7 Endemic Centers - Mathodology

7/30/2019 7 Endemic Centers - Mathodology

1/21

Biodiversity of endemic center Prenj, vrsnica, abuljaproject - BA-FDCP-CQ-SA-CS-06-TF052697-CS8-9

61

7. MATERIAL AND METODHOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH

7.1. Methodologic approach

In the process of evaluation comprised is exceptionally large number of

records on spatial and temporal ecosystem's organisation, in the widest sense

of word, including all relevant information on both abiotic and biotic

component of endemiv center Prenj, vrsnica, abulja.

Main parameter for this evaluation is biodiversity (diversity), as understood in

the sense of the most recent International community's beliefs OUN -

AGENDA 21, Rio de Janeiro 1992. godine (Sitarz, 1994), and new

achievements of modern science, especially of conservation biology and

ecology. Besides, assessed are all other elements related to determination of

forms and levels of biodiversity, such as: orography, geological and

pedological figure, ecoclimate and anthropogenous impacts reflected in

diverse activities.

In order to obtain objective and usefull categorisation of zones, and entire

areas, as basic criteria and starting points considered are, as follows :

1) level of biotop's uniqueness2) level of structure's maintenance and its dynamics for given ecosystem or

biom,

3) level of endemism and relictness of living world,

4) threat's level of living world,

5) distribution and ecological consistency of distinct ecosystems,

6) ecosystem's ecological and biological homogenity,

7) assessment of the successive ecosystem's stage (climax vegetation,

climax of orography),8) ecosystem's carrying capacity,

9) possibilities to integrate the existing infrastructure into structural and

functional units,

10) communication options, respectively possibilities for flow of gens between

isolated ecosystem parts,


2/21


62

11) possibilities to set up ecological corridors between remote, naturally

valuable biotopes,

12) possibilities to set the area for the welfare of local and regional community,

13) possibilities to include into the european ecological network, sustainable

management options for forest ecosystems and establishment of steadyplots for continous investigation,

14) International community's intention in the field of natural heritage

management (IUCB),

15) International documenst (conventios, protocols, agreements dealing with

sustainable management of natural resources and sustainable physical

planning),

16) establishment of an ideal system of measures for balanced protection of

biological and ecological diversity,17) directed and massive education,

18) scientific and expert research of ecosystems,

19) participation in international projects reffering to the management of

biological and ecological diversity.

By the categorisation and defining of the measures for sustainable

management on ecological principles, applied is IUCNs methodology

International Union for Conservation of Nature, respecting all local specificities

biological, ecological, social, economic, cultural and educational ones

(IUCN, 1999).

7.2. Research methodology in the field

The field research of spatial and temporal organisation of the biodiversity,

then geomorphological and hydrological features of endemi center Prenj,

vrsnica, abulja was conducted in 2007 through several seasons (early

spring, summer, early autumn). Apart from data collected during this research,

there have been used also data obtained by previously conducted field

research and expert excursion, which were undertaken by some team

members.

Because of that, it was feasable in such short time to meet project tasks given

by Investors and to answer some complex and difficult questions. In each field


3/21


63

were made numerous observations on the longitudinal and transversal profile,

of ECP (Figure 5 i 6).

Figure 5. Area of Prenj mountain covered with main positions of fieldinvestigations of biological and geo-morphological diversity.


4/21


64

Figure 6. Area of vrsnica i abulja mountains covered with main positions offield investigations of biological and geo-morphological diversity.


5/21


65

Each standing point was exactly marked by GPS positioning, which is shown

on the attached map.

Note: On maps (Figures 5 and 6) are shown only main standing points where more detailed

investigation has been carried out, although each square kilometer of the investigated area

was observed.

7.2.1. Biodiversity inventory

7.2.1.1. Biodiversity of plants

7.2.1.1.1. Alges and cyanophytes

The biodiversity assessment for plants on each level, species and

biocoenosis, was carried out under both field and laboratory conditions. The

biodiversity assessment for microphytes (alges and cyanophytes) wasconducted by taking a representative sample on longitudinal and transversal

profile of karst fields, including all main watercourses, standing water and

underground water. Commonly, certain quantity of living material should be

taken and preserved by fixateur addition, while determination is carried out by

special microscope and keys, respectively, referent literature. It was aimed to

take samples in all zones of climax and at present dominant vegetation types.

It was only assessed species diversity for these groups of organisms,

respectively number of species and intra-species categories in phytobenthosand phytoplankton of standing water, including Buko jezero have been

assessed. The assessment of quantitative composition and indicator values is

done in accordance with refferent literature (see list of refferent literature).

