BioREGIO Carpathians Work package 4: DEVELOPMENT

Comments

Transcription

BioREGIO Carpathians Work package 4: DEVELOPMENT
BioREGIO Carpathians Work package 4:
DEVELOPMENT OF COMMON INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT MEASURES
FOR KEY NATURAL ASSETS IN THE CARPATHIANS
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Beneficiar: Agenţia Regional pentru Protecţia Mediului Sibiu
Unitatea de implementare a proiectului Managementul integrat al diversităţii
biologice şi a peisajului pentru dezvoltarea regional durabilă şi conectivitate
ecologică în Carpaţi (BIOREGIO Carpathians)
Beneficiary: Sibiu Regional Environmental Protection Agency
Project implementation unit Integrated management of the biologic diversity and
landscape for sustainable regional development and ecologic conectivity in
Carpathians BIOREGIO Carpathian
Executant:
Universitatea Lucian Blaga din Sibiu,
Facultatea de Ştiinţe
Centrul de cercetare de Ecologie Aplicată
Executing:
Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu
Sciences Faculty
Applied Ecology Research Center
Sibiu 2013
BioREGIO Carpathians Work package 4:
Development of Common Integrated Management Measures for Key Natural
Assets in the Carpathians
PRELIMINARY REPORT
B. Assessment
B.1. Key characteristics and types of wetlands, they range and conservation status in the Carpathians
and their values
This section should describe the characteristics of wetlands and their main types (Natura 2000 habitat types,
Emerald/Bern Convention habitat types or Ramsar wetland types in broad sense), describe the range and status
(e.g. reporting for Habitats Directive) of each type in the Carpathians, describe the conservation and protection
status, describe specific values of wetlands. Please provide case studies, results of relevant projects, publications,
links to web sites.
1.1. What are the main and typical wetland types in the Carpathian region of your country (or entire Carpathian
eco-region)?
3220 (Palaearctic class. 24.221 and 24.222) Alpine rivers and the herbaceous vegetation along their banks;
Subtype 24.221: Open and more or less closed assemblages of herbaceous or suffrutescent pioneer plants in the
alpine and sub-alpine levels of the Carpathians, rich in alpine species and colonising gravel beds of streams with an
alpine, summer high flow regime;
Subtype 24.222: Open and more or less closed assemblages of herbaceous or suffrutescent pioneer plants
colonising within the montane or sub-montane levels stream beds with gravel of different size and a summer high
flow regime originating from the alpine and subalpine level of the mountains;
Species Subtype 24.221 in the Romanian Carpathians: Dryas octopetala, Rhacomitrium canescens, Rumex
scutatus, Saxifraga aizoides, Saxifraga bryoides, Oxyria digyna, Trifolium pallescens; Saxifraga stellaris,
Heliosperma quadridentatum, Swertia punctata, Pritzelago alpina (Hornungia petraea).
Species Subtype 24.222 in the Romanian Carpathians: Calamagrostis pseudophragmites, Dryas octopetala,
Epilobium dodonaei, Agrostis gigantean, Anthyllis vulneraria ssp. alpestris, Campanula cochlearifolia , seedlings
of Salix elaeagnos, Salix purpurea, Salix daphnoides (only in a few of sites in the Caras-Severin county,Prahova
Ciocârlan 2009 and Turnu Rosu/SibiuDragulescu 2010) and Myricaria germanica,
Veg Calamagrostietum pseudophragmitis Beldie 1967; Chrysosplenio alpini-Saxifragetum stellaris Pawł. et Walas
1949; Swertio punctatae-Saxifragetum stellaris Coldea (1995-1996) 1997; Philonotido-Calthetum laetae (Krajina
1933) Coldea 1991; Cardaminetum opizii Szafer et al. 1923; Cardaminetum amarae (Rüel 1912) Br.-Bl. 1926,
Caltho laetae-Ligularietum sibiricae Ştefan et al. 2000; Carici remotae-Calthaetum laetae Coldea (1972) 1978.
Number of SCI in the Romanian Carpathians: 24
1
3230 (Palaearctic classification 24.223 x 44.111) Alpine rivers and their ligneous vegetation with Myricaria
germanica
Communities edified by pioneer shrubs of Myricaria germanica and Salicetalia purpureae species, colonising
stream and river beds with gravel deposits rich in sand and fine silt originating from the rivers morpho-and
hydrodynamic processes in conditions of an alpine, summer-high flow regime; communities of this habitat type are
interfering frequently with communities of the habitat type 3220, subtype Subtype 24.221 in on the subalpine and
montane level and subtype 24.222 on the low montane and sub-montane levels (piedmont).On the low montane and
sub-montane level they interfers ore follows annual pioneer vegetation of the Nanocyperion which are colonising
the fine sized sediments accumulated between the gravel deposits. The habitat type is covering small surfaces, and
if they are of larger extend they have a low covering degree.The cause for the low covering degree is related to the
dynamics with repeaded floods and the related erosion and deposition processes, covering on the one side the
existing vegetation and creating on the other side with new deposition of sedimente condition for pioneer
colonisation.
Characteristic plant species: Myricaria germanica, Epilobium dodonaei, Salix elaeagnos, Salix purpurea, Salix
daphnoides.
Animals: The structure of the gravel banks and the colonising pioneer species Myricaria germanica, Salix
purpurea and Epilobium dodonaei constitutes the typical habitat for two bird species Actitis hypoleucos/Common
Sandpiper and Charadrius dubius/Little Ringed Plover. Also Myricaria germanica is the nutrition species for the
phytofagous and oligophagous insects Coniatus splendidus (Curculionidae) and Tuponia prasina (Myridae/
Heteroptera). In the repartition area of Myricaria germanica they are monophagous living only in this species (on
the lower course of the rivers near to the Danube Myricaria being replaced by an other Tamaricaceae species
Tamarix ramosissima. If in the Carpathian area disappears Myricaria germanica, the mentioned insects species
disappears as well.
Veg: Salici purpureae-Myricarietum Moor 1958; Myricario-Epilobietum (Syn. Myricarietum germanicae, incl.
Myricarietum germanicae transsilvanicum Borza 1959). In the natural succession the communities evolute to stand
of Grey and Black alder (Alnetum incanae and Alnion glutinoso-incanae), but under anthropic pressure (cutting,
grazing), a ruderalisation take place and with this an evolution into grasslands of Agropyro-Rumicion.
Number of SCI in the Romanian Carpathians: 18
3240 (Palaearctic classification 24.224 x 44.112) Alpine rivers and their ligneous vegetation with Salix
elaeagnos
Thickets or woods edified by Salix elaeagnos and other accompaning willow species as well as Hippophae
rhamnoides , Alnus incana, Betula ssp. on gravels of streams with an alpine, summer-high flow regime. The
habitat type occurs in the streams and rivers of the montane levels and reaching the foothills of Carpathians, the
piedmont and depressions on the edge of the mountains, and in the Sub-Carpathian area.
Characteristic plant species: Salix elaeagnos, Salix pururea, Salix daphnoides, Hippophae rhamnoides
Veg Hippophae-Salicetum elaeagni Br.-Bl. et Volk 1940; Salicetum elaeagni-purpureae Sillinger 1933.
Number of SCI in the Romanian Carpathians 20
3260 (Palaearctic classification : 24.4) Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion
fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation
2
In the water courses of streams and rivers on the lower montane level of the Carpathians occurs floating and
submerged vegetation edified by species of the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation as well
as of aquatic mosses. The edifying species are well adapted to the running water and forms frequently numerous
long floating stalks, which offer with their structure good habitat niches for fish and a rich macrozoobenthos.
Characteristic plant species: Ranunculus fluitans, Ranunculus aquatilis, Ranunculus trichophyllus, Callitriche
ssp., Sium erectum, Potamogeton ssp., Fontinalis antipyretica
Veg Ranunculetum aquatilis (Sauer 1947) Géhu 1961; Ranunculetum fluitantis Allg.1922, Batrachio
(trichophyllo)-Callitrichetum cophocarpae (Soó 1927)1960, Hottonietum palustris Tüxen 1937; Callitrichetum
palustris (Dihoru 1975) Burescu 1999, Callitrichetum polymorphae montanum O. Ratiu 1966,
NrSCI 16 in Romania, from them 8 in SCIs of the Romanian Carpathians
6410 (Pal. class. 37.31) Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion coeruleae)
Meadows edified by Molinia caerulea occurs in the Carpathian area on the low montane levels, on piedmonts and
terraces on the food of Carpathians, the Sub-Carpathians and inner Carpathian Depressions on sites with changing
wetness and more or less nutrient poor soils (nitrogen, phosphorus). They are the result of an extensive use with
mowing late in the year or are corresponding to deteriorated stages of drained peat bogs.
Subtype 37.311: occurs on neutro-alkaline to calcareous soils with a fluctuating ground water table and is relatively
rich in species (Eu-Molinion). The soil is sometimes peaty and becomes dry in summer time.
Subtype 37.312: occurs on more acid soils of the Junco-Molinion alliance or on degraded peaty soils.
Species of the subtype 37.311: Molinia coerulea, Dianthus superbus, Selinum carvifolia, Cirsium tuberosum,
Colchicum autumnale, Inula salicina, Galium boreale, Gentiana pneumonanthe, Juncus atratus, Iris sibirica,
Narcissus stellaris, Peucedanum rochelianum (in Transylvania and Banat), Ranunculus polyanthemos, Stachys
officinalis (Betonica officinalis), Sanguisorba officinalis, Serratula tinctoria, Tetragonolobus maritimus, Carex
flacca, Carex nigra, Carex panicea,
Species of subtype 37.312: Molinia coerulea, Viola persicifolia, Viola palustris, Galium uliginosum, Crepis
paludosa, Juncus conglomerates, Ophioglossum vulgatum, Inula britannica, Lotus uliginosus, Potentilla erecta,
Carex pallescens.
Between the 2 types exists in the Carpathian area transition stages.
Veg Junco-Molinietum Preising 1951 ex Klapp 1954; Peucedano rocheliani-Molinietum caeruleae Boşcaiu 1965;
Molinio-Salicetum rosmarinifoliae Magyar ex Soó 1933; Nardo-Molinietum Gergely 1958.
NrSCI 20 in the Romanian Carpathian area
6430 (Pal.class. 37.7 and 37.8) Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the mountain to
alpine levels
The habitat type occurrs along streams and rivers from the low montane to the alpine level, being represented in the
Carpathian area with two subtypes:
3
Subtype 37.7 occurs more on the lower montane and sub-montane level as tall herbaceous edge communities along
the course of streams and small rivers and also as woodland borders. Representative for the low montane level of
the Carpathians are the communities of the Filipendulion ulmariae alliance.
Subtype 37.8: represents hygrophilous perennial tall herbaceous fringe communities of the montane to the alpine
levels of the Betulo-Adenostyletea class
Species of the subtype 37.7 (for Filipendulion): Filipendula ulmaria, Epilobium hirsutum, Angelica archangelica,
Petasites hybridus, Cirsium oleraceum, Chaerophyllum hirsutum, Aegopodium podagraria, Alliaria petiolata,
Anthriscus nitidus, Eupatorium cannabinum, Geranium robertianum, Lythrum salicaria, Lysimachia punctata,
Lysimachia vulgaris, Inula helenium
Species of the subtype 37.8: Aconitum lycotomum, Aconitum napellus, Actaea spicata, Doronicum austriacum,
Geranium sylvaticum, Trollius europaeus, Adenostyles alliaria, Aruncus sylvestris, Cicerbita alpina, Heracleum
palmatum, Digitalis grandiflora, Calamagrostis arundinacea, Chaerophyllum aromaticum, Petasites albus,
Petasites hybridus, Telekia speciosa and others.
Veg Aconitetum taurici Borza 1934 ex Coldea 1990, Adenostylo-Doronicetum austriaci Horvat 1956 (syn.:
Adenostyletum alliariae banaticum Borza 1946); Cirsio waldsteinii-Heracleetum transsilvanici Pawł. ex Walas
1949 (syn.: Cardueto-Heracleetum palmati Beldie 1967, Heracleetum palmati auct. rom.); Petasitetum kablikiani
Szafer et al. 1926 (syn.: Petasitetum glabrati Morariu 1943); Telekio-Petasitetum hybridi (Morariu 1967)
ResmeriŃă et RaŃiu 1974 (syn.: Petasitetum hybridi auct. rom., Aegopodio-Petasitetum hybridi auct. rom., TelekioPetasitetum albae Beldie 1967, Petasitetum albae Dihoru 1975, Petasiteto-Telekietum speciosae Morariu 1967);
Telekio-Filipenduletum Coldea 1996; Telekio speciosae-Aruncetum dioici Oroian 1998; Angelico-Cirsietum
oleracei Tüxen 1937; Scirpetum sylvatici Ralski 1931 em. Schwich 1944; Filipendulo-Geranietum palustris Koch
1926; Chaerophyllo hirsuti-Filipenduletum Niemann et al. 1973; Lysimachio vulgaris-Filipenduletum Bal.-Tul.
1978; Chaerophylletum aromatici Neuhäuslova-Novotna et al. 1969; Arunco-Petasitetum albi Br.-Bl. et Sutter
1977; Convolvulo-Eupatorietum cannabini Görs 1974; Convolvulo-Epilobietum hirsuti Hilbig et al. 1972;
Aegopodio-Anthriscetum nitidae Kopecký 1974; Angelico sylvetris-Cirsietum cani Burescu 1998; Cicerbitetum
alpinae Bolleter 1921 (syn. Adenostylo-Cicerbitetum Braun-Blanquet 1959).
NrSCI in the Romanian Carpathian area: 38
7110 (Pal. Class.: 51.1) *Active raised bogs
The habitat type is represented by acid, ombrotrophic bogs, poor in mineral nutrients, sustained mainly by
rainwater with a water level higher than in the surroundings. The perennial vegetation is dominated by hummocks
of Sphagnum species allowing for the growth of the bog (ord. Erico-Sphagnetalia magellanici, Scheuchzeretalia
palustris p., Utricularietalia intermedio-minoris p., Caricetalia fuscae p.)
Species of the Erico-Sphagnetalia magellanici ordre: Andromeda polifolia,Carex pauciflora, Drosera rotundifolia,
Eriophorum vaginatum, Sphagnum magellanicum, Sphagnum imbricatum, Sphagnum fuscum, Oxycoccus
quadripetalus, Betula nana, Tofieldia calyculata (rare), Calluna vulgaris, Sphagnum angustifolium; species of the
Scheuchzerietalia palustris p, Utricularietalia intermedio.minoris, Caricetalia fuscae p.: Carex fusca, Carex limosa,
Drosera anglica, Drosera intermedia, Eriophorum gracile, Rhynchospora alba, Rhynchospora fusca, Scheuchzeria
palustris, Utricularia intermedia, Utricularia minor
4
Animals: dragonly species: Leuchorrhinia dubia, Aeshna subarctica, Aeshna subarctica, Aeshna juncea,
Somatochlora alpestris, Crickets/Grasshoppers: Metrioptera brachyptera, Stethophyma grossum
Veg Eriophoro vaginati-Sphagnetum recurvi Hueck 1925 (syn.: Eriophoro-Sphagnetum auct. rom.); Sphagnetum
magellanici (Malcuit 1929) Kästner et Flössner 1933 (syn.: Eriophoro vaginati-Sphagnetum Pop et al. 1968);
Eriophoro vaginati-Betuletum nanae Ştefan et Oprea 2001.
