# European Red List of Habitats Table

Habitat Description:
Broadleaved deciduous, non-riparian forests dominated by Alnus cordata, subendemic to Corsica (North-Eastern sectors of the island) and S-Italy (Campania, Basilicata and Calabria Regions). The dominant species is a relict from the Tertiary period and is also present in other areas, where it is considered not native. Biogeographically distributed on the Central-Mediterranean mountains, from the climatic point of view these forests develop preferentially between the hilly and the montane belts, occupying a transitional area between the deciduous oaks and the beech forests. From a geo-pedological point of view, they show a preference for siliceous substrata but can also be found on limestone. Alnus cordata tends to form forests, either pure or mixed with other deciduous species, such as Quercus cerris, Castanea sativa or, at higher altitudes, Fagus sylvatica. They tend to colonize steep slopes and sides of deep valleys. The Italian alder is a strong pioneer species with great affinity for mineral soils, and could largely expand after the drastic economic changes following the Second World War, when large agricultural areas were abandoned and left to natural evolution, especially at higher altitudes. These formations are characterized by very strong pace of growth in the juvenile stage, and quickly reach maturity (Bezzi et al. 1991). Unlike the other species of the genus Alnus, the Italian alder shuns soils where water stagnates for a long time, although it still shows a certain hygrophilous ecology. Regeneration occurs quickly and seedlings can grow fast after cutting or in clearings. Furthermore, Alnus cordata can play a prominent role in improving the soil, due to the presence of radical tubercles hosting microorganisms (Frankia alni) fixing the atmospheric nitrogen (Pirazzi 1984; Ducci & Tani, 2009).
These forest types often show a high environmental quality and host rare or endangered species.
Indicators of good quality:
â— Dominance of Alnus cordata
â— Presence of the distinctive woody associates and field layer
â— Presence of the field layer flora typical of the region
â— Uneven-aged canopy with signs of regeneration of woody dominants
â— Presence of a well-developed structure of the tree layer
â— Woodland permanent, not a successional stage; blocked dynamism due e.g. to the steep slope, where this forests represent the potential natural vegetation
Characteristic species:
Alnus cordata, Fagus sylvatica, Quercus cerris, Castanea sativa, Acer opalus subsp. obtusatum, Acer campestre, Crataegus monogyna, Rubus hirtus, Rubus ulmifolius, Malus sylvestris, Pyrus pyraster, Prunus spinosa, Clematis vitalba, Hedera helix, Cytisus villosus, Asperula taurina, Geranium versicolor, Geranium nodosum, Anemone apennina, Melittis albida, Festuca exaltata, Arisarum proboscideum, Pteridium aquilinum, Aquilegia vulgaris, Lamium flexuosum, Polystichum setiferum, Carex sylvatica, Mycelis muralis, Sanicula europea, Helleborus lividus subsp. corsicus, Primula vulgaris, Poa sylvicola, Fragaria vesca, Geum urbanum, Symphytum tuberosum, Geranium robertianum, Chaerophyllum temulum, Brachypodium sylvaticum, Viola alba subsp. dehnhardtii, Digitalis lutea subsp. australis, Potentilla micrantha, Crepis leontodontoides, Teucrium siculum, Stachys sylvatica, Circaea lutetiana, Salvia glutinosa, Rumex sanguineus.

Classification:
EUNIS:
G.1B Non-riverine alder woodland (= G1.B1 Alnus cordata woods)
EuroVeg Checklist:
Alnion incanae Pawlowski et al. 1928
Geranio striati-Fagion Gentile 1970
Lathyro veneti-Taxion baccatae Carni et Mucina 2013
Annex 1:
-
Emerald:
G1.13 Southern Alnus and Betula galleries
MAES-2:
Woodland and forest
IUCN:
1.4 Temperate Forest

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The habitat can not be considered as an outstanding example of the Mediterranean region, as it occurs very localized and represents very peculiar ecological conditions.

Map Description:
The map is rather complete. Data sources: Art17, LIT.

Trends in Quantity:
There are no data available on trends; in Southern Italy the habitat is assumed to be stable.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
The habitat is known only from Corsica and southern Italy, so 100% of its distribution is within the EU28.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat is characterized by a small natural range but there are no data that indicate regression in the last 50 years.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The dominant species Alnus cordata is considered to be a relict from the Tertiary period in small stands in Italy and Corse. The occurrences of the habitat are few, and it occurs in relatively small stands.

Pressures and Threats:
Major threats to this habitat type are forest and plantation management and use, grazing in woodland and - possibly - climate change effects.

Conservation and Management:
Currently no conservation and management approaches are reported. Grazing control is considered important in order to avoid a reduction of the regeneration of the characteristic species.

Conservation Status:
There is no correspondence with an Annex 1-type.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The dominant species (Alnus cordata) is a strong pioneer species and could largely expand after land abandonment if left to natural dynamic, especially at higher altitudes. These formations are characterized by very strong rate of growth especially in the juvenile stage, and quickly reach maturity. Regeneration occurs quickly and seedlings can grow fast after cutting or in clearings.

Summary:
This habitat comprises the peculiar, sub-endemic supramediterranean woodland dominated by Alnus cordata and limited to small patches in Southern Italy and in Corsica. This vigorous pioneer tends to colonize free-draining mineral soils on the steep slopes and sides of deep valleys, expanding rapidly with the drastic economic changes following the Second World War, when large agricultural areas were abandoned. As such, few conservation measures are necessary except to restrain inappropriate silviculture and control grazing.

References:
Bezzi A., Brandini P., Menguzzato G., Tabacchi G., 1991. I boschi puri e densi di ontano napoletano nel Cilento. Indagine per un loro inquadramento vegetazionale, selvicolturale e produttivo. Annali Ist. sper. assest. forestale e alpicoltura di Trento, Vol. XII (1989): 3-90. Grafiche Artigianelli, Trento.
Bonin G., 1967. A propos de la vègètation des forets de hetre dans le massif du Pollino (Calabre). Ann. Bot. (Roma), 28: 157-165.
Bonin G., Briane J.-P., Gamisans J., 1977. Quelques aspect des forets supraméditerranéennes et montagnardes de l’Appennin méridional. Ecol. Medit. 2 (1976): 101-122.
Conti F., Abbate G., Alessandrini A., Blasi C. (Eds.), 2005. An annotated checklist of the italian vascular flora. Palombi Editori, Roma.
Davies C.E., Moss D. & Hill M.O., 2004. EUNIS Habitat Classification, revised. Report to the European Topic Centre, European Environment Agency.
Ducci F., A. Tani, 2009. EUFORGEN Technical Guidelines for genetic conservation and use of Italian alder (Alnus cordata). Bioversity International, Rome, Italy. 6 pp.
Evans D., Roekaerts M., 2013. Interpretation Manual of the habitats targeted by Resolution No.4 (1996). Second draft. CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS. T-PVS/PA (2013) 10.

Criterion A Text:
There is no quantitative or even qualitative information on trends. The habitat is supposed to be stable, but this is not certain.

Criterion B Text:
The data for EOO and AOO are close to the thresholds for B1 and B2, respectively. However there is no information on threats or trends, so no category 'Near Threatened' can be assigned. The conclusion for B therefore is Data Deficient.

Criterion C/D Text:
No quantitative data are available to calculate “Extent affected” and the “Relative severity” for this habitat.

Synthesis:
The habitat is characterized by a small number of locations (AOO=67), but there is no indication of negative trends or threats. Alnus cordata is a pioneer and fast growing species which can recover after cutting. For southern Italy, without quantitative data, the habitat is considered to be stable, but no information is available for Corsica. Due to limited information, the habitat has been classified as Data Deficient.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
No subtypes have to be considered for this very restricted and narrowly defined habitat.

Contributors:
Type description: D. Gigante
Territorial data: D. Gigante
Working Group Forests: F. Attore, R-J. Bijlsma, M. Chytrý, P. Dimopoulos, B. Renaux, A. Ssymank, T. Tonteri, M. Valderrabano


Habitat Type Name:
H3.1a Boreal and arctic siliceous inland cliff

Habitat Description:
Siliceous (rich in quartz and silicate minerals such as mica or feldspar) rock walls and cliffs in the boreal and arctic biogeographical regions, excluding supralittoral cliffs adjacent to the sea with salt spray influence (habitat B3.1) as well as very wet, dripping vertical rocks (habitat H3.4). These siliceous cliffs in the North chiefly consist of granite, gneiss and other kinds of hard crystalline acid rock. Soft mica schist is also common. Volcanic rocks occur locally.
The vegetation consists of a limited number of vascular plants in rock crevices and on ledges, while epilithic bryophytes, lichens as well as micro-algae occur on dry or wet rock faces, overhangs and in all kinds of sheltered microsites. Although these rock types are all base-poor, they show marked variation in their chemical composition and can harbor hundreds of different lichens and bryophytes and a range of plant communities. For example, lichen communities on quartzite and diorite are composed largely of different species. The most base-poor rocks include sandstone and quartzite, followed by granites, gneisses, and granulites. Rocks with reduced acidity include phyllite, mica schist, gabbro, and diorite; they host species that are slightly more nutrient demanding. In the boreal zone, diabase and amphibolite represent more base-rich rock types that form transitions between base-poor and base-rich habitats (this type and H3.2a). However, in most cases these cliffs do not host remarkable calciphilous communities, like on limestone cliffs.
Usually, the highest diversity of species is found in cliffs with the highest geomorphological diversity. Especially lichen and bryophyte communities vary according to microhabitats like rock slopes, vertical and overhanging rock faces, cavities, shelves, and ledges, as well as crevices of different size or fissures on walls. For example, the most bare and sunny walls are dominated by crustose and foliose lichens and small cushion-forming bryophytes, whereas shady vertical surfaces are covered by mat- or cushion-forming bryophytes. The gloomiest cavities may harbor fan-like bryophytes (e.g. Neckera spp.), powdery lichens or algae. Crustose and foliose lichens are well represented with numerous genera; particularly species-rich are, e.g., Lecanora, Parmelia s.l., Rhizocarpon, Stereocaulon, and Umbilicaria. Among the mosses, numerous species of Grimmia, Racomitrium, Schistidium, Andreaea and many other genera occur. The vegetation of vascular plants is rather poor but small ferns (Asplenium spp.) may occur, except in the far north.
Specific plant communities can be recognized on Fe and Cu sulphide-rich rocks, where the specialized flora includes copper moss Mielichhoferia elongata and lichens that favour iron-containing rocks (e.g. Acarospora sinopica, Lecanora epanora, Lecidea silacea, Miriquidica atrofulva, Tremolecia atrata). Bird nesting cliffs (excl. coastal bird cliffs) have also a special species composition, as they gain extra nutrients from guano and host so-called ornithocoprophilous plants.
Boreal and arctic siliceous cliffs occur in Iceland, northern Scotland, the Shetland, Orkney and Faroe Island groups, Svalbard, Fennoscandia and the northern Baltic region, moreover in Greenland, northern Russia and circumpolar in North Siberia and North America. In the boreal lowlands, cliffs are usually small and low and located in forest environments, whereas in the Scandinavian Mountain range and in the arctic zone the most massive cliffs occur on open mountain slopes and may be hundreds of meters high and kilometers long.
Indicators of good quality:
Boreal and arctic siliceous cliffs are of particular importance for cryptogams, in particular for lichen and bryophyte diversity. The biodiversity varies between regions, phytogeographic zones and altitudinal belts. The species diversity varies enormously also in entirely natural communities in cliff habitats. Usually, the smallest rock formations with monotonous microtopography and little variation in rock types show low diversity, whereas larger cliff complexes with heterogeneous geomorphology and varying rock types may represent local biodiversity hotspots. Therefore, low species diversity or absence of rare species should not as such be interpreted as an indicator of low habitat quality, unless it is caused by anthropogenic influence.
The following characteristics may be used as indicators for assessing trends in quality:
•    Occurrence of rare species of lichens, bryophytes and phytogeographically significant vascular plant taxa, 
•    Presence of sizable open exposed rock with species-rich bryophyte carpets and lichen crusts, and of different aspects of rock walls, different exposure to insolation, moisture and rock structures such as overhangs, cavities, rock shelters, ledges
•    Presence of indicators of good air quality, e.g. usneoid lichens or Lobaria spp.
•    Contact with natural habitats such as screes, boulder fields, and pioneer grasslands 
•    Absence of quarrying and control structures 
•    Absence of garbage dumping and anthropogenic nutrient input from above the cliff
•    Absence of rock climbing facilities
•    Absence of alien species
Characteristic species:
Flora:
Vascular plants: Alchemilla alpina, Arabidopsis thaliana, Arenaria norvegica (common in Iceland), Asplenium septentrionale, A. trichomanes, Astragalus alpinus, Campanula rotundifolia, Cardaminopsis petraea (Iceland), Cerastium alpinum, Cystopteris fragilis, Draba incana, D. norvegica, Epilobium collinum, Festuca ovina, Geranium robertianum, Gymnocarpium drypteris, Hieracium schmidtii, Hylotelephium maximum, Moehringia trinervia, Phegopteris connectilis, Poa glauca, P. nemoralis, Polygonatum odoratum, Polypodium vulgare, Potentilla argentea, Rumex acetosella, Saxifraga cotyledon, Sedum spp., Silene rupestris, Solidago virgaurea subsp. minuta, Stellaria graminea, Veronica fruticans, Viola tricolor, Viscaria alpina, Viscaria vulgaris, Woodsia alpina, Woodsia ilvensis
Bryophytes: Amphidium spp., Anastrophyllum spp., Andreaea rothii, Andreaea rupestris, Barbilophozia spp., Bartramia spp., Brachythecium spp., Cnestrum schisti, Cynodontium spp., Dicranum scoparium, Ditrichum zonatum, Dryptodon patens, Grimmia affinis, Grimmia alpestris, Grimmia apiculata, Grimmia arenaria, Grimmia caespiticia, Grimmia curvata, Grimmia donniana, Grimmia elatior, Grimmia elongata, Grimmia funalis, Grimmia incurva, Grimmia muehlenbeckii, Grimmia ovalis, Grimmia torquata), Gymnomitrion concinnatum, Hedwigia ciliata, Homalia trichomanoides, Homalothecium sericeum, Hylocomium splendens, Hypnum spp., Isopterygium spp., Lophozia spp., Neckera spp., Orthodicranum montanum, Orthrotrichum spp., Paraleucobryum longifolium, Plagiomnium cuspidatum, Plagiothecium spp., Pleurozium schreberi, Pohlia spp., Polytrichum spp., Pterigynandrum filiforme, Ptilidium ciliare, Racomitrium fasciculare, Racomitrium heterostichum, Racomitrium lanuginosum, Racomitrium microcarpon, Racomitrium sudeticum, Rhabdoweisia fugax, Sanionia uncinata, Schistidium spp., Ulota curvifolia, Tetralophozia setiformis
Lichens: Arctoparmelia spp., Aspicilia leucophyma, Aspicilia moroides, Aspicilia caesiocinerea, Catolechia wahlenbergii, Cornicularia normoerica, Ephebe lanata, Haematomma ochroleucum, Lecanora bicincta, Lecanora cenisia, Lecanora frustulosa, Lecanora intricata, Lecanora nephaea, Lecanora polytropa, Lecanora reagens, Lecanora rupicola, Lecanora subcarnea, Lecanora swartzii, Lecidea spp., Lepraria latebrarum, Lepraria membranacea, Lepraria neglecta, Lithographa tesserata, Melanelia spp., Micarea intrusa, Ophioparma ventosa, Parmelia disjuncta, Parmelia incurva, Parmelia omphalodes, Parmelia panniformis, Parmelia saxatilis, Parmelia stygia, Phylliscum demangeonii, Placopsis gelida, Polychidium muscicola, Porpidia pseudomelinoides, Porpidia speirea, Porpidia superba, Porpidia tuberculosa, Protoparmelia badia, Pseudephebe minuscula, Pseudephebe pubescens, Ramalina capitata, Rhizocarpon alpicola, Rhizocarpon atroflavescens, Rhizocarpon badioatrum, Rhizocarpon caeruleoalbum, Rhizocarpon copelandii, Rhizocarpon distinctum, Rhizocarpon eupetraeum, Rhizocarpon geographicum, Rhizocarpon hochstetteri, Rhizocarpon obscuratum, Rhizocarpon oederi, Rhizocarpon polycarpum, Rhizocarpon umbilicatum, Stereocaulon dactylophyllum, Stereocaulon leucophaeopsis, Stereocaulon pileatum, Thelidium aeneovinosum, Trapelia coarctata, Trapelia involuta, Tremolecia atrata, Umbilicaria cinereorufescens, Umbilicaria cylindrica, Umbilicaria crustulosa, Umbilicaria hirsuta, Umbilicaria leiocarpa, Umbilicaria nylanderiana, Umbilicaria polyphylla, Umbilicaria polyrrhiza, Umbilicaria torrefacta, Umbilicaria vellea

Classification:
EUNIS:
H3.1 Acid siliceous inland cliffs
EuroVegChecklist:
Asplenion septentrionalis Gams in Oberd. 1938
Saxifragion cotyledonis Nordhagen ex Mucina et Chytrý in Mucina et al. 2014
Annex 1:
8220 Siliceous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation
Emerald:
H3.1 Acid siliceous inland cliffs
MAES-2:
Sparsely vegetated land
IUCN:
6. Rocky areas

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
As it is described, this habitat type occurs almost exclusively in the Boreal region, excepting northern Scotland which is part of the Atlantic region.

Map Description:
The map is rather complete for the EU28, but lacks data for Iceland, Norway. The high density of grid-cells in Finland is probably due to a sampling method different from other countries (a geology-based method vs. habitat survey) and has been indicated as potential distribution. This habitat type is distributed throughout Finland but the reported area is smaller than in Sweden.

Comment EU28:
Data only for Finland (open cliffs and sparsely wooded rocks outcrops)

Comment EU28+:
Data only for Finland (open cliffs and sparsely wooded rocks outcrops)

Trends in Quantity:
No other country than Finland has reported data for this habitat type. Finland has reported a very small decline (in southern Finland) after destruction of some occurrences e.g. due to quarrying or various construction projects, but the proportion of the area destroyed is very small. Based on information from the Norwegian Red List of Ecosystems, it is nevertheless possible to extrapolate Finnish data to Norway.

Trends in Quality:
No other country than Finland has reported data for this habitat type. Finland has indicated a slight decrease in quality (30% severity) over an extent of about 5 to 10%. Species communities on shady cliffs in forest environments have suffered from forestry, e.g. clear-cutting that changes microclimate totally in cliff habitats. Some rock outcrops may also have become more vegetated in southern Finland due to the lack of forest fires, cessation of grazing, air-borne nitrogen deposit, etc. and some, on the other hand, show signs of intensive recreational use (trampling).  Based on information from the Norwegian Red List of Ecosystems, it is nevertheless possible to extrapolate Finnish data to Norway.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
A third (approximately 33%). Following the description, this habitat type is found across the entire boreal zone in the northern hemisphere. We assume a reasonable proportion to be located in the EU28 because there are many mountainous areas.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat is widespread in the boreal region and has not suffered from a recent significant decrease.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat type occurs naturally only on small spots. It does have an intrinsically restricted area.

Pressures and Threats:
The estimation of pressures and threats is based on Finnish data only: forestry clearance affects microclimate, mines lead to the destruction of the habitat and dispersed habitation affects the habitat quality, nitrogen-input changes vegetation density and floristic composition, outdoor sports and leisure activities, recreational activities disturb the habitat in different ways. All pressures are of low importance in general.

Conservation and Management:
As a highly natural habitat, this habitat type requires no specific management regarding its maintenance but to leave it undisturbed and undestroyed. Conservation is then effective when free evolution is possible, like within protected areas. ‘Manage landscape features’ refers to the need to better protect this kind of habitats with a high degree of naturalness in land-use planning, especially when no specific regulation can be applied (no protected species or habitat, outside a protected area, outside a Natura 2000 site).

Conservation Status:
Annex 1 types:
8220: ALP FV, ATL XX, BOR FV, CON U1

Summary:
These are siliceous rock faces and cliffs, mostly of hard crystalline rocks, soft mica schist and some volcanics, in the boreal and arctic biogeographical regions, though not including sea cliffs with salt spray influence or very wet, dripping vertical rock faces. The vegetation consists of a limited vascular flora growing in crevices and on ledges, with epilithic bryophytes, lichens as well as micro-algae on rock faces, overhangs and in all kinds of sheltered microsites. Although the rock types are all base-poor, they show marked variation in their chemical composition and stratigraphy and can harbor a great diversity of vascular plants and cryptogams in many different assemblages, disposed in many microhabitats. The habitat has been destroyed in some places and quality is affected by logging of neighbouring slopes (which brings a different microclimate) and by atmospheric nitrogen deposits (which increase the density of vegetation).

References:
Dierssen, K. 1996. Vegetation Nordeuropas. Ulmer, Stuttgart.
Lindgaard, A. and Henriksen, S. (eds.) 2011. Norwegian Red List for Ecosystems and Habitat types. Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre, Trondheim.

Criterion A Text:
Based on information from the Norwegian Red List of Ecosystems (LC status), it is possible to extrapolate Finnish data to Norway. Despite missing data from Sweden, we consider it as a faithful figure for the Boreal region.

Criterion B Text:
EOO and AOO largely exceed the thresholds for criterion B.

Criterion C/D Text:
Based on information from the Norwegian Red List of Ecosystems (LC status), it is possible to extrapolate Finnish data to Norway. Despite missing data from Sweden, we consider it as a faithful figure for the Boreal region.

Synthesis:
Despite missing territorial data from Norway and Sweden, this habitat type is labelled as Least Concern (LC), because Finnish data are of very good quality and it is possible to extrapolate them to Norway, based on information from the Norwegian Red List of Ecosystem (Least Concern status).

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
Finnish experts indicate that rock outcrops once sculpted by ice (i.e. glaciated rocks, "roches moutonnées") have an international importance (international responsibility of Finland).

Contributors:
Habitat definition: T. Kontula & E. Bergmeier
Territorial data: T. Kontula
Working Group Sparsely Vegetated Habitats: F. Essl, G. Giusso Del Galdo, A. Mikolajczak, D. Paternoster, M. ValachoviÄ, M. Valderrabano


Habitat Type Name:
F3.1a Lowland to montane temperate and submediterranean Juniperus scrub

Habitat Description:
Temperate and submediterranean scrubs, up to 7-8 m, with Juniperus communis subsp. communis are widespread in the lowland and low mountain regions of Europe, where these communities occur on nutrient poor, calcareous soils as well as on deep sandy soils. The edaphic conditions range from dry to rather moist. The first group is related to grasslands of the class Festuco-Brometea, the second one to heathlands of the class Calluno-Ulicetea. Apart from the dominant Juniperus communis, these vegetation types have hardly any species in common. On calcareous sediments, the grasses Brachypodium pinnatum and/or Bromus erectus are codominant, accompanied by a wide variety of species, including Anthyllis vulneraria, Carlina vulgaris, Centaurea scabiosa, Dianthus carthusianorum, Euphorbia cyparissias, Sanguisorba minor and Scabiosa columbaria. On sandy soils, Calluna vulgaris, Genista pilosa and Genista anglica are prominent dwarf-shrubs in the surrounding vegetation, together with Deschampsia flexuosa, Carex pilulifera, Festuca filiformis and a wide variety of mosses and lichens. The usual woody associates, particularly on neutral and calcareous soils, are Rosa canina, Crataegus monogyna, Prunus spinosa, Cornus sanguinea and Rubus plicatus. The junipers show a striking variety in growth forms, ranging from upright to prostrate, quite often occurring in mixed populations.
This habitat type often occurs in patchy mosaics with grasslands and heathlands. As such, these are part of old, pastoral landscapes, which require a specific management regime of extensive grazing. When abandoned and neglected, the succession will finally lead to woodland, where Juniperus communis may persist for a long time in the understory. Shrubs and small trees of Juniperus communis can become rather old, up to 200 years, but on the long term regeneration is a prerequisite, which is not always the case. Lack of favorable conditions for germination as well as a high grazing pressure by rabbits on juvenile plants may hinder rejuvenation. Of particular importance is the occurence of a large number of rare and endangered fungi.
Not included in F3.1a are the Juniperus communis formations of the subalpine and alpine regions of high mountains nor the Pannonic juniper-poplar steppe woods. The first group is assigned to Red List type F2.2b, the second group is classified under Red List type G1.7a.
Indicators of good quality:
Mosaic of juniper shrubs with grasslands or heathland
Variety of growth forms of different age, including juvenile plants
Presence of rare fungi
Extensive grazing regime which guarantees the complex landscape settings and prohibits a complete succesion towards woodland

Characteristic species:
Vascular plants: Juniperus communis
Birds: Anthus campestris, Caprimulgus europaeus, Lullula arborea, Oenanthe oenanthe, Sylvia borin, Sylvia curruca
Insects: Phymatodes glabratus (beetle), Thera juniperata (butterfly), Gonocerus juniperi (bug).

Classification:
EUNIS:
F3.1 Temperate thickets and scrub
Annex 1:
5130 Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands
EuroVegChecklist:
Brachypodio pinnati-Juniperion communis Mucina in Mucina et al. 2013
Vaccinio-Juniperion communis Passarge in Passarge et G. Hofmann 1968 
Emerald:
F3.16 Juniperus communis scrub
MAES-2:
Heathland and shrub
IUCN:
3.4 Temperate shrubland

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The habitat type is widespread in the EU28 with major areas in the Atlantic and Continental biogeographic region, but extending into the Boreal, Alpine and (sub)Mediterranean biogeographic regions, including parts of EU28+. The habitat probably also occurs outside the EU.

Map Description:
The map is rather complete, with some possible gaps in the Balkan and unclear boundaries to F2.2c. Data: Art17, EVA.

Trends in Quantity:
On average the extent of the habitat has decreased. The decrease is relatively low, on average -9% for the EU28 and -7% for the EU28+. These values are based on relatively good data, covering more than 80% of the range of the habitat. Only four countries provided data on long time historical loss of extent, but they all reported a strong decrease in area: Denmark (80%), Germany (50-70%), Hungary (50-90%), Netherlands (66%). However, in some of the southern countries (Italy) the habitat at present is expanding, due to abandonment of traditional management.

Trends in Quality:
A reduction of quality affects on average about 14% of the area, both for EU28 and for EU28+. The severity of degradation in this affected part of the area is however relatively high (>40%). A variety of pressures have been reported: changes in species composition, eutrophication, fire, succession, cutting, overgrazing, abandonment, and urbanisation.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
About 90% of the habitat lies within Europe and about 70% in the EU28.

Justification of Restricted Area:
Juniperus communis subsp. communis has a wide distribution over Europe, and so does the scrub that is built up by this species. Stands can have various sizes, from one to many hectares.

Pressures and Threats:
A variety of pressures have been reported: changes in species composition, eutrophication, fire, succession, cutting, overgrazing, abandonment, and urbanisation. The main causes seem to be the decline of traditional land use and eutrophication. The habitat is part of old, pastoral landscapes, which require a specific management regime of extensive grazing. As a result of economic developments, there is a general trend of abandonment in marginal areas of Europe, leading to succession and final loss of the habitat. Also there is an increase of intensive husbandry in more densely populated areas including conversion of the habitat into intensive arable land or heavily fertilized grasslands. Rejuvenation of Juniperus communis subsp. communis is often difficult and this can be a limiting factor for the future. Since the early 20th century Juniperus communis declined all over North-West Europe except Scandinavia. This was caused by land reclamation of nature areas. In Slovenia and Bosnia & Herzegovina the habitat increased in extent, probably as a result of extensification, but in the long run without adequate management, it is assumed that succession will lead to a decline. Finally, Juniper is vulnerable for fire and bioaccumulation will raise fire hazards, especially in submediterranean areas.

Conservation and Management:
In most situation, both on baserich and acidic soils, an extensive grazing regime seems the best management to keep the shrubland open, preserve the species diversity and to prevent succession towards forest. Where problems exist with rejuvenation of Juniperus communis subsp. communis, research is needed on the best restoration strategies, which may include restoring of open sites for seedling by short periods of overgrazing or even by fire. Where sites are still under pressure of building and urbanisation, establishment of protected areas is required.

Conservation Status:
Annex I:
5130: ALP U1, ATL U1, BOR XX, CON U1, MED FV, PAN U1

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Natural rejuvenation of the habitat is often difficult, depending on the circumstances. More research may be necessary, particularly in NW Europe and various questions should be examined (Knol & Nijhoff 2004). It is difficult to estimate how long it will take the habitat to recover. Specimens of Juniperus communis subsp. communis can become rather old, up to 200 years, but on the long term regeneration is a prerequisite, which is not always the case.

Summary:
This habitat of temperate and submediterranean scrub dominated by Juniperus communis subsp. communis is widespread through the lowlands and montane belt of Europe  It occurs on both nutrient poor, calcareous soils where the associated flora has much in common with calcicolous grasslands, and deep sandy more acidic soils, where the vegetation is heathy. The habitat is part of old, pastoral landscapes needing extensive grazing and has suffered much from abandonment or the eutrophication that comes with agricultural improvement. Natural recovery of the habitat seems quite difficult.

References:
Barkman, J.J., 1985: Geographical variation in associations of juniper scrub in the central European plain. Vegetatio 59: 67-71.
Rejmanek, M. & Rosen, E. (1988). The effects of colonizing shrubs (Juniperus communis and Potentilla fruticosa) on species richness in the grasslands of Stora Alvaret, Öland (Sweden). Acta Phytogeogr. Suec. 76: 67-72.
Cooper, F., Stone, R.E., McEvoy, P., Wilkins, T. & Reid, N. (2012). The conservation status of juniper formations in Ireland. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 63 National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland.

Criterion A Text:
The average assessment of trends resulted in a relatively small negative trend over Europe, both for EU28 and EU28+, leading to the conclusion Least Concern. All countries which provided data on long (> 50 years) historical loss of extent, reported a sharp decrease (Denmark -80%, Germany -50/70%, Hungary -50/90%, Netherlands -66%). The trend in these few countries would lead to the Red List category Vulnerable (VU), but in total these countries cover only 6% of the total area. As it is likely that these long-term trends are not representative for some southern countries, the long-term data is considered insufficient for assessing the criterion A3.

Criterion B Text:
The EOO and AOO and the number of locations are much larger than the thresholds for criterion B. The conclusion for criterion B therefore is Least Concern.

Criterion C/D Text:
On average in the last about 50 years about 14% of the remaining area in Europe (EU28/EU28+) is negatively affected, with a severity of about 41%. These figures lead to the conclusion Least Concern. The type of quality loss refers both to biotic and abiotic factors and indicators, therefore criterion C and D have not been assessed separately.

Synthesis:
All provided data lead to the conclusion that the habitat qualifies as Least Concern (LC) for both trends in quantity and trends in quality. For both indiactors there is a slight negative trend, but these are relatively far from the threshold for Vulnerable. Only the provided data for long term historical trends would lead to the catagory Vulnerable (VU), but there is limited data on this indicator, covering less than 10% of the area of the type, and it is likely that these data are not representative for the complete range.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
A main division for the habitat would be in a subtype on acidic soils, and one on calcareous soils. These subtypes have very few species in common, except for the shrub Juniperus communis subsp. communis itself. It is unknown whether

Contributors:
Habitat definition: J. Schaminée
Territorial data: L. Wibail, D. Paelinckx, C. Gussev, Z. Škvorc, M. Chytrý, A. Mikolajczak, A. Ssymank, P. Finck, U. Raths, U. Riecken, G. Király, P. Perrin, S. Armiraglio, S. Assini, G. Buffa, S. Rusina, V. RašomaviÄius, J. Janssen, J. Capelo, D. Espírito-Santo, J. Šibík, A. ÄŒarni, N. Juvan, K.J. Kirby, R. Delarze, V. Stupar
Working Group Heathland & Scrub: M. Aronsson, F. Bioret, C. Bita-Nicolae, J. Capelo, A. ÄŒarni, P. Dimopoulos, J. Janssen, J. Loidi


Habitat Description:
Tall-sedge base-rich fens are dominated by the tall to medium-tall graminoids Cladium mariscus, Juncus subnodulosus, Schoenus ferrugineus (in subcontinental areas) and S. nigricans (in Atlantic and Mediterranean areas). In some stands also Phragmites australis occurs, but it does not form dense stands. Small sedges and short-growing herbs also occur in places, but their number and abundance are smaller here than in small-sedge fens. Stands with Cladium mariscus can be very dense and species-poor.
These fens typically occur on flat landforms in lowlands and submontane areas near springs with base-rich water, especially where the bedrock is formed of limestone, chalk or marl. They are generally wetter than the other types of base-rich fens and their water table is high also in summer. In places, long-term inundation of the soil surface can result in the occurrence of muddy patches with sparse vegetation after draw-down, which are microhabitats of Drosera anglica and the moss Scorpidium scorpioides.
Tall-sedge base-rich fens occur across the entire European continent, but they are considerably more common in the Atlantic and boreal regions and in the lowland areas of Central Europe, where they are the main type of base-rich fens.
Based on the palaeoecological evidence, tall-sedge base-rich fens were more common in the Late Pleistocene and early Holocene than today in non-glaciated parts of Europe, but they changed into Sphagnum fens after landscape acidification or retreated as a result of terrestrialisation of wetlands in the course of natural succession. In the last two centuries many of these fens have been destroyed due to artificial drainage. Some of these fens are grazed or occasionally cut, but at many sites their vegetation is natural and does not depend on management.
Indicators of good quality:
Stable hydrological regime
Absence of overgrazing
No encroachment of trees or shrubs
No spread of meadow or reed species

Characteristic species:
Flora: Vascular plants: Carex davalliana, Carex lasiocarpa, Drosera anglica, Epipactis palustris, Eriophorum latifolium, Eriophorum angustifolium, Eupatorium cannabinum, Hydrocotyle vulgaris, Juncus subnodulosus, Lythrum salicaria, Mentha aquatica, Menyanthes trifoliata, Molinia caerulea, Parnassia palustris, Phragmites australis, Salix cinerea, Salix repens agg., Schoenus ferrugineus, Schoenus nigricans
Mosses: Bryum pseudotriquetrum, Palustriella commutata, Plagiomnium affine agg., Scorpidium scorpioides

Classification:
EUNIS:
D4.1 Rich fens, including eutrophic tall-herb fens and calcareous flushes and soaks
EuroVegChecklist:
Caricion davallianae Klika 1934
Saxifrago-Tomentypnion Lapshina 2010
Sphagno-Tomentypnion Dahl 1956 (marginally)
Annex I:
7210 Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae
Emerald:
D4.1 Rich fens, including eutrophic tall-herb fens and calcareous flushes and soaks
MAES-2:
Wetlands
IUCN:
5.4.  Bogs, Marshes, Swamps, Fens, Peatlands

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat is typical of the lowlands of northeastern Continental and Boreal Europe.

Map Description:
The habitat occurs in Ireland, Scandinavia and northern Russia, depending on bedrock (which must have at least slight calcium content) and topography (these are topogenic fens in most cases). Large areas also occur in the lowlands of Poland, Germany, the Baltic states and The Netherlands, where concentration of this habitat may be even higher than in Scandinavia. Locally it occurs also in mountain regions of Central Europe, especially the Alps, and rarely also in southern Europe. The map is rather complete for EU28, but incomplete for Norway and the Balkan countries. Data: Art17, EVA, GBIF.

Trends in Quantity:
During recent decades, most of these fens have disappeared from the agricultural landscapes of Central and Southern Europe, especially because of drainage and peat harvesting. In boreal Europe, these fens are sometimes declining because of succession towards poor fens. Mowing partially counteract effects of drainage and nutrient-triggered succession, so management decline in agricultural landscapes also contributes to loss of this habitat. Generally however, at a European scale, problems with habitat loss are more easily remedied for this habitat than for D4.1a Short-sedge fens.

Trends in Quality:
Quality is still declinining, even in some protected landscapes. Loss of habitat specialists have been repeatedly reported even from protected areas with active management and it is difficult to remedy it. Habitat is undergoing succession towards sphganum-dominated fens poorer in habitats specialists, reed beds or alder and willow carrs.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
Loss is still ongoing, especially in Central and Southern Europe. This habitat could be rather widespread in lowlands, so recent rarity may be largely a product of landscape transformations since Middle Ages.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The total worldwide area is unknown.  The habitat may cover square kilometres in Boreal and Continental lowland landscapes, but its occurrence is local, requiring ceratin levels of calcium (to prevent the development of poor fens), low nutrie

Pressures and Threats:
The main threats are connected with increasing nutrient input (especially phosphorus) and drainage. Increasing nutrient input (through diffuse groundwater pollution especially) and lowering of the water table leads to succession towards poor or intermediate fens, reed beds (Phragmites australis) or tall sedge or tall willow stands. In agricultural regions with improved nutrient availability, succession has been rapid and it is difficult to overcome it only by simple measures. The same succession has been observed also in some regions of Scandinavia, because of climate change and nitrogen deposition. Mowing and other disturbances may reverse undesired successional pathways, but machine-mowing may lead to loss of diversity as well. Overgrazing may also be detrimental. In the past, many of these fens have been harvested for peat and destroyed in most cases, especially in the one-time communist block.

Conservation and Management:
Desirable conservation measures include:
No intervention - in well waterlogged, nutrient-poor fens, especially in high-boreal and some mountain regions.
Mowing - in fens enriched in nutrients or with a lowered water level, in fens invaded by Phragmites, Calamagrostis, Filipendula or tall sedges and willows. 
Artificial disturbances - if acidicole, late-successional Sphagnum species invade, disturbances without nutrient input (e.g., removal of expanding peatmosses) may be applied to support original brown-moss vegetation.
Creating buffer zones filtering nutrients and hydrological buffer zones.
Extensive restoration measures (blocking drainage channels, sod removal, planting Pedicularis palustris as a hemiparasite to supress reed and tall sedges) in heavily damaged fens.

Conservation Status:
Annex I:
7210: ALP U1, ATL U2, BOR FV, CON U1, MED U1, PAN FV

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Naturally only if habitat specialists have survived at the site, nutrient availability is not increased and the water regime is unaffected.
Through intervention restoration is extremely difficult as demonstrated by several studies, especially because of problems with nutrient oversupply and iron toxicity.

Summary:
These tall-sedge fens are limited to flat landforms where base-rich, nutrient-poor ground waters from springs and seepage lines keep the surface very wet, even in summer. They occur throughout Europe, particularly in the Atlantic and central European lowlands, becoming transitional in species composition northwards to quaking calcareous fens, though sometimes covering large areas in Fennoscandia. An abundance of medium to tall graminoids and tall herbs is characteristic, along with a patchier tier of low plants, and a ground carpet of rich fen bryophytes. Succession towards poor and intermediate fens, reed beds, willow shrubs and tall sedge stands has been observed as a consequence of increasing nutrient availability and hydrological amelioration which are major threats, particularly where the habitat survives within intensive agricultural areas. In some regions its further existence depends on conservation management and, though these fens are slightly more readily restorable than D4.1a Short-sedge fens, they are still hard to recover.

References:
Cusell, C., Kooijman, A., Fernandez, F., van Wirdum, G., Geurts, J. J., van Loon, E. E., Kalbitz, K. and Lamers, L. P. 2014. Filtering fens: Mechanisms explaining phosphorus-limited hotspots of biodiversity in wetlands adjacent to heavily fertilized areas. Science of the Total Environment 481: 129-141.
Decleer, K., Bonte, D. and Van Diggelen, R. 2013. The hemiparasite Pedicularis palustris: ‘Ecosystem engineer’ for fen-meadow restoration. Journal for Nature Conservation 21(2): 65-71.
Hájek, M., Horsák, M., Hájková, P. and DítÄ›, D. 2006. Habitat diversity of central European fens in relation to environmental gradients and an effort to standardise fen terminology in ecological studies. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 8(2): 97-114.
Hájek, M., Jiroušek, M., Navrátilová, J., Horodyská, E., Peterka, T., Plesková, Z., Navrátil, J., Hájková, P. and Hájek, T. 2015. Changes in the moss layer in Czech fens indicate early succession triggered by nutrient enrichment. Preslia 87: 279-301.
Kotowski, W., JabÅ‚oÅ„ska, E. and Bartoszuk, H. 2013. Conservation management in fens: Do large tracked mowers impact functional plant diversity? Biological conservation 167: 292-297.
Middleton, B. A., Holsten, B. and Diggelen, R. 2006. Biodiversity management of fens and fen meadows by grazing, cutting and burning. Applied Vegetation Science 9(2): 307-316.

Criterion A Text:
Declines of 43% (recent trend, EU28) and 50% (historical trend, EU28) are based on estimations of territorial experts, but without including declines in Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Finland, Latvia, Romania and United Kingdom where no reliable trend data ara available. If estimation based on similar countries (in terms of land use and environmental conditions) is applied, the total decline is about 53%, fitting already the EN category. When the same simulation is used for historical trend, historical decline will reach ca 56% (EU28), fitting the VU category.
The overall assessment is hence the EN category, but this value is achieved by expert imputation of missing values by assessors. These imputations however seem robust. The most important countries in the analysis are Sweden, Estonia, Ireland, Spain and Poland (in terms of extent) and The Netherlands (in terms of percentage decline). For Poland, Ireland and The Netherlands, full data were provided. We imputed a decline 20% for Sweden, as for D4.1a Short-sedge fens, considering that the causes of decline are the same in this country (drainage, atmospheric deposition, climate change). An overall decline of more than 50% at the European scale will then appear, if decline in Estonia exceeds 33%. Although tall-sedge fens are better preserved than D4.1a Short-sedge fens in that country (with a reported 80% decline), the value above 33% is very probable, considering extensive drainage and fen harvesting during previous Communist times, especially in northern Estonia. This may be at least comparable with Poland, reporting 35% of area loss; Lithuania (ex-USSR country as well) is reporting 90% loss.

Criterion C/D Text:
The following values are based on territorial data provided by local experts: 30% of extent affected by severity 44% for the EU28. There is, however, no complete data for 14 countries, including Ireland - that reported exceptionally large areas of the habitat with moderate severity of degradation, but not indicating the extent of degradation - and Spain, reporting rather large areas of the habitat and high level of severity, but again without extent. No data comes from Sweden where large areas are also reported. When missing values are imputed based on similarities in land use and climate among countries, 30% extent will stay, but severity will increase up to 60%. All these values fit the NT category.

Criterion E Text:
There is no quantitative analysis available that estimates the probability of collapse of this habitat type. But recent studies indicate ongoing deterioration.

Synthesis:
The resulting category Endangered (EN) is indicated by recent area loss (A1) after data simulation (described in the assessment) which gives a realistic loss of more than 50% at the European scale. The threshold for EN category was however exceeded only slightly, and other categories suggest rather the VU or NT category. Obviously, tall-sedge fens are somewhat less threatened than D4.1a Short-sedge fens and the VU category would mirror this difference. On the other hand, placing them into the same EN category makes sense, considering still continuing habitat deterioration, especially in agricultural landscapes of Central, Western and Southern Europe.

