Threat Degree Classification According to Habitat Quality: A Case Study from the Czech Republic
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- Aluvia of large rivers tend to be centres of biodiversity and their species richness often exceeds the surrounding higher habitats [51,52]. The undeniable importance of the floodplain ecosystem is officially confirmed by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands [53] and some floodplain habitats have also been included among the priority habitats within the Natura 2000 system [32]. The floodplain has a high degree of habitat diversity as well as natural and anthropogenic disturbances. They are associated with a very dynamic course of subsequent succession [54,55]. These areas have long been under strong anthropogenic pressure, mainly due to agricultural use and the supply of nutrients through floods. Floodplain habitats are also invaded by non-native species, which significantly affect their species composition and structure [56].
- (2)
- Fen habitats at lower and middle altitudes. These are usually small-scale habitats that are rare in the landscape. Degradation of these habitats is mainly caused by drainage, succession, afforestation, eutrophication and abandonment of traditional farming [32]. Fen habitats are very sensitive to changes in hydrogeological conditions, especially those caused by humans [35]. They are refuges of many threatened plant species that are rare and very sensitive to changes in water regime, nutrient concentrations or management [57,58]. These species are usually not competitive and disappear rapidly with increased nutrient intake due to competitively stronger species [59]. This easily leads to a change in different types of meadow vegetation and subsequently to overgrowth by the forest.
- (3)
- Ecotone shrub habitats. These are habitats that usually form a vegetation mosaic with dry lawns. In these habitats, the so-called ecotonal effect is manifested—fringe communities tend to be species-richer than related communities [60,61]. Degradation is mainly caused by overgrowth and eutrophication. However, the occurrence of overgrowth trees in dry grasslands cannot be considered exclusively undesirable. Habitat heterogeneity increases with reasonable shading and mosaicity and preservation of mowing, grazing and occasional partial pruning [60,62,63], but overgrowth of the shrub layer may have a negative effect on species richness [63]. The influence of management is also significant; mowed or grazed stands have greater species richness [64,65,66,67].
2. Material and Methods
Data Sources
- (1)
- Floristic data from habitat mapping projects. Data on the occurrence of individual species can thus be precisely linked to the occurrence of specific habitats,
- (2)
Selected Species, Their Numbers of Occurrences and Relation to Habitats
- (1)
- Group of plant species with their centre of occurrence in meadows and wetland habitats in alluvia of large rivers (Cardamine matthioli, Gratiola officinalis and Teucrium scordium). These areas have long been under strong anthropogenic pressure, mainly due to agricultural use and the supply of nutrients through floods.
- Cardamine matthioli (ca. 200 occurrences) has its centre of occurrence in the habitat of continental inundated meadows [32]. The species is also present in reed beds of eutrophic still waters, tall-sedge beds, alluvial Alopecurus meadows and hardwood forests of lowland rivers [31]. Of the three species, it is the most tolerant of meadow management (mowing and light fertilisation). However, the species declines due to intensified farming.
- Gratiola officinalis (ca. 130 occurrences) occurs predominantly in continental inundated meadows [32]. It is also present in reed beds of eutrophic still waters, tall-sedge beds and vegetation of exposed fishpond bottoms [31]. The species is sensitive to changes in water regime. Many occurrences have disappeared due to extensive river regulations and drainage of floodplain meadows.
- (2)
- Group of sedges with their centre of occurrence in fen habitats at lower and middle altitudes. These species are differently sensitive to habitat disturbance, especially to changes in water regime and eutrophication (Carex appropinquata, C. cespitosa, C. lepidocarpa).
- Carex appropinquata (ca. 790 occurrences) occurs most often in tall-sedge beds, acidic moss-rich fens and alder carrs [32]. The species may be also present in, e.g., the habitats of reed beds of eutrophic still waters, wet Cirsium meadows, wet Filipendula grasslands, intermittently wet Molinia meadows, ash-alder alluvial forests and waterlogged spruce forests [31].
- Carex cespitosa (ca. 1150 occurrences) occurs in the Czech Republic in tall-sedge beds and wet Cirsium meadows [32]. The species is also present in the habitats of acidic moss-rich fens, wet Filipendula grasslands, intermittently wet Molinia meadows, alder carrs and ash-alder alluvial forests [31]. It also occurs on unmaintained meadows, where it can form connected stands of large (up to 1.5 m high) tussocks which may block further succession. It is the most abundant of the three sedges and the most tolerant of habitat changes.
