Kaakinen, Eero: Chair, North Ostrobothnia Regional Environment Centre Salminen, Pekka: deputy chair, Ministry of the environment Kokko, Aira:1st secretary, Finnish Environment Institute Kalpio, Satu: 2nd secretary, Natural Heritage Services Aapala, Kaisu: Finnish Environment Institute Eurola, Seppo: Professor emeritus Heikkil, Raimo: Kainuu Regional Environment Centre, Friendship Park Research Centre Hotanen, Juha-Pekka: Finnish Forest Research Institute Kondelin, Hanna: private expert Lindholm, Tapio: Finnish Environment Institute Ruuhijrvi, Rauno: Professor emeritus Vasander, Harri: University of Helsinki Virtanen, Kimmo: Finnish Geological Survey The working group has in its first meetings compiled the objectives to make the framework for the project.
The objectives of the mire expert group • To update our knowledge of threatened mires and the quality of mire conservation in Finland. To collect the results of scientific work and the data of monitoring.
• To develop a generally accepted classification of mires, which is based on existing classification systems and which enables to identify the regional variants of mires • To assess how threatened mires are both on the mire complex/massive and mire site type levels • To pay special attention to the assessment of small mires and mires not representing mire complexes (The basic programme for mire protection was concentrated on mires representing mire complex types.) • To be able to identify other possible units comparable with the mire complexes and assess how threatened they are.
• To pay special attention to the functional connections between mires and other ecosystems (mires/ground water, mires/surface waters, marginal zones between mires and mineral soil forests) • To highlight the role of Finland in the international mire conservation and to prepare a proposal for the international responsibility mire habitats of Finland.
The assessment of threatened animal and plant species has been made in Finland already three times, the latest made by Rassi & al. (2001). When it concerns taking care of the whole biodiversity, species approach is not comprehensive enough, and the need for habitat approach has increased. Very often the protection of species is possible only by the protection of special habitats they use. Also several international agreements, conventions and directives have given a responsibility to Finland to protect and monitor certain rare habitats or habitat types. Our knowledge on the status and protection need of our habitats is so far too scarce.
The project of the assessment of threatened habitat types is a means to give a suitable tool to a comprehensive evaluation of the status of the different habitat types in Finland. The results will help or prioritize decision making.
The assessment will help and guideline inventories, research, restoration, management, monitoring and protection. Especially that is the case on the least known habitats, which will need more inventories and research. This assessment will also produce knowledge and data, which can be used in the evaluation of the favourable status of protection There are special expert groups for each main habitat group, which are 1:
Forests, 5: Rocky habitats, 6: Semi-natural grasslands and 7: Fells (Alpine habitats). In many cases there is a need to assess how the groups are overlapping and what kind of gaps remain between them. For example springs are typically between mires and freshwater system, and partly they belong to forest ecosystems. The mire expert group has taken responsibility in the assessment on all open and forested mire habitats with peat, springs, and brackish and freshwater coastal swamp forests and swamp meadows. Also often overlooked temporarily wet depressions in forests, which have been called aro in Finnish, belong to the assessment list of mire group even though our knowledge on them is scarce (Laitinen et al 2005).
The work before assessment The concept of threatened mire habitats is not totally new in Finland. In the description of basic programme for mire protection Ruuhijrvi (1978) made a list of "rare mire site types" which would especially in southern Finland need more inventories, establishment of small nature reserves, and which should not be drained. These mire site types were listed as threatened or rare mire site types in both two basic programs for mire conservation (Haapanen & al. 1977, Haapanen & al. 1980).(Table1,2).
Table 1. Threatened mire site types (in Finnish) according to Ruuhijrvi (1978), used in the basic programme for mire conservation (Haapanen & al.
