mais longa para avaliar a tendência desta colónia (MISTIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). No âmbito da ação D5.1 do Projeto LIFE IP Azores Natura - LIFE17 IPE/PT/00010, não foram realizadas todas as monitorizações previstas, uma vez que estas foram condicionadas, em 2020, pela pandemia de COVID-19 e pelas condições climatéricas que limitaram o acesso ao ilhéu. Através da contagem de ninhos ocupados em 2021, registou-se a presença de 20 casais reprodutores. Dados adicionais referentes a 2022 e 2023 estão disponíveis e serão apresentados no próximo relatório de ciclo (Monitorização de Aves Marinhas Procellariiformes 2020-2023: Relatório da Ação D5.1 do Projeto LIFE IP Azores Natura - LIFE17 IPE/PT/00010). A população estimada do ilhéu da Vila (Santa Maria) consiste em 50 casais reprodutores (Monteiro et al., 1999). Durante o projeto MISTIC SEAS II a monitorização começou em 2018. Os ninhos anteriormente marcados foram identificados quando possível (muitos não se encontraram e alguns estavam destruídos) e marcaram-se novos ninhos. A primeira contagem em 2018 foi de 16 casais reprodutores, mas este valor não é comparável com as contagens anteriores (MISTIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). Não existem dados disponíveis para a última década, sendo que as contagens de ninhos ocupados em 2018 e 2019 (Atchoi, 2021) indicaram uma média de 20 casais (16 CR e 24 CR, respetivamente). A informação obtida entre 2020 e 2021 também foi considerada, resultando numa estimativa média de 23 casais reprodutores no ilhéu da Vila no período de 2018-2021, com uma média total de 24 casais entre 2018 e 2021 (Monitorização de Aves Marinhas Procellariiformes 2020-2023: Relatório da Ação D5.1 do Projeto LIFE IP AZORES NATURA - LIFE17 IPE/PT/00010).
|
O parâmetro em causa é o sucesso reprodutor e não a taxa de fecundidade e foi apenas estimado para as colónias do Ilhéu da Praia, Graciosa (64%) e do Ilhéu da Vila, Santa Maria (50%), durante o MISTIC SEAS II. Estes valores foram utilizados como o valor de referência para futuras avaliações.
No Ilhéu da Praia (Graciosa), durante o MISTIC SEAS II, estimou-se um sucesso reprodutor de 64% em janeiro de 2018 e a mesma estimativa mais tarde no mesmo ano. Este valor foi utilizado como referência para futuras avaliações (MISTIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). Conforme descrito no relatório da Ação D5.1 do Projeto LIFE IP Azores Natura, o acesso ao ilhéu foi condicionado em 2020 devido às condições climatéricas adversas e à interdição do espaço aéreo, o que impediu a obtenção da tendência de produtividade anual conforme previsto. Em 2021, o sucesso reprodutor foi de 50%. No entanto, será necessário continuar a monitorização por mais anos para completar os 6 anos de monitorização contínua e, assim, obter uma tendência populacional confiável.
No Ilhéu da Vila (Santa Maria) Durante o MISTIC SEAS II, estimou-se o sucesso reprodutor para a colónia de 50%. Este valor será usado como referência para futuras avaliações (MISTIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). O valor de referência médio para o sucesso reprodutor é de 66% (2018 e 2019; Atchoi, 2021). A ausência de visitas de monitorização em abril impediu a avaliação do sucesso reprodutor em 2021. Dados adicionais relativos a 2022 e 2023 estão disponíveis e serão apresentados no próximo relatório de ciclo (Monitorização de Aves Marinhas Procellariiformes 2020-2023: Relatório da Ação D5.1 do Projeto LIFE IP AZORES NATURA - LIFE17 IPE/PT/00010).
|
A taxa de sobrevivência anual no ilhéu da Praia tem como referência o trabalho de Precheur et al. (2016), que reporta uma taxa de 93% entre 1998 e 2005. No contexto da ação D5.1, a taxa de sobrevivência foi estimada em 64% no ano de 2021. Dados adicionais relativos a 2022 estão disponíveis e serão apresentados no próximo relatório de ciclo. A avaliação foi limitada pelo número insuficiente de visitas e pela falta de enquadramento nos períodos ideais, sendo necessária uma monitorização contínua nos próximos anos para obter uma tendência mais precisa e ajustar as metas de sobrevivência anual. Não deve ser utilizada como referência (Monitorização de Aves Marinhas Procellariiformes 2020-2023: Relatório da Ação D5.1 do Projeto LIFE IP Azores Natura - LIFE17 IPE/PT/00010). No projeto LIFE IP Azores Natura, a taxa de sobrevivência foi estimada em 46% no ano de 2021. Dados adicionais relativos a 2022 estão disponíveis e serão apresentados no próximo relatório de ciclo. A avaliação foi limitada pelo número insuficiente de visitas e pela falta de enquadramento nos períodos ideais, sendo necessária uma monitorização contínua nos próximos anos para obter uma tendência mais precisa e ajustar as metas de sobrevivência anual. Não deve ser utilizada como referência (Monitorização de Aves Marinhas Procellariiformes 2020-2023: Relatório da Ação D5.1 do Projeto LIFE IP AZORES NATURA - LIFE17 IPE/PT/00010).
|
Não se registaram ocorrências de captura acidental nos vários programas de observação de pesca dos Açores (Fonte: dados reportados ao ICES WG BYC 2017-2021).
|
Para o Ilhéu de Baixo (Graciosa) o valor de referência histórico da população foi estimado em 200 CR. Entre 2017 e 2021, a monitorização com ARUs foi implementada com sucesso, resultando na atualização da população para uma estimativa de 327 CR. A população foi atualizada através de monitorização acústica passiva com ARUs no período de 2017 a 2019, sendo estimada em 340 casais. Esta monitorização foi posteriormente replicada no âmbito da ação D5.1 do Projeto LIFE IP Azores Natura, com o objetivo de gerar uma série temporal que permita analisar a tendência populacional. Entre 2017 e 2022, o valor de referência médio para esta colónia foi de 276 CR, com base nas informações recolhidas pelas ARUs. De acordo com a monitorização da contagem de ninhos ocupados desde 2002, período em que os ninhos artificiais colocados em 2000-2001 foram consistentemente ocupados, o valor médio de referência para o período de 2002 a 2012 foi de 70 CR. Não há informação disponível entre 2013 e 2018. No entanto, em 2019, verificou uma abundância de 91 CR. Em 2020, não foi possível obter dados, pois a monitorização foi afetada pelas condições climatéricas. No âmbito da ação D5.1, a colónia tem como valor de referência 121 CR, referente ao ano de 2021. No Ilhéu da Vila (Santa Maria) de 2002 a 2012, esta colónia foi monitorizada anualmente pela Universidade dos Açores utilizando métodos de captura-marcação-recaptura e efetuando censo de ninhos acessíveis. Mais de 100 casais reprodutores foram identificados durante este período. Os ninhos ocupados no período de 2017 a 2021, indicam que o ilhéu da Vila apresenta uma média de 49 CR, com base na monitorização da contagem de ninhos ocupados. A monitorização acústica passiva, com recurso a ARUs, permitiu estimar a população de roque-de-castro em 157 casais no período de 2017 a 2019. Adicionalmente, essa monitorização forneceu dados sobre a tendência populacional dos CR entre 2017 e 2022. O valor de referência médio para esta colónia é de 257 CR, com base nas informações recolhidas pelas ARUs.