- Carex lepidocarpa (ca. 130 occurrences) occurs mainly in springs (habitats of meadow springs with tufa formation and meadow springs without tufa formation), marginally in calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus [32]. In the Czech Republic it also grows in acidic moss-rich fens, wet Cirsium meadows and intermittently wet Molinia meadows [31]. It is the most sensitive to changes in the environment and therefore also the rarest of the selected Carex species.
- (3)
- Group of chamaephytes (Rosa agrestis, R. micrantha and R. spinosissima) with frequent occurrence in the ecotone shrub habitats and habitats with potentially high succession rates (e.g., dry grasslands), where in addition, due to their growth in the absence of appropriate management, degradation of these habitats can occur. The rarest of them in the Czech Republic is Rosa micrantha, Rosa spinosissima is more abundant, and the most common is R. agrestis. Data based on the herbarium specimens of larger herbaria of the Czech Republic (BRNM, BRNU, PR, PRC) have been revised by P. Maděra (Mendel Univ. in Brno).
- Rosa agrestis (ca. 390 occurrences) occurs predominantly in tall mesic and xeric scrub [32], but often also in various herbaceous habitats (e.g., rock-outcrop vegetation with Festuca pallens, narrow-leaved dry grasslands, broad-leaved dry grasslands, acidophilous dry grasslands, mesic herbaceous fringes, acidophilous grasslands on shallow soils) or in open forests: central European basiphilous thermophilous oak forests, acidophilous thermophilous oak forests, dry acidophilous oak forests and forest-steppe pine forests [31].
- Rosa micrantha (ca. 50 occurrences) has its centre of occurrence in the habitat of tall mesic and xeric scrub [32]. The species is also present in herbaceous habitats such as narrow-leaved dry grasslands, broad-leaved dry grasslands, acidophilous dry grasslands, mesic herbaceous fringes, edges of ravine forests and acidophilous thermophilous oak forests [31].
3. Results
3.1. Map of the Level of Knowledge of Habitat Quality
3.2. Map of Habitat Quality
4. Discussion
- (a)
- The creation and updating of species databases, as a necessary basis for creation of any red list. The compilation of these databases for species with a larger number of occurrences will be particularly problematic and laborious. Current floristic databases contain large amounts of data, but some of them are inaccurate or even incorrect. Above all, however, it is often data of a multiple character, and it cannot be used;
- (b)
- Maximum spatial accuracy of floristic data, which is necessary for their unambiguous assignment to the polygon with the given habitat. It is problematic to meet this requirement in a situation where there is a high habitat heterogeneity that are mapped in a mosaic at a given site.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Fischer, J.; Simon, N.; Vincent, J. The Red Book. Wildlife in Danger; Collins: London, UK, 1969; p. 368. [Google Scholar]
- Janssen, J.A.M.; Rodwell, J.S.; García, C.M.; Gubbay, S.; Haynes, T.; Nieto, A.; Sanders, N.; Landucci, F.; Loidi, J.; Ssymank, A.; et al. European Red List of Habitats—Part 2. Terrestrial and Freshwater Habitats; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2016; p. 38. ISBN 978-92-79-61588-7. [Google Scholar]
- IUCN. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 3.1., 2nd ed.; IUCN Species Survival Commission: Gland, Switzerland, 2012; p. 32. ISBN 978-2-8317-1435-6. [Google Scholar]
- IUCN. Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria; Bland, L.M., Keith, D.A., Miller, R.M., Murray, N.J., Rodríguez, J.P., Eds.; Version 1.1; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2017; p. 99. ISBN 978-2-8317-1769-2. [Google Scholar]
- IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2020. Available online: http://www.iucnredlist.org/ (accessed on 15 September 2008).