7.2.1.1.2. Flora and vegetation of higher plants

The assessment of floristic diversity among macrophytes (vascular plants)

was carried out on previously chosen transects, longitudinal and more

transversal profiles, of both karst fields, and on a large number of chosen

points along field margins, respectively. It was established a representative

surface, on which all plants were recorded. Besides, herbal material was

gathered, which was then properly preserved and determined using relevant

keys, of both local and international floristic literature (Literatura), in field and

laboratory conditions.


6/21


66

The nomenclature and basic systematic units concept (species) was adjusted

to the principles of Botany Nomenclature Codex, year 2005.

The assessment of biocoenosis and vegetation diversity was carried out on

exceptionally large number of points (Figure 6), in all ecosystems of ECP.

Surface of analised plots was 100 square meters (if no forest community),respectively, 200 and 500 square meters, if forest ecosystem was concerned.

Each plot was analised in terms of abundance and coverage assessment,

sociabilty and vitality for each detected species. It was applied Braun-

Blanquet methodology (1964), which is Zurich-Montpelier's School, generally

accepted in all kinds of vegetation biodiversity studies. When the list of plants

occuring in the plot is made, one should evaluate the abundance of each

species, respectively its population, after following scale :

+ - species covers less than 1% of surface1 species covers less than 15% of surface

2 species covers less than 25% of surface



5 species covers more than 75% of surface

In order to evaluate sociability, respectively unity of species applied is, after

the same methodology, following scale:

1 species occurs individually

2 species occurs in couples up to three individuals

3 species occurs in small groups, swards

4 species occurs in larger groups

5 species occurs in massive groups which cover larger plot's proportion.

A definition and concept of basic vegetational units syntaxa is carried out in

accordance with the Botany Nomenclature Codex (Webber et al., 2000). Afterthat Codex, vegetation is organised in the form of associations (basic units),

alliances (more kindred associations), orders (more kindred alliance) and

classes (comprising more floristically and ecologically kindred orders). Each

organisation unit has got its own suffix. The nomenclature of vegetation units


7/21


67

is given after Prodromus biljnih zajednica BiH (Lakui et al., 1978) and

The Diversity of European Vegetation (Rodwell et al., 2002).

7.2.1.2. Biodiversity of animals

Same as diversity of plants, diversity of animals is assessed in both field andlaboratory conditions. In the field, chosen were longitudinal and transversal

transects, where it was established the list of detected animals. The abudance

of animals and their behavior was also recorded. Then, samples were taken,

preserved by fixateur addition and determined in the laboratory.

7.2.1.2.1. Investigation of butterflies, amphibians, reptiles

The herpetological and investigation of lepidoptera in endemic center P,

was conducted in August 2007. Animals were observed by binoculars BPC7x50. As a material, specimens were caught only sporadically or if seemed

interesting, or to make photo-documentation. Butterflies were caught by lap

enthomological net - diameter 60 cm, stored in sample bags or

enthomological boxes. Reptiles and amphibians were caught by hand,

respectively, by specially designed herpetological net.

The abundance of individuals was assessed after scale from 1 to 5, as

follows :

1 sporadically occuring, 2 small number of individuals, 3 frequently

occuring, 4 numerous population, 5 very numerous population; whereby

presumed IUCN categorisation was done after standard categories.

Collected material was determined after following literature: Lelo, 2007a i

2007b; Tolman and Levington, 1997; Arnold et al., 1999.

7.2.1.2.2. Investigation of birds

The assessment of ornithofauna's state in the investigated area was based on

following:

1. analysis of literature records reffering to the investigated area;

2. analysis of records gathered by the author during his field research

conducted from April to September 2007. The field research was

conducted by the method of straightlined transect, whereby bird

specimens are being observed and identified by sound means. It was also


8/21


68

made census (by day and by night) of some species, which are being

concerned as threatened or rare in B&H, in order to establish an adequate

monitoring of species;

3. analysis of records collected by the author during his field research on the

investigated area in last two years;4. analysis of records reffering to karst fields gathered in last three years by

members of Mree posmatraa ptica of the Ornithological Society Nae

ptice, and received from slovenian and austrian ornthologist, which

colaborate with Mrea.

All data are shown in tables and include the systematic overview of identified

species by areas and threat categories. Species order in tables is given after

Vaurie (1959, 1965).

7.2.2. Assessment of state and ecosystem's carrying capacity

7.2.2.1.Assessment of recent state of ecosystems

State of ecosystems, the state of their structure and dynamics and in the first

place the state of their structure and dynamics the following scale (Redzic

1998).

