Objective evaluation of forest naturalness: case study in Slocvak Nature Reserve

• Autorzy: Merganic J. , Merganicova K. , Moravcik M. , Vorcak J. , Marusak R.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Our paper analyzes the naturalness of the forest in Babia Hora Nature Reserve, Slovakia, using an objective classification model based on predictive discriminant analysis. The partial indicators of forest naturalness in the model are: the arithmetic mean of the ratio between crown length and tree height, deadwood volume, coverage of grasses, coverage of mosses and lichens, the Clark-Evans aggregation index, and the coefficient of variation of tree diameters. The analysis of the model results revealed that the model was capable of distinguishing the parts of the reserve affected by natural disturbances and/or by past human activities. Hence, the classification model can be used as a supportive decision-making tool when adopting proper measures aimed at improving the actual state or decisions about changing the use of forests with evidently low natural values.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Environmental Studies
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: 21
• Numer: 5
• Opis fizyczny: p.1327-1337,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Merganic J.

• Department of Forest Management, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Praque, kamycka 129, 165 21 Praha 6 - Suchdol, Czech Republic

autor

Merganicova K.

autor

Moravcik M.

autor

Vorcak J.

autor

Marusak R.

Bibliografia

• 1. SCHNITZLER A., GÉNOT J.-C, WINTZ M., HALE B.W. Naturalness and conservation in France. J Agr Environ Ethic 21,423,2008.
• 2. BARTHA D., ÓDOR P., HORVÁTH T., TÍMÁR G., KENDERES K., STANDOVÁR T., BÖLÖNI J., SZMORAD F., BODONCZI L., ASZALÓS R. Relationship of Tree Stand Heterogeneity and Forest Naturalness. Acta Silv Lign Hung 2, 7, 2006.
• 3. MCPFE (Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe). Improved Pan-European indicators for sustainable forest management as adopted by the MCPFE Expert Level Meeting. 2002. http ://www. mcpfe.org/system/files/ul/Vienna_Improved_Indicators.pdf Cited 16 Aug 2010.
• 4. GÖTMARK F. Naturalness as an Evaluation Criterion in Nature Conservation: A response to Anderson. Conserv Biol 6, (3), 455,1992.
• 5. FRANKLIN J.F. The Natural, the Clearcut, and the Future. In: Trofymow J.A., MacKinnon A. (Eds) Proceedings of a workshop on Structure, Process, and Diversity in Successional Forests of Coastal British Columbia, February 17-19, 1998, Victoria, British Columbia. Northwest Science, 72,(2), 134,1998.
• 6. WILLIAMS K. Beliefs about natural forest systems. Aust Forestry 65, (2), 81,2002.
• 7. COLE D.N., YUNG L., ZAVALETA E.S., APLET G.H., CHAPIN F.S.III, GRABER D.M., HIGGS E.S., HOBBS R.J., LANDRES P.B., MILLAR C.I., PARSONS D.J., RANDALL J.M., STEPHENSON N.L., TONNESSEN K.A., WHITE P.S., WOODLEY S. Naturalness and Beyond: Protected Area Stewardship in an Era of Global Environmental Change. The George Wright Forum 25, (1), 36, 2008.
• 8. MACHADO A. An index of naturalness. J Nature Conserv 12, 95, 2004.
• 9. ODE A., FRY G., TVEIT M.S., MESSAGER P., MILLER D. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J Environ Manage 90, 375, 2009.
• 10. ÇOLAK A. H., ROTHERHAM I. D., ÇALIKOGLU M. Combining 'Naturalness Concepts' with Close-to-Nature Silviculture. Forstw Cbl 122, 421, 2003.
• 11. ŠMELKO Š., FABRIKA M. Evaluation of qualitative attributes of forest ecosystems by means of numerical quantifiers. J For Sci 53, (12), 529, 2007.
• 12. FERRARI C., PEZZI G., DIANI L., CORAZZA, M. Evaluating landscape quality with vegetation naturalness maps: an index and some inferences. Appl Veg Sci 11, 243, 2008.
• 13. MORAVČÍK M., SARVAŠOVÁ Z., MERGANIČ J., SCHWARZ M. Forest naturalness - decision support in management of forest ecosystems. Environ Manage 46, (6), 908, 2010.
• 14. VRŠKA T., HORT L. Terminology for forests in protected areas. Lesnická práce 82, (11), 585, 2003. http://lesprace.silvarium.cz/content/view/451/65/
