REPORT of Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, and Radioecology

On results of studies in 2017 on theme:

Assessment of state and development tendencies of natural landscapes and on the territoru of exclusion zone In framework of the UNEP-GEF project “Conserving, Enhancing and Managing Carbon Stocks and Biodiversity in the ”

Reporting period 08.08.2017 – 31.12.2017

Agreement No. SSFA/2017/14 S1-32GFL-000370/11232/SB-000687.37/14AC0003

Signed: General Director of CC Bondarkov Mikhail D.

2017 Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 2

CONTENT

INTORDUCTION. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ...... 4

MAIN DATA OF THE PROJECT ...... 4 MAIN GOAL...... 4 EXPECTED RESULTS OF THE PROJECT ...... 4 DELIVERABLES. GENERAL GEOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CHEZ ...... 5

DIVERSITY OF AND LANDSCAPES ...... 5 WEATHER AND CLIMATE CONDITIONS IN CHEZ...... 10 DELIVERABLES. IN THE CHEZ ...... 13

ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT STATE AND MAIN TRENDS IN MONITORING OF THE CHEZ FLORA...... 13 MAIN TRENDS OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS DEVELOPMENT IN THE POST-ACCIDENT PERIOD AND PRESENT TIME ...... 16 MODERN KNOWLEDGE ON THE SPECIES DISTRIBUTION AND STRUCTURE OF THE PHYTOCOMPLEXES IN THE CHEZ...... 28 RARE SPECIES IN THE CHEZ ...... 136 ASSESSMENT OF THE ECOSYSTEMS IN THE CHEZ FOR SUPPORTING THE BIODIVERSITY AND ECOLOGICAL BALANCE IN THE EASTERN EUROPEAN REGION ...... 158 DELIVERABLES. FAUNA IN THE CHEZ...... 162

INTRODUCTION ...... 162 THE CURRENT STATUS OF STUDYING CEZ FAUNA ...... 164 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF CHEZ FAUNA AND TRENDS OF ITS DEVELOPMENT AFTER THE CHORNOBYL ACCIDENT .... 176 THE SPECIES COMPOSITION OF VERTEBRATE FAUNA REGISTERED IN CEZ IN 1986-2017 ...... 187 THE RED DATA BOOK SPECIES IN CHEZ. ANNOTATED PROFILES ...... 224 ASSESSMENT OF THE EXTENT OF ANTHROPOGENIC TRANSFORMATION OF NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS AND THE LEVEL OF CURRENT ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACT ...... 302

CHEZ SITES WITH THE HIGHEST ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE ...... 309

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

NRFU — Natural Reserve Fund of ChEZ — Exclusion zone and zone of unconditional (compulsory) resettlement (Chornobyl exclusion zone) RBU — Red list book of Ukraine (2009) CC — State research organisation «Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology» UNEP — United Nations Environment Programme PSRER — Polesski State Radiation&Ecological Reserve (Republic of ) CREBR — Chornobyl Radiation&Ecological Biospheric Reserve

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 4

Intorduction. Brief description of the project

Main data of the project

Title: Conserving, Enhancing and Managing Carbon Stocks and Biodiversity in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone Task: Assessment of state and development tendencies of natural landscapes and biodiversity on the territoru of Chernobyl exclusion zone Reporting State research organisation «Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, organisation: Radioactive Waste and Radioecology» Contact person: Mikhail Bondarkov, general director Reporting period: Since 08/08/2017 to 31/12/2017 Reporting stage: Report about work results in 2017 Date of submitting:

Main goal

The study goal is assessment of biodiversity of CEZ, development tendencies and current state of plant and animal complexes as presuppositions for organizing environmental measures in CREBR.

Expected results of the project

Detailed description of biological diversity in CEZ will be given as a result of field studies and analysis of earlier published data. Main emphasis will be put on vascular and fauna of vertebrates as the most studied groups of the region. The following output information will be presented in the report: 1) a review of modern state of flora and fauna; 2) information about tendencies in development of natural complexes of CEZ over all period after the accident on ChNPP; 3) list of vertebrate species and vascular plants recorder in CEZ; 4) annotation review of all ‘red list’ species protected according to national legislation and international conventions; 5) definition of the most valuable in environmental sense areas of CEZ with justification of such conclusions; 6) significance of CEZ natural complexes for support and enrichment of biodiversity and ecological balance in the Eastern-European region. Results of the study will favor development of environmental activity in CEZ, monitoring and investigations of , meadow, marsh and other natural complexes. Together with generic description and cartographic charts the information obtained will represent a of the site chose, and at a corresponding decision it will be used for applying environmental measures.

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 5

Deliverables. General geographic characteristics of ChEZ

Diversity of ecosystems and landscapes

The Chornobyl exclusion zone and zone of absolute (mandatory) resettlement (ChEZ) is located within the physicogeographic region of Polissia in the Polesian Lowland of the East European Plain [Physicogeographic zoning ..., 1968]. The relief in ChEZ is characterized by a general eastward slope, presence of moraine-outwash, moraine-hilly and outwash plains, and by the prevailing heights of 115-140 m above sea level, with the maximum elevation of 160 m in its northwest and central parts (Fig. 1)

Fig. 1. ChEZ relief, elevation above sea level, m.

The and are the largest local rivers and have wide floodplain settlings of up to 5-7 km and marked supra-floodplain terraces. Moreover, the whole territory is covered by a network of shallow watercourses (the Sakhan, Brahynka, Ilia, Hrzelia, Veresnia rivers). Upper reaches of the on the River are on the south-eastern outskirts. Until 2014, a large cooling pond of the Chornobyl NPP (22 km2) was found in the very centre of ChEZ. Since 2017, it is at the decommissioning (drainage) stage, further there shall be a return to the state of a series of small floodplain reservoirs. Also, there are a lot of other shallow water bodies of glacial origin and some artificial lakes (former peat extractions) in the ChEZ area. In the past, such type of relief and high level of groundwater caused swamping of large areas there. Due to the developed network of meliorative canals (some of them were constructed far back in the 19th century) marshes Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 6 cover not more than 2-3% of the total area. However, a gradual recovery of water logging is observed resulting from the terminated meliorative activity in the last 30 years and animal activity.

ChEZ is located on the slopes of the Ukrainian Crystalline Massif. The crystalline rocks are 300-400 m submerged under the Mesozoic and Paleogene marine deposits and overlapped with Quaternary sediments that form outwash, moraine-outwash and alluvial plains. The insets of river valleys are 25-30 m deep. The geomorphologic structure causes a significant differentiation of natural regions. The outwash and moraine-outwash plains dominate in the interstream area. Also, there are terminal moraine ranges. In the river valleys, the main role belongs to floodplains and aggradational terraces with eolian relief forms and wetlands [Marinich, 1963].

Quaternary deposits play an important role in the formation of relief and differentiation of natural regions. By their origin, the Quaternary deposits belong to glacial, aqueo-glacial, alluvial, aeolian, lacustrine, diluvial, organogenic and other types of deposits. The lithology includes mainly sandy and argillo-arenaceous deposits with field stones and alluvium, predominantly of crystalline rocks. A significant diversity and mosaic of natural regions are observed. With a relatively small diversity of landscape areas and tracts, they are often interspersed. Outwash lowlands with sod cryptopodzol soils and pine coniferous change into outwash moraine plains with sod mesopodzol soils with suramen forests or deforested sites, and then are replaced by moraine and hilly terrain with sod podzolic soils (Fig. 2). Significant areas are occupied by supra-floodplain terraces with sand levees that are covered with pine coniferous forests and also by floodplain terraces with partially reclaimed marshy tracts.

Fig. 2. Prevailing types of soils in ChEZ

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 7

The sod cryptopodzol soils were formed mainly on sandy or argillo-arenaceous source beds of the first supra-floodplain terraces and outwash plains. The sand differences of these soils are developed under the pine coniferous forests; they were partially used as agricultural lands, though their fertility is low. The humus content does not exceed 0.5-0.8%, the soils are very acidic (pH 3.5- 4.0). Vast areas are covered by argillo-arenaceous differences of sod cryptopodzol soils. The depth of humus horizon is up to 20-28 cm, and the humus content increases to 1-1.5%

The sod mesopodzol soils were formed on argillo-arenaceous source beds, mainly in the places of widespread moraine. The humus content is 1.5-1.8 %. The sod-gley and gley soils are developed in the settlings of interstream areas, outwash and moraine plains, river terraces. The meadow soils are developed in the floodplains with thick grassy vegetation and extensive moisture content caused by near-surface groundwater. The humus content increases to 4-5%. Marshy soils exist as separate arrays on the floodplains and old valley terraces. They are represented by marshy, silty-marshy, peaty-marshy soils and peat bogs.

Development of the area gleyzation and swamping is facilitated by a low density of erosional pattern, i.e. 0.2 km/km2. Total length of perennial streams (rivers, streams, brooks) in ChEZ was 320 km. And the area of ChEZ open reservoirs (rivers, lakes, ponds, old channels of the Pripyat and Uzh Rivers, part of the Kyiv HPP reservoir, meliorative canals) was approximately 130 km2 in 2005. The main source of the ChEZ rivers inflow is snow cover. A share of snowmelt runoff is approximately 60% of the annual one; the residual flow is distributed between ground and rain feed, depending on a river basin. Such type of inflow impacts the yearly level regime. A share of the groundwater inflow is considerable and amounts to 20-33% of the total runoff. The rain inflow mainly impacts formation of the small rivers’ flow.

Variation of water level is 300-500 cm on the Pripyat River and 25-400 cm on the Uzh River. According to the observations of 1998-2003, the variation of groundwater level was up to 120 cm in the area without an outflow in the first terrace rising above the floodplain of the Pripyat River (2 km west of ChNPP) [Petrov, 2004]. And in 2005, water was standing on the soil surface for several days there due to storm precipitation.

A share of lands with excessive moistening amounts to 10.6% of the lands covered by forest vegetation. The area of marshes is 10031.2 hectares. By 1986, 23 melioration systems were constructed in the present territory of ChEZ, though most of them have not been maintained for a long time. The canals are silted up and overgrown with plants; condition of the hydraulic structures is getting worth. Because of the radioecological concerns, some meliorative systems were partially reconstructed, mostly on the left bank of the Pripyat River. However, currently prevailing is an opinion about the continued preservation of the spontaneously established hydrological conditions with drained areas, since maintaining of the systems requires substantial funds and labour force. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 8

The variety of landscapes and ecosystems in the Ukrainian part of ChEZ and in the adjacent areas is illustrated by the Landscape map of the Chornobyl NPP exclusion zone, the map scale is 1:200,000, by V.S. Davydchuk et al., 2011 (Fig.3) [Davydchuk et al., 2011]. This map is developed as a continuation of the mapping of ChEZ landscapes, which was started in the paper [Landscapes of the Chornobyl Zone ..., 1994], though under new conditions and new tasks. The map scale and its image area correspond to the maps of geomorphologic and Quaternary deposits in the Atlas of the Chornobyl exclusion zone, 1996. [Atlas ..., 1996].

XII V XI

XV II V

IX V IX XV IV

IV III IX

Fig.3. Landscape map of ChEZ (map tile and symbol key are according to [Davydchuk, Sorokina, 2003]). Note: white lines mark the landscape borders. Numbers of the landscapes (only those within the ChEZ): II — Chystohalivskyi, III — Ivankivskyi, IV — Dymersko- Makarovskyi, V — Korohod-Vilchanskyi, IX — Uzhskyi, XI — Shepelychskyi, XII — Hdenskyi, XV — Nyzhnoprypiatskyi. The description of landscape tracts and symbol keys are in [Atlas…, 1996].

The "Landscape map ..." key describes 55 natural regions, relatively "natural" (of a forest or meadow phytocenosis, and its variation, i.e. a fallow phytocenosis). Therefore, approximately 110- 120 ecosystems may be distinguished basing on the types of vegetation cover; in case roles of dominant species are taken into account, as many again can be distinguished.

According to the State Forest Inventory data [Draft organization..., 2006], the total area of land plots permanently used by the State Department named Administration of the exclusion zone and the zone of absolute (mandatory) resettlement amounts to 259,407 hectares. 240,570 hectares of this area are used by the State Specialized Integrated Enterprise named "Chornobyl Pushcha (Forest)". Table 1 shows the current ratio of edificatory tree species (≈species) in the forest vegetation cover of the "Chornobyl Pushcha (Forest)". Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 9

Fig. 4. Distribution pattern of main tree species in the forest areas (on: Draft organization …, 2006)

Table 1. Structure of dominant species in the ChEZ lands covered by forest vegetation, ha [Draft organization …, 2006]

Species of species Hectares % Jack pine Pinus banksiana 159.9 0.11 Scots pine Pinus sylvestris 89042.9 59.35 spruce Picea abies 44.5 0.03 Northern red Quercus borealis 45.7 0.03 Common oak Quercus robur 7616.1 5.08 Common hornbeam Carpinus betulus 158.6 0.11 Green (red) ash Fraxinus lanceolata 2.5 0.00 Common ash Fraxinus excelsior 47.2 0.03 Norway maple Acer platanoides 11.4 0.01 Ash-leaved maple Acer negundo 15.6 0.01 Black locust Robinia pseudacacia 254.9 0.17 Silver (white) Betula pendula 38493.7 25.66 Common aspen Populus tremula 1567.4 1.04 Black alder Alnus glutinosa 9984.6 6.66 Silver (white) poplar Populus alba 27.9 0.02 Necklace poplar Populus deltoides 20.8 0.01 Black poplar Populus nigra 6.2 0.00 White willow Salix alba 757.6 0.51 Apple tree Malus domestica 164.9 0.11 Long-leaved violet and grey willow Salix acutifolia, Salix cinerea 1594.8 1.06 100.0 Total 150013,2 0 Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 10

Weather and climate conditions in ChEZ

The climate of the region, where ChEZ is located, is moderately continental with a relatively warm humid summer and mild winter.

Total annual solar radiation in the region is 95-100 kcal/cm2, the radiation balance is about 40 kcal/cm2. The duration of sunshine is 1800 - 1900 hours per year, including the maximum one in July (an average of 290 hours) and the minimum one in December (25 hours).

The sum of effective air temperatures is in the range between 2000° and 2200°; and above 10° it is within 800-1000°. The number of days with an average daily air temperature above 0 °C is 240-245, above 5 °C – 200 days, above 10 °C – 155-160 days, above 15 °C – 110 days; there are 90-100 days with an air temperature from 5 °C to 15 °C and 110-120 days – over 15 °C. The average temperature is +19 °С in June and -7 °С in January. The average duration of vegetation period is 194 days. The latest date of spring frost was recorded on 30 May, and the earliest autumn frost was registered on 27 September. The spring dates of the average daily air temperature changes are: above 0 °C – 21 March, above 5 °C – 11 April, above 10 °C – 1 May, above 15 °C – 21 May; the autumn dates are: above 15 °C – 21 August, above 10 °C – 1 September, above 5 °C – 21 October, above 0 °C – 1 November. Duration of the frost-free period is 160-170 days in the air and 150 days or more on the soil.

The annual precipitation is 530-570 mm; 375-400 mm falls during the active vegetation period. 560 mm of precipitation were recorded in the wet year of 1978, and 400 mm – in the dry year of 1975. The average duration of a period with a stable snow cover is 95 days. An average date of the stable snow cover settling is 10-15 December, and an average date of its destruction is 10-15 March. The average of the highest decade snow covers is up to 30 cm. The ChEZ area is characterized by a periodic washing regime with full spring soaking, the precipitation-evaporation ratio is within 0.87-0.93 per annum, the spring stock of efficient moisture in soil is at the level of the lowest moisture retention capacity. [Agro-climate guide ..., 1958].

In certain years, air droughts are observed. An average annual duration of the dry hotwinds is 3-5 days, maximum - 11 days. There are 20-30 thunderstorms per annum, approximately 60 days of fogs, 15 days of snowstorms, and 35 days of thaws.

Considerable fluctuations in weather conditions in certain years are typical of the ChEZ territory. For , the total precipitation was 1021 mm in 1907, and 294 mm in 1920 in the neighbouring Homel region (the Republic of Belarus) [Mykhailivska, 1953]. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 11

The following hazardous hydro-meteorological events were recorded at the meteorological station named "Polisske": long and very heavy rain (168 mm per day) was on 24 May 1971, hail 20- 40 mm in diameter was on 14 May 1968; squall with maximum wind speed of 28 m/s was on 28 May 1956 [Oliinyk, Yasinskyi, 2003].

The following can be distinguished among the weather and climatic factors that adversely affect the growth and development of phytocenoses: long-lasting summer dry periods causing a sharply decreased survival of established forest crops and increased probability of forest fires; occurrences of ice crust and heavy snowfalls causing ice- and snow-breaking of trees of varying severity; hurricanes causing wind-falls and wind-breaks of trees.

Generally, the climate in ChEZ is favourable for a successful growth of pines, , aspens, alders, , ashes, hornbeams, which form plant groupings depending on the terrain, soil conditions and anthropogenic impacts.

According to the agro-climatic zoning of the mid-20th century, the ChEZ area is located in the Central Polesian agro-climatic region. The region’s eastern boundary was conventionally marked along the Dnieper River valley. Later, along with the accumulation of some meteorological observations and development of new data integration techniques, the territory of modern ChEZ occurred to be a part of azonal climatic formation in the zone of deciduous forests, with the climate characteristics close to the ones of forest-steppe; this area is located near the following population centres: Kozarovychi – Polisske - Chornobyl - Kamaryn (Belarus) - - Oster (Ukraine). These climate characteristics are due to the local sandy soils, their quick warm-up caused by moisture loss in vegetation period, and also due to the warming effects of the Dnieper River and its confluents [Climate of Ukraine, 2003; Udra, 2003-2004].