|
O parâmetro em causa é o sucesso reprodutor e não a taxa de fecundidade e foi apenas estimado para as colónias do Ilhéu da Praia, Graciosa e Ilhéu da Vila, Santa Maria. No Ilhéu da Praia (Graciosa) o sucesso reprodutor foi estimado, em média, em 63% em ninhos artificiais e em 46% em ninhos naturais (anos 2000, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008 e 2011), no ilhéu da Praia (Bried e Neves, 2015). A monitorização realizada durante o projeto MISTIC SEAS II produziu um sucesso reprodutor de 83% (2017-2018). Este valor aparenta ser anormalmente elevado (J. Bried, comunicação pessoal). Neves e colaboradores (W. Schäfer, T. Karwinkel, L. Gomes, T. Châteaugiron, J. Taylor-Bruce e M. Austad, MARE – UID/MAR/04292/2013 e German Ornithologists’ Society), no trabalho de campo realizado entre 26 de outubro de 2018 e 18 de fevereiro de 2019, detetaram 93 tentativas de reprodução em ninhos artificiais com um sucesso reprodutor de 54,8% (valor mínimo). À data da última verificação (11 de março de 2019) havia ainda 3 crias de painho-da-Madeira nos ninhos. Caso se tenham tornado voadoras, o sucesso reprodutor poderá ter atingido um máximo de 58,1% em 2019 (V. Neves, comunicação pessoal). É necessária uma série temporal mais longa para avaliar adequadamente este critério (MISTIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). Em 2019, o valor foi de 56,3% (Hereward, 2022), e atualmente o valor de referência, com base no ano de 2021 (época 2021-2022), é de 47.
No Ilhéu da Vila (Santa Maria) estimou-se o sucesso reprodutor em 39,7%, de 2002 a 2012 (J. Bried, dados não publicados), valor usado como referência para esta colónia. A monitorização atual realizada durante o projeto MISTIC SEAS II resultou numa estimativa de sucesso reprodutor de 73% (2017-2018), que reflete apenas uma época de nidificação e poderá ser explicado por flutuações naturais (MISTIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). Este é um valor anormalmente elevado para a espécie (J. Bried, comunicação pessoal). O BEA só pode ser avaliado após a monitorização padronizada de, pelo menos, 6 épocas de nidificação (MISTIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). A avaliação anual do sucesso reprodutor no âmbito das monitorizações do LIFE IP AZORES NATURA foi fortemente condicionada pelo número limitado de monitorizações realizadas — apenas 5, em vez das 12 previstas. Este número reduzido de visitas, devido às condições climatéricas adversas, impediu a avaliação adequada e a obtenção de tendências confiáveis.
|
A referência estimada para a taxa de sobrevivência (SR) do painho-de-madeira no ilhéu da Vila foi de 97% (Robert et al., 2012, 1993-2010). As taxas de sobrevivência (SR) estimadas para os anos de 2020 e 2021 foram de 38% e 59%, respetivamente. Esta avaliação foi condicionada pelo número reduzido de visitas e pela falta de alinhamento destas com os períodos ideais, pelo que não deve ser considerada como referência. Esta lacuna de informação poderá ser corrigida se a monitorização for realizada de forma consistente nos próximos anos, permitindo assim obter uma tendência para a colónia até ao final do projeto, além de uma avaliação mais precisa do estado de saúde desta população. Isso permitirá alinhar com as metas estabelecidas para a Macaronésia (90%) ou, pelo menos, com os 80% definidos pela OSPAR, ou ainda ajustar as metas conforme necessário Relatório da Ação D5.1 do Projeto LIFE IP AZORES NATURA.
|
Monteiro et al. (1999) estimated 8 colonies in the Azores. The population size has been estimated during the 90s between 665 and 740 breeding pairs, of which 440-480 are located on the island of Graciosa (200 on the island of Praia, 200 on the Baixa island, 40-80 on the island of Ponta do Barca ? Balia island), 5-10 on the island of São Jorge (on the splitter island), 0-10 on the island of São Miguel (Vila Franca do Campo), 220-245 on the island of São Miguel (Vila Franca do Campo), 200-0 on the island of Santa Maria (5 on the island of Vila, 20-40 in the Northern Island, 1999- in the Malsearch) (Monteiro et al.,). However, the numbers in Praia could have increased since 2001 due to the installation of artificial nests (Briged et al., 2009
|
Não se registaram ocorrências de captura acidental nos vários programas de observação de pesca dos Açores (Fonte: dados reportados ao ICES WG BYC 2017-2021).
|
Entre 2017 e 2019, a estimativa foi atualizada através de monitorização acústica passiva com recurso a dispositivos ARU. A população total foi calculada em 411 casais reprodutores, distribuídos por três colónias: Praia, Baixo e Ilhéu Sentado (Flores). Em 2016, durante o projeto MISTIC SEAS II, estimaram-se 15 casais reprodutores com ARU. No Ilhéu de Baixo (Graciosa) a monitorização, entre 2015 e 2019, com recurso a ARUs estimou um total de 162 casais reprodutores. O valor médio de referência, determinado com base nos dados recolhidos entre 2015-2016 e 2020, é de 141 casais reprodutores (CR, também conhecidos como breeding pairs, BP, em inglês). Informações adicionais relativas aos anos de 2022 e 2023 estão disponíveis e serão incluídas no relatório do próximo ciclo.
