4. Conclusion When compared with other mires in the zone, Ypyssuo mire system is firstly exceptionally large. The mire system is completely pristine. Only in largest mineral soil islands there have been loggings in the 1970s and 1980s, but the mire has not been damaged. Wooded mire sites are in an exceptionally natural state when compared with similar sites in Finland. In natural state the mire -Peat increment (mm yr ) --Carbon accumulation (g m yr ) system is a very important storage of carbon. In Finland there are even almost equally valuable aapamire systems only in Lapland, e.g. in Vuotos area (Kukko-oja et al. 2003), and the most remarkable aapamire system, Posoaapa mire was drowned in 1967 in Lokka reservoir (Hyrinen 1972).
On mire massif level there are various aapamires with a great variation in structures and ecohydrology, eccentric bogs, Sphagnum fuscum bogs without clear patterning and one concentric bog. Most of the typical site types for the zone can be found in the mire, as well as plant species. Especially bird flora seems to be rich, but there is only very little concrete data. Wild forest reindeer and wolverine were observed in the area during the winter peat sampling. All this proves that the conservation value of Ypyssuo mire is very high, as estimated by Botch & Kuznetsov (1999).
References Antipin, V., Heikkil, R., Lindholm, T. & Tokarev, P. 1997: Vegetation of Lishkmokh mire in Vodlozersky National Park, eastern Karelian Republic, Russia. – Suo 48: 93-114.
Botch, M.S. & Kuznetsov, O.L. 1999. 2. Yupyauzhsuo. – In: Botch, M.S. (ed.).
Wetlands in Russia, Vol. 2: Important peatlands, 12-13. Wetlands International Global Series 2.
Demidov, I.N. 2003. Quaternary deposits. – Biotic diversity of Karelia:
condition of formation, communities and species. Petrozavodsk. P. 17-23.
Елина Г.А. 1981. Принципы и методы реконструкции и картирования растительности голоцена. – Л., Наука. 156 с.
Eurola, S., Hicks, S. & Kaakinen, E. 1984: Key to Finnish mire types. – In:
Moore, P. D. (ed.). European mires, 11-117. Academic Press, London.
Eurola, S., Huttunen, A. & Kukko-oja, K. 1994: Suokasvillisuusopas. – Oulanka Reports 14: 1-85.
Gorham, E. 1991. Northern peatlands: role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climatic warming. – Ecological Applications 1, 182-195.
Hmet-Ahti, L., Suominen, J., Ulvinen, T. & Uotila, P. (eds.) 1998:
Retkeilykasvio. (Field flora of Finland) 4th edition. – 656 pp.
Hnninen,P. 1992. Application of ground penetrating radar and radio wave moisture probe techniques to peatland investigations. – Geological Survey of Finland, Bulletin 361, 71.
Heikkil, R., Kuznetsov, O. & Lindholm, T. 1997. Vegetation, stratigraphy and dynamics of mires in Elimyssalo, Friendship Park. – In: Lindholm, T., Heikkil, R. & Heikkil, M. (eds.) 1997. Ecosystems, fauna and flora of the Russian-Finnish nature reserve Friendship. Suomen Ymprist 124: 63-82.
Heikkil, R., Kuznetsov, O., Lindholm, T., Aapala, K., Antipin, V., Djatshkova, T & Shevelin, P. 2001. Complexes, vegetation, flora and dynamics of Kauhaneva mire system, western Finland. – The Finnish Environment 489:197.
Ивантер, Э. В. & Кузнецов, О. Л. (ред.) 1995. Красная книга Карелии. – Петрозаводск "Карелия". 286 с.
Kotiranta, H., Uotila, P., Sulkava, S. & Peltonen S-L. (eds.) 1998. Red Data Book of East Fennoscandia. – 351 pp. Helsinki.
Kuznetsov, O. L. 2003 Mire vegetation. - Biotic diversity of Karelia: condition of formation, communities and species. Petrozavodsk. P.50-57.
Кузнецов, О.Л., Лак, Г.Ц., Чачхиани, В.Н. 1979. Озерно-болотные отложения северной Карелии в свете данных палеофлористических исследований. – Исследования торфяных месторождений. Калинин. С.3442.
Laine, J. & Vasander, H. 2005. Suotyypit ja niiden tunnistaminen. [Mire site types and their identification.] – 110 pp. with multimedia CD, Mets kirjat, Hmeenlinna.
Mkil, M., Saarnisto, M. & Kankainen, T. 2001. Aapa mires as a carbon sink and source during the Holocene. – Journal of Ecology 89, 589-599.
Martikainen, P.J. 1996. The fluxes of greenhouse gases CO2, CH4 and N2O in northern peatlands. – In: Lappalainen, E. (ed.). Global peat resources, 29-36.
International Peat Society. Jysk.
Moore, T.R., Roulet, N.T. & Waddington, J.M. 1998. Uncertainty in predicting the effect of climate change on the carbon cycling of Canadian peatlands. – Climate Change 40, 229-245.
Puranen, R., Mkil, M., Sulkanen, K. & Grundstrm, A. 1997. A new apparatus for electric conductivity and temperature logging of soft sediments.
– In: Autio, S. (ed.). Geological Survey of Finland, Current Research 19951996, 149-155. Geological Survey of Finland, Special Paper 23.
Ruuhijrvi, R. 1983. The Finnish mire types and their regional distribution. – In: Gore, A.J.P. (ed.). Mires: Swamp, Bog, Fen and Moor. Ecosystems of the World 4A, 47-67. Elsevier Publishing, Amsterdam.
Saarnisto, M. & Saarinen, T. 2001. Deglaciation chronology of the Salpausselk Ice Sheet from the Lake Onega Basin to the Salpausselk End Moraines. – Global and Planetary Change 31, 387-405.
Stuiver, M. & Reimer, P.J. 1993. Extended 14C Data Base and Revised CALIB 3.0 14C Age Calibration Program. – Radiocarbon, 35, 215-230.
Suomi, T. & Mkil, M. 2000. Maatutkaluotausten soveltuvuus keidassoiden tutkimiseen. – Geologian tutkimuskeskus, Raportti P 31.4.023. 25 s.
Tolonen, K.1967. Soiden kehityshistorian tutkimusmenetelmist II.
Turvekairoista. [On the methods of the research of the history of mire development II. Peat corers. ]. – Suo 7(6), 1-7.
Tuhkanen, S. 1984. A circumboreal system of climatic-phytogeographical regions. – Acta Botanica Fennica 127. 50 pp.
Turunen, J., Rty, A., Kutzetsov, O., Maksimov, A., Shevelin, P., Grabovik, S., Tolonen, K., Pitknen, A., Turunen, C., Merilinen, J. & Jungner, H. 2002.
Development history of Patvinsuo mire, eastern Finland. – Nature protection publications of the Finnish forest and park service A 138. 72 pp.
Ulvinen, T., Syrjnen, K. & Anttila, S. (eds.). Suomen sammalet – levinneisyys, ekologia, uhanalaisuus [Bryophytes of Finland – distribution, ecology, red list status]. – The Finnish Environment 560, 1-354.
Юрковская, Т.К. 1993. Растительный покров Карелии. – Растительный мир Карелии и проблемы его охраны. Петрозаводск. С. 8-36.
TOWARDS A FINNISH TYPOLOGY FOR CLASSIFYING BOREAL MIRE COMPLEXES AND SYSTEMS: A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH J. LAITINEN1, A. HUTTUNEN1, S. REHEL2, R. HEIKKIL3 & T. LINDHOLMDepartment of Biology, Oulu University, Finland Department of Geology, Oulu University, Finland Friendship Park Research Centre, Kuhmo, Finland Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland Introduction Mires have been classified in Finland for a long time from the point of view of vegetation and its ecology (Cajander 1913, Paasio 1933, 1936, 1941, Tuomikoski 1942, 1955, Ruuhijrvi 1960, Havas 1961, Eurola 1962, Reinikainen et al. 1984, Heikkil 1987, Tahvanainen 2005).Vegetationecological aspects of zonal mire complex types have been treated (Eurola & Kaakinen 1979) and comprehensive vegetational typologies have been in active use for nature-inventory and nature-conservation purposes (Eurola & Kaakinen 1978, Eurola et al.1984, 1995). A morphological typology for raised bogs (Aario 1932, Aartolahti 1965) is well established and corresponds to that used in Sweden (Rydin et al. 1999) and elsewhere. Instead the morphology of aapa mires, which have been regarded in Finland as another main mire complex type along with raised bogs, has not been studied as thoroughly as that of raised bogs (Sepp 1996). Some kind of morpho-ecological aapa mire types have been named on the basis of the characteristics of central parts of aapa mires (Ruuhijrvi 1983), but a general morphological typology concerning all the peatland area within a complex has been lacking.
Additionally the concept aapa mire has been understood often much more narrowly outside of Finland (e.g. Vitt et al. 1975). From the typological point of view the situation has been made complicated also by the fact that aapa mires and raised bogs very often seem to occur within same mire basins. These entities have been called mixed complexes by Tolonen (1967). Yurkovskaya (1995) in Russia uses a hierarchic classification and uses concept mire system (“macro scale”) for these kinds of entities and concept mire massif (“mesoscale”) for units in it. Poor state in aapa-mire typology and the need to clarify the hierarchy of morphological units in mire entities make a new Finnish morphological typology necessary.
The aims of the paper are (1) to clarify the concept aapa mire from the morphological point of view, (2) to suggest a general, hierarchic typology for mire areas, in which more or less typical mire-complex features are visible (cf.
Kokko et al. 2005).
Concepts Concepts classification and typology are used in the following way here:
classification refers principally to a process of making units and their grounds, typology to the result. Concepts classification scale and classification level maybe should be good to keep separate within mire typologies. Classification levels may include morphology, hydrogeology, vegetation and the developmental aspect of mire systems (Yurkovskaya 1995). Various classification levels may include several scales (macro, meso, micro etc.).
Morphological classification Morphological mire classification in general must take into consideration (1) the reality, thus the units visible in aerial pholographs, (2) the scale of units and (3) the tradition and existing concepts, if possible. In the scheme below, the Finnish tradition has been taken into consideration so that the scale two includes the traditional main mire complex types (aapa and raised mire).
Division of larger scale (scale one) includes various combinations of main mire complex types and the divisions of smaller scale(scales 3–4) include morphological subdivisions of mire complexes..
Morphology of peatlands in a very broad sense is in relation to two main factors: (1) the topography of the bedrock or overburden and (2) the water table in a mire, reflected by the species composition and characteristics of the mire surface. The first factor separates slope mires from the rest of peatlands.
In Finland and in “black taiga” of Russia, where the bedrock topography in large areas is not very pronounced, the latter aspect is of principal importance in classifying peatland morphology.
Units of various sizes visible on air photos mainly reflect the water table level within those units. Term hydrotopographic level may be most relevant, because term water table (and maybe term water level, too) refer directly to centimetres and periods within fluctuating water table in a pit.
Hydrotopographic levels include series A (Sjrs 1948): hummock-level, lawn, carpet and mud bottom and series B (e.g. Eurola et al. 1984, 1995): hummocklevel, intermediate level (nearly the same as lawn) and flark level (the bulk of carpet and mud bottom). Ruuhijrvi (1960) divided the flark-level directly into a moss rich and into a moss poor category.
The starting point of the present typology is in mire entities. Hence the numbering of hierarchy levels begins from the largest scales. This is in line with normal air photo scrutiny: the whole system will be overviewed first and the details will be detected subsequently.
The scales within the typology are (numbers in parentheses refer to scales of hierarchy):
(1) Macrotopography of larger scale: mire systems • Cajander (1913): mire complex • Sjrs (1948): mire complex • Tolonen (1967): Mischcomplex • kland (1989): mire complex • Moen & Singsaas (1994): mire complex • Yurkovskaya (1995): mire system • Heikkil R. et al. (2001): mire system • Moen (2003): mire complex (system) (2) Macrotopography of smaller scale: mire complexes • Cajander (1913):mire complex type • kland (1989): mire synsegment • Moen & Singsaas (1994) mire unit • Yurkovskaya (1995): mire massif (meso-scale) • Heikkil R. et al. (2001): mire complex • Moen (2003): mire synsite (massif) (3) Mesotopography: parts of mire complexes • Aario (1932): Formenteile of Finnish raised bogs • Moen & Singsaas (1994): mire segment • Rydin et al. (1999): mire unit • Moen (2003): mire site • Laitinen et al. (2005a): mesotopographic mire unit (4) Microtopography: microtopographic features • Malmer (1985): microtopography • kland (1989), Moen & Singsaas (1994) and Moen (2003): mire feature Types of mire system and mire complexes as interpreted from aerial photos (concern united or at least very clearly connected peatlands) are:
• raised mire complex (one raised mire complex forms a peatland) • aapamire complex (single aapamire complex forms a peatland) • raised mire system (two to several separate raised mire complexes form a peatland) • aapa mire system (a connected, network-like system of several aapa mires, which cannot be morphologically separated from each other) • combination complex system (Mischcomplexe by Tolonen 1967) (a united or at least clearly connected peatland, which includes at least one aapa mire complex and one raised bog complex) Units within the morphological typology (Numbers in parentheses ( ) refer to scales. Code [ ] refers to that the unit is very rare in mire complexes (reservoir infiltration basins, peatless aro wetlands), that the unit is sometimes lacking (lagg) or the occurrence of the unit is not well-known (soaks in unimodal aapa mire complexes). Headings with letters before the heading are clarifying headings without referring to the hierarchy):
(1) Mire system • Uniform or at least clearly connected peatland area that has two to several raised bog complexes or two to several aapa mire complexes (or an aapa-mire network) or at least one raised bog complex together with at least one aapa-mire complex.
A. The bulk of the land area of mire systems or mire complexes (2) Raised mire complex (3) Central plain (4) Hummock ridges (Kermis) (4) Hollows (4) Bog pools (hollow pools) (3) Marginal slope [(3) Lagg] (2) Aapa-mire complex a) Unimodal aapa mire complex (characterised by the lack of flark fen area) (3) Central lawn (fen) incl. peripheral hummock-level mires [(3) Soaks] b) Bimodal aapa mire complex (main aapa type, the presence of flark fen area) (3) Patterned fens (string fens) (4) Strings (4) Flarks (4) Flark pools (3) Central reservoir basins (stringless mud- bottom fens) [(3) Reservoir-infiltration basins] (3) Peripheral lobes (large) or peripheral fringes (narrow) (3) Interlobate soaks B. Marginal areas of mire systems or mire complexes (3) Paludified forests (thin-peated pine mires, thin-peated spruce mires) [(3) Peatless aro wetlands] o Heath-like aro wetlands (flooded heaths) o Fen-like aro wetlands o Mud flats (seasonal ponds) According to the above scheme, a uniform boreal mire area in the terrain and within an air photo will be called a mire complex (a unit of scale two), when it includes either an aapa or a raised bog complex, but not both of them.
According to the principle of Tolonen (1967) uniform Sphagnum fuscum bogs in aapa mire margins do not transform aapa complexes into the system category (scale 1). Uniform peatland reaches the morphological mire system scale (scale one),when there occur two to several raised bog complexes or two to several aapa complexes or when both the main complex types are present.
Marginal areas of mire systems or mire complexes (B) are first separated from the bulk of areas of mire systems or mire complexes (A), because they are sometimes difficult to separate from mineral soil areas (thin-peated forests) or because they are marginal cases of peatlands or not peatlands at all (aro wetlands). In spite of this they (certain aro wetlands) form an essential hydrotopographic and hydro-functional part of some mire systems or complexes (Laitinen et al. 2005b).
Материалы этого сайта размещены для ознакомления, все права принадлежат их авторам.
Если Вы не согласны с тем, что Ваш материал размещён на этом сайте, пожалуйста, напишите нам, мы в течении 1-2 рабочих дней удалим его.