NrSCI 20
7120 (Pal. Class.: 51.2) Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration
Exists raised bogs where has been a disruption of the natural hydrological regime of the peat body by
anthropogenic interventions. As a consequence of the human impact a surface desiccation and a species change or a
species loss took place. The vegetation in these bogs is still represented by species typical for raised bogs, but the
relative abundance of individual species is different. The bogs still capable of natural regeneration include those
areas where the hydrological regime can be repaired and where with appropriate restoration management there is a
reasonable expectation for the reestablishment of the vegetation with peat-forming capability within 30 years
(Interpretation Manual EUR 27, 2007).
No specific communities for this type of habitat exists, only degraded communities from the above mentioned for
habitat type 7110.
Number of SCI 3
7140 (Pal. Class. 54.5) Transition mires and quaking bogs
The habitat type is represented by peat-forming communities which develops on the surface of oligotrophic to
mesotrophic waters with characteristics intermediate between soligenous and ombrogenous types (Interpretation
Manual EUR 27, 2007). In large peaty systems (for example Ciuc Depression) the communities are swaying
swards, floating carpets or quaking mires formed by medium-sized or small sedges associated with Sphagnum
species or brown mosses. They are mostly accompanied by aquatic and amphibious communities belonging to the
Scheuchzerietalia palustris order (oligotrophic floating carpets among others) and Caricetalia fuscae order (quaking
communities). Included are also oligotrophic water-land interfaces with Carex rostrata.
Species characteristic for the habitat type:
Eriophorum gracile, Carex chordorrhiza, Carex lasiocarpa, Carex diandra, Carex rostrata, Carex limosa,
Scheuchzeria palustris, Hammarbya paludosa (very rare Cluj and Alba county, Liparis loeselii, Rhynchospora
alba, Rhynchospora fusca, Menyanthes trifoliata, Epilobium palustre, Pedicularis palustris, different Sphagnum
species, Calliergon giganteum, Scorpidium scorpioides, Campylium stellatum, Drepanocladus revolvens.
Veg Sphagno-Caricetum rostratae Steffen 1931; Swertio perennis-Caricetum chordorrhizae Coldea (1986) 1990;
Caricetum lasiocarpae Osvald 1923 em. Dierssen 1982; Caricetum limosae Br.-Bl. 1921 (syn.: Carici limosaeSphagnetum ResmeriŃă 1973); Caricetum diandrae Jon. 1932 em. Oberd. 1957 (syn.: Carici-Menyanthetum
caricetosum diandrae RaŃiu 1972).
NrSCI 14
7150 (Pal. class.: 54.6) Depression on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion
5
The habitat type is represented by pioneer communities of humid exposed peat or sometimes sand edified by the
species Rhynchospora alba. Rhynchospora fusca,Drosera intermedia, Drosera rotundifolia, Lycopodiella inundata,
forming on stripped areas of raised bogs and also on natural seeping areas of wet heaths and bogs, in flushes and in
the fluctuation zone of oligotrophic pools with sandy, slightly peaty substratum. The habitat type is closely related
to those of shallow bogs depressions and transition mires (Interpretation Manual EUR 27, 2007).
Species: Rhynchospora alba. Rhynchospora fusca,Drosera intermedia, Drosera rotundifolia, Lycopodiella
inundata
Veg Sphagno cuspidati-Rhynchosporetum albae Osvald 1923 em. Koch 1926.
NrSCI 2
7210 (Pal. Class. 53.3) * Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae
The habitat type is represented by beds of Cladium mariscus in the emergent-plant zones of lakes, fallow lands or
succession stage of extensively used wet meadows in contact with the vegetation of the Caricion davallianae
alliance or with species of the Phragmition alliance.
Species: Cladium mariscus, Lythrum salicaria, Lythrum virgatum, Carex elata, Carex rostrata, Schoenus
nigricans, Fritillaria meleagris, Armeria barcensis (rare in the Harman area near Brasov, Bârsei Depression)
Veg Cladietum marisci Allorge 1922 ex Zobrist 1935.
NrSCI 4
7220* (Pal. Class. 54.12) Petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion)
The habitat represents hard water springs with formation of travertine or tufa and dominated by
bryophytes of the Cratoneurion commutati W. Kochb1928 alliance.
Species: Cratoneuron commutatum, Bryum pseudotriquetrum, Mnium undulatum,Pellia fabronia, Silene
pusilla, Saxifraga aizoides, Epilobium parviflorum, Pinguicula vulgaris, Pellia fabbronia, Cochlearia
pyrenaica var. borzeana, Doronicum carpaticum (Sanda, Öllerer & Burescu 2008).
Veg Cratoneuretum filicino-commutati (Kuhn 1937) Oberd. 1977 (syn.: as. With Cratoneuron
commutatum Puşcaru et al. 1967); Cochleario pyrenaicae-Cratoneuretum commutati (Oberd. 1957) Th.
Müller 1961 (syn.: Carici flavae-Cratoneuretum cochlearietosum pyrenaicae Ştefureac 1972); Doronico
carpatici-Saxifragetum aizoidis Coldea (1986) 1990.
NrSCI 14
7230 (Pal. class. 54.2) Alkaline fens
Are wetlands types mostly represented by peat- or tufa producing small sedge and brown moss communizies,
developed on soils permanently waterlogged, with a soligenous or topogenous baserich, often calcareous water
supply. The water table is at the substratum or slightly above or below of it (Interpretation manual EUR 27, 2007).
6
The peat formation is, when it occurs infra-aquatic. The small sedges dominating the mire communities are
characteristic for the Caricion davallianae alliance with carpets of brown mosses such are Campylium stellatum,
Drepanocladus intermedius, Cratoneuron commutatum, Acrocladium cuspidatum, Bryum pseudotriquetrum and
graslike growing Cyperaceae and Juncaceae-species such are: Schoenus nigricans, Schoenus ferrugineus, Carex
davalliana, Carex lepidocarpa, Carex flava, Juncus subnodulosus, Eriophorum latifolium and a rich herbaceous
flora and many Orchideas. Charactertistic species are Primula farinosa (rare), Pedicularis sceptrum carolinum
(very rare), Dactylorhiza incarnata, Dactylorhiza traunsteineri, Epipactis palustris, Liparis loeselii, and others
(Interpretation Manual EUR 27, 2007). Wet grasslands mostly of the Molinietalia, tall sedge beds of the
Magnocaricion, reed formations of Phragmition alliance, fen sedge beds of Cladium mariscus are in strong relation
with the fen system, forming a complex with the alkaline fens.
Characteristic species: Schoenus nigricans, Schoenus ferrugineus, Carex davalliana, Carex flava, Carex
lepidocarpa, Carex hostiana, Carex panicea, Eriophorum latifolium and others.
Veg Carici flavae-Eriophoretum latifolii Soó 1944; Carici flavae-Blysmetum compressi Coldea 1997; Caricetum
davallianae Dutoit 1924; Orchido-Schoenetum nigricantis Oberd. 1957 (exclusiv subas. plantaginetosum cornuti
Ştefan et al. 2001) (syn.: Schoenetum nigricantis Pop et al. 1962, Schoeneto-Armerietum barcensis Morariu 1967);
Seslerietum uliginosae (Palmgren 1916) Soó 1941.
NrSCI 7
7240 * (Pal.class. 54.3) Alpine pioneer formations of Caricion bicoloris atrofuscae
The habitat is represented by communities of the alpine level colonising neutral to slightly acid gravely, stony,
sandy, sometimes somewhat argilous or peaty substrates soaked by could water, in the glacial valleys, on the edges
of springs, rivulets, on alluvial sands of pure, could, slowly flowing streams. A permanent or continous soil frost
over a long period is essential for the habitat type which is very rare.