- Gärdenfors, U. Classifying Threatened Species at National versus Global Levels. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2001, 16, 511–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gärdenfors, U.; Hilton-Taylor, C.; Mace, G.; Rodríguez, J.P. The Application of IUCN Redlist Criteria at Regional Levels. Conserv. Biol. 2001, 15, 1206–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IUCN. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels; Version 4.0; IUCN Species Survival Commission: Gland, Switzerland, 2012; p. 41. ISBN 978-2-8317-1247-5. [Google Scholar]
- Bilz, M.; Kell, S.P.; Maxted, N.; Lansdown, R.V. European Red List of Vascular Plants; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Eliáš, P., Jr.; Dítě, D.; Kliment, J.; Hrivnák, R.; Feráková, V. Red List of Ferns and Flowering Plants of Slovakia, 5th ed. (October 2014). Biológia 2015, 70, 218–228. [Google Scholar]
- Kaźmierczakowa, R.; Bloch-Orłowska, J.; Celka, Z.; Cwener, A.; Dajdok, Z.; Michalska-Hejduk, D.; Pawlikowski, P.; Szczęśniak, E.; Ziarnek, K. Polska czerwona lista paprotników i roślin kwiatowych. Polish Red List of Pteridophytes and Flowering Plants; Instytut Ochrony Przyrody Polskiej Akademii Nauk: Kraków, Poland, 2016; p. 44. ISBN 978-83-61191-88-9. [Google Scholar]
- Király, G. (Ed.) Vöros Lista. A Magyarországi Edényes Flóra Veszélyeztetett Fajai (Red List of Vascular Flora of Hungary); Saját kiadás: Sopron, Hungary, 2007; p. 73. ISBN 978-963-06-2774-0. [Google Scholar]
- Oltean, M.; Negrean, G.; Popescu, A.; Roman, N.; Dihoru, G.; Sanda, V.; Mihailescu, S. Lista Rosie a Plantelor Superioare Din România (Red List of Higher Plants of Romania); Studii, Sinteze, Documentatjii de Ecologie; Institutul de Biologie: Bucharest, Romania, 1994; Volume 1, pp. 1–52. [Google Scholar]
- Schnittler, M.; Günther, K.-F. Central European Vascular Plants Requiring Priority Conservation Measures—An Analysis from National Red Lists and Distribution Maps. Biodivers. Conserv. 1999, 8, 891–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turis, P.; Eliáš, P., Jr.; Schmotzer, A.; Király, G.; Schneider, E.; Kuciel, H.; Szewczyk, M.; Kozurak, A.; Antosyak, T.; Voloshchuk, M.; et al. Red List of Vascular Plants of the Carpathians. In Carpathian Red List of Forest Habitats and Species. Carpathian List of Invasive Alien Species (Draft); Kadlečík, J., Ed.; The State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic: Banská Bystrica, Slovakia, 2014; pp. 44–105. ISBN 978-80-89310-81-4. [Google Scholar]
- Schippmann, U. Bibliography of National Red Lists for Vascular Plants; BfN-Skripten 547: Bonn, Germany, 2019; p. 30. ISBN 978-3-89624-285-3. [Google Scholar]
- Holub, J. Stupnice a kritéria ohrožení užívané v červených seznamech [Threat Scales and Criteria Used in the Red Lists]. In Červené seznamy ohrožené květeny České a Slovenské republiky; Kubát, K., Ed.; Severočes. Přír., Northern Bohemian Branch of the Czech Botanical Society: Litoměřice, Czech Republic, 1996; Volume 9, pp. 7–14. [Google Scholar]
- IUCN. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria; Version 3.1; IUCN Species Survival Commision: Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge, UK, 2001; p. 30. ISBN 978-2-8317-0633-7. [Google Scholar]
- Holub, J.; Procházka, F.; Čeřovský, J. Seznam Vyhynulých, Endemických a Ohrožených Taxonů Vyšších Rostlin Květeny ČSR (1. verze) [List of Extinct, Endemic and Threatened Taxa of Vascular Plants of the Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic (First Draft)]. Preslia 1979, 51, 213–237. [Google Scholar]
- Holub, J.; Procházka, F. Red List of Vascular Plants of the Czech Republic—2000. Preslia 2000, 72, 187–230. [Google Scholar]
- Grulich, V. Red List of Vascular Plants of the Czech Republic: 3rd ed. Preslia 2012, 84, 631–645. [Google Scholar]
- Grulich, V. Červený seznam cévnatých rostlin ČR [The Red List of Vascular Plants of the Czech Republic]. In Červený seznam ohrožených druhů České republiky, Cévnaté rostliny; Grulich, V., Chobot, K., Eds.; Příroda, Agency of Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic: Prague, Czech Republic, 2017; Volume 35, pp. 75–132. [Google Scholar]
- Čeřovský, J. Zásady Výběru Druhů Pro Ochranu [Principles for Selection of Protected Species]. Studie ČSAV 1981, 20, 17–22. [Google Scholar]