References

Agro-climate guide for the Kyiv region - K: Derzhsilhospvydav of the Ukrainian SSR, 1959. - 136 p.; Climate of Ukraine // Edited by V.М. Lipinskyi, V.A. Diachuk, V.M. Babichenko – Raevskyi’s Publishing House, Kyiv, 2003, 343 p. (in Ukrainian)

Atlas of the Chornobyl exclusion zone / Edited by Shestopalov V.M., - Kyiv: Scientific and Production Enterprise "Cartography", 1996 (in Ukrainian)

Climate of Ukraine // Edited by V.М. Lipinskyi, V.A. Diachuk, V.M. Babichenko - Raevskyi’s Publishing House, Kyiv, 2003, 343 p. (in Ukrainian)

Davydchuk V.S., Sorokina L.Yu., Zarudna R.F., Petrov M.F., Nazarchuk N.I. Methodology of mapping landscapes and their anthropogenic changes for the radioecology GIS of the Chornobyl exclusion zone // Ukr. Journal of Geography - 2011, No. 4, pp. 3-12 (in Ukrainian) Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 12

Davydchuk V.S., Sorokina L.Yu. General landscape map of the Chornobyl zone // Bulletin of environmental state in the exclusion zone and the zone of absolute (mandatory) resettlement. - 2003. - No. 1 (21). - pp. 47-53 (in Ukrainian)

Draft organization of forest management in the State Special Integrated Enterprise named "Chornobyl Pushcha (Forest)". - K.: Lisoproekt, 2006 (in Ukrainian)

Landscapes of the Chornobyl zone and their assessment based on the conditions of radionuclides migration / Davydchuk V.S., Zarudna R.F., Mikheli S.V., Petrov M.F., Sorokina L.Yu., Tkachenko A.N. (Ed. by Marinich A.M.) - Kyiv, Naukova Dumka, 1994, - 112 p. (in Russian)

Marinich A.M. Geomorphology of Southern Polissia. - Kyiv: Publishing House of the University of Kyiv, 1963. - 252 p. (in Russian)

Mykhailovska V.A. Flora of the Polesian Lowland. - Minsk: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the BSSR, 1953 - 454 p. (in Russian)

Oliinyk Z.Ya., Yasinskyi S.S. Spontaneous natural hydro-meteorological phenomena in the city of Kyiv and in the Kyiv region in the Warm Period of 1881-2002 // Physical Geography and Geomorphology. - 2003. - Issue 45. - pp. 220-226 (in Ukrainian)

Petrov M.F. Dynamics of vegetation cover in the exclusion zone // Bulletin of environmental state in the exclusion zone and the zone of absolute (mandatory) resettlement, No. 2 (24), October 2004, pp. 55- 62 (in Ukrainian)

Physiogeographical zoning of the Ukrainian SSR / Edited by V.P. Popov, A.M. Marinich, A.I. Lanko – Kyiv, Publishing House of the University of Kyiv – 1968, 684 p. (in Russian).

Popov V.P. Agro-climatic zoning of the Ukrainian SSR // Issues of agro-climatic zoning in the USSR. - Moscow, Publishing House of the USSR Ministry of Agriculture, 1958 (in Russian)

Udra I.F. New methodical approach to the regional bio-geographical zoning by the example of the Ukrainian territory // Bulletin of the National Science and Natural History Museum. Botany Series. Part 1. 2003-2004, No. 2-3, pp. 128-144 (in Russian)

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 13

Deliverables. Flora in the ChEZ

Assessment of the current state and main trends in monitoring of the ChEZ flora.

Since during the pre-accident period the territory of present ChEZ was not regarded as a separate formation, there were no generalizations on the flora of both the entire ChEZ and its Ukrainian or Belarusian part, as well as for the units of geobotanical and floral zoning identified here. Indirectly, ChEZ flora can be understood basing on the reports on flora in larger areas (including both Belarusian and Ukrainian parts of Polissia) [Mykhailovska, 1953, Parfenov, 1983, Andrienko, Sheliah-Sosonko, 1983; Phytodiversity..., 2006, Flora and Vegetation..., 2002].

In 1990, S.L. Mosiakin characterized systematic composition, formation ways and anthropic transformation trends of flora in the Kyiv Polissia [Mosiakin, 1990]. The most recent paper containing a lot of general information about the vegetation in ChEZ is the project describing flora of the Middle and prepared by botanists from the T. Shevchenko National University of Kyiv [Summary of the flora ..., 1998].

In the post-accident period, the flora and vegetation of ChEZ were investigated by L.S. Balashov, S.M. Bidna, P.N. Melankholin, M.F. Petrov [Balashov, 2001, 2003, Balashov et al., 1996, 1999, Balashov, Nehrutsa, 1999, Balashov, Pliuta, 1999, Melakholin, 1996, Bіdna, 1999, Bіdna et al., 1998, 2000, Petrov, 1998, 2004, 2006], mostly within the framework of radioecological studies. As a summary of the above studies, a botanical and geographical overview of the data available was presented in 2016 [Petrov, 2016].

The flora diversity in Kyiv Polissia varies between 1375 and 1700 species, depending on the information presented by researchers [Bortniak, 1975, Mosiakin, 1990]. According to the current data, the flora of ChEZ includes 1228 species [Petrov, 2016]. Its systematic composition, general taxonomic proportions, the most numerous families and genera are described in Section B.4

Due to the fact that vegetation is a basic, important component of ChEZ ecosystems, its studying is rather complicated, and taking into account the size of ChEZ and lack of experts, the studies are far from complete. With due regard for the establishment of the Chornobyl Radiation and Ecological Biosphere Reserve, these studies should be continued and extended. The Reserve should employ a botanist and also involve experts of various areas of botany and mycology from relevant scientific centres. There should be established permanent test sites and monitoring routes for different seasons. Floristic surveys should give the priority to the following sites within ChEZ:

1. Near-terrace risings and settlings in the valleys of the Pripyat and Uzh Rivers ("refugiums" of deciduous forests); Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 14

2. Forest areas in the northwest ChEZ (least affected by fires, pests and cuttings in the post-accident years, rare species of boreal and nemorose plant species, etc. have possibly survived there);

3. Organize protection of the sites, where "Red Data Book" species were found;

4. Form herbarium of the Chornobyl Radiation and Ecological Biosphere Reserve.

References

Andrienko T.L., Sheliah-Sosonko Yu.R. Plant life of the Ukrainian Polissia in terms of its conservation. - Kyiv, Naukova Dumka, 1983.- 216 p. (in Russian)

Balashov L.S., Frantsevych L.I., Sherstik N.I. The state of the objects of natural reserve fund in the exclusion zone // Problems of the Chornobyl exclusion zone. -1996. – No. 4. - pp. 3-12 (in Russian)

Balashov L.S. Plants of the Ukrainian Red Data Book in the ChNPP Exclusion Zone // Ukr. Journal of Botany -2003 - V. 60. -No. 5. - pp. 528-536 (in Ukrainian)

Balashov L.S. Floristic composition of ecosystems in the exclusion zone and the zone of absolute (mandatory) resettlement // Auto-recovery processes in the ecosystems of the Chornobyl exclusion zone. - Kyiv-Chernivtsi; ANT Ltd., 2001. - pp. 229-241 (in Ukrainian)

Balashov L.S., Haichenko V.A., Frantsevych L.I., Kolomiets S.М. The Red Data Book of Ukraine in the exclusion zone // Bulletin of environmental state in the exclusion zone and the zone of absolute (mandatory) resettlement. - 1999 - No. 14. - pp. 35-37 (in Ukrainian)

Balashov L.S., Nehrutsa K.А. Suitableness of Polissia vegetation cover for the tarpan (Przewalski) horses // The Przewalski Horse (Equus Przewalskii Pol., 1881): the problems of conservation and return to nature (Proceedings of the 6-th International Symposium dedicated to the 100-th anniversary of breeding the species in Askania-Nova Reserve / Journal of Zoology, 1999. - Special Annex No. 11. - pp. 12-15 (in Ukrainian)

Balashov L.S., Pliuta P.H. Natural renewal of pine trees in the fallows of the exclusion zone // Science. Chornobyl-98, Scientific and Practical Conference of 1999, Collection of Abstracts - K .: 1999. - 83 p. (in Ukrainian)

Bidna S.M. Natural regeneration of tree and shrub vegetation in the fallows of the Chornobyl exclusion zone // Scientific Journal of NASU / K.: National Agrarian University. - Issue 17. - Forestry. 1999 - pp. 115-126. (in Ukrainian)

Bidna S.M., Petrov M.F., Arkhipov M.P., Tiutiunnyk Yu.H. Demutagenesis in the recovery of natural vegetation cover in the ChNPP exclusion zone // Science. Chornobyl-97. Scientific and Practical Conference of 1998. Collection of Abstracts. - K., 1998. - pp. 71-78 (in Ukrainian) Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 15

Bidna S.M., Petrov M.F., Balashov L.S. Vegetation cover in the evacuated cities of Chornobyl zone and its transforming impact on urban landscapes // Bulletin of environmental state in the exclusion zone and the zone of absolute (mandatory) resettlement, 2000. - No. 16. - pp. 28-30 (in Ukrainian)

Bortniak M.M. Data on the flora in the Kyiv region // Ukr. Journal of Botany, 1975, 32, No. 4, - pp. 445-448 (in Ukrainian)

Flora and Vegetation of the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve / Parfenov V.I., Maslovskyi O.M., Valetov V.V., Skuratovych A.P., Dubovik D.V., Stepanovych I.M., Voronetskyi N.N., Rykovskyi G.F., Dunin V.F., Piskunov V.S. - Mozyr: ID "Belyi Veter" Ltd., 2002. - 112 p. (in Russian)

Melankholin P.N. Geobotanical studies in the pine forests of the Chornobyl NPP “near zone” // Effects of ionizing radiation in the pine forests of the Chornobyl NPP “near zone”. Abaturov Yu. D., Abaturov A.V., Bykov A.V., Lindeman G.V. et al. - Moscow: Nauka, 1996. - pp. 186-219, 232-240 (in Russian)

Mosiakin S.L. Flora of Kyiv Polissia. Analysis of its modern state, formation ways and anthropic transformation trends // Author's abstract ... Cand. Sc. (Biol.), - Kyiv - 1990, 17 p. (in Russian)

Mykhailovska V.A. Flora of the Polesian Lowland. - Minsk: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the BSSR, 1953 - 454 p. (in Russian)

Parfenov V.I. Flora of Belarusian Paliessie. - Mn.: Navuka i Technika. 1983. - 295 p. (in Russian)

Petrov M.F. Botanical and geographical studies of the Chornobyl zone // Problems of the Chornobyl exclusion zone, 2016. - No. 15-16 – pp. 52-263 (in Ukrainian)

Petrov M.F. Dynamics of vegetation cover in the exclusion zone // Bulletin of environmental state in the exclusion zone and the zone of absolute (mandatory) resettlement -2004 - No. No. 1 (21), 2 (24) (in Ukrainian)

Petrov M.F. Rare and endangered species of plants in the ChNPP exclusion zone // Bulletin of environmental state in the exclusion zone and the zone of absolute (mandatory) resettlement -2006 - No. No. 1 (21), 2 (28) (in Ukrainian)

Petrov M.F. The synanthropic component of flora in the Chornobyl exclusion zone. - Chornobyl, 1998. - 69 p. / (Preprint of ChoNTSMD of the ME of Ukraine) (in Ukrainian)

Phytodiversity of Ukrainian Polissia and its conservation / Ed. by T.L. Andrienko - Kyiv; PhytoSocioCentre, 2006 - 316 p. (in Ukrainian)

Summary of the flora in the Middle Dnipro area. Vascular plants. / Chopyk V.I., Bortniak M.M., Voitiuk Yu.O., Pohrebennyk V.P., Kucheriava L.F., Nechytailo V.A., Liubchenko V.M., Shevchyk V.L. - Executive editor V.I. Chopyk – Kyiv: PhytoSocioCentre, 1998 - 140 p. (in Ukrainian)

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 16

Main trends of photosynthesis development in the post-accident period and present time

The post-accident termination of economic activity in agricultural areas started the processes of gradual transformation of the plant systems. And those not only have changed the general configuration of the former agricultural landscapes, but also formed new biocenologic conditions and set out the directions for further development of ecosystems in ChEZ.

The successional changes in plant systems occurred with the active participation of . For instance, the unharvested crop of 1986 covered by the thick snow (40 cm and up to 70 cm in some places) caused an unusually high abundance of mouse-like in the winter of 1986- 1987. The competing cultivated plants have been almost removed there. Then large stocks of snow and relatively uniform rainfall in spring facilitated the early beginning of growing season for biennial and perennial plant species (cocksfoot grass, timothy, meadow foxtail, bromegrass, clover, burclover, and occasionally self-sowing rye).

The rodents’ active burrowing during the growing season of 1987 created regenerative niches for anemochorous species, and as their diaspores can be stored in a soil bank of seeds (weeds), this caused a phase of weeds in the vegetation cover that was self-developing in the abandoned fields that lasted 1-2 growing seasons. The most notable new plant species was the goatweed Hipericum perforatum (dominated in the autumn of 1987) and the birch Betula pendula (its self-sowing was visible after 2-3 years, when it has overtopped herbaceous plants).

In the growing seasons of 1988-1989, termination of the weed phase in the spontaneous development of vegetation cover was observed in the former fields, where soil was cultivated annually. Large areas were covered by perennial grasses and meadow plant systems were gradually forming there.

There are terraces in the valleys of large and middle rivers and interfluvial areas in ChEZ. They are represented by sandy, clayey-sandy and sandy-loamy deposits with sod cryptopodzol soils. As early as in the 19th century, it was known that the main problem of these soils was reducing porosity and their compaction after ploughing, especially of subsurface layers, as well as suffosive formation of crust in the rootstocks and paths of burrowing animals. The plants form shallow root systems and suffer from soil droughts. This leads to plants weakening and death, especially of pine plantations, caused by the annosum root rot and phytophagan pests.

Under the ChEZ conditions, the lost properties of sandy and sandy-loamy soils were recovering due to the earth-moving animals activity; mostly, ants and wild boars. The boars loosen Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 17 upper soil layer and the ants form and maintain in their nests a system of multidirectional deep courses, thus accelerating a water and air exchange and deepening root occupation of soil. The resulting eliminated materials are moved to soil surface or into other soil layers. The ants’ waste products are carried to lower layers.

In such a way, ants complete a small biogenic cycle of matter. Their nesting activity has a depth of 1-1.6 m and underground diameter of a nest is 0.6-1.0 m. During the construction of 100 nests with above-ground domes, 1-1.5 m3 of material are lifted to the surface from lower soil layers. 10-20 % of the nests die each year and the same number of new ones are constructed. There are up to 2,000-3,000 nests with domes per a hectare on some advantageous sites in ChEZ.

The following facts are important for the successional transformations in soil-vegetation cover of the fallows: 1) ants use soil for the construction of cone-shaped above-ground parts of their nests, thus causing rarefactions in the vegetation cover and seeds lifting to the soil surface from its depth; 2) sometimes ants leave their nests; they return to the abandoned sites after the soil and vegetation cover is dug through by boars and warming of soil is improved there. These ensure cyclic development and movement of herbaceous vegetation contours within a natural region [Biogeocenotic cover ..., 1999].

The following features of wild boars’ behaviour are the most important for successions in the vegetation cover and in surface soil layers: 1) formation of dig-ups with a temporary absent closed vegetation covers; 2) using lands located outside "fallow" systems, when some plots are re- used after their food capacity renewal (in 3-5 years with removed animals or in 1-3 years with removed vegetational foods) [Petrov, 1996; Biogeocenotic cover ..., 1999]. In such a manner, the wild boars and ants contributed to the formation of mosaic plant systems and increased the species diversity.

Meadow phytocenoses

Taking into account their moistening level, the following predominant types of fallows have formed in ChEZ (the classification is per [Tsyganov, 1983]):

a) The clubawngrass fallows. They covered top hills and top ridges in the uplands and supra- floodplain terraces, top slopes with well-drained soils (5-7 m groundwater depth). Deflation was observed there. The soils are sod cryptopodzol sandy with alkaline-steppe hydration level. The herbaceous litter is fragmentary; its store was 330 g/m2 in June and 250 g/m2 in August of 1998. In 1999, the store was 90 g/m2 in June, and in August the plant residues did not form a solid layer [Paskevich, Petrov, 2003]. Plants cover maximum 30-50% of a site surface; therewith, a half of the plant cover are formed by lichens and mosses. Due to the animal (ungulates, ants) activity, the soil Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 18 surface (up to 30-40%) is partially loose (crashed), so anemochorous psammophytic species could disseminate there, both grasses (the most revealing fact was that the annual Kochia laniflora grew only there), trees (Pinus sylvestris) and shrubs (Salix acutifolia). Due to the latter and because of the preferential adherence to pine forests, an active renewal of pines occurred in these ecotopes. But those pines suffered from extensive damages by , also they were under the conditions of poor mineral nutrition; therefore, the trees could not be defined as pine forests (psammophytic- lichenaceous). Short-grown Gramineae including Corynephorus canescens, glauca, Festuca ovina and Helichrysum arenarium dominated among the flowering plants. The soil and vegetation cover was subject to diffusive destruction by animals that searched for food.

b) The small-petalled and wormwood fallows were found on slanted top slopes, levelled sections in frontal parts of the supra-floodplain terraces. The soils were sod mesopodzol silty-sandy with a dry-meadow hydration level. Auto-morphous moistening was due to penetration of moisture only from precipitation, flushing moistening was in deep homogeneous sandy deposits, and quick runoff of precipitation through moraine layers, which herbaceous plant roots could not permeate. A share of surface damaged by animals was maximum 10-15%; another 20-30% was bonded by the haircap moss, which hampered the development of new floral plants. The herbaceous litter was fragmentary; its store was 700 g/m2 in June and 290 g/m2 in August of 1998. In 1999, it was 100 g/m2 and 70 g/m2, respectively [Paskevich, Petrov, 2003]. Plants covered up to 40-60%. All species, which formed groupings in the above-listed types of fallows, were found there, but they dominated in various combinations: Apera spica-venti, Artemisia campestris, A. marschalliana, A. absinthium, Conyza canadensis, Pilosella officinarum, Oenothera biennis, Tanacetum vulgare. Self-sowing pine (and less often Betula pendula, Pyrus communis) also appeared on some sites located near timber stands. The brown hare, which had a convenient year-round station here, played an important role in endo-zoochoric plant spread.

c) The wild-grass and wood small-reed fallows are located on relatively well-drained plots of placers, mid-slopes, central parts of floodplain terraces, on the soils with waterproof layers. Sometimes, mosaic temporary perched water occurs here in spring and in early summer. The groundwater is located at a depth of 3-5 m. These fallows have sod cryptopodzol, clayey-sandy soils under the conditions of damp-meadow moistening level. The plant cover was up to 80%.

The solid bed of herbaceous litter had a store of 540 g/m2 in June and 440 g/m2 in August of 1998. In 1999, the store was 150 g/m2 in June [Paskevich, Petrov, 2003]. The plant stand is formed by Calamagrostis epigeios, often with the impurities of Elytrigia repens, which together gave 60-80% of the cut mass. There is up to 20-25 species in 1 m2 (Chamerion angustifolium, Cirsium arvense, Conyza canadensis, Oenothera biennis, Pilosella officinarum, Rumex acetosa, Rumex acetosella, Tanacetum vulgare, Verbascum lychnitis, Verbascum thapsus, etc.). In these Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 19 fallow type, the formerly sown Dactylis glomerata, Festuca pratensis, Phleum pratense are successfully self-renewing in plant habitats, though gradually appearing are also the following: wood small-reed, couch grass and other species listed above.