Contributors:
Type description: M. Chytrý
Territorial data: E. Agrillo, A. Alegro, S. Armiraglio, S. Assini, F. Attorre, L. AuniÅ†a, Z. Barina, C. Bita-Nicolae, G. Buffa, L. Casella, A. ÄŒarni, R. Delarze, I. Diack, P. Dimopoulos, P. Finck, C. Giancola, D. Gigante, M. Hájek, B. Hamill, J. Janssen, P. Jones, N. Juvan, Z. KÄ…cki, T. Kontula, E. Leibak, A. Lyngstad, V. Matevski, A. Mikolajczak, Ä. MilanoviÄ‡, A. Moen, J.A. Molina, Z. Molnár, B. Nygaard, F. O'Neill, D.-I. Øien, J. Paal, D. Paelinckx, D. Paternoster, G. Pezzi, V. RašomaviÄius, U. Raths, U. Riecken, A. Ssymank, J. Šibík, Å½. Škvorc, R. Tzonev, D. Viciani, E. Weeda
Help with data processing: Hettenbergerová, E.
Working Group Mires & bogs: C. Bita-Nicolae, M. Hájek, F. Jansen, T. Tahvanainen


Habitat Type Name:
C1.7 Permanent lake of glaciers and ice sheets

Habitat Description:
Glacier lakes are formed as a consequence of melting of a glacier or icesheet, typically bordering to melting glaciers. In some cases these waterbodies can occur under the glacier. Glacier lakes are formed in depressions or crevices filled by melting water. In areas without depressions melting water runs as subglacial brook or river, and later discharges to alpine brooks or rivers (type C2.2a, and C.3.5d). Glacier lakes are often dammed by a rock threshold or a moraine ridge. If water volume increases, the lake can outburst through the damming.
Permanent or almost permanent ice formations are characteristics of glacier lakes, constituting of continuous ice sheets that may cover the entire surface for all the year or recede to part of the lake during summer, being accompanied or replaced by floating ice blocks. They may locally, seasonally or permanently, extend to the whole depth of the lake. Glacier lakes are mainly abiotic environments. Benthic and planktonic microalgae form ultraoligotrophic communities consisting of cold-adapted species; usually lakes are without any higher vegetation. If high mountain lakes or brooks are nearby, some aquatic mosses, macroalgae and macroinvertebrates may invade glacier lakes. In some cases also fish and waterfowl spreads to glacier lakes, particularly in water bodies on lower elevation or in coastal areas. A good example is the Jökulsárlón glacier lagoon in Iceland where fishes drift in from the sea along with the tides. Glacier lakes are also in contact with various other arctic and alpine habitats, usually unvegetated or with very sparse vegetation. Typical adjacent habitats are rocks, screes, boulder and gravel fields, moraine ridges or sandur-formations. Permanent glacier lakes occur in Europe only in a few countries, a majority of them in Iceland and Norway, Because of the small size of glaciers in the Alps the habitat is very rare there.
Water bodies can also be formed under the glacier. A special type of these water bodies occurs in Iceland where large glaciers (particularly Vatnajökull) lie above active volcanoes. Volcanic activity can melt large quantities of water under the ice, resulting in large-scale outburst of melting water with mud, gravel and stone. Several glacier lake outburst floods (GLOFs) are known from Iceland during the last centuries. An example is the outburst of the volcano Grimsvötn, situated under the Vatnajökull ice cap, in the 1990s. Also Myrdalsjökull is famous for these catastrophic events, called jökulhlaup in Icelandic.
Indicators of good quality:
Long-term stable hydrology, reflected in a balance between accumulation of ice and melting of the glacier

Characteristic species:
Benthic and planktonic algae: mostly cyanoprokaryotes (Nostoc spp., Lyngbya, Oscillatoria spp., Leptolyngbya, Planktothrix rubescens, Tolypothrix spp., ), diatoms (Achnanthes, Cyclotella, Cymbella, Pinnularia), and green algae (Botryococcus braunii, Mougeotia, Closterium). Mesotaenium berggrenii and Chlamydomonas nivalis, belonging to a community of ice and snow algae, can occur in melted snow and icy slush in glacier lakes.

Classification:
EUNIS:
C1.7 Permanent lake ice
EuroVegChecklist:
Mesotaenion berggrenii Bültmann et Takeuchi in Bültmann et al. 2014
Annex 1:
--
Emerald :
--
MAES:
Sparsely vegetated land
IUCN:
5.11.  Alpine Wetlands [includes temporary waters from snowmelt]

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Glaciers and glacier lakes are restricted to alpine and arctic regions.

Map Description:
There is no detailed distribution data available. Therefore the distribution of glaciers is used as a potential (maximum) distribution.

Trends in Quantity:
Glaciers in the Alps have declined during the last centuries. In Norway glaciers have been retreating for the past 200 years. That may indicate also a decline in the number of glacier lakes in the longer term. However, quantitative data on recent or future trends are unknown.

Trends in Quality:
Human interference has increased during last decades (atmospheric pollution, recreation acitivities, raising temperatures). The effects of these influences on the biota and functioning of the Ice Lakes are poorly known.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
<5%. Glacier lakes are extremely rare in the EU28. Most occurrences in Europe are situated in Iceland and Norway, but even their share of the world´s glacier lake area is not high.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
In Europe not, but within the EU28 the range is small and the area declining.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat is very scattered and occurs only in areas with glaciers or icesheets,a nd in most cases in small areas.

Pressures and Threats:
The recession of glaciers has decreased number of glacier lakes, and this is expected to continue in the future. Melting of glaciers can temporarily increase number of water bodies, but in the longer-term decrease is clear. Subglacial water bodies in Iceland are determined by volcanism. In the Alps and in mainland of Europe glacier lakes are impacted by air pollutants, and human recreational activities.

Conservation and Management:
In the longer term survival of glacier lakes is dependent on the existence of glaciers. That requires mitigation of effects of climate change already in the near future. Input of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is the main driver in the climate change, therefore mitigation of these gases is essential.

Conservation Status:
Glacier lakes do not correspond with any Annex I type.

Summary:
Permanent or near-permanent ice-covered lakes can occur in association with larger glaciers and ice sheets at high latitudes or altitudes in Iceland and Norway (including Svalbard), very rarely in the Alps. They develop in situations where there is melting within or on the surface of the ice, accumulating in cavities, depressions and crevices or on the edge of ice sheets, where they can be dammed by moraine. Ice blocks can occur and lakes may refreeze to some extent. They are characteristically without any higher vegetation or animals, but can have ultra-oligotrophic communities of cold-adapted microalgae most of them. If high mountain lakes or brooks are nearby, some aquatic mosses, macroalgae and macroinvertebrates may invade and in some cases also fish and waterfowl, particularly at lower elevation or in coastal areas. At irregular intervals volcanic eruptions beneath ice sheets in Iceland can cause disastrous outburst floods.

References:
Haeberli, W., Paul, F. & Zemp, M. 2013. Vanishing Glaciers in the European Alps. Fate of Mountains Glaciers in the Anthropocene. Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Scripta Varia 118: 1-9.
Hagen, J.O., Kohler, J., Melvold, K. & Winther, J-G. 2003. Glaciers in Svalbard: mass balance, runoff and freshwater flux. Polar Research 22(2): 145-159.
IPCC 2014. Fifth Assessment Report. WG II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press.
Remias, D., Holzinger, A. & Cornelius, L. 2009. Physiology, ultrastructure and habitat of the ice alga Mesotaenium berggrenii (Zygnemaphyceae, Chlorophyta) from glaciers in the European Alps. Phycologia 48: 302-312.
Reynolds, C. 2006. The Ecology of Phytoplankton. 552 pp. Cambridge.
The Free Wikipedia: Jökulsárlón (updated 21.11.2015), Vatnajökull (updated 1.12.2015).

Criterion A Text:
It is likely that the habitat has decreased in area within the EU28, because of a decline of glaciers due to climate change. We assume that the -30% decline indicated for Switzerland holds also for the other Alpine countries (Austria and maybe France and Italy), while for Sweden data are unknown. For the EU28+ the situation is more complex, with - besides Switzerland - fluctuating amounts in Iceland (due to volcanic catastrophes) and declining glaciers in Norway. The changes in Switzerland cannot be assumed to be representative for Norway and Iceland. As too little quantitative data are available, the change in quantity for the EU28+ is indicated as unknown.

Criterion B Text:
The habitat is very rare in the EU28 with no reliable data available, but an AOO estimated to be smaller than 50. The EOO of the EU28 is also small, but whether it is smaller than the threshold of 50000 km2 is unknown. For the EU28+ both AOO and EOO are much larger. There is a continuing decline going on in quantity (a) and a threatening process to cause continuing declines in the next 20 years (b).

Criterion C/D Text:
Both Austria and Switzerland indicated large areas (75-100%) that are slightly affected. The decline in quality relates mainly to the abiotic conditions. These figures are considered representative for the situation in the EU28 (with outside the Alps non or very few occurrences in Sweden). For the EU28+ no quantitative assessment of changes in quality can be done, due to data gaps for Norway and Iceland.

Synthesis:
Limited data were available for this habitat type. There were no territorial data from Iceland and Norway, the countries with most occurrences of the habitat in EU28+. For the EU28+ the habitat has been assessed as Data Deficient (DD) due to the lack of information. However, by assuming the quantitative data from Switzerland to be representative for the Alps and because of the few occurrences there, for the EU28 the habitat is assessed to be Vulnerable (VU) because of decline in area and quality, and a small distribution area in combination with threats and declines.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
Further studies are needed for this habitat type. Extreme circumstances, particularly in water bodies under the glaciers, can maintain interesting micro-organisms. At present it is unknown whether the Alpine examples differ from the Icelandic and Scand

Contributors:
Type description: H. Toivonen
Working Group Freshwater habitats: F. Landucci, G. Arts, J.A. Molina, B. Poulin
Territorial data: R. Delarze, D. Paternoster, M. Valachovic


Habitat Description:
Rockpools occur where the topography of the shore allows seawater to be retained within depressions in the bedrock producing 'pools' on the retreat of overwashing waves. Alternatively seawater might be circulated by the surge through channels in the rock. As rockpool communities are permanently submerged they are not directly affected by height on the shore and normal rocky shore zonation patterns do not apply. For this reason rockpools have been dealt with as a separate habitat type, apart from the scheme of wave exposure and shore height. Four main rockpool habitat subtypes have been described:
A1.422  Pontic Upper mediolittoral shallow rockpools with green algae (Ulva spp. and Cladophora spp.)
A1.415 Pontic Upper mediolittoral deep rockpools with juveniles of Mytilus galloprovincialis and Pachygrapsus marmoratus 
A1.41A Pontic Mediolittoral rockpools with anemones (Actinia equina and Diadumene lineata)
A1.41B Pontic Mediolittoral rockpools with articulated corallines and Ceramiales.
Indicators of quality:
Suitable biotic indicators of quality include: Gobiesocidae,  Diadumene lineata  and crabs Pachygrapsus marmoratus, Eriphia verrucosa . Suitable abiotic indictors of quality include: water clarity and nutrient levels. There is insufficient information to set indicator thresholds required for monitoring purposes.
Characteristic species:
Species typically found in Pontic mediolittoral rockpools include Cladophora, Ulva, Ceramiales and Corallinales. Also present are Mytilus, Mytilaster, Pachygrapsus, Actinia equina, Diadumene lineata and small fish.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Features of littoral rock’ (A1.4.)
 
Annex 1:   
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:  
Littoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN: 
12.1 Rocky shoreline

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Rockpools are a common feature of mediolittoral hard substrate throughout Europe but it is unclear if they should be considered an outstanding example.

Comment EU28:
Area estimates are available at some localities. However, these are only a small proportion of occurrences. Most locality data is available as points only and cannot be used to calculate area.

Comment EU28+:
Area estimates are available at some localities. However, these are only a small proportion of occurrences. Most locality data is available as points only and cannot be used to calculate area.

Trends in Quantity:
Historically (pre-1965), expert opinion is that this habitat was stable in Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria. This is due to the lack of pressures present during this period (e.g. low levels of coastal development).
In the recent past (1965 to present day) the quantity (extent) of the habitat has reduced significantly, with an estimated loss of more than 90% since 1971. Coastal development and coastal protection works are the main reasons. In Turkey the habitat extent has remained stable in the last 50 years due to the remote location and low development pressure in areas where it occurs.
In the future the habitat is expected to remain stable in Turkey because of the remote localities of the habitat. In Bulgaria the extent is also expected to remain stable as all remaining localities are within protected areas. In Romania there is a continuing risk from coastal development. There are now very few localities where the habitat is present and a risk of collapse if development pressures increase in that country.

Trends in Quality:
There are no quantitative quality data available for the habitat. However, expert opinion is that the quality is likely to have been stable historically (pre-1965) and decreased in the recent past (1965 to present day). If current abiotic conditions continue the quality is expected to remain stable or improve slowly into the future.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Around 16% of this habitat is estimated to be hosted by the EU 28 in the Black Sea.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat has a small natural range following regression in the EU countries. This is not the case in the EU 28+ where the EOO exceeds 50,000 km². Although the habitat has undergone an important decline in the last 50 years, this decli

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat has a small natural range in EU 28 (EOO<50,000 km2). It develops on flat rocky surfaces prone to erosion and close to the mean water height. This situation is uncommon in the Black Sea and therefore the underlying factors

Pressures and Threats:
The most significant threat posed to the habitat is coastal development leading to habitat destruction. This threat is of past, current and future importance. Currently and into the future it is the greatest threat in Romania.
Pollution poses a significant threat to the habitat. This can be eutrophication from nutrient enrichment (N, P and organic matter); oil pollution or marine litter. All have the potential to reduce the abiotic quality of the habitat which will, in turn, lead to a reduction in biotic quality.

Conservation and Management:
Protection from the direct and indirect effect of coastal development will benefit this habitat as well as controls of land-based pollutants which discharge out to sea.  This habitat is only protected in Bulgaria at the present time.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
This habitat cannot recover from loss of extent and/or distribution. However, it can recover from reduction in quality. Recovery can occur relatively quickly (within 10 years) if the decline is caused by pollution. This can be achieved by either controlling pollution inputs or from water recharge after storms.

Summary:
The habitat is found on mediolittoral rocks in Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey as well as occurring in Crimea (Tarhankut peninsula). It has a restricted distribution based on the presence of rocks with complex erosion formations in the mediolittoral zone and develops slowly because it depends on erosion of rock surfaces. The main pressures affecting this habitat are coastal development and eutrophication. Protection from the direct and indirect effect of coastal development will benefit this habitat as well as controls of land-based pollutants which discharge out to sea.

References:
Bacescu, M.C., Muller, G.I. and Gomoiu, M.-T. 1971. Cercetari de ecologie bentala in Marea Neagra (analiza cantitativa, calitativa si comparata a faunei bentice pontice). Ecologie Marina. Vol. IV. Editura Academiei R.S.R., Bucuresti. 357pp.
Bacescu, M. 1977. Les biocenoses benthiques de la Mer Noire. Biologie des eaux saumatres de la Mer Noire. Pora, E.A. (Ed.). IRCM, Constanta 1. pp128-134.
European Environment Agency. 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp (Accessed: 20/08/2015). 
Micu, D. 2008. Open Sea and Tidal Areas. Natura 2000 Habitat Interpretation Manual for Romania. Gafta, D. and Mountford, J.O. (Eds.). EU publication no. EuropeAid/121260/D/SV/RO. 101pp. ISBN 978-973-751-697-8.
Micu, D., Zaharia, T. and Todorova, V. 2008. Natura 2000 habitat types from the Romanian Black Sea. The development of an indicative ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas in Romania. Zaharia, T., Micu, D., Todorova, V., Maximov, V. and NiÅ£Äƒ, V. (Eds.). Romart Design Publishing, Constanta. 32pp.
NATURA 2000. 2013. Natura 2000 protected sites. Available at http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp. (Accessed: 20/08/2015).

Criterion A Text:
For areas hosted by the EU expert opinion is that there has been an approximately 25–30% reduction in habitat extent since 1965. The most significant losses (>80%) have occurred in Romania. However, there are more occurrences of the habitat in Bulgaria and the reduction in extent has been less significant. Therefore the total reduction in the EU is estimated between 25 and 30%.
In the EU 28+ expert opinion suggests that the reduction in habitat has been less than 25% since 1965.  The most significant losses have been in Romania (>80%), however, this is counter-balanced by fewer losses in other countries.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat has a restricted geographical distribution in the EU countries of the Black Sea as the EOO is intrinsically small for the EU states. The number of localities where it occurs is small and there have been significant declines in the recent past which have left the habitat in a fragile state. Declines in spatial extent, abiotic and biotic quality are now believed to have halted and declines over the next 20 years are considered unlikely. 
This habitat does not have a restricted distribution in the area hosted by EU 28+.

Synthesis:
Because of its restricted distribution and extent of decline in the recent past (between 25 and 30% since 1965) expert opinion is that this habitat should be assessed as Near Threatened under Criterion A1.
In the EU 28+ this habitat has a large EOO and AOO, and therefore qualifies as Least Concern under criterion B. However the habitat is assessed as Data Deficient because of a lack of information on its trends in quantity and quality and the fact that its overall distribution is unknown.

Contributors:
D. Micu, S. Beal, V. Mihneva, N. A. Milchakova, B. Yokes


Habitat Type Name:
A1.44 Pontic mediolittoral caves and overhangs

Habitat Description:
Where caves and overhangs occur on rocky shores, the shaded nature of the habitat diminishes the amount of desiccation suffered by biota during Aeolian periods of low water which allows certain species to proliferate. In addition, the amount of scour, wave surge, sea spray and penetrating light determines the unique community assemblages found in upper, mid- and lower shore caves and overhangs on the lower shore. All around the Black Sea this habitat type occurs in the Sarmatian limestone cliffs in Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey. It may also occur in volcanic and metamorphic rocks, such as Maslen Nos Cape in Bulgaria. The height of the entrance varies from 50 cm up to 25 m depending on the strength of the waves. The length of the water gallery is between 3 and 50 m and is sometimes followed by dry or semi-dry galleries with sand, gravel and larger stones. Natural light does not reach the inner reaches of the longest caves. The temperature strongly depends on the situation outside the cave, although fluctuations are smaller and no extremely high or low values have been recorded.
Indicators of quality:
Biotic indicators of good quality include the presence of sponge assemblages and the abundance and extent of sponge crusts. Abiotic indictors of good quality include water quality (i.e. low nutrients: N, P) and absence  of rubbish. There is insufficient information to set indicator thresholds required for monitoring purposes.
Characteristic species:
During the warm season some of the larger caves are inhabited by colonies of bat species (Miniopterus schreibersii, Myotis blythii, Myotis. myotis and Myotis. capaccinii). Birds may often also nest at the entrance of the caves. Caves with sandy underground banks were once regularly inhabited by the Monk Seal (Monachus monachus), which is now extinct in the Black Sea. The marine part of the caves is covered by invertebrate- dominated communities. Sciaphilic algae is only present at or near the entrance, where there is still some, albeit diminished, light. Most frequent at the entrance are the red alga Phyllophora crispa and the brown alga Zanardinia typus, while inside the cave only encrusting algae (Hildenbrandia, Lithophyllum, Phymatolithon) occur. The completely dark interior is dominated by either hydrozoan and bryozoan turfs or extensive sponge crusts (erect sponges Halichondia, Haliclona, Dysidea spp. or thin crust sponges), depending on current intensity.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Littoral rock’ (A1).
 
Annex 1:
8830 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Littoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN:
12.1 Rocky shoreline

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Caves are characteristic where geological conditions are suitable (erodable rocky cliffs). They are not widespread along the Black Sea coast.

Comment EU28:
Current total area of the habitat is unknown.

Comment EU28+:
Current total area of the habitat is unknown.

Trends in Quantity:
Current total area of the habitat is unknown. Area estimates are available at some localities however, these are only a small proportion of occurrence. 
In the historic period (pre-1965) the habitat extent is believed to have remained stable in Turkey and Bulgaria as caves are typically located in steep cliffs in remote areas, which are unsuitable for development.  
In the recent past (1965 to present day) the habitat extent has remained stable and expert opinion is that this is predicted to remain the case in the future.

Trends in Quality:
In the historic period (pre-1965) the quality of caves and overhangs are believed to have been stable. The Monk Seal (Monachus monachus) regularly used caves for breeding (based on expert opinion).
In the recent past (1965 to present day) the quality is believed to have remained stable in Turkey. Quality declines are believed to have occurred in Bulgaria associated with eutrophication, rubbish dumping and disturbance by tourists (based on expert opinion of the habitat and its likely response to known pressures). For instance, during the period up to the 1990s widespread and severe eutrophication occurred in the Black Sea. This was most notable in the western Black Sea and is likely to have caused a decline in biotic quality of the habitat as some quality indicators (e.g. sponges) are highly sensitive to these conditions. 
In the future the habitat quality is expected to remain stable in Turkey because of the remote localities and low development pressure. In Bulgaria and Crimea peninsula the quality will depend on levels of protection,  providing pollution control and regulations on rubbish dumping and unsupervised tourism are enforced.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Around 11% of this habitat is estimated to be hosted by the EU28 in the Black Sea.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat has a small range n the EU 28 countries only, but this is not believed to be associated with an important decline during the last 50 years. In the EU 28+ the EOO exceeds 50,000 km² therefore it does not have a small natural range.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat can only occur in certain rock types (Sarmatian limestone, igneous rock and calcarenite) and the distribution of these is very restricted. The EOO in the EU 28 countries is also less than 50,000 km2.

Pressures and Threats:
Eutrophication as a result of nutrient enrichment (N, P and organic matter) is the most significant historic pressure on the habitat. Since the 1990s this pressure has reduced due to tighter controls on pollution in the catchment of the Danube and other rivers which enter the north-west Black Sea. Whilst this pressure is now reduced it is still a continuing threat in the current and future periods. This is especially true for non- EU countries surrounding the Black Sea which are not bound by agreements such as the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
Coastal development in the future could lead to habitat destruction. However, most localities are remote and undesirable from a development perspective. Therefore the threat of this pressure is relatively low.
Rubbish dumping can affect the abiotic quality of the habitat and any resulting abrasion can damage the structure of the habitat (e.g. sponges and other invertebrates). Oil and other chemicals can reduce the water quality resulting in a reduction in sensitive species such as sponges.
Unsupervised tourism can reduce the biotic quality of the habitat though disturbance and displacement of species. 
Coastal erosion can reduce and increase the extent of the habitat. In severe cases erosion of caves can lead to caves collapsing and habitat destruction. This is a natural process which is unlikely to lead to a significant loss in a short time period. It should also be noted that surge gullies, caves and overhangs are formed as a result of erosion. Therefore the loss of any features is likely to be balanced by the formation of new features over time.

Conservation and Management:
Some caves and overhangs are found within protected areas which provide protection from development. However, marine littering and unsupervised tourism remain pressures in these areas.
In the future, regulations on rubbish dumping and unsupervised tourism need to be enforced to improve the conservation status of the habitat.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
New caves and overhangs, can form over time but only through natural processes. Intervention is unlikely to increase the extent of this habtiat.  The habitat will recover naturally from quality degradation. Intervention can also be used to improve the quality of the habitat.by controlling rubbish dumping and pollution.

Summary:
This habitat is present around the Black Sea in limestone cliffs and possibly volcanic and metamorphic rock. Where caves and overhangs occur on rocky shores, the shaded nature of the habitat diminishes the amount of desiccation suffered by biota during Aeolian periods of low water which allows certain species to proliferate. Historically the most significant pressure has been eutrophication, which is likely to have caused the greatest reductions in quality. This was most acutely experienced in the north-west Black Sea where there are high riverine inputs. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and subsequent economic collapse, industrial effluent discharge into the sea all but ceased (but could resume in future). Also, a reduction of transboundary pollution resulted from implementation of the WFD and DRPC, and extension of EU membership to Central Europe, leading to a reduction in the pressures. Coastal development, unsupervised tourism and rubbish dumping are further pressures known to affect the quantity and quality of the habitat.

References:
Bacescu, M.C., Muller, G.I. and Gomoiu, M.-T. 1971. Cercetari de ecologie bentala in Marea Neagra (analiza cantitativa, calitativa si comparata a faunei bentice pontice). Ecologie Marina. Vol. IV. Editura Academiei R.S.R., Bucuresti. 357pp.
Bacescu, M. 1977. Les biocenoses benthiques de la Mer Noire. Biologie des eaux saumatres de la Mer Noire. Pora, E.A. (Ed.), IRCM, Constanta 1. pp128-134.
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences & Ministry of Environment & Water. 2011. Red Data Book of the Republic of Bulgaria. Vol. III. Natural Habitats. Available at: http://e-ecodb.bas.bg/rdb/en/vol3/09A3.html.  (Accessed: 20/08/2015).
European Environment Agency. 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp. (Accessed: 20/08/2015).
Micu, D., Zaharia, T., Todorova, V. and NiÅ£Äƒ, V. 2007. Romanian Marine Habitats of European Interest. Punct Ochit Publishers, ConstanÅ£a, 32pp. ISBN 978-973-88566-1-5.
Micu, D. 2008. Open Sea and Tidal Areas. Natura 2000 Habitat Interpretation Manual for Romania. Gafta, D. and Mountford, J.O. (Eds.). EU publication no. EuropeAid/121260/D/SV/RO. 101pp. ISBN 978-973-751-697-8.
Micu, D., Zaharia, T. and Todorova, V. 2008. Natura 2000 habitat types from the Romanian Black Sea. The development of an indicative ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas in Romania. Zaharia, T., Micu, D., Todorova, V., Maximov, V. and NiÅ£Äƒ, V. (Eds.). Romart Design Publishing, Constanta. 32pp.
Natura 2000. Bulgaria. Protected Areas Natura 2000. Available at: http://natura2000.moew.government.bg/Home/Natura2000ProtectedSites. (Accessed: 28/09/2015).
Petrov, B. and Pandurski, I. 2011. Sea caves. Red Data Book of Republic of Bulgaria. Vol. III. Natural habitats. Bas and Moew (Eds.). ISBN 978-9549746-23-5.

Criterion A Text:
Since 1965 there is not believed to have been a decline >20% of habitat extent or distribution (based on expert opinion). This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under criterion A.

Criterion B Text:
The AOO and EOO are intrinsically small for the EU states. There have been significant declines in the recent past which have left the habitat in a fragile state. Declines in abiotic and biotic quality are likely to continue due to weak enforcement of regulations but are not likely to become critically endangered or collapsed within a very short time period. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Endangered under criteria B1 and B2. The threshold values for threatened categories are not met for the EU 28+.

Criterion C/D Text:
There has been some decrease in the quality of this habitat over the last 50 years although the extent is difficult to quantify. Some continuing decline is predicted due to continuing pressures (recreational, coastal development and pollution).
This habitat has been assessed as Data Deficient under criteria C/D1.

Synthesis:
In the EU 28 the habitat type is assessed as Endangered under Criterion B1 and B2. The EOO is 6,248 km2. The AOO is  km2. There is a continuous decline in quality due to rubbish dumping and unsupervised tourism, solely based on expert opinion.
In the EU 28+ the habitat type is assessed as Least Concern under Criterion A1 and B. There has been a decline in extent of <25% in the last 50 years, based on expert opinion. The threatened categories for AOO and EOO are not met for Criterion B
Current total area of the habitat is unknown. 
In the historic period (pre-1965) the habitat extent is believed to have remained stable in Turkey and Bulgaria as caves are typically located in steep cliffs in remote areas, which are unsuitable for development.  In the recent past (1965 to present day) the habitat extent has remained stable and expert opinion is that this is predicted to remain the case in the future. 
In the historic period (pre-1965) the quality of caves and overhangs are believed to have been stable. The Monk Seal (Monachus monachus) regularly used caves for breeding (based on expert opinion).
In the recent past (1965 to present day) the quality is believed to have remained stable in Turkey. Quality declines are believed to have occurred in Bulgaria associated with eutrophication, rubbish dumping and disturbance by tourists (based on expert opinion of the habitat and its likely response to known pressures). For instance, during the period up to the 1990s widespread and severe eutrophication occurred in the Black Sea. This was most notable in the western Black Sea and is likely to have caused a decline in biotic quality of the habitat as some quality indicators (e.g. sponges) are highly sensitive to these conditions. 
In the future the habitat quality is expected to remain stable in Turkey because of the remote localities and low development pressure. In Bulgaria and Crimea peninsula the quality will depend on levels of protection,  providing pollution control and regulations on rubbish dumping and unsupervised tourism are enforced.


Habitat Description:
Wide group of acidic (pH 3-5), minerotrophic mires, dominated by sedges and Sphagnum species. Poor fens occur in many different hydro-topographical situations and are typical components of the marginal lagg of raised bogs. In temperate Europe they also occur around mountain springs, in forest hollows, and in infertile fen-grassland complexes, but always on non-calcareous bedrock. Poor fens can also form the main type of usually small mire areas in weakly minerotrophic basins. Poor fens are the main transition type between D2.3a Quaking mires and D1.1 Raised bogs. Poor fens receive limited minerotrophic water input from upper catchments usually via non-distinct, diffuse flow paths. Poor fens can have unidirectional slope and lateral water flow but hummock-string patterning typical for D3.2 Aapa mires is missing.
Poor fens are characterized by continuous carpets of oligotrophic Sphagnum spp. combined with high abundance of sedges like Carex canescens, Carex echinata, Carex nigra, Carex lasiocarpa, Eriophorum scheuchzeri, Trichophorum cespitosum. Other abundant species are and Andromeda polifolia, Betula nana, Dactylorhiza maculata, Eriophorum vaginatum, Potentilla erecta, and Vaccinium oxycoccos. Also certain deep-rooted species more characteristic of D2.3a Quaking mires are frequent in poor fens, namely Eriophorum angustifolium, Carex rostrata and Menyanthes trifoliata. Ground layer is often dominated by Sphagnum angustifolium, Sphagnum fallax, Sphagnum flexuosum, Sphagnum papillosum and Sphagnum magellanicum, while other brown mosses can also be frequent, including Straminergon stramineum, Polytrichum commune and Warnstorfia fluitans. Higher degree of minerotrophic influence can be found only occasionally, as indicated by occurrence of e.g. Sphagnum subsecundum, Sphagnum obtusum or Sphagnum teres. In boreal zone, hummocks with Sphagnum fuscum, Polytrichum strictum, Calluna vulgaris and Empetrum nigrum are sometimes found in poor fens, with Salix spp., Rhamnus frangula, Betula pubescens or individual cranked pines (Pinus sylvestris).
Indicators of good quality:
Under natural conditions, water table is high also in summer and continuous carpets of mosses prevail with abundant sedges. Species diversity of vegetation is generally slightly higher than in D1.1 Raised bogs but clearly lower than in intermediate fens. In good hydrological condition there are no ditches that drain or disconnect water flow from the upper drainage area to the mire. Tree growth is limited to scattered individuals on hummocks or mire margins.
Characteristic species :
Vascular plants: Andromeda polifolia, Betula nana, Carex canescens, Carex chordorrhiza, Carex diandra, Carex lasiocarpa, Carex limosa, Carex magellanica subsp. irrigua, Carex rostrata, Chamaedaphne calyculata, Dactylorhiza maculata, Drosera rotundifolia, Drosera longifolia, Epilobium palustre, Eriophorum angustifolium, Eriophorum scheuchzeri, Eriophorum vaginatum, Equisetum fluviatile, Huperzia selago, Juncus filiformis, Ledum palustre, Pedicularis palustris, Peucedanum palustre, Potentilla erecta, Rubus chamaemorus, Swertia perennis, Trichophorum cespitosum, Vaccinium oxycoccos
Bryophytes: Aulacomnium palustre, Calliergonella cuspidata, Sphagnum aongstroemii, Sphagnum angustifolium, Sphagnum fallax, Sphagnum fimbriatum, Sphagnum flexuosum, Sphagnum magellanicum, Sphagnum obtusum, Sphagnum palustre, Sphagnum papillosum, Sphagnum pulchrum, Sphagnum riparium, Sphagnum subnitens, Straminergon stramineum, Warnstorfia fluitans

Classification:
EUNIS:
D2.2 Poor fens and soft-water spring mires
EuroVegChecklist:
Sphagno-Caricion canescentis Passarge (1964)
Caricion lasiocarpae Vanden Berghen in Lebrun et al. 1949
Sphagnion cuspidati Krajina 1934 (incl. Scheuchzerion palustris) p.p. marginally (types with minerotrophic influence)
Annex 1:
7140 Transition mires and quaking bogs
Emerald:
D2.226 Peri-Danubian black-white-star sedge fens
MAES-2:
Wetlands
IUCN:
5.4.  Bogs, Marshes, Swamps, Fens, Peatlands
Eco-hydrological mire types (Succow & Joosten 2001):
mesotrophic acidic to subneutral kettel mires, ponding mire, hillside mires, or spring mires

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The habitat is widespread in Europe, but with decreasing representation from the North to the South. The largest areas are found in Scandinavia and Ireland. The habitat is distributed more southerly compared to bogs, because it does not depend so tightly on precipitation and also occurs around springs on acidic bedrock.

Map Description:
Map is rather incomplete (a.o. in Romania and Norway), but the potential distribution is given for the EU28 based on HT7140 distribution. Data sources: EVA, ART17.

Trends in Quantity:
Poor fens have been actively and massively diminished by humans throughout the whole of Europe. Whereas in mire rich countries (like in Scandinavia) the estimated proportion of decrease is around 1/4 to 1/3, the decrease in Central European countries (like Germany and Hungary) is much higher, with a loss between 80 and 90%.

Trends in Quality:
The main threats (drainage and eutrophication) soon lead to a transformation into other habitats. However, slight changes in the catchment areas frequently lead to loss in habitat quality.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Due to the holarctic distribution and the huge mire areas in Eurasia, Europe (and the EU28) contributes not more than 10% to the total world-wide area.

Justification of Restricted Area:
Especially in Central and Southern Europe the habitat occupies relatively small stands, due to the restricted conditions in the landscape. In the Atlantic and Boreal parts of the distribution range, the habitat may occupy much larger areas.

Pressures and Threats:
Main threats for poor fens are landscape drainage, eutrophication and agricultural intensification.

Conservation and Management:
Huge efforts have been undertaken in the last decades to protect the last poor fen areas in Central and Southern Europe. Most important is the regeneration of the hydrological systems of the mires. In some areas and after eutrophication, poor fens depend on nutrient withdrawal by browsing or mowing.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Rewetting activities show that in general the hydrological regime of poor fens can be restored. However, depending on the status of the surrounding landscape, pollution with nutrients might have effect for a long time and regeneration of nutrient poor conditions at least in Central Europe can be expected only after decades to centuries after massive new peat accumulation or after top soil removal.

Summary:
This type of mire, fed by throughput of acid, nutrient-poor ground water occurs in a variety of topographic situations - around upland springs, in the laggs of raised bogs, in forest hollows and among infertile fen-grassland complexes - through the siliceous landscapes of temperate Europe, particularly the north. There is a continuous surface carpet of oligotrophic Sphagnum spp. and small sedges and an associated flora of mire generalists characteristic of less minerotrophic situations. Surface patterning is usually very limited but, towards the boreal regions, there can be gentle hummock-hollow with scattered trees on drier areas. Drainage, eutrophication and tree planting are the most frequently reported threats, with local peat extraction. Maintenance or restoration of the hydrological system is essential for conservation and, where eutrophication has occurred, grazing or mowing may help reduce the growth of productive herbage.

References:
Hajek, M., Horsak, M., Hajkova, P. & Díte, D. 2006. Habitat diversity of central European fens in relation to environmental gradients and an effort to standardise fen terminology in ecological studies. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 8: 97–114.
Succow, M. & Joosten, J.H.J. (Eds.) 2001. Landschaftsökologische Moorkunde. 2. ed. Schweizerbarth.
Wheeler, B.D. & Proctor, M.C.F. 2000. Ecological gradients, subdivisions and terminology of north-west European mires. Journal of Ecology 88: 187–203.

Criterion A Text:
On average in the EU28 there is a loss in area of -31% over the last 50 years (data on quantitative data from 15 countries), leading to the category Vulnerable. In Central European countries the losses have been much higher. However, the area weighted mean of decline is dominated by the scandinavian countries with (still) large areas of poor fens. For the EU28+ the figure is less severe, due to relatively large amount and small declines in Norway, leading to the category Least Concern.

Criterion B Text:
The EOO and AOO are much larger than the thresholds for criteria B, and also the habitat occurs in many locations. Therefore, even if there are declining trends and some threats, the assessment of criterion B leads to the category Least Concern.

Criterion C/D Text:
The reported data on declines in quality leads to an average amount of 36% of the area that has suffered a decline of 41% severity (data from 17 EU countries). This leads to the conclusion Least Concern. As no additional data from outside the EU28 is provided, and Norway covers large parts of the EU28+ area, for the EU28+ no figures are given. It is likely that the situation is relatively better, and therefore also Least Concern is concluded.

Synthesis:
This habitat has been assessed as Vulnerable (VU) in the EU28, based on the decline in area over the last 50 years, and Least Concern for the EU28+. However, there is a massive reduction up to over 90% of its previous area in many European countries, and therefore the habitat is regionally much more threatened. However, in the countries of Scandinavia, where by far the largest areas of this mire type occur, the reductions are relatively low. The habitat is not as sensitive regarding reduction of quality as the calcareous counterpart Short-sedge base-rich fens. On the contrary, slight drainage often leads to acidification of mire surfaces due to the higher influence of rainfall and therefore to an expansion of poor fens at the expense of calcareous types.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
A split between Boreal subtypes and Central-European/Atlantic subtypes would certainly result in a higher Red List category for the second sub-habitat.

Contributors:
Habitat definition: T. Tahvanainen
Territorial data: L. Aunina, C. Bita-Nicolae, I. Diack, P. Finck, P. Frankard, M. Hájek, B. Hamill, P. Ivanov, J. Janssen, P. Jones, E. Leibak, Z. KÄ…cki, G. Király, T. Kontula, Ä. MilanoviÄ‡, J.A. Molina, B. Nygaard, J. Paal, D. Paelinckx, D. Paternoster, P. Perrin, V. RašomaviÄius, U. Raths, U. Riecken, J. Šibík, D. Spray, A. Ssymank, T. Tahvanainen, E. Weeda
Working Group Mires & bogs: C. Bita-Nicolae, M. Hájek, F. Jansen, T. Tahvanainen


Habitat Type Name:
A3.21: Kelp and red seaweeds on moderate energy Atlantic infralittoral rock

Habitat Description:
This habitat is found on infralittoral rock in areas subject to moderate wave exposure, or on more sheltered coasts in areas subject to moderately strong tidal streams. Kelp forests develop in these situations and both the rock surfaces and kelp holdfasts and stipes are typically colonised by other algae. These are predominantly red algae with  good variety of delicate filamentous types. The most conspicuous sessile fauna include ascidians, bryozoans, echinoderms, crustaceans, and bryozoans.
Indicators of quality:
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include: the presence of characteristic species as well as those which are sensitive to the pressures the habitat may face; water quality parameters; levels of exposure to particular pressure, and more integrated indices which describe habitat structure and function, such as trophic index, or successional stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time.
There are no commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may have been set in certain situations e.g. protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis. The depth limit of kelp and/or red seaweeds is used in some countries as a Water Framework Directive parameter for assessing ecological status.
Characteristic species:
On bedrock and stable boulders there is typically a narrow band of kelp Laminaria digitata in the sublittoral fringe which lies above a Laminaria hyperborea forest and park. Other seaweeds typically present include Saccharina latissima, Delesseria sanguinea, Plocamium cartilagineum, Phycodrys rubens, Corallinaceae and Dictyota dichotoma. Characteristic fauna include Halichondria panacea, Urticina felina, Pomatoceros triqueter, Gibbula cineraria, Asterias rubens, and, Echinus esculentus as well as bryozoans Membranipora membranacea and Electra pilosa.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405:
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic infralittoral rock’ (A3.2).
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
1180 Submarine structures made by leaking gas
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs
9.7 Macroalgal/kelp

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Rocky coasts with this specific composition of kelp and seaweeds are only characteristic for several North East Atlantic sub-regions. It does not occur in the Black Sea, Baltic Sea or the Mediterranean Sea.

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat has been studied in detail in some localities however there is insufficient information to determine whether there have been any historical, recent and possible future trends in quantity. Locations of 'bubbling reefs' in the Kattegat and Skagerrak have long been known to fishermen due to fragments of the pillars becoming entangled in the nets.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region, from the Skagerrak in the east, to the north western coast of Spain.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region, from the Skagerrak in the east, to the north western coast of Spain.

Pressures and Threats:
Urbanisation is thought to have the most disrupting effects on kelps and other canopy-forming algae, particularly by affecting water clarity and quality as well as other habitat-related changes. In some northern European regions, including the west coast of Norway, the French channel coast and parts of the U.K. coast, harvesting is also an issue, which has  the most direct pressure on this habitat. Removal of L. digitata or L hyperborea would also result in a loss of a large proportion of the associated fauna.  
Abrasion from bottom towed gears is also known to impact this habitat with trawling, bottom trawling or other fishing methods
the major threat to bubbling reefs. Recreational activities such as SCUBA diving and other recreational activities may also potentially harm the reef structures. Careless movements of the divers or divers touching the underwater structures could cause them to break.
The habitat is also vulnerable to changes in wave exposure and tidal flow; once detached most of the characterising flora and fauna cannot re-attach and would be swept away. Species abundance and diversity will be significantly reduced because the additional habitats and refugia provided by kelp fronds, stipes and particularly the holdfast will be lost. Climate driven changes in the species composition of kelp forests, leading to more mixed canopies, may also reduce resistance to storm damage. 
Several of the characteristic species of the biotope are known to be intolerant of synthetic chemical contamination.

Conservation and Management:
The main approaches to the conservation and management of this habitat could be through control of seaweed harvesting, the management of activities that damage or disturb seabed communities, or that change the hydrological regime, such coastal development and the construction of hard coastal defence structures. In addition, the maintenance of controls of chemical discharges from outfalls to reduce the risk of contamination effects should also be considered. Such measures may be introduced within the framework of Marine Protected Areas.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1170: MATL U2 , MMAC FV
1180: MATL XX, MMAC XX.

Summary:
This habitat is found on infralittoral rock in areas subject to moderate wave exposure, or on more sheltered coasts in areas subject to moderately strong tidal streams. It also occurs on on carbonate-cemented structures known as 'bubbling reefs' in the Kattegat.  Kelp forests develop in these situations and both the rock surfaces and kelp holdfasts and stipes are typically colonised by other algae. The most conspicuous sessile fauna include ascidians, bryozoans, echinoderms, crustaceans, and bryozoans.
Urbanisation is thought to have the most disrupting effects on kelps and other canopy-forming algae, particularly by affecting water clarity and quality as well as other habitat-related changes. Harvesting is also an pressure in some northern European countries. The habitat is also vulnerable to changes in wave exposure and tidal flow and it has been suggested that climate driven changes in the species composition of kelp forests, leading to more mixed canopies, may reduce resistance to storm damage. Several of the characteristic species of the habitat are known to be intolerant of synthetic chemical contamination. 
Beneficial management and conservation measures for this habitat, include the establishment of Special Areas of Conservation, kelp harvesting management, water quality improvement programmes and the control of chemical outfalls, nearby dredging, coastal development and the construction of hard coastal defence structures.

References:
Airoldi, L. and  Beck, W. M. 2007. Loss, status and trends for coastal marine habitats of Europe. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 45: 345–405.
Bekkby, T. and Moy, F. 2011. Developing spatial models of sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima) potential distribution modelling of the kelp species Laminaria hyperborea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 66: 2106–2115.
HELCOM Biotope information sheet
http://helcom.fi/Red%20List%20of%20biotopes%20habitats%20and%20biotope%20complexe/HELCOM%20
Red%20List%201180%20Submarine%20structures%20made%20by%20leaking%20gases.pdf [Accessed
March 2016]

Jensen, P., Aagaard, I., R. A. Burke Jr, R.A. et al., 1992. 'Bubbling reefs' in the Kattegat: submarine
landscapes of carbonate-cemented rocks support a diverse ecosystem at methane seeps. Marine Ecology
Progress Series. 83:103-112.
MarLIN (Marine Life Information Network) .2015. MarLIN - The Marine Life Information Network. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesfullreview.php. (Accessed: 18/11/2015).
Moy, F. and Christie, H. 2012. Large-scale shift from sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima) to ephemeral algae along the south and west coast of Norway. Marine Biology Research 8: 309-321.
Rinde, E, and Christie, H. 1992. A survey of rocky bottom communities in the coastal area of Telemark. NINA Oppdragsmelding 133: 1-23.
Smale, D.A. & Vance, T. 2015. Climate-driven shifts in species’ distributions may exacerbate the impacts of storm disturbances on North-east Atlantic kelp forests. Marine and Freshwater Research 67(1): 65-74.
Voerman, S., Llera, E., & Rico, J.M. 2013. Climate driven changes in subtidal kelp forest communities in NW Spain. Marine Environmental Research 90: 119-127.

Criterion A Text:
There is insufficient information to determine any overall trends in quantity of this habitat in the North East Atlantic also there is known to have been damage to some of the associated biotopes in some locations ('bubbling reefs').This habitat has been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion E Text:
There is no quantative analysis available to estimate the probility of collapse of this habtiat type.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
Submarine structures made by leaking gases.

Contributors:
C. Karamita and North East Atlantic Working Group: S. Gubbay, G. Saunders, H. Tyler-Walters, N. Dankers, F. Otero, J. Forde, K. Fürhaupter, R. Haroun Tabraue, N. Sanders.


Habitat Type Name:
A3.34 - Fucales and other algae on Pontic sheltered upper infralittoral rock, well illuminated

Habitat Description:
This habitat is present in shallow sheltered waters, such as semi-enclosed bays on rocky substrates. Reported at depths of 1-14 m although also known to occur in deeper waters in the pre-eutrophication period in the early 1980s. Cystoseira belt, in this habitat is dominated by C. barbata, provides an ideal substrate and habitat for numerous photophilic and sciaphilic algal species, especially Rhodophyta.
C. barbata is typically the dominant canopy-forming species in this sheltered environment, with C. crinita and C. bosphorica being more common in exposed situations. Other species present include the algae Ulva rigida, Polysiphonia subulifera, Cladophora spp., Gelidium spinosum and occasionally present C. crinita and Ceramium virgatum. The bivalves Mytilus galloprovincialis and Mytilaster lineatus are also very abundant in this habitat and often colonise all the substrate available between the C. barbata plants, or attach to the main axis of the plants. An understory of Dilophus fasciola and Cladostephus spongiosus is typical of oligotrophic waters (Cystoseiretum dilophoso-cladostephosum). A third layer is formed by Padina pavonia and Corallina elongata. Gelidium latifolium with G. spinosum (= G. crinale) also present. A fourth layer of crust-forming Hildenbrandia rubra is also typical. Epiphytic algae include Laurencia coronopus, Polysiphonia subulifera, Ceramium rubrum, Corynophlaea umbellata, Stilophora rhizodes, and Jania rubens.
Suitable indicators of quality include: community and population structure, diversity, biomass and abundance, epiphytic species richness, water quality and substrate. Appropriate thresholds include:
1.       Cystoseira spp. canopies occur in all areas with suitable habitat. Habitat fragmentation is reduced.
2.       Cystoseira spp. cover inside the canopy is ≥50%
3.       Height of Cystoseira spp. thalli during the cold season is ≥100 cm for at least 50% of the population
4.       Epiphyte-free wet biomass of Cystoseira spp. is ≥3,000 g/m2

Classification:
EUNIS (2004):
Level 4.  A sub-habitat of ‘Infralittoral rock’ (A3).
 
Annex 1:   
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:   
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap: 
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN: 
 9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The species composition is unique to the Black Sea. In the Black Sea Cystoseria barbata is the canopy- forming species in sheltered situations. Cystoseria crinita and C. bosphorica dominate in more exposed areas. Associations are limited to Ulva rigida, Polysiphonia subulifera, Cladophora spp., Gelidium spinosum and occasionally present C. crinita and Ceramium virgatum. Typically the habitat consists of fewer algal species than comparable habitats in the Mediterranean Sea.
A key feature of this habitat in the Black Sea is its biomass. The productivity is very high and is considerably greater than examples found in the Mediterranean. Literature reports that.
This habitat is one of the most diverse and ecologically important habitats in the Black Sea: between 140-170 species of zoobenthos and approximately 110 macro algae species occur in it.

Comment EU28:
Area estimates are available at some locations (e.g. sites in Crimean and Romania) However, these are only a small proportion of the total area and cannot be used as an estimate.

Comment EU28+:
Area estimates are available at some locations (e.g. sites in Crimean and Romania) However, these are only a small proportion of the total area and cannot be used as an estimate.

Trends in Quantity:
The historic (pre-1965) trend of the habitat is unknown:  some extent data are such as the presence of Cystoseria spp. and general ecological details (depth of occurrence was recorded in Romania in 1926 and 1930s). The trend in habitat quality is believed to have been stable during the historic period based on knowledge of pressures and historic environmental conditions.
In the recent past (1965 to the present day) there has been a severe decline in quantity in Romania, Bulgaria, Crimea and the Caucasus. During the period up to the mid 1990s widespread and severe eutrophication occurred in the Black Sea. This was most notable in the western part, which caused a significant reduction in extent. In Romania up to 90% of extent reduction has occurred since 1971 (previously it was found on all rocky coasts, now it is greatly reduced. It should be noted that much of the extent loss has occurred at lower depths due to reduced light penetration (caused by eutrophication). In Romania the lowest recorded depth has shifted from 7 m (in the 1930s) to 3 m (2000s) and at present is improving (5 m). In Crimea a more dramatic shift has occurred: previously the habitat was recorded at depths of 97 m (1960s)while the current lowest recorded depth is 14 m (southern Bulgaria).
Data for trends in Georgia and Turkey are unavailable. However, these areas were less affected by the eutrophication period and are therefore assumed to be more stable.
Further reductions in extent in the last 50 years have been caused by coastal development in Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey. In some regions (e.g. Turkey) the habitat has colonised artificial substrates.
Since the late 1990s/2000 signs of recovery have been observed in many locations in Romania, Crimea, Turkey where the extent is reported as stable or increasing.  Nevertheless extent is still considerably reduced from the pre-eutrophication period.
In the future period (next 50 years) the extent is expected to remain stable and/or show signs of slow recovery, provided that present abiotic conditions remain stable and other pressures ( coastal development) do not increase.

Trends in Quality:
Trends in habitat quality from the historic period (pre-1965) are unknown. Based on knowledge of the habitat, its pressures and the historic envrionmental conditions the quality is believed to have been high and stable.
In the last 50 years the quality has decreased. This has been noted in response to two discrete pressures: eutrophication and coastal development.
Eutrophication caused quality declines between the 1970s and early 2000s. Decreases in biomass have been observed in Varna Bay, Bulgaria, where a reduction of 85% was recorded between 1968 and 2001. In Romania an estimated 90% of the habitat has been degraded as a result of eutrophication. This has resulted in fragmentation, reduced depth, reduced cover, reduced thallus length and reduced diversity in associated communities. In Crimea some sites have seen biomass increase within the last 50 years (e.g. coast near Sevastopol between the Cape Fiolent  and Streletskaya Bay). However, this trend is rare and most sites suffered reductions of biomass of 60-80%.
Eutrophication is also believed to have caused a change in morphology and age structure of Cystoseria spp. Fewer plants now reach sexual maturity meaning most new growth is restricted to vegetative forms.
Coastal development has also caused a reduction in habitat quality. In Turkey where the natural rocky substrate has been replaced by artificial hard substrate the habitat has often colonised. However, the new formation displays lower species diversity andabundance, resulting in a decreased quality.
In a shorter time scale (since late 1990s/early 2000s) there has been evidence of habitat quality becoming stable in terms of biomass and age structure. This has been observed in Romania, Bulgaria and Crimea. Providing the current abiotic conditions are maintained the habitat quality is expected to remain stable. However, future pressures due to coastal development may lead to loss of substrate.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Around 12% of this habitat is estimated to be hosted by the EU 28 in the Black Sea.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat has a small range following regression in the EU countries only. In the EU 28+ the EOO exceeds 50,000 km². The habitat has undergone an important decline in the last 50 years. This is especially true to the western Black Sea (see

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat can only occur on infralittoral rocky substrates. The range of this substrate occurs across the Black Sea but it is limited in terms of its area coverage.

Pressures and Threats:
Eutrophication as a result of nutrient enrichment (N, P and organic matter) was the most significant historic pressure on the habitat. Reduced light penetration due to eutrophication caused declines in extent and quality of the habitat. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and  subsequent economic collapse, industrial effluent discharge into the sea all but ceased (but could resume in future). Also, a reduction of transboundary pollution resulted from implementation of the WFD and DRPC, and extension of EU membership to Central Europe, leading to a reduction in the pressures.
Coastal development is a threat of current and future importance which can lead to habitat destruction and siltation in all parts of the Black Sea. In Romania, Bulgaria, Crimea and the Caucasus intensive hotel development and the creation of artificial beaches are a threat to the underlying substrate. In Turkey proposed road developments also threaten the substrate.
Changes in temperature are a threat to the habitat of current and future important. Extreme temperatures in both summer and winter can cause die offs of Cystoseira spp. canopies . Due to the slow growth rate and colonisation of the key species this can result in long term declines.
Severe storm events are a current and future threat to the habitat. High energy conditions can damage Cystoseria spp. canopies resulting in habitat fragmentation and loss. Due to the slow growth rate and colonisation rate of the key species this can result in long term declines. This threat may increase in the future if storm events become more frequent due to climate change.
·         Temperature changes (e.g. rise of temperature and extremes) - future
·         Storm, cyclone - future
·         Nutrient enrichment (N, P, organic matter) – past, current, future
·         Coastal development – current, future

Conservation and Management:
Current approaches to protect this habitat include designating protected areas, reduction of nutrient inputs, the protection of species.
This habitat exists within protected areas in Romania, Russia and Bulgaria. In Romania and Bulgaria it is listed as a national sub-type of Annex I of the Habitats Directive.
Additional actions should seek to expand all the current approaches to all states bordering the Black Sea. This should include efforts to improve marine water quality and reduce eutrophication.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1::
1160: MBLS U1, MMED XX
1170: MBLS U1, MMED XX

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Recent reduction in eutrophication levels in the Black Sea have shown that the habitat has the ability to stabilise. There is also evidence that the habitat can begin to recover where eutrophication levels remain low. Where artificial substrates have been installed the habitat has shown the ability to colonise these, albeit in a degraded form. The time scales taken for recovery will depend on abiotic conditions and the trend that these show.

Summary:
The habitat is present throughout the Black Sea on areas of infralittoral rocky substrate.  The depth to which Cystoseria spp. canopies reach is restricted by light penetration (in the past before eutrophic conditions arose, canopies reach lower depths).
Information on habitat extent is available for Romania, Bulgaria and Crimea, including historical (pre-1965) accounts of localities. Extent information is available for Turkey but only at a very coarse scale. Both quantitative and qualitative data show that the area and known occurrences of the habitat have reduced significantly in the last 50 years. Quantitative data on quality changes is available for specific sites in Bulgaria, Romania and Crimea. The general trend is for reduction in quality (biomass, species composition, morphology, etc.) within the last 50 years. Recent trends in quality and quantity (since 1990s) show evidence that the habitat is now stable. However, the area and quality of the habitat is greatly reduced from the historic (pre-1965) period.
Historically the most significant pressure has been eutrophication, causing the greatest reductions in quantity and quality. This was most acutely experienced in the north-west Black Sea where there are high riverine inputs Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and  subsequent economic collapse, industrial effluent discharge into the sea all but ceased (but could resume in future). Also, a reduction of transboundary pollution resulted from implementation of the WFD and DRPC, and extension of EU membership to Central Europe, leading to a reduction in the pressures.

References:
Afanasiev, A.M. 2005. Macrophytobenthos of the Russian area of the Black Sea. Ekologiya Morya 68: 19-25.
Afanasiev D.F. and Korpakova, I.G. 2008. Macrophytobenthos Russian Azov-Black Sea. Rostov-on-Don: FGUP AzNIIRH.
Aysel, V., KesercioÄŸlu, T., Güner, H. and Akçay, H. 1990. Trabzon Deniz Algleri. Proceedings of Xth National Biology Congress, Botanic Circular II: 183-192.
Aysel, V., Erdugan, H., Sukatar, A., Güner, H. and Öztürk, M. 1996. BartÄ±n Deniz Algleri. Turkish Journal of Botany 20: 251-258.
Aysel, V., Dural, B., Sukatar, A., Güner, H. and Erdugan, H. 1997. Zonguldak deniz algleri (Karadeniz, Türkiye). Proceedings of XIIIth National Biology Congress, Hydrobiology section 5: 311-321.
Aysel, V., Dural, B., Gönüz, A. and Okudan, E.Åž. 1998. Kirklareli (Karadeniz, Trakya, Türkiye) deniz florasÄ±. Proceedings of XIVth National Biology Congress 2: 333-342.
Aysel, V., ÅženkardeÅŸler, A. and Aysel, F. 2000. Ordu (Karadeniz, Türkiye) Deniz FlorasÄ±. Proceedings of Underwater Science and Technologies Meeting, SBT2000: 61-69.
Aysel, V., Erdugan, H., Dural-TarakçÄ±, B., Okudan, E.Åž., ÅženkardeÅŸler, A. and Aysel, F. 2004. Marine Flora of Sinop (Black Sea, Turkey). EU Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences 21(1-2): 59-68.
Aysel, V., Dural-TarakçÄ±, B., Erdugan, H., Aysel F., Türker, E. and TarakçÄ±, Y. 2005. Marine Algae and Seagrasses of Samsun (Black Sea, Turkey). Journal of Black Sea/Mediterranean Environment 14: 53-67.
Aysel, V., Erdugan, H., Dural-TarakçÄ±, B. and Okudan, E.Åž. 2005. Marine Algae and Seagrasses of Giresun Shores (Black Sea, Turkey). Journal of Black Sea/Mediterranean Environment 11: 241-255.
Aysel, V., Erdugan, H. and Dural-TarakçÄ±, B. 2005. Marine Flora of Kastamonu (Black Sea, Turkey). Journal of Black Sea/Mediterranean Environment 11: 179-194.
Aysel, V., Erdugan, H., Dural, B. and Okudan, E.Åž. 2006. Marine Algae and Seagrasses of Tekirdag (Black Sea, Turkey). Journal of Black Sea/Mediterranean Environment 12: 251-256.
Bacescu, M.C., Muller G.I. and Gomoiu, M.-T. 1971. Cercetari de ecologie bentala in Marea Neagra (analiza cantitativa, calitativa si comparata a faunei bentice pontice). Ecologie Marina. Vol. IV. Editura Academiei R.S.R., Bucuresti. 357pp.
Berov, D. 2012. Structure of Cystoseira spp. macroalgal communities and the influence of anthropogenic factors on their distribution. Macroalgae as an indicator of the ecological state of coastal marine ecosystems in the Black Sea. PhD thesis. 285pp.
Berov, D., Deyanova, D., Georgieva, I. et al. 2012. Cystoseira sp. dominated macroalgal communities in the SW Black Sea (Burgas Bay, Bulgaria). Current State and possible long-term effects of Eutrophication. Compt. rend. Acad. bulg. Sci. 65(6): 821-830.
Cirik, Åž. and Cihangir, B. 1987. Karadeniz Inceburun (Sinop) çevresi bentik denizel bitkiler üzerine ilk notlar. Ege Üniversitesi Su Ürünleri Yüksek Okulu, Su Ürünleri Dergisi 4(13-16): 106-111.
Çulha, M., Bat, L., Türk Çulha, S. and Çelik, M.Y. 2010. Benthic mollusk composition of some facies in the upper-infralittoral zone of the southern Black Sea, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology 34: 523-532
Dencheva, K. 1996. Macrophytes – bioindicators of the water state in Varna Bay. Dokl. Bulg. Akad. Nauk 49: 123-126.
Dencheva, K. 2010. State of macrophytobenthic communities and ecological status of the Varna Bay, Varna lakes and Burgas Bay. Phytologia Balcanica 16(1): 43-50.
Dimitrova-Konaklieva, S. 1978. Geografical analysis of marine algae of the Black Sea in Achtopol region. (In Bulgarian). Fitologyia 18: 22-35.
Erdugan, H., Aysel, V., Dural-TarakçÄ±, B., Okudan, E.Åž., and Aysel, F. 2003. Düzce, Sakarya, Kocaeli (Karadeniz, Türkiye) Deniz Algleri ve Deniz ÇayÄ±rlarÄ±. Proceedings of Underwater Science and Technologies Meeting, SBT2003: 20-29.
Erdugan, H., Aysel, V. and Güner, H. 2006. Rize-Sarp arasi deniz algleri, Karadeniz, Türkiye. Turkish Journal of Botany 20: 103-108.
Gönlügür Demirci, G. 2005. Sinop YarÄ±madasÄ±nÄ±n (Orta Karadeniz) Mollusca FaunasÄ±. Science and Engineering Journal of FÄ±rat University 17(3): 565-572.
Gozler, A.M., Kopuz, U. and Agirbas, E. 2010. Seasonal changes of invertebrate fauna associated with Cystoseira barbata facies of Southeastern Black Sea coast. African Journal of Biotechnology 9(51): 8852-8859.
Gromov, V.V. 1979. Seasonal dynamics of macrophytobenthos Novorossiysk Bay near Cape Sherskharis. Biologiya Morya 51: 3-5.
Kalugina-Gutnik, A.A. 1970. The composition and distribution of benthic vegetation in the south-eastern part of the Black Sea. Ecological and morphological studies of benthic organisms. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. pp185-202.
Kalugina-Gutnik, A.A. 1973. Phytobenthos southern coast of Crimea and its phytogeographical composition. Hydrobiological studies the northeastern part of the Black Sea: 50-68.
Kalugina-Gutnik, A.A. 1974. Bottom vegetation of the Sevastopol bay. Marine Biology. Ecology of benthic organisms 32: 133-164.
Kalugina-Gutnik, A.A. and Kulikova, N.M. 1974. Bottom vegetation at the western coast of Crimea. Marine Biology. Ecology of benthic organisms 32: 111-132.
Kalugina-Gutnik, A.A. 1975. Phytobenthos of the Black Sea. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka. 247pp.
Kalugina-Gutnik, A.A. 1976. Bottom vegetation of the Karadag region of the Black Sea and its changes over the past 20 years. Biologiya Morya 36: 3-17.
Kalugina-Gutnik, A.A. 1984. Changes in bottom vegetation of the Karadag region for the period of 1970-1980. Long-term dynamics of structure of coastal ecosystems of the Black Sea. Collective Scientific Work. pp85-96.
Kalugina-Gutnik, A.A., Evstigneyeva, I.K. and Mironova, N.V. 1993. Changes in bottom vegetation in the open coast of the Sevastopol Bay over the period 1964-1990. Algologia 3(2): 42-48.
Karaçuha, A. and Gönülol, A. 2007. Sinop-AyancÄ±k Kiyilarinin Üst-infralittoralinin Alg Florasi. Journal of Fisheries Sciences 1(1): 1-12.
Karaçuha, A. and Karaçuha, M.E. 2013. Changes of Macroalgae Biomass in Sinop Peninsula Coast of the Black Sea, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 13: 725-736.
Lisovskaya, O.A. and Stepanyan, O.V. 2009. A variety of coastal macroalgae Taman Peninsula (Russia) in summer. Algology 19(4): 341-348.
Lisovskaya, O.A. 2011. Macrophytobenthos upper divisions of the coastal zone of the Russian Black Sea coast.
Matishov, G.G. and Stepanyan, O.V. 2014. Marine research off the coast of Abkhazia. Nature 11: 70-78.
Micu, D., Zaharia, T., Todorova, V. and NiÅ£Äƒ, V. 2007. Romanian Marine Habitats of European Interest. Punct Ochit Publishers, ConstanÅ£a. 32pp. ISBN 978-973-88566-1-5.
Micu, D. 2008. Open Sea and Tidal Areas. Natura 2000 Habitat Interpretation Manual for Romania. Gafta, D. and Mountford, J.O. (Eds.). EU publication no. EuropeAid/121260/D/SV/RO. 101pp. ISBN 978-973-751-697-8.
Micu, D., Zaharia, T. and Todorova, V. 2008. Natura 2000 habitat types from the Romanian Black Sea. The development of an indicative ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas in Romania. Zaharia, T., Micu, D., Todorova, V., Maximov, V. and NiÅ£Äƒ, V. (Eds.). Romart Design Publishing, Constanta. 32pp.
Milchakova, N.A. 2003. Macrophytobenthos. The current state of biodiversity of the coastal waters of Crimea (Black Sea Sector). pp152-208.
Milchakova, N.A., Mironova, N.V. and Ryabogina, V.G. 2006. The current state of the resources of macrophytes in the south-western shelf of Crimea. Ternopil National Pedag. Univ. scientific Proceedings, series Biology 2: 87-90.
Milchakova, N.A., Bondareva, L.V., Mironova, N.V. and Ryabogina, V.G. 2011. Marine phytoresources. The bioresources of the Black and Azov Seas. Eremeev, V.N. et al. (Eds.). Sevastopol: Ekosi-Gidrophysika: 117-139 (in Russian).
Milchakova, N.A. 2011. Marine plants of the Black Sea. An illustrated field guide. Sevastopol: Digit Print. 144pp.
Mironova, N.V., Milchakova, N.A. and Aleksandrov, V.V. 2007. Long-term changes of macrophytobenthos of the certain objects of nature reserve fund of the coast of Crimea. Reserves of Crimea - 2007. Proceedings of IV International scientific-practical Conference, dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the International Seminar 'Needs Assessment of biodiversity of the Crimea', part 1: 115-121.
Mironova, N.V., Milchakova, N.A. and Ryabogina, V.G. 2007. Resources of macrophytes of the Gerakleysky peninsula coast and the peculiarities of their long-term dynamics (Crimea, the Black Sea). 147: 381-396.
Mironova, N.V., Milchakova, N.A. and Ryabogina, V.G. 2010. The current state of the  macrophytobenthos stocks in the coastal zone of the Tarkhankut Peninsula (Black Sea). Ternopil National Pedag. Univ. scientific Proceedings, series Biology 3(44): 176-179.
Mironova, N.V. and Milchakova, N.A. 2012. The current state and long-term dynamics of macrophyte stocks of the Laspi Bay (Black Sea, Ukraine). IV International. Conf. "Actual problems of modern algology" (Kyiv, 23-25 May 2012): 192-193.
Mironova, N.V., Milchakova, N.A. and Aleksandrov, V.V. 2015. Biomass and stocks of macrophytes as indicators of the state of macrophytobenthos (Laspi Bay, Black Sea). Modern problems of evolution and ecology. Coll. Materials Intern. Conf. (Ulyanovsk, 6-8 April 2015): 412-419.
Mironova, N.V. (In press). Resources of macrophytes of the southeastern coast of Crimea (Black Sea). Karadag-2014.
Mityaseva, N.A., Maximova, O.V. and Georgiev, A.A. 2003. Macrophytes of northern part of Russian coast of the Black Sea. Ekologiya Morya 64: 24-29.
Moncheva, S. and Todorova, V. (Eds.). 2013. Initial assessment of the marine environment. In article 8 of msfd 2008/56/ec and noosmv (2010). 500pp.
Morozova-Vodyanitskaya, N.V. 1936. Experience quantifying bottom vegetation in the Black Sea. Proceedings of the Sevastopol Biological Station 5: 45-217.
Morozova-Vodyanitskaya, N.V. 1959. Vegetable Association of the Black Sea. Proceedings of the Sevastopol Biological Station 11: 3–28.
Öztürk, M. & Öztürk, M. 1988. Akliman ve Hamsaroz Körfezi Üst-Infralittoralinde Yer Alan Bitkisel organizmalar Üzerine Bir AraÅŸtÄ±rma. Proceedings of TUBITAK IXth National Biology Congress 3: 329-342.
Petrova-Karadzhova, V. 1975. Quantitative distribution and resources of the brown algae Cystoseira barbata (Good et Wood)Ag. at the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast.Izv. Inst. Ribni Resursi(Varna) (In Bulgarian). Proceedings of the Institute of Fish Resources 14: 100-135.
Petrova, E., Stojkov, S. and Vachkova, V. 2011.  The macarozoobenthos from algal overgrowth by region of Pasha Dere south of Iape Galata (Black Sea). Proceedings of the Union of Scientists in Varna: 58-64.
Prodanov, K., Moncheva, S., Konsulov, A., Kamburska L., Konsulova T. and Dencheva K. 2001. Recent ecosystem trends along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast. Proceedings of the Institute of Oceanology 3: 110-127.
Salomidi, M. et al. 2010. Monitoring and Evaluation of Spatially Managed Areas. Catalogue of European seabed biotopes. Deliverable 1.2. 235pp.
Teyubova, V.F. 2005. Macrophytobentos of water-line region of the Novorossisk Bay (the Black Sea) in conditions of anthropogenic affecting. Ekologiya Morya 69: 53-57.
Teyubova, V.F. 2005. Features interannual dynamics species composition and structure macrophytobenthos in the Bay of Novorossiysk (Black sea). Ekologiya Morya 69: 53–57.
Teyubova, V.F. 2012. The diversity and ecological features macrophytobenthos the Russian sector of the Black Sea. Dissertation for degree of biological sciences.
Todorova, V. and Panayotova, M. 2011. Infralittoral rocks and other hard substrates. Red Book of Republic of Bulgaria. Vol. III. Natural habitats. ISBN 978-9549746-23-5.
Vasiliu, F. 1996. Chapter 19. Marine Benthic Vegetation. Recent Changes and the Effects of Eutrophication. Ecological Studies 123. Schramm, W. and Nienhuis, P.H. (Eds.). Springer-Verlag.
Zaika, V.E., Boltachev, A.R., Zuev, G.V., Kovalev, A.V., Milchakova, N.A. and Sergeeva, N.G. 2004. Floristic and faunistic changes in the Crimean Black Sea shelf after 1995–1998. Marine Ecological Journal 3(2): 37-44.
Zinova, E.S. 1935. Algae Black Sea resort of Novorossiysk Bay and their use. Proceedings of the Sevastopol Biological Station 4: 5-136.

Criterion A Text:
There is insufficient data to apply Criterion A. Evidence of spatial decline exists but there is insufficient data on extents before declines began to make conclusions.

Criterion B Text:
The AOO and EOO are intrinsically small for the EU states. Declines in spatial extent, abiotic and biotic quality have halted. There are no threatening processes likely to cause declines in the next 30 years. However, there have been significant declines in the recent past which have left the habitat in a fragile state. The habitat exists at various locations, and there are no plausible human activities or stochastic events that may drive the habitat to be CR or Collapsed within a very short time period.
The threshold values for threatened categories are not met for the EU 28+ states.

Criterion C/D Text:
In the EU there has been a intermediate decline affecting 100% of the habitat. There is no quantitative data to support this. It is based on expert opinion. In the EU 28+ there has been an intermediate decline affecting >50% of the habitat.

Synthesis:
In the EU 28 the habitat has been assessed as Endangered using Criteria C/D1. There is evidence of intermediate or moderate levels of decline affecting >80% of the habitat with substantial changes in vertical structure and the reduced cover and frequency of many characteristic species. Although there are quantitative data from sites in Romania and Bulgaria this assessment WAS mostly based on expert opinion. There is evidence of reduction at a site level and these results were extrapolated and are believed to represent the whole region.
In the EU 28+ the habitat has been assessed as Vulnerable using Criteria C/D1. There is evidence of intermediate or moderate levels of decline affecting >50% of the habitat. Intermediate or moderate decline is based on substantial changes in vertical structure and the reduced cover and frequency of many characteristic species. This is supported by quantitative data from sites in Romania, Bulgaria and Crimea. No data is available for Turkey or Georgia. Qualitative data for these countries is also lacking. The assessment has mostly been based on expert opinion.

Assessors:
S. Beal, D. Micu, N. A. Milchakova, B. Yokes

Contributors:
D. Micu, S. Beal,  E.B. Chernysheva, V. Mihneva, N. A. Milchakova, N. V. Mironova, B. Yokes


Habitat Type Name:
H2.6c Eastern Mediterranean base-rich scree

Habitat Description:
This is a calcareous and ultrabasic scree, constituted by talus, boulder fields, glacier forefields, rock debris and riverine gravel banks, from lowlands upwards to subnival levels in the eastern Mediterranean. Apart from epilithic bryophytes and lichens on rock outcrops and stable boulders, the vegetation consists mainly of specialist vascular plants adapted to the mobility of scree materials, the scarcity of fine-grained soil, mechanical disturbance, shortage of water and other physiological stresses. Most plants show storage organs and considerable regeneration capacity of roots and shoots. Characteristic plant adaptive syndromes include prostrate stems, stolons, tubers, rhizomes, and radicants. Clonal reproduction is common among them. The most common plant life forms in eastern Mediterranean screes are hemicryptophytes, some of which may turn to being facultative rhizome geophytes, and chamaephytes. In contrast to temperate high-mountain screes, bulbous geophytes may play a prominent role in East Mediterranean screes. Characteristic plant growth form strategies are scree creeping, scree moving (passively), and scree accumulating. Characteristic plant genera in eastern Mediterranean screes, each with several species represented are the following: Aethionema, Alyssum, Euphorbia, Heldreichia, Nepeta, Ranunculus, Ricotia, Scrophularia, Silene and Viola.
While the plant composition in lowland screes consists mostly of widespread plant generalists and ruderal specialists but only few narrow-range endemics, there is considerable regional variation in the high mountains, as reflected by the high number of phytosociological alliances. Some alliances are restricted to oro-mediterranean levels of single mountain ranges such as Pindos or the Taurus Mountains. Characteristic plants are often narrow endemics. Most plant communities belong to three geographically vicariant vegetation classes, i.e. Thlaspietea rotundifolii in the northwest (and further in nemoral Europe), Drypidetea spinosae in the southwest (Greece and South Aegean), and Heldreichietea in the east (Anatolia to Israel). Local habitat variation is the result of mobility and stability of the scree and gravel, to the supply of debris by rivers or through downslope transport by gravity, to substrate grain size and chemistry.
The habitat type, as defined here, occurs from the eastern Adriatic region, (i.e. Dalmatia) and the southern part of the Dinarides, through Albania, the Balkans, western and south-central mainland Greece, the Ionian Islands, the Peloponnese and Aegean Greece, western and southern Turkey (Anatolia) and further into Syria, Lebanon, and Israel.
Indicators of quality:
Scree habitats depend on the natural, adequate and constant supply of rock debris and gravel by rivers, cliff weathering or landslides. While high-mountain screes in the eastern Mediterranean are not normally affected by human impact, talus fans and riverine gravel fills in the lowlands have often been cut off from fresh material supplies by hydrological constructions and through transforming the river regime. Habitat quality must be assessed in view of the regional variation in species composition, using endemic scree specialists as indicators. The following characteristics may be used as indicators of favorable habitat quality:
• Occurrence of rare and phytogeographically significant plants
• Presence of sizable areas of scree and gravel with adequate material supply, and with differences in slope, moisture, mobility of materials, and grain size
• Contact with natural habitats such as cliffs, high-mountain thorny cushion vegetation or riverine scrub and woodland
• Absence of gravel quarrying and mining
• Absence of hydrological and traffic constructions influencing the river regime
Characteristic species:â€¨
Vascular plants: Acantholimon androsaceum, Achillea (abrotanoides, ambrosiaca), Achnatherum calamagrostis, Aethionema (cordatum, oppositifolium, saxatile, speciosum, stylosum), Ajuga chamaepitys subsp. glareosa, Allium tauricola, Alopecurus textilis, Alyssum (akamasicum, argyrophyllum, bertolonii, chondrogynum, cypricum, fragillimum, handelii, scardicum, sphacioticum, troodi), Androsace (multiscapa, villosa), Anthemis plutonia, Anthriscus (kotschyi, sylvestris subsp. fumarioides), Arabis alpina (subsp. brevifolia, subsp. caucasica), Arenaria (balansae, conferta subsp. conferta, conferta subsp. serpentini, kotschyana subsp. kotschyana), Asperula (idaea, muscosa, stricta subsp. grandiflora), Astragalus (haussknechtii, oxytropifolius, pelliger), Aurinia rupestris subsp. cyclocarpa, Bornmuellera baldaccii (subsp. baldaccii, subsp. markgrafii, subsp. rechingeri), Bubon albanicum, Bunium microcarpum, Campanula hawkinsiana, Cardamine (carnosa, glauca), Centaurea (cyprensis, idaea), Centranthus calcitrapae, Cerastium (cerastoides, gnaphalodes), Cicer incisum, Clinopodium troodi, Corydalis (blanda subsp. parnassica, rutifolia, solida subsp. incisa, uniflora), Crepis (frigida, sibthorpiana, willdenowii), Cyanus bourgaei, Cyclotrichium origanifolium, Cynoglossum troodii, Dianthus (petraeus, sphacioticus, strictus subsp. strictus, strictus subsp. multipunctatus, strictus subsp. troodi), Draba cretica, Drypis spinosa (subsp. spinosa, subsp. jacquiniana), Elytrigia (lazica subsp. divaricata, tauri), Euphorbia (cassia subsp. cassia, cassia subsp. rigoi, deflexa, herniariifolia, pestalozzae), Festuca (adanensis, anatolica), Fritillaria crassifolia subsp. crassifolia, Fumana paphlagonica subsp. alpina, Galium (cilicicum, corrudifolium, incanum subsp. incanum, incanum subsp. centrale, incanum subsp. creticum, incanum subsp. elatius), Geocaryum parnassicum, Geranium (macrorrhizum, purpureum, subcaulescens), Grafia golaka, Hedysarum (cyprium, erythroleucum), Heldreichia (bourgaei, bupleurifolia, rotundifolia), Helianthemum hymettium, Heracleum (humile, sphondylium subsp. orsinii), Hyacinthella millingenii, Hypericum (confertum subsp. stenobotrys, crenulatum), Iberis simplex, Jurinea moschus subsp. moschus, Lactuca (glareosa, intricata), Lamium (cymbalariifolium, eriocephalum, garganicum subsp. striatum), Laserpitium petrophilum, Leucopoa spectabilis subsp. affinis, Linaria (corifolia, microsepala), Lindbergella sintenisii, Lomelosia (crenata subsp. crenata, sphaciotica subsp. sphaciotica), Malcolmia orsiniana subsp. angulifolia, Mattiastrum lithospermifolium, Melica ciliata subsp. magnolii, Minuartia (attica, juniperina, pichleri, rimarum), Myosotis suaveolens, Nepeta (cilicica, concolor, sphaciotica), Noccaea (sintenisii, zaffranii), Onosma troodi, Ormosolenia alpina (=Peucedanum alpinum), Oxyria digyna, Peltaria alliacea, Phagnalon pygmaeum, Poa cenisia, Podospermum radicosum, Pseudofumaria alba subsp. acaulis, Ptilostemon afer, Ranunculus (brevifolius, cadmicus, cyprius, radinotrichus), Ricotia (cretica, davisiana, varians), Rumex scutatus, Salvia veneris, Scrophularia (canina, depauperata, myriophylla, rimarum), Scutellaria (hirta, orientalis subsp. orientalis, orientalis subsp. pinnatifida), Senecio (fruticulosus, squalidus subsp. rupestris, thapsoides), Sesleria (phleoides, robusta), Silene (caesia, fabaria subsp. domokina, fabarioides, haussknechtii, multicaulis subsp. multicaulis, nuncupanda, pentelica, supina subsp. pruinosa, variegata, vulgaris subsp. prostrata, vulgaris subsp. vourinensis), Thamnosciadium junceum, Theligonum cynocrambe, Thymus (integer, leucotrichus), Valantia aprica, Valeriana bertiscea, Vavilovia formosa, Veronica (caespitosa, cuneifolia, tauricola, thessalica), Vicia (alpestris subsp. hypoleuca, canescens subsp. gregaria), Viola (albanica, calcarata subsp.zoysii, crassifolia, dukadjinica, fragrans, striis-notata).

Classification:
EUNIS:
H2.6 Calcareous and ultra-basic screes of warm exposures
EuroVeg Checklist:
Alysso sphaciotici-Valantion apricae Bergmeier 2002
Campanulion hawkinsianae Quézel 1967
Glaucion flavi Br.-Bl. ex Tchou 1948
Jurinellion moschus Parolly 1995
Peltarion alliaceae HorvatiÄ‡ in Domac 1957
Scrophularion depauperatae Parolly 1995
Scrophularion myriophyllae Parolly 1995
Scrophularion rimarum Parolly 1995
Silenion caesiae Quézel 1964
Silenion marginatae LakušiÄ‡ 1968
Annex 1:
8140 Eastern Mediterranean screes
62B0* Serpentinophilous grasslands of Cyprus
The Annex 1 Habitat 62B0* includes, but not exclusively, scree formations, hence it is part of H2.6c.
Emerald:
H2.6 Calcareous and ultra-basic screes of warm exposures
MAES-2:
Sparsely or unvegetated land
IUCN:
6. Rocky areas

Map Description:
The map is incomplete for Croatia, Montenegro and Albania. Data sources: Art17, NAT.

Trends in Quantity:
Based on the available data, no quantitative reduction occurred over the last 50 years, and thus it is considered to be stable. There is no information available to project a trend for the future.

Trends in Quality:
While information on the quality of this habitat is scarce and incomplete, this habitat type seems to have a stable overall trend.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
More than 80% of the current distribution of the habitat type lies within the EU 28.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
No decline occurred over the last 50 years.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat cannot occur everywhere, since its establishment requires very specific environmental conditions. Therefore, the total area occupied by this habitat type is naturally very limited.

Pressures and Threats:
Although there is no specific published information on the threats to this habitat, it can be inferred that mining and quarrying represent the most concerning human-induced threat for this habitat, while sport and leisure infrastructures seem to have less relevance. For instance, scree stabilization happened as a consequence of a road construction, which may lead to the replacement of the scree vegetation with other types, such as grasslands or scrublands.

Conservation and Management:
The best management practice for this highly natural habitat is to leave it simply untouched, thus avoiding any human interference with its natural processes. Natural succession, if any, cannot be seen as a threat. The habitat is present in several protected areas throughout its range. An increase on public awareness about the biological relevance of these apparently inhospitable and sterile environments is recommended.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Recovery of this habitat is always possible provided that the natural geo-morphological processes are not hampered and that undamaged sites occir nearby. There is no further information available on this issue.

Summary:
This habitat comprises calcareous and ultrabasic screes, constituted by talus, boulder fields, glacier forefields, rock debris and riverine gravel banks, from the lowlands upwards to subnival levels in the eastern Mediterranean. Apart from epilithic bryophytes and lichens on rock outcrops and stable boulders, the vegetation consists mainly of specialist vascular plants adapted to the mobility of scree materials, the scarcity of fine-grained soil, mechanical disturbance, shortage of water and other physiological stresses.  Towards the foothills and lowlands the habitat is rarer and more scattered but more prone to be affected by human disturbances, especially in terms of species composition. However, high mountain screes are usually well preserved, most within protected areas, and therefore in a very natural state though infrastructure development and quarrying may threaten very locally. Public awareness and scientifically-based management of this habitat type are needed.

References:
Bergmeier, E. 2002. The vegetation of the high mountains of Crete - a revision and multivariate analysis. Phytocoenologia 32: 205-249.
ValachoviÄ, M., Dierssen, K., Dimopoulos, P., HadaÄ, E., Loidi, J., Mucina, L., Rossi, G., Valle Tendero, F. and Tomaselli, M. 1997. The vegetation on screes - survey of higher syntaxa in Europe. Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 32: 173-192.

Criterion A Text:
There has been no reduction in quantity over the past 50 years, based on the provided territorial data. There is no information on future and historic declines. Therefore, the habitat type is assessed as Least Concern under Criterion A.

Criterion B Text:
EOO values are large, but the AOO values only slightly exceed the thresholds for a threatened category (the value of 48 for the EU is an underestimation). However, it is unknown whether there has been a continuing decline in abiotic and biotic quality or whether there is a threatening process that is likely to cause declines in the next 20 years. Therefore, the habitat type is assessed as Data Deficient for criterion B1, and Least Concern under Criterion B2. The  number of location is likely to be much higher than the threshold for B3, and this criterion is therefore Least Concern (LC).

Criterion C/D Text:
There is no information on past, historical and future reductions in quality, and thus the habitat is assessed as Data Deficient under Criteria C, D and C/D.

Synthesis:
This habitat is assessed as Least Concern in view of its stable trend in quantity, as there have been no declines in the last 50 years. There is no information available to calculate the past, historical or future trends in quality, but it is assumed to be stable. The calculated distribution (Area of Occupancy) is relatively small, but it is likely that it is underestimated due to data gaps.

Contributors:
Type description: E. Bergmeier & G. Giusso del Galdo
Territorial data: P. Dimopoulos, V. Matevski, Ä. MilanoviÄ‡, Z. Škvorc
Working Group Sparsely Vegetated Habitats: F. Essl, G. Giusso del Galdo, A. Mikolajczak, D. Paternoster, M. ValachoviÄ, M. Valderrabano


Habitat Description:
This habitat occurs in the rocky supralittoral zone (depth 0-5 m). It exists where the upper supralittoral rock is colonised by yellow lichens and cyanobacteria such as Lyngbia sp. and the lower supralittoral rock is colonised by encrusting black lichens, littorinids, isopods and barnacles. In locations of freshwater runoff and where nitrate levels are elevated the rock surfaces may be coated with green algae and a film of cyanobacteria.
Indicators of quality:
Species composition – presence of littorinid gastropod Melaraphe neritoides, isopod Ligia italica, barnacle Chthamalus stellatus as well as a high density of these species are indicative of a good quality habitat.
Characteristic species:
Cyanobacteria, algae and lichens are characteristic of this habitat. Typical species of cyanobacteria are Lingbya lutea, L.semiplena, and L.confervoides which create the olive slime covering the habitat in wet (exposed) conditions. Characteristic algae include Feldmannia irregularis, and Urospora penicilliformis and the lichens Xanthoria spp., Caloplaca spp., Calothrix spp., Brachytrichia spp., Verrucaria sp. Typical invertebrates which may be present include the littorinid gastropod Melaraphe neritoides, the isopod Ligia italica, and the barnacle Chthamalus stellatus. The terrestrial snail Myosotella myositis is sometimes (rarely) found under stones in this habitat.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405).
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Pontic littoral rock’ (A1.1)
 
Annex 1:
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1170 Reefs          
8830 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves    
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Littoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN: 
12.1 Rocky shoreline

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Similar communities composed of Littorinid gastropod Melaraphe neritoides, the isopod Ligia italica, and the barnacle Chthamalus stellatus, all occur together in the northern Aegean Sea.

Comment EU28:
There is insufficient data to calculate the total area of this habitat

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat is widespread on supralittoral rocks around the Black Sea occuring on rock surfaces as well as artificial hard surfaces such as those associated with port and harbour construction. The latter are degraded examples with fewer species.
There is anecdotal evidence of a decline in extent due to habitat destruction primarily as a result of coastal development. For example, creation of artificial beaches where there used to be a rocky coast.There is a lack of historical information on the extent of this habitat and the overall trend is unknown.

Trends in Quality:
There is insufficient information to determine any trends in quality for this habitat.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Around 8% of this habitat is estimated to be hosted by EU 28 in the Black Sea.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
Although it has a small natural range in the EU 28, the habitat is not believed to have declined significantly over the last 50 years.  In the EU 28+  the EOO exceeds 50,000 km² therefore does not have a small natural range.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat has a small natural range in EU 28 (EOO <50,000 km2) but the underlying factors for its occurrance are not limited as rocky coasts are well distributed throughout the Black Sea.

Pressures and Threats:
Coastal development is the most significant threat to this habitat as it can result in smothering or direct loss of the rocky surfaces which support the associated communities.  Oil pollution or other chemical pollution is another threat, degrading the habitat through smothering or loss of associated species.

Conservation and Management:
The most beneficial measure for this habitat would be protection from development. This may be within a protected area or part of a wider spatial planning framework.  Pollution control and avoidance of waste water discharges across the habitat would also be beneficial.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
There is a lack of information about the recoverability of this habitat although, because many of the associated species are pioneers, recovery may be possible over relatively short time scales. Recovery when non-rocky substrates replace rocky substrates will not be possible.