- Camaclang, A.E.; Maron, M.; Martin, T.G.; Possingham, H.P. Current Practices in the Identification of Critical Habitat for Threatened Species. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 482–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Machová, I.; Prchalová, J. Botanické hodnocení území za použití geografického informačního systému [Using GIS for the Botanical Assesment of an Area]. Příroda 2001, 19, 77–85. [Google Scholar]
- Krahulec, F. Zastoupení ohrožených druhů ve společenstvech: Srovnání červených seznamů druhů a společenstev [Representation of Endangered Species in Plant Communities: Comparison of Red Lists of Species and Communities]. In Červené Seznamy Ohrožené Květeny České a Slovenské Republiky; Kubát, K., Ed.; Severočes. Přír., Northern Bohemian Branch of the Czech Botanical Society: Litoměřice, Czech Republic, 1996; Volume 9, pp. 101–105. [Google Scholar]
- Moravec, J.; Balátová-Tuláčková, E.; Hadač, E.; Hejný, S.; Jeník, J.; Kolbek, J.; Kopecký, K.; Krahulec, F.; Kropáč, Z.; Neuhäusl, R.; et al. Rostlinná společenstva České socialistické republiky a jejich ohrožení (Red List of plant communities of the Czech Socialist Republic and Their Endangerment). Severočes. Přír. 1983, 1, 1–110. [Google Scholar]
- Blasi, C.; Marignani, M.; Copiz, R.; Fipaldini, M.; Bonacquisti, S.; Del Vico, E.; Rosati, L.; Zavattero, L. Important Plant Areas in Italy: From data to Mapping. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 220–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AOPK ČR. Nálezová Databáze Ochrany Přírody [Species Occurrence Database], Online Database. Agency of Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic, Prague. 2019. Available online: https://portal.nature.cz/nd/ (accessed on 31 August 2020).
- PLADIAS. Databáze České Flóry a Vegetace [Pladias—Database of the Czech Flora and Vegetation]. 2019. Available online: http://pladias.cz/ (accessed on 31 August 2020).
- FiNDB. Nálezová Databáze Biotopů [Habitat Occurrence Database], Online Database. Agency of Nature Conservation and Land-scape Protection of the Czech Republic, Prague. 2019. Available online: https://portal.nature.cz/mb/mb_nalez.php?X=X (accessed on 31 August 2020).
- Chytrý, M.; Kučera, T.; Kočí, M.; Grulich, V.; Lustyk, P. (Eds.) Katalog biotopů České republiky (Habitat Catalogue of the Czech Republic), 2nd ed.; Agency of Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection: Prague, Czech Republic, 2010; p. 445. ISBN 978-80-87457-02-3. [Google Scholar]
- Härtel, H.; Lončáková, J.; Hošek, M. (Eds.) Mapování Biotopů v České Republice. In Východiska, Výsledky, Perspektivy [Habitat Mapping in the Czech Republic. Starting Points, Results, Perspectives]; Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic: Praha, Czech Republic, 2009; p. 196. ISBN 978-80-87051-36-8. [Google Scholar]
- Guth, J.; Kučera, T. Natura 2000 Habitat Mapping in the Czech Republic: Methods and General Results. Ekológia 2005, 24, 39–51. [Google Scholar]
- Chytrý, M.; Hájek, M.; Kočí, M.; Pešout, P.; Roleček, J.; Sádlo, J.; Šumberová, K.; Sychra, J.; Boublík, K.; Douda, J.; et al. Red List of Habitats of the Czech Republic. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 106, 105446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pechanec, V.; Machar, I.; Sterbova, L.; Prokopova, M.; Kilianova, H.; Chobot, K.; Cudlin, P. Monetary Valuation of Natural Forest Habitats in Protected Areas. Forest 2017, 8, 427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nowotny, G.; Hinterstoisser, H. Biotopkartierung Salzburg: Kartierungsanleitung; Naturschutz-Beiträge 14/94; Referat 13/02; Naturschutz; Amt der Salzburger Landesregierung: Salzburg, Austria, 1994; p. 247. [Google Scholar]
- Nowotny, G. Praktische Anwendungen der Biotopkartierung in Salzburg (Österreich). Sauteria 1999, 10, 175–186. [Google Scholar]
- Keusch, C.; Kirchmeir, H.; Jungmeier, M. Terrestrial Habitat-Mapping within the Hohe Tauern National Park—Methods and results. In Proceedings of the 4th Symposium of the Hohe Tauern National Park, Kaprun, Austria, 17–19 September 2009; pp. 177–182. [Google Scholar]
- Hoffmann-Kroll, R.; Schäfer, D.; Seibel, S. Landscape Indicators from Ecological Area Sampling in Germany. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 98, 363–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noss, R.F.; LaRoe, E.T.; Scott, J.M. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation; National Biological Service, US Department of the Interior: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; Volume 28, p. 58.