Their share in the herbage plant cover and cut mass still rarely exceeds 20%. The average herbage height is 30-40 cm. Wild boars actively dig out these fallows for most of the year. Due to psammophytic and adventitious plants, composition of plant species is increasing on the nano-relief hillocks formed by wild boars. Also, tree and shrub species appear on the dig-ups: Pinus sylvestris, Betula pendula, Pyrus communis, Salix aurita, S. caprea, Populus tremula, Acer negundo. This type of fallows covers 35-40% of the ChEZ total fallow area [Landscapes of the Chornobyl zone ..., 1994].

Some plots in this type of fallows were used as pastures before the accident; therefore, small populations of typical species (Artemisia austriaca, stricta, Cichorium inthybus) are preserved only there.

d) The heather and filaceous groupings formed on large relatively drained sites on placers and terraces, on long slopes. The groundwater is at a depth of 1-3 m, but the capillary fringe reached grass roots throughout the year. In wet years and in rainy seasons of normal years, the soil is fully saturated with moisture. Woody and shrubby species (mainly anemochorous ones) are continuously renewing there, and therefore some sites look like parks where trees and bushes of various heights form a stepped crown stand. The herbage is mosaic, consists of various species, mainly of the oligotrophic plants of cold-dry ecology: Calluna vulgaris, Festuca ovina, F. polessica, Juncus squarrosus, Lycopodium clavatum, Molinia caerulea, Nardus stricta, Solidago virgaurea, mosses of Polytrichum , Carex hirta, C. pallescens, Dianthus borbasii, Holcus lanatus, Koeleria glauca, Luzula multiflora, L. pallescens, considerable amounts of plants of mesophytic ecology join them [Typology of meadows ..., 1988]. The sites of these plant grouping provide high feed reserves for and .

e) The couch grass fallows are located in a lower third and at the foot of long slopes, along bottom low grounds. They formed on sod cryptopodzol gleyish clay-sandy and sandy-loamy soils with moist-meadow moistening conditions. Plants covered up to 90-100%. The solid bed of herbaceous litter was 2-5 cm thick. The vegetation store was 850 g/m2 in June and 490 g/m2 in August of 1998. In June 1999, the store was 90 g/m2 [Paskevich, Petrov, 2003]. Elytrigia repens amounted to 80-90% of the cut mass. The formerly sown forage grasses of Dactylis glomerata, Bromopsis inermis, Festuca pratensis, Arrhenatherum elatius and their mixtures were successfully self-renewing in this type of fallows, though the couch grass yielded up to 30% of their cut mass. In the after-sown herbages, there is also an admixture of long-rooted plants including Calamagrostis Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 20 epigeios, Chamerion angustifolium, Cirsium arvense, which disseminate due to the dig-ups of wild boars.

f) The fen-grass and reed grass fallows are located on the slopes of large lowerings in the floodplains and on the re-flooded supra-floodplain terraces, low grounds. They are located on sod gley clayed-sandy soils with wet-meadow moistening conditions. In case waterproof ort-outwash layers are present and with soil water supply, wet-meadow moistening conditions are formed. The herbaceous litter had a store of 970 g/m2 in June and 580 g/m2 in August of 1998. In 1999, it was 440 g/m2 and 580 g/m2, respectively [Paskevich, Petrov, 2003]. Calamagrostis stricta dominated in it. A share of other species was maximum 20%. Most often, the following joined: Lysimachia vulgaris, Lythrum salicaria, L. virgatum, Phalaroides arundinacea. Animals have least changed the soil-plant cover in this type of fallows.

g) The moist-grass and sedge groupings were found on the re-flooded central parts of closed settlings, where water comes out to the surface in spring and sometimes in summer after heavy rains. They grow on peaty-gley, peat-gley or peat soils with swampy-meadow moistening conditions. This grouping is characterized by the presence of temporary, seasonal or permanent gleying. The herbaceous litter store was 1290 g/m2 in June and 690 g/m2 in August of 1998. In 1999, it was 130 g/m2 and 70 g/m2, respectively [Paskevich, Petrov, 2003]. The herbage is dominated by Carex acutiformis, joined by C. lasiocarpa, C. rostrata, C. riparia, Juncus conglomeratus, Scirpus sylvaticus, Lythrum salicaria. The soil-vegetation cover becomes rarer on relatively higher plots, similarly to the upland fallows. In summer, wild boars damage soil- vegetation cover on the relatively lower plots with effluent water; and on peat plots - in cold seasons as well.

Forest phytocenoses

Forests cover over half (58%) of the ChEZ area. Most of them are pine plantations. In the absence of forest management activities from 1986 to 1993, significant and mostly negative changes have occurred there. For instance during this period, the area of dead forest plantations (caused by crown fires) increased almost 8-fold (from 700 hectares as of 1983 to 5,700 hectares in 1993), store of dead trees in the plantations increased 5.5 times, clutter in the plantations increased 10-fold. In the period from 1997 to 2006, the amount of deadwood and clutter in the plantations increased approximately two times more. This can be explained by insufficient amounts of the improvement cutting and random salvage cutting. For instance, according to the forest inventory data of 1983, the stock of identified dead trees per 1 hectare of forested lands was 0.36 m3. By contrast with the forest inventory data of 1996 when it was 1.96 m3, and 3.13 m3 in 2006. The Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 21 amount of revealed cluttering per 1 hectare of lands covered with forest vegetation was 0.08 m3 in 1983, 0.82 m3 in 1996, and 2.07 m3 in 2006, respectively.

Periodic outbreaks of phytophagous and xylophagous populations and damage of pines due to fungal diseases pose a significant threat to the health of pine plantations (Table 2).

Table 2. Main factors of the plantations damage, hectares (according to: [Draft organization ..., 2006]

Including: zones of environmental Amount of damage and silvicultural impacts

Damaging factor Total

low

high

medium

limited forest forest limited

reserve status reserve

unlimited forest forest unlimited

management status management status management

Pine-tree lappet 1374.0 344.9 501.5 527.6 606.0 599.0 169.0 Annosum root rot 12324.1 5585.1 5825.8 913.2 5164.8 4298.7 2860.6 Aspen fire sponge 389.1 150.7 169.4 69.0 38.2 86.6 264.3 Oak transverse cancer 48.1 1.6 39.1 7.4 - - 48.1 Oak fungus 92.0 89.8 2.2 61.8 12.3 17.9 Pine fungus 51.7 30.4 18.3 3.0 10.6 28.9 12.2 Crown fire 66.3 15.6 13.0 37.7 27.6 22.0 16.7 Ground fire 928.8 569.6 247.8 111.4 247.5 421.1 260.2 Activity of wild animals 32.0 3.9 22.1 6.0 3.9 19.4 8.7 Drying out 72.7 37.6 4.2 30.9 41.2 23.4 8.1 Sand filling 3.5 - 3.5 - - 3.5 - Windfall 2.7 - 2.7 - - - 2.7 Total 15385.0 6829.2 6849.6 1706.2 6201.6 5514.9 3668.5 Note: 1236.4 hectares of plantations were damaged as jointly affected by the pine-tree lappet and annosum root rot. That is, 14148.6 hectares of plantations were damaged in total.

The outbreaks of mass reproduction in the nun moth, common pine sawfly and pine-tree lappet periodically recur over large areas. The pine-tree lappet is especially dangerous, its reservations are in pure pine cultures, which were established on the formerly cultivated lands and infected with a causative agent of the annosum root rot. There is a fair amount of such plantations. Reservations of the nun moth are found in pure pine forests of age class IV-VI, which are located in forest areas, on sandy and sandy-loamy soils. There are significant areas of such plantations in almost every forestry area. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 22

Significant outbreaks in the mass reproduction of the pine-tree lappet were observed in 1997 and in 2006, of the nun moth – in 1995, and of the common pine sawfly – in 2003. During the forest inventories, 14.4 hectares of the pine-tree lappet development foci were identified in 1996 and 1,383 hectares – in 2006. In June 2006, a chemical treatment of the pine-tree lappet foci on an area of 1,700 hectares was carried out in the Kohodske Forestry Centre. However, new reproduction foci of this pest were found on the area of 4,440 hectares in the Kohodske and Lubianske Forestry Centres in the same year.

Small foci of trunk pests (the under-the-bark bug, black pine sawyer beetle, pine shoot beetle and lesser pine shoot beetle) and the European cockchafer, which do not pose a significant threat to the plantations, are identified annually during the surveys of forest pathology. Total area of plantations with the found trunk pests does not exceed 1500 hectares; and the one of the European cockchafer larvae is 1,116 hectares. The trunk pests were mainly detected on separate trees in the plantations damaged by ground fires and they do not demonstrate mass development.

The damages to pine plantations caused by the annosum root rot spread significantly. 4,596 hectares of the damaged plantations were identified in 1996 as compared to 12,324 hectares in 2006, incl. 11615 hectares of forest cultures. Up to 1,235 hectares of plantations were damaged by the annosum root rot and by the pine-tree lappet simultaneously. Up to 93.5% of the 1,134 hectares of the identified dead plantations were killed exactly due to the impacts of annosum root rot and pine-tree lappet.

The forest inventory of 2006 revealed 442 hectares of fire-ravaged plots that resulted from crown (383.1 ha) and ground (58.9 ha) fires. Mostly, these were remains of non-forested fire- ravaged plots that formed due to the big fires of 1992. Most of the plantations damaged by crown fires were killed completely. The weakness of some open-growing forest cultures is caused by the following: drying out (42.6 ha), damage by wild animals (41.0 ha), and frost-killing (1.9 ha).

Analysis of space images taken at different times demonstrates that "windows" in the pine forests, which were formed by the annosum root rot effects, almost ceased to appear in 2010-2016. Though, the existing ones became larger, lost their rounded form, merged and partially overgrew. For a while, the gypsy moth and fires were the main causes of forest killing. The free areas were overgrowing with the silver birch and occasionally with pines, aspens and various post-fire grasses. However, a mass affection of pine forests with the annosum root rot throughout the entire ChEZ territory and far beyond its borders occurred in 2017.

Damages to pine plantations caused by pests and diseases, similarly to the effects of non- biology factors (fires, under-floodings, windfalls, snow-breaks, etc.) create preconditions for the formation of a mosaic forest pattern and increased species diversity in the plant communities. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 23

The main forest types within the State Specialized Integrated Enterprise "Chornobyl Pushcha (Forest)" are as follows: dry, damp and moist pine forest (bor) (А1S, А2S, А3S); damp, moist and wet oak-pine subor (V2DS, V3DS, V4DS); moist hornbeam-oak sudubrava (S3GD); damp and moist hornbeam-oak-pine suramen (C2GDS, C3GDS, S4GDS); wet black-alder suramen (C4VLCh), which altogether secure 96.81% of the lands covered by forest vegetation. In total, pine forests (bors) cover 20.85%, subors - 56.49%, suramens - 22.50%, ramens - 0.16%.

The level of tree stand species composition conformity to growth conditions can be judged by a composition of forest species within a forest type. Pines absolutely dominate in the bor and subor forests, especially in the most common dry and damp conditions. A share of birches is very low here. Other species include willows, black locusts and Jack pines, which have been artificially cultivated over the last 40-50 years. A share of birch forests increases sharply on damp and moist sandy and especially sandy-loam soils, where the most favourable conditions for their natural renewal are establishing. Willow thickets are found on wet depleted sands.

It should be noted that the percentage of damp, moist and wet forest types in the entire area of bor and subor forests is insignificant. The pattern changes in sudubrava (suramen) and dubrava (oak) forest types. Fertile soils are usually found on the shores of streams and other water bodies, near-terrace settlings of the rivers; therefore, the absolute majority of sudubrava and dubrava (oak) forest types in ChEZ belong to the moist and wet hygrotope. Almost all alder forests can be referred to the native trees in the fertile conditions. Birch, aspen and hornbeam plantations replaced former dubravas (oak forests). Pure pine cultures and low-quality dubravas (oak forests) have replaced native pine-oak forests. In terms of the overall assessment of the conformity of species composition in ChEZ forest stands to the growth conditions, the following should be stressed:

1. The most of existing trees in the growth conditions of bor and subor types in ChEZ correspond to the native stands in terms of the major forest-forming species (the pine), but they significantly differ from them in terms of their age and spatial structure. Under natural conditions, mixed (proportion of deciduous is up to 30-50%) conventionally coeval pine forests with a mosaic horizontal structure would prevail;

2. Under the conditions of suramen and dubrava types, a considerable part of existing trees do not correspond to the growth conditions or to the major forest-forming species (birch forests), either by composition (pure pine forests instead of a two-level pine-oak forest stands) or by origin (germ oak forests). The exception is alder forests..

3. Analysis of the forest self-recovery demonstrated that: Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 24

4. With the presence of seed bearers in the felling areas, renewal of pines in the dry and damp bors and subors is generally insufficient. The seedling growth is of mixed age, grouped and mostly concentrated in micro- settlings;

5. The pine is satisfactorily renewing (with a significant admixture of birches and aspens) in the felling areas in moist and partly wet bors and subors. A good renewal is conditioned by a sufficient number of seed bearers equally spaced on a site. The renewal period is 3-5 years, and 2-4 years – after fires;

6. Oak felling areas are renewed satisfactorily in damp sudubravas, mostly with the ground oak, and rarely with the birch and aspen;

7. In moist sudubravas, oak felling areas are satisfactorily renewed within 1-3 years with the aspen and birch, partly with the ground oak and hornbeam;

8. Natural renewal of the birch, aspen and alder is satisfactory in all types of forest, it occurs from young growth and seed scattering within 1-3 years. Depending on the soil moistening and fertility, various types of mosses, grasses and shrubs predominate in the ground cover of pine forests. Accordingly, they are divided into lichen, green moss, myrtillus and green moss, molinia-myrtillus, bracken, haircap moss and sphagnum ones. Each of these aggregation groups has its certain place and position in the relief. The lichen pine forests are in the top oak-tree sand ridges and other mesorelief uplands. The green moss pine forests are located in the mid-slopes and on other middle-level plots. The bracken pine stands are typically placed on he levelled plots and lower parts of smooth slopes. The molinia-myrtillus forests are typically located on the flat settlings and around rock-basin marshes, and the sphagnum forests are found in the closed settlings changing to sphagnum marshes.

The lichen pine forests are found in the ChEZ on small plots, their area does not exceed 10%. The green moss pine forests are the most widespread group among the forests of Polissia, where they usually cover damp and moist sites with more fertile soils. The heather and green moss pine forests of secondary origin, particularly on fire-ravaged sites, are ecologically and floristically close to the green moss pine forests.

The myrtillus and green moss pine forests are characterized by more wet habitats than in the previous group; they cover lower parts of slopes and pine-forest ridges, as well as shallow settlings between them. Sod-podzol sandy soils with an underdeveloped humus horizon are typical of them.

The bracken pine forests are found on the levelled sites or in the mid-slopes on sod cryptopodzol sandy-loam soils with a relatively shallow groundwater; and they do not cover large areas. The molinia-myrtillus pine forests occupy more humid plots than the above groups of forest communities, but they are still sufficiently drained. Participation of the silver birch is evident in the Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 25 high-yielding stand. The sphagnum pine forests cover the most humid plots on poorly aerated soils; and they are found only as separate fragments.

Indicators of the pine forests digression include disappearance of moss cover and increased participation of Gramineae in the cover, especially of the wood small-reed and red fescue. At the same time, role of typical forest species decreases. However, the following are appearing: wild strawberry (Fragaria vesca), common speedwell (Veronica officinalis), burnet-saxifrage (Pectinella saxifrage), common bent (Agrostis tenuis), wild basil (Clinopodium vulgare) and some weeds.

Characteristic features of the oak-pine forests include availability of a two-layered stand, well-defined undergrowth and species diversity in the grass-shrub layer combining the species of bor and dubrava forest types The oak-pine forests grow on sod podzol, clayed-sandy and sandy- loam soils of various humidification degrees with clay-loam embedment, which have formed on glacifluvial deposits. If compared to the pine forests, they have much narrower environmental range, i.e. they do not grow in poor and dry conditions. Depending on species dominating in their undergrowth, the shrub (hazel and buckthorn) and grass-shrub (when the undergrowth is absent) aggregation groups are distinguished.

The hornbeam-oak-pine forests are the most climate-induced group of forests in Polissia as compared to the pine and pine-oak ones. However, their distribution is hindered by the prevalence of poor sandy soils in this area.

Similarly to the above groups, the oak forests belong to the native forests of Polissia. They occur among pine and pine-oak forests, on the plots with the widest fertility range of sod podzol types of sandy-loamy soils, which have formed on loessial and carbonate-moraine deposits. These areas were mostly ploughed up at various times and used as agricultural lands.

Therefore, the area of such forests, which remain survived till our time, is much less than the one potentially fit for their distribution. In the relief, the oak forests are located below the oak-pine stands, but above the alder ones that occupy settlings. According to their environmental indicators (type, acidity, fertility and hydration of soils), the oak forests of Polissia are referred to the acidophilic variation of oak forests with their inherent features. As a light-demanding species, the oak forms forests with a well-identified layer of undergrowth and ground cover. Their largest part belongs to the hazel oak forests. The buckthorn oak forests grow on the most humid (in this formation) sod podzol gley soils, in inconsiderable settlings.

Predominantly small-leaved (birch and aspen) secondary forests replace native forest cenoses after their destruction.

The birch forests (the silver birch) develop in the place of pine and oak-pine forests. Usually, these are light two-layered cenoses without undergrowth. They do not form large arrays, Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 26 but they are often found mixed with the forests, which they have replaced. Birches actively colonize brises and abandoned fallows due to the production of a large number of seeds and its capability to spread them far from seed bearers. In particular, the birch predominates among other species during the reforestation of ChEZ fallows. Also, a strip of young birch forest with heather, green moss, molinia and haircap moss ground cover was formed in the "".

The aspen forests develop in the place of pine-oak, oak and hornbeam-oak forests and inherit components of their undergrowth and ground cover. However, since the aspen was considered to be a species of little use, destruction of aspen plantations, which spontaneously arose in the vacant sites, was a common practice. Those areas were assigned to forest cultures, most often to the Scots pine monoculture.

Alder forests and forests with the downy birch are found in humid settlings. These forests are often found combined with forest swamps having a corresponding composition.

The black alder forests are common for the near-terrace settlings in floodplains and interstream areas. Their typical soils vary from sod podzol gley ones to silty-bog soils.

In terms of their composition and structure, the downy birch forests are an intermediate link between forests and marshes, and they develop around marshes, on poorer soils, if compared to alder forests.

Since 1996, a relative decrease in the area covered with the Scots pine, common oak and black alder and an increase in the area occupied by the silver birch is observed in the forest reserve. The decreased area of the Scots pine in the forest fund can be mainly explained by the loss from forest fires, damages caused by pests and forest diseases. For instance, due to the natural renewal and forest cultures establishment, the Scots pine has increased its area by 2,367.2 hectares in 1996- 2006. However, 1528.1 ha of its dead and felled plantations were recorded as of 01.01.2007. The relative increase in the area of silver birch is mainly due to its natural renewal (2407.8 ha) and establishment of forest cultures (130.0 ha) on the former agricultural lands.