Summary:
This habitat occurs in the supralittoral zone where the rock is colonised by various lichens and bacteria. It is present throughout the Black Sea and also occurs in the Sea of Marmara. Coastal development is the most significant threat to this habitat as it can result in smothering or direct loss of the rocky surfaces which support the associated communities. Oil pollution or other chemical pollution are also threats, degrading the habitat through smothering or loss of associated species. 
Protection from development, including within a protected area or part of a wider spatial planning framework, pollution control and avoidance of waste water discharges across the habitat would all benefit this habitat.

References:
Afanasiev, D.F. and Korpakova, I.G. 2008. Macrophytobenthos Russian Azov-Black Sea. Rostov-on-Don: FGUP.
Anon. 2006. The Northwestern Part of the Black Sea: Biology and Ecology. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. 701pp.
Bacescu, M.C., Muller, G.I. and Gomoiu, M.-T. 1971. Cercetari de ecologie bentica in Marea Neagra (analiza cantitativa, calitativa si comparata a faunei bentice pontice). Ecologie Marina. Vol. IV. Editura Academiei R.S.R., Bucuresti. 357pp.
Bacescu, M. 1977. Les biocenoses benthiques de la Mer Noire. Biologie des eaux saumatres de la Mer Noire. Pora E.A. (Ed.). IRCM, Constanta 1. pp128-134.
Culha, M. and Bat, L. 2010. Visible decline of limpet Patella caerulea Linnaeus, 1758, a biomonitor species, at the Sinop peninsula and vicinity (the southern Black sea, Turkey). Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 11(3): 1024-1029.
Kalugina-Gutnik, A.A. 1970. The composition and distribution of benthic vegetation in the south-eastern part of the Black Sea. Ecological and morphological studies of benthic organisms. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. pp185-202.
Kalugina-Gutnik, A.A. 1975. Phytobenthos of Black Sea. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. 275pp.
Lisovskaya, O.A. 2011. Macrophytobenthos of the upper coastal zone of the Russian Black Sea coast. St. Petersburg. 20pp.
Micu, D. 2008. Open Sea and Tidal Areas. Natura 2000 Habitat Interpretation Manual for Romania. Gafta, D. and Mountford, J.O. (Eds.). EU publication no. EuropeAid/121260/D/SV/RO. 101pp. ISBN 978-973-751-697-8.
Micu, D., Zaharia, T. and Todorova, V. 2008. Natura 2000 habitat types from the Romanian Black Sea. The development of an indicative ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas in Romania. Zaharia, T., Micu, D., Todorova, V., Maximov, V. and NiÅ£Äƒ, V. (Eds.). Romart Design Publishing, Constanta. 32pp.
Moncheva, S. and Todorova, V. (Eds.). 2010. Initial assessment of the marine environment. Article 8 of msfd 2008/56/ec and noosmv. 500pp.
Morozova-Vodyanitskaya, N.V. 1959. Bottom vegetation of the Black Sea. Proceedings of the Sevastopol Biological Station 11: 3–28.
Prodanov, B., Kotsev, I., Keremedichiev, S., Todorova, V. and Dimitrov, L. 2013. Initial assessment of the technogenic pressure in the mediolittoral zone of the bulgarian black sea coast. Second European SCGIS Conference “Conservation of Natural and Cultural Heritage for Sustainable Development: GIS-Based Approach” 2013: 4-13.
Terentyev, A.S. 2011. Macrozoobenthos of coastal part of the Kerch Bay (summer, 2009). Ecology of cities and recreational areas. All Ukrainian Scientific Conference Proceedings of articles: 261-263.
Teyubova, V.F. 2005. Features inter annual dynamics species composition and structure macrophytobenthos in the Bay of Novorossiysk (Black Sea). Ekologiya Morya 69: 53–57.
Teyubova V.F. 2012. The diversity and ecological features macrophytobenthos the Russian sector of theBlack Sea. Dissertation for degree of biological sciences.
Todorova, V. and Panayotova, M. 2011. Black mussels and/or barnacle communities on mediolittoral rocks. Red Data Book of Republic of Bulgaria. Vol. III. Natural habitats. Bas and Moew (Eds.). ISBN 978-9549746-23-5.

Criterion A Text:
This habitat is known to have suffered declines in Romania and there is continuing decline in Turkey but there is insufficient data to quantify overall trends in quantity in areas hosted by EU 28 or EU 28+. This habitat has been assessed as Data Deficient under criteria A.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat has a restricted geographical distribution in the EU countries of the Black Sea as the EOO is intrinsically small for the EU states. The number of localities where it occurs is also small and declines in in biotic quality are ongoing but cannot be quantified. Whilst the associated species  recolonises artificial substrate these are degraded examples with fewer species. 
This habitat does not have a restricted distribution in the area hosted by EU28+  but is assessed as Data Deficient because of the lack of information on its trends in quantity and quality and the fact that its overall distribution is unknown.
Within the EU 28 it is assessed as Data Deficient.

Criterion C/D Text:
Whilst there has been some decline in quality, and establishment of degraded examples on artificial surfaces, overall experts consider there to be insufficient data to conduct an assessment using criteria C/D.

Synthesis:
There is anecdotal evidence of declines in extent and quality however with no studies dedicated to this habitat in the Black Sea it is not possible to assign any quantitative information to these trends.
In the EU 28, this habitat has a restricted distribution however it is asssessed as Data Deficient because of the lack of information on trends in quantity and quality, and the fact that its overall distribution is unknown.  
In the EU 28+ this habitat has a large EOO and AOO, and therefore qualifies as Least Concern under criterion B. However the habitat is assessed as Data Deficient because of the lack of information on its trends in quantity and quality.


Habitat Description:
This habitat type is connected to calcareous rock types, such as limestone, dolomite or calcareous siltstone. The habitat type extends from the southern boreal region to the arctic zone and harbours therefore large diversity of species and plant communities. Screes (or talus formations) are formed when rock fragments fall off from cliff faces as a result of physical and chemical weathering and erosion. Screes often show a sorting of rock fragments. The largest blocks roll down the furthest, whereas the finest material accumulates in the uppermost part of the slope. Most occurrences of this habitat type probably represent scree slopes but also flat baserich gravel or blockfields may have been formed by frost action breaking calcareous rock outcrops in situ.
Baserich or calcareous screes are distributed mainly in the Scandinavian Mountain range, Iceland and Svalbard. In Iceland the division between baserich and basepoor scree habitats is not as clear as elsewhere in northern Europe, but the species composition on more-or-less neutral screes fits best in the here described habitat type.  The sparsely vegetated flat, stony and sandy volcanic habitats of Central Island are included in type H5.1c.
Similar to siliceous screes, the vegetation of baserich screes varies in the boreal region from forests to scrubs and sparsely vegetated, unstable patches, if considered as a whole. However, the habitat type in question only refers to more or less open patches that do not have a tree or scrub layer. In screes, the most characteristic assemblages of vascular plants are found in the unstable patches, where also weak competitors or various pioneer communities can persist. On calcareous substrate, characteristic plants are Arenaria humifusa, A. norvegica, A. pseudofrigida, Artemisia norvegica, Papaver species of the Papaver radicatum group, Papaver relictum, Papaver laestadianum and Braya linearis.
The most important factor determining the species composition of screes is natural or seminatural disturbance regime, which maintains characteristic species assemblages. In screes, the disturbance regime is characterized by the continuum of periodic rockfall, unstability of the substrate, and in some regions also by the long tradition of grazing. In some cases, grazing or, e.g., hiking or mountaineering activities may cause additional erosion in the habitat to such an extent that it disturbs the formation of typical vegetation.
Indicators of good quality:
·      natural or seminatural disturbance regime, with a continuum of periodic rockfall and unstability of the substrate or (in some cases) forest fires
·      no or little succession towards scrub and forest
·      continuation of traditional grazing (where relevant)
·      no disturbance (for example by hiking, grazing, etc.)
·      diversity of lichen, moss and vascular plant species
Characteristic species:
Majority of the listed species are relevant for the Scandinavian scree habitats, where they represent floral elements from southern boreal region to mid alpine levels. Species relevant also or especially for Svalbard are marked with (S).
Flora
Vascular plants: Arabis alpina, Arenaria humifusa, A. norvegica, A. pseudofrigida (S), Artemisia norvegica, Braya linearis, B. purpurascens (S), Campanula rotundifolia, Cardaminopsis petraea, Carex capillaris, C. bigelowii, C. glacialis, C. misandra (S), C. rupestris, Cerastium alpinum, Draba fladnizensis, D. nivalis, D. norvegica, Dryas octopetala, Elymus macrourus (Roegneria borealis subsp. islandica), Equisetum scirpoides, E. variegatum, Gymnocarpium robertianum, Kobresia simpliuscula (S), Luzula arcuata (S), Minuartia rubella. M. stricta, Oxytropis lapponica, Papaver laestadianum, P. radicatum coll., P. relictum, Pinguicula alpina, Poa alpina, P. glauca, Potentilla nivea (S), Salix reticulata, Saxifraga aizoides, S. nivalis, S. oppositifolia, Silene acaulis, Thalictrum alpinum, Tofieldia pusilla, Woodsia alpina.
Lichens: Caloplaca ssp., Polyblastia ssp., Protoblastenia rupestris, Thelidium ssp., Verrucaria ssp.
Fauna
Insects: Spiders

Classification:
EUNIS:
H2.2 Cold base-rich screes
Euroveg Checklist:
Arenarion norvegicae Nordhagen 1935
Annex 1:
8120   Calcareous and calcshist screes of the montane to alpine levels (only partly)
Emerald:
H2.2 Cold limestone screes
MAES-2:
Sparsely or unvegetated land
IUCN:
6 Rocky areas

Map Description:
The map is very incomplete, especially for Svalbard, Iceland and Norway. Data sources: Art17, EVA.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
The habitat is restricted to the arctic-boreal zone in FI, IS, NO (incl. SV), SE

Pressures and Threats:
Based on Finish data only: Currently known/assumed occurrences are in the northern fell area and in the Kuusamo district. It is assumed that no significant quantitative or qualitative changes have occurred in the past 50 years. The habitat type partly corresponds to 8.9.3 Mountain calcareous bedrock outcrops and boulder fields and includes 8.10.2 Calcareous talus formations. The mentioned habitat types are both categorized NT in the assessment of threatened habitat types in Finland (fell habitats assessed Norokorpi et al. 2008). The potential threat is overgrowth of vegetation in relation to the lack of fires, the higher atmospheric nitrogen-inputs, the species composition changes due succession.  Forest plantations on open ground, construction of dispersed habitations are of lesser concern. The habitat type partly corresponds to 8.9.3 Mountain calcareous bedrock outcrops and boulder fields and includes 8.10.2 Calcareous talus formations. The mentioned habitat types are both categorized NT in the assessment of threatened habitat types in Finland (fell habitats assessed Norokorpi et al. 2008).

Conservation and Management:
To preserve natural or semi natural disturbance regime, with a continuum of periodic rockfall and instability of the substrate the protection of some areas as nature reserve is recommended. Also management to stop the succession towards scrub and forest. Negative factors can be intensive grazing, hiking and trampling.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
At least for generalist rock plants, the natural recovery of this habitat is possible and fast when it is not isolated from habitats of the same type. The return of specialized nesting birds after strong disturbances is less easy for example. The same applies to specialists plants of rock micro-habitats.

Summary:
The boreal and arctic base-rich scree and block fields comprise talus or freeze-thaw block fields of calcareous rocks in the southern boreal to arctic regions, mainly in the Scandinavian Mountain range, Iceland and Svalbard. Because of the large variation in climate, the habitat harbours a large diversity of species and plant communities, but this habitat includes only the sparse assemblages of vascular plants growing in sparse patches.  These are dependent on the natural or seminatural disturbance regime, periodic rockfall and continuing instability of the substrate in the case of screes, and in some regions also a long tradition of grazing. This and tourist activity may cause additional erosion in the habitat to such an extent that it disturbs the formation of typical vegetation.  Additional threats are from overgrowth of vegetation because of the lack of fires and higher atmospheric nitrogen-inputs.

References:
Elvebakk, A. 1985. A survey of plant associations and alliances from Svalbard. Journal of Vegetation Science 5: 791-802.
Norokorpi, Y., Eeronheimo, H., Eurola, S., Heikkinen, R., Johansson, P., Kumpula, J., Mäkelä, K., Neuvonen, S., Sihvo, J., Tynys, S. and Virtanen, R. 2008. Tunturit Suomen luontotyyppien uhanalaisuus (Assessment of Threatened Habitat Types in Finland), pp. 467-541. In: Raunio, A., Schulman, A. and Kontula, T. eds. Suomen luontotyyppien uhanalaisuus: Osa 2: Luontotyyppien kuvaukset. Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsink,Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinky, 572 p.
ValachoviÄ M., Dierssen K., Dimopoulos P., HadaÄ E., Loidi J., Mucina L., Rossi G., Valle Tendero F. and Tomaselli M. 1997. The vegetation on screes - survey of higher syntaxa in Europe. Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica 32: 173-192.

Criterion A Text:
Trend data on the area have only been reported from Finland (stable), and as important data from Sweden, UK and Norway are lacking, the conclusion for criterion A is Data Deficient.

Criterion B Text:
The calculated AOO is below the thresholds fro criterion B (resp. 47 and 49 for EU28 and EU28+), but the map is rather incomplete and therefore it is expected that the value in reality is larger than 50. It may be below the Near Threatened threshold of 100 grid cells however. As no trend on quality or quantity is known, and nothing is known about likely future threats, criterion B has been evaluated as Data Deficient.

Criterion C/D Text:
Trend data on the quality have only been reported from Finland (stable over the last 50 years). Because of large data gaps (Sweden, Scotland, Norway) the conclusion for criterion A is Data Deficient.

Synthesis:
Due to lack of quantitative data for most of the distribution range the habitat is assessed as Data Deficient (DD).

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
The habitat type partly corresponds to mountain calcareous bedrock outcrops and boulder fields and includes calcareous talus formations. Such sub-types can be distinguished.

Contributors:
Type description: T. Kontula
Territorial data: T. Kontula
Working Group Sparsely Vegetated Habitats: F. Essl, G. Giusso del Galdo, A. Mikolajczak, D. Paternoster, M. ValachoviÄ, M. Valderrabano


Habitat Type Name:
A4.24 Invertebrate-dominated Pontic circalittoral rock

Habitat Description:
Circalittoral rock starts at the lower limit of distribution of photophilic plants and ends where the circalittoral rocky substrate gives way to sediments. On the Northwestern Black Sea shelf the habitat occurs on rocky coasts in depths between 10-15 m (depending on local conditions of light penetration, the upper limit of the habitat is defined as the lower limit of photophilic plants) down to 30-70m (depending on how deep rocky reefs occur at the location). The fauna is highly diverse, including many invertebrate and fish species which occur only in this habitat, some of them rare or protected. The habitat is very important due to the crucial ecological role of mussels in the self-cleansing capacity of the ecosystem and in benthic- pelagic coupling. One square meter of mussel-covered circalittoral rock has a clearance rate of 1.3 to 7.1 m3 m-2  h-1  and is able to filter 31-170 m3 of seawater per day. Biological production of this habitat is usually around 6 kg m-2  but can exceed 10 kg m-2  in favourable conditions, with complex foodweb linking it to other habitats. Also, it is an important feeding ground, nursery and refuge for many commercially valuable fish species and it provides the biofiltering capacity essential for maintaining the quality of nearshore waters.
Indicators of quality:
The following parameters and thresholds have been established for Romania:
1. Cover of Mytilus galloprovincialis (in the habitat subtype where it is dominant) ≥ 50%
2. Cover of invertebrate crusts, turfs and canopies (in the habitat subtype where they dominate) ≥ 80%
3. Median shell length of Mytilus galloprovincialis ≥ 50 mm SL
4. Live biomass of Mytilus galloprovincialis where dominant ≥ 6kg m-2
Characteristic species:
The dominant species is often the blue mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis, but in certain subtypes other benthic species may dominate:
- crusts and turfs formed by bryozoans, crust sponges (Dysidea sp.) or colonial tunicates Botryllus schlosseri;
- vertical walls and ridges can be covered either by dense colonies of erect, branched sponges
Halichondria sp. and Haliclona sp. or by solitary ascidians Molgula manhattensis, Ascidiella aspersa, Ciona intestinalis;
- Hydrozoans can form dense turfs and even tall canopies in the case of larger species (Obelia longissima)

Classification:
EUNIS (2004):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Circalittoral rock’ (A4).
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs             
 
MAES:
Marine - Coastal       
 
MSFD:
Shelf sublittoral rock & biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shelf rock or biogenic reefs
 
IUCN:
9.2 subtidal rock and rocky reefs

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Invertebrate-dominated communities on circalittoral rock are common globally. These are not unique to the Black Sea.

Trends in Quantity:
There is no quantity data available for the historic (pre 1965) period. Expert opinion states that it would have been more widespread than the current distribution. This is based on knowledge of the pressures facing the habitat and their prevalence during this period.
In the recent past (1965 to present day) the habitat has declined in extent. This is as a result of sedimentation and eutrophication. During the period up to the 1990s wide spread and severe eutrophication occurred in Black Sea. This was most notable in the western Black Sea. This caused a significant reduction in extent. Since the late 1990s/2000 signs of stability have been observed.
However, the extent is still reported as declining at some sites in Romania and Bulgaria. Here barrens have started to occur and are spreading, the causes of which are unknown.
In the future the habitat is expected to remain stable. This is based on reduced pressures from eutrophication and sedimentation.

Trends in Quality:
In the historic period (pre-1965) the habitat quality is believed to have been high and stable. This is based on expert opinion of the habitat and the likely presence of pressures during this period.
In the current period (1965 to present) the habitat quality has declined. The quality has declined in terms of species numbers, community structure, biomass and density. Bivalves also lost their dominance. The size of molluscs has also reduced and Mytilus galloprovincialis is no longer present on circalittoral rock in many locations. This is based on monitoring data from Tarkanhut, Sevstapol, Karadag, Kerch, Utrish and Novorossiik Bay. There is no quality data available for Romania and Bulgaria. However, expert opinion reflects that this process has also occurred in EU states. This is supported by the presence of barren areas on circalittoral rock in Romania. Previously these would have been occupied by invertebrates.
At present in Russia and Ukraine there is a decrease in production and a loss of normal population structure in Mytilus galloprovincialis– very young individuals of only 20-40 mm shell length have become dominant. These could be indicative of a low condition index, shortened life cycle and high mortalities.
In the future the habitat quality is expected to remain stable and to show signs of recovery. This due to improved water quality and reduced pressures. Additionally, recent studies have shown that Mytilus galloprovincialis population dynamics show long term cycles of expansion and decline. The population is currently believed to be at a low point and is expected to show expansion in the next 15–20 years.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Around 18% of this habitat is estimated to be hosted by EU28 in the black sea

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat has a small range following regression in the EU countries only. In the EU 28+ the EOO exceeds 50,000 km².
The habitat has undergone an important decline in the last 50 years. This is especially true to the western Black Sea (see

Justification of Restricted Area:
Circalittoral rock is not widely distributed. In the Black Sea it is limited to depths of approximately 25 m due to sediment deposits.

Pressures and Threats:
Eutrophication as a result of nutrient enrichment (N, P and organic matter) is the most significant historic pressure on the habitat. Reduced light penetration due to eutrophication caused declines in extent and quality of the habitat. Since the 1990s this pressure has reduced due to tighter controls on pollution in the catchment of the Danube and other rivers which enter the north-west Black Sea. Whilst this pressure is now reduced it is still a continuing threat in the current and future periods. This is especially true for non EU countries surrounding the Black Sea which are not bound by the agreements such as the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
Trawling is a current and future threat to the habitat. This causes habitat destruction by scraping away the benthic communities. Beam-trawling for Rapana venosa and shellfish is ongoing in EU states. In Turkey it is prohibited within 300m of the shore. However, illegal trawling takes places.
Siltation is a current and future threat to the habitat. The resettling of suspended sediment can cause smothering. This inhibits the growth of habitat forming species. Siltation is typically caused by dredging, trawling and other activities which disturb bottom sediments.
The alien species Rapana venosa is a lesser but constant threat to the bivalve species in the habitat. R. venosa preys on the bivalves living on circalittoral rock, resulting in a localised decrease in their population.

Conservation and Management:
The habitat is currently protected by some MPAs in some Black Sea states. In EU states eutrophication is now being managed by the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Trawling is not prohibited in EU states, protection measures are needed in this respect. Future management should include the designation of additional MPAs, improvement of water quality management outside EU member states, enhanced legal protection for occurrences of the habitat and key species (e.g. additions to the EU Habitats Directive), prohibiting of bottom trawling.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Recovery through intervention cannot be achieved for this habitat. The habitat can recover naturally providing there is a sufficient sources of propagules and the abiotic conditions are appropriate.

Summary:
The habitat is present throughout the Black Sea on areas where circalittoral rock occurs. It is present in the Sea of Marmara. Data on current extent is available for all Black Sea countries. For Turkey this data is incomplete and based on some assumptions. There is no historic (pre 1965) data available. Quantitative data on the habitat is available for localities in Crimea. This is for the last 50 years only. Quantitative data is not available for the habitat in any other countries. Expert opinion states that this data can be extrapolated and applied to all localities in the Black Sea. Historically the most significant pressure has been eutrophication. This has caused the greatest reductions in quantity and quality. This was most acutely experienced in the north-west Black Sea where there are high riverine inputs. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union improved transboundary pollution measures have been implemented. This has led to a reduction in the pressure. Currently trawling and siltation are the two main pressures for the habitat.

References:
Aleksandrov, B.G. 2008. Hydrobiological management framework of coastal ecosystems. 344pp.
Anon. 2006. The northwestern part of the Black Sea: biology and ecology 2006. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. 701pp. (In Russian).
Bacescu, M.C., Muller, G.I. and Gomoiu, M.-T. 1971. Cercetari de ecologie bentala in Marea Neagra (analiza cantitativa, calitativa si comparata a faunei bentice pontice). Ecologie Marina. Vol. IV. Editura Academiei R.S.R., Bucuresti. 357pp.
Bondarev, I.P. 2013. The dynamics of leading species of modern facies in the black sea. Geology and Mineral Resources of the World Ocean: 3.
Chichkin, V.N. and Kurakin, A.P. 2005. Mytilids of Zmeiny Island. Scientific notes of the Ternopil National
Pedagogical University. Series Biology 4(27): 264-266 (in Russian).
Kaminska, L.D. et al. 1977. Benthic fauna of the coastal zone of the Odessa Bay and surrounding areas in conditions of hydraulic engineering. Russian Journal of Marine Biology 43: 54-64 (in Russian).
Kohammed, H.I. 1993. The Molluscs of benthos and fouling of the Odessa coasts of the Black Sea: their role in ecosystems: 19.
Losovskaya, G.V. and Ryticova, L. Yu. 1985. The state of benthic communities in the North-Westen part of the Black Sea under conditions of change in the river flow: 37-43.
Micu, D. 2008. Open Sea and Tidal Areas. Natura 2000 Habitat Interpretation Manual for Romania. Gafta, D. and Mountford, J.O. (Eds.). EU publication no. EuropeAid/121260/D/SV/RO. 101pp. ISBN 978-973-751- 697-8.
Micu, D., Zaharia, T. and Todorova, V. 2008. Natura 2000 habitat types from the Romanian Black Sea. The development of an indicative ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas in Romania. Zaharia, T., Micu, D., Todorova, V., Maximov, V. and NiÅ£Äƒ, V. (Eds.). Romart Design Publishing, Constanta. 32pp.
Milovidova, N.Yu. 1966. Bottom biocenosis of the Novorosiyskaya bay. The distribution of benthos and benthic biology in the southern seas: 75-89.
Moncheva, S. and Todorova, V. (Eds.). 2013. Initial assessment of the marine environment. In article 8 of msfd 2008/56/ec and noosmv (2010). 500pp.
Nabozhenko, M.V. 2011. Modern destribution of the bivalvian molluscs (Bivalvia, Mollusca) of the North- Eastern part of Black Sea. Bulletin of Southern Scientific Center RAS 3(7): 79-86.
Revkov N. K. 2011. Macrozoobenthos of the Ukrainian zone of the Black Sea shelf // Biological resources of the Black Sea and Sea of Azov. Sevastopol: EKOSI-Gidrofizika: 40–162.
Snegirev, S.M. and Medintsev, V.I. 2012. The investigation of the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis in the coastal waters of Zmeiniy Island in 2004-2012. Ecological problems of the Black Sea: Collected papers: 85- 88
Terentyev, A.S. 2011. Macrozoobenthos of coastal part of the Kerch Bay (summer, 2009). Ecology of cities and recreational areas. All Ukrainian Scientific Conference Proceedings of articles: 261-263.
Zagorovsky, N. and Rubinstein, D. 1916. The materials to the system of biocenoses of Odessa Bay. Notes of the Imperial Society of Agriculture in South Russia. 86(1): 203–241.

Criterion A Text:
In the EU there has been a decline of between 25 and 30% in the last 50 years. This is based on expert opinion. In the EU 28+ the extent has not decreased by >25%. This is based on expert opinion.

Criterion B Text:
The AOO and EOO are intrinsically small for the EU states. Declines in in spatial extent, abiotic and biotic quality have halted. There are no threatening processes likely to cause declines in the next 20 years. However, there have been significant declines in the recent past which have left the habitat in a fragile state. The habitat exists at various locations, and there are no plausible human activities or stochastic events that may drive the habitat to be CR or Collapsed within a very short time period.
The threshold values for threatened categories are not met for the EU28+.

Criterion C/D Text:
In the EU states there has been an intermediate decline affecting >50% extent. This has occurred within the last 50 years. This has affected both biotic and abiotic factors. It is not possible to decouple these. This is based on expert opinion. There is no Quantitative data for EU states.  
In the EU 28+ the decline has been intermediate affecting >50%. This has affected both biotic and abiotic factors. It is not possible to decouple these. This is based on quantitative data for localities in Crimea. The results have been extrapolated for the rest of the Black Sea.

Synthesis:
In the EU 28 the habitat type is assessed as Vulnerable under Criterion C/D1. There has been an intermediate decline affecting >50%. There is no data to support this. It is based on expert opinion.
In the EU 28+ the habitat type is assessed as Vulnerable under Criterion C/D1. There has been an intermediate decline affecting >50%. This is based on quantitative data for localities in Crimea. The results have been extrapolated for the rest of the Black Sea.

Contributors:
D. Micu, S. Beal, D. Korolesova, V. Mihneva, N. A. Milchakova, A. Terentyev, B. Yokes


Habitat Type Name:
A5.53 Seagrass and rhizomatous algal meadows in Pontic freshwater-influenced sheltered infralittoral muddy sands and sandy muds

Habitat Description:
This habitat occurs in sheltered shallow (0.5-2 m) coastal waters (embayments, inlets, bights, harbours, estuaries), more or less influenced by freshwater (salinity 0.5-10 psu), where sedimentary stability leads to mudding of the sand. Mixed or monospecific meadows are formed by Zostera noltei, Ruppia maritima, R. cirrhosa, Chara spp., Stuckenia pectinata (formerly known as Potamogeton pectinatus), Najas minor and Ranunculus baudotii. Algae commonly found include species of Cladophora and Ulva which are tolerant of very low salinities.
Indicators of quality: 
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include the presence of particular species, water quality parameters, levels of exposure to a particular exposure as well as more integrated indices which describe habitat function and structure, such as trophic index, or successful stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time. There are no known commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may be set in certain situations, e.g. protected features with Natura 2000 sites, where reference values may have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis. Some potential indicators of quality for this specific habitat are thepresence of species (i.e. Zanichellia and Ruppia); species density; species composition; the ratio of higher plants to seagrasses; and biomass. There is insufficient information to set indicator thresholds required for monitoring purposes. 
Characteristic species: 
Zostera noltii, Ruppia maritima, R. cirrhosa, Potamogeton pectinatus, Chara sp.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A5.5 Pontic shallow/infralittoral coarse sediment.
 
Annex 1:
1110 Sandbanks slightly covered all the time
1130 Estuaries
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral sand
Shallow sublittoral mud
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow sands
Shallow muds
 
IUCN:
9.9   Seagrass (submerged)
9.10 Estuaries

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The species composition of this habitat is widespread throughout European regional seas.

Comment EU28:
Current total area of the habitat is unknown. Localities are known but not studied in detail. Total area estimates cannot be calculated.

Comment EU28+:
Current total area of the habitat is unknown. Localities are known but not studied in detail. Total area estimates cannot be calculated.

Trends in Quantity:
In the historic period (pre 1965) the habitat quantity is likely to have been stable. It was first described in 1914 but no quantitative distribution records are available from this period. However, expert opinion states that is likely to have been generally stable. This is based on knowledge of the habitat and its likely response to pressures during this period. However it is known to have completely disappeared from one site between 1927 and 1968 (Novorossiysk Bay).
In the current period (1965 to present day) the habitat is believed to have reduced in extent. There has been a low level of widespread reduction. However, at some localities the habitat has collapsed. This is due to local coastal developments. For instance, at Kamyshovaya Bay (Crimea) the habitat collapsed between 1967 and 1999 due to port construction and associated dredging activities. The low level widespread reduction is mostly based on expert opinion. It is supported by data from individual sites where small reductions have occurred. Generally speaking expert opinion states that the construction of ports in Ukraine and Crimea during the last 50 years has not significantly reduced the extent of the habitat. Losses are also known to have occurred in front of the Danube Delta due to coastal management. These are not thought to be significant. No data is available for Turkey. It is possible that localities in Turkey remain unrecorded.
In the future the habitat extent is expected to remain stable. In EU countries most remaining localities are within protected areas.

Trends in Quality:
In the historic period (pre 1965) the habitat quality is believed to have been high and stable. This is based on expert knowledge of the habitat and the likely response to known pressures during this period.
In the current period (1965 to present day) the quality has declined. From the 1970s onwards port construction and coastal developments in estuaries caused degradation through destruction, fragmentation and siltation. Water extraction from rivers has resulted in a change in species composition. For instance, the biomass of Zostera sp. increased at Sary-Bulat Lagoon and Lebyagii Islands (Crimea) as a result of this. Furthermore, filamentous algae invaded the habitat during the eutrophication period. This resulted in further changes to species composition.
In the future the habitat quality is uncertain.  Extraction of river water and river basin management is also likely to affect the future quality of the habitat.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Around 28% of this habitat is estimated to be hosted by Eu 28 in the Black Sea.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat has a small range following regression in the EU countries only. In the EU 28+ the EOO exceeds 50,000 km². The habitat has not undergone an important decline in the last 50 years.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat can only form in mixed fresh and saline waters.

Pressures and Threats:
Eutrophication as a result of nutrient enrichment (N, P and organic matter) is the most significant historic pressure on the habitat. Reduced light penetration due to eutrophication caused declines in extent and quality of the habitat. Since the 1990s this pressure has reduced due to tighter controls on pollution in the catchment of the Danube and other rivers, which enter the north-west Black Sea. Whilst this pressure is now reduced it is still a continuing threat in the current and future periods. This is especially true for non EU countries surrounding the Black Sea which are not bound by the agreements such as the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
Hydrological changes are a threat of future importance. This is caused by changes to fresh water inputs from rivers. Water extraction and river basin management are the pressures likely to result in this threat.
Siltation is a current and future threat to the habitat. The resettling of suspended sediment can cause smothering. This inhibits the growth of habitat forming species. Siltation is typically caused by dredging, trawling and other activities, which disturbed bottom sediments.
Sand extraction is a threat of current and future importance. This can lead to habitat destruction. Sand is an important building resource in the Black Sea. Sand extraction is likely to increase alongside development pressures in the region.

Conservation and Management:
The habitat  is a characteristic feature of several habitat types listed in Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive like 1130 Estuaries. As a result it is included in Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). These areas are also included within Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive.
In EU states water quality and management are managed by the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Future management should include the designation of additional protected areas in non EU member states and improvement of water quality management and extraction regulations outside EU member states

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The habitat can recover naturally if the water quality is improved and the hydrological regime is stable. Recovery through intervention is not appropriate for this habitat type.

Summary:
The habitat is present throughout the Black Sea in sheltered, shallow (0.5-2 m) coastal waters (embayments, inlets, bights, harbours, estuaries), more or less influenced by freshwater (salinity 0.5-10 psu), with meadows formed by various seagrass. It is not present in the Sea of Marmara due to high levels of pollution. Pressures affecting the habitat include coastal development, eutrophication and hydrological regime change. At specific localities coastal development has caused the habitat to collapse. Eutrophication and hydrological regime change have been responsible for altering species compositions and biomass. This habitat is protected within the EU 28 as both a Special Area of Conservation and a Specially Protected Area. There is little protection outside of the EU 28.

References:
Alexandrov, V.V. 2000. Assessment of the Zostera marina L. coenopoulations state near Sevastopol. Ekologiya Morya 52: 26-30.
Anon. 1999. Biodiversity of the Dunaisky Biosphere Reserve, protection and management. 704pp.
Anon. 2006. The northwestern part of the Black Sea: biology and ecology. 701pp.
Kalugina-Gutnik, A.A. 1982. Change in bottom vegetation of the Sevastopol Bay for the period of 1967-1977. Ekologiya Morya 9: 48-62.
Kulikova, N.M. and Kolesnikova, E.A. 1976. Associations of flowering plants in the Sevastopol Bay. Biologiya Morya 36: 17-25.
Micu, D., Zaharia, T., Todorova, V. and NiÅ£Äƒ, V. 2007. Romanian Marine Habitats of European Interest. Punct Ochit Publishers, ConstanÅ£a. 32pp. ISBN 978-973-88566-1-5.
Micu, D. 2008. Open Sea and Tidal Areas. Natura 2000 Habitat Interpretation Manual for Romania.  Gafta, D. and Mountford, J.O. (Eds.). EU publication no. EuropeAid/121260/D/SV/RO. 101pp. ISBN 978-973-751-697-8.
Micu, D., Zaharia, T. and Todorova, V. 2008. Natura 2000 habitat types from the Romanian Black Sea. The development of an indicative ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas in Romania. Zaharia, T., Micu, D., Todorova, V., Maximov, V. and NiÅ£Äƒ, V. (Eds.). Romart Design Publishing, Constanta. pp 32.
Milchakova, N.A. 1996. Zannichellia major Boenn. communities in the Kertch Straight of the Black Sea. Rastitelnye Resursy 26(3): 417-427.
Milchakova, N.A. 1999. On the status of seagrass communities in the Black Sea. Aquatic Botany 65: 21-32.
Milchakova, N.A. and Phillips, R.C. 2003. Black sea seagrasses. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46: 695-699.
Moncheva, S. and Todorova, V. (Eds.). 2013. Initial assessment  of the marine environment. In article 8 of msfd 2008/56/ec and noosmv (2010). 500pp.
Ovechko, S.V. 2012. Higher Aquatic Vegetation Dnieper-Bugsky estuary. Materials of the All-Ukrainian scientific-practical conference "Estuaries of the Northwestern Black Sea: actual hydroecological problems and ways of their solutions: 144-147.
Pogrebnyak, I.I. 1965. Bottom vegetation of estuaries of northwestern Black Sea and adjacent waters of the Sea: 31.
Sadogursky, S.E. 2001. To the study of macrophytobenthos of the Karkinitsky gulf protected waters (Black Sea). Algologiya 11(3): 342-359.
Sadogursky, S.E. 2009. Flora and vegetation of the waters of the branch of the Crimean Natural Reserve "Lebyagii Island" (Black Sea): current status and way of conservation. Nature Reserves in Ukraine 15(2): 41-50.
Todorova, V. and Panayotova, M. 2011. Sublittoral sands. Red book of Republic of Bulgaria. Vol. III. Natural habitats. Bas and Moew (Eds.). ISBN 978-9549746-23-5.
Zernov, S.A. 1913. On the question of the study of life of the Black Sea. Zapiski Imperatorskoy Akademii Nauk. 8 seriya. Po fiziko-matematicheskomu otdeleniyu (Proceedings of the Imperor Academy of Sciences. 8th series. Physical and mathematical branch) 32: 299.

Criterion A Text:
In EU states the reduction of extent has been <30% in the last 50 years. This is based on expert opinion. In The EU 28+ the reduction of extent has been between 25-30% in the last 50 years. This is based on a combination of quantitative data (for specific sites), qualitative data and expert opinion. This habitat has therfore been assessed as Least Concern in the EU 28 and Near Threatened in the EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
The AOO and EOO are intrinsically small for the EU states. Declines in in spatial extent, abiotic and biotic quality have halted. Climate change is a threatening processes which may cause declines in the next 20 years but the impacts are not well understood. The habitat exists at various locations, and there are no plausible human activities or stochastic events that may drive the habitat to be CR or Collapsed within a very short time period. Currently the habitat is not expeted to decline further in the future. Therefore the threshold values for threatened categories are not met for the EU 28 or EU28+.

Criterion C/D Text:
There is insufficient data in declines in quality to apply criteria C/D. Locality specific data is available for sites in Crimea and Ukraine. However, due to specific locations associated with pressures and threats causing decline it cannot be extrapolated to the rest of the Black Sea.

Synthesis:
There has been a slight decline in extent in the last 50 years in the EU 28, based on expert opinion. Therefore the habitat is assessed as Least Concern under Criterion A1.
In the EU 28+ the habitat type is assessed as Near Threatened under Criterion A1 as there has been a decline in extent of 25-30% in the last 50 years. This based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative data and expert opinion. Data is from sites in Crimea and Ukraine only and has been extrapolated for the rest of the Black Sea.

Assessors:
S. Beal, D. Micu, V. Mihneva, N. Milchakova, B. Yokes

Contributors:
D. Micu, S. Beal,  V. V. Alexandrov, D. Korolesova, V. Mihneva, N. Milchakova, B. Yokes


Habitat Type Name:
A5.5z Seagrass meadows in Pontic moderately exposed upper infralittoral clean sands

Habitat Description:
The habitat occurs in the upper infralittoral zone, on clean sands at depths between 0.2 to 3m. It is characterized by sedimentary stability and a low silt content of 5-10%. The dominant seagrass species is Zostera noltei, which may form monospecific or mixed meadows (with Zostera marina, Ruppia spp. and Zannichellia pedicellata). Of areas surveyed in detail, the maximum biomass and density of this seagrass in the Black Sea has been measured in the Karkinitsky Bight, where it occurs on sandy substrate mixed with silt. Other species of seagrass are also present in this habitat and 62 macroalgal species. Algae with short life cycles, mostly red algae, dominate, with epiphytic and unattached forms usually prevailing over epilithic forms.
Indicators of quality:
Leaf length, biomass, shoot density have all been identified has indicators of quality. In Romania the following thresholds have been defined: Low fragmentation of habitat; cover of Z. noltei inside the meadow ≥50%; leaf length in June ≥70 cm; annual outward growth of rhizomes from the meadow ≥70 cm; above-ground biomass of Z. noltei in June ≥1,600 g/m2.
Characteristic species:
Zostera noltei is the dominant seagrass species. It may form pure stands or be found in association with Zostera marina, Ruppia maritima and R. cirrhosa. Algae commonly found include Cladophora albida

Classification:
EUNIS (2004):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of 'Pontic Sublittoral macrophyte-dominated sediment' (A5.5).
 
Annex 1:  
1110 Sandbanks slightly covered all the time
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:  
Shallow sublittoral sand
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow sands
 
IUCN:
9.4 Subtidal sandy
9.9 Seagrass (submerged)

Trends in Quantity:
During the period up to the 1990s widespread and severe eutrophication occurred in the Black Sea. This was most notable in the western Black Sea. This caused a significant reduction in extent. In the 1980s around Romania, Bulgaria and the Kerch Strait this habitat was near collapse. In Romania the reduction in extent is estimated at 95%. At Tendrovsky Bay in Ukraine losses of between 70 and 80% have been recorded. A similar trend is also seen along the Sevastopol coast in Crimea where between 40 and 80% of the habitat has been lost. There has been recovery since 2000 but not in deeper areas due to a continued lack of water clarity caused by eutrophication. The quantity of the habitat is now increasing but is yet to reach previous levels. This recovery has not been experienced around Crimea, largely due to the continued development in the area. Coastal development (i.e. hydrotechnical works) have further contributed to these losses in Romania. This has led to a total loss of large areas of meadows in the Razim-Sinoe lagoons. Major losses of shallow meadows have also occurred along the coast due to coastal protection and harbour building works.
Turkish data on this habitat is sparse. However, there are three bays with the habitat in western Turkey which have been well studied. In these locations the habitat has remained stable in extent since 1992. Little data exists on the extent of this habitat along Turkey’s eastern coastline except Sinop area. However, it could be speculated that there has been a decline due to the development of a coastal road in the area. There is no data on the effect of eutrophication in this area.
As a whole there has been an increase in biomass of Zostera noltei. The species has now begun to expand into areas previously occupied by Zostera marina. This is probably because Z. marina has a lower recoverability like in other regional seas
Coastal development continues to put pressure on this habitat across the entire Black Sea. This has been particularly noted at certain sites in Crimea which have experienced large losses due to dredging activities (e.g. Sevastopol coast and Balaklava Bay).

Trends in Quality:
In the last 50 years (1965 to present day) the quality has decreased in Romania and Bulgaria. This has been witnessed since 1980s due to the effects of eutrophication. The decline in quality has been experienced in parallel with the decline in quantity. The reduction in quality has been defined by: meadow fragmentation, reduced depth distribution, reduced cover and leaf length, reduced diversity of associated communities, anthropogenic substrate degradation. In Ukraine and Crimea there is a general trend of decline and recovery. For instance, data from Tendrovsky Bay has seen biomass decrease from 3,728 to 456.5 g/m2 between 1973 and 1990. Where more recent data is available (e.g. Sevastopol coast) biomass has increased between 1984 and 2008. It has now recovered to levels seen in 1972. There is no quality data available from Turkey.
In the last 10 years it has been recorded that Z. noltei has seen the less vegetative growth, but more reproductive growth producing seeds.

Pressures and Threats:
Eutrophication as a result of nutrient enrichment (N, P and organic matter) is the most significant historic pressure on the habitat. Reduced light penetration due to eutrophication caused declines in extent and quality of the habitat. Since the 1990s this pressure has reduced due to tighter controls on pollution in the catchment of the Danube and other rivers which enter the north-west Black Sea. Whilst this pressure is now reduced it is still a continuing threat in the current and future periods. This is especially true for non EU member states surrounding the Black Sea which are not bound by the agreements such as the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
Coastal developments including the construction of marinas and slipways, sediment extraction, the widening and dredging of channels, creation of artificial beaches, road developments and sea defences. These activities may alter the hydrological regime, which will in turn affect the character and viability of the habitat.
Seagrass rhizomes are sensitive. The leaves can easily be damaged by motor boats and boat moorings. Meadows in shallow waters are also at risk of disturbance due to bait digging and trampling.

Conservation and Management:
The habitat is a characteristic feature of several habitat types listed in Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive like 1110 1150 and 1160
Conservation and management measures which would benefit this habitat include implementing measures to maintain physical and biological integrity, including pollution control and regulation; improvement of water quality management outside EU member states; coastal development controls; contingency plans to be followed in the event of a major pollution incident; survey and monitoring programmes; raised public awareness of ecological value and vulnerability; enhanced legal protection for occurrences of the habitat and key species (e.g. additions to the EU Habitats Directive, establish a unified list of Black Sea species and habitats requiring conservation measures, etc.); and the designation of MPAs.

Summary:
The habitat is present throughout the Black Sea on areas of upper infralittoral sands at depths between 0.2 to 3m. This habitat is dominated by Zostera noltei. Historically the most significant pressure has been eutrophication. This has caused the greatest reductions in quantity and quality. This was most acutely experienced in the north-west Black Sea where there are high riverine inputs. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union transboundary pollution measures have been implemented and improved. This has led to a reduction in the pressure. Conservation measures which would benfit this habitat include pollution control and regulation, coastal development controls, survey and minitoring programmes, enhanced legal protection, and the designation of marine protected areas.

References:
Afanasiev D. F., Korpakova I. G. 2008. Macrophytobenthos Russian Azov-Black Sea., Rostov-on-Don: FGUP AzNIIRH.
Anon. 2006. The northwestern part of the Black Sea: biology and ecology. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. 701pp.
Bacescu, M. C., Muller G. I., Gomoiu, M-T. 1971. Cercetari de ecologie bentica in Marea Neagra (analiza cantitativa, calitativa si comparata a faunei bentice pontice). Ecologie Marina vol. IV. Editura Academiei R.S.R., Bucuresti, 357 pp..
Bacescu M., 1977. Les biocenoses benthiques de la Mer Noire.  Biologie des eaux saumatres de la Mer Noire, Premiere partie: 128-134.
Chernyakov D. A. 1995. Natural-aquatic landscape complexes of the Tendra and Egorlyk bays and monitoring of their state in Black Sea Biosphere Reserve
Kalugina-Gutnik A. A. 1970. The composition and distribution of benthic vegetation in the south-eastern part of the Black Sea. Ecological and morphological studies of benthic organisms. Kiev: Naukova Dumka, p. 185- 202.

Synthesis:
Detailed information on the abundance and extent of this habitat is lacking. Information on the quantity and quality of this habitat including historical or recent trends is unknown. For the purposes of Red List assessment this habitat is therefore considered to be Data Deficient.

Contributors:
D. Micu, S. Beal,  V.V. Alexandrov,  E.B. Chernysheva, D. Korolesova, V. Mihneva, N. A. Milchakova, B. Yokes


Habitat Type Name:
A5.62 Mussel beds on Pontic circalittoral terrigenous muds

Habitat Description:
This habitat is comprised of mixed circalittoral sediments – terrigenous muds -  mixed with variable amounts of recent or subfossil shells, most of them belonging to the blue mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis, occurring offshore, between depths of 20 and 45 m. At these depths environmental conditions are relatively constant year-round: low light, low temperature (6-9°C), and a constant salinity of 18 ppt. Mytilus galloprovincialis forms biogenic reefs through the accumulation of mussel shells in time and aggregation of the shells by byssal threads. Over time, a hard substratum higher than the surrounding sediment is formed, on which living mussel colonies attach themselves. The reef is formed of numerous elongated patches and/or continuous ridges, always transverse to the prevailing bottom currents (which bring food to the filter-feeders). Between these lay the organic-rich “Mytilus mud” formed by accumulation of mussels’ faeces and pseudofaeces. The biomass of Mytilus galloprovincialis may vary between 200 and 1,500 g/m2.
Among the habitats which occur on sedimentary substratum in the Black Sea, the mussel beds have the highest biodiversity, due to both extending through a wide range of depths and to providing a multitude of microhabitats suitable for a large number of species. This biogenic reef is unique through the crucial ecological role played by the great biofiltration power of the mussel beds in, which ensures the benthic-pelagic coupling and provides enhanced ecosystem resilience. The ‘mussel mud’ formed by the blue mussels’ waste is an important source of food for deposit-feeding infauna living in the sediment around the mussel beds.
The high- biodiversity mussel beds harbour various threatened species and have socio-economical importance as a habitat (breeding grounds, nurseries) and fishing area for commercially valuable species (Psetta maeotica, Squalus acanthias, sturgeons, Rapana venosa). Mussels themselves are the most popular mollusc species for human consumption around the Black Sea, and mussel beds are a source of larvae and spat for aquaculture. The habitat is present all around the coasts of Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Russia and Georgia as a discontinuous belt at variable depths between 20 and 45-80 m. Historically the habitat used to be present in front of the Turkish coast as well, but was completely destroyed due to intensive bottom trawling during the last 100 years.
Indicators of quality:
Biomass, density and cover are some of potential indicators of quality for this habitat.  In Romania the following thresholds have been established:
-Reduced habitat fragmentation – the area of enclaves of Melinna palmata muds occurring inside the habitat ≤10.5%
-Cover of living mussels inside patches ≥50%
-Median shell length of living Mytilus galloprovincialis inside patches ≥50 mm.
-Live biomass of Mytilus galloprovincialis ≥5,000 g/m2
In Russia and Ukraine the average biomass of macrozoobenthos in 1970-1980 was more than 450 g/m2, with a density of 350 ind/m2. Now some decline in the number and biomass is observed. In different regions average biomass varied from 220 to 300 g/m2, and density 250-270 ind/m2. Off the coast of Crimea average density and biomass of macrozoobenthos in the habitat were quite uneven as we can see from different authors: 3,700 ind/m2 and 59 g/m2, respectively and 844 ind/m2 and 227.7 g/m2, respectively.
Characteristic species:
Blue mussel beds have a particularly important ecological role on soft seabeds, as they provide a hard surface in otherwise muddy areas. This attracts and supports a greater range of marine life than would otherwise be found there including seaweeds, anemones, barnacles, molluscs, crustaceans, echinoderms and polychaetes. The species composition of the accompanying fauna is variable and depends on the sediment matrix and depth. Between 20 and 106 species of macrozoobenthos are known to occur in the habitat, maximum number of species recorded is 131. Circalittoral Mytilus galloprovincialis beds harbour a diverse range of epibiota and infauna:
-cnidarians: Actinithoe clavata
-sponges: Dysidea sp.
-molluscs: Lepidochitona cinerea, Abra alba, Calyptraea chinensis, Retusa truncatella, Nassarius nitidus, Gouldia minima, Pitar rudis, Acanthocardium paucicostatum, Rapana venosa
-polychaetes: Terebellides stroemi, Aonides paucibranchiata, Melinna palmata, Capitella capitata, C. minima, Eumida sanguinea, Glycera alba, Hediste diversicolor, Heteromastus filiformis, Nephtys hombergii, Nereiphylla rubiginosa, Pectinaria koreni, Polycirrus jubatus, Polydora spp., Pomatoceros triqueter.
-amphipods: Ampelisca diadema, Orchomene humilis
-echinoderms: Amphiura stepanovi, Leptosynapta inhaerens
-tunicates: Ascidiella aspersa, Ciona intestinalis
-elasmobranchs: Raja clavata, Squalus acanthias
-fish: Acipenser gueldenstaedti, A. stellatus, Huso huso, Chelindonichthys lucernus, Mesogobius batrachocephalus, Psetta maeotica.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405): 
Level 4. A sub-habitat of A5.6 Pontic circalittoral biogenic habitat.
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES: 
Marine - Coastal
Marine - Shelf
 
MSFD:  
Sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Aphotic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN: 
9.5 Subtidal mud

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The species present in the Black Sea are also common in the Mediterranean. However, Mussel beds in the Black Sea are unique in size and scale. For this reason that Black Sea is often  referred to as the ‘Mytilid Sea’. The Black Sea mussel beds play an important ecological role through benthic-pelagic coupling. They transfer pelagic energy to benthic communities which provide resilience to the Black Sea ecosystem.

Map Description:
This map has been generated based on expert opinion. EOOand AOO have been calculated on the available data presented in this map however these should be treated with caution as expert opinion is that this is not the full distribution of the habitat.

Comment EU28:
No accurate data available for the present extent of the habitat. Older data is available (e.g. Bulgaria) but extent is known to have been reduced by trawling activities so cannot be relied upon.

Comment EU28+:
No accurate data available for the present extent of the habitat. Older data is available (e.g. Bulgaria) but extent is known to have been reduced by trawling activities so cannot be relied upon.

Trends in Quantity:
In the historic period (pre-1965) this habitat was widespread across the Black Sea. During this time there was complete coverage over the north-west shelf between the depths of 20 and 60 m.
Within the last 50 years (1965 to present day) the mussel population crashed due to eutrophication. The anoxic zone created by eutrophication also caused die back in both benthic and fish communities. In Romania the loss of approximately 50% of the habitat has been reported and a similar trend has been seen in other areas such as the Ukrainian Danube Delta where approximately 15% of the mussel beds have been lost. Damage by trawling has also decreased the extent of the habitat.  Since the last hypoxia event in 1992, this habitat has been reported as stable and with some signs of recovery although very slow as only small proportion of the historic extent is now present.
In the future this habitat is expected to recover slowly. As the population grows the rate of recovery is expected to accelerate. However the recovery will only continue if water conditions remain stable and trawling restrictions are imposed. If water temperatures increase further hypoxia events could reduce the available nutrients needed to facilitate recovery.

Trends in Quality:
In the historic period the quality of this habitat is believed to have been high. This is not supported by quantitative or qualitative data but is inferred based on the lack of pressures during this period.
In the recent past (last 50 years) the quality has decreased. This has included both biotic and abiotic changes. Quality indicators reflecting this change include: age structure of reefs, diversity of associated species and an increase in the polychaete worm Melinna palmata. These changes have been recorded at specific sites. At Yagorlytsky Bay the associated biocenosis has declined from 41 species to 27. At Tendrovsky Bay the biomass declined from 943 g/m2 in the 1960s to 2 g/m2 in the 1990s. However, signs of quality recovery have been observed in recent decades. At Yagorlytsky Bay a high number of mussel age classes was observed in 2006. This suggests an increase in quality.
In the future, the quality of the habitat is expected to slowly increase if the current conditions are maintained.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Around 38% of this habitat is estimated to be hosted by EU 28 in the Black Sea.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The north-west shelf is a large area of terrigenous muds which occupies approximately 20% of the Black Sea.

Pressures and Threats:
Eutrophication as a result of nutrient enrichment (N, P and organic matter) is the most significant historic pressure on the habitat. This has caused hypoxia events which have decreased the extent and quality of the habitat. Since the 1990s this pressure has reduced due to tighter controls on pollution in the catchment of the Danube and other rivers which enter the north-west Black Sea. Whilst this pressure is now reduced it is still a continuing threat in the current and future periods. This is especially true for non- EU countries surrounding the Black Sea which are not bound by the agreements such as the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
The habitat is highly sensitive to beam-trawling which causes habitat destruction. Trawling is largely prohibited but illegal trawling is a continuing problem throughout the Black Sea.
The habitat is sensitive to siltation. This is caused by disturbance activities (e.g. trawling, dredging, etc).

Conservation and Management:
Much of the remaining habitat is within Marine Protected Areas but there are few conservation measures within these at present.  River inputs are being managed in order to improve the water quality of the Black Sea. For EU states this is archived via the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Desired measures for the future include a ban bottom trawling across the Black Sea and regulations surrounding ballast control, water quality control for Turkey (especially Istanbul), and non-EU Black Sea states.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
No direct intervention actions are appropriate. However, improvement can be made using passive intervention (i.e. legislation). Natural recovery is possible. However, recovery to original extent will be slow due to large area previously covered by the habitat.

Summary:
This habitat occurs on mixed circalittoral sediments – terrigenous muds -  mixed with variable amounts of recent or subfossil shells, most of them belonging to the blue mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis. It is found offshore, typically between depths of 20 and 45 m. Mytilus galloprovincialis forms the biogenic reefs through the accumulation of mussel shells and aggregation of the shells by byssal threads. Over time, a hard substratum higher than the surrounding sediment is formed, on which living mussel colonies attach themselves. The reef is formed of numerous elongated patches and/or continuous ridges. Between these lay the organic-rich “Mytilus mud” formed by accumulation of mussels’ faeces and pseudofaeces. Blue mussel beds have a particularly important ecological role on soft seabeds, as they provide a hard surface in otherwise muddy areas. This attracts and supports a greater range of marine life than would otherwise be found there including seaweeds, anemones, barnacles, molluscs, crustaceans, echinoderms and polychaetes.
This habitat is present in the north and north-west Black Sea and absent from the Sea of Marmara. Historically the most significant pressure has been hypoxia caused by eutrophication which has caused the greatest reductions in quantity and quality. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union improved transboundary pollution measures have been implemented reducing this pressure. As a result stability and slow signs of recovery have been observed in both quantity and quality. Pressures caused by pollution and trawling continue to be a threat. Trawling is prohibited in many parts of the Black Sea but intense illegal activities are still recorded.
Much of the remaining habitat is within Marine Protected Areas by there are few conservation measures within these at present.  River inputs are being managed in order to improve the water quality of the Black Sea. Desired measures for the future include a ban bottom trawling across the Black Sea and regulations surrounding ballast control, water quality control for Turkey (especially Istanbul), and non-EU Black Sea states.

References:
Alekseev, R.P. 1983. Materials of the expedition of researches of the Odessa branch of Kovalevsky IBSS to the Egorlytsky Bay in the Black Sea in the autumn of 1982. 4.
Alekseev, R.P. and Synegub, I.A. 1992. Macrozoobenthos and benthic biocoenoses of the Black Sea shelf in the Caucasus, the Crimea and Bulgaria Ecology of the coastal zone of the Black Sea Sat. Scientific Papers of Russian Scientific Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography: 218- 234.
Aleksandrov, B.G. 2008. Hydrobiological management framework of coastal ecosystems. 344pp.
Anistratenko, V.V. and Anistratenko, O.Yu. 2012. Long-term changes of fauna of the black sea biosphere reserve (based on 1987-2012 data). Prirodnichy almanac 18: 5-14.
Anon. 2006. The North-Western part of the Black Sea: biology and ecology.
Arnoldi, L.V. 1949. Materials on the quantitative study of the Black Sea zoobenthos. II Karkinitsky Bay (in Russian). Proceedings of the Sevastopol Biological Station 7.
Bacescu, M.C., Muller, G.I. and Gomoiu, M.-T. 1971. Cercetari de ecologie bentala in Marea Neagra (analiza cantitativa, calitativa si comparata a faunei bentice pontice). Ecologie Marina. Vol. IV. Editura Academiei R.S.R., Bucuresti. 357pp.
Bezuglova, M.A. 2012. Seasonal changes in shellfish species of the storm emission of Odessa bay. Scientific notes of the Ternopil National Pedagogical University. Series Biology 2(51): 33-36.
Borisenko, Ð.Ðœ. 1946. Quantitative accounting of benthic fauna of the Tendra Bay: 201.
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences & Ministry of Environment & Water. 2011. Red Data Book of the Republic of Bulgaria. Vol 3. Natural Habitats. Available at: http://e-ecodb.bas.bg/rdb/en/vol3/05A2.html (Accessed 28/08/2015).
Chernyakov, D.A. 1995. Natural-aquatic landscape complexes of the Tendra and Egorlyk bays and monitoring of their state in Black Sea Biosphere Reserve.
Chikina, M.V. 2009. Macrozoobenthos of soft sediments of Northen Caucasus coast of Black Sea Spatial structure and long-term dynamic. Abstract of dissertation for the degree of Biological Sciences, Moscow. 25pp.
Faschuk, D.Y. et al. 2012. The geography of the macrozoobenthos of Kerch strait: the dynamics of the distribution, structure and level of development indicators. Tidings of Russian Academy of Sciences. Geographic Series 3: 94-108.
Grigoriev, B.F. and Pupkov, V.Ð. 1977. Benthic invertebrates of the Yagorlyk and Tendra bays of the Black Sea. Vestnik Zoologii 2: 76-81.
Grinbart, S.B. 1967. Zoobenthos of estuaries of northwest Black Sea and the adjacent areas of the sea. 51.
Grinbart, S.B. and Garba, L.S. 1973. Population dynamics of mussels, their reserves in the Odessa bay and the Black Sea estuaries. Materials of All-Union Symposium on the study of the Black and Mediterranean seas, use and protection of their resources 3: 24-29.
Kalishevskiy, M.V. 1906. Materials for carcinofauna of Odessa Bay (in Russian). Notes of the Novorossiya Society of Naturalists 29: 1-32.
Kaneva-Abadjieva, V. and Marinov, T. 1967. Distribution of the Mytilus galloprovincials and the status of mussel fishing in Bulgarian waters. Proceedings of the Institute of Fisheries 8: 71-79.
Kiselev, M.I. and Slavina, O.J. 1965. Qualitative composition and quantitative distribution of macrobenthos and meiobenthos the northern coast of the Caucasus. Benthos. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. pp62-80.
Kiseleva, M.I. 1972. The destribution of the benthos near Caucasus coast in the area between Tuapse and Shepsi. Marine Biology 26: 125-133.
Kiseleva, M.I. 1974. Modiolus phaseolinus off the coasts of the Caucasus biological productivity of the Southern Seas. Kiev: Naukova dumka. pp70-80.
Kiseleva, M.I. 2004. Polychaete worms (Polychaeta) Black and Azov Seas. Apatity: Kolskiy Scientific Center 409.
Kopiy, V.G. 2011. Macrozoobenthos coastal bays of Sevastopol (Crimea Black Sea coast). More. Ecol. Zhurnal 2: 43-48.
Kopiy, V.G. and Bondarenko, L.V. 2012. Community of macrozoobenthos mediolittoral waters of western Crimea biodiversity and sustainable development. Abstracts of the II International Scientific and Practical Conference, Simferopol: 189–192.
Korolesova, D.D. 2014. The reserves water areas. Annals of nature (Letopis Pryrody).
Losovskaya, G.V. 1960. Distribution and quantitative development of benthic fauna of the Black Sea near Karadag. Proceedings of Biol. Station 16: 16-29.
Losovskaya, G.V. 1977. Some features of the modern state of zoobenthos of northwestern part of the Black Sea. Russian Journal of Marine Biology 43: 25-33.
Losovskaya, G.V. 1977. Ecology of polychaetes of the Black Sea. Kiev: Naukova dumka. p92.
Losovskaya, G.V. and  Ryticova, L.Yu. 1985. The state of benthic communities in the North-Westen part of the Black Sea under conditions of change in the river flow 37-47.
Michailova, T.V. 2002.  Some data on macrozoobenthos of Zernov Phyllophora field (The Black Sea). Ekologiya Morya 59: 26-30.
Micu, D., Zaharia, T., Todorova, V. and NiÅ£Äƒ, V. 2007. Romanian Marine Habitats of European Interest. Punct Ochit Publishers, ConstanÅ£a. 32pp. ISBN 978-973-88566-1-5.
Micu, D. 2008. Open Sea and Tidal Areas. Natura 2000 Habitat Interpretation Manual for Romania. Gafta, D. and Mountford, J.O. (Eds.). EU publication no. EuropeAid/121260/D/SV/RO, 101pp. ISBN 978-973-751-697-8.
Micu, D., Zaharia, T. and Todorova, V. 2008. Natura 2000 habitat types from the Romanian Black Sea. The development of an indicative ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas in Romania. Zaharia, T., Micu, D., Todorova, V., Maximov, V. and NiÅ£Äƒ, V. (Eds.). Romart Design Publishing, Constanta. 32pp.
Mihailova, T.V. 1992. Macrobenthos of Donuzlav lake. Ecology sea 42: 16-20.
Milovidova, N.Yu. 1966. Bottom biocenosis of the Novorosiyskaya bay. The distribution of benthos and benthic biology in the southern seas. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. pp75-89.
Milovidova, N.Yu. 1967. Bottom biocenosis of the bays of North-Eastern part of Black Sea. Bottom biocenoses and biology of benthic organisms of the Black Sea. Kiev: Naukova Dumka.
Milovidova, N.Yu. 1979. Quantity characteristic of the macrozoobenthos of the Black Sea near Karadag. Hydrobiol. zhurnal 16: 21-24.
Minicheva, G.G. 2013. Status of a biological component and the environmental status of waters and Yagorlyk Tendra bays According to the data of the expedition of the Odessa branch of IBSS NASU in June 2013: 54.
Mironov, O.G., Kiryukhina, L.N. and Alemov, S.V. 2003. Sanitary and biological aspects of the ecology of the Sevastopol Bays in the 20th century. Sevastopol: EKOSI-Hydrophysika: 185.
Mokievsky, O.B. 1949. Fauna of loose soil fauna littoral of the western coast of Crimea. Trud. John 4: 124-159.
Moncheva, S. and Todorova, V. (Eds.). 2013. Initial assessment of the marine environment. In article 8 of msfd 2008/56/ec and noosmv (2010). 500pp.
Nabozhenko, M.V. 2011. Modern destribution of the bivalvian molluscs (Bivalvia, Mollusca) of the North-Eastern part of Black Sea. Bulletin of Southern Scientific Center RAS 3(7): 79-86.
Petrov, V.P., Povchun, A.S. and Popov, V.V. 1986. Distribution of Mytilus line in the Karkinitian bay in the Black Sea by the data of subaquatic research. Ekologiya Morya 24: 70-73.
Petrova, E. and Stoikov, S. 2005. Report about introduction of beam trawling in separate zones along the Bulgarian coast. 72pp.
Petrova, E. and Stoikov, S. 2010. Some molluscs with economical importance in the Black Sea. Proceedings of the Union of Scientists 78-83.
Petrova, E., Petrova, D., Gerdjikov, D., Bekova, R.,  Nikolov, A., Vachkova, V., Kuneva, R. and Stoikov, S. 2013. Investigations on the impact of Rapana venosa on the Mytilus galloprovincials and bottom habitats along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast. 51pp.
Povchun, A.S. 1981. Development of Mytilus galloprovincialis Lamarck community in the Period after mass death in the Karkinitsky bay of the Black Sea. pp41-45.
Pupkov, V.Ð. 1971. On the characterization of the seasonal dynamics of abundance and biomass of zoobenthos in the Yagorlyk and Tendra bays of the Black Sea. Vestnik Zoologii 6: 85-82.
Rubinstein, I.G. 1991. Report on research work Fisheries Section Feasibility of protection of the Black Sea bays  Against Pollution ICE and sewage in the area of Krasnoznamyanskoy irrigation systems Kherson region. 36pp.
Rubinstein, I.G. and Bryantsev, V.A. 1991. Effect of the negative estuaary in the mouth of the Egorlytski gulf. Ekologiya Morya 37: 27-33.
Rubinstein, I.G. 1988. Influence of sand extraction on the flora and fauna of the Dzharylgach Bay. Quantitative and qualitative distribution of benthos: benthic fish food supply: Collected scientific papers: 73-91.
Salskiy, V.Ð. 1977. On mass mussels death in the northwestern part of the Black Sea. Russian Journal of Marine Biology 43: 33-38.
Samyshev, E.Z.  et al. 1986. Changes in the structure of the benthos of the Black Sea in terms of human impact. The anthropogenic impact on the coastal marine ecosystems 52-71.
Semik, A.M. and Shlyahova, V.Ð. 2009. State of the Macrozoobenthos of North-Western part of Karkinit bay in 2007-2008. YugNIRO proceedings 47: 85-93.
Shurova, N.M. 2014. The variability of the structural organization of the mussel populations north-western shelf of the Black Sea (in Russian). Bulletin ONU. Series: Geographical and Geological Science 19(1).
Shurova, N.M. 2009. Structural and functional organization of the Mytilus galloprovincialis population in the Black Sea.
Shurova, N.M. and Gomoiu M.-T. 2005. Present state of mussel population (mytilus galloprovincialis) from the north-west black sea.
Shurova, N.M. and Zolotarev, V.N. 2007. Structure of population of marine bivalves in the region of the Danube Delta. Ecological safety of coastal and shelf zones and comprehensive use of shelf resources: Collected scientific papers 15: 556-566.
Sinegub, I.A. 2009. Community Terebellides stroemi sars (Polychaeta) on the Black Sea shelf of Caucasus and Crimea. Ecological safety of coastal and shelf zones and complex use of shelf resources 17: 371-377.
Stadnichenko, S.V. 2003. The production structure of the settlements of Mytilus galloprovincialis in the northwestern part of the Black Sea. Ecological problems of Black Sea: Collected papers: 319-323.
Stadnichenko, S.V. and Zolotarev, V.N. 2009. Population structure of marine bivalves in the region of the Danube Delta  in 2007–2008. Ecological safety of coastal and shelf zones and comprehensive use of shelf resources: Collected scientific papers 20: 248-261.
Stadnichenko, S.V., Shurova, N.M. and Zolotarev, V.N. 2013. Spatial and temporal changes in populations of mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) in the northwestern part of the Black Sea. Biodiversity and role of animals in ecosystems. Proceedings of the VII International Conference.
Strogonov, Ð.Ð. and Gordeeva, I.Ðš. 2000. The study of Phyllophora nervosa biocenosis  on the Zernov's Phyllophora meadow using the submarine laboratory. Ekologiya Morya 50: 40-44.
Tenore, K.B. and Chesney, E.K. 1985. The effects of interaction of rate of food supply and population density on the bioenergetics of the opportunistic polychaete, Capitella capitata (type I ). Limnol. Oceanog 30(6): 1188-1195.
Terentyev, A.S. 1998. Species richness and dominant species of macrozoobenthos in different habitats of the of the Kerch strait (Black Sea). YugNIRO proceedings 44: 100-110.
Terentyev, A.S. 2000. The destruction of the bottom biocenoses in Kerch strait of Black Sea as a result of bottom anthropogenic silting. Collected papers Urban environmental problems, recreational areas and protected areas: 159-161.
Terentyev, A.S. 2002. Influence of bottom silting in the area of biocenoses of the Kerch strait (Black Sea). Abstracts of the first international conference "Marine coastal ecosystems: algae, invertebrates and derived products": 39-40.
Terentyev, A.S. 2004. The spatial dynamics of regional biocenoses in the Kerch strait of the Black Sea. YugNIRO proceedings 45: 40-44.
Terentyev, A.S. 2007. The dynamics of the stock of mussels in the Kerch strait of the Black Sea. Marine commercial invertebrates and algae biology and fisheries: 335-349.
Terentyev, A.S. 2002. Biocoenosis of Mytilus galloprovincialis Lamarck. 1819 (Bivalvia. Mytilidae) in the Kerch strait of the Black Sea. Bulletin ONU. Series: Biology 7(1): 127-135.
Terentyev, A.S. 2013. Changes in the species composition of benthic biocenoses Kerch starit of the Black Sea as a result of siltation. Black Sea. The current state of the ecosystem and ways to improve the fishery/VNIRO proceedings 150: 78-90.
Todorova, V. and Panayotova, M. 2011. Sublittoral mussel beds on sediment. Red Book of Republic of Bulgaria. Vol. III. Natural habitats. Bas and Moew (Eds.). ISBN 978-9549746-23-5.
Vinogradov, K.A. and Zakutsky, V.P. 1966. Bottom biocenoses of the western half of the Black Sea. Okeanology 2: 338-343.
Vorobyova, L.V. and Synyogub, I.A. 2014. Zoobenthos of biocenoses of Odessa marineregion of the Black Sea. Optimization and Protection of Ecosystems 11: 198-206.
Zagorovsky, N. and Rubinstein, D. 1916. The materials to the system of biocenoses of Odessa Bay (in Russian). Notes of the Imperial Society of Agriculture in South Russia 86(1): 203-241.
Zambriborsch, F.S. and Chernyavskiy, Ð.V. 1984. Comparative characteristics of zoobenthos of the Tendra and Dzharylgach bays. Hydrobiological journal 18(1): 29-36.
Zernov, S.A. 1909. A report on trip in the northwest Part of the Black Sea for studying the fauna and gathering the collection for the Zoological Museum of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Yearbook of the Zoological Museum of the Imperial Academy of Sciences 13: 156-166.
Zolotarev, P.N. and Povchun, A.S. 1983. Macrozoobenthos in the deep-water zone of the Karkinitian bay in the Black Sea: 48-58.
Zolotarev, P.N., Stadnichenko, S.V. and Shurova, N.M. 2006. The relationship between specific production and lifespan of marinein vertebrates: an analytical model. Russian Journal of Marine Biology 32(4): 277-281.
Zolotarev, P.N. 1994. The structure of benthic biocenosis in the northwestern part of Black Sea and its transformation due to human activity: 16.
Zolotarev, P.N., Litvinenko, N.Ðœ. and Terentev, Ð.S. 1995. Commercalpotential and seasonal dynamics of the composition of benthic biocoenosis of Phyllophora in the eastern part of the Karkinit bay. Long-term dynamics of structure of coastal ecosystems of the Black sea. Collected papers: 78-84.

Criterion A Text:
In the historic period (pre-1965) this habitat was widespread across the Black Sea. During this time there was complete coverage over the north-west shelf between the depths of 20 and 60 m.Within the last 50 years (1965 to present day) the mussel population crashed due to eutrophication. There is a lack of quantiative data however expert opinion is that there has been an overall decline of between 50-80%. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Endangered under criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
The AOO and EOO are intrinsically small for the EU states but exceed the thresholds for threatened status. Declines in spatial extent, abiotic and biotic quality have halted. There are no threatening processes likely to cause declines in the next 20 years but there have been significant declines in the recent past which have left the habitat in a fragile state. The distribution of the habitat is such that the identified threats are unlikely to affect all localities at once. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under criterion B for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion C/D Text:
In the EU states and the EU 28+ there has been an intermediate decline affecting >80% extent. This has occurred within the last 50 years and has affected both biotic and abiotic factors. It is not possible to decouple these. This is based on expert opinion and quantitative data available for Romania, Bulgaria and Ukraine. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Endangered under criterion C/D1.

Criterion E Text:
There is no quantitative analysis available to estimate the probability of collapse of this habitat type.Therefore the habitat type is assessed as Data Deficient under Criterion E.

Synthesis:
This habitat is known to have almost completly covered the north-west shelf of the Black Sea between 20-60m depth, where the substrate was suitable,  prior to 1965. The mussel population, and consequently the extent of this habtat has since suffered a major reduction (more than 50%) , primarily due to the effects of eutrophication. A very substantial decline in quality has also occurred over the last 50 years, estimated as an intermediate decline affecting more than 80% of the habitat.
There are data limitations which impact the reliability of the assessment. These relate to: current extent of habitats, lack of quantitative quality data and data gaps for Turkey. Quantitative data on habitat quantity and quality are available for Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Crimea and Russia but expert opinion has also been used for this assessment.  
Althought this habitat has a large EOO and AOO, and therefore qualifies as Least Concern under criterion B, the habitat is assessed as Endangered both at the EU 28 and EU 28+ levels because of the extent of decline in both quality and quanity over the last 50 years.

Contributors:
D. Micu, S. Beal, N. A. Milchakova, A. Terentyev, D. Korolesova, B. Yokes


Habitat Type Name:
A5.xx Pontic circalittoral biogenic detritic bottoms with dead or alive mussel beds, shell deposits, with encrusting corallines (Phymatolithon, Lithothamnion) and attached foliose sciaphilic macroalgae

Habitat Description:
Zernov’s Phyllophora Field is a bioengineered habitat type unique to the Black Sea, consisting of extensive stands of perennial red algae (genera Phyllophora, Coccotylus) developing on circalittoral hard substrata and a highly diverse associated fauna. Zernov’s Phyllophora Field - located on the northwestern shelf of the Black Sea – comprises the world’s most abundant stand of Phyllophoraceae. They develop on mixed sediments (shelly mud to pure shell hash) covered by dead or alive crustose corallines Lithothamnion crispatum, Lithothamnion propontidis, Lithophyllum cystoseirae, occurring offshore at depths of 30-50m. The crustose corallines are the preferred substrate for attachment of a more or less dense cover of Phyllophora crispa and Coccotylus truncatus. Phyllophora crispa may form extensive canopies here, which harbour a characteristic and diverse fauna.
During the historical period 32 macroalgae species were recorded from the ZPF. The most abundant algae were Phyllophora crispa (syn. P. nervosa), Coccotylus truncatus, Polysiphonia sanguinea, Feldmania irregularis, Desmarestia viridis.
Indicators of quality:
Suitable biotic indicators of quality include:
-Abundance of Phyllophora crispa
-Abundance of Mytilus galloprovincialis
-Biomass of Phyllophora crispa.
Suitable abiotic indictors of quality include:
-Water transparency
Indicator thresholds for monitoring purposes have not been set. Biomass of Phyllophora crispa in 1978 was 4-17000 gm-2. The habitat was considered to be of good quality during this period. However, due to severe degradation in the subsequent years this can no longer be considered a realistic target.
Characteristic species:
The dominant species which engineer this habitat are all red algae:
- Phyllophora crispa and Coccotylus truncatus;
- Lithothamnion crispatum, L. propontidis and Lithophyllum cystoseirae
Phyllophora fields in the northwest Black Sea have associated specialized faunal communities including more than 110 species of invertebrates and 47 species of fish. The species composition of theaccompanying fauna is variable and depends on the density of the Phyllophora canopy.
-cnidarians: Actinothoe clavata
-sponges: Haliclona gracilis
-molluscs: Lepidochitona cinerea, Abra alba, Calyptraea chinensis, Retusa truncatella, Monophorus perversus, Pitar rudis, Cerastoderma glaucum, Polititapes aureus
-polychaetes: Harmothoe reticulata, Syllis elegans, Spirobranchus  triqueter.
-amphipods: Gammarus aequicauda, Apherusa bispinosa, Melita palmata
-isopods: Stenosoma capito
-decapods: Liocarcinus navigator, Crangon crangon
-tunicates: Ascidiella aspersa, Ciona intestinalis
-elasmobranchs: Raja clavata, Squalus acanthias
-fish: Acipenser gueldenstaedti, A. stellatus, Huso huso, Chelindonichthys lucernus, Lepadogaster gouani, L. microcephalus, Ctenolabrus rupestris, Psetta maeotica.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405): 
Level 4. A5.6 Circalittoral biogenic habitat.
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Shelf
 
MSFD:
Shelf sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shelf rock or biogenic reefs
 
IUCN:
Not mapped

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Yes. The habitat only occurs in one location in the Black Sea. It fulfils an important ecological role in the Black Sea. In terms of biomass, primary production, species associations it is one of the most ecologically rich habitats in the Black Sea.

Comment EU28+:
This figure is for Ukraine only. It is not possible to estimate the area in Romania due to habitat fragmentation.

Trends in Quantity:
The habitat was first described by Zernov in 1908. In its pristine state (1950s-1960s) Zernov’s Phyllophora Field used to have a southern lobe extending into the Romanian Black Sea. The habitat quantity is believed to have remained stable until the 1970s. Quantitative figures estimate the habitat extent to range 10-15,000 km2 during this time.
During the 1970s and 1980s the Northwestern Black Sea was heavily impacted by eutrophication and this resulted in the reduction of Zernov’s Phyllophora Field by several orders of magnitude, only a small nucleus surviving on the Ukrainian shelf. Due to fragmentation it is difficult to provide an absolute extent figure. However, by 1977 the extent was estimated as 7,250 km2. Between 1969 and 1981 some experts state that the habitat extent declined by 50%. During this time the habitat came close to collapsing in Romania.
In 1992 the extent was thought to be approximately 5,300 km2. The current extent is now thought to be stable.
In the future the habitat quantity is expected to recover slowly providing the current environmental conditions remain stable. However, this is likely to be a degraded variation (see Trends in Quality).

Trends in Quality:
In the historic period (pre-1965) it is believed that additional Phyllophora species were present in the area. In 1908-1969 Phyllophora stocks were about 10 million tons (in 1969, 9.04 million tons). In 1977 stocks decreased four-fold, to 2.5 million tons. Between 1977 and 1992 Phyllophora crispa stocks declined from 2.5 million tons to 0.3 million tons.
In the current period (1965 to present day) there has been a severe decline in habitat quality,  based on quantitative data.
The overall coverage of macroalgae on ZPF (including its largest part in Ukrainian waters) does not exceed 5%, key species Phyllophora crispa average biomass decreased by almost an order of magnitude, but Coccotylus truncatus biomass decreased only slightly. At present, layers of unattached Phyllophora crispa are no longer found. The biological factor that limits recovery of ZPF is the almost complete replacement of Phyllophora crispa (diploid sporophyte, 2n) by Coccotylus truncatus (haploid gametophyte, 1n) and the reduction of the most stable generation of its life cycle. At present, Coccotylus truncatus occurs in almost all parts of ZPF. The frequency of this species increased from 52 to 70%. The range of C. truncatus distribution shifted to the west and south-west of the former ZPF
The decline is also reflected in Phyllophora crispa biomass. From 1908 to 1978 biomass of Phyllophora crispa was about 10-17,000 g/m2. In 1978 the biomass was 4-17,000 g/m2. During 1982-1985 biomass decreased to 8.3-4,835 g/m2. During 1986-1991 it decreased again to 0.09-126.1 g/m2. In 2011 Phyllophora crispa biomass was recorded as 2.22 g/m2.
The diversity of the associated fauna and flora was also severely reduced (a 75% decrease in the species richness of macroalgae) The quality of the habitat is now believed to be stable. In the future the quality is expected to remain stable.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Around 10% of this habitat is estimated to be hosted by the EU28 in the Black Sea.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat has a small range following regression.
The habitat has undergone an important decline in the last 50 years (see Trends in Quantity). However, this decline has now halted and the extent of the habitat is now stable.

Justification of Restricted Area:
It is only present on the north-west shelf of the Black Sea. Its locality is linked to specific bathymetry and oceanographic conditions. Mixed sediments (shell and mud to pure shell hash) covered by dead or alive crustose corallines are present in this

Pressures and Threats:
Eutrophication as a result of nutrient enrichment (N, P and organic matter) is the most significant historic pressure on the habitat. Reduced light penetration due to eutrophication caused declines in extent and quality of the habitat. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and subsequent economic collapse, industrial effluent discharge into the sea all but ceased (but could resume in future). Also, a reduction of transboundary pollution resulted from implementation of the WFD and DRPC, and extension of EU membership to Central Europe, leading to a reduction in the pressures.
Bottom-trawling is a current and future threat to the habitat. This causes habitat destruction by scraping away the benthic communities. The activity is prohibited in Ukraine but not in Romania.
Disturbance from expanding gas exploration activities are a future threat to this habitat. Expert opinion states that this is a plausible threat in the next 20 years as Romania and Ukraine seek to become independent from Russian energy supplies.
Siltation is a current and future threat to the habitat. The resettling of suspended sediment can cause smothering which inhibits the growth of habitat forming species. Siltation is typically caused by dredging, trawling and other activities which disturbed bottom sediments.
Historically Phyllophora crispa was harvested for agar. This contributed to the declines in the past 50 years. Extraction has been prohibited since 1996.

Conservation and Management:
The habitat is currently protected by MPAs in Ukraine ("Zernov Phyllophora Field" botanical reserve). However, there is no management plan for the reserve. In EU states water quality is now being managed by the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Extraction of Phylophorra crispa has been prohibited since 1996. Phylophorra crispa is listed in the Ukraine and Black Sea Red Data Books. Future management should include the designation of additional MPAs for Romanian section, development and establishment of management plan for "Zernov Phyllophora Field" botanical reserve, improvement of water quality management outside EU member states.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The habitat cannot recover through intervention. It can recover naturally providing pressures are relieved. However, this will take several decades and a sufficient source population is required.

Summary:
The habitat is present at one location in the north-west Black Sea. It is not present in the Sea of Marmara. Its locality is linked to specific bathymetric and oceanographic conditions. There are quantitative data available regarding habitat extent in the historic and current periods that cover all localities of the habitat. Historically the most significant pressure was eutrophication. Historically the habitat also experienced pressure from harvesting Phyllophora crispa for agar (prohibited since 1996). Current pressures on the habitat are disturbance (causing habitat destruction) and siltation.

References:
Afanasiev, D.F. and Korpakova, I.G. 2008. Macrophytobenthos of the Russian Azov-Black Sea. Rostov-on- Don: FGUP AzNIIRH. 350pp.
Bacescu, M.C., Muller, G.I. and Gomoiu, M.-T. 1971. Cercetari de ecologie bentala in Marea Neagra (analiza cantitativa, calitativa si comparata a faunei bentice pontice). Ecologie Marina. Vol. IV. Editura Academiei R.S.R., Bucuresti. 357pp.
Bacescu, M. 1977. Les biocenoses benthiques de la Mer Noire. Biologie des eaux saumatres de la Mer Noire. Pora E.A. (Ed.). IRCM, Constanta 1. pp128-134.
Fashchuk, D.Ya., Samyshev, E.Z., Sebakh, L.K. and Shlyakhov, V.A. 1991. The forms of human impact on the ecosystem of the Black Sea and its state in recent conditions. Ekologiya Morya 38: 19-28.
Kalugina-Gutnik, A.A. and Lachko, O.A. 1966. The composition, distribution and stocks of algae of the Black Sea in the area of the Zernov Phyllophora field . The distribution of benthos and benthic biology in the South Seas: 112-130.
Kalugina-Gutnik, A.A. 1970. The composition and distribution of benthic vegetation in the south-eastern part of the Black Sea. Ecological and morphological studies of benthic organisms. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. pp185-202.
Kalugina-Gutnik, A.A. 1975. Phytobenthos of Black Sea. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. 275pp.
Kalugina-Gutnik, A.A. and Yevstigneyeva, I.K. 1994. Bottom vegetation of the Zernov Phyllophora field of the Black Sea. Biologiya Morya 20(4): 264–270.
Kaminer, K.M. 1974. Species composition, distribution and stock of Phyllophora in the northwestern part of the Black Sea. Trudy VNIRO. XCIX: 154–163.
Kaminer, K.M. 1981.  Phyllophora (Phyllophora nervosa (DC) Grev. and Ph. Brodiaei (Turn.) J. Ag.) of the Northwestern part of the Black Sea. Harvesting algae and their use. Coll. scientific, Moscow, VNIRO Publ. pp87–96.
Kaminer, K.M. 1986. Commercial phytobenthos of the northwestern part of the Black Sea in the new environmental situation. V All-Union Congress. Hydrobiol. Soc: rep. abstr. (Togliatti, 15-19 Sep 1986) 1: 89–90.
Kostylev, E.F., Tkachenko, F.P. and Tretiak, I.P. 2010. Establishment of “Zernov’s Phyllophora field” marine reserve: protection and restoration of a unique ecosystem. Ocean & Coastal Management 53(5-6): 203- 208.
Lisovskaya, O.A. and Stepanyan, O.V. 2009. A variety of coastal macroalgae of Taman Peninsula (Russia) in summer. Algology 19(4): 341-348.
Milchakova, N.A. 2011. Marine plants of the Black Sea. An illustrated field guide. Sevastopol: Digit Print. 144pp.
Milchakova, N.A., Mironova, N.V. and Alexandrov, V.V. 2013. Dynamics, causes of degradation and the prognosis of restoration Zernov Phyllopora field (The Black Sea). Rapp. Comm. int. Mer Medit. 40th CIESM (28 Oct–1 Nov 2013) 40: 622.
Morozova-Vodyanitskaya, N.V. 1948. Zernov Phyllophora Field and causes of its origin. In memory of Academician Sergey A. Zernov. Acad. Sci. USSR 216–226.
Morozova-Vodyanitskaya, N.V. 1959. Bottom vegetation of the Black Sea. Proceedings of the Sevastopol Biological Station 11: 3-28.
Prodanov, K., Mikhailov, K., Daskalov, G., Maxim, C., Chashchin, A., Arkhipov, A., Shlyakhov, V. and Ozdamar, E. 1997. Environmental management of fish resources in the Black Sea and their rational exploitation. Studies and Reviews. General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean 68: 178. Rome, FAO.
Shchapova, T.F. 1954. Zernov Phyllophora Field. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii (Works of the Institute of Oceanology AS USSR). XL: 3-35.
Teyubova, V.F. 2005. Features inter annual dynamics species composition and structure macrophytobenthos in the Bay of Novorossiysk (Black sea). Ekologiya Morya 69: 53-57.
Teyubova, V.F. 2012. The diversity and ecological features macrophytobenthos the Russian sector of the Black Sea. Dissertation for degree of biological sciences. Krasnodar. 280pp.
Tkachenko, F.P., Tretiak, I.P. and Kostilev, E.F. 2009. Macrophytobenthos of the Zernov Phyllophora Field in present conditions (the Black Sea, Ukraine). International Journal on Algae 11(1): 64-72.
Zaika, V.E., Boltachev, A.R., Zuev, G.V., Kovalev, A.V., Milchakova, N.A. and Sergeeva, N.G. 2004. Floristic and faunistic changes in the Crimean Black Sea shelf after 1995–1998. Marine Ecological Journal 3(2): 37- 44.
Zernov, S.A. 1913. On question of the study of life of the Black Sea. Zapiski Imperatorskoy Akademii Nauk. 8 seriya. Po fiziko-matematicheskomu otdeleniyu. Proceedings of the Imperor Academy of Sciences. 8th series. Physical and mathematical branch 32(1): 299.