Plant species: Carex bicolor, Juncus castaneus, Juncus alpinoarticulatus, Juncus triglumis, Kobresia
simpliciuscula, Bartsia alpina, Parnassia palustris, Saxifraga aizoides, Carex lachenalii, Carex nigra, Pohlia
wahlenbergii
Animals (beetles): Bembidion bipunctatum, Nebria gyllenhali, Nebria jockischi (Rodna Mountains)
Vegetation: Caricion bicoloris atrofuscae alliance. The habitat is very rare (Rodna Mountains) with only
fragmental represented communities (Schneider-Binder 2010).
91D0 * (Pal. class. 44.A1 - 44.A4) Bog woodland
The habitat type is represented by coniferous and broad-leaved more or less “open” forests on a humid to peaty
substrate. The water level is permanently high and even higher than the surrounding water table. The water is poor
in nutrients (raised bogy and acid fens). The dominant wooden species Betula pubescens, Frangula alnus, Pinus
sylvestris, Picea abies are growing together with typical bogland species, or species characteristic for oligotrophic
environments such as Vaccinium, Sphagnum and Carex species.
Characteristic plant species: Betula pubescens, Frangula alnus, Carex canescens, Carex echinata, Carex nigra,
Carex rostrata, Eriophorum vaginatum, Agrostis canina, Juncus acutiflorus, Molinia caerulea, Picea abies, Pins
7
sylvestris, Pinus mugo, Sphagnum spp., Vaccinium oxycoccus, Vaccinium uliginosum, Viola palustris,
Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus
Veg Sphagno-Piceetum (Tüxen 1937) Hartman 1953; Vaccinio uliginosi-Betuletum pubescentis Libbert 1933; Pino
mugo-Sphagnetum Kästner et Flössner 1933; Vaccinio uliginosi-Pinetum sylvestris Kleist 1929.
NrSCI 21
91E0 * (CLAS. PAL.: 44.3, 44.2 and 44.13) Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior
(Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)
In the montane level of the Carpathians the habitat type is represented by communities edified by Grey alder (Alnus
incana) subtype 44. 2 Alnion incanae occurring on the montane and sub-montane level and by communities of the
subtype 44.3 Alno-Padion with riparian forests of Common ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and Black alder (Alnus
glutinosa) on the foot of the mountains (more sub-montane level), the piedmont areas and the Inner-Carpathian
Depressions. The subtypes occurs on soils rich in alluvial deposits, periodical flooded by the annual rise of the
rivers. They are living from the dynamic changes between high and low water levels and are bound to natural river
banks. The most representative for mountains is the subtype 44.2 of Grey alder galleries, as well as transition stages
to Black alder- ash galleries
Species: Alnus incana, Alnus glutinosa, Fraxinus excelsior, Salix capraea, Betula pubescens, Angelica sylvestris,
Cardamine amara, Cardamine pratensis, Petasites hybridus, Impatiens noli-tangere, Telekia speciosa, Doronicum
austriacum, Mattheucia struthiopteris, Actaea spicata, Cirsium oleraceum, Carex acutiformis, Carex pendula,
Carex remota, Carex strigosa, Carex sylvatica, Carex brizoides, Equisetum telmateia, Equisetum spp., Filipendula
ulmaria, Geranium sylvaticum, Geum rivale, Lycopus europaeus, Rumex sanguineus, Stellaria nemorum.
Veg. Telekio speciosae-Alnetum incanae Coldea (1986) 1991; Stellario nemorum-Alnetum glutinosae (Kästner
1938) Lohmeyer 1957; Carici brizoidis-Alnetum glutinosae Horvat 1938 em. Oberd. 1953; Carici remotaeFraxinetum Koch ex Faber 1936; Pruno padi-Fraxinetum Oberdorfer 1953; in the Western Mountains Muntii
Apuseni a community Alno incanae-Syringetum josikeae (Borza 1965) Ratiu et al. 1984 has been mentioned.
NrSCI in Romania 60 from them 46 in the Carpathian area (Annexe 4 of the Ministerial Ordre 776/6.05.2007).
Characteristic for the Carpathians are as well some very specific habitats which are not included in the habitat
Directive. These are chionophilous-hygrophilous communities in sites where the could water from snow melt is
persisting longer time. Typical communities are Soldanello pusillae-Plantaginetum gentianoidis Bosc. 1971 and
Soldanello (pusillae) – Ranunculetum crenati (Borza 1931 n. n.) Bosc. 1971 which are in strong relation with
habitat type 3220.
Further have to be mentioend the glacial lakes in the Rodna, Făgăraş, Cindrel, Parâng and Retezat mountains and
their banks where typical wet communities can be found. They and their banks are strongly related to snow melt
vegetation mentioned above and to the habitate type 3220 alpine rivers. The glacial lakes themself can be included
acoording to the Ramsar classification in the category O Permanent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha). It is important to
give them higher attention as from the ecological pint of view they are very interesting.
8
Remark: for the description of the habitat types the “Interpretation Manual of the European Union habitats EUR
27” where used. The given characteristic species have been analysed and given according to Romanian publications
and by field experience from many years. Also for the listing of the typical phytocoenological units included in
each habitate type, Romanian literature and experience have been used.
1.2. Please provide information on the range of these wetland types if available (maps, GIS layers, tables…):
The above mentioned habitat types of Carpathian wetland types 3220, 3230, 3240, 3260 occurs prevalent as linear
elements in the stream beds and along the streams as belts or small strips and patches as well as on area with
soaking water. No exact data are available for their repartition and size on the entire territory of the Carpathians.
For some of the protected area, National Parks, Natural Parks and Natura 2000 Sites, management plans and also
some data about the extend of the different wet habitats exist/partially exists.
According to personal observations the habitat type 3230 Alpine rivers and their lingneous vegetation with
Myricaria germanica is represented by phytocoenoses of Myricaria germanica which are fragmented and of small
size between 20 m² and maximum 1 ha. The most representative occurs in the Jiu river valley/ Valea Jiului and in
the Apuseni mountains in the Ocolişului Valley, Upper Crişul Alb and Someşul Cald Valley.
The habitat type 6410 with Molinion type meadows occurs in 20 of the SCI’s, but exact data about the surface of
the habitat type in each site of community interest and outside of protected areas is not available.
The habitat type 6430 have also a linear structure accompagning the streams and rivers from the subalpine down to
the montane and sub-montane level, but exact evaluation data of their size are not existing.
For the habitat types 7110, 7120, 7140, 7150, 7210, 7230 a general map exists including all types of bogs, fens
mires in Romania, most of them, with a few of exceptions are in the Carpathian area (s. map included below).
According to the International Peat Society /Peat ressources by country for Romania are mentioned over 70 km2 of
peatlands (www. peatsociety.org/peatlands-and-peat/global-peat-resources-country)
9
Fig. Repartition of bogs, fens and mires in the Romanian Carpathians
(according to: Popova-Cucu A., DoniŃă N. & Boşcaiu N. 1983: Chap. 6 Flora and vegetation.