• 15. WINTER S., FISCHER H.S., FISCHER A. Relative Quantitative Reference Approach for Naturalness Assessments of forests. For Ecol Manage 259, 1624, 2010.
• 16. PASIERBEK T., HOLEKSA J., WILCZEK Z., ŻYWIEC M. Why the amount of dead wood in Polish forest reserves is so small? Nature Conserv 64, 65, 2007.
• 17. VLADOVIČ J. Regional bases and principles for evaluating tree species composition and ecological stability of forests of Slovakia. Lesnícke štúdie 57, Príroda, Bratislava, 2003.
• 18. GLONČÁK P. Assessment of naturalness of forest stands based on the typological units (example from the buffer zone of Badin virgin forest). In: Hrubá V., Štykar J. (Eds) Geobiocenologie a její aplikace. Geobiocenologické spisy, 11, 39, 2007.
• 19. GUARINO C, SANTORO S., DE SIMONE L. Assessment of vegetation and naturalness: a study case in Southern Italy. IForest 1, 114, 2008.
• 20. ŠMÍDT J. Methodology for the assessment of naturalness of forests in Muránska pianina National park. In: Uhrin M (Ed) Výskum a ochrana prírody Muránskej planiny 3. Správa NP Muránska pianina, Bratislava & Revúca: pp. 119-123, 2002.
• 21. HEPCAN Ş., COŞKUN Ç. A Naturalness Quality Assessment; In the Case of Spil Mountain, Turkey. J Appl Sci 4,(1), 164, 2004:
• 22. CLARK P.J., EVANS F.C. Distance to nearest neighbour as a measure of spatial relationship in populations. Ecology 35, 445,1954.
• 23. KORPEL' Š. Virgin forests of the Western Carpathians. G. Fischer, Stuttgart, 1995.
• 24. MERGANIČ J., VORČÁK J., MERGANIČOVÁ K., ĎURSKÝ J., MIKOVÁ A., ŠKVARENINA J., TUČEK J, MINĎÁŠ J. Diversity monitoring in mountain forests of Eastern Orava. EFRA Zvolen, Tvrdošín, 2003. http://www.forim.sk/index_soubory/Merganic_Vorcak_ Merganicova_Dursky_Mikova_Skvarenina_Tucek_Mindas _2003.pdf
• 25. ŠMELKO Š. Mathematical statistical inventory of forest stand volumes. SAV, Bratislava, 1968.
• 26. HOLEKSA J. Coarse woody debris in a Carpathian subalpine spruce forest. Forstwiss Centralbl 120, 256, 2001.
• 27. MARHOLD K., HINDÁK F., PlŠÚT I., KUBINSKÁ A. A list of lower and higher plants of Slovakia. Vydavatel'stvo akademie vied, Bratislava, 1998.
• 28. ZLATNÍK A. Forest phytocenology. SZN, Praha, 1976.
• 29. MORAVČÍK M. Derivation of target structure for forests of Norway spruce vegetation zone in Slovakia. J For Sci 53, (6), 267, 2007.
• 30. MORAVČÍK M. Derivation of target stocking for forests of Norway spruce vegetation zone in Slovakia. J For Sci 53, (8), 352, 2007.
• 31. HUBERTY C.J. Applied discriminant analysis. John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd., New York, 1994.
• 32. KOZAK J. Forest Cover Change in the Western Carpathians in the Past 180 Years - Mountain Research and Development, 23, (4), 369, 2003.
• 33. JANSEN F., ZERBE S., SUCCOW M. Changes in landscape naturalness derived from a historical land register - a case study from NE Germany. Landscape Ecol 24, 185, 2009.
• 34. UOTILA A., KOUKI J., KONTKANEN H., PULKKINEN P. Assessing the naturalness of boreal forests in eastern Fennoscandinavia. For Ecol Manage 161, 257, 2002.
• 35. LAARMANN D., KORJUS H., SIMS A., STANTURF J. A., KIVISTE A., KÖSTER K. Analysis of forest naturalness and tree mortality patterns in Estonia. For Ecol Manage 258, (Suppl. 1), SI87, 2009.
• 36. KIRBY K.J, REID C.M., THOMAS R.C., GOLDSMITH F.B. Preliminary estimates of fallen dead wood and standing dead trees in managed and unmanaged forests in Britain. J Appl Ecol 35, 148, 1998.
• 37. LIIRA J., SEPP T., PARREST T. The forest structure and ecosystem quality in conditions of anthropogenic disturbance along productivity gradient. For Ecol Manage 250, 34, 2007.
• 38. KRIŽOVÁ E. Phytoceonology and forest typology. TU Zvolen, 1995.
• 39. CARMEAN W.H., BOYCE S.G. Hardwood log quality in relation to site quality. North Central Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1973.
• 40. KUOCH R., AMIET R. Natural regeneration at the upper timber line of the Alps with respect to vegetation and vegetative propagation. Mitt Schweiz Anstalt Forstl Versuchswesen 46, (4), 159,1970.
• 41. TRNKA R. Protection and sustainable utilisation of natural values of Babia hora. International conference on environment in the Tatras Euroregion. 2002. http://euroregion-tatry.Sk/projekty/duha/zbornik/211 .htm