Criterion A Text:
In the EU 28 there has been >80% reduction in habitat extent in the past 50 years. In the EU 28+ the extent has reduced by a minimum of 47% and maximum of 65% between 1970 and 1992.

Criterion B Text:
The AOO and EOO are intrinsically small for the EU states.
Declines in in spatial extent, abiotic and biotic quality have halted. There is a threatening process in the form of gas exploitation. This is likely to cause declines in the next 20 years. In the EU the habitat exists at one location.
In the EU28+ the EOO is 9178km2. Declines in in spatial extent, abiotic and biotic quality have halted. There is a threatening process in the form of gas exploitation. This is likely to cause declines in the next 20 years. In the EU28+ the habitat exists at one location.

Criterion C/D Text:
In both the EU 28 and EU28+ a severe decline has been experienced over >80% of the locality. This is reflected in a severe reduction in the biomass of Phylophorra crispa.

Synthesis:
In the EU28 the habitat type is assessed as Critical under criteria A1, B1b, B1c and C/D1. For criteria A1 there has been a reduction in extent >80% in the past 50 years. It was previously present over a considerably larger area in Romania. This is based on quantitative data.  For criterion B1b, the EOO is
698km2. This is based on quantitative data. Gas extraction is likely to cause further declines in the next 20 years. For Criterion B1c the EOO is 698km2 and habitat exists at only location. This is considered as one location as a single threat may impact the whole location. For criterion C/D1 there has been a severe decline in quality affecting >80% in the past 50 years. This is based on knowledge of the habitats current fragmented state compared to the 1970s.
In the EU28+ the habitat type is assessed as Critical under C/D1. For Criteria C/D1 there has been a severe decline in quality affecting >80% in the past 50 years. This is reflected in reduction in Phylophorra crispa biomass. This is based on quantitative data.

Contributors:
D. Micu, S. Beal,  V.V. Alexandrov,  E.B. Chernysheva, N. A. Milchakova, N. V. Mironova


Habitat Description:
This is dwarf scrub, usually less than 1m tall, occurring in the forest-steppe and steppe zones across central Europe, in the Pannonian Basin and adjacent areas, in the Danube lowlands in Romania and Bulgaria and the forest-steppe and steppe zones from south-eastern Poland through Ukraine to Russia and central Asia. It develops on both shallow leptosols near rock outcrops and on deep soils such as chernozems, kastanozems, phaeozems, cambisols or luvisols. Often it forms small stands of clonally growing dominant species on relatively mesic sites in dry grassland areas, for example in small terrain depressions with winter snow accumulation, on north-facing slopes, or at the edges of tall scrub or dry woodland; or it is found in extrazonal complexes of continental dry grassland vegetation. In some places it is a permanent natural vegetation type, in others it is a successional stage of dry grassland after abandonment. 
Indicators of good quality:
This habitat often contains rare species of continental steppe and forest-steppe, which may occur at the western limit of their geographic range or at isolated sites west of their continuous range. Of particular conservation value are low and open stands that are rich in species, especially if they directly border on natural or semi-natural steppic grasslands. On the other hand, the spread of shrubs, especially of the hybrid Prunus x eminens, can indicate degradation of valuable dry grassland habitats. In these stands ruderal species such as Artemisia vulgaris and Elymus repens can be common.
The following characteristics can be considered as indicators of good quality:
High species richness
Occurrence of rare species, especially those of continental distribution
Absence of ruderal, nutrient-demanding species
Absence of alien species
Long-term habitat stability, with no rapid successional trends
Occurrence in habitat complexes with dry grassland vegetation

Characteristic species:
Flora: Vascular plants: Caragana frutex , Cotoneaster integerrimus , C. melanocarpus , Elymus hispidus, Festuca rupicola, F. valesiaca, Fragaria viridis, Geranium sanguineum, Melica ciliata, M. transsilvanica, Poa angustifolia, Polygonatum odoratum, Prunus x eminens , Prunus fruticosa , Prunus tenella , Rosa gallica , Rosa pimpinellifolia (= R. spinosissima), Spiraea chamaedryfolia , Spiraea crenata , Spiraea media.
Mosses: Hypnum cupressiforme, Rhytidium rugosum, Thuidium abietinum.

Classification:
EUNIS:
F3.1 Temperate thickets and scrub
EuroVegChecklist:
Prunion fruticosae Tx. 1952
Annex I:
40A0 * Subcontinental peri-Pannonic scrub
Emerald:
F3.241 Central European subcontinental thickets
MAES-2:
Heathland and shrub
IUCN:
3.4 Temperate shrub

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat is typically continental confined to the dry lowlands of central Europe, in the Pannonian Basin and adjacent areas, in the Danube Lowland in Romania and Bulgaria and forest-steppe and steppe zones from south-eastern Poland through Ukraine to Russia and central Asia.

Map Description:
Map has data gaps in Romania and Balkan countries. Data sources: EVA, Art17.
Romanian area data is uncertain. For Annex I type 40A0 126 km2 have been reported under Article 17, but in Donita et al. (2005) the sum of relevant types R3130, R3131, R3132 is about 125 hectares.

Trends in Quantity:
The present trend is stable but the recent past trend in quantity is on average a decrease of 15 to 20%

Trends in Quality:
In some countries the trend in quality is stable, while others reported a slight to moderate decline.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat is widespread in continental areas of Europe.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat occurs almost everywhere in relatively small stands and the total area is relatively small.

Pressures and Threats:
The main pressure is agricultural intensification followed by restructuring agricultural land holding, succession and  invasive species.

Conservation and Management:
In this habitat it is aimed to maintain high species richness together with occurrence of the typical rare plants, especially those of continental distribution. One way to realize this os to prevent the increase of ruderal or alien species.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The habitat requires about 10 years to recover through intervention. To recover both through intervention and naturally it takes at least 20-30 years more.

Summary:
This is a dwarf scrub habitat of the forest-steppe and steppe zones across central Europe, in the Pannonian Basin and adjacent areas, ranging eastwards to Ukraine to Russia and central Asia. It develops on shallow soils near rock outcrops and, in drier and warmer situations, in small depressions where winter snow accummulates or on cooler, north-facing slopes, often forming small stands of clonally growing dominant species. In some places it is a permanent natural vegetation type, in others it is a successional stage of dry grassland after abandonment. The main pressure is agricultural intensification with changes in land use, succession and invasion of non-native species.

References:
Chytrý, M. (2013, ed.). Vegetation of the Czech Republic. 4. Forest and scrub vegetation. Academia Praha, Prague. 
DoniÅ£Äƒ, N., Popescu, A., PaucÄƒ-ComÄƒnescu, M., MihÄƒilescu, S. and Biriá¹£, I.-A. (2005). Habitatele din România. Editura TehnicÄƒ SilvicÄƒ, Bucureá¹£ti.
Schneider-Binder E. (2016). The small almond (Prunus tenella Batsch) Shruberry on hills of the southern Transylvanian Tableland (Romania). Acta Oecologica Carpatica. IX:33-50.
Tüxen, R. (1952). Hecken und Gebüsche. Mitteilungen der Geographishen Gesellschaft in Hamburg 50: 85–117.

Criterion A Text:
Total current surface EU28 is uncertain because of uncertain data from Romania. It may be very small (6.5 km2) or much larger (131.15 km2). Trends have been calculated using the smaller values, resulting in an average European trend of -18% (data from 6 out of 7 countries). Some countries reported large historical negative trends (-25/75 in Hungary, -70/90 in Germany) while others reported stable trends (Bulgaria). Because of data gaps and uncertainties in provided no reliable average European long historical trend could be calculated.

Criterion B Text:
The AOO and EOO are relatively large, but on the other hand the total area (in km2) is very small. This may be a reason to assess the habitat under B2, but as it is not according to the strict criteria, the assessment for B2 has been based on AOO only, and results in Least Concern. The same goes for criteria B1 and B3.

Criterion C/D Text:
The average trend in quality is an affected part of the area of 35%, with a severity of decline of 46%. These values just do not meet the thresholds for Near Threatened, and therefore result in the Least Concern (LC) category.

Synthesis:
The habitat is assessed as Least Concern (LC) because of negative trends in quantity and quality below the thresholds for Near Threatened. The habitat may be considered to meet the B2 criteria (small distribution), as its area (in km2) may be very small. However, there is uncertainty about provided area data, and besides for criterion B2 usually the number of distribution grids is used as an indicator instead of area. Finally, large historical trends in area have been reported by some countries, but also here data gaps and uncertainties make a reliable assessment not possible.

Contributors:
Habitat description: M. Chytrý
Territorial data: J. Bölöni, M. Chytrý, P. Finck, C. Gussev, D. Paternoster, U. Raths, U. Riecken, A. Ssymank
Working Group Heathland & Scrub: M. Aronsson, F. Bioret, C. Bita-Nicolae, J. Capelo, A. ÄŒarni, P. Dimopoulos, J. Janssen, J. Loidi


Habitat Type Name:
A5.XY Pontic circalittoral biogenic detritic bottoms with unattached form of Phyllophora crispa

Habitat Description:
Mixed sediments (shelly mud to pure shell hash) occurring at depths within the circalittoral zone. The most important characterising component of this habitat is the spherical form of Phyllophora (Phyllophora crispa sphaerica).
Indicators of quality:
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include; the presence of characteristic species and those which are sensitive to the pressures the habitat may face, water quality parameters, levels of exposure to particular pressure as well as and more integrated indices which describe habitat structure and function, such as trophic index, or successional stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time. There are no commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may have been set in certain situations e.g. protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis.
Characteristic species:
Phyllophora fields in the northwest Black Sea have associated specialized faunal communities including more than 110 species of invertebrates and 47 species of fish. The main systematic groups of macrozoobenthos recorded from the Small Phyllophora field’ in 2000 in terms of number of species, abundance and biomass were molluscs, polychaetes and crustaceans.

Classification:
EUNIS:
Level 4 of the EUNIS classification (v1405). A sub-habitat of 'Circalittoral biogenic habitat' (A5.6)
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
8330 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves
 
MAES:
Marine - Shelf
 
MSFD:
Shelf sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shelf rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.3 Subtidal loose rock/ pebble/ gravel
 
Other relationships:
No relationships

Comment EU28:
The habitat is known to occur in the Black Sea but there is insufficient data to accurately calculate EOO and AOO

Comment EU28+:
The habitat is known to occur in the Black Sea but there is insufficient data to accurately calculate EOO and AOO

Trends in Quality:
There is insufficiant data to accurately assess changes in quality of the habitat.

Pressures and Threats:
Eutrophication as a result of nutrient enrichment (N, P and organic matter) is the most significant historic pressure on the habitat. Anoxic and hypoxic conditions due to eutrophication caused mass mortalities in benthic communities. Since the 1990s this pressure has reduced due to tighter controls on pollution in the catchment of the Danube and other rivers which enter the north-west Black Sea. Whilst this pressure is now reduced it is still a continuing threat in the current and future periods. This is especially true for non EU countries surrounding the Black Sea which are not bound by the agreements such as the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
The habitat is likely to be sensitive to:
Trawling. This is a current and future threat to the habitat causing deterioration and habitat destruction by damaging benthic communities both directly and indirectly through effects such as smothering and altering the sediment characteristics. Demersal trawling is prohibited in some states. However, illegal trawling is still an issue in these areas.
Siltation. This is a current and future threat to the habitat. The resettling of suspended sediment can smother filter feeding organisms as well as inhibiting the growth of some species. Siltation is typically caused by dredging, trawling and other activities which disturb bottom sediments.
Mobile demersal dredging and trawling. This is a threat of current and future importance. This causes habitat destruction leading to in a reduction in extent and quality.

Conservation and Management:
Conservation and management measures which would benefit this habitat include:
-Measures to maintain physical and biological integrity, including pollution control and regulation
-Improvement of water quality management outside EU member states
-Raised public awareness of ecological value and vulnerability
-Enhanced legal protection for occurrences of the habitat and key species (e.g. additions to the EU Habitats Directive, establish a unified list of Black Sea species and habitats requiring conservation measures, etc.)
-Designation of MPAs

Summary:
The habitat is present in the Black Sea on circalittoral biogenic detritic bottoms. Eutrophication is the main historic pressure on this habitat. Additional pressures include: trawling, siltation and disturbance from other anthropogenic activities. Conservation and management measures relevant to this habitat include: measures to maintain physical and biological integrity, improvement of water quality, enhanced legal protection and raised public awareness.

References:
Bacescu M.C., Muller G.I., Gomoiu M.-T., 1971. Cercetari de ecologie bentala in Marea Neagra (analiza cantitativa, calitativa si comparata a faunei bentice pontice). Ecologie Marina vol. IV. Editura Academiei R.S.R., Bucuresti, 357 pp.
Bacescu M., 1977. Les biocenoses benthiques de la Mer Noire. In: Biologie des eaux saumatres de la Mer Noire, Pora E.A. (ed.), IRCM, Constanta 1: 128-134.
Kostylev, E.F., Tkachenko, F.P. & Tretiak, I.P. 2010. Establishment of “Zernov’s Phyllophora field” marine reserve: protection and restoration of a unique ecosystem. Ocean & Coastal Management. 53(5-6);203-208.
Tkachenko, F.P., Tretiak, I.P. & Kostilev, E.F. 2009. Macrophytobenthos of the Zernov Phyllophora Field in present conditions (the Black Sea, Ukraine). International Journal on Algae. 11(1); 64-72

Criterion A Text:
There is insufficiant data on changes in quantity of this habitat to undertake an assessment using criterion A.


Habitat Type Name:
H6.1 Mediterranean and temperate volcanic field

Habitat Description:
The habitat includes permanent habitats occurring on the volcanic areas of the Mediterranean and Macaronesian regions, and - very rarely - in temperate parts of Europe. The plant communities of such environments are typically characterized by pioneer, floristically poor and endemic-rich bio-coenoses. Soils are very primitive, eroded and, as such, they reflect with unusual fidelity the chemical composition of the bedrock. The severe ecological conditions hamper the development of soils, and hence the habitat usually looks very stony, with a feeble accumulation of finer particles wherever conditions become slightly better.
Intense solar radiation, remarkable daily temperature variations, long lasting snow-cover, and mechanical disturbances caused by strong winds are usual conditions for this habitat type. Vegetation typically is scattered and discontinuous with very low cover values (<25%), chiefly dominated by few, relic vascular plants. Large areas are completely unvegetated or only occupied by a cryptogamic vegetation. The most frequent vascular plants are Cerastium tomentosum, Anthemis aetnensis, Scleranthus vulcanicus, Rumex aetnensis, Senecio aethnensis, Saponaria sicula, Viola cheirantifolia, Silene nocteolens, and Argyranthemum tenerifae. Bryophytes (e.g. Isopterygium tenerum, Campylopus pilifer, C. introflexus, Calymperes erosum, etc.) and lichens (e.g. Stereocaulon vesuvianum, Xanthoparmelia conspersa, etc.) are widely spread.
These habitats are found on recently deposited volcanic scoriae (tephra), lava flows or orifices in volcanic areas emitting hot gases and vapours of Italy (Tuscany, Sicily, Latium and Campania), and the Canary Islands. At lower altitudes or where ecological conditions are more suitable, they are dynamically connected with the hemicrypto-chamaephytic plant communities dominated by dwarf, thorny, cushion-like species and/or grasses. Furthermore, they may be contiguous to the phanaerophytic communities chiefly dominated by conifers (e.g. Pinus sp. pl., Juniperus sp. pl., etc.). The great phytogeographical and scientific value of these habitats is given by the high number of relic, mostly endemic, taxa. Outside the Mediterranean and Macaronesian region, some marginal (unvegetated) sites are found in the temperate parts of Europe, like in Romania. Subarctic volcanic features on Iceland are considered under habitat H5.1c.
Indicators of quality:
Natural vegetation chiefly occurring in hostile areas not or slightly affected by human activities, as touristic facilities (e.g. skiing areas, etc.). It is generally rather stable, but local surface area variations linked to the volcanic activity may occur.
Indicators of good quality are:
occurrence of rare, endemic and phyto-geographically significant plants
no disturbance by hiking, skiing activities, roads, etc.
contacts with other natural habitats such as cliffs, mountain woodlands, etc.

Characteristic species:
Vascular plants: Cerastium tomentosum, Anthemis aetnensis, Scleranthus vulcanicus, Rumex aetnensis, Senecio aethnensis, Saponaria sicula, Viola cheirantifolia, Silene nocteolens, Argyranthemum tenerifae, Agrostis canina ssp. monteluccii, A. castellana
Bryophytes: Isopterygium tenerum, Campylopus pilifer, Campylopus introflexus, Calymperes erosum, Racomitrium lanuginosum, Racomitrium canescens, Bryum pallens, Ceratodon purpureus
Lichens: Stereocaulon vesuvianum, Xanthoparmelia conspersa

Classification:
EUNIS:
H6.1 Active volcanic features
EuroVeg Checklist:
Rumici-Astragalion siculi Poli 1965
Campylopodion vaporarii Brullo. Privitera & Puglisi 2004 ex Puglisi & Privitera 2012
Sclerantho-Myosotidion incrassatae Brullo, Scelsi & Spampinato 2001
Linarion purpureae Brullo 1984
Annex 1:
8320 Fields of lava and natural excavations
Emerald:
H6 Recent volcanic features
MAES-2:
Sparsely or unvegetated land
IUCN:
6 Rocky areas

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The habitat represents an outstanding example for the Mediterranean and Macaronesian biogeographic regions because of the occurrence of a pool of species, mostly endemic, characterized by a high ecological specialization and a remarkable phyto-geographical value.

Map Description:
The map is rather complete. Data sources: Art17, EXP.

Trends in Quantity:
There is no quantitative data on changes in area of this habitat over the last 50 years. However, some changes will have occurred due to natural dynamics (new lava flows versus succession towards other habitats), but it is likely that these changes are relatively small, falling within a range of maximum 10% fluctuation. Besides, small parts of the habitat will have disappeared due to building of houses and roads. The trend in area therefore is considered as stable or slightly negative.

Trends in Quality:
There is no quantitative data on changes in quality, but there is also no indication of any important negative changes. Historical and future trends cannot be estimated due to the lacking of data/information.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
100%. The habitat is fully distributed within the EU28. It depends however on the exact definition: how broadly will it be defined.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat is intrinsically small since volcanic areas have a punctiform distribution.

Pressures and Threats:
Urban sprawl, residential and commercial development are the most threatening menaces for this habitat type. Other infrastructures (e.g. roads, car parks, etc.) may cause severe depletion of the areas occupied by this habitat.

Conservation and Management:
The best management for this highly natural habitat is to leave it simply untouched, just avoiding any human interference with its natural processes. Natural succession, if any, cannot be seen as a threat. Increased public awareness about the biological relevance of such apparently inhospitable and sterile environments is important in order to make more effective conservation efforts.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Recover of this habitat is always possible, provided that the natural geo-morphological processes are not hampered.

Summary:
The habitat covers poorly vegetated volcanic areas of Mediterranean and Macaronesian regions, comprising mostly recently deposited volcanic scoriae (tephra), lava flows or orifices in volcanic areas emitting hot gases and vapours in Italy and the Canary Islands. Intense solar radiation, remarkable daily temperature variations, long lasting snow-cover and mechanical disturbances caused by strong winds are usual conditions for this habitat type. Large areas are completely unvegetated or only covered by some lichens and mosses or a scattered and, on fragmentary soils, a discontinuous cover of a few, relic vascular plants. No severe threats seem to seriously endanger the habitat because it mostly falls within nature reserves or protected areas. Public awareness and scientifically-based management of this habitat type are needed.

References:
Brullo S., Cormaci A., Giusso del Galdo G., Guarino R., Minissale P., Siracusa G. & Spampinato G. 2005. A syntaxonomical survey of the Sicilian dwarf shrub vegetation belonging to the class Rumici-Astragaletea siculi. Ann. Bot. (Roma) 5:57-104.

Criterion A Text:
Also no quantitative data was available on trends in area, the habitat area is expected to have been sable or slightly declined over the last 50 years. But changes are marginal and fall within natural fluctuations. This leads to the assessment Least Concern. No historical or future trend data is availlable.

Criterion B Text:
Both EOO and number of lcoations are well above the thresholds and there are no continuous declines or threats. The calculated AOO is smaller than 50, but as subcriteria a, b and c are not met, the habitat is assessed as Least Concern under criterion B.

Criterion C/D Text:
Past, historical and future trends cannot be estimated due to the lack of data/information. Extent of degradation and severity of degradation over the last 50 years are unknown, leading to the conclusion Data Deficient.

Synthesis:
This habitat is assessed as Least Concern (LC) in view of its stable trend in quantity, as there have been no declines over the last 50 years. Past, historical or future trends in quality cannot be evaluated, but no indication of negative trend is explicitly indicated.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
The habitat can be further divided into Mediterranean, Macaronesian and Temperate subtypes, but the two main groups (Macaronesian and Mediterranean) are likely to be both assessed as Least Concern. Temperate volcanic features are extremely rare and may

Contributors:
Type description: G. Giusso del Galdo
Territorial data: J. Loidi, J. Capelo, D. Espírito-Santo, G. Giusso del Galdo, C. Marcenò, D. Viciani.
Working Group Sparsely Vegetated Habitats: F. Essl, G. Giusso del Galdo, A. Mikolajczak, D. Paternoster, M. Valachovic, M. Valderrabano


Habitat Description:
This is permanent scrub dominated by Corylus avellana mostly typical of exposed coastal and upland situations with a humid Atlantic climate. The hazel forms a low canopy up to 3m tall, wind-shaped in more exposed situations, with multi-stemmed stools that are self-renewing by the production of new growth from the centre and slow clonal expansion. On shallower soils, stools tend to be more close-grown, with fewer thicker rigid stems and the scrub more shady; on deeper soils and in more sheltered situations, wider-spaced, multi-stemmed stools prevail with a lighter interior. Damage from winter storms also contributes to stem turnover and grazing/browsing can open up the canopy and prevent regeneration ultimately creating a parkland effect where older individual hazels can survive, sometimes acquiring a tree physiognomy.
The field layer varies according to the character of the soils which can be highly calcareous to slightly acid, shallow and skeletal to deeper and loamy and the often irregular topography favours complex mosaics with local instability of the surface. High precipitation usually maintains the soils in a moist condition, but local ground water seepage can further enhance wetness. The herb contingent is usually of the more Atlantic Carpinion type, more or less calcicolous according to the soil reaction, with an obvious vernal component in which Hyacinthoides non-scripta, Anemone nemorosa and Primula vulgaris often figure, and a sometimes luxuriant fern flora. Less limey soils can have a grassier flora with a summer cover of Pteridium aquilinum. Towards the north of the range, Trollius europaeus and Cirsium helenioides provide a distinctive phytogeographical element.
The cryptogam flora can be very rich and distinctive in less disturbed stands. Shadier and more humid interiors favour a luxuriant bryophyte flora over soil, rocks and the hazel stool bases, an ‘elfin’ aspect in which broader Atlantic and some specialist oceanic species are especially striking. The lichen flora is also particularly indicative of venerable stands with more light-demanding Graphidion species typical of smoother bark in less shady situations, Lobarion species on rougher bark and in shadier stands, both contingents including some internationally rare taxa. Hazel is ectomycorrhizal and a number of fungi can add to the floristic richness of the scrub. 
The habitat described above occurs in Ireland and the United Kingdom, where it is found in locations where wind and shallow soils prevent the growth of trees. However, also in Central Europe permanent hazel scrub is found, in places where soil conditions prevent succession towards forest, for example on steep hillsides. Here also the scrub is in most cases growing on limestone, but occasionally also on other soil types. In this more continental region the herb layer consists of dry grassland and forest edge species, like Epipactis atrorubens, Campanula persicifolia, Brachypodium pinnatum and Melampyrum nemorosum. Such scrub communities are classified in the alliance Berberidion vulgaris.
Indicators of good quality:
Presence of at least some continuous cover of healthy multi-stemmed hazel bushes without any overtopping tree canopy
Diverse herb layer, often with complex mosaics over uneven topography
Rich and diverse cryptogam flora
Grazing and browsing at moderate levels at most
Absence of signs of coppicing
Absence of invading oceanic aliens e.g. Rhododendron ponticum.

Characteristic species:
Flora: Shrub canopy: Corylus avellana.
Herbs (Atlantic region): Anemone nemorosa, Asplenium phyllitis, A. trichomanes, A. viride, Athyrium filix-femina, Blechnum spicant, Brachypodium sylvaticum, Circaea intermedia, Cirsium helenioides, Deschampsia cespitosa, Dryopteris filix-mas, Geum urbanum, Hyacinthoides non-scripta, Mercurialis perennis, Oxalis acetosella, Primula vulgaris, Pteridium aquilinum, Trollius europaeus, Viola riviniana.
Bryophytes: Cololejeunea minutissima, Drepanolejeunea hamatifolia, Eurhynchium striatum, Frullania teneriffae, Harpalejeunea molleri, Isothecium myosuroides, Kindbergia praelonga, Loeskobryum brevirostre, Neckera pumila, Plagiochila bifaria, Plagiochila exigua, Pseudosleropodium purum, Ulota aalvescens, U. phyllantha, Zygodon conoideus.
Lichens: Arthonia cohabitans, A. excipiendia, A. ilicinella, Artholthelium macounii, Arthothelium orbilliferum, Bactrospora homalotropa, Eopyrenula septemseptata, Fuscopannaria sampaiana, Gomphyllus calycoicdes, Graphis alboscripta, Lecanora cinereofusca, Leptogium brebissonii, L. cochleatum, L. hibernicum, Lobaria pulmonaria, L. virens, Melaspilea atrodies, Mycomicrothelia atlantica, Parmelia testacea, Pseudocyphellaria intricata, P. norvegica, Pyrenula coryli, P. hibernia, P. laevigata, Thelotrema macrtocporum.
Fungi: Chromocyphella muscicola, Encoelia glauca, Hymenochaeta corrugata, Hymenocyphus fructigenus, Hypocreopsis rhododendri, Hypoxylon fuscum, Lactarius pyrogalus, Leccinum pseudoscabrum, Sarcocypha austriaca.

Classification:
EUNIS:
F3.1  Temperate thickets and scrub
EuroVegChecklist:
Carpinion betuli Issler 1931
Berberidion vulgaris Br.-Bl. ex Tüxen 1952
Annex I:
No relationship
Emerald:
No relationship
MAES-2:
Heathland and shrub
IUCN:
Temperate shrubland

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The main distribution of the habitat is in the Atlantic region, but smaller stands may be found widespread but locally over more continental and submediterranean parts of Europe.

Map Description:
The habitat type is described as a rather oceanic type, occurring mainly in Ireland and the UK. However, some other countries have also reported stable occurrences of Corylus avellana scrub as primary vegetation. However, only few countries reported data, based on the "Atlantic" Habitat Definition that was provided. Therefore it is likely that the habitat is found in other countries, maybe with a somewhat different associated flora , but in few and rather small stands. The map provides probably an overestimated in central and southern Europe (secondary sites) and an underestimated in the UK and Ireland. Data sources: EVA.

Trends in Quantity:
The reported data is very imprecise, with Ireland reporting a rough range from 64 to 128 km2. All countries indicated positive or stable trends in quantity at the present time.

Trends in Quality:
Overall a slight decrease in quality was reported by the Czech republic and the UK, while Germany and Slovakia reported stable conditions, and Ireland even an increase in quality due to decrease of grazing pressure. Overall the trend is estimated to be stable.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
95% It is possible that some small occurrences of stable Corylus avellana scrub occur on the Balkan and Switzerland.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat is widespread, although the core of its distribution is limited to the oceanic parts of Europe in Ireland and the UK.

Justification of Restricted Area:
Partly yes, partly no. In the core of its distribution (Ireland, UK) the habitat can form large patches through an extensive suitable area.  In more continental parts of Europe it is found mainly as small patches, forming a primary vegetation in e

Pressures and Threats:
Grazing and browsing can open up the canopy and prevent regeneration of the Corylus ultimately creating a kind of parkland in which older individual hazels can survive (E7.1 Temperate & hemiboreal wooded pastures and meadows).

Conservation and Management:
In good conditions no management is needed.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
In natural conditions the habitat can recover rather quickly from, for example winter storms, without human interventions but damage from intensive browsing and grazing can have slower recovery, with inhibited regeneration of the Corylus and loss of epiphytic cryptogams.

Summary:
This habitat comprises relatively stable primary scrub dominated by Corylus avellana, which has its main distribution on limestones in regions of oceanic climate, notably western Ireland and Scotland, in situations where strong winds and very shallow soils prevent the development of forest.  The habitat also occurs locally and in smaller stands in regions of more continental or submediterranean climate, on steep slopes and in other sites where no trees will survive. The associated species vary over the range with broadleaved forest herbs typcal in the Atlantic zone, often accompanied by a rich epiphytic cryptogam flora, dry grassland and forest edge species characteristic in Central Europe. Grazing and browsing can open up the canopy and prevent regeneration of the Corylus ultimately creating a kind of parkland structure in which older individual hazels.  Provided such use is kept in check, no other management is needed for conservation.

References:
Coppins, A.M. and Coppins, B.J. (2012). Atlantic hazel: Scotland’s Special Woodlands.  Atlantic Hazel Action Group, Argyll.
Kelly, D.l. and Kirby, E.N. (1982). Irish native woodlands over limestone. Journal of Life Sciences 3(1): 181-198.

Criterion A Text:
Overall there is a positive trend of 25-50% over the last 50 years, based on data from only 5 countries, but probably covering more than 80% of the extent. The trend value is uncertain because of the broad range of present surface reported by Ireland. There is only data from EU28 countries, and the occurrence outside the EU28 is assessed to be marginal.

Criterion B Text:
There is no accurate distribution data available, but it is clear that the habitat is widespread (large EOO) and occurring in more than 50 grid cells of 10x10 km2.

Criterion C/D Text:
The reported degradation by two countries is affecting low percentages of the extent (<10%) with low severity. This trend is compensated by the increasing quality reported by Ireland, as a result of less grazing pressure. Overall the trend is therefore stable or positive. The reported negative trend is mainly biotic, but because of the positive/stable trends both C1 and D1 values are filled as zero.

Synthesis:
Despite of its wide distribution, few countries reported any data on the type, which may be caused by some confusion about the definition and the difficulty in distinguishing between primary and secondary stands. However, the reported information shows a clear overall increase in surface extent and more-or-less stable trends in quantity and quality. These trends lead to the category Least Concern (LC).

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
Although the species composition varies strongly between the Atlantic parts of the distribution range and the more continental and submediterranean parts, there is no need to further differentiate between subhabitats, as the occurrences outsi

Contributors:
Type description: J. Rodwell
Territorial data: M. Chytrý, P. Finck, K.J. Kirby, F. O'Neill, U. Raths, U. Riecken, A. Ssymank, J. Šibík
Working Group Heathland & Scrub: M. Aronsson, F. Bioret, C. Bita-Nicolae, J. Capelo, A. ÄŒarni, P. Dimopoulos, J. Janssen, J. Loidi


Habitat Type Name:
C3.5e Unvegetated or sparsely vegetated shore with mobile sediments in the Mediterranean region

Habitat Description:
This habitat includes silt, sandy and gravel banks and shores of flowing and standing water bodies of the Mediterranean areas. The rivers can be intermittently flowing (completely dry during the summer or left with some pools) or constantly flowing but with abundant exposed sandy or gravel sediments exposed during the summer. This category includes Mediterranean lake-bottoms or edges with mobile sediments (silt, sand or gravel) temporarily exposed by fluctuations of the water level, wind or wave action.
In the Mediterranean region, the climatic conditions are characterized by annual precipitation patterns that are high during autumn and winter but low during summer. Thus, many streams have developed spatial and temporal discontinuities of flow regime. Flow is interrupted during the summer dry period, but even energetic flow is observed during the wet season from late autumn to early spring. During the wet season, high precipitation lead to floods and consequent disturbances, such as sediment disturbances or even changes in the morphology of the stream channel. These seasonal differences in hydrological condition imply the need for specially adapted taxa to persist in this habitat. At the same time this habitat can host many plant species that require different moisture conditions (from humid to very dry). The high evaporation rate on certain geological substrates during summer can cause the accumulation of salts and oxides, therefore also species tolerant to brackish soil can occur. In some cases the geological substrate is very rich in salt and salt crusts are formed with the drying of the riverbed. In this specific case the dominant vegetation is tolerant to high salt concentrations and the habitat belong to the types C1.5 (Permanent inland saline and brackish waters) and C3.5c (Periodically exposed saline shores with pioneer and ephemeral vegetation). Despite the similarities with temporary running waters in temperate regions, there are differences in the timing and dynamics of nutrient inputs.
The grain size of sediments depends by the water regime and the history of water bodies both in flowing and standing waters and influence the plant species composition of the communities occupying this habitat type. These areas could be either completely unvegetated or occupied by vascular plant communities including pioneer vegetation and subsequent early stages of colonization. Often these areas are neighbouring with riverine forests and scrub of Salix spp., Populus spp., Tamarix spp., Nerium oleander and Vitex agnus-castus.
Indicators of quality:
Natural hydrology
Suitable geological substrate (easily erodible)
Pioneer vegetation with absence or sporadic abundance of nitrophilous species
No communities of exotic invasive species
No negative anthropogenic influence (sediment extraction, regulation of the water regime, construction of artificial banks)

Characteristic species:
Vascular plants: Andryala integrifolia, A. ragusina, Arenaria montana subsp. intricata, Artemisia campestris, A. alba, Asperula purpurea, Astragalus onobrychis, Bothriochloa ischaemon, Centranthus ruber, Chenopodium botrys, Chondrilla juncea, Cynodon dactylon, Cyperus fuscus, Dittrichia viscosa, Dorycnium hirsutum, Elymus repens, Epilobium dodonei, Erucastrum nasturtiifolium, Euphorbia rigida, Festuca duriotagana, Forsskaolea tenacissima, Galium corrudifolium, Glaucium flavum, Helichrysum spp. Latuca viminea, Lotus tenuis, L. creticus, Melilotus albus, Micromeria graeca, Mercurialis tomentosa, Oenothera spp., Ononis ramosissima, Paspalum distichum (alien species in most Europe), P. vaginatum, Plantago sempervirens, Reseda valentina, Santolina spp. (including endemic species such as Santolina etrusca, S. insularis, etc.), Saponaria officinalis, Satureja montana, Scrophularia canina, Seseli tortuosum, Silene inaperta, Teucrium flavum, Thalictrum foetidum.
Invertebrates: Very few groups of invertebrate occupy this habitat type and usually only those that have a short life cycle and that can leave the water body before the level of the water become critic. Among insects Heteroptera and Coleoptera.
Vertebrates: These habitats are usually not populated by fish or other characteristic vertebrates however several species of small mammals, amphibians, reptiles and birds can seasonally frequent this habitat using it for food and water resource or during the reproductive season. Often these areas are important feeding grounds for migrating water birds.
Note: Most species that occur in this habitat type are not exclusive of it, they normally occur on every habitat characterized by mobile sediments (pebbles, gravel and sand) of the Mediterranean areas. However species assemblages (vegetation communities) may be characteristic of this habitat type.

Classification:
EUNIS:
C3.55 Sparsely vegetated river gravel banks
C3.6 Unvegetated or sparsely vegetated shores with soft or mobile sediments
EuroVegChecklist:
Euphorbion rigidae S. Brullo et Spampinato 1990
Festucion duriotaganae Capelo et al. 1998
Glaucion flavi Br.-Bl. ex Tchou 1948
Annex 1:
3250 Constantly flowing Mediterranean rivers with Glaucium flavum
Emerald:
C3.55 Sparsely vegetated river gravel banks
C3.62 Unvegetated river gravel banks
MAES-2:
Freshwater, Rivers and lakes, Inland surface waters (freshwater ecosystems)
IUCN:
5.1 Permanent Rivers, Streams, Creeks [includes waterfalls]

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The habitat is defined as an habitat from Mediterranean areas. Its occurrence is strictly related to the Mediterranean climate.

Map Description:
Map is rather complete for EU 28, but  incomplete for EU 28+ (Balkan). Data sources: Art17, EVA.

Trends in Quantity:
Present past trend in quantity (over the past 50 years) is estimated in about 6% from both EU 28 and EU 28+ countries. The data are based on three EU 28 countries (Italy, Portugal and Spain) and one EU 28+ country (Bosnia and Herzegovina). The future trend is estimated as decreasing in three countries (Italy, Spain and Bosnia and Herzegovina). Long historical trend in quantity is mostly unknown.

Trends in Quality:
Complete data are available only for two countries (Italy, and Bosnia and Herzegovina) that reported in total an extent of degradation of 8% affected with a severity of 38% for EU 28 and 39 for EU 28+. The two countries that estimated the future trend (France, and Bosnia and Herzegovina) reported a decreasing trend due to the lack of implementation of right policies and the occurrence of invasive plants. The historic trend is mostly unknown but when provided it is reported as decreasing mostly because of the transformation of rivers and streams.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
It is estimated that a 50% of the current distribution of this habitat type lies within the EU 28, the rest is in EU 28+.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat may occur localized in segments but it can also form larger streches along streams or rivers.

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is mostly threated by extractions of sand and gravel as well as by human induced changes in hydraulic conditions such as the regulation of watercourses. Pollution to surface waters related to urban and industrial pollution has been also reported as a frequent pressure. Other threats are the occurrence of invasive plants and the renewable energy use. It is expected a continuing decline of the habitat quality where anthropogenic influences are significant.

Conservation and Management:
The conservation and management of this habitat type must preserve the natural hydrology avoiding the sediment extraction, the regulation of the water regime and the construction of artificial banks. Control of water quality is also required in order to promote natural pioneer vegetation and to avoid nitrophilous and exotic invasive species.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Estimations for such recovery are a period of 10 years through human intervention and of 20 years naturally.

Summary:
This habitat includes silt, sandy and gravel banks and shores of flowing and standing water bodies of the Mediterranean region where there is summer exposure of sediments and often a resorting of material in winter floods. Where vegetation develops it thus includes plants tolerant of either extreme dry or very wet conditions but the particular species also depend on the physical and chemical character of the debris. Early pioneers and nitrophilous annuals and perennials are characteristic and the habitat also provides an important feeding ground for migrating birds. Extraction of sand and gravel, anthropogenic changes in hydrology and invasion of non-native plants are the main pressures. Restoration measures include restoring the hydrology and the water quality and managing the sediment extractions.

References:
Angiolini, C., Scoppola, A. and De Dominicis, V. 1998. Influence of environmental factors on the chamaephytic vegetation of pebbly alluvium of southern Tuscan river beds (central Italy). Acta Botanica Neerlandica 47: 313-324.
Bolòs, O. 1967. Comunidades vegetales de las comarcas próximas al litoral situados entre los ríos Llobregat y Segura. Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias de Barcelona, 38: 3-281.
Brullo, S. and Spampinato, G. 1990. La vegetazione dei corsi d’acqua della Sicilia. Accademia Gioenia di Scienze Naturali in Catania 23 (336): 119-252.
Molina, J. A., Pertíñez A. Díez, C. and Casermeiro, M.A. 2004. Vegetation composition and zonation of a Mediterranean braided river floodplain. Belgian Journal of Botany 137: 140-154.

Criterion A Text:
Overall a reduction in the present past quantity of 6.6% from EU 28 countries and 6.7% from EU 28+ countries is estimated. Information is based on 4 countries (Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Bosnia and Herzegovina), which represent the 50% of those in which the habitat is expected to occur. The habitat shows the highest decreasing trend in central Mediterranean basin. Historical trend is largely unknown in Europe. Estimation in future trend is decreasing from most of the countries that provided these data. However the lack of quantitative data did not allow the calculation of the future trend.

Criterion B Text:
The EOO, AOO and number of locations are far beyond the thresholds for criterion B.

Criterion C/D Text:
The extent and severity are calculated using reported data from only two countries, Italy for EU 28 and Bosnia and Herzegovina for EU 28+. There is a decrease in quality affecting 8% of the surface with an average severity of 40% (from EU 28) and 41 % (from EU 28+). Information on long historical or future trends in quality (CD2, CD3, C2, C3, and D2) is mostly unknown for the involved countries. The changes in quality are both abiotic (waste, trampling) and biotic (invasive species, changes in species composition), so C/D1 has not been split into C1 and D1.

Criterion E Text:
There are no quantitative data available to estimate the probability of collapse of this habitat type.

Synthesis:
This habitat reaches the qualification of Least Concern (LC) because it is widespread in Europe and has undergone minor reductions in quantity and quality since the last 50 years.

Contributors:
Habitat definition: A. Kallimanis, F. Landucci, J.A. Molina
Territorial data: E. Agrillo, O. Argagnon, F. Attorre, S. Bagella, J. Capelo, L. Casella, D. Espírito-Santo, G. Giusso del Galdo, P. Ivanov,  C. Marcenò, Ä. MilanoviÄ‡,   J.A. Molina, G. Pezzi, D. Viciani
Working Group Freshwater Habitats: G. Arts, F. Landucci, J.A. Molina, B. Poulin, H. Toivonen


Habitat Description:
Low to middle-high non-riverine Salix dominated scrub on permanent water-logged sites on organic or peaty soils in plains and low mountain valleys and plateaus. Dominant shrubs are Salix cinerea, Salix aurita, Salix pentandra, Salix atrocinerea (= Salix cinerea ssp. atrocinerea), Salix rosmarinifolia as well as hybrids of these willow species (like Salix x multinervis), sometimes together with other Salix species, Myrica gale, and/or Frangula alnus. The scrub is on average between 2 and 4 meters high, except for scrub dominated solely by Myrica gale or by Salix rosmarinifolia, which are on average lower. Trees like Alnus glutinosa, Fraxinus excelsior and Betula pubescens may be present, indicating the first stages of succession towards forest. The understorey of this habitat depends on the nutrient-status and acidity of the soil. In relatively nutrient-rich sites, the optimum for Salix cinerea, it is composed of common helophytes and tall-herbs, like Filipendula ulmaria, Phragmites australis, Iris pseudacorus, Geranium sylvaticum, Solanum dulcamara, Lythrum salicaria, Galium palustre, Scutellaria galericulata, Lycopus europaeus, Thelypteris palustris, Carex elata, Carex riparia, Carex gracilis and Carex remota. Under acidic, nutrient-poor conditions, which is the optimum for Salix aurita and Myrica gale, Sphagnum species may dominate the moss layer, while in the herb layer Carex diandra, Carex echinata, Carex limosa, Carex nigra, Carex rostrata, Agrostis canina, Comarum palustre, Eriophorum angustifolium, Menyanthes trifoliata and Calamagrostis canescens are found. The (sub)boreal distributed Salix rosmarinifolia often grows together with Betula humilis, but in pre-Alpine relict communities with Salix myrtilloides and Pedicularis sceptrum-carolinum. In very wet situations, floating and submerging aquatic plants may be present. In the Carpathians and Rodopi mountains, several rare relict species are found in this habitat, like Spiraea salicifolia, Evonymus nanus and Polemonium caeruleum. In Scandinavia, Salix myrsinifolia may accompany Salix pentandra, Salix aurita, Salix cinerea and Myrica gale and in northern Scandinavia Salix lapponum, Salix lanata and Salix glauca are dominating the habitat together with among others Salix myrsinifolia and Salix phyllicifolia.
The habitat type is widespread in Atlantic, Boreal and Continental Europe, both in lowlands and mountains. It is found more sporadically in the Mediterranean, where it occurs mainly in mountains. It is absent from the Arctic and most northern Boreal regions. It is an azonal habitat, related to permanent wet soils, found in fens, mires, marshy floodplains, along brooks and on fringes of lakes, ponds and wet forest. It often forms relatively small stands and mosaics with other marsh habitats. It may develop in wet meadows when hay making ceases, indicating abandonment of traditional land-use. It also develops in drained mires and bogs. It is mainly a non-riverine type, as spring-fed and temporarily flooded Salix scrubs on the shores of brooks or rivers are included in habitat F9.1 Riverine scrub. In those situations other Salix species (S. triandra, S. fragilis) dominate in most cases, but, for example, Salix cinerea may also be present. It also excludes Salix scrub from well-drained sites in high mountains and subarctic regions (alliance Salicion pentandrae), which are considered under F2.3 Subalpine and subarctic deciduous scrub. Myrica gale dominated vegetation is included in this habitat, but in bogs and mires it may be considered part of the broader defined habitats of the main group D. In wet dune slacks similar Salix cinerea communities are found, but those are considered part of B1.6a.
Indicators of quality:
Dominance of Salix species or Myrica gale.
Forming landscape mosaics with more open reedbeds, mires and grasslands.
Presence of relict species.