- Godefroid, S.; Koedam, N. Identifying Indicator Plant Species of Habitat Quality and Invasibility as a Guide for Peri-Urban Forest Management. Biodivers. Conserv. 2003, 12, 1699–1713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cousins, S.A.O.; Ihse, M. A Methodological Study for Biotope and Landscape Mapping Based on CIR Aerial Photographs. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1998, 41, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blab, J.; Riecken, U.; Ssymank, A. Proposal on a Criteria System for a National Red Data Book of Biotopes. Landsc. Ecol. 1995, 10, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ssymank, A.; Hauke, U.; Rückriem, C.H.; Schröder, E. Das Europäische Schutzgebietssystem Natura 2000: BfN-Handbuch zur Umsetzung der Fauna-Flora-Habitat-Richtlinie (92/43/EWG) und der Vogelschutzrichtlinie (79/409/EWG); Bundesamt für Naturschutz: Bonn-Bad Godesberg, Germany, 1998; p. 560. [Google Scholar]
- Stanová, V.; Valachovič, M. (Eds.) Katalóg Biotopov Slovenska [Habitat Catalogue of the Slovakia]; Daphne, Inštitut Aplikovanej Biológie: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2002; p. 225. ISBN 80-89133-00-2. [Google Scholar]
- Wotavová, K.; Balounová, Z.; Kindlmann, P. Factors Affecting Persistence of Terrestrial Orchids in Wet Meadows and Implications for Their Conservation in a Changing Agricultural Landscape. Biol. Conserv. 2004, 118, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sádlo, J.; Chytrý, M.; Pyšek, P. Regional Species Pools of Vascular Plants in Habitats of the Czech Republic. Preslia 2007, 79, 303–321. [Google Scholar]
- Zelený, D.; Chytrý, M. Ecological Specialization Indices for Species of the Czech Flora. Preslia 2019, 91, 93–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AOPK CR. Vrstva Mapování Biotopů. Rozšíření Biotopů na Území ČR [Habitat Mapping Layer. Distribution of Habitats in the Czech Republic]. Version 2019. Agency of Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic, Prague. 2019. Available online: https://data.nature.cz/ds/21 (accessed on 31 August 2020).
- Naiman, R.J.; Decamps, H.; Mc Clain, M.E. Riparia: Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Streamside Communities; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; p. 541. [Google Scholar]
- Salek, L.; Sivacioglu, A.; Topacoglu, O.; Zahradnik, D.; Jerabkova, L.; Machar, I. Crowns of Old Remnant Oak Standards. Fresenius Environ. Bulletin 2017, 26, 4023–4032. [Google Scholar]
- Ramsar Convention. Convention on Wetlands of Internationale Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat. Final Text Accepted. In Proceedings of the Internationale Conference on the Wertlands and Waterfowl, Ramsar, Iran, 2 February 1971; Available online: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/current_convention_text_e.pdf (accessed on 31 August 2020).
- Huston, M.A. Biological Diversity: The Coexistence of Species on Changing Landscapes; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1995; p. 681. ISBN 0-521-360935. [Google Scholar]
- Měkotová, J.; Šarapatka, B.; Štěrba, O.; Harper, D.M. Restoration of a River Landscape: Biotopes as a Basis for Quantifi-Cation of Species Diversity and Evaluation of Landscape Quality. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2006, 6, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pyšek, P.; Prach, K. Plant Invasions and the Role of Riparian Habitats: A Comparison of Four Species Alien to Central Europe. J. Biogeogr. 1993, 20, 413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grootjans, A.P.; Alserda, A.; Bekker, R.E.M.; Janáková, M.; Kemmers, R.F.; Madaras, M.; Stanová, V.; Ripka, J.; van Delft, B.; Wołejko, L. Calcareous Spring Mires in Slovakia; Jewels in the Crown of the Mire Kingdom. In Moore–von Sibirien bis Feuerland (Mires—From Siberia to Tierra del Fuego); Steiner, G.M., Ed.; Stapfia: Linz, Austria, 2005; Volume 85, pp. 97–115. [Google Scholar]
- Hájek, M. Vascular Plants. In Ecology and Palaeoecology of Spring Fens in the Western Part of the Carpathians; Poulíčková, A., Hájek, M., Rybníček, K., Eds.; Palacký University Olomouc: Olomouc, Czech Republic, 2005; pp. 63–68. ISBN 80-244-1071-0. [Google Scholar]
- Wassen, M.J.; Olde Venterink, H.; Lapshina, E.D.; Tanneberger, F. Endangered Plants Persist under Phosphorus Limitation. Nature 2005, 437, 547–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kollmann, J.; Poschlod, P. Population Processes at the Grassland-Scrub Interface. Phytocoenologia 1997, 27, 235–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Łuczaj, L.; Sadowska, B. Edge Effect in Different Gross of Organisms: Vascular Plants, Bryophyte and Fungi Species Richness across a Forest–Grassland Border. Folia Geobot. 1997, 32, 343–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baba, W. The Species Composition and Dynamics in Well-Preserved and Restored Calcareous Xerothermic Grasslands (South Poland). Biologia 2004, 59, 447–456. [Google Scholar]
- Pykälä, J.; Luoto, M.; Heikkinen, R.K.; Kontula, T. Plant Species Richness and Persistence of Rare Plants in Abandoned Semi-natural Grasslands in Northern Europe. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2005, 6, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahmen, S.; Poschlod, P.; Schreiber, K.F. Conservation Management of Calcareous Grasslands. Changes in Plant Species Composition and Response of Functional Traits during 25 Years. Biol. Conserv. 2002, 104, 319–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacquemyn, H.; Van Mechelen, C.; Brys, R.; Honnay, O. Management Effects on the Vegetation and Soil Seed Bank of Calcareous Grasslands: An 11-Year Experiment. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 416–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poschlod, P.; Hoffmann, J.; Bernhardt-Römermann, M. Effect of Grassland Management on the Age and Reproduction Structure of Helianthemum Nummularium and Lotus Corniculatus Populations. Preslia 2011, 83, 421–435. [Google Scholar]
- Vassilev, K.; Pedashenko, H.; Nikolov, S.C.; Apostolova, I.; Dengler, J. Effect of Land Abandonment on the Vegetation of Upland Semi-natural Grasslands in the Western Balkan Mts, Bulgaria. Plant Biosyst.—Int. J. Deal. Asp. Plant Biol. 2011, 145, 654–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lustyk, P. Metodika Aktualizace Vrstvy Mapování Biotopů [Updates of the Habitat Mapping Layer Methodology]; Agency of Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic: Prague, Czech Republic, 2019; Available online: http://portal.nature.cz/ (accessed on 31 August 2020).
- Lustyk, P. (Ed.) Příručka Hodnocení Biotopů [Habitat Assessment Guide]; Agency of Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection: Prague, Czech Republic, 2019; p. 480. Available online: http://portal.nature.cz/ (accessed on 31 August 2020).
- Slavík, B. Metodika Síťového Mapování ve Vztahu k Připravovanému Fytogeografickému Atlasu ČSR [Methods of Grid Mapping in Relation to the Phytogeographical Atlas of the Czech Socialist Republic, Currently under Preparation]. Zprávy Čs. Bot. Společ. 1971, 6, 55–62. [Google Scholar]
- Lustyk, P.; Oušková, V. Vrstva mapování biotopů a její aktualizace—první možnosti srovnání dat [Habitat Mapping Layer and Its Updating—the First Possibilities of Data Comparison]. Ochrana Přírody 2011, 66, 20–22. [Google Scholar]
- Thiers, B. Index Herbariorum: A Global Directory of Public Herbaria and Associated Staff. New York Botanical Gar-den’s Virtual Herbarium. Available online: http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/ih/ (accessed on 31 August 2020).