1977, Haapanen & al. 1980). English names translated for this purpose differ on the older names used in Table 2. The English names of Finnish mire site types are not established in international practise, but also in the Finnish use there is variation in nomenclature lehtokorpi Herb rich forest mire ruoho ja heinkorpi Herb grass forest mire tervaleppkorpi Alnus glutinosa swamp saniaiskorpi Fern forest mire lhdekorpi Spring forest mire lettokorpi Forest rich fen koivuletto Rich birch fen lettoneva Herb rich sedge fen varsinainen letto Brown moss rich fen rimpiletto Flark rich fen lhdeletto Rich spring fen lettorme Rich pine fen Later this list was accepted as a list of threatened mire site types in second phase of he basic programme for mire protection (Haapanen et al.
1980). Heikkil (1990) has studied the status of threatened mire plants in one region, in the province of Vaasa, western Finland. Heikkil (1991) has studied Table 2. Twenty-three mire site types regarded as threatened in Finland in Aapala & al. (1996) and Aapala & al. (1998), either nationally or regionally.
Abbreviations of the site type names are according Eurola & al. (1994).
Finnish name: Aapala & al. 1998 English name: Aapala & al. 1996 Abbreviati on Endangered in the whole country.
Lehtokorpi Thin-peated eutrophic spruce mire LhK Saniaiskorpi Fern spruce mire SaK Lhdekorpi Spring spruce mire LK Luhtaletto Rich swamp fen LuL Varsinainen letto Rich fen VL Koivuletto Rich birch fen KoL Lettoneva Loeskypnum fen and Subsecundum flark LN fen Tervaleppluhta Alnus glutinosa swamp AlnLu Tihkupinta Mires with seepage effect Tihkupinta Mesotrofinen lhde ja lhdesuo Warnstorfia exannulata spring and spring MeL fen Meso-eutrofinen lhde ja lhdesuo Paludella spring and spring fen MeEuL Eutrofinen lhde ja lhdesuo Cratoneuron spring and rich spring fen EuL Endangered in the ombrotrophic bog area Ruoho- ja heinkorpi Herb-grass spruce mire RhK Kalvakkanevrme Sphagnum papillosum pine fen KaNR Rimpinevarme Flark pine fen RiNR Endangered to the south of Forest and Fell Lapland zone Lettokorpi Rich spruce mire LK Lettorme Rich pine fen LR Rimpiletto Rich flark fen RiL Endangered in the aapa mire area Ruohoinen mustikkakorpi Herb Vaccinium myrtillus spruce mire RhMk Carex nigra-nevakorpi Carex nigra birch fen NigNK Koivuluhta Betula swamp KoLu Kuljuneva Fuscum hollow pine bog KeR, KuN the threatened rich mire sites types in Finland. As a national synthesis Aapala & al. 1996 and Aapala & al. 1998 have proposed a national list of threatened mire site types based on a list compiled by R. Heikkil in 1993 for the environment guide of forestry in state forests. Some of these threatened mire site types have been originally rather rare but have become endangered due to intensive drainage for agriculture and for forestry.
The assessment process The mire expert group has determined the levels of assessment procedure (Kokko & al 2005). There is good background material for mire site types (since Cajander 1913). Also the zonal massives have been well studied (Eurola 1962, Ruuhijrvi 1960). There are only few studies on zonal massive systems (Tolonen 1967, Heikkil & al. 2001) and for the topographic massive systems we have to use almost forgotten old concepts (e.g. Lukkala 1931). The landscape level is still a more or less open question. The levels are as follows.
The final goal of this assessment is to help to protect threatened mire habitats. The types are always abstracts, but the type system makes it possible to compare different situations in the field and is thus a decision making tool.
This assessment of threatened habitats is the first to cover all different habitats.
That makes it also possible to consider mires in a more detailed way than earlier. It is thus possible to get a better background for the future, to continue the mire protection work.
Table 3: The levels of assessment procedure as compared on respective levels in mire ecology No of the The levels used in Respective concepts in mire ecology level assessment I Habitat type level Mire site types II Habitat complex type level 1. Mire massives or complexes 2. Massive systems a. Climatic and hydrological complex or massive systems b. Topographical complex or massive systems 3. Land uplift primary succession series III Landscape level Mire landscape types References Aapala, K., Heikkil, R. & Lindholm, T. 1996: Protecting the diversity of Finnish mires. – In; Vasander, H. (ed.). Peatlands in Finland, 45 – 57.