Table 4. General ecological state of ecosystems

Level ofimpact on

ecosystems

General ecological state of ecosystems(geobiocoenoses)

0 Ecosystems under very small level of human impact. Theyare almost unchanged in comparison to their natural state.

1 Ecosystems under insignificant or small level of human

impact. They are well preserved in comparison to theirnatural state, but there are indicators showing somechanges, particularly in their structure.

2 Ecosystems under relative moderate level of humanimpacts, etc.). There are some changes in the structure anddynamics as well as changes in certain parameters in abioticcomponent, particularly in soil, and microclimate conditions.


9/21


69

3

Ecosystems under significant level of human impact. Thestructure and qualitative and quantitative characteristics ofabiotic component of ecosystem are significantlydeteriorated and changed (insolation, humidity, temperature,hydrothermic regime of soil); presence of plant and animal

species ecosystems desctructors.

4 Ecosystems under very significant level of human impact.The structure and dynamics, and elements of abioticcomponent are changed for more than 60 % in comparisonto their natural state.

5 Ecosystems under very significant level of human impact.The structure and dynamics and elements of abioticcomponent are more-less in irreversible state in comparisonto their natural state. There is high level of probability that

these ecosystems could not be restored using all availabletechnical measures. These ecosystems have tendency(succession) to become totally new ecosystem regarding itsqualitative and quantitative features.

Regarding intensity and spectrum of anthropogenous impacts, all ecosystems

can be divided in three large groups (Lakui, et al., 1975) :

(1) Primary (P)

(2) Secondary (S)

(3) Tertiary (T)

Primary ecosystems are stable with relatively minor change in the structure

and dynamics. The level of these ecosystems degradation varies between 1 -

33,33% in relation to anthropogenous impacts.

Secondary ecosystems have significantly changed structure in relation to the

primary state. The level of degradation is increased for next 33,33%

comparing to natural, primary ecosystems. Into this category belong all

meadows, planted forests and other ecosystems occurring on former primaryecosystems locations.

Tertiary ecosystems are under tremendous anthropogenous impact. Their

structure is completely changed in relation to the primary ones, while in

relation to the secondary ones is changed for next 33,33% (if degradation


10/21


70

level expressed from 0 -100 %). Into this category belong arable land,

abandoned nitrified or trampled places, mainly in rural areas.

7.2.2.2. Assessment of the carrying capacity of ecosystems

Various methodological solutions could be used for assessment of carryingcapacity. Taking into account the structure and dynamics of ecosystems, the

following scale presented in Table 4 was used for the assessment of the

carrying capacity (Redi, 1998).

Table 5 Carrying capacity of ecosystems

Degree ofcapacity Carrying capacity of ecosystems

0

Ecosystem without possibilities for additionalacceptance. A very sensitive to any changes in thestructure and impacts of environmental factors.

1

Ecosystem without significant or with a very smallcarrying capacity. A very sensitive to human impactsand rapid changes in structure and dynamics. There isa danger to be completely destroyed or to become othertype of ecosystem.

2

Ecosystem with a small carrying capacity. There is nodanger to have any significant changes in its structureand dynamics.

3 Ecosystem without significant carrying capacity. It haswider ecological amplitude and possibilities to absorbhuman impacts. It has stable structure of edificators.

4

Ecosystem with a very high carrying capacity. A verystable structure of edificators, and a high resilience.

5

Ecosystem with maximal level of acceptance of waste

materials (entropy) and with stable mechanism ofenergy flow and material cycling, extraordinary vitality ofedificators.


11/21


71

7.2.3. Parameters for establishment of conservation priorities

One of the key parameters for determination of conservation priorities

represents knowledge of biodiversity. Biological criteria defined by Johnson

(1995), and modified by Redzic et al. (2001) are often used for these

purposes. These criteria are: richness, rarity, uniqueness, endemism, andfunction. For more complete understanding of real values of the given area,

very often is used a combination of these criteria.

7.2.3.1. Richness (Table 6 ) Species richness includes total number of

species in the given area; the higher the number of species, the higher

diversity of species. Use of only this criterion implicates that all species have

same significance. In other words, areas with higher number of species have

higher conservation value in comparison to the areas with smaller speciesrichness. This criterion plays a very important in development of models for

identification of conservation priorities.

Although this criterion is frequently being used on the level of species, it could

also be considered on the ecosystem's level

Table 6 Plant community richness

Level of

diversity

Characteristics and forms of floristic richness of

community

1 Community with a very high number of species (>than 100 taxa)

2 Community with high number of species (between71 and 100 taxa)

3 Community with moderate number of species(between 26 and 50 taxa)

4 Community with small number of species (between10 and 25 taxa)

5 Community with a very small number of species (

7 Endemic Centers - Mathodology

Documents

Transcript of 7 Endemic Centers - Mathodology