Characteristic species:
Flora:
Vascular plants: Alnus glutinosa, Betula pubescens, Betula humilis, Frangula alnus, Myrica gale, Salix atrocinerea, Salix aurita, Salix cinerea, Salix myrsinifolia, Salix myrtilloides, Salix pentandra, Salix repens, Salix rosmarinifolia, Salix lanata, Salix lapponum, Salix glauca, Salix phyllicifolia

Classification:
EUNIS:
F9.2 Salix carr and fen scrub
EuroVegChecklist:
Salicion cinereae T. Müller et Görs ex Passarge 1961
Annex 1:
40B0 Rhodope Potentilla fruticosa thickets
Emerald:
F2.336 Rhodope Potentilla fruticosa thickets
MAES-2:
Heathland and shrub
IUCN:
Temperate shrubland

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
It is a very wide spectra of willow fens included, and at least in some part of Europe, it is both common and of low biodiversity and conservation interest.

Map Description:
The map is very incomplete due to limited data availability. Data sources: EVA, ART17.

Comment EU28:
Lacking data from some countries, but probably not from any important

Comment EU28+:
data lacking from Norway, which has a substantial area of the habitat

Trends in Quantity:
A clear decrease in area - slightly less than 30% (28-29%) - has been observed by territorial experts over the last 50 years.

Trends in Quality:
The extent of degradation is rather high, close to 35%, with a severity of 57%.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
About 90% of the habitat is inside EU28. There are some uncertainties because of lack of Norwegian data.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat is neither restricted to small spots, nor has a small total area. The distribution range is not naturally restricted.

Pressures and Threats:
The most important threats are linked to hydrological changes, especially the drainage of wetlands is affecting large areas. In the southern part of the distributional range, air-borne nitrogen input is a severe threat as it changes the nutrient balance of the habitat and results in a changed species composition.

Conservation and Management:
The most important conservation measure that can be done is to restore the hydrological conditions properly when they have been negatively affected (e.g. fill in ditches etc.). The problem with eutrophication can only be solved by international agreements.

Conservation Status:
Annex I:
40B0: ALP FV
(the Annex I type forms a very small part of the Red List type)

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Like other wet grasslands on Europe, the main threats for these submediterranean grasslands are agricultural intensification, including fertilisation and drainage. Other losses are due to changes in the (natural) hydrology of floodplains and habitat destruction by urbanisation and expansion of infrastructure (e.g. roads).

Summary:
This non-riverine Salix-dominated scrub occurs through most of Europe on permanently waterlogged sites around water-bodies and in mires on organic or peaty soils in plains, foothill valleys and plateaus. It shows wide variations in dominants and associates according to regional climate and the nutrient-status and acidity of the soil and often occurs in mosaics with wet meadows and mires. It has spread considerably with abandonment of agriculture but is threatened by changes in hydrological conditions and eutrophication.  Conservation therefore depends on ensuring that natural ground water supplies are maintained.

References:
Dierssen, K. 1996. Vegetation Nordeuropas. Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart.
DoniÅ£Äƒ, N., Popescu, A., PaucÄƒ-ComÄƒnescu, M., MihÄƒilescu, S. and Biriá¹£, I.-A. 2005. Habitatele din România. Editura TehnicÄƒ SilvicÄƒ, Bucureá¹£ti.
Oberdorfer, E. 1957. Süddeutsche Pflanzengesellschaften. Gustav Fischer, Jena.
Rodwell, J. (Ed.). 1991. British Plant Communities. Vol. 1. Woodlands and scrub. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Criterion A Text:
There has been an overall decrease in area over the last 50 years mainly due to major losses in France and Hungary. In contrast, countries such as Sweden and Denmark have reported a substantial increase in area. The provided figures for A1 have been calculated from the territorial data sheets and result in category Near Threatened.

Criterion B Text:
Both EEO and AOO are well above the thresholds to qualify for category Near Threatened.

Criterion C/D Text:
The overall assessment of criterion C/D1 is heavily affected by the situation in France, due to its large total area of the habitat combined with a large extent of degradation. The result both for EU28 as well as EU28+ is an intermediate decline affecting > 30% of the pan-European area, which results in the category Near Threatened.

Synthesis:
The habitat type meets the Near Threatened (NT) category because of a relatively large decline in area (criterion A1) and in quality (criterion C/D1). There is some uncertainty, as the overall assessment is strongly affected by the French data (more than 50% of the total area was reported from France), while data from several northern countries, which are supposed to have a stable or increasing trend, were missing.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
There are variations in nutrient richness, from nutrient poor to nutrient rich types, that could be a focus for further examination.

Contributors:
Habitat definition: J. Janssen.
Territorial data: S. Armiraglio, S. Assini, L. Aunina, C. Bita-Nicolae, J. Bölöni, G. Buffa,   A. ÄŒarni, M. Chytrý, R. Delarze, M. Dimitrov,  P. Finck, J. Janssen, N. Juvan, Z. KÄ…cki , K.J.  Kirby , T. Kontula, A. Mikolajczak, Ä. MilanoviÄ‡, B. Nygaard, F. O'Neill, D. Paelinckx, D. Paternoster, V. RašomaviÄius, U. Raths, U. Riecken, J. Šibík, Z. Škvorc, A. Ssymank, E. Weeda, L. Wibail.
Working Group Heath, Shrub and Tundra: F. Bioret, C. Bita-Nicolae, J.Capelo, A. Carni, P. Dimopulos, J. Janssen, J. Loidi.


Habitat Description:
Machairs are complex landscapes that support more or less extensive, short-turf dune grasslands in mosaics with calcareous lochs, saltmarshes, fens and other coastal habitats. In the National Vegetation Classification of the United Kingdom, twelve vegetation types have been mentioned belonging to the machair landscape. The grassland part is generally considered as ‘machair in the strict sense’ or ‘machair grassland’. The landscape always shows a long history of human intervention, especially through grazing, low-intensity systems of rotational cropping and fishery-related activities. Grazing may include cattle and/or sheep grazing, sometimes grazing by horses or goats is involved. Grazing by rabbits is an important natural phenomenon. The habitat type is found along the Atlantic coasts of Ireland and Scotland (where the largest and richest examples are found on the Outer Hebrides), characterised by a moist and cool climate, on calcareous sandy soils, that are blown inland from the shores by strong prevailing western winds, overlying peat or impermeable bedrock. The pH values are normally above 7.0. The dynamics of the system are enhanced by the digging and trampling activities of rabbits and domestic animals. The name machair is derived from the Irish word magh, meaning low-laying, fertile plain. A smooth surface is often considered an important criterion, like in the definition of Curtis: ‘systems in which the bulk of the area consists of a flat to gentle-sloping landform from which ridges are absent or very restricted and with a consequent restriction of the area of Ammophila’. The more or less humid sandy soils contain a significant proportion of shell fragments (up to 60 % of the soil or even more), producing lime-rich conditions. During winter, the low-lying parts of the system are flooded or at least waterlogged. The grasslands are dominated by rather generalist grasses including Poa pratensis and Festuca rubra, but a species- and flower-rich herb layer attracts many insects, whereas the complex landscape setting is important for breeding waders and other birds. As an example, at present, machairs support the healthiest western European population of the threatened Corncrake (Crex crex). On the European continent, to some extent, similar landscapes can be found, but not in the same complex landscape setting. In the Netherlands, for instance, low-lying, undulating plains with species-rich dry to humid dune grasslands do occur on old grazing grounds in the southwestern part of the country (vroongronden), but these sites are not dynamic and to a large extent decalcified. Calcareous, dynamic grasslands with a long history of human interference can be observed in the mainland dunes of Holland province (zeedorpenlandschap), but these are lacking the other landscape elements and wide-ranging grazing.
Indicators of good quality: 
The following characteristics can be considered as indicators of good quality:
High richness in herb species
Long-term, non-intensive human land-use, including grazing
Complex landscape setting, with grasslands and small water bodies and other elements

Characteristic species:
Flora: Achillea millefolium, Arabis brownii, Asperula cynanchica, Bellis perennis, Cochlearia scotica Erodium cicutarium, Euphrasia marshallii, Euphrasia officinalis, Galium verum, Gentianella campestris, Lot us corniculatus,  Plantago lanceolata, Sedum acre, Thalictrum minus ssp. arenarium, Thymus praecox, Trifolium repens, and many orchids, among which Coeloglossum viride, Dactylorhiza fuchsii subsp. hebridensis, Dactylorhiza purpurella, Gymnadenia conopsea, Orchis mascula, Platanthera chlorantha and Spiranthes spiralis. Arabis brownii is endemic to Ireland, Cochlearia scotica, Dactylorhiza fuchsii subsp. hebridensis and Euphrasia marshallii are endemic to Scotland.

Classification:
EUNIS:
B1.9 Machair
(also part of X27 Machair complexes)
EuroVegChecklist:
Ammophilion Br.-Bl. 1921
Armerion elongatae Pötsch 1962
Caricion fuscae Koch 1926
Koelerion arenariae Tx. 1937 corr. Gutermann et Mucina 1993
Thero-Airion Tx. ex Oberd. 1952
Violion caninae Schwickerath 1944
Annex I:
21A0 Machairs (* in Ireland)
Emerald:
B1.9 Machair
MAES-2:
Coastal
IUCN:
4.4 Temperate grassland

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat types only occur in Western Ireland and Scotland.

Trends in Quantity:
Recent trend EU28: -5% or even less. Recent trend EU28+: -5% or even less. Although there are limited data that provide the whole picture, it can be concluded that there is only a slight decrease in quantity.

Trends in Quality:
About two third of the habitat type is found in UK (Scotland), one third in Ireland. Both countries report only a slight decrease in habitat quality, often local. The only exception concerns the Orkney Islands in Northern Scotland where agricultural intensification has resulted in quite some losses.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
The habitat type is restricted to the Atlantic region of the EU28.

Justification of Restricted Area:
Although the habitat type is restricted to Ireland and Scotland, it still covers quite some area (up to several km2) distributed over quite some locations.

Pressures and Threats:
Machairs are a classic example of a landscape mosaic that depends on the continuation of traditional management schemes. Both abandonment and intensification may effect its biological - and cultural historical - values. In the light of this, it somehow surprises that still a considerable portion of the old machairs seems to have survived. In Ireland, a decline is reported although quantitative data are lacking; in the UK, the situation is considered to be stable with 5-25% of the present area being degraded. With the exception of the Orkneys, there is little decline and the losses are only local. Agricultural intensification has the main impact on habitat quality, whereas the construction of golf coarses and (to a lesser extent) airports have effected the extent of the habitat type.

Conservation and Management:
The best way to preserve this (from the point of nature conservation highly respected) habitat type is the continuation of the traditional management practices, including extensive grazing. In the UK, a Machair Habitat Action Plan has been launched to safeguard these complex habitats. So far, the machairs are still in good condition, both in quantity and quality.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The habitat type needs continuous human intervention for maintenance and/or restoration, by safeguarding or re-introducing traditional grazing regimes and maintaning or improving the hydrological conditions.

Summary:
Machair is a highly distinctive coastal landscape confined to the extreme north-west coast of the Atlantic region, most extensively developed in Ireland and the Scottish Isles, where the climate is very moist, mild and windy. It develops on plains of calcareous shell sand blown inland which, though largely stabilised, roll inland at their inner edge, over bedrock and bog. Machair comprises a mosaic of dune grasslands with lochs and mires, always influenced by long histories of low-input exploitation by grazing and rotational arable cultuvation. The species-rich grasslands which always play a central role in these systems - and which are the core of this definition - are traditionally grazed by cattle, sheep, sometimes horses and goats, and also by rabbits and such extensive grazing is essential for maintaining quality. The main threats are agricultural intensification with fertilising, overgrazing and drainage, and construction of golf courses and (more locally) airports.

References:
Angus, S. 2004. De tha machair ? Towards a machair definition. In: Delivering sustainable coasts: connecting Science and Policy. Proceedings Litoral 2004, Vol. 2, Cambridge Publications, pp. 552-558.
Bassett, A. and Curtis, T.G.F., 1985. The nature and occurrence of sand-dune machair in Ireland. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 85B: 1-20.
Curtis, T.G.F. 1991. The flora and vegetation of sand dunes in Ireland. In: M.B. Quigley (ed.), A Guide to the Sand Dunes of Ireland. European Union for Dune Conservation and Coastal management, pp. 42-46.
Rodwell, J.S. (1992, ed.). British plant communities. Volume 3. Grasslands and montane communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ritchie, W. (1976). The meaning and definition of machair. Transactions of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh 42: 431-440.
Ritchie, W. (1979). Machair development and chronology in the Uists and adjacent isles. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edingburgh 77B: 107-122.

Criterion A Text:
The values from A1 are calculated from the territorial data sheets. No data (%) available for A2a, A2b and A3.

Criterion C/D Text:
The values for C/D1 are calculated from the territorial data sheets, which we obtained from 2 countries (Ireland and UK). No data available for C/D2 and C/D3. The degradation in quality refers to both biotic features and abiotic circumstances.

Synthesis:
This habitat type is not endangered in either EU28 or EU28+. The habitat has lost a small area during the last 50 years, while about 1/3 of the remaining part is slightly negatively affected in quality. The habitat has a restricted range, but values for EOO and AOO are well above the thresholds for criterion B.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
The habitat types is a landscape mosaic, but further sub-habitat types are not needed for an appropriate assessment.

Contributors:
Habitat definition: J. Schaminée
Territorial data: S. Angus, A. Church, P. Corbett, J. Creer, T. Haynes, J. Martin, S. Rees, C. Scanlan, S. Watt
Working Group Coastal: A. Acosta, F. Bioret, H. Gardfjell, J. Janssen, J. Loidi, R. Tzonev


Habitat Type Name:
B2.1a Atlantic, Baltic and Arctic coastal shingle beach

Habitat Description:
This habitat includes coastal shingle deposits, made up of pebbles or small to medium-sized cobbles, in the Arctic, Atlantic and Baltic region. It includes the higher supralittoral (or geolittoral) part of beaches above mean high tide which do not contain marine plant and animal communities. Such deposits are the result of sedimentation in a high energy environment of relatively coarse material (diameter between 2 and 200 mm) derived from eroded cliffs or glacial moraines.  Shingle deposits are mostly found in previously glaciated areas, and are therefore more common along the northern Atlantic and Baltic shores than in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. The majority and the best examples are found on the British and French coasts with 30% of the beaches of England and Wales consisting of shingle. 
Variation in shingle deposits depends on geomorphology and coastal location. Typical shingle beaches are steep, because the waves easily flow through the coarse surface of the beach, decreasing the effect of backwash erosion and increasing the formation of sediment. One or two ridges can be noted, which indicate highest and mean tide or more on stormy beaches. The pebbles and cobbles often have been rounded by the wave activity, and the material usually consists of hard rocks, for example quartzite, granite and sandstone. Shores with larger cobbles, boulders or stable rocks are considered under B3.1a Rocky shores and cliffs. A mixture of shores with stones and finer material (shingles) between them is very common on moraine shores and in some locations extensive apposition beaches or cuspate forlands develop, where a series of consolidated parallel ridges of shingle structures are formed.  Much the largest site (over 2000 ha) is at Dungeness in Kent, southern England but other examples are found at Korshage in Denmark and on the German island of Rügen. 
Because of the movement of the pebbles and stones, due to the tidal waves, this is a very dynamic environment where almost no perennial plant species can live but stabilized deposits can trap sand, silt or clay and driftlines with organic material can occur when slightly more abundant but still very open vegetation may develop. On apposition beaches and in the northern Baltic Sea where these shores are derived from moraine with mixed grain size, there are also variants with more abundant vegetation.
Characteristic plant species are mostly perennial, halophytic and nitrophilous and include Crambe maritima, Glaucium flavum, Honckenya peploides, Beta maritima, Rumex crispus and in the northern regions Mertensia maritima, Leymus arenarius and Lathyrus japonicus (= L. maritimus). In the high arctic (Svalbard) typical species of stony beaches are Mertensia maritima, Cerastium alpinum, Cochlearia officinalis ssp. groenlandica and Sagina intermedia.  Where driftlines are deposited, Cakile maritima , Salsola kali and Atriplex species may grow, species also common on sand beaches. In the Baltic region, shores with less rounded stones of variable size occur which are included in this shingle habitat, although they are not shingles in a strict sense. These habitats are common on moraine shores and have an open structure of stones and boulders of different sizes (6-60 cm), with meadow-like patches between them. Vegetation cover is in general less than 50%. Besides more-or-less halophytic species, like Glaux maritima, Centaurium littorale, Centaurium pulchellum, Agrostis stolonifera and Plantago maritima, also species more characteristic for tall-herb communities are found, like Phalaris arundinacea, Vicia cracca, Sonchus arvensis var. maritimus, Valeriana sambucifolia ssp. salina, Angelica archangelica ssp. litoralis, Rumex crispus, Plantago major ssp. intermedia, Tanacetum vulgare and Veronica longifolia.  More stabilized shingle deposits with grassland, scrub and woodland are considered under Red List habitats B2.4, B2.5 and B2.6.
Shingle beaches are a hostile environment for most animal species, very dry with extreme fluctuations in temperature. However, some seabirds and waders nest on consolidated shingle and certain specialized invertebrates are associated with this habitat, mainly occurring on the higher, rarely inundated parts, in places where plants grow. The fauna includes a relatively large set of bees (particularly Bombus bumble bees) , wasps, ants, beetles and spiders, of which several are restricted to this habitat. 
Indicators of good quality:
No disturbance of fauna, inclusing ground breeding birds and resting grey seals
Presence of rare fauna species
No intensive trampling or mechanical removing of shingle or vegetation
Stability of plant populations

Characteristic species :
Flora: Angelica archangelica ssp. littoralis, Aster tripolium, Atriplex glabriuscula, Atriplex laciniata, Atriplex litoralis, Atriplex prostrata, Cakile maritima, Cerastium alpinum, Cochlearia officinalis ssp. groenlandica  Crambe maritima, Desmazeria marina,  Eryngium maritimum, Glaucium flavum, Honkenya peploides, Inula crithmoides, Isatis tinctoria, Lathyrus japonicus, Lavatera arborea, Linaria vulgaris, Mertensia maritima, Polygonum maritimum, Polygonum raii, Sagina intermedia, Salsola kali, Suaeda fruticosa (= S. vera), Tripleurospermum maritimum (=Matricaria maritima)
Fauna:
Invertebrates: Bembidion bipunctatum (ground beetle), Dyschirus angustatus (ground beetle), Ethelcus verrucatus (weevil), Megalesi yatesi (fly), Pseudomogoplistes squamiger (cricket), Sitticus inexpectus (spider), Trichoncus affinis (spider),
Birds: Arenaria interpres, Haematopus ostralegus, Sterna spp., Tringa totanus

Classification:
EUNIS:
B2.1 Shingle beach driftlines
B2.2 Unvegetated mobile shingle beaches above the driftline
B2.3 Upper shingle beaches with open vegetation
EuroVegChecklist:
Atriplicion littoralis Nordhagen 1940
Salsolo-Minuartion peploidis Tx. ex Br.-Bl. et Tx. 1952
Elymo littorei-Rumicion crispi (Nordhagen 1940) Isermann et Dengler in Isermann 2004
Mertensio maritimae-Honckenyion diffusae Tx. Et Géhu ex Géhu 1998
Annex 1:
1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines (although this habitat type officially considers shingles, it has been interpret much broader for driftline communities)
1220 Perennial vegetation of stony banks
Emerald:
B2.1 Shingle beach driftlines
B2.3 Upper shingle beaches with open vegetation
MAES-2:
Coastal
IUCN:
12.3.  Shingle and/or Pebble Shoreline and/or Beaches

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The habitat has its main distribution along Atlantic shores but it is also common in the Baltic Sea and on the Arctic shores.

Map Description:
Map rather complete, but unvegetated shingle beaches may be missing. Data sources: Art17, EVA, GBIF.

Trends in Quantity:
Six out of 10 countries that reported on the habitat provided quantitative data that enables overall trend analysis. On average for the EU a negative trend in area of 15% was calculated. For the EU28+ countries no data was available, and therefore the same value is applied for the EU28+.

Trends in Quality:
Five out of 10 countries that reported on the habitat provided quantitative data that enables overall trend analysis. Some countries reported stable trends (Spain, Finland), some moderate trends (Germany, France). Average values for the EU are a negatively affected area of 22% with moderate severity (35%). For the EU28+ countries no data was available, and therefore the same value is applied for the EU28+. It is likely, however, that the situation in Iceland and Norway is relatively better.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
About 80%. Outside the EU28 the habitat is widely distributed on Iceland and Norway (incl. Svalbard).

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat is widespread over the Atlantic, Baltic and Arctic coasts of Europe.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The area in which the habitat occurs is always small, as it occurs in small, more-or-less linear patches parallel to the coastline.

Pressures and Threats:
The habitat is very dynamic, and changes over one or a couple of years occur due to tidal inundation and storms. Increase of storm number and strength and rising sea level (resulting from global warming) should be considered a threat to this habitat, as it is likely to lead to erosion, though material can be deposited elsewhere along the coast. Presently human pressures are more severe, like building of sea defenses, gravel extraction, tourism (trampling, horseriding) and pollution. In some countries also invasive species and forestry is mentioned as a threat.

Conservation and Management:
This is a natural habitat that best can be managed by reducing negative human impacts (tourism, urbaniation, gravel extraction) as much as posisble.

Conservation Status:
Annex I:
1210: ATL U1, BOR U1, CON U1, MAC U1
1220: ATL U2, BOR U1, CON U2, MAC FV
(in some Baltic countries the definition of 1220 includes moraine shores, that are considered under habitat B3.4c in the Red List)

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
It is likely that the habitat can recover from gravel extraction, but in a natural way it may take a long time. Restoration through intervention may be possible, but artificial adding pebbles and gravel to a beach may cause more harm to the biota than leading to restoration.

Summary:
These deposits of shingle are most typical of highly dynamic beaches along the Atlantic, Arctic and Baltic coasts, with concentrations along the English Channel.  Often mobile and largely bare, they provide an inhospitable environment colonised only in more stable situations, with some deposition of finer material and drift detritus, by a distinctive suite of salt-tolerant and nitrophilous perennial plants. They also provide a habitat suitable for some nesting waders and seabirds and a variety of distinctive invertebrates. Locally, in southern England and the Baltic, larger apposition beaches are more extensively colonised by vegetation. Shingle beaches experience pressures from tourism (trampling), mining (gravel excavation), organic pollution (causing increased productivity of the vegetation) and the construction of sea defenses. Climate change, with more frequent and stronger storms, might be expected to introduce further dynamism into this coastal habitat shifting patterns of erosion and deposition.

References:
Doody J.P. 2001. Coastal conservation and management. An ecological perspective. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Scott G.A.M. 1963. The ecology of shingle beach plants. Journal of Ecology 51(3): 517-527.
Shardlow M.E.A. 2001. A review of the conservation importance of shingle habitats for invertebrates in the United Kingdom (UK). In: Packham J.R.  et al. (eds). Ecology & Geomorphology of Coastal Shingle. Westbury Academic and Scientific Publishing, Otley.

Criterion A Text:
Six out of 10 countries that reported on the habitat provided quantitative territorial data, enabling overall trend analysis. The quantitative data cover more than 75% of the reported area. Some countries reported stable trends (UK, Estonia), while a maximum of about 50% decline over the last 50 year was reported by other countries (Latvia, France). On average for the EU a negative trend in area of 15% was calculated. For the EU28+ countries no data were available, and therefore the same value is applied for the EU28+. It is likely, however, that the situation in Iceland and Norway is relatively better. Nearly no quantitative data on long-historical trends is given. It is possible that on the longer time the habitat will suffer from indirect effects of climate change, but no quantitative data are available for the Red List assessment.

Criterion B Text:
The AOO and EOO are much larger than the thresholds for B1 and B2, so the habitat does not meet these criteria, even if there is some continuing slightly negative trend in quantity and quality. It is possible (or even likely) that climate change will have negative effects in future by causing more and stronger storms and leading to increased sea levels. These threats are assessed as more than 5 locations however, as the habitat is widely distributed over different coastal regions.

Criterion C/D Text:
Five out of 10 countries that reported on the habitat provided quantitative data that enables overall trend analysis. Some countries reported stable trends (Spain, Finland), some moderate negative trends (Germany, France). Average values for the EU are a negatively affected area of 22% with moderate severity (35%). For the EU28+ countries no data was available, and therefore the same value is applied for the EU28+. It is likely, however, that the situation in Iceland and Norway is relatively better, leading to a slightly lower negative trend for EU28+.

Synthesis:
None of the thresholds of the Red List are met, resulting in the category Least Concern. There is some concern about the future development of the habitat under increased sea level and stronger and more storms (as a result of global warming), but these prospects could not be expressed in a quantitative way. Anyway, these threats are not expected to cause damage at a scale that would result in any Red List criterion being met and it is impossible to predict where new deposition may occur.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
Arctic shingle beaches may be considered as a distinct (sub)habitat, as it has a circumpolar distribution and possibly experiences different pressures than shingle deposits in the Temperate region.

Contributors:
Habitat description: J. Janssen
Territorial data: S. Angus, F. Bioret, J. Brophy, A. Church, P. Corbett, J. Creer, J. Loidi, J. Martin, P. Finck, T. Haynes, B. Nygaard, U. Raths, S. Rees, U. Riecken, E. Roosaluste, I. Rove, C. Scanlan, A. Ssymank, T. Kontula, S. Watt, Z. KÄ…cki
Working Group Coastal: A. Acosta, F. Bioret, H. Gardfjell, J. Janssen, J. Loidi, R. Tzonev


Habitat Type Name:
A5.6y Circalittoral biogenic habitats in the Mediterranean - corralligenous bioconcretions

Habitat Description:
This habitat sometimes referred to as 'coral gardens' can be found on a variety of substrates and at depths ranging from 20 to 200 meters. The main characteristic is a relatively dense aggregation of colonies or individuals of one or more coral species but also coralline algae. For example, soft-bottom coral gardens may be dominated by solitary scleractinians and sea pens, whereas hard-bottom coral gardens are often dominated by gorgonians, and red or black corals. Red corals rarely occurs about 30m as they require reduced light levels.
Reef forming hard corals (e.g. Lophelia, Madrepora and Caryophylliidae), if present, occur only as small or scattered colonies and not as a dominating habitat component. The habitat can also include relatively large numbers of sponge species. Other commonly associated fauna include basket stars, brittle stars, crinoids, ascidians, molluscs, crustaceans and fish.
Indicators of quality:
Several indicators have been proposed to assess the health of coralligenous habitats based on the composition and abundance of species (biotic cover and conspicuous species richness), the percent cover of different benthic assemblages (encrusting calcified Rhodophyta, non-calcified encrusting algae and fauna, turf forming algae, and sediment), boring species marks, percent cover of each species and the percentage of necrosis, bryozoa percent cover, sludge percent cover and the builder species percent cover.
Characteristic species:
The biological diversity of coral garden communities is typically high and often contains several species of coral belonging to different taxonomic groups, such as leather corals (Alcyonacea), gorgonians (Gorgonacea like Paramuricea clavata, Eunicella verrucosa, Eunicella cavolini, Eunicella singularis), sea pens (Pennatulacea), black corals (Antipatharia like Antipathella subpinnata) and hard corals (Scleractinia like the precious Corallium rubrum).

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4- A sub-habitat of Circalittoral biogenic habitats (A5.6).
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Coastal
Marine - Shelf
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
Shelf sublitoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow apotic rock or biogenic reef
Shelf rock or biogenic reefs
 
IUCN:
9.8 Coral reef

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Coralligenous habitat is a typical Mediterranean underwater seascape.

Map Description:
This map has been generated using data from IUCN and the European Environment Agency (EEA). EOO and AOO have been calculated on the available data presented in this map however these should be treated with caution as expert opinion is that this may not indicate the full distribution of the habitat.

Comment EU28:
This habitat is present in all the Mediterranean sub-basins. AOO figures recognised as an underestimate.

Comment EU28+:
This habitat is present in all the Mediterranean sub-basins.  AOO figures are known to be an underestimate.

Trends in Quantity:
The overal trend is unknown although shallow water coralligenous habitats are known to be decreasing in quanitity.

Trends in Quality:
The overal trend is unknown although shallow water coralligenous habitats are known to be decreasing in quality.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat occurs in all the Mediterranean sub-basins therefore does not have a small geographical range.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat occurs in all the Mediterranean sub-basins therefore does not have a small geographical range.

Pressures and Threats:
Demersal fishing and discarded/lost fishing gears entangled around corals are a major pressure on circalittoral corralligenous concretions resulting in direct loss as well as degradation. Mechanical disturbance and re-suspension of nearby sediments, particularly by bottom trawling, can also have a severe impact by smothering coral colonies. Other threats are the spread of invasive species (e.c. mucilaginous algae) which can cause necrosis to the colonies and offshore construction activities such as the laying of submarine cables. Some episodes of gorgonian and red coral mortality have been traced to chemical pollution. For example, in deep waters of the Mediterranean (80-160 meters) in 1987, mortality trends were linked to high rates of organochlorides such as PCB at the mouth of the Rodan Estuary.
Ocean acidification as a response to climate change is a potential threat to this habitat. This is supported by recent evidence of drastic species composition shifts in areas with naturally lower pH (CO2  vents) that have pH levels similar to those projected for the end of the century.

Conservation and Management:
The designation of Marine Protected Areas and fisheries reserves are needed conservation of this habitat. Specific measures aimed at protecting the coralligenous environment include the prohibition of trawling in areas with coralligenous outcrops and their vicinity and management of traditional and recreational fisheries to prevent stock depletion of target fish and crustaceans. Quotas, closed areas and minimum sizes for red coral or any other commercialized anthozoan. Where this habitat occurs at diving depths, the regulation on the number of visitors per site/day as well as a detailed training on the diving behavior is needed to avoid incidental damage to this habitat.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
As the most abundant and structuring species of coralligenous habitats are long-lived and slow growing species with limited recruitment rates, and native and non-native species can rapidily colonise the structures, local recovery can be difficult and extremely slow.
Some site specific studies for selected species (Corallium rubrum, Gorgonacea) have provide insights on the potential to recover after fishing activities or due to natural disasters (storms) and invasion of non-native species but these results cannot be generalized to other sites or to other species.

Summary:
This habitat sometimes referred to as 'coral gardens' can be found on a variety of substrates and at depths ranging from 20 to 200 meters. The main characteristic is a relatively dense aggregation of colonies or individuals of one or more coral species or corralline algae. It is recognised one of the most important habitats in the Mediterranean providing refuge and subsistence for many organisms, including commercially important species.
Demersal fishing and discarded/lost fishing gears entangled around corals are a major pressure on circalittoral coral habitats. Mechanical disturbance and re-suspension of nearby sediments, particularly by bottom trawling, can also have a severe impact by smothering coral colonies. Other threats are chemical pollution, collection, the spread of invasive species and offshore construction activities. Ocean acidification as a response to climate change is a potential threat to this habitat as the pH levels expected at the end of the century might entail major shifts in the distribution and dominance of coralligenous outcrops. 
The designation of Marine Protected Areas and fisheries reserves are needed conservation of this habitat. Specific measures aimed at protecting the coralligenous environment include the prohibition of trawling in areas with coralligenous outcrops and their vicinity and management of traditional and recreational fisheries to prevent stock depletion of target fish and crustaceans.  These may be established within Marine Protected Areas or fisheries reserves. Quotas, closed areas and minimum sizes for red coral or any other commercialized anthozoan would also benefit this habitat.

References:
Agnesi, S., Annunziatellis, A., Cassese, M.L., La Mesa, G., Mo, G. and Tunesi, L. 2009. State of knowledge of the geographical distribution of the coralligenous and other calcareous bio-concretions in the Mediterranean, MEDITERRANEAN ACTION PLAN. Ninth Meeting of Focal Points for SPAs, Floriana, Malta, 3-6 June 2009.
Arizmendi, R., Linares, C., Garrabou, J., Antunes, A., Ballesteros, E., Cebrián, E., Díaz, D. and Ledoux, J.B. 2015. Combining genetic and demographic data for the conservation of a Mediterranean marine habitat-forming species  PLoS ONE 10(3): e0119585 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119585.
Ballesteros, E. 2006. Mediterranean coralligenous assemblages: a synthesis of present knowledge. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 44: 123-195.
Bavestrello, G., Cerrano, C., Zanzi, D. and Cattaneo-Vietti, R. 1997. Damage by fishing activities to the Gorgonian coral Paramuricea clavata in the Ligurian Sea. Aquatic Conservation: Marine Freshwater Ecosystem 7: 253-262.
Bo, M., Bavestrello, G., Canese, S., Giusti, M., Salvati, E., Angiolillo, M. and Greco, S. 2009. Characteristics of a black coral meadow in the twilight zone of the central Mediterranean Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 397: 53-61.
Bramanti, L., Vielmini, I., Rossi, S., Tsounis, G., Iannelli, M., Cattaneo-Vietti, R., Priori, C. and Santangelo, G. 2014. Demographic parameters of two populations of red coral (Corallium rubrum L. 1758) in the North Western Mediterranean. Marine Biology 161(5): 1015-1026. doi: 10.1007/s00227-013-2383-5.
Bramanti, L., Movilla, J., Guron, M., Calvo, E., Gori, A., Dominguez-Carrió, C., Grinyó, J., Lopez-Sanz, A., Martinez-Quintana, A., Pelejero, C., Ziveri, P. and Rossi, S. 2013. Detrimental effects of ocean acidification on the economically important Mediterranean red coral (Corallium rubrum). Global Change Biology 19: 1897-1908. doi:10.1111/gcb.12171
Carpine, C. and Grasshoff, M. 1975. Les Gorgonaires de la Mediterranee. Bulletin of the Museum of Oceanography of Monaco 71(1430): 1-140.
Casas, E., Teixidó, N., Garrabou, J. and Cebrian, E. 2015. Structure and biodiverstiy of coralligenous assemblages over broad spatiala and temporal scales. Marine Biology 162: 901–912
Cau, A., Paliaga, E.M., Cannas, R., Deiana, G., Follesa, M.C., Sacco, F., Todde, S. and Orrù, P.E. 2015. Preliminary data on habitat characterization relevance for red coral conservation and management. Italian Journal of Geosciences 134: 60-68.
Cerrano, C., Danovaro, R., Gambi, C., Pusceddu, A., Riva, A. and Schiaparelli, S. 2010. Gold coral (Savalia savaglia) and gorgonian forests enhance benthic biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in the mesophotic zone. Biodiversity Conservation 19: 153-167. doi: 10.1007/s10531-009-9712-5.
Coll, M., Piroddi, C., Steenbeek, J., Kaschner, K., Ben Rais Lasram, F. and Aguzzi, J. 2010. The Biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: Estimates, Patterns, and Threats. PLOS ONE 5: e11842. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011842. pmid:20689844.
Dounas, C., Koutsoubas, D., Salomidi, M., Koulouri, P., Gerovassileiou, V. and Sini, M. 2009. Distribution and Fisheries of the Red Coral Corallium rubrum (Linnaeus, 1758) in the Greek Seas: an Overview. Proceedings of the International Workshop on ‘Red Coral Science, Management and Trade: Lessons from the Mediterranean’, Naples, Italy, 23-26 November 2009. NOAA Technical Memorandum. pp 106-114.
Garrabou, J., Perez, T., Sartoretto, S. and Harmelin, J.G. 2001. Mass mortality event in red coral Corallium rubrum populations in the Provence region (France, NW Mediterranean). Marine Ecology Progress Series 217: 263-272.
Gili, J., Murillo, J. and Ros, J. 1989. The distribution pattern of benthic Cnidarians in the Western Mediterranean. Scientia Marina 53: 19-35.
Gili, J.M. and Ros, J. 1984. L’ estatge circalitoral de les illes Medes: el coralligen. In: Els Sistemes Naturals de les Illes Medes. Ros, J. (Eds.). Arxius Seccio Ciencies 73: 677-705.
Garrabou, J., Perez, T., Sartoretto, S. and Harmelin, J.G. 2001. Mass mortality event in red coral Corallium rubrum populations in the Provence region (France, NW Mediterranean). Marine Ecology Progress Series 217: 263-272.
Gatti, G., Montefalcone, M., Rovere, A., Parravicini, V., Morri, C., Albertelli, G. and Nike Bianchi, C. 2012. Seafloor integrity down the harbor waterfront: the coralligenous shoals off Vado Ligure (NW Mediterranean). Advances in Oceanography and Limnology 3: 1.
Giuliani, S., Virnolamberti, C., Sonni, C. and Pellegrini, D. 2005. Mucilage impact on gorgonians in the Tyrrhenian sea. Science of the Total Environment 353: 340-349.
Guallart, J. and y Templado, J. 2012. Corallium rubrum. In: VV.AA., Bases ecológicas preliminares para la conservación de las especies de interés comunitario en España: Invertebrados. Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente. Madrid. 61 pp.
Harmelin, J.G. and Garrabou, J. 2005. Suivi d’une population de Paramuricea clavata (Risso, 1826) (Cnidaria, Octocorallia, Gorgonacea) dans le parc national de Port-Cros (Mediterraneé, France): comparaison des e′tats 1992 et 2004 sur le site de la Galere. Scientific Reports of Port-Cros National Park 21: 175-191.
Harmelin, J. G. and Marinopoulos, J. 1994. Population structure and partial mortality of the gorgonian Paramuricea clavata (Risso) in the North-Western Mediterranean (France, Port-Cros Island). Marine Life 4: 5-13.
Kipson, S., Fourt, M., Teixido, N., Cebrian, E. and Casas, E. 2011. Rapid Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring Method for Highly Diverse Benthic Communities: A Case Study of Mediterranean Coralligenous Outcrops. PLoS ONE 6(11): e27103. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027103
Kipson, S., Linares, C., ÄŒiÅ¾mek, H., Cebrián, E., Ballesteros, E., Bakran-Petricioli, T. and Garrabou, J. 2015. Population structure and conservation status of the red gorgonian Paramuricea clavata (Risso, 1826) in the Eastern Adriatic Sea. Marine Ecology 36: 982-993. doi: 10.1111/maec.12195
Laborel, J. 1961. Le concrectionnement algal ‘‘coralligene’’ et son importance geomorphologique en Mediterranee. Recueil de Travaux de la Station Marine d'Endoume 23: 37-60.
Laubier, L. 1966. Le coralligene des Alberes: monographie biocenotique. Annals of the Institute of Oceanography 43(2): 137-317.
Linares, C., Bianchimani, O., Torrents, O., Marschal, C., Drap, P. and Garrabou, J. 2010. Marine protected areas and the conservation of long-lived invertebrates: the Mediterranean red coral. Marine Ecology Progress Series 402: 69-79. doi: 10.3354/meps08436
Linares, C., Coma, R., Garrabou, J., Diaz, D. and Zabala, M. 2008. Size distribution, density and disturbance of two Mediterranean gorgonians: Paramuricea clavata and Eunicella singularis. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 688-699. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01419.x
Linares, C., Doak, D., Coma, R., Diaz, D. and Zabala, M. 2007. Life history and population viability of a long-lived marine invertebrate: the octocoral Paramuricea clavata. Ecology 88: 918-928. pmid:17536708 doi: 10.1890/05-1931.
Mistri, M. and Ceccherelli, V.U. 1995. Damage and partial mortality in the gorgonian Paramuricea clavata in the Strait of Messina (Tyrrhenian Sea). Marine Life 5(1): 43-49.
Montero-Serra, I., Linares, C., García, M., Pancaldi, F., Frleta-ValiÄ‡, M., Ledoux, J. B., Zuberer, F., Merad, D., Drap, P. and Garrabou, J. 2015. Harvesting effects, recovery mechanisms and management strategies for a long-lived and structural precious coral.  PLoS ONE 10(2): e0117250. doi:   10.1371/journal.pone. 0117250.
OCEANA 2004. The Corals of the Mediterranean. pp 86.
Pérès, J.M. and Picard, J. 1964. Nouveau manuel de bionomie benthique de la mer Méditerranée. Recueil des Travaux de la Station Marine d'Endoume 47(31): 1-137.
Russo, A. 1985. Ecological observations on the gorgonian sea fan Eunicella cavolinii in the Bay of Naples. Marine Ecology Progress Series 24: 155-159. doi: 10.3354/meps024155.
Salomidi, M., Smith, C., Katsanevakis, S., Panayotidis, P. and Papathanassiou, V. 2009. Some observations on the structure and distribution of gorgonian assemblages in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. In: Proceedings of the 1st symposium on conservation of the coralligenous and other calcareous bio-concretions (Tabarka, Tunisia, January 15-16). Pergent-Martini, C., Brichet, M. (Eds.). unis: UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA. pp 242-245.
Santangelo, G., Abbiati, M., Giannini, F. and Cicogna, F. 1993. Red coral fishing trends in the western Mediterranean Sea during the period 1981-1991. Scientia Marina 57: 139-143.
Santangelo, G. and Abbiati, M. 2001. Red coral: conservation and management of an overexploited Mediterranean species. Aquatic Conservation of Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 11: 253-259.
Santangelo, G., Carletti, E., Maggi, E. and Bramanti, L. 2003. Reproduction and population sexual structure of the overexploited Mediterranean red coral Corallium rubrum. Marine Ecology Progress Series 248: 99-108.
Sini, M., Kipson, S., Linares, C., Koutsoubas, D. and Garrabou, J. 2015. The Yellow Gorgonian Eunicella cavolini: Demography and disturbance levels across the Mediterranean Sea. PLoS ONE 10(5): e0126253. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0126253
Skoufas, G. 2006. Comparative biometry of Eunicella singularis (Gorgonian) sclerites at East Mediterranean Sea (North Aegean Sea, Greece). Marine Biology 149: 1365-1370. doi: 10.1007/s00227-006-0314-4
Tsounis, G., Rossi, S., Gili, J.M. and Arntz, W. 2006. Population structure of an exploited benthic cnidarian: the red coral case study. Marine Biology 149: 1059–1070. doi: 10.1007/s00227-006-0302-8.
Tsounis, G., Rossi, S., Grigg, R., Santangelo, G., Bramanti, L. and Gili, J.M. 2010. The exploitation and conservation of precious corals. In: Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review, vol 48. Gibson, R.N., Atkinson, R.J.A. and Gordon, J.D.M. pp 161-211.
Weinbauer, M.G. and Velimirov, B. 1995. Morphological variations in the Mediterranean sea fan Eunicella cavolini (Coelenterata: Gorgonacea) in relation to exposure, colony size and colony region. Bulletin of Marine Science 56: 283-295.
Zavodnik, D., Pallaoro, A., Jaklin, A., KovaÄiÄ‡, M. and Arko-Pijevac, M. 2005. A benthos survey of the Senj Archipelago (North Adriatic Sea, Croatia). Acta Adriatica 46: 3-68.

Criterion A Text:
There is a lack of information on the extent of circalittoral coralligenous habitats and any trends in quanity. Declines are considered likely but this cannot be quanitified at the present time. This habitat has therefore been assessed a Data Deficient under criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat is present in all the Mediterranean sub-basins therefore the EOO exceeds the threshold for threatened status.  The AOO suggest this habitat could be Vulnerable if there was evidence of continuing declines however this figure is believed to be an underestimate and there is a lack of information on trends. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion B.