Aapala, K., Heikkil, R. & Lindholm, T. 1998. Suoluonnon monimuotoisuuden turvaaminen. - In: Vasander, H. (ed.). Suomen suot, 45-57. Suoseura,.
Cajander, A. K. 1913. Studien ber die Moore Finnlands. – Acta Forestalia Fennica 2(3): 1-208.
Essl, F., Egger, G. & Ellmauer, T. 2002a: Rote Liste gefhrdeter Biotoptypen sterreichs. Konzept. Deutsche Zusammenfassung. – Umweltbundesamt, Monographien; Band 155. Wien.
Essl, F., Egger, G., Ellmauer, T. & Aigner, S. 2002b: Rote Liste gefhrdeter Biotoptypen sterreichs. Wlder, Forste, Vorwlder. –, Monographien; Band 156. Wien.
Eurola, S. 1962. ber die regionale Einteilung der sdfinnischen Moore. – Annales Botanici Societatis Zoologic Botanic Fennic "Vanamo" 33(2): 1243.
Eurola, S., Huttunen, A. & Kukko-Oja, K. 1994: Suokasvillisuusopas. [Mire vegetation guide.] – Oulanka Reports 13: 1 – 81.
Fremstad, E. & Moen, A. (eds.) 2001. Truete vegetasjonstyper i Norge. – Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet, Vitenskapsmuseet Rapport botanisk serie 2001 (4): 1 – 231. Trondheim.
Haapanen, A., Havu, S., Hyrinen, U., Lehtimki, E., Raitasuo, K., Ruuhijrvi, R. & Salminen, P. 1977: Soidensuojelun perusohjelma. [The basic programme for mire conservation.] – Komiteanmietint 1977: 48, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Helsinki, 47 pp.
Haapanen, A., Havu, S., Hyrinen, U., Lehtimki, E., Raitasuo, K., Ruuhijrvi, R. & Salminen, P. 1980: Soidensuojelun perusohjelma II. [The basic programme for mire conservation II.] – Komiteanmietint 1980: 15, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Helsinki, 45 pp.
Heikkil, H. 1991: Threatened types and plants in eutrophic fens in southern Finland. – In: Botch, M.S., O.L. Kuznetsov & I.P. Khizova (eds.) Studies of mire ecosystems of Fennoscandia. Materials of the Soviet-Finnish Symposium 28-31 May 1990, 91-106. Karelian Research Centre, USSR Academy of Sciences, Institute of Biology. Petrozavodsk.
Heikkil, R. 1990: Vaasan lnin uhanalaiset suokasvit. (Abstract: Threatened mire plants in the province of Vaasa, western Finland.) – Vesi- ja ympristhallinnon julkaisuja A 46: 1 – 97.
Heikkil, R., O. Kuznetsov, T. Lindholm, K. Aapala, V. Antipin, T. Djatshkova & P. Shevelin 2001. Complexes, vegetation, flora and dynamics of Kauhaneva mire system, western Finland. – Suomen Ymprist 489: 1 - IUCN 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria version 3.1. IUCN, Gland.
Kokko, A., Kaakinen, E., Aapala, K., Eurola, S., Heikkil, R., Hotanen, J.-P., Kalpio, S., Kondelin, H., Lindholm, T., Nousiainen, H., Ruuhijrvi, R., Salminen, P., Vasander, H. & Virtanen, K. 2005. Soiden luontotyypit ja luontotyyppiyhdistelmt. – In: Kontula, T. & Raunio, A. (ed..), Luontotyyppien uhanalaisuuden arviointi – menetelm ja luontotyyppien luokittelu..(Abstract: Assessment of threatened habitat types – method and classification of habitat types.). Suomen Ymprist 765: 71-81.
Kontula, T. & Raunio, A. (ed..) 2005: Luontotyyppien uhanalaisuuden arviointi – menetelm ja luontotyyppien luokittelu.(Abstract: Assessment of threatened habitat types – method and classification of habitat types.). – Suomen Ymprist 765: 1-131.