E 2016, estimaram-se 178 casais reprodutores no Ilhéu da Praia (Graciosa), com base em ARU e em captura-marcação-recaptura utilizando redes verticais. O valor de referência médio, determinado através da monitorização acústica passiva, é de 129 CR no período de 2016 a 2021. Informações adicionais relativas aos anos de 2022 e 2023 estão disponíveis e serão incluídas no próximo relatório de ciclo.
|
A aplicação da metodologia exige condições ideais, como vento abaixo de 10 nós, ausência de precipitação e dois observadores experientes. A monitorização no Ilhéu de Baixo envolve a montagem de cinco redes em terreno de difícil acesso, especialmente em condições de chuva. Nos próximos anos, a monitorização da colónia poderá ser mais eficaz com o projeto LIFE Natura@night, sendo complementada pela capacitação do PNI e pelo uso de ninhos artificiais, caso o CMR com redes verticais não seja possível. No Ilhéu da Praia (Graciosa), O sucesso reprodutor foi de cerca de 41% em ninhos naturais e 46% em ninhos artificiais entre 2000-2012 (em média, exceto 2002, Bried e Neves, 2015). Neves e colaboradores (W. Schäfer, T. Karwinkel, L. Gomes, T. Châteaugiron, J. Taylor-Bruce e M. Austad, MARE – UID/MAR/04292/2013 e German Ornithologists’ Society), no trabalho de campo realizado entre 4 de junho e 16 de agosto de 2018, detetaram 65 tentativas de reprodução em ninhos artificiais com um sucesso reprodutor de 33,8%. Das 41 crias que eclodiram em ninhos artificiais, 22 tornaram-se voadoras e 19 morreram, tendo mais de 50% da mortalidade sido causada por formigas das espécies Lasius grandis e Monomorium carbonarium (V. Neves, comunicação pessoal). Na implementação da ação D5.1, entre 2020 e 2023, o BS foi de 36% em 2020 e 64% em 2021, conforme indicado no Relatório da Ação D5.1 do Projeto LIFE IP AZORES NATURA - LIFE17 IPE/PT/00010. A produtividade anual do painho-de-Monteiro tem mostrado uma tendência de diminuição, exceto em alguns períodos, como entre 2001 e 2007, e em 2014-2015 e 2021. Nos últimos anos, novas ameaças, como o impacto da lagartixa-da-Madeira, formigas, temperaturas elevadas e degradação dos ninhos, foram identificadas, mas ainda não é claro se estão a afetar a produtividade (Neves et al., 2022; Hereward, 2022). Apesar dos esforços de conservação, a produtividade continua a cair, o que, segundo Hereward (2022), pode levar à extinção do painho-de-Monteiro no Ilhéu da Praia se não forem adotadas medidas de mitigação. A melhoria dos ninhos artificiais, como os 100 instalados no âmbito da ação C6.1 do Projeto LIFE IP AZORES NATURA, pode ajudar, mas os resultados só serão avaliados nos próximos anos.
|
A taxa de sobrevivência anual foi estimada por Robert et al. (2012; 2015) para o período de 1997 a 2010, sendo o valor limite estabelecido anteriormente de 90%. De acordo com o Relatório da Ação D5.1 do Projeto LIFE IP AZORES NATURA - LIFE17 IPE/PT/00010 (não publicado), a taxa em 2021 foi de 86%.
|
O painho-de-monteiro tem uma população pequena e nidificação restrita a cinco colónias conhecidas: Ilhéu da Praia, Ilhéu de Baixo e Ponta da Barca - ilhéu da Baleia (Graciosa); ilhéu Sentado, Alagoa (Flores) e Ponta do Marco (Corvo). Nos trabalhos do MISTIC SEAS II confirmou-se a nidificação no Ilhéu Sentado, Alagoa, Flores
Bolton M., Smith A. L., Gómez-diaz D., Friesen V., Medeiros R., Bried J., Roscales J. L., Furness R. W. (2008) Monteiro's Storm Petrel Oceanodroma monteiroi: a new species from the Azores. Ibis 150, 717-727.
Bried, J. & Neves, V.C. 2015. Habitat restoration on Praia Islet, Azores Archipelago, proved successful for seabirds, but new threats have emerged. Airo 23: 25-35.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp.
Monteiro L.R., Ramos J.A., Pereira J. C.,Monteiro P. R., Feio R. S., Thompson D. R.,Bearhop S., Furness R. W., Laranjo M., Hilton G., Neves V. C., Groz M. P., and Thompson K.R. (1999).Status and Distribuition of Fea's Petrel, Bulwer's Petrel, Manx Shearwater, and Band-Rumped Storm Petrel in the Azores Archipelago. Waterbirds 22, 358-366.
Oliveira, N., Aguiar, L., Barros, N., Bried, J., Carmo, V., Carvalho, A., Cepêda, H., Costa, L., Faustino, L., Lourenço, J., Magalhães, M., Melo, C., Neves, V., Picanço, C., Picanço, M., Paiva, V., Pipa, T., Ramos, J., Raposo, P., Serba, S., Silva, C., Tarzia, M., Teixeira, J., Teodósio, J. & Andrade, J. 2016. Status Report for Monteiro’s Storm-petrel Hydrobates monteiroi. Report of the Action A10, Project LIFE EuroSAP. Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves, Lisboa.
Ramírez, J. 2017. Estimación de la densidad del Paiño de Monteiro (Hydrobates monteiroi) mediante bioacústica. Universidad de Vigo. |
Não se registaram ocorrências de captura acidental nos vários programas de observação de pesca dos Açores (Fonte: dados reportados ao ICES WG BYC 2017-2021).
|
Os dados reportados aqui apenas se referem ao período de 2016-2021, pois não se realizou censo de garajaus em 2013. A estimativa mínima de 538 casais reprodutores, distribuídos por 22 colónias, corresponde ao ano de 2016. A estimativa máxima de 798 casais reprodutores, distribuídos por 27 colónias, corresponde ao ano de 2018 (MONIAVES, Neves 2014, 2015, DRAM 2016-2017, 2021, DRPM dados não publicados, SRMCT, 2019a).
|
Fisheries. Archives of the PDO, Series of studies No 1/2015.
|
A taxa de sobrevivência atual ainda não foi calculada e não existe um valor de referência para os Açores. Estabeleceu-se um limiar de 0,9 para todas as colónias de aves marinhas da Macaronésia.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
Fisheries. Archives of the PDO, Series of studies No 5/2012.
Neves, V. 2014. Azores Census Report 2014. University of the Azres, Department of Oceanography
|
Não se registaram ocorrências de captura acidental nos vários programas de observação de pesca dos Açores (Fonte: dados reportados ao ICES WG BYC 2017-2021).
|
Os dados reportados aqui apenas se referem ao período de 2016-2021. A estimativa mínima de 2442 casais reprodutores, distribuídos por 102 colónias, corresponde ao ano de 2016. A estimativa máxima de 3411 casais reprodutores, distribuídos por 115 colónias, corresponde ao ano de 2017 (MONIAVES, Neves 2014, 2015, DRAM 2016-, 202117, DRPMAM dados não publicados, SRMCT, 2019a).
Neves, V. 2014. Azores Tern Census Report 2014. University of the Azores, Department of Oceanography & Fisheries. Arquivos do DOP, Série Estudos nº2/2014.
Neves, V. 2015. Azores Tern Census Report 2015. University of the Azores, Department of Oceanography & Fisheries. Arquivos do DOP, Série Estudos nº1/2015.
DRAM 2016. Censo de Garajaus (Sterna spp.) na subdivisão da ZEE Portuguesa da Região Autónoma dos Açores - Relatório 2016. Implementação da Diretiva-Quadro da Estratégia Marinha. MOA01-III - MONIAVES – Programa de monitorização de populações de aves marinhas na subdivisão dos Açores.