Criterion C/D Text:
This habitat is believed to have suffered a decline in quality over the last 50 years however there is a lack of quantiative data. It has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criteria C/D1.

Criterion E Text:
There is no quantitative analysis available to estimate the probability of collapse of this habitat type therefore, it is assessed as Data Deficient under Criterion E.

Synthesis:
This habitat is present in all the Mediterranean sub-basins therefore the EOO exceeds the threshold for threatened status. The AOO suggest this habitat could be Vulnerable if there was evidence of continuing declines however this figure is believed to be an underestimate.
Infralittoral coralligenous habitats are known to be decreasing in quality and quanitity but there is a lack of quanitative data on trends for circalittoral corralligenous concretions. This habitat has therefore  been assessed as Data Deficient for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
Red coral (Corallium rubrum) and Black coral (Savaglia savalia, Antipathella subpinnata) assosiations due to the commercial interest that have and the pressures of fisheries.


Habitat Type Name:
A4.2x Circalittoral biogenic habitats in the Mediterranean - worm reefs

Habitat Description:
Worm reefs (formations) in the circalittoral zone in Mediterranean are formed by several species depending the bottom composition. The most common are the Sabellaria spinulosa, Sabella pavonina and to a lesser extent the Filograna spp./Salmacina spp. complex and Sabella spallanzanii. Worms grow in both soft/mud and hard substrates. Sabellaria spinulosa constructs unbranched dwelling tubes using mucus to bind together sand grains and broken shell to form a dense carpet on the bottom. Filograna/Salmacina build carbonate tubes and can occur in high densities attached to rock surfaces or algae like Cystoseira spp. and/or Sargassum spp. Sabella pavonina and Sabella spallanzani can form dense populations in areas of soft sediment not overgrown by algae.
Indicators of quality:
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include the presence of particular species, water quality parameters, levels of exposure to a particular exposure as well as more integrated indices which describe habitat function and structure, such as trophic index, or successful stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time.
There are no known commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may be set in certain situations, e.g. protected features with Natura 2000 sites, where reference values may have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis. 
Characteristic species:
Porifera like Tethya aurantia and Ircinia sp., bryozoans like Pentapora fasciata, Myriapora truncata and Smittina sp., Crustacean like Balanus sp. and Cnidarian like Parazoanthus axinellae, Astroides calycularis and Dendrophyllia ramea are some of the characteristic species that can be found in this formations. Molluscs and Decapods also occur.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of A4.2 Circalittoral rock and other hard substrata
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Coastal
Marine - Shelf
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
Shelf sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow apghotic rock or biogenic reef
Shelf rock or biogenic reefs
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
It is unknown whether this habitat presents an outstanding example of typical characteristics of one or more biogeographic regions.

Map Description:
This habitat is known to occur in all sub-basins in the Eastern and Western Mediterranean but there is insufficient data to produce a map of the distribution of this habitat.

Trends in Quantity:
The trends in quanitity of this habitat is unknown.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
It is unknown how much of this habitat is hosted by the EU28 in the Mediterranean.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
It is unknown whether this habitat has a small range following regression.

Justification of Restricted Area:
It is unknown whether this habitat has a small natural range due to its intrinsically restricted area.

Pressures and Threats:
Demersal fishing gears can damage and remove formations of worm reefs. Pollution is another threat as it can alter the physicochemical composition of the sea water and thus to affect the structure and function of the habitat. Changes in seawater temperature and other type of changes due to climate change (pH, etc) can affect the ability of worms to build reefs structures. Invasive non-native species can compete the worm reef formers in terms of space and also can alter the physiognomy of the reefs. This is well known in the case of the algae Caulerpa racemosa which can cover the reefs and cause degradation.

Conservation and Management:
Spatial protection of areas where this habitat occurs, for example through the designation of MPAs can be beneficial along with the regulation and prohibition of activities which impact the sea bed such as the use of demersal fishing gears.

Summary:
This is one of the least studied habitat in the Mediterranean. Observations from scientists through visual census (scientific diving, ROV) and forums/portals relevant to underwater photography and diving have provide some few insights to the species that form this associations. Demersal fishing gears can damage and remove formations of worm reefs. Pollution, climate change and invasive non -native species are other threats. Spatial protection of areas where this habitat occurs, for example through the designation of MPAs can be beneficial along with the regulation and prohibition of activities which impact the sea bed.

References:
There is no literature related to the circalittoral worm reefs of the Mediterranean. Available information about the faunal composition and structure is only from the infralittoral zone and mainly from the Western Mediterranean. Questionable is the use of term 'reef' in the Mediterranean as what is formed by the worms is more a 'facies', a 'formation' as part of the larger habitat (Coralligenous, Soft bottom).

Criterion B Text:
There is no information on geographical range of this habitat so EOO and AOO cannot be estimated. Data are also lacking on past trends and future trends have not been estimated. This habitat has therefore been assesed as Data Deficient under criteria B for both the EU 28 ad EU 28+.

Criterion C/D Text:
There is insufficient data from many Mediterranean regions to ascertain trends in the abiotic and/or biotic quality of the habitat. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criteria C/D1.

Synthesis:
The circalittoral biogenic habitats in the Mediterranean including worm reeefs are poorly studied with little known about their spatial extent, biotic/abiotic characteristics and associated biodiversity. What is know is only the existence of the keystone species that form these beds. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient for the EU 28 and the EU 28+.


Habitat Type Name:
A5.38x: Communities of Mediterranean circalittoral muddy detritic bottoms

Habitat Description:
This habitat develops in areas where a detritus bottom is covered with mud formed by terrigenous deposits from rivers. The sediment is a very muddy sand or sandy mud, or even a rather compacted mud, rich in shell debris or volcanic fragments (scoriae). Sedimentation deposits slow enough to allow the development of sessile epifauna. Gravel, sand and mud are mixed in varying quantities, but mud always predominates.
This biocenosis hosts the facies of the brittlestar Ophiothrix quinquemaculata. This species in some places forms an extremely dense population which is formed almost by 90% ophiurans.
Indicators of quality:
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include: the presence of characteristic species as well as those which are sensitive to the pressures the habitat may face; water quality parameters; levels of exposure to particular pressure, and more integrated indices which describe habitat structure and function, such as trophic index, or successional stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time.
There are no commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may have been set in certain situations e.g. protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis.
Characteristic species:
Porifera: Raspailia viminalis.
Cnidaria: Alcyonum palmatum, Anemodactis mazeli.
Holothuridae: Psedothyone raphanus.
Mollusca: Pelecypoda Tellina serrata, the gastropod Turritella communis and the bivalves Abra prismatica, Corbula gibba, Myrtea spinifera, Nucula nitidosa and Thyasira flexuosa.
Sipunculida: Golfingia elongata.
Polychaeta: Aphrodite aculeata, Polyodontes maxillosus, Eupanthalis kinbergi, Leiocapitella dollfussi, Clymene palermitana.
Isopoda: Cirolana neglecta.

Classification:
EUNIS:
Level 4 of the EUNIS classification (v1405). A sub-habitat of ‘Mediterranean circalittoral mud’ (A5.3).
Annex 1:
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays.
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral  mud, mixed
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow muds
 
IUCN:
 
9.5 Subtidal sandy-mud
9.6 Subtidal muddy
Other relationships:
 
Barcelona code: 
IV. 2. 1. Facies con Ophiothrix quinquemaculata

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Facies of adult brittle stars Ophiothrix quinquemaculata seem to be exclusively found on the muddy detritic biocenosis in the Mediterranean. A more complete description of the habitat will allow to ascertain if it represents an outstanding example from the region.

Map Description:
Source: IUCN based on EMODNet database 2015. Distribution information is available only from western Mediterranean, although the habitat is known to be widespread throughout the whole Mediterranean basin.

Trends in Quantity:
Few reports have described any trends of this habitat in the Mediterranean Sea. Decrease has been reported most notably in the north Adriatic Sea (Gulf of Trieste), with large mortalities of the fauna associated to this habitat due to anoxia in 1974, 1983 and 1988. These events destroyed over 50% of the epifaunal biomass of muddy and muddy detritic bottoms in only two days, and over 90% within four days in some cases. A significant reduction of the communities (particularly of the brittle star Ophiothrix and the sponge Reniera) has been later observed as a consequence of oxygen depletion, marine snow events and benthic fisheries. Whether these impacts occur in other areas of the Mediterranean is unknown.

Trends in Quality:
There are no concrete studies that evaluate the trends in quality over the last 50 years, and the information regarding trends given by territorial experts indicates a slight to moderate decline. In general, the available scientific information seems to indicate that it is considered as degrading in the north Adriatic for the last 50 years. Here, hypoxia (oxygen concentrations <2.0 ml l-1) and anoxia (no oxygen) have been indicated to increase in frequency and period, causing predation by anemones on the brittle star Ophiothrix quinquemaculata and changes on the composition of the dominant fauna. Therefore, the average trend in quality in the EU 28 and the EU 28+ is assumed to be decreasing.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
The habitat is widely present in the Mediterranean Sea. According to the information provided by EMODnet Seabed Habitats, this habitat is represented in both EU and non-EU countries of the Mediterranean. Facies with Ophiothrix quinquemaculata have been described in the north Adriatic Sea (Trieste and Istria coast), Banyuls- sur-mer (France), the Gulf of Lions, the Archipelago of Cabrera and the Channel of Menorca (Spain), among others. However, it is now possible to provide an estimate of the current distribution of the habitat type within the EU 28.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat is widespread present along the Mediterranean coast.

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is particularly sensitive to the physical disturbance caused by demersal fishing activities such as bottom trawling and dredging. Past benthic fisheries have severely altered the nature of the communities in this habitat. Moreover, in the northern Adriatic Sea, several anoxic events have been reported affecting a wide-ranging community and causing large mortalities. Marine snow events in which large cloud-like masses of mucus settled from the water column and covered the sediment surface and benthic organisms have also been reported in the area. This material settled to the bottom and became entangled in the arms of Ophiothrix quinquemaculata and other animals. The extent of the mortalities caused by thise phenomenon is unknown, but it is known to occur repeatedly at different Mediterranean areas.

Conservation and Management:
Recommended actions for conservation and management include: i) the designation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in areas where this habitat occurs, particularly where facies of Ophiothrix quinquemaculata are present, ii) strengthening fishing restrictions, especially bottom trawling in the network of MPAs and decrease the sources of eutrophication to prevent further decrease of the condition of the habitat; and iii) enhance greater understanding on the distribution, ecology and dynamics of the communities of circalittoral muddy detritic bottoms to facilitate the identificaiton of conservation needs and suggest further management measures and protection actions.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Information regarding the recovery capacity of this habitat is being reported only from the north Adriatic Sea due to anoxic events. Here, after the anoxic events, the recolonization process has been slow: the total biomass and the relative contribution of the main species have remained distinctly below previously recorded values. It is believed that additional anthropogenic influences (such as intensive dredging) may further halt recolonization.

Summary:
This habitat is present in areas where a detritus bottom is covered with mud formed by terrigenous deposits from rivers. A singular community is developed by facies with Ophiotrix quinquemaculata where the brittle stars can be found in fairly abundant densities. Because of the low sedimentation rates, small hard substrates such as shells remain on the surface and allow the development of sessile epifauna. 
The main pressures on this habitat are demersal trawling and eutrophication, which enhance oxygen depletion and alteration of sedimentation rates, as it has been observed in the Adriatic Sea. The slow recovery time of the assemblages can result in changes in the associated communities, shifting to favour an abundance of small invertebrates, such as anemones.
Strengthening fishing restrictions, designating Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) where this habitat occurs and increasing the knowledge and monitoring of its distribution and ecology will assist to conserve and evaluate appropiate conservation measures for the future.

References:
Bongiorni, L., Fiorentino, F., Auriemma, R., Aubry, F.B., Camatti, E., Camin, F., Nasi, F., Pansera, M., Ziller, L. and Grall, J.  2015. Food web of a confined and anthropogenically affected coastal basin (the Mar Piccolo of Taranto) revealed by carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes analyses. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. DOI 10.1007/s11356-015-5380-z
Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N., Howell, K.L., Lieberknecht, L.M., Northen, K.O. and Reker, J.B. 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05. JNCC, Peterborough: www.jncc.gov.uk/MarineHabitatClassification
Fedra, K., Olscher, E.M., Scherjbel, C., Stachowitsch, M. and Wurzian, R.S. 1976. On the Ecology of a North Adriatic Benthic Community: Distribution, Standing Crop and Composition of the Macrobenthos. Marine Biology 38: 129-145.  
Pérès, J.M. and Picard, J. 1964. Nouveau manuel de bionomie benthique de la Mer Méditerranée. Rec Trav Stat Mar Endoume 31: 5-137
Garcia, J.E. and Manjon-Cabeza, M.E. 2002. An infralittoral decapod crustacean community of southern Spain affected by anthropogenic disturbances. Journal of Crustacean Biology 22 (1): 83-90.
Klein, J.C. and Verlaque, M. 2009. Macroalgal assemblages of disturbed coastal detritic bottoms subject to invasive species. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Science 82 (3): 461-468.
Relini, G., Peirano, A. and Tunesi, L. 1986. Osservazioni sulle comunità dei fondi strascicabili del Mar Ligure Centro Orientale.  Bollettino dei Musei e degli Istituti Biologici dell'Università di Genovaâ€‹, 52: 139-161.
Stachowitsch, M. and Fuchs, A. 1995. Long-term changes in the benthos of the Northern Adriatic Sea. Annales: Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies 7: 7-16.
Stachowitsch, M., Fanuko, N. and Richter, M. 1990. Mucus aggregates in the Adriatic Sea: an overview of stages and occurrences. Puhblicazioni della Stazione Zoologica di Napoli I: Marine Ecology l I: 327-350.
Stachowitsch, M. 1984. Mass mortality in the Gulf of Trieste: the course of community destruction. Pubblicazioni della Stazione Zoologim di Napoli I: Marine Ecology 5: 243-264.
Stachowitsch, M. 1991. Anoxia in the Northern Adriatic Sea: rapid death, slow recovery. In Tyson, R. V. & Pearson, T. H. (eds.): Modern and Ancient Continental Shelf Anoxia. - Geological Society Specid Publication 58, 119-129. The Geological Society, London.
Zuschin, M., Stachowitsch, M., Pervesler, P. and Kollmann, H. 1999. 12 15: Structural features and taphonomic pathways of a high-biomass epifauna in the northern Gulf of Trieste, Adriatic Sea. Lethaia, Vol. 32, pp. 299-317. Oslo. ISSN 0024-1164.

Criterion A Text:
There is no information on past and future trends on this habitat type. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under Criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat is present in the eastern and western Mediterranean, and the EOO and AOO values exceed the thresholds for a threatened Category.The distribution of the habitat is such that the identified threats are unlikely to affect all localities at once. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under Criterion B even if a continuing decline in the spatial extent and the abiotic conditions has been reported for the EU 28.

Criterion C/D Text:
Despite the information available from the north Adriatic Sea that indicates a decline, there is insufficient data from other Mediterranean regions to ascertain the extent of reduction in the abiotic quality of the habitat, which has been estimated by territorial experts as slight to moderate. Therefore, the habitat type is assessed as Data Deficient under Criterion C/D, C and D.

Synthesis:
This is a very poorly studied habitat type and only few reports exists regarding its distribution at few locations. Moreover, data on quality or quantity is lacking, although a slight to moderate decrease on quality is considered likely due to current pressures. 
The habitat has a large Extent of Occurrence (EOO) and Area of Occupancy (AOO), and therefore it qualifies as Least Concern under Criterion B. However, the habitat is assessed as Data Deficient both at the EU 28 and the EU 28+ levels because of a lack of information on any trends in quantity and quality.


Habitat Type Name:
A5.6v Mediterranean infralittoral mussel beds

Habitat Description:
Infralittoral mussel beds on rocky and soft bottoms comprised of either the horse mussel Modiolus barbatus or the common mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis/edulis. Attached by byssus threads to rocks and piers, within sheltered harbours and estuaries and on rocky shores of the open coast, sometimes living in dense masses on soft bottoms mixed with pebbles wherever there are suitable surfaces for attachment. The diet of mussels consists of phytoplankton and detritus filtered from the surrounding water. More frequently they can be found close to river mouth areas. There are three distinct habitat components; the interstices within the mussel matrix; the biodeposits beneath the bed; and the substratum afforded by the mussel shells themselves. A diverse range of epibiota and infauna often exists in these parts of the habitat.
Indicators of quality:
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include the presence of particular species, water quality parameters, levels of exposure to a particular exposure as well as more integrated indices which describe habitat function and structure, such as trophic index, or successful stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time.
There are no known commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may be set in certain situations, e.g. protected features with Natura 2000 sites, where reference values may have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis. 
Characteristic species:
Dense aggregations of the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis/edulis or of the bearded horse mussel Modiolus barbatus. The mussels are often encrusted with barnacles and/or bryozoans. Gastropod molluscs such as species of the families Muricidae (e.g.Hexaplex trunculus, Stramonita haemastoma) feed on the mussels or on the bryozoans while polychaetes of several genera, crawl within the crevices looking for food. Copepods also live in the assemblage.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of Infralittoral Biogenic Reefs (A5.6). 
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef.
 
IUCN:
12.1 Rocky shoreline

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This is not a common habitat of the infralittoral zone in the Mediterranean.

Map Description:
This map has been generated based on expert opinion. EOO and AOO have been calculated on the available data presented in this map however these should be treated with caution as expert opinion is that this may not indicate the full distribution of the habitat.

Trends in Quantity:
In the past centuries, natural mussel beds in the infralittoral zone, covered a large part of the coastal zone, especially the areas close to river mouths, closed bays and other suitable areas. The intensive exploitation of the mussel beds along with the cultivation and the introduction of non-native species for cultivation have driven this habitat to a dramatic decline - in some cases the extinction as a natural bed.

Trends in Quality:
There is a lack of information on trends in quality of this habitat in the Mediterranean although it is believed to have decreased.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
The majority of this habitat is likely to be hosted by the EU 28 within the Mediterranean.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat does not have a small natural range as the EOO of this habitat exceeds 50,000 km2 .

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat does not have a small natural range as the EOO of this habitat exceeds 50,000 km2 .

Pressures and Threats:
Intensive agriculture can decrease water column quality and result in eutrophication as discharges from the agriculture plains flow in the sea. Intensive fish farming in nearby areas can lead to degradation and loss of mussel beds due to the heavy loads of organics from waste food and faecal matter. Low oxygen concentration and bacterial mats are additional pressures in these situations. Invasive species like the rapa whelk (Rapana venosa) is another significant threat. The low physical connectivity of the existing rare mussel beds can cause genetic depression.

Conservation and Management:
The remaining natural beds are very few, scattered through the European Mediterranean countries. Whenever these are exploited, this has to be regulated through intervention measures (changes in the extent and amount of the extracted mussels per year). Also, a detailed mapping of the extent of the natural mussel beds is lacking and should be a priority for the countries that host this habitat.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
This habitat has the capacity to recover its typical characteristics and functionality relatively rapidly (within 10 years)  if the reasons for the degradation are addressed. Seeding of mussel beds can be considered as an intervention to enhance recovery rates.

Summary:
Infralittoral mussel beds on rocky and soft bottoms comprised of either the horse mussel Modiolus barbatus or the common mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis/edulis. Attached by byssus threads to rocks and piers, within sheltered harbours and estuaries and on rocky shores of the open coast, sometimes living in dense masses on soft bottoms mixed with pebbles wherever there are suitable surfaces for attachment.
Eutrophication resulting from discharges from the agriculture plains, heavy loads of organics from waste food and faecal matter from intensive fish farming and invasive species like the rapa whelk (Rapana venosa) are significant threats to this habitat.  The remaining natural beds are very few, scattered through the European Mediterranean countries. Whenever these are exploited, this needs to regulated through intervention measures (changes in the extent and amount of the extracted mussels per year). Also, a detailed mapping of the extent of the natural mussel beds is lacking and should be a priority for the countries that host this habitat.

References:
Abada-Boudjema, Y M. and Dauvin, J.C. 1995. Recruitment and life span of two natural mussel populations Perna perna (Linnaeus) and Mytilus galloprovincialis (Lamark) from the Algerian coast. Journal of Molluscan Studies 61: 467-481.
Airoldi, L., Bacchiocchi, F., Cagliola, C., Bulleri, F. and Abbiati, M. 2005. Impact of recreational harvesting on assemblages in artificial rocky habitats. Marine Ecology Progress Series 299: 55-66.
Airoldi, L. and Beck, M.W. 2007. Loss, status and trends for coastal marine habitats of Europe. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 45: 345-405.
Askew, C. 1987. Shellfish cultivation in Greece. FI:DP/GRE/85/002, Field Document 6, November 1987. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations.
Benovic, A. 1997. The history, present condition, and future of the molluscan fisheries of Croatia. In: The history, present condition, and future of the molluscan fisheries of north and Central America and Europe, vol 3, Europe. MacKenzie, C.L. Jr, Burrell, V.G. Jr, Rosenfield, A. and Hobart, W.L. (Eds.). NOAA Technical Report NMFS 129. US Department of Commerce. pp 217-226.
Ceccherelli, V.H. and Rossi, R. 1984. Settlement, growth and production of mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 16: 173-184.
Chintiroglou, C., Damianidis, P., Antoniadou, C., Lantzouni, M. and Vafidis, D. 2004. Macrofauna biodiversity of mussel bed assemblages in Thermaikos Gulf (northern Aegean Sea). Helgoland Marine Research 58: 62-70.
Cinar, M.E., Katagan, T., Kocak, F., Ozturk, B., Ergen, Z., Kocatas, A., Onen, M., Kirkim, F., Bakir, K., Kurt, G., Dagli, E., Acik, S., Dogan, A. and Ozcan, T. 2008. Faunal assemblage of the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis in and around Alsancak Harbour (Izmir Bay, eastern Mediterranean) with special emphasis on alien species. Journal of Marine Systems 71: 1-17.
D’Anna, G., Giaccone, G. and Riggio, S. 1985. Lineamenti bionomici dei banchi di mitili di Balestrate (Sicilia occidentale). Oebalia 11: 389-399. (In Italian.)
EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view [online]. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp (Accessed: December 2015).
Galleni, L., Tongiorgi, P., Ferrero, E. and Salghetti, U. 1980. Stylochus mediterraneus (Turbellaria: Polycladida), predator on the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis. Marine Biology (Berlin) 554: 317-326.
Karalis, P., Antoniadou, C. and Chintiroglou, C. 2003. Structure of the artificial hard substrate assemblages in ports in North Aegean Sea (Thermaikos Gulf). Oceanologica Acta 26: 215-224.
Katsikatsou, M., Anestis, A., Portner, H.O., Vratsistas, A., Aligizaki, K. and Michaelidis, B. 2012. Field studies and projections of climate change effects on the bearded horse mussel Modiolus barbatus in the Gulf of Thermaikos, Greece. Marine Ecology Progress Series 449: 183-196.
Peharda, M., Richardson, C.A., Mladineo, I., Sestanovic, S., Popovic, Z., Bolotin, J. and Vrgoc, N. 2007a. Age, growth and population structure of Modiolus barbatus from the Adriatic. Marine Biology 151: 629-638.
Ramon, M., Cano, J., Pena, J.B. and Campos, M.J. 2005a. Current status and perspectives of mollusk (bivalves and gastropods) culture in the Spanish Mediterranean. Boletim do Institutio Espanol de Oceanografico 21: 361-373.
Rius, M. and Zabala, M. 2008. Are marine protected areas useful for the recovery of the Mediterranean mussel populations? Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18(5): 527-540. (doi:10.1002/aqc.887).
Tsuchiya, M. and Bellan-Santini, D. 1989. Vertical distribution of shallow rocky shore organisms and community structure of mussel beds (Mytilus galloprovincialis) along the coast of Marseille, France. Mesoge/e 49, 91-110.
Zavodnik, D. 1997. Non-conventional seafood sources at the eastern Adriatic sea markets. In: Thousand years from first mention of fisheries in Croats (in Croatian). Finka, B. (Ed.). Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences, Zagreb. pp 637-656.

Criterion A Text:
In the past centuries, natural mussel beds in the infralittoral zone, covered a large part of the coastal zone, especially the areas close to river mouths, closed bays and other suitable areas. The intensive exploitation of the mussel beds along with the cultivation and the introduction of non-native species for cultivation have driven this habitat to a dramatic decline.  Expert opinion is that the historical decline is likely to have exceeded 70%. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Endangered under criteria A3 and Data Deficient for all other criteria for the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat has a large natural range in the Mediterranean.  Past declines have occurred and this is predicted to continue in the future although the distribution of the habitat is such that the identified threats are unlikely to affect all localities at once. The precise extent is unknown however as EOO >50,000km2 and AOO > 50 this exceeds the thresholds for a threatened category on the basis of restricted geographic distribution.This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under criteria B.

Criterion C/D Text:
Even if there are no data (past and present) about the abiotic and/or biotic quality of the Mediterranean infralittoral mussel beds, future decline is predicted due to climate change, diseases and non-native species interaction. This cannot be quanitified at the present time therefore this habitat has been assessed as Data Deficient under criteria C/D.

Criterion E Text:
No quantitative analysis has been carried out to assess the risk of ecosystem collapse for this habitat. It is therefore assessed as Data Deficient under criterion E.

Synthesis:
In past centuries, natural mussel beds covered a large part of the infralittoral zone is suitable areas, especially the areas close to river mouths and sheltered bays. The intensive exploitation of the mussel beds along with the cultivation and the introduction of non-native species for cultivation has resulted in dramatic historical decline. There is a lack of information on past trends in quality but future decline is predicted in response to climate change, diseases and non-native species interaction.
Expert opinion is that this habitat should be assessed as Endangered because of its historical decline for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.


Habitat Type Name:
A4.23 Communities of Mediterranean soft circalittoral rock

Habitat Description:
This habitat type occurs on moderately wave-exposed, circalittoral soft bedrock subject to moderately strong tidal streams. As this complex is found in highly turbid water conditions, the circalittoral zone may begin at the low water mark, due to poor light penetration. This complex is dominated by the piddock (a marine rock boring bivalve mollusc) Pholas dactylus  Barnea parva and other boring bivalves. Other species typical of this complex include the tube building polychaete Polydora and Bispira volutacornis, the sponges Cliona celata and Suberites ficus, the bryozoan Alcyonium coralloides, and the crabs Necora puber and Cancer pagurus. Foliose red algae may also be present.
Indicators of quality:
Standard biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include the presence of particular species, water quality parameters, levels of exposure to a particular exposure as well as more integrated indices which describe habitat function and structure, such as trophic index, or successful stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time. There are no known commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may be set in certain situations, e.g. protected features with Natura 2000 sites, where reference values may have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis. 
Characteristic species:
Bivalves: Pholas dactylus, Polychaetes: Bispira volutacornis, Sponges: Cliona celata, Cliona viridis, Suberites ficus, Suberites carnosus, Bryozoan: Alcyonium coralloides; Crustaceans: Necora puber, Cancer pagurus; Ascidian: Polyclinum aurantium.

Classification:
EUNIS (2007):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of Atlantic and Mediterranean moderate energy circlaittoral rock (A4.2)
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock & biogenic reef 
Shelf sublittoral rock & biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow aphotic rock or biogenic reef
Shelf rock or biogenic reefs
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal Rock and Rocky Reefs

Map Description:
This habitat is known to occur in all sub-basins in the Eastern and Western Mediterranean but there is insufficient data to produce a map of its distribution.

Trends in Quantity:
Off-shore zones of this habitat in the northern Adriatic Sea have been flattened and reduced in size by trawling and other destructive forms of fisheries sometimes resulting in total loss the habitat. The habitat is has also been affected by nitrogenous wastes from fish farms, where effects such as changes in benthic communities can be traced over distances of several kilometres from the inputs. 
P. dactulys, a characteristic species of this habitat, was once prevalent across the entire Mediterranean coast of Europe, but it has disappeared from most sites due to human collection for food and bait, and as a result of pollution. This represents a decline in quanitity.

Trends in Quality:
Epibenthos from soft rock communities have been severly affected by fisheries, especially by towed demersal fishing gear, such as trawls and dredges. These can cause direct damage and also indirect declines in quality by increasing sedimentation. Sediments that accumulate on rocky substrata are important agents of stress and disturbance. They can cause burial, scour and profound modifications to the characteristics of the bottom surface, and interact with other important physical and biological processes. The effects of sedimentation are complex, because they involve both direct outcomes on settlement, recruitment, growth or survival of individual species and indirect outcomes through mediation of competitive and/or predator–prey interactions. 
P. dactulys, a characteristic species of this habitat, was once prevalent across the entire Mediterranean coast of Europe, but it has disappeared from most sites due to human collection for food and bait, and as a result of pollution. A reduction in the density and abundance of this species represents a decline in quallity.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat has an EOO that exceeds 50,000 km2.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat type does not have an instrinsically restricted area.

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is affected by demersal towed fishing gears which cause direct damage to the soft rock as well as removing associated species. There are also indirect effects, for example associated with sedimentation and increased turbidity which may smother associated species. Organic enrichment from land based sources of pollution and fish farms have also been identified as a pressure on this habitat.

Conservation and Management:
There are no conservation measures specifically for this habitat although it may occur in some protected areas. The regulation of demersal fisheries, including the establishment of refuge areas where such activity is prohibited, as well as measures to improve water quality will benefit this habitat.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Depending on a scale of habitat destruction an recovery can take a long time or even to be an irreversible process if the substrate is removed.

Summary:
This habitat type occurs on moderately wave-exposed, circalittoral soft bedrock subject to moderately strong tidal streams. As this complex is found in highly turbid water conditions, the circalittoral zone may begin at the low water mark, due to poor light penetration. This complex is dominated by the piddock Pholas dactylus.
This habitat is affected by demersal towed fishing gears which cause direct damage to the soft rock as well as removing associated species. There are also indirect effects, for example associated with sedimentation and increased turbidity which may smother associated species. Organic enrichment from land based sources of pollution and fish farms have also been identified as a pressure on this habitat. There are no conservation measures specifically for this habitat although it may occur in some protected areas. The regulation of demersal fisheries, including the establishment of refuge areas where such activity is prohibited, as well as measures to improve water quality will benefit this habitat.

References:
Airoldi, L. 2003. The effects of sedimentation on rocky coast assemblages. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 41: 161-236.
Airoldi, L. and Beck, M.W. 2007. Loss, status and trends for coastal marine habitats of Europe. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 45: 345-405.
Albertelli, G. and Cattaneo, M. 1985. Macrobenthos dei fondi molli del Mar Ligure. Proceedings of the VI Symposium of the Italian Association of Oceanography and Limnology (AIOL): 87-98.
Albertelli, G., Covazzi-Harriague, A., Danovaro, R., Fabiano, M., Fraschetti, S. and Pusceddu, A. 1999. Differential responses of bacteria, meiofauna and macrofauna in a shelf area (Ligurian Sea, NW Mediterranean): role of food availability. Journal of Sea Research 42: 11-26.
Bakran Petricioli, T. 2007. Marine habitats-Manual for mapping and monitoring. State Institute for Nature Protection. 60 pp.
Bellan, G., Bourcier, M., Salen-Picard, C., Arnoux, A. and Casserley, S. 1999. Benthic ecosystem changes associated with wastewater treatment at Marseille: Implications for the protection and restoration of the Mediterranean Coastal Shelf ecosystems. Water Environment Research 71(4): 483-493.
Blum, W.E.H. 2009. Reviewing land use and security linkages in the Mediterranean region. In: Water scarcity, land degradation and desertification in the Mediterranean region. Rubio, J., Safriel, U., Daussa, R., Blum, W. and Pedrazzini, F. (Eds.). Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. pp 101-117.
Bombace, G. 2001. Influence of climatic changes on stocks, fish species and marine ecosystems in the Mediterranean sea. Archivio di Oceanografia e Limnologia 22: 67-72.
Bressan, G., Chemello, R., Gravina, M.F., Gambi, M.C., Peirano, A., Cocito, S., Rosso, A. and Tursi, A. 2009. Other bioconcretions. In: Other types bioconstructions. Relini, G. (Ed.). Friuli Museum of Natural History, Udine, Italy. pp 90-114.
Dolenec, T., Lojen, S., Kniewald, G., Dolenec, M. and Rogan, N. 2007. Nitrogen stable isotope composition as a tracer of fish farming in invertebrates Aplysina aerophoba, Balanus perforatus and Anemonia sulcata in central Adriatic. Aquaculture 262: 237-249.
Dounas, C.G. and Koukouras, A.S. 1992. Circalittoral macrobenthic assemblages of Strymonikos Gulf (North Aegean Sea). P.S.Z.N.I. Marine Ecology 13(2): 85-99.
EEA. 2006a. The Changing Faces of Europe’s Coastal Areas. EEA Report 6/2006. OPOCE, Luxembourg.
EEA. 2006b. Priority Issues in the Mediterranean Environment. EEA Report 4/2006. OPOCE, Luxembourg.
EEA/UNEP. 1999. State and pressures of the marine and coastal Mediterranean environment. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
Falace, A., Alongi, G., Cormaci, M., Furnari, G., Curiel, D., Cecere, E. and Petrocelli, A. 2010. Changes in the benthic algae along the Adriatic Sea in the last three decades. Chemical Ecology 26: 77-90.
Gabrié, C., Lagabrielle, E., Bissery, C., Crochelet, E., Meola, B., Webster, C., Claudet, J., Chassanite, A., Marinesque, S., Robert, P., Goutx, M. and Quod, C. 2012. The Status of Marine Protected Areas in the Mediterranean Sea. MedPAN & RAC/SPA (Eds.). MedPAN Collection. 256 pp.
Gabriele, M., Bellot, A., Gallotti, D. and Brunetti, R. 1999. Sublittoral hard substrate communities of the Northern Adriatic Sea. Cahiers de Biologie Marine 40(1): 65-76.
Jeftic, L., Bernhard, M., Demetropulous, A., Fernex, F., Gabrielides, G.P., Gasparovic, F., Halim, Y., Orhon, D. and Saliba, L.J. 1990. State of the Marine Environment in the Mediterranean Region. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies 132/1990 and MAP Technical Reports Series 28/1989. Athens.
MEPA. 2012. MSFD Initial Assessment: Benthic Habitats. MEPA. 86 pp.
Salen-Picard, C., Bellan, G., Bellansantini, D., Arlhac, D. and Marquet, R. 1997. Long-term changes in a benthic community of a Mediterranean gulf (Gulf of Fos). Oceanologica Acta 20(1): 299-310.
Salomidi, M., Katsanevakis, S., Damalas, D., Mifsud, R., Todorova, V., Pipitone, C., Fernandez, T.V., Mirto, S., Galparsoro, I., Pascual, M., Borja, A., Rabaut, M. and Braeckman, U. 2010. Catalogue of European seabed biotopes. Report of Deliverable 1.2 of MESMA project to the European Commission.
Salomidi, M., Katsanevakis, S., Borja, A., Braeckman, U., Damalas, D., Galparsoro, I., Mifsud, R., Mirto, S., Pascual, M., Pipitone, C., Rabaut, M., Todorova, V., Vassilopoulou, V. and Vega Fernández, T. 2012. Assessment of goods and services, vulnerability, and conservation status of European seabed biotopes: a stepping stone towards ecosystem-based marine spatial management. Mediterranean Marine Science 13: 49-88.
Simboura, N. and Zenetos, A. 2002. Benthic indicators to use in ecological quality classification of Mediterranean soft bottoms marine ecosystems, including a new biotic index. Mediterranean Marine Science 3/2: 77-111.
Stachowitsch, M. 1984. Mass Mortality in the Gulf of Trieste: The Course of Community Destruction. Marine Ecology 5(3): 243-264.
UNEP. 2006. Classification of benthic marine Habitat types for the Mediterranean Region. UNEP (OCA)/MED WG 149/5 Rev. 1.
UNEP/MAP. 2003. Concept Paper on Mediterranean Marine Pollution Indicators. (UNEP(DEC)/MED WG.231/17).
UNEP/MAP/PAP. 2001. White Paper: Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean. Priority Actions Programme, Split.
UNEP/MAP. 2012a. Initial integrated assessment of the Mediterranean Sea: Fulfilling step 3 of the ecosystem approach process. United Nations Environment Programme, Mediterranean Action Plan, Barcelona Convention, Athens.
UNEP/MAP. 2012b. State of the Mediterranean Marine and Coastal Environment. United Nations Environment Programme, Mediterranean Action Plan, Barcelona Convention, Athens.
Vezzulli, L., Chelossi, E., Riccardi, G. and Fabiano, M. 2002. Bacterial community structure and activity in fish farm sediments of the Ligurian Sea (Western Mediterranean). Aquaculture International 10: 123-141.

Criterion A Text:
The habitat is assessed as Vulnerable under Criterion A1 and A2a for both the EU 28 and EU 28+ as expert opinion is that it is likely to have suffered large declines in surface area (more than 30%) over the last 50 years. These trends are considered likely to continue over the next 50 years.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat has a widespread geographical distribution but the exact locations and therefore AOO are unknown. Threatening processes are considered likely to cause continuing declines in the next 20 years. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern for criteria B1a and B1b for both the EU 28 and EU 28+ and Data Deficient for all other criteria.

Criterion C/D Text:
P. dactulys, as a characteristic species of this habitat was once prevalent across the entire Mediterranean coast of Europe, but it has disappeared from most sites due to human collection for food and bait and as a result of pollution. Epibenthos from soft rock communities have also been severly affected by fisheries, especially by towing fishing gear, such as trawls and dredges. Expert opinion is that this  habitat is likely to have suffered a substantial reduction in quality. It has therefore been assessed as Vulnerable under criteria C/D1 for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion E Text:
There is no quantitative analysis available to evaluate risk of habitat collapse. Therefore, the habitat is assessed as Data Deficient under Criterion E.

Synthesis:
In general, epibenthos from soft rock communities have been severly affected by fisheries, especially by towing fishing gear, such as trawls and dredges. Off-shore zones of this habitat in the northern Adriatic Sea have been flattened and reduced in size by trawling and other destructive forms of fisheries, sometimes to virtual extinction of the original habitat. P. dactulys, as a characteristic species of this habitat was once prevalent across the entire Mediterranean coast of Europe, but it has disappeared from most sites due to human collection for food and bait and as a result of pollution. 
The habitat has been assessed as Vulnerable on the basis of expert opinion for both the EU 28 and EU 28+ because of declines in both quantity and quality.   Further data collection is needed to gain a better understanding of this habitat type and re-assessment when more information is available.


Habitat Type Name:
A4.2x Marmara circalittoral biogenic habitats- worm reefs

Habitat Description:
Worm reefs (formations) in the circalittoral zone in the Sea of Marmara are formed by several species, depending on the bottom composition. The most common are the Hydroides spp. and to a lesser extent Salmacina incrustans and Salmacina dysteri . Worms grow on hard substrates and also build carbonate tubes.
Indicators of quality:
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include the presence of particular species, water quality parameters, levels of exposure to a particular factor, as well as more integrated indices which describe habitat function and structure such as trophic index, or successful stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time. There are no known commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may be set in certain situations, e.g. protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values may have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis.
Characteristic species:
Porifera like Ciocalypta penicillus, Echinoderms like Antedon mediterranea, Ophiothrix fragilis and Asterias rubens,and Cnidarians like Parazoanthus axinellae, Paramuricea clavata, Paramuricea macrospina, Eunicella cavaloni, Paralcyonium spinulosum and Caryophyllia smithii are some of the characteristic species that can be found in this formation. Molluscs and Decapods also occur.

Classification:
EUNIS (2004):
Level 4. A sub-habitat (association) of 'Circalittoral rock and other hard substrata' (A4.2)
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
1180 Submarine structures made by leaking gas
 
MAES:
Marine - Coastal
Marine – Shelf
 
MSFD:
Shelf sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN:
10.1 Epipelagic (0-200m)

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The Sea of Marmara has distinct environmental conditions compared to the Black Sea, with conditions more similar to that of the Mediterranean Sea. As such habitats present here do not present an outstanding example of the typical characteristics of the Black Sea region.

Map Description:
This map has been generated based on expert opinion and has been used to calculate AOO and EOO. The map should be treated with caution as it does not necessarily reflect the full distribution of the habtiat.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
The habitat is only present in the Sea of Marmara, therefore it is not present in the EU28.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat does not occur in the Black Sea, therefore the maximum EOO for the Sea of Marmara is 11,350km2. However, there is insufficient information to assess whether the habitat has undergone a significant decline (>25% of extent) in the last 50

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat does not occur in the Black Sea, however it is present in the Sea of Marmara as well as the Mediterranean Sea. Therefore this habitat is unlikely to have an intrinsically restricted area.

Pressures and Threats:
Pressures and threats affecting this habitat include: professional fishing (active or passive), marine water pollution, non-native invasive species, and physical changes to the seawater due to climate change, e.g. temperature and pH. Professional fishing can disrupt the formations of the worm reefs, marine water pollution can alter the physicochemical composition of the sea water and thus affect the worm reefs, and non-native invasive species which compete with the worm reef formers in terms of space and can also alter the physiognomy of the reefs.

Summary:
The habitat is present in the Sea of Marmara on areas of circalittoral soft mud and hard substrates. The worm reefs (formations) are formed by several species, depending on the bottom composition. The pressures and threats likely to affect the habitat are: fishing, pollution, invasive species and climate change. The conservation and management measures which would benefit the habitat are all related to the designation of Marine Protected Areas and the steps needed to regulate these.

References:
Albayrak, S. 1996. Echinoderm Fauna of the Bosphorus (Turkiye). Oebelia 22: 25–32.
AltuÄŸ, G., Aktan, Y., Oral, M., TopaloÄŸlu, B., Dede, A., Keskin, Ç., Ä°ÅŸinibilir, M., Çardak, M., Çiftçi, P. S. 2011. Biodiversity of the northern Aegean Sea and southern part of the Sea of Marmara, Turkey. Marine Biodiversity Records 4: 1–17.
BalkÄ±s, H. 1992. A preliminary study on the macrobenthos of littoral of the Island of Marmara. Institute of Marine Sciences and Geography, Ä°stanbul Unviversity 9: 309–327 (article in Turkish with an abstract in English).
Çinar, M. E, Dagli, E., Kurt Åžahin, G. 2014. Checklist of Annelida from the coasts of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology 38: 734-764.
Çinar, M. E., YokeÅŸ, M. B., Acik, Åž., Bakir, A. K. 2014. Checklist of Cnidaria and Ctenophora from the coasts of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology 38: 677-697.
Demir, M. 1952. BoÄŸazlar ve adalar sahillerinin omurgasÄ±z dip hayvanlarÄ±. Istanbul University Faculty of Science, Hydrobiology Research Institute Publications 3: 1–615 (in Turkish).
Özgür, E., Öztürk, B. 2010. Echinoderm fauna of the Marmara Sea and Istanbul Strait. Marmara Denizi 2010 Sempozyumu; 25-26 September 2010; Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 266–271(article in Turkish with an abstract in English).
Öztürk B, Dogan A, Bitlis-Bakir B, Salman A. (2014) Marine molluscs of the Turkish coasts: an updated checklist. Turkish Journal of Zoology 38: 832-879.
TopaloÄŸlu, B., Ozturk, B., Karakulak, F. S. 2004. The macrozoobenthic invertebrate fauna in the Marmara Sea. Rapp Comm Int Mer Medit 37: 554.
Topcu, E. N., Ozturk, B. 2013. Octocoral diversity of BalÄ±kcÄ± Island, the Marmara Sea. Journal of the Black Sea/Meditterrnean Environment 19: 46–57.
Tortonese, E. 1959. Osservazioni sul bentos del Mar di Marmara e del Bosforo. Natura Milano 50: 18–26 (in Turkish).

Criterion A Text:
There is insufficient data on changes in quantity of this habitat, to determine any trends in quantity.

Criterion B Text:
As the trends in quality and quantity of this habitat are unknown, there is insufficent data to conduct an assessment unsing criterion B.