15907.8 hectares of the lands naturally overgrew with forest vegetation during the period from 1987 to 1996; and 5562.4 hectares – in the period from 1997 to 2006. Mostly glades and former fields were subject to overgrowing. Plantations with predominating silver birches (62%), Scots pines (23%) and shrubs (7%) are developing in the majority of cases. During the first decade, the lands with moist and wet forest growing conditions were first and foremost subject to natural reforestation; and reforestation of the areas with damp hygrotop started its predomination in the second decade. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 27

In the former fields, plant groupings with herbaceous plants of corresponding ecological groups have formed. Tree and shrub plants gradually disseminate in them. Artificial plantations are being created in some parts of ChEZ.

References

Biogeocenotic cover of Nerussa- Polissia: mechanisms of biological diversity maintenance / Yevstigneev O.I., Korotkov V.N., Beliakov K.V., Braslavskaia T.Yu., Romanovskyi A.M., Rubashko H.E., Sarycheva Ye.P., Fedotov Yu.P. (Edited by Smirnova O.V.) - , Preprint of the State "Bryansk Forest", 1999. 176 p. (in Russian)

Draft organization of forest management in the State Special Integrated Enterprise named "Chornobyl Pushcha (Forest)". - K.: Lisoproekt, 2006 (in Ukrainian)

Landscapes of the Chornobyl zone and their assessment in terms of radionuclides migration conditions Davydchuk V.S., Zarudnaia R.F., Mikheli S.V., Petrov M.F., Sorokina L.Yu., Tkachenko A.N. (Edited by Marinich A.M.) - Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1994, 112 p. (in Russian)

Paskevich S.A., Petrov M.F. Assessment of 90Sr and 137Cs accumulation by the structural elements of plant communities in meadows and fallows of the exclusion zone // Problems of Chornobyl - 2003 - Issue 13 - pp. 155-162 (in Russian)

Petrov M.F. Nutrition the (Sus scrofa L.) in the Ukrainian territory of the Chornobyl exclusion zone // Problems of the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone, 1996, Issue 3, pp. 69-81; Biogeocenotic ..., 1999 (in Russian)

Tsyganov D.N. Phytoindication of environmental conditions in the subzone of coniferous-broadleaf forests - Moscow: Nauka, 1983, 197 p. (in Russian)

Typology of meadows in Ukraine and their efficient use / Balashov L.S., Sipailova L.M., Solomakha V.A., Sheliah-Sosonko Yu.R. - Kyiv, Naukova Dumka, 1988 - 240 p. (in Russian). Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 28

Modern knowledge on the species distribution and structure of the phytocomplexes in the ChEZ

According to our observations and literary data, the flora of the ChEZ includes 1,228 species of higher plants plus about 210 species and ornamental forms, which status requires clarification [Petrov, 2016].

This list includes those types of natural and adventitious flora, which have been found or ever mentioned in the ChEZ. The areal-expected species, which are found in the adjacent territories of the Kyiv-Polissia and Polissia-Cisdnieper geobotanical districts having a similar set of ecotopes (primarily, in the Paliessie State Radioecological Reserve of the Republic of Belarus), but not yet found in the ChEZ, are classified as "not sufficiently known". The taxa presented in the list of flora without an index number include the species and ornamental forms that are areal-possible due to their edaphic or migratory abilities, though not found yet; adventitious species known by sporadic contributions; some cultivated species, which were occasionally identified as wild ones, and some others. These taxa were not taken into account when analyzing the ChEZ flora.

The data on some tree and shrub plant species were obtained from the taxonomic descriptions and afforestation layouts of some forestry centres [Draft organization ..., 2006]. A taxation description includes categories of lands as per the State Forest Fund: forest plantations, dead forest plantations, sparse forests, grassy glades, fire sites, cuttings, etc. The following were characterized for the forest plantations: layerage, tree species, age, height and diameter of major species, quality and type of forest, origin (natural seed, natural germ, artificial). The taxation descriptions of forest inventory for 1996-1997 and 2006-2007 differ from the pre-accident forest inventory of 1983, primarily by the lack of characteristics of under story, grass and moss tiers, and undergrowth for the vast majority of forestry subcompartments. In many cases, this reduces the opportunity to assess a successional situation in taxation subcompartments.

When studying the diversity of species in plant communities, some features of their structure, phenology, dynamics of species composition and productive capacity in the years with different weather conditions, when some species were only in vegetative and/or latent state, were revealed (Figure 5-6).

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 29

Figure 5. Neottia nidus-avis. A hornbeam dubrava in a near-terrace lowering of the supra- floodplain terrace of the Pripyat River

Figure 6. Leaves of Allium ursinum turned yellow, and Aegopodium podagraria is in blossom (12 June 2012). A hornbeam dubrava in a near-terrace lowering of the supra-floodplain terrace of the Pripyat River

For instance, a complete vegetation of the following ephemers occurs in the fallow phytocomplexes on automorphous soils in April: the spring draba (Erophila verna) and the thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana). Later, gramineae with fibrous root system absolutely predominate in Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 30 terms of the shoots number and phytomass formed in the first half of the growing season. By mid- July, most of their above-ground shoots die, and their growing area is gradually occupied by growing shoots of the taproot species: the field wormwood (Artemisia campestris (A. dniproica)), the virgate wormwood (A. scoparia), the absinthe wormwood (A. absinthium), the common wormwood (A. vulgaris), the common evening-primrose (Oenothera biennis), the Canadian horseweed (Conyza canadensis), the common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), the mullein medicinal (V. phlomoides) and the wood small-reed (Calamagröstis epigéios), which reach their maximum phytomass in mid-August.

Development of ephemeroid synusiae in broad-leaved forests prior to the development of leaves in the trees is well known. A particularly large group of rare species is found among Lycopodiophyta, Pteridophyte and . They share availability of underground prothalluses. There are cases when a prothallus (gametophyte) has been developing for 15 years, and then development towards a genesic state lasted another 2-3 years (Goodyera repens). The common nettle (Urtica dioica) and the rare Greek valerian (Polemonium caeruleum) are actively disseminating on reclaimed plots in the floodplains, after a complete degradation of plant residues (Figure 7).

Figure 7. The common nettle and the rare Greek valerian. A reclaimed floodplain meadow of the Uzh River

Biological structure and features of the anthropogenic transformation of flora

Natural flora of the South Polesian District of the Polissia subprovince is very poor in endemics [Zaverukha, 1985]. Only about 20 endemic and subendemic species are listed for this vast Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 31 area, the following of which can possibly grow in the ChEZ: Dianthus pineticola, Silene lithuanica, Dianthus pseudosquarrosus, Jurinea pseudocyanoides, the Belarus goatsbeard (Tragopogon bjelorussicus), the bugseed ( hyssopifolium L. (C. insulare Klokov), С. marschallii Stev. (C. borysthenicum Andrz.), С. nitidum Kit. (C. hybridum Bess. ex Andrz).

Distribution boundaries of many species, predominantly of bog systems, pass through or near the territory of ChEZ: the dark-leaved and swamp willow (Salix myrsinifolia, S. myrtilloides), the marsh saxifrage (Saxifraga hirculus), lower birch (Betula humilis), sedges (Carex juncella (Fr.) Th. Fr. (C. wiluica Meinsh.)), Pedicularis sceptrum-carolinum, as well as Acer tataricum, the Norway spruce (Picea abies).

There are 5 divisions, 128 families and 524 genera in the ChEZ flora (Table 3). The taxa of Magnoliophyta division absolutely prevail here: 116 families (90.3%), 5,053 genera (96.3%), 1,197 species (97.5%). Predomination of dicotyledonous plants is obvious within the division. Generally, the systematic structure of ChEZ flora follows a structure of most in the middle latitudes of the Holarctic.

Table 3. Taxonomic structure of the ChEZ flora

Divisions, Families Genera Species classes Quantity % Quantity % Quantity % Lycopodiophyta 2 1.6 4 0.8 5 0.4 Equisetophyta 1 0.8 1 0.2 6 0.5 Polypodiophyta 7 5.6 10 2.0 13 1.1 Pinophyta 2 1.6 4 0.8 7 0.6 Liliopsida 28 21.4 104 19.5 269 21.7 Magnoliopsida 88 69.0 401 76.7 928 75.7 Total 128 100.0 524 100.0 1228 100.0

The leading families of the ChEZ flora are: Asteracеае, Роаcеае, Rosaceae, Cуреraceае, Brassicaceae, Caryophyllacеае, Scrophulariaceae, Lamiaceae, Fabaceae, Ranunculaceae. The spectrum of flora families is generally characteristic of a forestland flora (Table 4).

The following are the genera with the largest species numbers: Carex L. – 46; Veronica L. – 19; Potamogeton L. – 15; Potentilla L. – 15; Viola L. – 15; Salix L. – 15; Pilosella Hill – 14; Trifolium L. – 14; Galium L. – 13; Juncus L. – 12; Chenopodium L. – 11; Epilobium L. – 11; Ranunculus L. – 11; Rosa L. – 11; Rumex L. – 11.

Plants of the following species are notable and important contributors to the vegetation cover development: Agrostis L. – 5; Artemisia L. – 7; Campanula L. – 10; Centaurea L. – 10; Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 32

Dianthus L. – 8; Equisetum L. – 6; Euphorbia L. – 8; Festuca L. – 9; Lathyrus L. – 6; Poa L. – 10; Populus L. – 8; Senecio L. – 10; Stellaria L. – 7; Verbascum L. – 6; Vicia L. – 10.

Table 4. The most abundant flora families in ChEZ

Families Genera Species Genera Species Quantity % Quantity % Asteraceae Dumort. 60(10)* 153(20) 60 11.1 153 12.6 Barnhart 44(5) 93(10) 44 8.4 93 7.6 Rosaceae Lindl. 23(3) 71(17) 23 4.5 71 6.0 Cyperaceae Juss 10(1) 65(1) 10 2.0 65 5.4 Fabaceae Lindl. 16(4) 56(6) 16 3.1 56 4.6 Juss. 25(2) 54(4) 25 5.1 54 4.6 Brassicaceae Burnett 31(2) 54(7) 31 5.7 54 4.5 Scrophulariaceae Juss. 14 49(3) 14 2.7 49 4.1 Lamiaceae Lindl. 23(2) 44(4) 23 4.6 44 3.6 Apiaceae Lindl. 23(2) 36(2) 23 4.4 36 3.0 Ranunculaceae Juss. 15(3) 35(5) 15 2.9 35 2.9 Total 285(33) 710(76) 285 54.4 710 58.4 * Note: Additional number of taxa, which are not included into the statistical calculations, is presented in brackets.

Biological structure of the flora

The flora in ChEZ includes eight plant biomorphs (Table 5), in which herbaceous polycarpous plants and annual plants prevail.

The following adaptations of species to vegetative maintenance, reproduction and dissemination in an ecotope are found in ChEZ (Table 6):

 By shoots – growth of inactive buds from a root crown, from bottom tree trunk and root cutout;

 By graftings (sarmentation) – rooting of fallen shoots (or their remnants) of the terrestrial and aquatic plants;

 By brood buds (rosettes, turions, bulbi and pseudo-bulbi) from shoots, leaves and inflorescences;

 By stolons – reproduction and dissemination by above-ground stolons and established ascending and repent above-ground shoots (terrestrial-repent plants); Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 33

 By underground stems – after-growth (formation) of an above-ground shoot from the end of an underground one, usually monopodial (sometimes by a bulbus);

 By long roots – formation of new above-ground shoots on underground shoots (xylorhizomes in tree species) and underground stolons that are branched during a growing season and are more or less prolonged; tubers often form on them;

 By caudexes – a perennial underground shoot of taproot herbaceous plants;

 By soboles – formation of root shoots (sometimes by root tubers);

 By stooling – rooting of underground after-growth shoots (loosely-bunched plants which few shoots grow upwards, and densely-bushy plants which numerous shoots closely adjoin each other.

Table 5. Participation of biomorphs in the ChEZ flora

Biomorph Quantity of species % Herbaceous annuals 238 19.5 Herbaceous vegetative annuals 39 2.4 Biennials 86 7.0 Herbaceous biennial and perennial monocarps 30 2.7 Herbaceous polycarps 682 56.1 Subshrubs 21 1.7 Shrubs 74 6.0 Trees 58 4.7 Total 1228 100.0

The flora in ChEZ can be divided into two conditional groups according to the anthropogenic tolerance, i.e. (Table 7) 1) species that do not spread in anthropogenic ecosystems; and 2) species that are adapted to such conditions, and some even prefer them (synanthropic). The following are distinguished among the synanthropic plants: apophytes (autochthonous, local synanthropic species) and anthropophytes (adventitious, introduced species).

In turn, the apophytes are divided into three groups according to the degree of their adaptation to anthropogenic factors: evapophytes (local species, which have completely or partially transferred to anthropogenic ecosystems); hemiapophytes (are actively spreading in semi-natural or transformed ecosystems, though keep their stable position in natural ecosystems); spontaneophytes (species, which can occur in anthropogenic ecosystems, but only accidentally). If a species distribution was not observed in the anthropogenic ecosystems, then its anthropogenic tolerance was not assessed under our research. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 34

Table 6. The structure of ChEZ flora according to the form of vegetative maintenance, reproduction and dissemination

Participation of biomorphs in the flora of ChEZ 238 39 86 30 682 21 74 58

Species according to the method

of vegetative fixation, reproduction, dissemination

Trees Trees

Shrubs

annuals annuals

Annuals Annuals

perennial perennial

Biennials

Polycarps Polycarps

Subshrubs

Vegetative Vegetative

monocarps

Biennial and Biennial

Rhizomatous - - - 28 230 - - - Long-rhizomatous, xylorhizomes - - - - 169 8 28 10 Caudexous - - - 4 136 - - - Shruby herbaceous - - - 80 - - - Root shoots - - 1 6 26 - 8 11 Stolons 6 2 - - - - - Grafting 12 9 6 60 7 23 8 Viviparous - - - 14 - - - Turions - 9 - 13 - - - Brood buds - 1 - 14 - - - Bulbils - - - 22 - - - Root tubers, rhizomatous tubers, 1 5 1 1 45 - - - stolons

Table 7. Representation of anthropotolerant species in the ChEZ biomorphs

Anthropotolerant species

Total

Trees

Shrubs

Annuals

Polycarps

Subshrubs

monocarps

Vegetative annuals Vegetative

Biennial and perennial and perennial Biennial Apophytes Evapophytes 27 - 20 33 - 2 - 82 Hemiapophytes 36 2 28 188 4 16 22 296 Spontaneophytes 12 4 3 68 2 3 3 95 Total, apophytes 75 6 51 289 6 21 25 473 Anthropophytes Archeophytes 52 - 16 9 1 1 3 82 Cenophytes 35 1 6 23 3 5 19 92 Euchenophytes 24 2 15 32 - 28 10 111 Total, anthropophytes 111 3 37 64 4 34 32 285 Total, anthropotolerant species 186 9 87 353 10 55 57 758

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 35

The anthropophytes are characterized by the following three features: time of entry, way of entry and naturalization degree, using the traditional classifications for the adventitious element in flora [The ecoflora of Ukraine …, 2000]. According to the time of their entry into Ukraine and, particularly (if estimation possible) to the territory of present ChEZ, the following are distinguished: archeophytes that entered in the 15th century; cenophytes that entered between the 15th and early 20th century; euchenophytes that entered in the 20th-21st centuries.

The following categories were established according to the degree of their naturalization among anthropophytes (Table 8): agriophytes (have naturalized in semi-natural and natural ecosystems and are capable to withstand competition with local species in them); epecophytes (resistibly distributed in anthropogenic ecosystems); colonophytes (are capable of forming colonies or primary populations, begin to spread by the diasporas formed under new conditions); ephemerophytes (appeared due to the new introduction of diasporas – cultivated; cultivated and fall out of cultivation; left from a culture and fall out of cultivation).

Table 8. Distribution of the anthropophyte species in ChEZ according to their naturalization degree and biomorphs

Naturalization degree of

ees

Total

anthropophyte species Tr

Shrubs

Annuals

Polycarps

Subshrubs

Biennial and Biennial

Vegetative annuals Vegetative

perennial monocarps perennial Archeophytes Agriophytes 3 - - 1 1 - 1 6 Epecophytes 48 - 14 7 - - - 69 Colonophytes 1 - 2 1 - 1 2 7 Ephemerophytes ------Cenophytes Agriophytes 2 1 3 2 1 - 1 10 Epecophytes 26 - 2 7 - - 1 36 Colonophytes 6 - 1 8 2 5 8 30 Ephemerophytes 1 - - 6 - - - 7 Euchenophytes Agriophytes 1 - 2 1 - - - 4 Epecophytes 11 - 4 4 - 2 - 21 Colonophytes 11 2 8 24 - 22 16 83 Ephemerophytes 1 - 1 3 - 4 3 12 Total 111 3 37 64 4 34 32 285

The following categories are distinguished according to their entry method (Table 9): acolutophytes (introduced by humans accidentally, spread due to the anthropogenically disturbed natural ecosystems, and the conditions in anthropogenic ecosystems are favourable for their growth); ergasiophytes (introduced by humans intentionally, for certain purposes, and are preserved Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 36 in a culture only); ergasiophygophytes (those of the ergasiophytes that periodically fall out of cultivation); ergasiolipophytes (left over from former cultures, "relics of culture"); xenophytes (introduced by humans unintentionally, accidentally, failed to disseminate widely).

Table 9. Distribution of the anthropophyte species in ChEZ according to the time and method of their entry

Methods of introduction

Total

of anthropophyte species Trees

Shrubs

Annuals

Polycarps

Subshrubs

Biennial and Biennial

Vegetative annuals Vegetative

perennial monocarps perennial acolutophytes 47 - 16 6 - - - 69 Archeophytes ergasiophytes ------ergasiophygophytes 5 - - 3 1 1 3 13 ergasiolipophytes ------acolutophytes 27 1 5 7 - - - 40 Cenophytes ergasiophytes - - - 8 - - - 8 ergasiophygophytes 8 - 1 8 2 5 10 34 ergasiolipophytes - - - - 1 - - 1 acolutophytes 14 8 5 - - - 27 Euchenophytes ergasiophytes - 2 - - - 25 1 28 ergasiophygophytes 10 - 7 26 - 3 16 62 ergasiolipophytes - - - 1 - - 2 3 Total 111 3 37 64 4 34 32 285

The plants of ChEZ are distinguished by a wide variety of forms of their dissemination, including animal participation (Table 10).