DRAM 2017. Censo de Garajaus (Sterna hirundo e Sterna dougallii) na subdivisão da ZEE Portuguesa da Região Autónoma dos Açores - Relatório 2017. Implementação da Diretiva-Quadro da Estratégia Marinha. MOA01-III - MONIAVES – Programa de monitorização de populações de aves marinhas na subdivisão dos Açores.
DRAM 2018. Censo de garajaus (dados não publicados)
SRMCT (2019a), Relatório de progresso e implementação nacional (PT) da Diretiva Aves, Artigo 12, 2013-2018, http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/pt/eu/art12/envxbnbwa
|
Em 2014 a média de posturas para o garajau-comum foi de 2,2 (n=573) e em 2015 foi de 2,1 ovos por ninho (n=659).
Neves, V. 2014. Azores Tern Census Report 2014. University of the Azores, Department of Oceanography & Fisheries. Arquivos do DOP, Série Estudos nº2/2014.
Neves, V. 2015. Azores Tern Census Report 2015. University of the Azores, Department of Oceanography & Fisheries. Arquivos do DOP, Série Estudos nº1/2015. |
A taxa de sobrevivência atual ainda não foi calculada e não existe um valor de referência para os Açores. Estabeleceu-se um limiar de 0,9 para todas as colónias de aves marinhas da Macaronésia.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
Fisheries. Archives of the PDO, Series of studies No 5/2012.
Neves, V. 2014. Azores Census Report 2014. University of the Azres, Department of Oceanography
|
||||||||
Related indicator |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria status |
Good |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Good |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Good |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Good |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Good |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Good |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Good |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Description criteria |
Não se registaram ocorrências de captura acidental nos vários programas de observação de pesca dos Açores (Fonte: dados reportados ao ICES WG BYC 2017-2021).
|
A população nidificante de alma-negra dos Açores é apenas monitorizada no ilhéu da Vila, que alberga a maior população conhecida do arquipélago e onde a Universidade de Açores realizou um seguimento regular entre 2002 e 2012 (J. Bried, dados não publicados). A partir de 2013, realizaram-se algumas visitas ocasionais. O tamanho da população no ilhéu Vila estimou-se em cerca de 50 casais reprodutores (Monteiro et al., 1999).
Monteiro et al (1999) identificaram ainda o ilhéu de Baixo e o ilhéu da Praia na Graciosa como potenciais colónias (com <10 casais reprodutores, cada), tendo a reprodução sido confirmada, em 2017, pela SPEA, no Ilhéu de Baixo, no âmbito do projeto MISTIC SEAS II e, em 2019, por Neves (dados não publicados), no Ilhéu da Praia. No ilhéu de Baixo, a contagem de ninhos, monitorizada por acústica ativa com imitação-resposta, em colaboração com T. Pipa et al. (dados não publicados), e com o acompanhamento da Ação D5.1 do Projeto LIFE IP Azores Natura, revelou um valor médio de 17 CR.
Mantém-se assim a estimativa populacional total de alma-negra nos Açores de cerca de 50-70 casais reprodutores distribuídos pelas 3 colónias reprodutoras. Ilhéu da Vila (Santa Maria), Ilhéu de Baixo e Ilhéu da Praia (Graciosa), conforme Monteiro et al. (1999) e reportado no Relatório da Diretiva Aves (SRMCT, 2019a).
|
Para avaliar o BEA é necessária uma série temporal maior, aplicando a mesma metodologia (MISTIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
|
Para avaliar o BEA é necessária uma série temporal maior, aplicando a mesma metodologia (MISTIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
|
There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES.
|
O habitat para a espécie é um critério secundário para aves marinhas (Decisão 2017/848/EU, 2017 da Comissão). Não se dispõe de informação nem de esquemas de monitorização sobre o habitat das aves marinhas. Este critério refere-se ao estado do habitat marinho. As aves marinhas, grandes migratórias, podem sofrer pressões nas suas zonas de alimentação e / ou de invernada não abrangidas nos programas de monitorização atuais devido à falta de conhecimento sobre a distribuição no mar de indivíduos de algumas espécies, sexo e classes etárias e desafios de monitorização (Lewison et al., 2012).
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp.
|
Houve apenas 3 registos de captura acidental de cagarro na pescaria de salto e vara, em 2020, durante o período 2016-2021 (Fonte: dados reportados ao ICES WG BYC 2017-2021).
|
O cagarro nidifica na costa de todas as ilhas açorianas principalmente, em ilhéus e falésias inacessíveis e os Açores são a zona do mundo mais importante para o cagarro (Calonectris borealis), congregando com a Madeira e alguns casais nas Berlengas cerca de 85 % da população mundial da espécie (BirdLife, 2024). O número de aves reunidas em jangadas ao redor da costa das ilhas tem sido usado como base para estimar a abundância populacional. A estimativa de 500,000 casais reprodutores foi considerada exagerada, uma vez que alguns estudos demonstraram que mais de metade dos cagarros adultos numa colónia pode ser não reprodutora (Monteiro et al., 1996a e ref. incl.). Em 1996, um censo realizado a partir de terra, em todo o Arquipélago, contabilizou cerca de 404,000 cagarros em jangada. No entanto, uma nova contagem em 2001, contabilizou 224,000 aves pousadas no mar em redor do Arquipélago (Bolton, 2001), sugerindo que a população pode estar a decrescer. Desconhece-se se o declínio observado reflete variações interanuais (atendendo ao longo período entre as 2 estimativas), diferenças comportamentais ou, ainda mortalidade genuína (Fontaine et al., 2011). É necessário aprofundar o conhecimento sobre o comportamento de jangada, os fatores que influenciam a variabilidade interanual da presença das aves nestas jangadas, bem como a proporção de aves reprodutoras que delas fazem parte, afim de melhorar as estimativas populacionais desta espécie.
|
Existem dados disponíveis para os anos de 2022 e 2023, que serão apresentados no próximo ciclo. Recomenda-se que a monitorização seja continuada na próxima fase do projeto LIFE IP AZORES NATURA, mantendo a monitorização consistente dos ninhos selecionados em 2023.
|
Existem dados disponíveis para os anos de 2022 e 2023, que serão apresentados no próximo ciclo. Recomenda-se que a monitorização seja continuada na próxima fase do projeto LIFE IP AZORES NATURA, mantendo a monitorização consistente dos ninhos selecionados em 2023.
|
There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES.