- Kaplan, Z.; Danihelka, J.; Štěpánková, J.; Bureš, P.; Zázvorka, J.; Hroudová, Z.; Ducháček, M.; Grulich, V.; Řepka, R.; Dančák, M.; et al. Distributions of Vascular Plants in the Czech Republic. Part 1. [Electronic Appendices 1–75, www.preslia.cz]. Preslia 2015, 87, 417–500. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan, Z.; Danihelka, J.; Štěpánková, J.; Ekrt, L.; Chrtek, J., Jr.; Zázvorka, J.; Grulich, V.; Řepka, R.; Prančl, J.; Ducháček, M.; et al. Distributions of Vascular Plants in the Czech Republic. Part 2. Preslia 2016, 88, 229–322. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan, Z.; Koutecký, P.; Danihelka, J.; Šumberová, K.; Ducháček, M.; Štěpánková, J.; Ekrt, L.; Grulich, V.; Řepka, R.; Kubát, K.; et al. Distributions of Vascular Plants in the Czech Republic. Part 6. Preslia 2018, 90, 235–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, Z.; Danihelka, J.; Chrtek, J., Jr.; Kirschner, J.; Kubát, K.; Štech, M.; Štěpánek, J. (Eds.) The Czech Academy of Sciences. Klíč ke květeně České republiky (Key to the Flora of the Czech Republic), 2nd ed.; Academia, Praha: Prague, Czech Republic, 2019; p. 1168. [Google Scholar]
- IUCN. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria; Version 14; IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee: Gland, Switzerland, 2019; p. 113. Available online: http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf (accessed on 31 August 2020).
- Fischer, M.; Stöcklin, J. Local Extinctions of Plants in Remnants of Extensively Used Calcareous Grasslands 1950–1985. Conserv. Biol. 1997, 11, 727–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dostálek, T.; Münzbergová, Z. Habitat Requirements and Host Selectivity of Thesium Species (Santalaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2010, 164, 394–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodgson, J. Commonness and Rarity in Plants with Special Reference to the Sheffield Flora Part I: The Identity, Distribution and Habitat Characteristics of the Common and Rare Species. Biol. Conserv. 1986, 36, 199–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Village, Locality | GPS_X | GPS_Y | Quadrant | Polygon ID | Habitat Type | Habitat Degradation | Habitat Structure and Functions | Habitat Quality |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kostelecké Horky, Na Kadeřávkách | 50.058944 | 16.189667 | 5963a | outside the mapped area | – | – | – | unknown |
Třeboc, Kočičí díra | 50.221389 | 13.773611 | 5748d | outside the mapped area | – | – | – | unknown |
Malíkovice, Červený creek | 50.211791 | 13.95156 | 5749d | outside the mapped area | – | – | – | unknown |
Vašírov, Tuchlovický creek | 50.137297 | 13.954587 | 5849d | outside the mapped area | – | – | – | unknown |
Předonín | 50.438889 | 14.338333 | 5552c | outside the mapped area | – | – | – | unknown |
Lysá nad Labem, Mlynařice | 50.200859 | 14.814483 | 5754d | outside the mapped area | – | – | – | unknown |
Mravín, Mentourský creek | 49.938139 | 16.041528 | 6062c | outside the mapped area | – | – | – | unknown |
Dražejov, Vrabcov valley | 50.520564 | 14.533362 | 5453c | outside the mapped area | – | – | – | unknown |
Hutisko, Díly | 49.42172 | 18.18534 | 6575c | 14780208 | R2.1 | 0 | FV | 1 |
Karlov pod Pradědem, Praděd, Malá kotlina | 50.039389 | 17.209556 | 5969c | 7820732 | R2.2 | 0 | FV | 1 |
Mcely, Čtvrtě | 50.299941 | 15.068962 | 5758a | 29830106 | M1.1 | 1 | FV | 1 |
Opatov, Pod Farským | 49.827639 | 16.488639 | 6164d | 23280308 | R2.1 | 1 | FV | 1 |
Vidnava, Vidnavské mokřiny | 50.38581 | 17.20135 | 5669a | 29110100 | R2.2 | 1 | FV | 1 |
Staré Splavy, Jestřebské slatiny | 50.6025 | 14.621944 | 5353d | 3490609 | R2.1 | 2 | FV | 2 |
Rašovice, fishpond | 50.155564 | 16.127456 | 5862b | 27580012 | M1.1 | 2 | U1 | 2 |
Hřibiny, Střezm | 50.146194 | 16.164722 | 5862d | 27430272 | T1.9 | 1 | U1 | 2 |
Provodín, sand pit | 50.619247 | 14.598344 | 5353d | 3491082 | R2.3 | 2 | U1 | 2 |
Bílá, Smutné valley | 49.414545 | 18.45132 | 6576d | 14770262 | R2.1 | 1 | U1 | 2 |
Kněžičky, Dlouhopolsko | 50.168211 | 15.317271 | 5857b | 28140088 | R2.1 | 2 | U2 | 3 |
Semanín, Semanínská střelnice | 49.8575 | 16.455278 | 6164b | 23050322 | T1.5 | 3 | U1 | 3 |
Lysá nad Labem, Hrabanovská černava | 50.218485 | 14.839084 | 5755c | 8630037 | T1.5 | 3 | U2 | 4 |
Bílichov, Smradovna | 50.262293 | 13.88649 | 5749a | 30910039 | R2.1 | 3 | U2 | 4 |
Chudíř, Dubnický fishpond | 50.300981 | 15.008088 | 5656c | 1730106 | T1.9 | 3 | U2 | 4 |
Species/Most Frequent Habitat [32] | Total Number of Occurrences | Quality | Group | Current Red List [22] | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||||
Carex appropinquata | 786 | 215 | 148 | 304 | 45 | 74 | a | C3/NT |
– | M1.7, T1.5, R2.2, T1.6 | T1.5, L2.2, M1.7, T1.6 | T1.5, M1.7, T1.9, L2.2 | M1.7, T1.5, L2.2, X7 | ||||
Rosa agrestis | 391 | 171 | 37 | 94 | 25 | 64 | a | C4b/DD |
– | K3, T3.3, T3.4 | K3, T3.4, T3.3, T5.5 | K3, L7.1 | K3, X9 | ||||
Rosa spinosissima | 252 | 43 | 93 | 89 | 4 | 23 | a | C2b/VU |
– | K4C, T3.3, K3, T4.1 | T3.4, T3.3, K3, T3.5 | T3.4 | T3.4, X9, K3 | ||||
Carex lepidocarpa | 128 | 41 | 24 | 41 | 10 | 12 | a | C2t/EN |
– | R2.2, R2.1, T1.9, L1 | R2.1, T1.9, R1.1, R2.2 | T1.9, R2.1 | R2.1, T1.5, T1.9 | ||||
Teucrium scordium | 120 | 53 | 21 | 25 | 6 | 15 | a | C2b/EN |
– | M1.1, M1.7, T1.9 | M1.7, M1.1 | M1.1 | X7, M1.7, T1.7 | ||||
Cardamine matthioli | 206 | 61 | 14 | 54 | 12 | 65 | c | C4a/NT |
– | T1.7, T1.4 | T1.7, T1.4, M1.7, T1.1 | T1.7, M1.7 | T1.7, X7, M1.7 | ||||
Gratiola officinalis | 134 | 41 | 8 | 26 | 10 | 49 | c | C2t/EN |
– | T1.7, M1.7 | T1.7, M1.7, T1.9 | T1.7, M1.7 | T1.7, M1.7, X7 | ||||
Rosa micrantha | 49 | 13 | 12 | 20 | 0 | 4 | ab | C3/VU |
– | K3, T3.3 | K3, L3.1 | – | K3 | ||||
Carex cespitosa | 1145 | 268 | 108 | 506 | 81 | 182 | bc | C4a/NT |
– | T1.5, M1.7, L2.2, T1.6 | T1.5, T1.6, M1.7, L2.2 | T1.5, T1.6, M1.7, L2.2 | T1.5, M1.7, T1.6, X7 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lustyk, P.; Vahalík, P. Threat Degree Classification According to Habitat Quality: A Case Study from the Czech Republic. Forests 2021, 12, 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12010085
Lustyk P, Vahalík P. Threat Degree Classification According to Habitat Quality: A Case Study from the Czech Republic. Forests. 2021; 12(1):85. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12010085
Chicago/Turabian StyleLustyk, Pavel, and Petr Vahalík. 2021. "Threat Degree Classification According to Habitat Quality: A Case Study from the Czech Republic" Forests 12, no. 1: 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12010085
APA StyleLustyk, P., & Vahalík, P. (2021). Threat Degree Classification According to Habitat Quality: A Case Study from the Czech Republic. Forests, 12(1), 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12010085