Geografia Romaniei I. Geografie fizica, Edit. Acad. R.S.R., pp. 388-441)
Legend for the map
a: area of eutrophic mires and fens: 1. Crasna Basin; 2. Ciuc intramontane depression; 3. Giurgeu intramontane
depression; 4. Bilbor Depression; 5. Braşov Depression; 6. Făgăraş Depression; 7. Bahnei floodplain; 8. Foot of
Harghita mountains; ). Praid-dealu Plateau; 10. land sliding ares near Şaes; 11: Land sliding area of Nimigea and
Zagra. b. Area of oligothrophic bogs: 12. Oaş-łibleş mountains; 13. Muntele Mare area; 14. Harghita mountains;
15. Bodoc Mountains; 16. Nemirei Mountains: c. transition mires d. area with complexes of oligotrophic,
mesotrophic and eutrophic bogs, mires, fens: 17 Maramureş-Rodnei Mountains; 18. Lucina-Fundul Moldovei
(Obcine); 19 Dorna Depression; 20 Călimani Mountains; 21 Penteleu Mountains; 22 Buzău Sub-Carpathians; 23
Upper Sebeş Valley; 24 Parâng Mountains; 25 Retezat Mountains; 26 łarcu-Godeanu Mountains; 27 Semenic
Mountains; 28 Feleac Hill; 29 Bihor Mountains and Upper Someşul Cald river; e glacial relicts; f. sites with
available pollen analysis ).
Synthesis table of the Sphagnum bogs in Romania (according to E. POP 1960)
Nr.
crt.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Region of the bogs
Dornei Basin
Ciocăneşti and Drăgoiasa
Lucina
Oaş-Maramureş
Călimani Mountains
Harghita Mountains
Number of
bogs
21
2
11
42
3
10
Total surface in
ha
600,0
2,0
23,0
115,9
9,0
224,0
Quantity of peat
/turf in m³
12.800.000
45.000
83.000
2.006.000
100.000
6.495.000
10
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Şandru Mare-Cotul Buzăului
Bucegi Mountains
Sebeş Valley
Semenic Mountains
Upper basin of Someşul Cald
river
Upper Basin of Someşul Rece
Isolated bogs in Apuseni
Mountains
Subalpine bogs in Retezat
Mountains
Total
25
3
31
8
55
120,0
2,0
30,6
34,0
80,5
1.238.000
20.000
542.000
320.000
1.589.000
36
8
95,0
10,0
1.521.000
450.000
10
5,0
30.000
265
1351,0
27.239.000
Although the date of the above table are more than 50 years old (Pop 1960), the extend of this type of peat bogs
area is the same at present and no large changes took place.
The habitat type 7210 is very rare, but still representative for it is a small occurrence in the Braşov Depression
between Prejmer and Hărman, but highly endangered. The habitat type 7220 Petrying springs have also a punctual
repartition, beeing mentioned from 14 sites of community interest in the Carpathian area.
The habitat type 7240 is very rare in Rodna Mountains and represented only by small fragments.
The Habitat Type 91D0 is included in the bog, fens and mires represented on the above map. One of the most
typical bog woodland in the Carpathians is the Poiana Stampei bog of 400 ha near Vatra Dornei in the Eastern
Carpathians.
The Habitat type 91E0 have a gallery-like structure accompagning the streams and rivers from the montane level to
the foothills of the mountains. No exact data are available of the entire surface of the habitat type.
1.3. If available provide information (overview) on favourable conservation status of these habitat types:
The habitat type 3220 Alpine rivers and the herbaceous vegetation along their banks is in a favourable conservation
status. No threats have been registered.
The habitat types 3230 and 3240 are in some area in a favourable conservation status, but generally afected in the
last time by hydrotechnical constructions such are river bank reinforcement and stabilisation, construction of dams
and the loss of natural hydro-morpho dynamic, which is the basic condition for the regeneration and long term
conservation of the species, which needs sites with bare lying, free gravel banks.
The Habitat type 3260 is in a moderate to locally not satisfying conservation status, as the rivers and their banks are
in more places misused for vaste deposition.
The Habitat type 6410 is in moderate to locally not satisfying conservation status due to different human
interventions by intensification of use or by abandoning the use and entering in succession.
The Habitat type 6430 is in a favourable conservation status on the upper montane and subalpine level of the
Carpathiasns and partly in a less favourable status in the lower montane valleys and the foot of the montains due to
different human interventions and activities, in particular hydrotechnical works on the river banks.
11
The Habitat type 7110 is in the different sites of the Carpathians in general in a favourable conservation status as
the sites are located in the subalpine and alpine area with less influence of human activities. The other bogs, fens
and mires of habitat types 7140 and 7150 are in a moderate favourable state.
The habitat type 7210 is not in a favourable conservation status and highly endangered by drainage for extending
house construction and intensification of grazing by sheeps.
7220, 7230 are partly in a favourable state, but in some area endangered by many interventions and influences of
human activities.
7240 is fragmental and very rare and an evaluation difficult.
The habitat type 91D0 is in a favourable conservation status as the sites are in areas with less anthropogenic
influence.
91 E0 is in some montane valleys in a favourable conservation status, but in others supposed to different human
interventions (hydrotechnical works, river bank reinforcement, cutting wood for fyring and as consequence in a
moderat favourable or bad conservation status.
In principle all habitat types of the upper montane, the subalpine and the alpine level are in a better conservation
status as the habitats on the lower montane levels where many human pressure exists.
1.4. Information on conservation of wetlands in the Carpathian region in your country in terms of:
•
Changes in the past 10-20 years
More attention where given to the biodiversity conservation including wetlands, to the evaluation of the
ecological state and functioning of the wetlands taking the example of other European countries. An
increasing understanding and need for protection measures have been observed by agencies, research
institutions, project activities supported by international organisations, project implementation units. But in
the same time the freedom leed by people to many activties which ar the cause of increasing danger for
nature and conflicts with nature conservation activities. In special the habitats of water courses and river
banks are frequently misused for vaste depositions and discharge of wastewater.
•
Inclusion in national legislation
Since the adoption of the International Conventions such are the Ramsar Convention and the Bern
Convention including the Emerald Network, the Convention on Biodiversity and the introduction in the
national legislation of the Birds and Habitats Directive of EU the conservation of habitats, including the
wetland habitats received more importance and attention.Also the WFD –Water framework Directive is one
of the key stones for a new exposure to water and wetland issues.
In this context different initiatives for conservation and sustainable use has been implemented (Green
Corridor of the Danube, Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative of WWF and NGOs of the Carpathian countries,
Green Light for Europe/2001 in Bucharest), also the signation of the Landscape Convention/2001 and the
Carpathian Convention 2003 where all important steps for nature conservation and sustainable use in the
Carpathian region.
•
Status assessments
According to the mentioned initiatives, inventories of valuable habitats, including the wetlands where
started and assesments realised. The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative played an important role in assesing
the wetlands and other habitats in the Carpathian area.
•
Conservation priority setting studies (IBAs, Critical Sites Network, Ramsar sites, Hotspots etc.)
12
No conservation priority setting studies concerning wetlands and waters has been realised for Carpathians.
Only in the frame of implementation of the WFD studies on water quality have been realised and no
habitat studies for wetlands.
1.5. Please provide information (or about studies if available) on specific values of wetlands in terms of:
Biodiversity, ecosystem and landscape conservation:
the wetland habitat types ar of importance for their site typical biodiversity, which depends on a healthy
hydrological regime. This specific biodiversity is in many cases not represented by a high number of
species, but by characteristic species for the habitat type and well adapted to the special site condition of
the habitat type. Changes in the hydrological regime, in the hydro-morphodanymic (in case of streams)
have as consequence changes the site typical biodiversity (loss of species sensibles for changing site
conditions) leeding to disturbances of the ecosystems and the increasing danger of invasive species. The
structure of wetland habitats (in particular the 91E0) constitutes an importanr element in the landscape of
the Carpathians with importance for biodiversity conservation (exists many niches/ microhabitats for
species), for the household of the entire landscape.
Cultural values :
Wetlands, in particular the streams, rivers and their environment are playing an important role as for their
esthetical value which is of importance for many cultural activities (literature, picture,musics).
Economic exploitation of wetlands (e.g. gravel, sand, peat, grasslands, timber, reed, water, energy etc.):
In the Carpathian area many streams and rivers on the montane level are used for gravel and sand
exploitation in particular on the foot of the mountains serving as construction materials on place (for dams,
weirs etc.) or being transported in other places for construction (frequently the extraction of gravel and
sand is more as the erosion and deposition processes can balancing (one field observations). This leed to
bed erosion and droping down in some area of the ground water table. Peat exploitation is in the interest of
private companies with advertising in the internet exploitation of peat in the Poiana Stampei area of Eastern
Carpathians.
In the same time a scientifc publication is underlining the importance of peat lands for regulating the
atmosferic CO2 and the role of natural peatlands in climate cooling effects. For this recognised importance
of peatlands as store of carbon have arisen conflicts and contradictions regarding their exploitation, i. e. a
conflict between nature conservation and economic interests.
The for timber exploitation only the habitat type 91E0 offers some small scale possibilities for local people
by using it for use in construction and as fyring material.
The reed is playing at present a minor role. This is way in the past reeds (Carex spp., Molinia caerulea
grass) have been used as bedding material for livstocks in the barns. As this traditional use is replaced by
other bedding materials, the reeds role became with less importance.
The use of water as hydropower have in the last time increased as nature friendly energy ressource. But to
this ressource are bound also many problems related to changes in the hydrological regime and the
morphodynamics of the river. Storage lakes, basins have consequences for the changes of the discharge of
the water course and for changes in the ground water regime. The loss of connectivity by constructions of
weirs and dams have large consequences for migrating fish species.The river bank reinforcement related to
the hydrotechnical constructions leeds to the loss of natural habitats and their characteristic species. Habitat
types dependent from the morphodynamic are completely loss by river bank reinforcement.
Socio economic values
Water resources as clean and good drinking water supply, use of water power and production of
hydroenergy, gravels and sand exploitation for different constructions, timber for construction (in a small
scale only) and for fyring, peat exploitation for gardening and heating;
13
Tourism
The wetlands, in particuar the running waters, but also the lakes in the mountains, constitues important
landscape elements with high estetical value for the mountains tourisme. They are also important for
drinking water (from the sources in the mountains) and for different type of reacreation such for tramping
around, sport fishing, bathing for enoying and admiration of nature.
Ecosystem services
Important ecosystem services are offerend by the Carpathian wetlands:
Supporting services (resources):
Soil formation (through morpho-dynamic processes of the rivers), oxygen production, primary production,
nutrient cycling, water cycling,
Provisioning services: freshwater/drinking water, timber: fuel, building material, genetic resources,
biochemicals, medicinal plants, ornamental resources (6430 tall herbaceous vegetation),
Regulating services: air quality regeneration; climate regulation; erosion regulation, water purification,
natural hazard regulation, pollination;
peatlands regulates the atmosferic CO2 and have a climate colling effect and role as store of Carbon
(Gheorghe, Vâlcu, Barbu et Topa 2006);
Cultural services: spiritual nrichment, cognitive development, reflexion, recreation and aesthetical
vexperience, education, landscape values
other?
B.2. Management of wetlands and their types
This section of the questionnaire is designed to describe management of different wetland types in the
Carpathians. You are invited to provide information on best practice, results of relevant case studies, projects,
published or unpublished papers. Please first read the Consultation Document and then answer the following
questions.
2.1. What main approaches to management are currently being adopted?
- Conservation measures are undertaken for including valuable wetlands in protected areas and Natura 2000 sites;
- For concrete management actions studies are undertaken to find out, what are the best practices for management
according to known former management practices. This need the knowledge about if and how the wetlands where
managed in the past. Ongoing from this knowledge new management measures can be planned. For the most of
mentioned wetlands no management measures has been undertaken in the past.
Most important for wetlands is, to preserve the natural or near natural hydrological regime which is the base for a
functional wetland ecosystem and for its conservation.
Only for wet grasslands a management system by mowing following old practices is used (Schneider-Binder 2012).
2.2. What proportion of the range of important wetlands is being managed in different ways (if information
available) e.g.
14
•
in protected areas: wetlands in protected area are included in the existing management plans; also are
taken into account in the management plans to be realised in the future.
•
under strict protection regimes
•
subject to economic exploitation : river course for hydroenergy, and some peat exploitation) but no
procentual data available
•
public or private or common ownership or management
•
unmanaged
For all these categories, no procentual data on the level of Carpathiasn are known.
2.3. What sectors are involved in management of wetlands and how do sectoral policies affect their management
and use?
Involved are the
-
Apele Române regional agencies for implementation activities of the Water Framework Directive;
-
Regional/County level forestry offices and
-
regional Nature protection agencies.
-
NGOs,
-
Research groups of the Universities; the University Lucian Blaga at Sibiu have a special series of
publication of wetlands diversity inclkuding many studies about Carpathian wetlands.
Please add any comments:
B.3. Main threats and issues affecting maintenance of wetlands
In this section we would like to ask for your input on the main threats to wetlands and their types. Please refer to
standard threat categorisations (IUCN Categorisation of threats to biodiversity, and/or the Natura 2000 threat
categories.
3.1. What are the main threats to wetlands and their types?
The main threats for wetlands are the changes in the hydrological regime: This means for water courses and their
neighbouring area the hydrotechnical works, construction of dams for hydropower plants, river bank reinforcement
and stopping the natural morpho-hydrodynamics. This have effects on biodiversity change or complete loss.
Hydrotehnical measures where for example the cause for the decreasing surface or quality degradation of habitats
with Myricaria germanica.
For peatlands the main threat consists in drainage activities, which change the peat bogs structure, species
composition and abundance-dominance of different species.
Habitat Type 3220, 3230, 3240 the main threats are: hydrotechnical works: rectification of water courses, bank
reinforcement, canalisation, dam construction and accumulation lakes for energy production, river water
15
abstraction, gravel exploitation water eutrophication with the consequence of deepening of the river bed and
droping down of ground water table.
HT 3260: hydrotechnical works: rectification of water courses, bank reinforcement, canalisation, dam
construction and accumulation lakes for energy production, river water abstraction, gravel exploitation water
eutrophication with the consequence of deepening of the river bed and droping down of ground water table;
drainage works in the river basin, fishing (if intensive), non ecological flood protection measures.
HT 6410: drainage, abandonment of use and entering in succession with bushes stades, in other places the
intensification of use by increasing mowing frequency and period of mowing, fertilisation, change of use from
meadows to arable land, invasion of adventive species (ex. Rudbeckia laciniata), collecting of decorative species
(ex. Narcissus radiiflorus, Iris sibirica, orchid species and other species).
HT 6430: road construction and management, river bank reinforcement (by stones or beton), other hydrotechnical
constructions such are weirs, dams; intensification of mowing, change of use from grassland to arable land,
intensive grazing, succession to bushes, forest plantation, intensive collection of medicinal plants (ex. Angelica
archangelica, Filipendula ulmaria, Aconitum and others).
HT 7110:: Drainage of the bog, exploitation of peat leading to the decomposition of peat deposit and destruction of
the habitat; eutrophication, diffuse pollution from the border of the peat bog, atmospheric pollution, forest
plantation, bad management of tourism.
HT 7120: drainage, intensification of peat exploitation in a way that a regeneration is no further possible,
eutrophication, diffuse pollution, grazing on the border of the peat bog, tourism, down treading of vegetation,
mineralization.
HT 7140: drainage, peat exploitation, eutrophication, agricultural use, forest plantation, leisure activities and
tourism
HT 7150: drainage, exploitation of peat, eutrophication, use as grassland or for agricultural purposes, forest
plantation, use for leisure.
HT 7210: drainage, water extraction and lowering of the groundwater level, eutrophication, intensification as
pasture as it is the case near Harman in the Brasov Depression.
HT 7220: lowering of the groundwater level, hydrotechnical works, refinforcement by surrounding with beton,
pollution, eutrophication from the surrounding area, down treading by grazing cattles.
HT 7230: Drainage, lowering of the groundwater level, entering in succession with colonisation of bushes,
intensification of grazing, eutrophication, fertilisation, atmospheric pollution.
HT 7240: winter sport activities down treading and soil compaction, change of the hydrological dynamics, global
climate change with the consequence of reduction of the alpine level in the Carpathians.
HT F91D0:drainage, lowering of the groundwater level, intensive forestry, forest plantation with monocultural
character, deforestation, eutrophication, atmospheric pollution, manual and mechanical peat exploitation, global
climate change.
HT 91E0: changes of the hydrological regime with natural dynamic and changes between high and low water
levels, discharge dynamics as well as morphodynamic processes, hydrotechnical works with river bank
reinforcement, rectification and canalisation of the water courses with elimination of the natural morphodynamic,
16
intensive touristic activities and leisure (sport fishing, bathing, down treading of the vegetation and soil
compaction), gravel and sand exploitation, afforestation with alien species in particular with hybrid poplar,
American ash, invasion of neophytes.
3.2. What are the root causes of these threats?
-
Intensification of anthropogenic activities in and around the habitats on the one side, and the abandonment
of traditional activities on the other side.
Lack of knowledge of functioning of the ecosystems and their services.
Please add any comments:
C. Strategy
C.1. Ideal management requirements
We would like to gather your input on requirements for the best wetlands management (total protection and nonintervention, active management, sustainable use, maintenance of connectivity, river continuum, etc.).
1.1. What (broadly) are the ideal requirements for the maintenance or restoration of the favourable status and
values of wetlands and their types?
The requirements differs from on group of habitat types to the others.
The requirement for the maintenance, conservation or restoration of the favourable status of the wetlands are the
existence or restoration of the natural or near natural hydrological regime which is the basis for their
functioning. Only with a near natural hydrological regime a restoration or long term maintenance is possible.
In the case of rivers and riverine wetlands the restoration of the existence of hydro-morphodynamics is an
essential requirement for the long term conservation and maintenance of the wetland habitats. Essential as well is
the maintenance or restoration of the connectivity.
In case of hydrotechnical works is needed a careful analysis of the area before any planning. If planning is
inevitable it is necessary to plan as much as possible a minimum of interventions.In the most cases a total
protection and non-intervention is the best conservation for the wetland habitats.
In case of peatlands the conservation of the hydrological regime is also an essential factor. A total protection and
non-intervention in natural peat bogs, fens and mires area is the best management. In case of peat lands supposed to
human intervention, only with the restoration of the water household (including the sustainable management of the
ground water level) the peatlands can be restored in long term. Taking into account their importance as stores of
Carbon it have to be given big attention to the possibilities of peatland conservation and restoration.
Please add any comments:
As in comparison with other countries the area of oligotrophic, mesotrophic and eutrophic bogs, fens and mires, the
area in Carpathias is relatively small. Taking this facts into accoiunt the maintenance of the total protection and non
internetion in natural condition is the best type of management.
17
C.2. Targets and management objectives
This section should mention any existing targets or obligations established for wetlands and their types in existing
strategies and plans (e.g. national wetland policies or strategies, biodiversity strategies and action plans etc.) and
proposed management objectives. These should be quantified and monitorable.
2.1. Existing targets, obligations and objectives:
Existing targets for wetland habitats are related to the FFH Directive, the main objective being the “conservation of
the favourable status” and also for water bodies to the Water Framework Directive.
2.2. Proposed goal and targets:
-
Define please an ideal management objective (long term goal) for wetlands management in the
Carpathians
To conserve as much as possible for long term the natural dynamic of the streams, rivers and the wetland
habitats along their banks;
to conserve the naturalness of the glacial lakes without human interventions;
to conserve for long term the bogs, fens and mires taking into account their importance for the global
climate.
To manage in a traditional way the existing meadows with changing wetness (6410).
-
Define please specific recommended conservation targets for wetlands
To ensure as much as possible the montane, subalpine and alpine wetlands in a natural state with their
natural dynamics and to keep as much as possible the natural structure of wetland habitats; in case of
inevitable interventions find the smallest possible area supposed to impact.
D. Management and Monitoring
D.1. Management measures
In this section please specify and prioritise measures required to be taken to maintain wetlands and their types in
favourable state (management guidelines).
1.1. Specify conservation management measures
Protective measures
Keeping free and without interventions/reinforcement the water courses and river banks or recommending
soft and nature friendly, punctual interventions if strongly necessary;
Interdiction of introduction of waste waters in the streams (in montane villages) and find ecological
solutions for sewage and waste waters.
Interdiction or very careful planning of cutting trees for construction and heating (habitat type 91E0) along
the river banks.
18
Fighting for the free river banks and the natural dynamics of rivers and creating understanding by
responsible authorities of the importance of natural wetland ecosystems and their services (ex. Drinking
water supply).
Stop or reduce to a minimum the peat exploitation to small zones as the bogs have an increasing recognised
importance for the global climate as stores of Carbon and bounding CO2 emissions.
Recommend the attitude of tourists in sensible wetland area of the mountains for practises a soft tourism in
all wetlands area.
Active management and biotechnical measures for species habitats and ecosystems
Find ecological solutions for waste waters in the mountains villages;
Traditional uses that maintain a wetland type: Use of traditional management methods for conservation of
the grasslands (habitat type 6410, also other wet grasslands in mountain area which are not included in the
Habitat Directive).
Measures for modifying economic exploitation
Application of non-destructive methods for peat layer exploitation according to older practices; reducing to
a small scale the peat exploitation; support the research for other materials which can replace the use of turf
(for large scale gardening).
Management measures for the different habitat types:
Habitat type 3220: In natural conditions in the mountains are not necessary management measures. In general in
these area are no plans for hydrotechnical works. In case of existing plans it needs a careful planning or interdiction
of intervention. Also restriction or interdictions and indications for a careful use (turism) are needed in the area.
HT 3230 and 3240: In natural conditions management measures are not necessary. In case of hydrotechnical works
is needed a careful analysis of the area before any planning. If planning is inevitable it is necessary to plan as much
as possible a minimum of interventions, as river bank reinforcement and lack of morphodynamic are leading to the
loss of these habitat types.
HT 3260 In natural condiŃions management measures are not necessary. Rivers with modifications needs
restoration works of the river bed and the banks, restoration of a free flowing meandering river course, restoration
of the natural hydro-morphodynamic, out taking of reinforcements (stones and beton).
HT 6410: Use of traditional mowing in autumn once of the year or all two years. Thius type of management where
used in the past, and the low quality hay has been used as bedding material in barns. With the modernisation of
cattle breeding the Molinia type meadows where partly abandoned. In this case to maintain the habitat a
conservative management is needed, because otherwise the habitat enters in succession and will disappear in short
time.
HT 6430: a management is needed only in case of secondary fringes, because for natural habitats it is not needed
to apply management measures. Necessary for longterm conservation are only natural river banks without human
interventions by hydrotechnical measures and with natural river dynamics.
HT 7110 in natural state management for the habitat type is not needed. Peat bogs of this type have to be all
included in protected area if they have at present no protection status.
HT 7120 restoration of the naturale hidrological conditions, fullfilling of the drainage canals, creation of buffer
zones, stopping the eutrophication pocess in cases if around the peat area exists intensive land use and diffuse
pollution from agricultural area, elimination of bush vegetation if a succession process with ligneous vegetation
19
evolution exists; stopping the grazing on the border of the peat bog, guiding the touristic activities around the peat
bogs area.
HT 7140 in natural conditions management activities are not needed. A monitoring of conditions is necessary with
application of interdiction in function of existing threats. In these cases o stoppign of drainage, peat exploitation,
eutrophication, agricultural use, forest plantation intensification of leisure and touristic activities exists and are on
an increasign way.
HT 7150 in natural conditions management activities are not needed.In function of existing impact and worcening
of the ecological conditions of the habitat it is needed to apply interdiction such are the stop of drainage and
peat exploitation changes of the management, management of touristic activities; stopping of peat
exploitation, eutrophication, use as grassland or for agricultural purposes, forest plantation
HT 7210: in natural conditions management activities are not needed; in dependence of impacts a conservation
management is needed: stop of drainage of water extraction for stabilisation of the groundwater table, stop of
eutrophication, stop of grazing (Harman in the Brasov Depression).
HT 7220: in natural conditions management activities are not needed; in case of impact conservation is needed by
stop of water extraction to stabilize the groundwater level; taking out reinforcements; finding out the source of
pollution and stopping; stopping grazing activities around and creating a puffer zone around the area.
HT 7230: in natural conditions management activities are not needed; mowing or extensive grazing is
recommanded from case to case. Stopping drainage and stabilzation of groundwater level; stopping eutrophication,
fertilisation.
HT 7240: in general no measures are needed; beeing a very rare and fragmental developed habitat type, a
monitoring for the populations of the rare edifying species is recommanded.
HT 91D0: in natural conditions management activities are not needed. If human impacst exists have to be taken the
adequate measures for stopping interventioan in the wooded bog such are draingae and exploitation of peat, also
forestry activities. Recommandable is to create a buffer zone around the peat bog area to minimalize the influence
of agricutural activities with chemicals and diffuse pollution in the area.
HT 91E0: in natural conditions management activities are not needed. In case of human impacts it have to be taken
measures for minimalize negative influence, to stopp activties with creation of impacts such are river bank
reinforcement, rectification of rivers and other hydrotechnical constructions. In the area of a Natura 2000 site it is
needed to assure large natural or near natural area with this habitat type. Also it is needed to assure or to restore the
natural river dynamic with active hydro-morphodynamic processes, which create through their erosion and gravel
deposition vegetation free river banks necessary for the natural regeneration. It have to be stopped the gravel
exploitation in places of high conservation value habitats of the Alnion incanae. Needed are also measures for a
friendly tourism.
No good practices are known special for the wetlands in the Carpathians.
1.2. Wider conservation measures
Ecosystem/landscape scale measures
The European Landscape Convention signed by the Romanian Government should give more attention to
measures of landscapes including wetlands of the Carpathians.
Regional (Carpathian) measures
20
The Carpathian Convention is taking action to “Ensure the integrated management of water resources and
river basins. In this context all aspects of water management, from pollution and sanitation to flood control and
wetlands protection are interdependent and need to be addressed simultaneously”. These actions are in
planning.
The integrated water management is an important issue of the Water Framework Directive and is addressed
by the activities of the Romanian water authorities, but integrated actions with conservation management,
water and forestry authorities have to be strengthened.
Wetlands are included in different type of protected area such are National Parks (Rodna, Retezat, Piatra
Craiului, Natura 2000 Sites Fagaras Mountains, Retezat Mountains, Parâng Mountains, Apuseni Mountains
etc.) and included in the management plans of these large protected landscape area.
1.3. Essential research priorities – focus on management oriented research based on threat mitigation and
management requirements
Requirements for filling critical information/knowledge gaps
Improvement of knowledge of ecological requirements of the habitat types and the interrelations between
wetlands and the surrounding areas.
More knowledge concerning ecosystem services and understanding of sound ecosystems and their role for
a health environment
D.2. Measures required for monitoring wetlands and their types
Monitoring proposals should focus on practical, replicable, realistic and affordable measures that can be
conducted by a range of agents with limited resources. Monitoring proposals should not necessarily just be limited
to biodiversity monitoring, they may include status and condition monitoring; monitoring of the effectiveness of
management actions; monitoring threats.
2.1. Specify a set of practical means for monitoring the status of wetlands and their types and the impact of
management
Indicators
Intactness of the hydrological regime, naturalness (degree of existing intervention)
Indicator species of the type of habitat, representativeness of typical plant communities and their
characteristic species
Methods of monitoring
Establishment of a network of sampling area in the characteristic habitats and realisation of periodical
samplings by phytocoenological methods;
Methods of information management and analysis
Reporting of the state of the habitat type to responsible authorities, site administrators, nature protection
agencies, with evaluation of management activities of the habitat and if needed proposals for a better
management; change of experience concerning the results of monitoring in different sites of the
mountains.
Measures for modifying economic exploitation
21
On the base of sampling in chosen points and evaluation of the state of the habitat, can be appreciated, if
existing economic exploitation can be proceeded or not, and in which way it can be further be realised or
stopped.
Please include examples of good practice from the region and add any comments:
2.2. Information management
-
Suggest how information on wetlands and their types could be managed, evaluated and shared in the
region and how it can be used to improve management.
Information can be shared by changing experience with different administrators of sites, by comparing
the results of monitoring in case of using the same or by different methods, comparing the methods,
considering their quality of the sampling.
E. Supporting material
E.1. List of key sources and reference material
Please use the Harvard (Author date) system of citation.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenthetical_referencing.
An easy way to generate a list of citations in the correct format is to use http://www.citethisforme.com.
Please make us of this system consistently, as collating and correcting reference lists in different formats can take
many hours of time.
1.1. Key sources of information:
DoniŃă N., Popescu A., Paucă-Comănescu M., Mihăilescu S. & Biriş I.-A., 2005, Habitatele din
România. Editura Tehnică Silvia, Bucureşti, pp. 496
EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG ENVIRONMENT, 2007. Interpretation Manual of European Union
habitats. EUR 27, pp. 142
Gafta D. & Mountford O. (ccord.) , 2008 - Manual de interpretare a habitatelor Natura 2000 din
Romania: Risoprint Cluj-Napoca Romania, pp. 101
Gheorghe I. F., Vâlcu C.-M. Barbu I. & łopa S., 2006: Non destructive methods for peat layer
assessment in oligotrophic peat bogs: a case study from Poiana Stampei, Romanai.- Acta Societas
Botanicorum Poloniae, 57, 2: 157-163
LfU Bayrisches Landesamt für Umwelt & Bayrische Landesanstalt für Wald und Forstwirtschaft,
2010 – Handbuch der Lebensraumtypen nach Anhang I der Fauna und Flora-Habitat-Richtlinie. pp. 165
Pop E. , 1960 – Mlastinile de turba din Republica Populara Romana. Editura Academiei R.P. R.,
Budcuresti, pp. 511
Popova-Cucu A., Donita N. & Boscaiu N. 1983: Chap. 6 Flora and vegetation. Geografia Romaniei I.
Geografie fizica, Edit. Acad. R.S.R., pp. 388-441).
22
Schneider-Binder, E. (2010): Alpine wet habitat types of community interest in the Rodna Mountains
National Park (Eastern Carpathians, Romania).-The Rodna Mountains National Park. Transylv. Rev.
Syst. Ecol. Res., 9, 101-112
Schneider-Binder, E. (2012): Traditional management knowledge of grasslands in the Southern part of
the Transylvanian tableland (Romania) as a basis for conservation measures. Acta Oecologica Carpatica,
ULBS, III; 73-82
Schneider E. & Dragulescu C., 2005, Habitat si situri de interes comunitar. Editura Universitatii
„Lucian Blaga“ Sibiu, pp. 168
Sanda V., Öllerer K. & Burescu P., 2008. Fitocenoze din Romania. Sintaxonomie, structura, dinamica
si evolutie. Phytocoenoses of Romania. Syntaxonomy, structure, dynamics and evolution. Ars Docendi
University Bucharest, pp. 570
UNEP/United Nations Environmental Programme, 2007: Carpathians Environment Outlook, pp. 232
23

Similar documents