The garden centres on the coast of all the islands of the Azores, mainly in the islets and the inaccessible cliffs, and the population of the Azores is estimated to account for some 75 % of the size of the world?s breeding population (BirdLife International).
|
Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848, 2017). No information or monitoring schemes are available on the habitat of seabirds. This criterion refers to the state of the marine habitat. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to a lack of knowledge on the distribution of some species, sex and age classes and monitoring challenges at sea (Lewison et al., 2012).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Não se registaram ocorrências de captura acidental nos vários programas de observação de pesca dos Açores (Fonte: dados reportados ao ICES WG BYC 2017-2021).
|
As estimativas populacionais desta espécie foram realizadas na RAA essencialmente nos anos 1996 e 1997 e fizeram-se escutas pontuais nos anos seguintes, tendo a população nidificante sido estimada através de escutas noturnas seguindo o método de Monteiro et al. (1999), com colónias conhecidas em ilhéus e na costa de todas as ilhas do arquipélago, exceto na Terceira onde a presença desta espécie continua sem confirmação (Neves, 2008).
|
Será necessário continuar a monitorização para completar os 6 anos de monitorização contínua e, assim, obter uma tendência confiável.
|
Será necessário continuar a monitorização para completar os 6 anos de monitorização contínua e, assim, obter uma tendência confiável.
|
Alvim, Lisbon.
|
O habitat para a espécie é um critério secundário para aves marinhas (Decisão 2017/848/EU, 2017 da Comissão). Não se dispõe de informação nem de esquemas de monitorização sobre o habitat das aves marinhas. Este critério refere-se ao estado do habitat marinho. As aves marinhas, grandes migratórias, podem sofrer pressões nas suas zonas de alimentação e / ou de invernada não abrangidas nos programas de monitorização atuais devido à falta de conhecimento sobre a distribuição no mar de indivíduos de algumas espécies, sexo e classes etárias e desafios de monitorização (Lewison et al., 2012).
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
Não se registaram ocorrências de captura acidental nos vários programas de observação de pesca dos Açores (Fonte: dados reportados ao ICES WG BYC 2017-2021).
|
O tamanho da população estimou-se durante os anos 90 entre 665 e 740 casais reprodutores, dos quais, 440-480 na ilha Graciosa (200 no ilhéu da Praia, 200 no ilhéu do Baixo, 40-80 no ilhéu da Ponta da Barca - Ilhéu da Baleia), 5-10 na ilha de São Jorge (no ilhéu do Topo), 0-10 na ilha de São Miguel (ilhéu de Vila Franca do Campo), 220-245 na ilha de Santa Maria (200 no ilhéu da Vila, 0-5 na Ponta do Norte, 20-40 na Malbusca) (Monteiro et al., 1999; Granadeiro, 2008). No entanto, os números no ilhéu da Praia podem ter aumentado desde 2001 devido à instalação de ninhos artificiais (Bried et al., 2009; Bried e Neves, 2015). Não há dados sobre a população total, no entanto, a monitorização regular realizada nas 3 principais colónias (Ilhéus da Praia, Baixo e Vila) evidencia que a população nestas colónias está estável. Em 2017, no âmbito do projeto MISTIC SEAS II, a SPEA registou uma nova colónia de nidificação no ilhéu Sentado (ilha das Flores), através de escutas, o que aumentou a extensão de distribuição conhecida da espécie, no entanto os dados ainda estão a ser tratados e não há uma estimativa populacional associada, pelo que apenas será possível apresentar essa informação no próximo ciclo de reporte (MISTIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). Recentemente, a população de Painho-da-madeira foi atualizada através de monitorização acústica passiva com o uso Unidades Autónomas de Gravação (ARUs), estimando-se agora em 865 casais distribuídos por cinco colónias-alvo do projeto LIFE IP Azores Natura (Pipa & Silva, 2021; Pipa et al., 2023).
|
Os parâmetros demográficos foram analisados através das metodologias estabelecidas pelo projeto MISTIC SEAS II (ver Macaronesian Roof Report) para as colónias do Ilhéu da Praia, Graciosa e Ilhéu da Vila, Santa Maria. O BEA só se pode avaliar com rigor com dados de monitorização de, pelo menos, 6 épocas de nidificação.
|
Os parâmetros demográficos foram analisados através das metodologias estabelecidas pelo projeto MISTIC SEAS II (ver Macaronesian Roof Report) para as colónias do Ilhéu da Praia, Graciosa e Ilhéu da Vila, Santa Maria. O BEA só se pode avaliar com rigor com dados de monitorização de, pelo menos, 6 épocas de nidificação.
|
There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES.
|
Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848, 2017). No information or monitoring schemes are available on the habitat of seabirds. This criterion refers to the state of the marine habitat. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to a lack of knowledge on the distribution of some species, sex and age classes and monitoring challenges at sea (Lewison et al., 2012).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Não se registaram ocorrências de captura acidental nos vários programas de observação de pesca dos Açores (Fonte: dados reportados ao ICES WG BYC 2017-2021).
|
O painho-de-monteiro é uma espécie endémica dos Açores, com uma população pequena (361-391 casais reprodutores) e nidificação restrita a cinco colónias, distribuídas pelas ilhas Graciosa, Flores e Corvo. Durante o Projeto MISTIC SEAS II confirmou-se a nidificação no Ilhéu Sentado, Alagoa, ilha das Flores, através da gravação de intensa atividade vocal em toda a época de reprodução com ARU e captura de um indivíduo com pelada de incubação (Oliveira et al., 2016). Com base nos trabalhos desenvolvidos no âmbito do LIFE EuroSAP Hydrobates monteiroi atualizaram-se as estimativas populacionais de Monteiro et al. (1999) e Bolton et al., (2008). Estimam-se assim, na ilha Graciosa, 178 casais no Ilhéu da Praia (Oliveira et al., 2016), 138 casais reprodutores no Ilhéu de Baixo (MISTIC SEAS II, 2017) e 30-50 casais na Ponta da Barca - ilhéu da Baleia (Monteiro et al. 1999; Bolton et al., 2008); na ilha das Flores, estimam-se 15 casais no ilhéu Sentado, Alagoa (MISTIC SEAS II, 2017) e na ilha do Corvo 0-10 casais reprodutores na Ponta do Marco (Monteiro et al. 1999; Bolton et al., 2008) totalizando 361-391 casais reprodutores para os Açores (SRMCT, 2019a).
|
O BEA só se pode avaliar com rigor com dados de monitorização de, pelo menos, 6 épocas de nidificação. No ilhéu de Baixo (Graciosa), a taxa de sobrevivência para o ano 2021 foi estimada em 79% (Relatório da ação D5.1 do projeto LIFE IP Azores Natura). Este valor está abaixo do estipulado para a Macaronésia (90% - MSII Consortium, 2018) e também abaixo da referência histórica de 97% (Robert et al., 2012; 2015).
|
O BEA só se pode avaliar com rigor com dados de monitorização de, pelo menos, 6 épocas de nidificação. No ilhéu de Baixo (Graciosa), a taxa de sobrevivência para o ano 2021 foi estimada em 79% (Relatório da ação D5.1 do projeto LIFE IP Azores Natura). Este valor está abaixo do estipulado para a Macaronésia (90% - MSII Consortium, 2018) e também abaixo da referência histórica de 97% (Robert et al., 2012; 2015).