A characteristic feature of plant complexes in ChEZ is a large number of species introduced by humans [Petrov, 1998]. A significant portion of them successfully crop, reproduce and spread. For example, local populations of the two maple species, which had been accidentally brought in before the accident, have formed in the city of Pripyat: Acer ginnala (1 parent plant and over 30 daughter ones) and Acer campestre (2 parent plants and over 10 daughter ones). Large fruits of Aesculus hippocastanum, Juglans regia and J. cinerea are spread by animals (squirrels, crows, jays). Acorns of Quercus rubra are spread by the jay and, to a lesser extent, by the squirrel. Juicy fruits of the following species are distributed by birds mostly: Amelanchier Medik, Aronia melanocarpa, Crataegus sanguinea, Lonicera xylosteum, Morus alba, Phellodendron amurense, Ribes odoratum, Sambucus nigra and S. racemosa and some others. The following nitrogen-fixing legume plants Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 37 were planted and seeded in the pine forest plantations: Amorpha fruticosa, Lupinus polyphyllus, L. perennis, Robinia pseudacacia. All of them successfully grow in their initial cenoses and spread to new ones. The following plants were also cultivated within ChEZ: Fraxinus lanceolata, Phellodendron amurense, Physocarpus opulifolius, Pinus banksiana, Ptelea trifoliata. These species are capable to crop and exist in forest cenoses without human help. Fraxinus lanceolata penetrated into the Pripyat River floodplain from Chornobyl plantations and is now actively reproducing by seeds and spreading on the Pripyat-branch islands of the Kyiv reservoir.

Table 10. Distribution of plant species in ChEZ according to the prevailing methods (agents) of disseminating their primordia

Prevailing methods

(agents) of

disseminating plant Trees

Shrubs

egetative egetative

annuals

Annuals

perennial perennial

Polycarps

Subshrubs

V primordia monocarps

Biennial and Biennial

Anemochory 126 2 50 390 4 19 31 Barochory 92 - 29 122 - 11 14 Balistochory 25 - 18 108 5 - - Mechanochory 20 - 4 47 6 2 1 Hydrochoria 27 17 4 123 - - 1 Myrmecochory 35 - 12 97 2 1 1 Endozoochory 79 2 23 230 16 29 17 Epizoochory 35 4 21 67 1 - - Zoochory 10 7 6 55 - 8 - Ornitochory 19 4 2 7 - 9 2 Autocryptochory 2 - - 7 - - - Gonochorism 2 5 1 14 - 11 10 Mycotrophs 3 - 5 102 8 5 4 Bryophils 13 4 2

The following species were also cultivated in the population centres before the accident and vegetatively exist until now: Allium sativum, Brunnera sibirica, Galanthus nivalis, Narcissus angustifolius, Narcissus x hybridus hort, Narcissus poeticus, Hemerocallis fulva, Hosta albomarginata, Ornithogalum umbellatum, Scilla siberica, Tulipa x hybrida hort.

Moreover, the following "Red Data Book" species were cultured in the centres of population: Crocus heuffelianus, Crocus vernus, meleagris, Galanthus nivalis, Galanthus plicatus, Leucojum vernum, Lunaria rediviva, Narcissus angustifolius. They are still preserved in some cenoses of the population centres. The species of Crocus, Galanthus and L. rediviva reproduce by seeds, and the bulbous species reproduce vegetatively. For example, L. Rediviva is found in some places in the north-east of Chornobyl, and sometimes it covers an area of about 1 hectare Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 38 there. Meanwhile, the abundance of many bulbous species decreases, and F. meleagris has presumably disappeared.

Bioecological and systematic features of the synanthropic flora in ChEZ

The main bioecological criterion in the development of various classifications for the synanthropic species is their capability to form viable seeds and to disseminate. For adventitious species, this is determined by a level of species naturalization in new regions; and for autochthonous species, by the level of "penetration" into anthropogenic or anthropogenized ecotopes. In such cases, their capability for vegetative regeneration and dissemination is only an auxiliary means, except possibly for aquatic plants.

In the local synanthropic flora, the division of Pinophyta is represented by 9 species and 2 of them are autochthonous. Fruiting and occurrence of viable offspring are observed in 3 species only (Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris, P. banksiana). Some specimens of 4 other species (Larix sp., Picea pungens, Thuja occidentalis) demonstrate florescence and formation of cones, but no seeds. Besides, this was the reason that did not allow a complete identification of found sites’ statuses, since cottoning of seed scale is the main systematic difference between Larix decidua Mill and L. sibirica Ledeb that are commonly cultivated in Ukraine. All the found specimens of Abies alba and Juniperus sabina were juvenile. Specimens of J. communis were adult, but grew singly. Researchers give several examples of the absent fruiting or a significant deterioration in the quality of seeds in the anemochorous gymnosperms that had less than 30 specimens in the groups [Udra, 1988]. And the main reason is considered to be an inadequate concentration of pollen in the air. A convincing proof of this conclusion is the fact that the common juniper normally fruits and reproduces to the south of ChEZ, in the pine forests of right-bank basin of the Teterev River, almost on the southern border of its natural habitat.

Anemochorous and zoochorous plants predominate among the tree and shrub synanthropic species of Magnoliophyta division.

An important role in current successional processes in various anthropogenized ecotopes belongs to the anemochorous autochthonous species: Pinus sylvestris, Ulmus glabra, Betula pendula, B. pubescens, Populus alba, P. nigra, P. tremula, Salix acutifolia, S. aurita, S. cinerea, S. caprea; i.e. the genera and species, which foresters consider to be pioneer ones, capable of settling in open areas, as well as Acer platanoides, Tilia cordata. Among the adventitious anemochores, Populus canescens, Acer negundo, A. saccharinum, Physocarpus opulifolius, Spirea Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 39 chamaedryfolia, S. media and S. salicifolia disseminate most actively. All listed species form single-species biogroups and groupings.

Endozoochorous chylocarpous species predominate among the zoochorous synanthropic tree and shrub species. The autochthonous ones include Ribes nigrum, Malus praecox, Padus avium, Pyrus communis, Rosa majalis, Rubus caesius, R. idaeus, R. nessensis, Sorbus aucuparia, Swida sanguinea, Frangula alnus, Viscum album, Viburnum opulus, Solanum dulcamara. This group is much more abundant within the adventitious species, and dissemination of the following species is the most notable in the relevant ecotopes: Berberis vulgaris, Morus alba, Amelanchier spicata, Aronia melanocarpa, Cerasus fruticosa, Chenomeles speciosa, Crataegus sanguinea, Malus domestica, Padus virginiana, Rosa canina, Swida alba, Euonymus verrucosa, Partenoccissus quinquefolia, Ligustrum vulgare, Lonicera tataricum, Sambucus nigra, S. racemosa, Symphoricarpus rivularis.

From the viewpoint of long-term successions, synzoochorous species play an important role in tree and shrub cenoses of the middle latitudes, as they are the most long-lived and dominant ones. The autochthonous synanthropic species of this group are locally represented by Quercus robur and Corylus avellana only. Within the adventitious species, synzoochorous expansion is observed in Q. borealis, Juglans cinerea, J. regia and Aesculus hippocastanum.

The ecological-biological group of annual and biennial species is quite abundant in the anthropogenized ecotopes. Although these species do not often become dominants in plant communities; however in terms of development, their role is very significant in certain periods of growing season, when they become food objects for phytophagous animals. Their continuous participation in plant communities is first of all supported by vital activity of burrowing animals (boars, ants, small rodents, earthworms). For example during the observation period of 1998, Commelina communis was first recorded on 4 sites in Pripyat city, in the dig-ups of a wild boar. Calendula officinalis, Cosmos bipinnatus grew with it on a dug former flowerbed. Such plants as Artemisia annua, Ambrosia artemisifolia, Malva neglecta, Malva sylvestris, Chenopodium vulvaria and some others are found only on man-caused disturbances of the soil surface, during 1-2 growing seasons. That is, diasporas of these species can remain viable in soil for a long time, until favourable conditions for their germination and successful vegetation occur.

The introduced species, which demonstrated no features of naturalization (fruit or seeds do not form, no renewal, etc.) include: Abies alba, Larix sp., Picea pungens f. coerulea, Juniperus communis, Juniperus sabina, Thuja occidentalis, Schisandra chinensis, Paeonia officinalis, Mahonia aquifolium, Tamarix ramosissima, Populus italica, Salix alba f. vitellina pendula, Salix matsudana f. tortuosa, Ribes odoratum, Deutzia scabra, Hydrangea arborescens, Cydonia oblonga, Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 40

Malus baccata, Rosa chinensis, R. multiflora, Cornus mas, Syringa josikaea, Weigela , Buxus sempervirens, Hemerocallis fulva, Hosta lancifolia, Narcissus odorus, Iris germanica.

The previously introduced species, which now spread vegetatively, though with no signs of regeneration of seeds, include: Polygonum sachalinense, Populus balsamifera, Jovibarba sobolifera, Sedum spurium, Prunus domestica, Rosa rugosa, Sorbaria sorbifolia, Gleditsia triacanthos, Rhus tuphine, Vinca minor, Asclepias syriaca, Ligustrina amurensis, Phlox paniculata, Physalis franchetii, Campsis radicans, Aster novae-angliae, Aster novi belgii, Aster salignus, Centaurea mollis, Helianthus tuberosus, Heliopsis scabra, Rudbeckia laciniata, Tulipa hybrida.

Finally, the ornamental forms of cultivated species, which are preserved in the plant systems of population centres, are as follows: Picea pungens Engelm. f. coerulea, Berberis vulgaris f. atropurpurea, Salix alba f. vitellina pendula, Salix matsudana f. tortuosa, Philadelphus coronarius f. flore-pleno hort., Sorbus aucuparia f. pendula, Robinia pseudacacia f. umbraculifera, Acer platanoides f. globosum, Acer pseudoplatanus f. crimson, Acer pseudoplatanus f. purpurea, Acer saccharinum f. laciniata, Phalaroides arundinacea var. picta.

References

Draft organization of forest management in the State Special Integrated Enterprise named "Chornobyl Pushcha (Forest)" of the State Department - Administration of the exclusion zone and zone of absolute (mandatory) resettlement. Ukrainian State Design and Production Association of Forestry. Combined expedition, - 2006 (in Ukrainian)

Petrov M.F. Synanthropic element in the flora of the Chornobyl accident exclusion zone. Pre-print of ChoNTCMD of the Ministry of Emergencies of Ukraine. - Chornobyl, 1998. - 69 p. (in Ukrainian)

The ecoflora of Ukraine (edited by Didukh Ya.P.) - Kyiv, Phytosociocenter: V. 1, 2000, 284 p. (in Ukrainian)

Udra I.F. Dissemination of plants and the issues of paleo- and biogeography - Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1988, - 200 p. (in Russian)

Zaverukha B.V. Flora of higher and lower plants of Ukraine // Nature of the Ukrainian SSR. Plant community. - K.: Naukova Dumka, 1985. - p. 17-44 (in Russian) Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 41

List of the currently known higher plant species in the ChEZ

Terms and abbreviations

Biomorphes: Ý - annual plants; Ξ - vegetative annual plants, which vegetative forms (tubers, bulbils buds, etc.) pass winter (survive unfavourable periods); Ÿ - biennial and perennial monocarps; Ψ - herbaceous polycarps; Ω – sub-shrubs; һ - shrubs; ђ - trees.

Relevant conservation categories from national, international and regional conservation lists are specified for the protected species [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009, Catalogue ..., 2002, Andrienko, Sheliah-Sosonko, 1983, Andrienko, 2008].

Abbreviations of the conservation lists:

BC — the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern, 1979) [Bern Convention …, 1979],

IUCN Red List— the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species [IUCN, 2017],

CITES — the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, also known as the Washington Convention,

RBU — the Red Data Book of Ukraine (2009),

RBRB — the List of rare and endangered species of the wild plants included into the Red Books of the Republic of Belarus [Flora and Vegetation …, 2002].

RSUP – the Rare Species of the Ukrainian Polissia that are not included into the international and national-level lists (I – very rare, II – rare, III – comparatively rare) [Andrienko, Sheliah-Sosonko, 1983].

RESKR – the List of locally rare and endangered species of plants and mushrooms that require protection in the Kyiv region [Official listings …, 2012].

The "List ..." includes abbreviated characteristics and notations of bioecological characteristics of the species.

Division 1. Lycopodiophyta Family 1. Lycopodiaceae Beauv ex Mirb.

Diphasiastrum complanatum (L.) Holub – Ground-cedar. In pine forests; data deficient – r. RBU(Not ev.). Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 42

1. Diphasiastrum zeilleri (Rouy) Holub - Zeiller’s ground-cedar. In pine and mixed forests (Polissia district of Kyiv region [Summary…, 1998]); very rare – r. RBU(Endn.). Ψ. 2. Lycopodiella inundata (L.) Holub - Inundated club-moss. In damp and wet sands, including the plot with radioactive waste ‘burials’ in the Red Forest; rare – r. Spontaneophyte. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(IV). Ψ. 3. Lycopodium annotinum L. - Interrupted club-moss. Moist pine and oak-pine forests green moss; sporadic – r. RBU(Vuln.). Ψ. 4. Lycopodium clavatum L. - Running club-moss. Forest edges and grassy glades of moist pine and pine-oak forests, birch forests, in fallows; common – r-1. Hemiapophyte. RESKR. Ψ. Family 2. Huperziaceae Rothni. 5. Huperzia selago (L.) Bernh. ex Schrank & Merat. – Northern fir-moss. A small moss-covered hollow in an array of middle-aged pine forest, at a distance of 1-1.5 km northwest of Zapillia (quarter 38 of the Korohodske forestry centre); very rare – r. RBU(Not ev.), RBRB(IV). Ψ.

Division 2. Equisetophyta

Family 3. Equisetaceae L. Rich. ex DC.

6. Equisetum arvense L. - Field (common) horsetail. Fallows, meadows, forest edges, grassy glades, population centres; common - 2-1. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 7. Equisetum fluviatile L. - Water horsetail. Eutrophic bogs, shores of water bodies; common - 2- r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 8. Equisetum hyemale L. – Rough horsetail. In wet forests and shrubs, in non-forested slopes of the valley side of the Pripyat River floodplain to the south of ; sporadic - r. Ψ. 9. Equisetum palustre L. - Marsh horsetail. Eutrophic bogs, shores of water bodies; common - 2- 1. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 10. Equisetum pratense L. – Meadow (shade) horsetail. In moist meadows and forests; common - 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 11. Equisetum sylvaticum L. - Wood horsetail. In moist forests and shrubs, abandoned population centres; common - 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ.

Division 3. Polypodiophyta Family 4. Athyriaceae Alston

12. Athyrium filix-femina (L.) Roth. - Common lady-fern. Moist forests, population centres; common - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 43

13. Cystopteris fragilis (L.) Bernh. - Brittle bladder-fern. Walls of steeps, ditches, trenches and pits in forests, population centres, cultivated in population centres (Chornobyl town); sporadic - r. Hemiapophyte. RESKR. Ψ.

Family 5. Dennstaedtiaceae Lotsy

14. Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn. - Common bracken. Pine forests, fallows, meadows, abandoned population centres; common - 3-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ.

Family 6. Dryopteridaceae Ching

15. Dryopteris carthusiana (Vill.) H. P. Fuchs. - Narrow buckler fern. Pine and birch-pine moist forests, abandoned population centres; common - 1. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 16. Dryopteris cristata (L.) A. Gray - Crested wood fern. Alder forests, wet birch and pine-birch forests; frequent – r. RESKR. Ψ. 17. Dryopteris filix mas (L.) Schott. - Male fern. Forests, shrubs, population centres, fallows; common - r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 18. Gymnocarpium dryopteris (L.) Newm. – Western oak fern. Alder forests, moor edges in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare - r. RSUP(3). RESKR. Ψ.

Family 7. Onocleaceae Pichi Sermolli

19. Matteuccia struthiopteris (L.) Tod. – Ostrich fern. Deciduous forests (Illynske forest reserve - [Prospective…, 1987; Ustymenko..., 1993), cultivated in population centres; very rare – r. Spontaneophyte. RSUP(1), RESKR, RBRB(LC). Ψ.

Family 8. Ophioglossaceae (R. Br.) Agardh.

20. Botrychium lunaria (L.) Sw. – Common moonwort. In meadows, forest edges, whitewood barrens in the Zdvyzh River floodplain [Bortniak, 1962]; data deficient – r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(LC). Ψ. 21. Botrychium multifidum (S. G. Gmel.) Rupr. - Leathery grape fern. In pine and mixed forests, amid shrubs (left bank polder); very rare – r. RBU(Р), RBRB(III), BC(R). Ψ. 22. Ophioglossum vulgatum L. - Adder's-tongue. Moist meadows, forest edges (Prybirsk, [Pachoskyi, 1900], the Lelivske forestry centre, sq. 36 lot 2; sq. 55 lot 12); rare – r. Hemiapophyte. RSUP(1). RESKR. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 44

Family 9. Salviniaceae Dumort.

23. Salvinia natans (L.) All. - Floating fern. On the surface of low-flow and standing water bodies of different origin and feeding; common - 5-2. Hemiapophyte. RBU(Not ev.), RBRB(IV), BC(R). Ý.

Family 10. Thelypteridaceae Pichi Sermolli

24. Thelypteris palustris Schott - Eastern marsh fern. Alder forests, wet birch and pine-birch forests, moor edges and water bodies; common - 1-r. Ψ.

Division 4. Pinophyta (Gymnospermae)

Family 11. Cupressaceae Bartl.

25. Juniperus communis L. – Common juniper. Pine forests, cultivated; very rare – r. Spontaneophyte. RESKR. һ. Juniperus communis L. f. suecica Ait. – Common juniper, f. Swedish. Cultivated (Chornobyl town, ChNPP site); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiolypophyte. һ. Juniperus sabina L. - Savin juniper. Cultivated (Chornobyl town, ChNPP site); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiolypophyte. һ. Juniperus virginiana L. - Eastern juniper (eastern redcedar). Cultivated; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiolypophyte. һ-ђ. 26. Thuja occidentalis L. – Northern white-cedar or eastern arborvitae. Cultivated; rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte. ђ.

Family 12. Pinaceae Lindl.

Abies alba Mill. - European silver fir. Cultivated (Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiolypophyte. ђ. Larix decidua Mill. – European larch. Cultivated in population centres and forests (the Zymovytske forestry centre, sq. 107, lot 18); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiolypophyte. ђ. 27. Picea abies (L.) Karst. - Norway spruce. In moist forests (Polissia district, Lubianka [Bortniak, 1962]); cultivated in population centres and forests (the "Chornobyl Forest" forest management data of 1997 include 155 forest cultures aged between 20 and 110 years and 31 species settlements Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 45

with naturally occurring plants, which have formed alongside of the forest cultures [Draft organization…, 1997]); frequent – 5-r. Hemiapophyte. RESKR. ђ. Picea abies (L.) Karst. f. nidiformis Beiss - Norway spruce f. nest-like. Cultivated (Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiolypophyte. ђ. Picea pungens Engelm. f. coerulea Beissn. – Blue (green, white) spruce, f. blue. Cultivated, mostly as a graff; rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiolypophyte. ђ. 28. Pinus banksiana Lamb. - Jack pine. Cultivated in forests (185 settlements aged between 20 and 80 years [Draft organization…, 1997]; frequent – 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 29. Pinus nigra J.F. Arnold – Austrian (black) pine. Cultivated in forests (2 settlements aged approximately 60 years [Draft organization…, 1997]; very rare – 1-r. 30. Pinus strobus L. - Eastern (northern) white pine or Weymouth pine. Cultivated in forests (12 settlements aged between 35 and 60 years [Draft organization…, 1997] and population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiolypophyte. ђ. 31. Pinus sylvestris L. - Scots pine. Forests and forest plantations, fallows, in population centres; common – 5-1. Hemiapophyte. ђ. Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco – Douglas fir or Oregon pine. Cultivated (Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiolypophyte. ђ.