• 42. HOLEKSA J, CYBULSKI M. Canopy gaps in a Carpathian subalpine spruce forest. Forstwissenschanftliches Centralblatt 120, (5), 331, 2001.
• 43. PYŠEK P. What do we know about Calamagrostis villosa? - A review of the species behaviour in secondary habits. Preslia 65, 1-20,1993.
• 44. HOLEKSA J. Relationship between field-layer vegetation and canopy openings in a Carpathian subalpine spruce forest. Plant Ecology 168, 57, 2003.
• 45. CHOVANCOVÁ G., KRlŽOVÁ E. Successional development of vegetation on permanent plots in the High Tatra Mts. Folia Oecologica 37, (2), 144, 2010.
• 46. HEJCMAN M., NEŽERKOVÁ P., PAVLŮ V., GAISLER J. Ridges of the Giant Mts from the practical point of agriculturist's view or did mowning lead to the promotion of mat- grass? Úroda 10, 32, 2004.
• 47. SEMELOVÁ V., HEJCMAN M., PAVLŮ V., VACEK S., PODRÁZSKÝ V. The Grass Garden in the Giant Mts. (Czech Republic): Residual effect of long-term fertilization after 62 years. Agr Ecosyst Environ 123, 337, 2008.
• 48. KRAHULEC F., SKÁLOVÁ H., HERBEN T., HADINCOVÁ V., WILDOVÁ R., PECHÁCKOVÁ S. Vegetation changes following sheep grazing in abandoned mountain meadows. Appl Veg Sci 4, (1), 97, 2001.
• 49. ELLENBERG H., WEBER H.E., DÜLL R, WIRTH V., WERNER W., PAULISSEN D. Indicator values of plants in central Europe. Scripta geobotánica, Verlag E. Goltze KG, Göttingen, 1992.
• 50. MERGANIČ J., MERGANlČOVÁ K., VORČÁK J., IŠTOŇA J. Relationship between plant communities and developmental stage of natural spruce forest in the subalpine forest belt of National Nature Reserve bf Babia hora. Beskydy 1,(2), 155,2008.
• 51. GLONČÁK P. The influence of light conditions on variability and diversity of ground vegetation of natural mountainous forests. Acta Facultatis Forestalis LI, (Suppl. 1), 69, 2009.
• 52. WOHLGEMUTH T., KULL P., WÜTHRICH H. Disturbance of microsites and early tree regeneration after windthrow in Swiss mountain forests due to the winter storm Vivian 1990. For. Snow Landsc. Res. 77, (1/2), 17, 2002.
• 53. VORČÁK J., MERGANIČ J., ŠKVARENINA J., MERGANIČOVÁ K. Contribution to understanding precipitation regime in the mountain spruce forests of Babia hora - Oravské Beskydy using throughfall index. The Beskid Bulletin 2,(1), 85,2009.
• 54. FREGO K. A. Bryophytes as potential indicators of forest integrity. For. Ecol. Manage. 242, (1), 65, 2007.
• 55. FENTON N.J., BERGERON Y. Docs time or habitat make old-growth forests species rich? Bryophyte richness in boreal Picea mariana forests. Biol. Conserv. 141, 1389, 2008.
• 56. UOTILA A. Vegetation patterns in managed and semi-natural boreal forests in Eastern Finland and Russian Karelia. Academic Dissertation. Faculty of Forestry, University of Joensuu. http://epublications.uef.fi/pub/urn_isbn_952-458- 567-7/urn_isbn_952-458-567-7.pdf, 2004.
• 57. CLUZEAU C., HAMZA N. Naturalness and Nativeness within European National Forest Inventories. In: Bertini R., Chirici G. (Eds) Harmonized indicators and estimation procedures for assessing components ob biodiversity with NFI data. Draft report. COST Action E43. Version. 12-5/06/2007. http://www.metla.fi/eu/cost/e43/members/wg3/COSTE-E43- WG3-reportl4.pdf, 2007.
• 58. MORAVČÍK M., KONÔPKA J., TUTKA J., ČABOUN V., ČERNOTA M., KOVALČÍK M., KRIŠŠÁKOVÁ I., LONGAUER R., MACKO J., MARUŠÁKOVÁ E., NOVOTNÝ J., ORAVEC M., PAVLENDA P., PRIWITZER T., RADOCHA M., SARVAŠ M., SARVAŠOVÁ Z., SCHWARZ M., SIAKEE P., SUŠKOVÁ M., SVITOK R., ŠEBEŇ V., ŠTEFANČÍK I., TUČEKOVÁ A., ŽIAKOVÁ M., ONDREJČÁK M., TOMA P., HULMAN P., ŠIMOVÁ K, BALKOVIČ J., GREGUŠKA B., DÓCZY J., LAJDA Z., HUŠŤÁKOVÁ E. Report on the Status of Forestry in the Slovak Republic 2008 Green report. 1 st issue. Ministry of Agriculture of SR and National Forest Centre - Forest Research Institute, Zvolen, 2008.
• 59. KOWARIK I. Naturalness, Closeness to Nature and Hemeroby as evaluation criteria. In: Fränzle O., Müller F., Schröder W. (Eds) Handbuch der Umweltwissenschaften, vol 16. Suppl 3/06, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, VI-3,12, pp 1-18, 2006.