|
There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES.
|
Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848, 2017). No information or monitoring schemes are available on the habitat of seabirds. This criterion refers to the state of the marine habitat. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to a lack of knowledge on the distribution of some species, sex and age classes and monitoring challenges at sea (Lewison et al., 2012).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Não se registaram ocorrências de captura acidental nos vários programas de observação de pesca dos Açores (Fonte: dados reportados ao ICES WG BYC 2017-2021).
|
As estimativas populacionais desta espécie, decorrentes dos censos anuais apresentam flutuações, tal como a distribuição espacial das colónias, existindo registos históricos de ocorrência em todas as ilhas.
|
There are no current studies of demographic parameters with regional coverage to assess this criterion with confidence.
|
There are no current studies of demographic parameters with regional coverage to assess this criterion with confidence.
|
The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores.
|
Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848, 2017). No information or monitoring schemes are available on the habitat of seabirds. This criterion refers to the state of the marine habitat. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to a lack of knowledge on the distribution of some species, sex and age classes and monitoring challenges at sea (Lewison et al., 2012).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Não se registaram ocorrências de captura acidental nos vários programas de observação de pesca dos Açores (Fonte: dados reportados ao ICES WG BYC 2017-2021).
|
As estimativas populacionais desta espécie decorrentes dos censos anuais apresentam flutuações, tal como a distribuição espacial das colónias, existindo registos históricos de ocorrência em todas as ilhas.
|
There are no current studies of demographic parameters with regional coverage to assess this criterion with confidence.
|
There are no current studies of demographic parameters with regional coverage to assess this criterion with confidence.
|
The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores.
|
Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848, 2017). No information or monitoring schemes are available on the habitat of seabirds. This criterion refers to the state of the marine habitat. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to a lack of knowledge on the distribution of some species, sex and age classes and monitoring challenges at sea (Lewison et al., 2012).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Element status |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Description element |
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Esta espécie encontra-se em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1, com uma aparente tendência estável. Os restantes critérios têm um BEA desconhecido, pelo que a avaliação geral da espécie é também desconhecida.
|
Source assessment feature |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting method feature |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Trend feature |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Integration rule type parameter |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule description parameter |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule type criteria |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule description criteria |
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
GES extent threshold |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES extent achieved |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES extent unit |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES achieved |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Description overall status |
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. The habitat for species D1C5 is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). Due to insufficient knowledge of the distribution at sea of the populations (only anecdotal satellite telemetry data for some species) extending well beyond the subdivision of the Azores and the Macaronesian biogeographical region, this criterion has been considered ?Unknown? (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. The habitat for species D1C5 is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). Due to insufficient knowledge of the distribution at sea of the populations (only anecdotal satellite telemetry data for some species) extending well beyond the subdivision of the Azores and the Macaronesian biogeographical region, this criterion has been considered ?Unknown? (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. The habitat for species D1C5 is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). Due to insufficient knowledge of the distribution at sea of the populations (only anecdotal satellite telemetry data for some species) extending well beyond the subdivision of the Azores and the Macaronesian biogeographical region, this criterion has been considered ?Unknown? (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. The habitat for species D1C5 is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). Due to insufficient knowledge of the distribution at sea of the populations (only anecdotal satellite telemetry data for some species) extending well beyond the subdivision of the Azores and the Macaronesian biogeographical region, this criterion has been considered ?Unknown? (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. The habitat for species D1C5 is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). Due to insufficient knowledge of the distribution at sea of the populations (only anecdotal satellite telemetry data for some species) extending well beyond the subdivision of the Azores and the Macaronesian biogeographical region, this criterion has been considered ?Unknown? (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. The habitat for species D1C5 is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). Due to insufficient knowledge of the distribution at sea of the populations (only anecdotal satellite telemetry data for some species) extending well beyond the subdivision of the Azores and the Macaronesian biogeographical region, this criterion has been considered ?Unknown? (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. The habitat for species D1C5 is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). Due to insufficient knowledge of the distribution at sea of the populations (only anecdotal satellite telemetry data for some species) extending well beyond the subdivision of the Azores and the Macaronesian biogeographical region, this criterion has been considered ?Unknown? (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. The habitat for species D1C5 is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). Due to insufficient knowledge of the distribution at sea of the populations (only anecdotal satellite telemetry data for some species) extending well beyond the subdivision of the Azores and the Macaronesian biogeographical region, this criterion has been considered ?Unknown? (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. The habitat for species D1C5 is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). Due to insufficient knowledge of the distribution at sea of the populations (only anecdotal satellite telemetry data for some species) extending well beyond the subdivision of the Azores and the Macaronesian biogeographical region, this criterion has been considered ?Unknown? (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. The habitat for species D1C5 is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). Due to insufficient knowledge of the distribution at sea of the populations (only anecdotal satellite telemetry data for some species) extending well beyond the subdivision of the Azores and the Macaronesian biogeographical region, this criterion has been considered ?Unknown? (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. The habitat for species D1C5 is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). Due to insufficient knowledge of the distribution at sea of the populations (only anecdotal satellite telemetry data for some species) extending well beyond the subdivision of the Azores and the Macaronesian biogeographical region, this criterion has been considered ?Unknown? (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. The habitat for species D1C5 is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). Due to insufficient knowledge of the distribution at sea of the populations (only anecdotal satellite telemetry data for some species) extending well beyond the subdivision of the Azores and the Macaronesian biogeographical region, this criterion has been considered ?Unknown? (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. The habitat for species D1C5 is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). Due to insufficient knowledge of the distribution at sea of the populations (only anecdotal satellite telemetry data for some species) extending well beyond the subdivision of the Azores and the Macaronesian biogeographical region, this criterion has been considered ?Unknown? (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. The habitat for species D1C5 is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). Due to insufficient knowledge of the distribution at sea of the populations (only anecdotal satellite telemetry data for some species) extending well beyond the subdivision of the Azores and the Macaronesian biogeographical region, this criterion has been considered ?Unknown? (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. The habitat for species D1C5 is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). Due to insufficient knowledge of the distribution at sea of the populations (only anecdotal satellite telemetry data for some species) extending well beyond the subdivision of the Azores and the Macaronesian biogeographical region, this criterion has been considered ?Unknown? (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. The habitat for species D1C5 is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). Due to insufficient knowledge of the distribution at sea of the populations (only anecdotal satellite telemetry data for some species) extending well beyond the subdivision of the Azores and the Macaronesian biogeographical region, this criterion has been considered ?Unknown? (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. The habitat for species D1C5 is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). Due to insufficient knowledge of the distribution at sea of the populations (only anecdotal satellite telemetry data for some species) extending well beyond the subdivision of the Azores and the Macaronesian biogeographical region, this criterion has been considered ?Unknown? (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. The habitat for species D1C5 is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). Due to insufficient knowledge of the distribution at sea of the populations (only anecdotal satellite telemetry data for some species) extending well beyond the subdivision of the Azores and the Macaronesian biogeographical region, this criterion has been considered ?Unknown? (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
All marine bird species appear to be in GES for D1C1, for the assessed fisheries (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018). However, it is necessary to assess the fishing gear not covered by the current monitoring programmes, so the confidence level of this assessment is low. D1C2 and D1C4: There is no updated stock census of Procellariformes since the work of Monteiro et al. (1999) at regional level (all AAR) to measure the actual distribution area of the various species and total population and to assess GES. It is therefore necessary and urgent to update the population estimates through regional census for all Procellariformes. The population estimates of the Garajaus (Charadriiformes) show noticeable inter-annual fluctuations observed in the annual censuses that make it difficult to assess their status. Only with long data series will it be possible to understand whether the observed changes between the different sampling periods are natural variability or whether other factors, such as anthropogenic pressures, affect the status of seabird populations in the Azores. There are no demographic parameters with regional coverage and sufficiently long standardised methodology to assess D1C3 with confidence in this cycle. Habitat for the species is a secondary criterion for seabirds (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848). There is no information or monitoring scheme on the marine habitat of these birds. Seabirds, large migratory birds, may experience pressures in their feeding and/or wintering areas not covered by the current monitoring programmes due to lack of knowledge on distribution at sea, their demographic parameters and remote monitoring challenges (Ledison et al., 2012, MISTIC SET-II Consortium, 2018).