Family Taxaceae S. F. Gray. Taxus baccata L. – European yew. Cultivated (Benivka); very rare – r. Euchenophyte- ergasiolypophyte. RBU(Vuln.). ђ.

Division 5. Magnoliophyta Class 7. Liliopsida

Family 13. Alismataceae Vent.

32. Alisma gramineum Lej. – Narrow-leaf water-plantain. Shore lines of standing water bodies, swamps (Chornobyl town [Pachoskyi, 1900]); sporadic - r. RBRB(DD). Ψ. 33. Alisma lanceolatum With. – Lance-leaf water plantain. Shores of swamps and water bodies, in shallow waters; rare - r. Ψ. 34. Alisma plantago-aquatica L. - Common water-plantain. Shore lines of standing water bodies, swamps, swamp meadows; frequent - 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 35. Sagittaria sagittifolia L. - Arrowhead . Shore lines of standing water bodies, swamps; frequent - 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ξ [Kryvokharchenko..., 1996], Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 46

Family 14. Alliaceae J. Agardh

36. Allium angulosum L. – Mouse garlic. Moist meadows, forest edges, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 37. Allium montanum F.W. Schmidt – Portuguese onion. In forests, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 38. Allium oleraceum L. - Field garlic. Thickets of Robinia pseudacacia; sporadic – r. Evapophyte. Ψ. Allium rotundum L. - Round-headed leek or purple-flowered garlic. Cultivated in population centres and vegetatively maintained; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte- ergasiophyte. Ψ. 39. Allium sativum L. – Necked garlic. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 40. Allium scorodoprasum L. - Sand leek. Meadows, forest edges, shrubs, population centres; rare – r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 41. Allium ursinum L. - Bear leek (wild garlic). In deciduous and mixed forests; sporadic – r. RBU(Not ev.), RBRB(III). Ψ. 42. Allium vineale L. - Onion grass or crow garlic. Meadows, forest edges (Hornostaipil [Pachoskyi, 1900]); very rare – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ.

Family 15. Amaryllidaceae Jaume

43. Galanthus nivalis L. – Common snowdrop. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centreх; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. RBU(Vuln.). Ψ. 44. Galanthus plicatus Bieb. – Pleated snowdrop. Cultivated in population centres and vegetatively maintained; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. RBU(Vuln.), IUCN Red List (V), CITEС. Ψ. Leucojum vernum L. – Spring snowflake. Cultivated in population centres and vegetatively maintained; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. RBU(Not ev.). Ψ. 45. Narcissus angustifolius Curt. – Poet's daffodil. Cultivated in population centres and vegetatively maintained; rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. RBU(Vuln.), BC(I). Ψ. 46. Narcissus x hybridus hort. – Hybrid daffodil. Cultivated, vegetatively maintained in population centres; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. 47. Narcissus odorus L. – Campernelle jonquil. Cultivated in population centres and vegetatively maintained; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 47

48. Narcissus poeticus L. – Poet's daffodil. Cultivated in population centres and vegetatively maintained; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. Narcissus pseudonarcissus L. – Wild daffodil or Lent lily. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ.

Family 16. Araceae Juss.

49. Acorus calamus L. - Sweet flag or calamus. Shores of anthropogenically affected water bodies; rare - 1-r. Archeophyte-agriophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 50. Calla palustris L. - Bog arum. Marshes, marshy forests; sporadic - r. RESKR. Ψ.

Family 17. Asparagaceae Juss.

51. Asparagus officinalis L. – Garden asparagus. Grassy glades, forest edges, meadows, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ.

Family 18. Asphodelaceae Juss.

52. Anthericum ramosum L. - Branched St. Bernard's-lily. Grassy glades and forest edges of pine forests, meadows; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. RBRB(LC). Ψ.

Family 19. Butomaceae Rich.

53. Butomus umbellatus L. - Flowering (grass) rush. Shores of water bodies; frequent – 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ.

Family Commelinaceae R. Br. Commelina communis L. - Asiatic dayflower. Cultivated in population centres, is renewed from the soil reserve of seeds in -disturbed flowerbeds; very rare – r. Euchenophyte- colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. Tradescantia virginiana L. var. coerulea hort.) – Virginia spiderwort. Cultivated in population centres after the accident; very rare - r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte. Ψ.

Family 20. Convallariaceae Horan.

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 48

54. Convallaria majalis L. - Lily of the valley. Deciduous and mixed forests, cultivated; common - 2-r. Hemiapophyte. - Ψ. 55. Maianthemum bifolium (L.) F. W. Schmidt - False lily of the valley or May lily. In pine and mixed forests; frequent - 2-r. Ψ. 56. Polygonatum multiflorum (L.) All. – Solomon's seal. In deciduous and mixed forests, cultivated; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 57. Polygonatum odoratum (Mill.) Druce - Scented Solomon's seal. In mixed and deciduous forests, cultivated; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ.

Family 21. Cyperaceae Juss.

58. Blysmus compressus (L.) Panz. ex Link. - Flat sedge. In moist and marshy meadows; sporadic – r. RESKR. Ψ. 59. Bolboschoenus maritimus (L.) Palla. – Sea clubrush. On the shores of the Kyiv reservoir [Horbyk..., 1983]; rare – 1-r. Ψ. 60. Carex acuta L. - Acute sedge. In marshy meadows, marshes, on shores of water bodies; frequent - 2-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 61. Carex acutiformis Ehrh. - Lesser pond-sedge. In grassy marshes, in alder forests, on shores of water bodies; frequent - r. Ψ. 62. Carex appropinquata Schum. - Fibrous tussock-sedge. In eutrophic bogs; sporadic – r. Ψ. 63. Carex brizoides L. – Quaking sedge. Grassy glades, forest edges of deciduous and mixed forests; sporadic – 2-r. RESKR. Ψ. 64. Carex buxbaumii Wahlenb. - Buxbaum's (march) sedge. In moist and marshy meadows, along the edges of swamps; rare – r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(II). Ψ. 65. Carex caryophyllea Latourr – Spring sedge. In dry meadows, grassy glades, forest edges and amid shrubs; sporadic – 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 66. Carex caespitosa L. – Lesser tufted sedge. Marshes, marshy meadows, forests, shores of water bodies; sporadic – r. Ψ. 67. Carex cinerea Poll. - Silvery sedge. In marshes, marshy meadows, on shores of water bodies; sporadic – r. Ψ. 68. Carex diandra Schrank - Lesser tussock-sedge. In marshes, marshy meadows, on shores of water bodies; sporadic – r. RESKR. Ψ. 69. Carex digitata L. – Fingered sedge. Pine and mixed forests; sporadic – r. Ψ. 70. Carex dioica L. - Dioecious sedge. In moss bogs; rare – 2-r. RBU(Vuln.). Ψ. 71. Carex disticha Huds. - Brown sedge. Marshes, marshy meadows; sporadic – r. Ψ. 72. Carex echinata Murr. - Star sedge. In marshes and marshy meadows; rare – r. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 49

73. Carex elongata L. - Elongated sedge. Marshes, marshy meadows, Shores of water bodies; sporadic – r. Ψ. 74. Carex ericetorum Poll. - Rare spring sedge. Grassy glades, edges of pine forests, fallows; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 75. Carex flava L. – Yellow sedge. In marshes, wet meadows, grassy glades, forest edges; sporadic – 2-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 76. Carex hartmanii Cajand. - Hartman’s sedge. In moist and marshy meadows, along the edges of swamps; rare – r. RSUP(1). Ψ. 77. Carex hirta L. - Hairy sedge. In meadows, marshes, grassy glades, forest edges, in fallows, population centres; frequent – 2-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 78. Carex juncella (Fr.) Th. Fr. - Bottler sedge. In marshes, marshy meadows, shores of water bodies; sporadic – 2-r. RSUP(3). Ψ. 79. Carex lasiocarpa Ehrh. - Woolly-fruit sedge. In mesotrophic sedge-sphagnum bogs; sporadic – 2-r. Ψ. 80. Carex lepidocarpa Tausch – Yellow sedge. In mesotrophic sedge-sphagnum bogs [Bortniak, 1984]; rare – r. RSUP(3) Ψ. 81. Carex leporina L. - Oval sedge. In meadows, in forests, amid shrubs, у population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 82. Carex ligerica J. Gay - Loire (Colchis) sedge. On loose sands of floodplains, population centres, in man-made disturbances; sporadic – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 83. Carex limosa L. - Bog-sedge. In mesotrophic sedge-sphagnum bogs [Bortniak, 1984]; rare – r. RESKR. Ψ. 84. Carex michelii Host. – Micheli’s sedge. Forest edges, shrubs on the slopes of the Teterev River valley side [Bortniak, 1977]; very rare – r. Ψ. 85. Carex montana L. – Mountain sedge. In mixed forests; rare – r. Ψ. 86. Carex muricata L. - Prickly sedge. Moist forests, marshy meadows, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 87. Carex nigra (L.) Reichard - Common (black) sedge. Wet meadows, grassy glades, edges of myrtillus pine forests; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. 88. Carex omskiana Meinsh. – Omsk sedge. Lowland sedge and sedge-moss marshes, shores of water bodies; sporadic – 2-r. Ψ. 89. Carex pallescens L. – Pale sedge. Forests, meadows, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Ψ. 90. Carex panicea L. - Millet sedge. In moist and marshy meadows, grassy glades, forest edges; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. 91. Carex paniculata L. - Greater tussock-sedge. Water courses of the melioration system named “Kupuvate”, [Pachoskyi, 1900]; very rare – r. RSUP(1). RESKR. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 50

92. Carex pilosa L. - Pilose-leaf sedge. In deciduous, mixed forests; frequent – r. Ψ. 93. Carex pilulifera L. - Pill sedge. Moist and marshy meadows, forests, edges of swamps near the villages of Lubianka [Bortniak, 1984] and Dibrova [Mosiakin, 1988]; very rare – 1-r. RSUP(2). Ψ. 94. Carex praecox Schreb. – Early sedge. In meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, by road sides, population centres; sporadic – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 95. Carex pseudocyperus L. - Cyperus sedge. Shores swamps, water bodies; sporadic – r. Ψ. 96. Carex remota L. - Remote sedge. In moist and marshy forests, on shores of water bodies, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Ψ. 97. Carex riparia Curt. - Greater pond sedge. Shore lines with standing and low-flow water; sporadic – 1-r. Ψ. 98. Carex rostrata Stokes - Beak sedge. Shore lines with standing and low-flow water, marshes; sporadic – r. Ψ. 99. Carex spicata Huds. - Spiked sedge. In forests, in meadows and fallows; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 100. Carex sylvatica Huds. – Wood sedge. In moist forests, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Ψ. 101. Carex umbrosa Host. – Narrow mitra sedge. In moist deciduous forests, in marshy meadows (Hden, [Pachoskyi, 1900]; rare – r. RBU(Not ev.), RBRB(IV). Ψ. 102. Carex vaginata Tausch - Sheathed sedge. In moist and wet forests [Bortniak, 1962]; very rare – r. RBU(Endn.). Ψ. 103. Carex vesicaria L. - Blister sedge. Marshes, marshy meadows, forests; sporadic - 2-r, Ψ. 104. Carex viridula Michx. – Small fruited yellow sedge. In moist and marshy meadows, marshes, sandy shores of water bodies; frequent – 2-r. Ψ. 105. Carex vulpina L. - True fox sedge. In marshes and marshy meadows, fallows; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. - r, Ψ. 106. Cyperus fuscus L. - Brown flatsedge. In moist sandy and mud shores of water bodies, marshy meadows; rare – r. Ÿ-Ý. 107. Cyperus glomeratus L. - Round-headed cyperus. Moist sandy and mud shores of water bodies [Horbyk…, 1983]; rare – r. Ý. 108. Cyperus michelianus (L.). Link - Michelianus papyrus sedge. In shore sands; sporadic – r. RBRB(DD). RESKR. Ý. 109. Eleocharis acicularis (L.) Roem. & Schult. - Needle spikerush. Along mud shores of water bodies, in marshy meadows and marshes; sporadic – 1-r. Ψ. 110. Eleocharis mamillata Lindb. f. – Softstem spikerush. On shores of water bodies, in marshy meadows and marshes; very rare – 1-r [Danylyk..., 2004]. RBU(Vuln.). Ψ. 111. Eleocharis ovata (Roth) Roem. & Schult. - Ovate spikerush. On shores of water bodies, in marshy meadows; sporadic – 1-r. Ý. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 51

112. Eleocharis palustris (L.) Roem. & Schult. - Marsh spikerush. In moist and marshy meadows, marshes; sporadic – 1-r. Ψ. 113. Eleocharis uniglumis (Link) Schulf. – Slender spikerush. On shores of water bodies; sporadic – r. Ψ, long-rooted, endozoochore, mesotroph, mesohygrophyte, heliophyte. 114. Eriophorum angustifolium Roth. – Narrow-leaf cottongrass. In oligotrophic sedge- sphagnum marshes; very rare – r. RSUP. Ψ. 115. Eriophorum vaginatum L. - Sheathed cottonsedge. In oligotrophic sedge-sphagnum marshes in the Denysovetske and Yakovetske forestry centres; sporadic – 1-r. Ψ. 116. Mariscus hamulosus (M. Bieb.) Hooper – Hooked saw grass. In moist shore sands [Summary…, 1998]; sporadic – r. RESKR. Ý. 117. Pycreus flavescens (L.) Reichb. - Yellow flatsedge. Shores of water bodies, marshes and marshy meadows; sporadic – r. RBRB(DD). Ý. Rhynchospora alba (L.) Vahl. – White beak-sedge. Marshes and marshy sandy meadows [Summary..., 1998]; data deficient – r. RESKR. Ψ. 118. Scirpoides holoschoenus (L.) Sojak - Round-headed club-rush. In sandy meadows, forest edges and grassy glades of pine forests; rare – r. Ψ. 119. Scirpus lacustris L. - Lakeshore bulrush (Common club-rush). Water bodies; sporadic – 2-r. Ψ. 120. Scirpus radicans Schkuhr - Sharp club-rush. In marshes and on shores of water bodies; rare – 2-r. Ψ. 121. Scirpus supinus L. - Dwarf club-rush. In moist shore sands, in water [Pachoskyi…, 1900]; sporadic – r. RBRB(DD). Ý. 122. Scirpus sylvaticus L. - Wood club-rush. Marshy meadows, marshes, shores of water bodies; frequent – 2-r. Ψ.

Family 22. Hemerocallidaceae R.Br.

123. Hemerocallis fulva (L.) L. - Orange day-lily. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained, wild- growing in garbage dumps; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ.

Family 23. Hostaceae Mathew

124. Hosta lancifolia Engl. - Lance-leaved hostas (plantain lilies). Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. Hosta ventricosa Stearn – Ventricous hostas (plantain lilies). Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 52

Family 24. Hyacinthaceae Batsch

Muscari neglectum Guss. - Grape hyacinth. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. RESKR. Ψ. Ornithogalum boucheanum (Kunth) Aschers. - Bouche’s star-of-bethlehem. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte- ergasiophyte. RBU(Not ev.). Ψ. 125. Ornithogalum umbellatum L. - Common star-of-bethlehem. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. RESKR. Ψ. Scilla bifolia L. - Alpine squill. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. RESKR. Ψ. 126. Scilla siberica Haw. - Wood (Siberian) squill. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. RESKR. Ψ.

Family 25. Hydrocharitaceae Juss.

127. Elodea canadensis Michx. – Canadian waterweed. In low-flow melioration canals; sporadic - 2-1. Euchenophyte-agriophyte-acolutophyte. Ξ. 128. Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L. – Common frogbit. Water bodies with standing water; frequent - 2-1. Ξ. 129. Stratiotes aloides L. - Water soldiers. Water bodies with standing water; frequent - 5-1. Ξ.

Family 26. Iridaceae Juss.

Crocus heuffelianus Herb. – Carpathian crocus (Heuffel’s). Cultivated and maintained in population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. RBU(Not ev.). Ψ. Crocus vernus (L.) Hill. – Spring (giant) crocus. Cultivated and maintained in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. Gladiolus x hibridus hort. – Garden gladiolus. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; rare – r. Kenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. 130. Gladiolus imbricatus L. – Imbricated gladiolus. Moist and marshy meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; very rare – r. Hemiapophyte. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(IV). Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 53

Iris florentina L. - Florentine iris. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres, wild-growing in garbage dumps; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. Iris germanica L. – Bearded (german) iris. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. Iris graminea L. - Grass leaved iris. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. 131. Iris hungarica Waldst. & Кit. - Steppe iris. On clay steeps of the Pripyat and Teterev Rivers valley sides [Bortniak, 1962, 1977], cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; rare – r. RBRB(II), RSUP(2). Ψ. Iris pallida Lam. – Sweet iris. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. 132. Iris pseudacorus L. - Yellow iris. Moor edges, marshy meadows, fallows; frequent – 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 133. Iris sibirica L. - Siberian iris. Wet grassy glades, meadows, moor edges, cultivated in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(IV). Ψ. Sisyrinchium montanum Greene - American (or strict) blue-eyed-grass. Roadside with gravel near Kopachi (1997); data deficient – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ.

Family 27. Juncaceae Juss.

134. Juncus alpino-articulatus Chaix – Alpine rush. Shores of water bodies, swamps, marshy meadows; sporadic – 1-r. Ψ. 135. Juncus articulatus L. – Joint-leaf rush. Shores of water bodies, swamps, marshy meadows, in moist alluvial sands; frequent – 1-r. Ψ. 136. Juncus atratus Krock. – Black rush. Marshes, marshy meadows; sporadic – 1-r. Ψ. 137. Juncus bufonius L. - Toad rush. In meadows, fallows, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 138. Juncus bulbosus L. - Bulbous rush. In marshes, peatbogs, man-made disturbances in the Red Forest, in population centres [Pachoskyi, 1900]; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(DD). Ψ. 139. Juncus capitatus Weigel. - Dwarf rush. In wet sandy fields and fallows (Kopachi=Karpylivka, Volchkov=Vovchkiv, Nyvky=Mikhlevshchyna [Pachoskyi, 1900]) – very rare. Hemiapophyte. RBRB(DD). RESKR. Ý. 140. Juncus compressus Jacq. - Round-fruited rush. In moist and marshy meadows; frequent – 2- r. RESKR. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 54

141. Juncus conglomeratus L. - Compact rush. Fallows, meadows, in population centres; frequent – 2-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 142. Juncus effusus L. - Common (or soft) rush. Wet fallows, meadows, shrubs, forests, in population centres; frequent – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 143. Juncus filiformis L. - Filamentous rush. Moist and marshy meadows, marshes; rare – r. RSUP(3). Ψ. 144. Juncus inflexus L. – Sea-green rush. Shores of water bodies, moist and marshy meadows; rare – r. Ψ. 145. Juncus squarrosus L. – Heath rush. In moist sandy meadows, pine forests; rare - r. Ψ. 146. Juncus tenageia Ehrh. ex L. fil. - Riverain rush. In moist shore sands; very rare – r. RBRB(DD), RESKR. Ý. 147. Juncus tenuis Willd. - Slender (or path) rush. In moist meadows, forest edges, grassy glades, fallows, along roads; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. 148. Luzula campestris (L.) DC. - Field wood-rush (or Good Friday grass). In meadows, grassy glades, forest edges; rare – r. Ψ. 149. Luzula multiflora (Retz.) Lej. - Common (or heath) woodrush. In moist and marshy meadows; sporadic – r. Ψ. 150. Luzula pallescens Sw. - Fen wood-rush. Fallows, meadows; rare – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 151. Luzula pilosa (L.) Willd. - Hairy wood-rush. In fallows, meadows, population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ.

Family 28. Juncaginaceae Rich

152. Triglochin palustre L. - Marsh arrowgrass. Peaty meadows, marshes; very rare - 1-r. RESKR. Ψ, rhizome, underground-stolon, hydrochore, oligotroph, hygrophyte, heliophyte.

Family 29. Lemnaceae S. F. Gray

153. Lemna gibba L. – Gibbous duckweed. Standing water bodies [Horbyk..., 1983]; sporadic - 1- r. RSUP(3). RESKR. Ξ. 154. Lemna minor L. - Lesser duckweed. Standing water bodies; common - 5-r. Spontaneophyte. Ξ. 155. Lemna trisulca L. - Star duckweed. Standing water bodies; common - 5-r. Spontaneophyte. Ξ. 156. Spirodela polyrrhiza (L.) Schleid. - Common duckweed. Standing water bodies; frequent - 5- r. Ξ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 55

Family 30. Juss.

Fritillaria imperialis L. – Crown imperial. Cultivated [Tiutiunnyk..., 1998]; data deficient – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. Fritillaria meleagris L. – Snake's head fritillary. Cultivated [Tiutiunnyk..., 1998]; data deficient – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. RBU(Vuln.). Ψ. 157. Gagea erubescens (Besser) Schult. & Schult. f. – Red star-of-Bethlehem. In grassy glades, edges of deciduous forests, rare – r. Ψ. 158. Gagea lutea (L.) Ker-Gawl. - Yellow star-of-Bethlehem. Grassy glades and edges of deciduous forests, in population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 159. Gagea minima (L.) Ker-Gawl. – Small Star of Bethlehem. In grassy glades and edges of deciduous forests, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. Hyacinthus orientalis L. - Common (or garden) hyacinth. Cultivated, vegetatively maintained in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. 160. Lilium bulbiferum L. - Orange (or fire) lily. Cultivated, vegetatively maintained in population centres; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. Lilium candidum L. - Madonna lily. Cultivated, vegetatively maintained in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. Lilium croceum Chaix. – Orange (or fire) lily. Cultivated, vegetatively maintained in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. 161. Lilium lancifolium Thunb. – lilly. Cultivated, vegetatively maintained in population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 162. Lilium martagon L. – Turk's cap lily. Deciduous and mixed forests, Cultivated in population centres; rare – r. Hemiapophyte. RBU(Not ev.), RBRB(IV). Ψ. 163. Tulipa x hybrida hort. – Hybrid . Cultivated, vegetatively maintained in population centres; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ.

Family 31. Melanthiaceae Batsch

164. Veratrum lobelianum Bernh. - Green-flowered corn lily. In moist meadows, grassy glades, forest edges (Chornobyl town [Pachoskyi, 1900]); very rare – r. RBRB(LC). RESKR. Ψ.

Family 32. Najadaceae Juss.

165. Caulinia minor (All.) Coss. & Germ – Brittle naiad (waternymph). The Kyiv reservoir [Summary…, 1998]; sporadic – r. RBRB(I). Ý. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 56

166. Najas major All. (N. marina L.) - Spiny naiad (waternymph). The Pripyat River, Kyiv reservoir, cooling pond; sporadic – 2-r. RBRB(III). Hemiapophyte. Ý.

Family 33. Juss.

167. coriophora (L.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon et M.W. Chase s.l – Bug orchid. In marshy meadows; data deficient – r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(II), CITEС(II). Ψ, Ξ. (L.) L.M. Bateman, Pridgeon et M.W. Chase - Green-winged orchid. In floodplain meadows [Red…, 1996]; data deficient – r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(II), CITEС(II). Ψ, Ξ. 168. Cephalanthera longifolia (L.) - Narrow-leaved helleborine. Moist deciduous forests in the Belarusian part of EZ; very rare – r. RBU(Р), RBRB(III), CITEС(II). Ψ. 169. (L.) Rich. - Red helleborine. Moist deciduous, mixed forests (Dytiatky [Pachoskyi, 1900; Ustymenko…, 1993]); very rare – r. RBU(Р), RBRB(III), CITEС(II). Ψ. 170. L. - Lady's slipper orchid. In forests, forest edges in the Belarusian part of EZ; very rare – r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(II), CITEС(II), BC(II). Ψ. 171. Dactylorhiza baltica (Klinge) Orlova ex Aver. - Common marsh orchid. Moist meadows in the Belarusian part of EZ; very rare – r. RBRB(LC), CITEС(II). Ψ, Ξ. 172. Dactylorhiza fuchsii (Druce) Soό - Common spotted orchid. Moist meadows, grassy glades, shores of melioration canals; sporadic - 1-r. Spontaneophyte. RBU(Not ev.), RBRB(LC), CITEС(II). Ψ, Ξ. 173. (L.) Soό - Early marsh-orchid. Marshy meadows, marshes, shrubs (Hornostaipil [Pachoskyi, 1900]); rare – r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(LC), CITEС(II). Ψ. 174. Dactylorhiza maculata (L.) Soó - Heath spotted-orchid. Moist meadows; rare – r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(LC), CITEС(II). Ψ, Ξ. (Reichenb.) P.F.Hunt et Summerhayes - Broad-leaved marsh orchid. Moist meadows; very rare – r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(LC), CITEС(II). Ψ, Ξ. 175. Epipactis atrorubens (Hoffm. ex Bemh) Schult. - Dark-red helleborine. In forests, grassy glades, forest edges, amid shrubs; very rare – r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(III), CITEС(II). Ψ. 176. (L.) Crantz - Broad-leaved helleborine. Moist mixed and deciduous forests, meadows (Tovstyi Lis [Pachoskyi, 1900]); sporadic – r. RBU(Not ev.), RBRB(LC), CITEС(II). Ψ. 177. (L.) Crantz. - Marsh helleborine. Marshy grassy glades, population centres (Pripyat city); rare – r. Spontaneophyte. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(LC), CITEС(II). Ψ. 178. Goodyera repens (L.) R. Br. – Creeping lady's-tresses. Green moss middle-aged pine forest cultures; frequent – 1-r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(LC), CITEС(II). Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 57

179. Gymnadenia conopsea (L.) R. Br. - Marsh fragrant orchid. Meadows, shrubs, grassy glades, forest edges (Zoryn, Dytiatky [Pachoskyi, 1900]); very rare – r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(III), CITEС(II). Ψ, Ξ. 180. Gymnadenia odoratissima (L.) Rich. - Short-spurred fragrant orchid. Meadows, shrubs, grassy glades, forest edges; very rare – r. RBU(Vuln.), CITEС(II). Ψ, Ξ. Hammarbya paludosa (L.) O. Kuntze – Bog adder's-mouth orchid. In marshes (Cherevach [Pachoskyi, 1900]); data deficient - r. RBU(Endn.), RBRB(II), CITEС(II). Ψ. Liparis loеselii (L.) Rich. - Fen (yellow widelip) orchid. In peaty meadows (Brahyn [Pachoskyi, 1900]); data deficient - r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(II), CITEС(II), BC. Ψ. 181. Listera ovata (L.) R. Br. – -leaf twayblade. Grassy glades and edges of moist deciduous forests; very rare – r. RBU(Not ev.), RBRB(IV), CITEС(II). Ψ. ustulata (L.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon et M.W. Chase - Burnt-tip orchid. In floodplain meadows [Red …, 1996]; data deficient – r. RBU(Endn.), CITEС(II). Ψ, Ξ. 182. Neottia nidus-avis (L.) Rich. - 's-nest orchid. Moist mixed forests; very rare – r. RBU(Not ev.), RBRB(LC), CITEС(II). Ψ. Neottianthe cucullata (L.) Schlechter – Cucullated neottianthe. Coniferous and mixed forests, shrubs; data deficient – r. RBU(Endn.), RBRB(II), CITEС(II). Ψ, Ξ. 183. L. - Military orchid. Moist meadows in the Belarusian part of EZ; very rare – r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(I), CITEС(II). Ψ, Ξ. 184. (L.) Rich. - Lesser butterfly-orchid. In oak and mixed forests, in grassy glades, moist meadows; rare – r. RBU(Not ev.), RBRB(LC), CITEС(II). Ψ, Ξ. 185. Platanthera chlorantha (Cust.) Rchb. – Greater butterfly-orchid. In mixed and deciduous forests; very rare – r. RBU(Not ev.), RBRB(III), CITEС(II). Ψ, Ξ.

Family 34. Poaceae Barnhart (Gramineae Juss.)

186. Agrostis canina L. - Velvet bentgrass. In meadows, fallows, population centres; frequent - 1- r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 187. Agrostis capillaris L. - Common bentgrass. Meadows, fallows, grassy glades, forest edges, population centres; frequent - 2-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 188. Agrostis gigantea Roth. - Black bentgrass (or Redtop). Grassy glades and forest edges, fallows, meadows, population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 189. Agrostis stolonifera L. - Creeping bentgrass. In marshy meadows, marshes, ameliorated fallows, on shores of water bodies, in population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 190. Agrostis vinealis Schreb. - Brown bentgrass. In dry sandy meadows, fallows, grassy glades, forest edges, in population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 58

191. Alopecurus aequalis Sobol. - Shortawn (or orange) foxtail. Marshy meadows, strand lines in riverbeds; frequent - 1-r. Ý. 192. Alopecurus geniculatus L. - Water foxtail. Marshy meadows, in population centres; sporadic - r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 193. Alopecurus pratensis L. - Meadow foxtail. In moist meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, fallows, cultivated; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 194. Anisantha tectorum (L.) Nevski – Drooping brome (or cheatgrass). Dry meadows, slopes, roadsides, population centres; sporadic - r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 195. Anthoxanthum odoratum L. - Sweet vernal grass. Meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, shrubs; frequent - 1-r. Ψ. 196. Apera spica-venti (L.) Beauv. - Loose silky-bent (or common windgrass). Fallows, meadows, population centres; frequent - 2-r. Archeophyte-agriophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 197. Arrhenatherum elatius (L.) J.&C. Presl – False oat-grass. Fallows, cultivated; rare - 2-r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 198. Avena fatua L. - Common wild oat. In population centres, by roads, in fallows, forest edges of black locust thickets; frequent - 1-r. Archeophyte-agriophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. Avena sativa L. - Common oat. Cultivated and maintained during 2-3 years, on field edges, after sowing; sporadic - 1-r. Archeophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 199. Beckmannia eruciformis (L.) Host. - Slough grass. Moist meadows; rare - 1-r. Ψ. 200. Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) Beauv. - Heath false brome. In deciduous and mixed forests; rare - r. Ψ. 201. Brachypodium sylvaticum (Huds.) Beauv - Slender false brome. In moist deciduous and mixed forests; rare - 2-r. Ψ. 202. Briza media L. - Quaking-grass. In meadows, in forests; rare - r. Ψ. 203. Bromopsis benekenii (Lange) Holub – Lesser hairy-brome. In moist deciduous and mixed forests (, Tovstyi Lis) [Pachoskyi, 1900]); very rare - 2-r. RBRB(IV). Ψ. 204. Bromopsis inermis (Leyss.) Holub - Hungarian brome. In meadows, fallows, grassy glades, forest edges, along roads, cultivated; frequent - 4-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 205. Bromus arvensis L. – Field brome. Along roads, in population centres, in meadows; rare - 1- r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 206. Bromus hordeaceus L. (B. mollis L.) – Soft brome. Along roads, in population centres; rare – 1-r. Evapophyte. Ý. 207. Bromus secalinus L. – Rye brome. Along roads, in population centres; rare - r. Evapophyte. Ý-Ÿ. 208. Bromus squarrosus L. – Rough brome. Along roads, in population centres; rare - r. Evapophyte. Ý-Ÿ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 59

209. Calamagrostis arundinacea (L.) Roth - Rough smallreed. In myrtillus pine forests; frequent - 2-r. Ψ. 210. Calamagrostis canescens (Web.) Roth - Purple small-reed. In marshes and marshy meadows; frequent - 2-r. Ψ. 211. Calamagrostis epigeios (L.) Roth. - Wood small-reed. In sandy meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, fallows, population centres; common - 5-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 212. Calamagrostis stricta (Timm) Koeler - Slim-stem (or narrow) small-reed. In marshes and marshy meadows; frequent - 2-r. Ψ. Catabrosa aquatica (L.) Beauv. – Water whorlgrass. In marshes, on shores of water bodies with stream water; data deficient - 1-r. Ψ. 213. Ceratochloa carinata (Hook. & Arn.) Tutin - California bromegrass. Cultivated and ran wild, forage species in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare - 1-r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte- ergasiolypophyte. Ý. 214. Corynephorus canescens (L.) Beauv. - Grey hair-grass (Gray clubawn gras). Sands in bors, sandy fallows and meadows, man-made disturbances; frequent - 5-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 215. Crypsis alopecuroides (Pill. & Mitt.) Shrad - Foxtail pricklegrass. On sandy and mud shores of water bodies; rare - 2-r. Ý. 216. Crypsis schoenoides (L.) Lam. - Swamp pricklegrass. On sandy shores of water bodies; rare - 2-r. Ý. 217. Cynosurus cristatus L. - Crested dog's-tail. In meadows, grassy glades, forest edges; frequent - 1-r. Ψ. 218. Dactylis glomerata L. - Cock's-foot (orchard grass). In fallows, meadows, in forest edges and forest plantations, cultivated; common - 5-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 219. Dactylis polygama Horvat. - Diploid cock’s-foot (orchard grass). In deciduous forests, forest edges in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare - r. Ψ. 220. Deschampsia cespitosa (L.) Beauv. - Tufted hairgrass (or tussock grass). In marshes, moist meadows, fallows, forests, shrubs; frequent - r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 221. Digitaria aegyptiaca (Retz.) Willd - Hairy crabgrass. In population centres, man-made disturbances; sporadic - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ý. 222. Digitaria ischaemum (Schreb.) Muehl. - Smooth (and small) crabgrass. In population centres, man-made disturbances; sporadic - 1-r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 223. Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. - Purple crabgrass. In moist sandy plots near water bodies, in man-made disturbances; sporadic - 1-r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Was cultivated in 19 century [Weeds…, 1934], therefore possibly Kenophyte-agriophyte-ergasiolypophyte. Ý. 224. Echinochloa crusgalli (L.) Beauv. - Cockspur grass. In population centres, fallows, man- made disturbances; frequent - 1-r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 60

225. Elymus caninus (L.) L. – Bearded couch (or wheatgrass). Moist forests, amid shrubs [Bortniak, 1962]; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. 226. Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski - Couch grass. In meadows, fallows, grassy glades, forest edges, population centres; common - 5-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 227. Eragrostis aegyptiaca (Willd.) Delile - Egyptian lovegrass (or canegrass). In population centres, man-made disturbances; sporadic - 1-r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 228. Eragrostis borysthenica Klokov - Dnipro lovegrass (or canegrass). In shore sands; sporadic - r. Ý. 229. Eragrostis minor Host - Little lovegrass (or canegrass). In population centres, man-made disturbances; sporadic - r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 230. Eragrostis pilosa (L.) Beauv. - Soft lovegrass. In moist fluvial sands and man-made disturbances; sporadic - 1-r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 231. Festuca arundinaceae Schreb. - Tall fescue. In meadows, grassy glades, forest edges; sporadic - r. Ψ. 232. Festuca gigantea (L.) Vill. - Giant fescue. Moist mixed and black alder forests; sporadic - 1- r. Ψ. 233. Festuca multiflora Hoffm. – Multi-flowered fescue. On sandy hills and in pine forests; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. 234. Festuca ovina L. - 's fescue. In forests, amid shrubs, in meadows, man-made disturbances; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 235. Festuca polesica Zapal. - Polesian fescue. Grassy glades, forest edges, amid shrubs; sporadic - 1-r. RSUP(3). Ψ. 236. Festuca pratensis Huds. - Meadow fescue. In meadows, fallows, grassy glades, forest edges, cultivated; frequent - 2-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 237. Festuca rubra L. - Red fescue. In moist meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, fallows, population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 238. Festuca trachyphylla (Hack.) Krajana - Hard fescue. Grassy glades, forest edges, sandy meadows; sporadic - 1-r. RSUP(3). Ψ. 239. Festuca valesiaca Gaudin (F. sulcata (Hack.) Nym.) - fescue. In grassy glades, forest edges, dry floodplain meadows; sporadic - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. RBRB(DD). Ψ. 240. Glyceria fluitans (L.) R. Br. - Floating mannagrass. On shores of water bodies, in wet meadows; frequent - 2-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 241. Glyceria maxima (C. Hartm.) Holmb. - Reed mannagrass. Marshes, marshy meadows, shallow waters; frequent - 2-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 242. Glyceria nemoralis (Uechtr.) Uechtr. & Koern. – Wood mannagrass. In marshy forests, on shores of brooks; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 61