Laitinen, J., Rehell, S., Huttunen, A. & Eurola S. 2005. Arokosteikot: ekologia, esiintyminen ja suojelutilannne Pohjois-Pohjanmaalla ja Kainuussa (Summary:
Aro wetlands: ecology, occurrence and conservation in north-central Finland).
– Suo 56: 1-17.
Lukkala, O. 1931: Metsojituksen oppikirja [Textbook of mire drainage for forestry]. – Keskusmetsseura Tapio, Helsinki 258 pp.
Paal, J. 1998: Rare and threatened plant communities of Estonia. – Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 1027–1049.
Rassi, P., Alanen, A., Kanerva, T. & Mannerkoski, I. (eds.) 2001: Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus 2000. (Abstract: The 2000 Red List of Finnish species.). – Ympristministeri & Suomen ympristkeskus, Helsinki. 432 pp.
Riecken, U., Ries, U. & Ssymank, A. 1994: Rote liste der gefhrdeten Biototypen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. – Schriftenraihe Fr Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz 41: 1-184.
Ruuhijrvi, R. 1960: ber die regionale Einteilung der nordfinnischen Moore.
– Annales Botanici Societatis Zoologic Botanic Fennic "Vanamo".
Ruuhijrvi, R. 1978. Soidensuojelun perusohjelma (Summary: Basic plan for peatland preservation in Finland.). – Suo 29(1): 1-10.
Tolonen, K. 1967: ber die Entwicklung der Moore finnischen Nordkarelien. – Annales Botanici Fennici 4: 1–416. 6 appendices.
PEAT INCREMENT IN FINLAND M. MKIL Geological Survey of Finland, firstname.lastname@example.org Introduction The average vertical peat increment rate has been determined to be about 0.5 mm yr-1. However, most of the information used in these calculations is derived from deep basins and shallower mires have consequently been underrepresented. The data does not represent the mean depth of mires, which is 1.m in Finland (Virtanen et al. 2003). Total Finnish peat reserves are account for 69.3 billion m3 in situ (Virtanen et al. 2003). A large number of data inventories and radiocarbon datings have been stored in data registers of the Geological Survey of Finland. They offer excellent data for studying peat increment rates in different parts of Finland.
Material and methods The long-term rate of peat increment in Finnish mires was calculated on the basis of 520 dated peat columns (Mkil & Toivonen 2004a). The areas of the depth zones of different mire complex types in the study material were derived by substituting their proportions in this study material with the proportion from the inventory material. The dating results for basal peat were sorted according to the depth zone, and the averages from these were used to calculate the peat increment rates in separate depth zones of different mire complex types (Fig 1). Finally, the increment rate and age of peat were sorted according to the depth zone in the raised bog and aapa mire areas. The basal peat samples were taken just above the mineral soil or gyttja. The C samples generally represented a vertical thickness of 3-6 cm. The dated mires are marked with a point in Fig. 1. Several datings have been performed from different depth zones of some mires (Mkil 1997, Mkil et al. 2001, Mkil & Toivonen 2004b).
The vertical peat increment rate was determined from different levels of 39 dated peat profiles, mainly representing the thickest peat layers of mires.
Peat samples were mainly taken in virgin areas. Radiocarbon ages were determined at the 14C laboratory (Su) of the Geological Survey of Finland and were calibrated after Stuiver & Reimer (1993). The determined ages correspond to the present time, as 50 years were added to them.
Fig 1. Zones of mire complex types according to Ruuhijrvi and Hosiaisluoma (1989) and the dating points of mires.
Results The retreat of the last glacier and in some areas the subsequent aquatic stages have determined the maximum age of Finnish mires. The oldest basal peat, dated to 10 770 cal BP, has been found in Kuhmo in eastern Finland. The thickest peat layer, 12.3 m, has been recorded in the highlands of Tammela in southern Finland, where the age of the basal peat is 10 530 cal BP (Sten 1988).
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.