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess most of the criteria for the different species (elements). It was therefore considered that GES is ?Unknown? at group level integration.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets.
|
Assessments period |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Test TV |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Test results |
False |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
False |
False |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
False |
False |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
False |
False |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
False |
False |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
False |
False |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
False |
False |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
False |
Madeira subdivision (AMA-PT-SD-MAD)
Regional assessment area |
||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Component MRUs |
||||||||||
GES component |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
Feature |
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Element |
Bulweria bulwerii |
Calonectris borealis |
Calonectris borealis |
Pterodroma deserta |
Pterodroma deserta |
Pterodroma madeira |
Pterodroma madeira |
Puffinus lherminieri |
Hydrobates castro |
Puffinus puffinus |
Element extent |
||||||||||
Trend element |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Element 2 |
||||||||||
Element source |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
Criterion |
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C2
|
D1C2
|
||
Parameter |
ABU-Nests
|
Breeding success
|
ABU-Nests
|
Breeding success
|
ABU-Nests
|
Breeding success
|
Other
|
|||
Threshold value upper |
||||||||||
Threshold value lower |
||||||||||
Threshold value operator |
||||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
||||||||||
Threshold value source |
||||||||||
Value achieved upper |
38000.0 |
0.803 |
180.0 |
60.0 |
80.0 |
50.0 |
10.0 |
|||
Value achieved lower |
0.713 |
160.0 |
50.0 |
65.0 |
5.0 |
|||||
Value unit |
Breeding pairs
|
Nestlings
|
Breeding pairs
|
percentage
|
Breeding pairs
|
percentage
|
Breeding pairs
|
|||
Proportion threshold value |
||||||||||
Proportion value achieved |
||||||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
||||||||||
Trend parameter |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
|||
Parameter achieved |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
|||
Description parameter |
Os valores máximos e mínimos reportados correspondem ao n.º de juvenis voadores por ovo.
|
|||||||||
Related indicator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Criteria status |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
||
Description criteria |
Na anterior avaliação, apesar de referida a abundância de 29 540 casais nidificantes na Selvagem Grande, calculada por Granadeiro et al., (2006), a mesma não foi avaliada para o período em questão. Na atual avaliação, de acordo com os trabalhos realizados por investigadores da Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa (Catry et al., 2025), a abundância (D1C2) da população de cagarras, em 2024, está estimada em 38 830 casais na Selvagem Grande, estando a aumentar a uma taxa anual de 1,45% desde 2009 (a 2023).
|
Relativamente à taxa de sobrevivência, não reportada no ciclo anterior, verifica-se neste ciclo novamente inexistência de informação. Não obstante, o sucesso de reprodução (D1C3) foi calculado para o período compreendido entre 2020 e 2023, tendo variado entre 0,713 e 0,803. Esta medida corresponde ao n.º de juvenis voadores por ovo.
|
Tal como reportado na avaliação anterior, a abundância (D1C2) da população da freira-do-bugio, espécie endémica, foi estimada em 160 a180 casais reprodutores que nidificam numa única área: o planalto sul do Bugio, nas Ilhas Desertas. Anualmente é feita a monitorização dos ninhos naturais e artificiais, e tem sido possível verificar uma certa constância na ocupação dos ninhos, com alguns a ficarem inativos e por outro lado alguns novos vão surgindo. Atualmente considera-se que a população está estável.
|
No ciclo anterior, o critério D1C3 para a freira-do-bugio não foi avaliado na Madeira, por inexistência de informação. De acordo com a informação disponibilizada pelo IFCN, é possível afirmar que o sucesso reprodutor desta espécie ronda os 50% a 60%, com taxas de sobrevivência elevadas no período de desenvolvimento e crescimento dos juvenis. O período da saída do ninho considera-se ser mais critico devido à presença de predadores, como as gaivotas que predam os juvenis. A área de nidificação destas espécies tem-se mantido constante ao longo dos últimos anos, encontrando-se num único local – o planalto sul do Bugio, Ilhas Desertas.
|
A abundância (critério D1C2) desta população foi estimada através da contagem dos ninhos, que permitiu contabilizar entre 65 e 80 casais reprodutores que nidificam numa única área, tal como reportado na avaliação anterior. A área de nidificação desta espécie tem-se mantido constante ao longo dos últimos anos. Na ilha da Madeira, existem cerca de 10 patamares ("mangas") de nidificação numa área restrita do Maciço Montanhoso Oriental, na área entre o Pico do Areeiro e o Pico Ruivo.
Anualmente é feita a monitorização dos ninhos que são acessíveis e tem sido verificada uma certa constância na ocupação dos ninhos, com alguns a ficarem inativos e por outro lado alguns novos a surgirem. Pelo número de aves que são anilhadas e pelo número de aves sem anilha encontradas, é possível que haja mais patamar de nidificação que ainda não seja conhecido e que contribua para o aumento da população. Atualmente é possível afirmar que a população está estável.
|
No que refere às características demográficas da população (critério D1C3), sabe-se apenas que o sucesso reprodutor deve rondar os 50%, não existindo valores de referência para as taxas de sobrevivência no que se refere ao período de desenvolvimento e crescimento dos juvenis. Esta taxa é mais baixa no período da saída do ninho, devido à presença de predadores e de ameaças como a iluminação que se tem revelado um problema no encadeamento das aves, principalmente dos juvenis. Para esta espécie ainda não existem dados disponíveis para estabelecer os valores de referência, não obstante haver um limiar definido (0,9) para todas as aves marinhas.
|
Espécie não contemplada no PMo.
|
Espécie não contemplada no PMo.
|
||
Element status |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Description element |
Comparativamente ao reporte anterior, foi possível agregar informação relativa ao critério D1C1 para o grupo das aves.
