Typical species




Дата канвертавання19.04.2016
Памер38.96 Kb.
Discussion paper on
TYPICAL SPECIES
by Doug Evans (ETC/BD)
For the conservation status of a habitat to be considered as ‘favourable’ “the conservation status of its typical species is favourable as defined in (i)” (Art 1e). However typical species are not defined in the directive.
The reporting format for Article 17 treats typical species as a component of the parameter ‘structure & functions’ but also asks MS to list the species which they considered. It is clear from the reports covering 2001-2006 that different countries have used widely differing interpretations of the term ‘typical species’ and this means that the lists provided are of limited value and that the treatment of typical species should be improved for the next reporting cycle.
Denmark did not list any typical species in its Article 17 reports although they presumably took them into account in assessing ‘structure & function’ while the United Kingdom only reported typical species for 21 of its 78 habitats with an average of 9 species per habitat (habitats with typical species only). Other countries such as the Czech Republic reported long lists (average 38 species per habitat).
Despite much variation in the choice of typical species for most habitats there are several species noted as ‘typical’ by four or more countries, as shown by the following examples


1110

MBAL

Gavia arctica

4

DE, LV, PL, SE

1110

MBAL

Gavia stellata

4

DE, LV, PL, SE

1110

MBAL

Platichthys flesus

4

DE, FI, SE, PL

1110

MBAL

Zostera marina

5

EE, FI, DE, LV, SE
















1110

MMED

Cymodocea nodosa

4

CY, GR, IT, ES




1210

ATL

Cakile maritima

5

DE, IE, ES, FR, GB

1210

ATL

Salsola kali

4

DE, FR, IE, ES
















1210

CON

Cakile maritima

5

DE, IT, SE, SI, PL

1210

CON

Salsola kali

4

DE, IT, PL, SE
















1210

MED

Euphorbia peplis

4

FR, GR, ES, MT

1210

MED

Polygonum maritimum

6

CY, FR, GR, IT, ES, MT

1210

MED

Salsola kali

6

CY, GR, IT, ES, MT, FR




9130

ALP

Abies alba

5

DE, IT, PL, SK, ES

9130

ALP

Fagus sylvatica

6

AT, DE, IT, PL, SK, ES

9130

ALP

Galium odoratum

4

DE, PL, SK, ES

9130

ATL

Melica uniflora

4

BE, DE, FR, GB
















9130

CON

Abies alba

4

CZ, DE, FR, IT

9130

CON

Dentaria bulbifera

4

AT, CZ, DE, PL

9130

CON

Dentaria enneaphyllos

4

AT, CZ, DE, PL

9130

CON

Fagus sylvatica

7

AT, CZ, DE, FR, IT, LU, PL

9130

CON

Galium odoratum

6

BE, CZ, DE, FR, LU, SE

9130

CON

Melica uniflora

7

BE, CZ, DE, FR, LU, PL, SE

9130

CON

Mercurialis perennis

4

BE, CZ, DE, SE

It might have been expected that a species such as Fagus sylvatica which is the canopy forming dominant of habitat 9130 Asperulo-Fagetum beech forestswould have been selected as ‘typical species’ for that habitat by all MS but this is not the case. Similarly many countries did not consider Nardus stricta as a typical species for 6230*Species-rich Nardus grasslands, on siliceous substrates in mountain areas (and submountain areas in Continental Europe)


The large majority of species listed are plants, although some birds and invertebrates are also noted.
It would be possible to produce lists such as those shown above but in many cases it is not clear why those particular species have been chosen and not others.
If it is not possible to find agreement on a unified list of typical species per region for each habitat an alternative approach may be to consider species groups in relation to structure and function for groups of habitats.
For example, for a forest habitat to be in favourable conservation status the following groups must also be favourable:

Canopy dominants (linked to structure)

Shrub layer (linked to structure)

Herb layer (linked to structure)

Epiphytes (linked to structure)

Herbivores (linked to structure)



Fungi (linked to function)
Therefore, Member States would be asked to note the condition of each group. This would allow the identification of the factors responsible for a poor conservation status.
This possible approach appears to be compatible with the proposal from the Finnish colleagues (Petri Ahlroth and Anne Raunio) on structure and functions (see e-mail of 15/09/2008).

The full list of typical species reported by MS for all habitat types (36 888 records!) is given in the attached Excel sheet: Typical_species.xls





База данных защищена авторским правом ©shkola.of.by 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка