• Summary
• Text account
• Data table and detailed info
• Map
• Reference and further resources

The site was identified as important in 2010 because it was regularly supporting significant populations of the species listed below, meeting ('triggering') IBA criteria.

Populations meeting IBA criteria ('trigger species') at the site:

Species	Red List1	Season	Year(s)	Size	IBA criteria
Ural Owl Strix uralensis	LC	breeding	2008	21-30 breeding pairs	C6
Middle Spotted Woodpecker Leiopicus medius	LC	breeding	2007-2008	150-210 breeding pairs	C6
Collared Flycatcher Ficedula albicollis	LC	breeding	2003-2009	430-820 breeding pairs	C6

1. The current IUCN Red List category. The category at the time of the IBA criteria assessment (2010) may differ.

Ideally the conservation status of the IBA will have been checked regularly since the site was first identified in 2010. The most recent assessment (2008) is shown below.

State (condition of the trigger species' habitats)
Habitat	Quantity (% remaining)	Quality (% carrying capacity)	Result
Grassland	poor (40-69%)	moderate (70-90%)	very unfavourable
Forest	good (> 90%)	moderate (70-90%)	near favourable

Pressure (threats to the trigger species and/or their habitats)
Threat	Timing	Scope	Severity	Result
Agricultural expansion and intensification	happening now	some of area/population (10-49%)	very rapid to severe deterioration	high
Natural system modifications	happening now	some of area/population (10-49%)	slow but significant deterioration	medium
Residential and commercial development	happening now	some of area/population (10-49%)	slow but significant deterioration	medium
Energy production and mining	likely in short term (within 4 years)	some of area/population (10-49%)	slow but significant deterioration	medium
Transportation and service corridors	likely in short term (within 4 years)	some of area/population (10-49%)	slow but significant deterioration	medium
Pollution	happening now	some of area/population (10-49%)	slow but significant deterioration	medium

Response (conservation actions taken for the trigger species and/or their habitats)
Protected areas	Management plan	Other action	Result
Whole area of site (>90%) covered by appropriate conservation designation	No management plan exists but the management planning process has begun	Very little or no conservation action taking place	low

Year	Protected Area	Designation	% overlap with IBA
1936	Rezerwat hodowlany ÿubra nizinnego	Nature Reserve	1
1958	Dębina	Rezerwat Przyrody	<1
1958	Lipówka	Rezerwat Przyrody	<1
1961	Gibiel	Rezerwat Przyrody	<1
1962	Kolo w Puszczy Niepolomickiej	Nature Reserve	<1
1963	Długosz Królewski	Rezerwat Przyrody	<1
1963	Dóugosz Królewski	Nature Reserve	<1
1971	Wiślisko Kobyle	Rezerwat Przyrody	<1
1971	Wiolisko Kobyle	Nature Reserve	<1
1996	Dębina	Rezerwat Przyrody	<1
2002	Koło Grobli	Site of Community Importance (Habitats Directive)	3
2003	Lipówka	Site of Community Importance (Habitats Directive)	<1
2007	Puszcza Niepołomicka	Special Protection Area (Birds Directive)	99
2008	Torfowisko Wielkie Błoto	Site of Community Importance (Habitats Directive)	3

Habitat1	Habitat detail	% of IBA
Forest	Broadleaved deciduous woodland, Native coniferous woodland, Mixed woodland, Alluvial and very wet forest	75
Grassland	Humid grasslands, Mesophile grasslands	20
Artificial/Terrestrial		3
Wetlands (inland)	Rivers and streams	3

1. IUCN Habitat classification.

Land use	% of IBA
forestry	85
agriculture	15
hunting	-

---

Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Important Bird Area factsheet: Niepolomice forest (Poland). Downloaded from https://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/niepolomice-forest-iba-poland on 24/11/2024.