Contudo, relativamente aos restantes critérios (D1C2, D1C3 e D1C4), embora existam novos dados sobre as espécies de aves marinhas a considerar na avaliação do BEA, ainda não é possível efetuar essa mesma avaliação. Importa referir que apenas existe valor limiar para o indicado Taxa de Sobrevivência (critério D1C3), o que também dificulta a realização de uma avaliação fiável aos restantes critérios.
|
Comparativamente ao reporte anterior, foi possível agregar informação relativa ao critério D1C1 para o grupo das aves.
Contudo, relativamente aos restantes critérios (D1C2, D1C3 e D1C4), embora existam novos dados sobre as espécies de aves marinhas a considerar na avaliação do BEA, ainda não é possível efetuar essa mesma avaliação. Importa referir que apenas existe valor limiar para o indicado Taxa de Sobrevivência (critério D1C3), o que também dificulta a realização de uma avaliação fiável aos restantes critérios.
|
Comparativamente ao reporte anterior, foi possível agregar informação relativa ao critério D1C1 para o grupo das aves.
Contudo, relativamente aos restantes critérios (D1C2, D1C3 e D1C4), embora existam novos dados sobre as espécies de aves marinhas a considerar na avaliação do BEA, ainda não é possível efetuar essa mesma avaliação. Importa referir que apenas existe valor limiar para o indicado Taxa de Sobrevivência (critério D1C3), o que também dificulta a realização de uma avaliação fiável aos restantes critérios.
|
Comparativamente ao reporte anterior, foi possível agregar informação relativa ao critério D1C1 para o grupo das aves.
Contudo, relativamente aos restantes critérios (D1C2, D1C3 e D1C4), embora existam novos dados sobre as espécies de aves marinhas a considerar na avaliação do BEA, ainda não é possível efetuar essa mesma avaliação. Importa referir que apenas existe valor limiar para o indicado Taxa de Sobrevivência (critério D1C3), o que também dificulta a realização de uma avaliação fiável aos restantes critérios.
|
Comparativamente ao reporte anterior, foi possível agregar informação relativa ao critério D1C1 para o grupo das aves.
Contudo, relativamente aos restantes critérios (D1C2, D1C3 e D1C4), embora existam novos dados sobre as espécies de aves marinhas a considerar na avaliação do BEA, ainda não é possível efetuar essa mesma avaliação. Importa referir que apenas existe valor limiar para o indicado Taxa de Sobrevivência (critério D1C3), o que também dificulta a realização de uma avaliação fiável aos restantes critérios.
|
Comparativamente ao reporte anterior, foi possível agregar informação relativa ao critério D1C1 para o grupo das aves.
Contudo, relativamente aos restantes critérios (D1C2, D1C3 e D1C4), embora existam novos dados sobre as espécies de aves marinhas a considerar na avaliação do BEA, ainda não é possível efetuar essa mesma avaliação. Importa referir que apenas existe valor limiar para o indicado Taxa de Sobrevivência (critério D1C3), o que também dificulta a realização de uma avaliação fiável aos restantes critérios.
|
Comparativamente ao reporte anterior, foi possível agregar informação relativa ao critério D1C1 para o grupo das aves.
Contudo, relativamente aos restantes critérios (D1C2, D1C3 e D1C4), embora existam novos dados sobre as espécies de aves marinhas a considerar na avaliação do BEA, ainda não é possível efetuar essa mesma avaliação. Importa referir que apenas existe valor limiar para o indicado Taxa de Sobrevivência (critério D1C3), o que também dificulta a realização de uma avaliação fiável aos restantes critérios.
|
Esta espécie não se encontra contemplada no PMo. No entanto, considerou-se relevante incluir a informação existente sobre a mesma.
|
Esta espécie não se encontra contemplada no PMo. No entanto, considerou-se relevante incluir a informação existente sobre a mesma.
|
Esta espécie não se encontra contemplada no PMo. No entanto, considerou-se relevante incluir a informação existente sobre a mesma.
|
Source assessment feature |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting method feature |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Trend feature |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Integration rule type parameter |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Não foi efetuada integração dos parâmetros.
|
Não foi efetuada integração dos parâmetros.
|
Não foi efetuada integração dos parâmetros.
|
Não foi efetuada integração dos parâmetros.
|
Não foi efetuada integração dos parâmetros.
|
Não foi efetuada integração dos parâmetros.
|
Não foi efetuada integração dos parâmetros.
|
Não foi efetuada integração dos parâmetros.
|
Não foi efetuada integração dos parâmetros.
|
Não foi efetuada integração dos parâmetros.
|
Integration rule type criteria |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description criteria |
Nenhum critério foi avaliado para as espécies de aves marinhas definidas.
|
Nenhum critério foi avaliado para as espécies de aves marinhas definidas.
|
Nenhum critério foi avaliado para as espécies de aves marinhas definidas.
|
Nenhum critério foi avaliado para as espécies de aves marinhas definidas.
|
Nenhum critério foi avaliado para as espécies de aves marinhas definidas.
|
Nenhum critério foi avaliado para as espécies de aves marinhas definidas.
|
Nenhum critério foi avaliado para as espécies de aves marinhas definidas.
|
Nenhum critério foi avaliado para as espécies de aves marinhas definidas.
|
Nenhum critério foi avaliado para as espécies de aves marinhas definidas.
|
Nenhum critério foi avaliado para as espécies de aves marinhas definidas.
|
GES extent threshold |
||||||||||
GES extent achieved |
||||||||||
GES extent unit |
||||||||||
GES achieved |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
Description overall status |
À data da presente avaliação, não existe informação que permita avaliar o BEA das espécies de aves marinhas.
|
À data da presente avaliação, não existe informação que permita avaliar o BEA das espécies de aves marinhas.
|
À data da presente avaliação, não existe informação que permita avaliar o BEA das espécies de aves marinhas.
|
À data da presente avaliação, não existe informação que permita avaliar o BEA das espécies de aves marinhas.
|
À data da presente avaliação, não existe informação que permita avaliar o BEA das espécies de aves marinhas.
|
À data da presente avaliação, não existe informação que permita avaliar o BEA das espécies de aves marinhas.
|
À data da presente avaliação, não existe informação que permita avaliar o BEA das espécies de aves marinhas.
|
À data da presente avaliação, não existe informação que permita avaliar o BEA das espécies de aves marinhas.
|
À data da presente avaliação, não existe informação que permita avaliar o BEA das espécies de aves marinhas.
|
À data da presente avaliação, não existe informação que permita avaliar o BEA das espécies de aves marinhas.
|
Assessments period |
||||||||||
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test TV |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Test results |
False |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |