Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Ochrona zwierzat w projektowanej sieci Natura 2000 w Polsce

100%

Makomaska-Juchiewicz M.

|

2004

|

nr 2

8-12

2

Natura 2000: szansa na sukces

84%

Makomaska-Juchiewicz M. , Perzanowska J.

|

2004

|

nr 10

5-17

3

Natura 2000. Projektowana siec Natura 2000 w Polsce a krajowy system obszarow chronionych

84%

Makomaska-Juchiewicz M. , Tworek S.

|

nr 4

2-9

4

Monitoring gatunków zwierząt i roślin w Polsce w latach 2009-2014

84%

Makomaska-Juchiewicz M. , Perzanowska J.

Chrońmy Przyrodę Ojczystą

|

2015

|

tom 71

|

nr 6

PL

W latach 2009-2014 prowadzono terenowe prace monitoringowe w ramach projektu „Monitoring gatunków i siedlisk przyrodniczych ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem specjalnych obszarów ochrony siedlisk Natura 2000 - faza III i faza IV". Była to kontynuacja prac będących częścią Państwowego Monitoringu Środowiska, rozpoczętych w latach 2006-2008. Tak jak poprzednio, koordynował je Instytut Ochrony Przyrody PAN na zlecenie Głównego Inspektoratu Ochrony Środowiska. Głównym celem projektu było opracowanie metodyk monitoringu gatunków i siedlisk przyrodniczych, ocena stanu populacji i siedlisk gatunków oraz struktury i funkcji siedlisk przyrodniczych na wybranych stanowiskach i obszarach Natura 2000. Efektem prac było także przygotowanie raportów dla Komisji Europejskiej na temat stanu ochrony gatunków i siedlisk o znaczeniu wspólnotowym na poziomie regionów biogeograficznych. W niniejszym artykule przedstawiono zakres i wyniki prac monitoringowych wykonanych w latach 2009-2014 w odniesieniu do gatunków zwierząt i roślin.

EN

In the years 2009-2014, the Institute for Nature Conservation of the Polish Academy of Science coordinated the monitoring project entitled "Monitoring of species and natural habitats with particular regard to special areas of conservation of the Natura 2000 network - the 3rd and 4th phases". The project was implemented within the framework of the State Monitoring of Environment, supervised by the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection and financed by the National Fund of Environmental Protection. The main objectives of the project were to develop monitoring methods for particular species and natural habitats and to conduct a monitoring survey in selected localities situated inside and outside the Natura 2000 network. The survey focused on the assessment of the status of populations and habitats of species, and the structure and functions of natural habitats. The results of monitoring were used as a basis of reports submitted to the European Commission on the conservation status of species and habitats in the biogeographical regions. Organization and methodical assumptions, as well as the results of the 1st and 2nd phases of the monitoring program were presented, among others, in the "Chrońmy Przyrodę Ojczystą" (Makomaska-Juchiewicz et al. 2009). In the years 2009-2014, the project was continued. There were monitored 96 animal species at more than 2200 sites and 60 plant species, at 705 sites. Some species were surveyed twice in this period. For most of the plant species, the monitored sites are a good representation of their populations. The results of the monitoring project indicated that the conservation status of animal species was favourable at only 31% of the surveyed sites. At most of the sites, the status was unfavourable: inadequate U1 (at 31.4% of the sites and bad U2 at 30.4% of the sites (Fig. 4). Of the three parameters of the conservation status, the population got the lowest score. This parameter had the lowest percentage of FV (39%) and the highest percentage of U2 (27.6%) (Fig. 5). The best assessed parameter was the habitat of species. The comparison of the monitoring results between the two biogeographical regions did not show large differences in the conservation status of animal species. In the alpine region, however, the percentage of sites with bad conservation status was lower and the quality of species' habitats was better than in the continental region (Figs 6, 7). For more than half of the surveyed animal species (61.5%), the monitoring results allowed to conclude on their conservation status at a national level (Fig. 8). For other species, the sample of the surveyed sites was too small. The results of the monitoring of plant species were similar. The conservation status of plant species was also unfavourable at most of the monitored sites. The percentage of favourable assessments (FV) was only 30%, while that of unfavourable-inadequate (U1) amounted to 36% and that of unfavourable-bad - 32.7% (Fig. 9). It was the status of habitats which decided about the assessment of the overall conservation status as U1, while the bad conservation status U2 was most often the result of the bad status of populations (Fig. 10). Future prospects were the best assessed parameter; it was favourable at about 50% of the sites. It has been found that the conservation status of plant species is better in the alpine region where it was assessed as favourable at about 45% of the surveyed sites, and as bad at only 17.5%. In the continental region, the respective values amounted to 24.9% and 38.3%. The percentage of sites with unfavourable-inadequate U1 conservation status of plant species were similar in both regions - about 36% (Fig. 11). Assessments of particular parameters of conservation status are also better in the alpine region, especially of the habitat and future prospects (Fig. 12). Assessments of the conservation status at the monitored sites were used to conclude on the conservation status of plant species in the country (Fig. 13).

5

The projected Natura 2000 network in Poland: a need for supplementing the governmental list of proposed sites of community importance

84%

Makomaska-Juchiewicz M. , Tworek S.

Nature Conservation

|

2005

|

tom 61

65-75

6

Natura 2000 - koherentny system ochrony przyrody w Europie [2]

84%

Dyduch-Falniowska A. , Makomaska-Juchiewicz M.

|

nr 11

4-6

7

Natura 2000 - stan prac w Polsce

84%

Makomaska-Juchiewicz M. , Perzanowska J.

Aura

|

2002

|

nr 11

8-9

EN

We have already discussed the Natura 2000 programme, which forms part of the paneuropean biodiversity and landscape diversification, in issues 10-11 in 1999. In their article, the two authors write about the rules of designating areas for inclusion in Natura 2000 network and works on its implementation.

PL

O zasadach działania programu Natura 2000, będącego częścią paneuropejskiej strategii różnorodności biologicznej i krajobrazowej, pisaliśmy w nrach 10-11 w 1999 r. W tym artykule autorki piszą o zasadach wyznaczania obszarów, kwalifikujących się do włączenia do sieci Natura 2000, pracach nad koncepcją sieci i jej wdrażaniu.

8

Z postepow w ochronie przyrody

84%

Makomaska-Juchiewicz M.

Chrońmy Przyrodę Ojczystą

|

1999

|

tom 55

|

nr 1

60-70

9

Wspomnienie o Annie Dyduch-Falniowskiej [1953-2002]

67%

Makomaska-Juchiewicz M. , Grzegorczyk M. , Perzanowska J.

|

nr 1

5-10

10

Monitoring wybranych typow siedlisk przyrodniczych i gatunkow w Polsce w latach 2006-2008

67%

Makomaska-Juchiewicz M. , Cierlik G. , Mroz W. , Perzanowska J.

|

nr 3

163-180

PL

W latach 2006–2008 Instytut Ochrony Przyrody PAN koordynował projekt, zlecony przez Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska, p.t. Monitoring gatunków i siedlisk przyrodniczych ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem specjalnych obszarów ochrony siedlisk Natura 2000. Głównym celem tego zadania było wypracowanie podstaw organizacyjnych i metodycznych systemu monitoringu przyrodniczego, zgodnego z wymogami prawa unijnego i potrzebami krajowej ochrony przyrody. W artykule omówiono założenia i sposób prowadzenia prac oraz ich wyniki, pozwalające na ocenę stanu ochrony wybranych siedlisk przyrodniczych i gatunków na poziomie badanych stanowisk, obszarów Natura 2000 i regionów biogeograficznych

EN

According to the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive), the Member States of the European Community are obliged to undertake the surveillance of the conservation status of the natural habitat types and species covered by the Annexes I, II, IV and V of this Directive and report on the results of this surveillance each 6 years. To meet these requirements the project entitled Monitoring of species and natural habitats, with particular reference to the special areas of conservation of the Natura 2000 network – phase I and II was carried out in Poland in the years 2006–2008. The project was supervised by the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection, financed by the National Fund of Environmental Protection, and coordinated by the Institute of Nature Conservation PAS in Kraków. The main goals of the project were to develop and implement monitoring schemes for selected habitat types and species, especially those defined as “priority” ones, and assess their conservation status on the basis of monitoring results. Studies were carried out in localities situated mostly in the proposed sites of Community importance of the Natura 2000 network but also outside the network. The scope of data collected at a locality level was based on guidelines for reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. Conservation status of a habitat type at a monitoring locality was determined on the basis of three parameters: habitat area, structure and functions and future prospects, while conservation status of species, on such parameters as population, habitat of species and future prospects. Selected indices were used do assess the current status of “habitat structure and functions”, “population of species” and “habitat of species”. Future prospects were judged by experts on the basis of e.g. identified main pressures and threats, current conservation status, already applied conservation measures etc. Indices and parameters of conservation status were valuated in a three-level scale: FV – favorable, U1 – unfavorable/inadequate, U2 – unfavorable/bad. The 2006–2008 monitoring was the first monitoring of habitat types in Poland. It covered 20 habitat types, including grey dunes, raised bogs, various types of grasslands and forests. These were both rare habitat types occurring locally at isolated sites and widely spread habitat types. Generally, the conservation status has been assessed as favorable only at 30% of the investigated localities situated within the Natura 2000 area and at mere 20% of the localities situated outside the Natura 2000 sites. In addition, future prospects have been assessed as inadequate (U1) or bad (U2) at 60% of the localities within the Natura 2000 sites, which suggests that many negative pressures and threats have been identified. Unfavorable (U1 or U2) conservation status was often assessed for semi-natural habitats, whose maintenance requires extensive mowing or grazing. Unfavorable conservation status was also determined for habitat types vulnerable to changes in water conditions (drainage, lowering of groundwater level, lack of regular flooding). The 16 plant species, included in the 2006–2008 monitorning, represented various types of environments. Most of them are extremely rare. The monitoring results showed that almost 40% of the priority species, including some considered as threatened in the country, were in favorable conservation status (FV). Yet, it should be stressed that some of the investigated priority species are connected with relatively well preserved, mountain habitats. Generally, at most localities the status of plant species was assessed as inadequate (35%) or bad (18%). Most often, it was the status of habitat of species that decided about the overall unfavorable conservation status of the species. The data collected allow to indicate these localties, which require special attention and urgent conservation measures. The 2006–2008 monitoring studies contributed much to the knowledge about the occurrence of some species (i.e. Serratula lycopifolia, Galium sudeticum, Cochlearia tatrae, Campanula serrata, Erysimum pieninicum, Liparis loeselii). 180 Chrońmy Przyr. Ojcz. rocznik 65, zeszyt 3, 2009. The 2006–2008 monitoring programme was focused on 20 animal species, including the widely distributed species, still abundant and known from numerous localities (Ophiogomphus cecilia, Triturus cristatus), as well as rare species of very restricted distribution (Phryganophilus ruficollis, Pseudogaurotina excellens), and even species of uncertain occurrence in Poland (Xylomoia strix). The results of the monitoring revwealed the inadequate (U1) conservation status of most species at most localities, which was an effect of inadequate status of both population and habitat of species. For some invertebrates of elusive, cryptic lifestyle (Callimorpha quadripunctaria, Osmoderma eremita, Rosalia alpina) it was impossible to assess unambiguously their population status at certain localities. In the case of 13 animal species, the selection of monitoring localities allowed to draw conclusions on their conservation status at a biogeographical region level. Four of these species (Ophiogomphus cecilia, Phryganophilus ruficollis, Callimorpha quadripunctaria, Marmota marmota) were found to be in favourable conservation status (FV), eight species – in inadequate (U1) and one species (Spermophilus suslicus) in bad (U2). One of the significant results of the 2006–2008 monitoring programme was an improvement of the knowledge of the occurrence of some species (Pseudogurotina excellens, Rosalia alpina, Callimorpha quadripunctaria, Triturus cristatus). The results of the 2006–2008 monitoring will be used for elaboration of the report on the conservation status of habitat types and species of Community interest in 2013. Foremost, these results should be used for planning and implementing conservation measures aimed to improve the conservation status of habitats and species at these localities where it is unfavorable. In view of the limited financial resources for nature conservation, monitoring results could be a useful tool for the optimisation of conservation actions regarding both the subject and place of the planned activity.

11

Rola sieci Natura 2000 w ochronie europejskiego dziedzictwa przyrodniczego

67%

Cierlik G. , Makomaska-Juchiewicz M. , Tworek S.

|

2005

|

tom 16

|

nr 1-2

3-13

12

The model for assessing of natural, landscape, scientific and educational values of national parks in Poland

67%

Tworek S. , Makomaska-Juchiewicz M. , Mroz W.

Nature Conservation

|

2004

|

tom 60

13-22

13

Dyrektywa Siedliskowa - wystepujace w Polsce gatunki wazne dla Wspolnoty Europejskiej

67%

Makomaska-Juchiewicz M. , Perzanowska J. , Zajac K.

Chrońmy Przyrodę Ojczystą

|

2001

|

tom 57

|

nr 2

5-60

14

Helix pomatia - protection and exploitation in the Malopolska region

59%

Dyduch-Falniowska A. , Makomaska-Juchiewicz M. , Perzanowska-Sucharska J. , Tworek S. , Zajac K.

|

tom 08

|

nr 4

15

Siec obszarow chronionych Emerald

51%

Dyduch-Falniowska A. , Tworek S. , Makomaska-Juchiewicz M. , Perzanowska J. , Cierlik G. , Mroz W.

Chrońmy Przyrodę Ojczystą

|

2002

|

tom 58

|

nr 4

60-70

16

Dlaczego jestesmy przeciwko Zimowym Igrzyskom Olimpijskim w Karpatach Polskich

43%

Witkowski Z. , Dyduch-Falniowska A. , Makomaska-Juchiewicz M. , Kotulski M. , Kozubek E. , Perzanowska J. , Serfin R. , Skawinski P.

Chrońmy Przyrodę Ojczystą

|

1997

|

tom 53

|

nr 5

10-25