243. Glyceria plicata (Fries) Fries - Plicate sweetgrass. In marshy forests, on shores of brooks; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. 244. Helictotrichon pubescens (Huds.) Pilg. – Downy oat-grass. In upland meadows, forest edges; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. 245. Hierochloë australis (Schrad.) Roem. & Schult. Southern holy grass. In dry meadows and forest edges on the slopes in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare - 1-r. RSUP(2), RBRB(LC). Ψ. 246. Hierochloë odorata (L.) Beauv. - Sweetgrass. Dry meadows, roadsides, population centres, forest plantations; frequent - 2-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 247. Hierochloë repens (Host) Beauv. – Creeping sweet-grass. On slopes, dry meadows, forest edges; sporadic - 2-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 248. Holcus lanatus L. - Tufted grass (Meadow soft grass). In meadows, forest edges and grassy glades, fallows, population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. Hordeum vulgare L. - Hulless or "naked" barley. Cultivated and maintained during 2-3 years on field edges after sowing; sporadic - 1-r. Archeophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 249. Koeleria cristata (L.) Pers. – Crested hair-grass. Dry meadows, grassy glades, forest edges; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. 250. Koeleria delavignei Czern. ex Domin. – Delavign’s hair-grass. Floodplain meadows of medium and high level, grassy glades, forest edges; sporadic - r. Ψ. 251. Koeleria glauca (Spreng.) DC. - Blue hair-grass. In dry meadows, population centres, man- made disturbances; sporadic - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ, turfy, anemochore, endozoochore, oligotroph, xerophyte, heliophyte. 252. Koeleria grandis Bess. ex Gorski - Crested hairgrass. In meadows, man-made disturbances; rare - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. RSUP(3). Ψ. 253. Leersia orysoides (L.) Sw. – Rice cutgrass. Cultivated and wild-growing along shore lines of water bodies [Horbyk…, 1983]; rare - 4-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 254. Lolium multiflorum Lam. - Italian rye-grass. Cultivated, in fallows, along roads; sporadic - 1-r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 255. Lolium perenne L. - Perennial ryegrass. Cultivated, in fallows; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. Lolium remotum Sсhrank. – Flaxfield ryegrass. Weed in flax crops [Bortniak, 1962]; data deficient - r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. Lolium temulentum L. - Poison darnel (darnel ryegrass). Weed in crops, by roads; data deficient - r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 256. Melica nutans L. - Mountain melick. In mixed and deciduous forests; sporadic - r. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 62

257. Milium effusum L. - American milletgrass (or Wood millet). In mixed and deciduous forests, in forest edges, amid shrubs; sporadic - r. Was cultivated in 19th century [Chopyk…, 1983], therefore possibly Kenophyte-agriophyte-ergasiolypophyte. Ψ. 258. Molinia caerulea (L.) Moench - Purple moor-grass. Moist and wet forests, meadows; frequent - 1-r. Ψ. 259. Nardus stricta L. – Matgrass. In meadows, grassy glades, forest edges; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. Panicum miliaceum L. - Broomcorn millet. Cultivated and maintained during 2-3 years on the field edges after sowing; sporadic - 1-r. Archeophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 260. Phalaroides arundinacea (L.) Rausch. - Reed canary grass. In marshes, marshy meadows, fallows, in population centres; frequent - 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. Phalaroides arundinacea (L.) Rausch. var. picta L. - Reed canarygrass var. coloured. Cultivated; rare - 1-r. Kenophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. 261. Phleum phleoides (L.) Karst. - Boehmer's (purple-stem) cat's-tail. In dry meadows of the right-bank supra-floodplain terrace of the Pripyat River; rare - r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 262. Phleum pratense L. - Common cat's tail. In meadows, fallows, cultivated; frequent - 2-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 263. Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin ex Steud. - Common reed. Marshy meadows, marshes, shallow waters water bodies, population centres; common - 5-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 264. Poa angustifolia L. - Narrow-leaved meadow-grass. In dry meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, along roads, in population centres; sporadic - r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 265. Poa annua L. - Annual meadow-grass. In fallows, population centres; frequent - r. Evapophyte. Ý-Ÿ-Ψ. 266. Poa bulbosa L. - Bulbous meadow-grass. Slopes of dry post-pasture meadows; very rare - r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. 267. Poa compressa L. - Flattened meadow-grass. Dry meadows, fallows, grassy glades, forest edges, along roads; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. 268. Poa nemoralis L. - Wood meadow-grass. In moist mixed and deciduous forests; frequent - 1- r. Ψ. 269. Poa palustris L. - Swamp meadow-grass. Marshes, marshy meadows, fallows, population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 270. Poa pratensis L. - Smooth meadow-grass. In meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, fallows, population centres; frequent - 2-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 271. Poa remota Forsell. – Remote meadow-grass. In moist and marshy forests; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. 272. Poa trivialis L. - Rough meadow-grass. In moist meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, along roads; frequent - 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 63

273. Poa turfosa Litv. – Peat meadow-grass. In marshy forests; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. 274. Puccinellia distans (Jacq.) Parl – Weeping alkaligrass. In water-protective structures made of imported materials; very rare - r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. 275. Scolochloa festucacea (Willd.) Link. – Common rivergrass. In marshes, on shores of water bodies; very rare - r. RSUP(3). Ψ. Secale cereale L. – Rye. Cultivated and maintained during 2-3 years on the field edges after sowing; sporadic - 1-r. Archeophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. Secale sylvestre Host. – Wild rye. Sandy meadows in the fragments of supra-floodplain terraces of the Dnipro and Teterev Rivers [Gramineae of Ukraine, 1977]; data deficient - 1-r. Ý. 276. Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv. - Pearl millet. In population centres, in fallows; frequent - 1-r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 277. Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. - Green foxtail. In population centres, in fallows; frequent - 1-r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 278. Sieglingia decumbens (L.) Bernh. – Heath grass. In forests, amid shrubs, in population centres; sporadic - r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. Stipa borysthenica Klokov ex Prokud. – Dnipro feathergrass. On sandy terraces of the Dnipro and Teterev Rivers [Gramineae of Ukraine, 1977; Red …, 1996]; data deficient - r. RBU(Vuln.). Ψ.

Family 35. Potamogetonaceae Dumort.

279. Potamogeton acutifolius Link – Sharp-leaved pondweed. Water bodies with standing and low-flow water; frequent – r. Ψ, Ξ. 280. Potamogeton berchtoldii Fieb. – Small pondweed. Shallow waters of the Kyiv reservoir [Horbyk…, 1983]; rare – r. Ψ, Ξ. 281. Potamogeton compressus L. – Grass-wrack pondweed. Water bodies with standing and low- flow water; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ, Ξ. 282. Potamogeton crispus L. - Curled pondweed. Water bodies; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ, Ξ Potamogeton x decipiens Nolle (P. lucens L. x P. perfoliatus L.) – False pondweed. In the Dnipro flooded areas near Loev [Pachoskyi, 1900]; data deficient. Ψ, Ξ. 283. Potamogeton friesii Rupr. – Flat-stalked (Fries') pondweed. Water bodies with standing water [Horbyk…, 1983]; rare - 1-r. Ψ, Ξ. 284. Potamogeton gramineus L. – Various-leaved (grass-leaved) pondweed. Water bodies with standing water; rare - 1-r. Ψ, Ξ. 285. Potamogeton lucens L. - Shining pondweed. Water bodies; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 64

286. Potamogeton natans L. - Broad-leaved (floating) pondweed. Water bodies; common - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 287. Potamogeton nodosus Poir. – Long-leaf pondweed. Water bodies; sporadic - 1-r. RBRB(DD). Ψ. 288. Potamogeton obtusifolius Mert. & Koch - Blunt-leaved pondweed. Shallow waters of the Kyiv reservoir [Horbyk…, 1983]; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ, Ξ. 289. Potamogeton pectinatus L. - Fennel-leaved pondweed. Water bodies; frequent - 1-r. Ψ, Ξ. 290. Potamogeton perfoliatus L. - Perfoliate pondweed. Water bodies; frequent - 1-r. Ψ, Ξ. Potamogeton praelongus Wulfen. - Whitestem pondweed. In the outlet of the Teterev River [Green…, 2009]; data deficient. RESKR. Ψ, Ξ. 291. Potamogeton pusillus L. – Small pondweed. Water bodies with standing and low-flow water [Horbyk…, 1983]; rare – r. RESKR. Ψ, Ξ. 292. Potamogeton rutilus Wolfg. - Shetland pondweed. Shallow waters of the Kyiv reservoir [Horbyk…, 1983]; rare – r. RESKR. Ψ, Ξ. 293. Potamogeton trichoides Cham. & Schlecht. - Hairlike pondweed. Shallow waters of the Kyiv reservoir [Macrophytes…, 1993]; very rare – r. RBRB(DD). Ψ, Ξ.

Family 36. Scheuchzeriaceae Rudolphi

294. Scheuchzeria palustris L. – Rannoch-rush (pod grass). In sphagnous swamps [Summary…, 1998]; data deficient – r. RBU(Vuln.). Ψ.

Family 37. Sparganiaceae Rudolphi

295. Sparganium emersum Rehm. - Unbranched (European) bur-reed. Shores of water bodies with low-flow and standing water; frequent - 2-r. Ψ. 296. Sparganium erectum L. - Simplestem (branched) bur-reed. Shores of water bodies with low-flow and standing water; frequent - 2-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 297. Sparganium minimum Wallr. - Least bur-reed. Shores of water bodies with low-flow and standing water (Khabne=Poliske, Chornobyl [Pachoskyi, 1900]); rare - 1-r. RSUP(2). RESKR. Ψ. 298. Sparganium neglectum Beeby – Neglected bur-reed. Shores of water bodies with low-flow and standing water; rare - 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ.

Family 38. Trilliaceae Lindl.

299. Paris quadrifolia L. – Herb-paris (or True lover's knot). Moist deciduous forests; rare – r. Ψ.

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 65

Family 39. Typhaceae Juss.

300. Typha angustifolia L. - Narrow-leaved cat's-tail. Shores of water bodies with low-flow and standing water; frequent - 3-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 301. Typha latifolia L. – Broad-leaved cat's-tail. Water bodies, eutrophic bogs; frequent - 3-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ.

Family 40. Zannichelliaceae Dum.

302. Zannichellia palustris L. – Horned pondweed. The Kyiv reservoir [Horbyk…, 1983]; sporadic – r. RESKR. Ý, Ψ.

Class 6. Magnoliopsida

Family 41. Aceraceae Juss.

303. Acer campestre L. - Field maple. Cultivated and disseminated in population centres (Pripyat city) and forests (1 settlement in aspen phytocoenosis over the area of 2,2 ha, aged approximately 25 years in the Korohodske forestry centre - sq. 17, lot 11 [Draft organization…, 1997]); very rare – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 304. Acer ginnala Maxim. - Amur maple. Cultivated and disseminated (Pripyat city); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 305. Acer negundo L. - Ash-leaved maple. Cultivated and disseminated in population centres, forest plantations, fallows; frequent - 3-r. Euchenophyte-agriophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 306. Acer platanoides L. - Norway maple. In forests, cultivated in population centres, roadside hedgerows; sporadic - 2-r. Hemiapophyte. ђ. Acer platanoides f. globosum Nichols. - Norway maple f. globular. Cultivated in population centres as a graff; very rare – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 307. Acer pseudoplatanus L. - Sycamore maple. Cultivated and disseminated in population centres and forests (2 settlements in the forests of the Paryshivske forestry centre over the area of about 9 ha, aged approximetely 25 and 45 years [Draft organization…, 1997]); rare - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. RSUP(3). ђ. Acer pseudoplatanus L. f. crimson King - Sycamore maple f. black-red. Cultivated in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. Acer pseudoplatanus L. f. purpurea Loud. - Sycamore maple f. red-green. Cultivated in population centres; rare – 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 66

308. Acer saccharinum L. - Silver maple. Cultivated in population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. Acer saccharinum L. f. laciniata - Silver maple, f. divided leaves. Cultivated in population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 309. Acer tataricum L. - Tatarian maple. In dubravas, shrubs and meadows of the valleys of the Uzh and Pripyat Rivers (to the Belarusian part of EZ [Nesterovych , 1955]), near Zoryn [Pachoskyi, 1897], cultivated in population centres and forest plantations (5 settlements in forests aged between 25 and 80 years [Draft organization…, 1997]); sporadic – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. RSUP(3). ђ-һ.

Family 42. Adoxaceae Trautv.

310. Adoxa moschatellina L. – Moschatel. In deciduous and mixed forests, notably disseminates in abandoned population centres; frequent – 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ξ.

Family 43. Juss.

Amaranthus albus L. - White amaranth (pigweed). Storage locations of calcium-containing construction materials, man-made disturbances ( Station, Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 311. Amaranthus lividus L. - Purple amaranth (Guernsey pigweed). In vegetable gardens of population centres (Varovychi, Lubianka of the Polissia district [Bortniak, 1962], confirmed in 2004); rare – r. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. Amaranthus paniculatus L. - Pendant amaranth. In fields, fallows, in population centres (Kupuvate) from the test sowing of 1998; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 312. Amaranthus retroflexus L. - Red-root (common) amaranth. In fields, fallows, in population centres; frequent – r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý.

Family 44. Anacardiaceae Lindl.

313. Rhus typhina L. - Staghorn sumac. Cultivated (Chornobyl town, Hlinka); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. ђ.

Family 45. Apiaceae Lindl. (Umbelliferae Juss.)

314. Aegopodium podagraria L. - Ground elder. In forests, shrubs, in population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 67

315. Aethusa cynapium L. - Fool's parsley. Along roads, amid shrubs, in population centres; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý-Ÿ. 316. Anethum graveolens L. - Dill. Cultivated, in man-made disturbances; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 317. Angelica sylvestris L. - Wild angelica. In moist and marshy meadows, forests, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. 318. Anthriscus sylvestris (L.) Hoffm. - Cow parsley. In forests, meadows, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 319. Archangelica officinalis Hoffm. – Garden angelica. In moist and marshy meadows, marshy forests; sporadic – r. Ÿ-Ψ. 320. Carum carvi L. - Meridian fennel (Persian cumin). In meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. 321. Cenolophium denudatum (Homem.) Tutin – Baltic parsley. In meadows, floodplain willow forests, on shores of water bodies; sporadic – r. RBRB(III). Ψ. 322. Chaerophyllum aromaticum L. – Fern-leaved chervil. In grassy glades, forest edges, along roads; sporadic – r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 323. Chaerophyllum bulbosum L. - Turnip-rooted chervil. In forest edges, grassy glades, floodplains, population centres; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ÿ. 324. Chaerophyllum temulum L. - Rough chervil. Along roads and amid shrubs, in population centres; rare – r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ. 325. Cicuta virosa L. - Cowbane or Northern water hemlock. In marshes, on shores of water bodies, in shallow waters; sporadic – r. Ψ. 326. Cnidium dubium (Schkuhr) Thell. - Snow parsley. In meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, amid shrubs, in population centres; frequent – r. Spontaneophyte. Ÿ. 327. Conium maculatum L. - Poison hemlock. In population centres, along roads; sporadic – 1-r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. 328. Daucus carota L. - Wild carrot. In grassy glades, forest edges, meadows, fallows, along roads, in population centres; frequent – 1-r. Kenophyte-agriophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ. 329. Eryngium planum L. - Blue eryngo. In meadows, amid shrubs, along roads, in population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 330. Heracleum sibiricum L. – Siberian cow parsnip. In meadows, amid shrubs, along roads, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. 331. Laserpitium latifolium L. - Broad-leaved sermountain. In forests, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. RBRB(LC). Ÿ-Ψ. 332. Laserpitium prutenicum L. – Prussian sermountain. In forests, amid shrubs; rare – r. Ÿ-Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 68

Levisticum officinale W.D.J.Koch - Lovage. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained; rare – r. Kenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. 333. Oenanthe aquatica (L.) Poir. - Water dropworts. In alder forests, eutrophic bogs, on shores of water bodies, in shallow waters; sporadic – 1-r. Ý-Ψ. 334. Ostericum palustre (Bess.) Bess. - Marsh angelica. In moist and marshy meadows, marshes, floodplains, amid shrubs; rare – r. RBRB(III), BC(R). Ÿ-Ψ. 335. Pastinaca sylvestris Mill. - Parsnip. In dry meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, along roads; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ. 336. Petroselinum crispum (Mill.) A.W. Hill (P. sativum Hoffm.) - Garden parsley. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres; frequent – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ÿ 337. Peucedanum cervaria (L.) Lapeyr (Сervaria rivini Gaertn.) - Much-good. In forests, grassy glades, forest edges, in population centres; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. RBRB(III). Ψ. 338. Peucedanum lubimenkoanum Kоtоv – Lubimenko’s fennel. In forest edges, in the shrubs on the slopes of the valley side of the Teterev River [Bortniak, 1962, 1977]; very rare – r. Ψ. 339. Peucedanum oreoselinum (L.) Moench – Mountain parsley. In pine and mixed forests, grassy glades, forest edges, population centres, fallows; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 340. Peucedanum palustre (L.) Moench – Milk-parsley. In marshes, marshy meadows, amid shrubs; frequent – r. Ψ 341. Pimpinella major (L.) Huds. - Greater burnet-saxifrage. Floodplain dubravas of the Uzh River, roadside shrubs in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare – r. RBRB(LC). Ψ. 342. Pimpinella saxifraga L. - Burnet-saxifrage. In dry meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 343. Sanicula europaea L. - Wood sanicle. In deciduous forests; very rare – r. Ψ, rhizome, balist, epizoochore, megatroph, mesophyte, skioheliophyte. 344. Selinum carvifolia (L.) L. - Cambridge milk parsley (or Little-leaf angelica). In moist and marshy meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, amid shrubs; rare – r. Ψ. 345. Seseli annuum L. – Annual cicely. In meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Ÿ. 346. Seseli libanotis (L.) Koch – Moon carrot (or Mountain stone-parsley). In dry meadows, grassy glades, forest edges; sporadic – r. Ÿ-Ψ. Siella erecta (Huds.) M. Pimen. – Lesser (cut-leaf) water-parsnip. On shores of water bodies, in shallow waters; data deficient – r. RBRB (III). Ψ. 347. Sium latifolium L. - Great (wide-leaf) water-parsnip. In marshy meadows, marshes, floodplains; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 69

348. Sium sisaroideum DC. - Lance-leaved water-parsnip. In marshy meadows, marshes, in floodplains; rare – r. Ψ. 349. Torilis japonica (Houtt) DC. - Upright hedge-parsley. In forests, dry meadows, along roads; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ý-Ÿ. Family 46. Apocynaceae Juss.

350. Vinca minor L. - Lesser periwinkle. Cultivated in population centres, vegetatively maintained; frequent - 2-r. Kenophyte-ergasiophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ω.

Family 47. Aristolochiaceae Juss.

351. Aristolochia clematitis L. - European birthwort. Floodplain forests and overshrubbed meadows, population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 352. Asarum europaeum L. – Asarabacca (European wild ginger). In deciduous forests, population centres (Chornobyl town); sporadic – 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ.

Family 48. Asclepiadaceae R. Br.

353. Asclepias syriaca L. - Common milkweed. Cultivated, vegetatively maintained and occasionally seed-disseminated in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 354. Vincetoxicum hirundinaria Medik. - White swallow-wort. Amid shrubs, in meadows, population centres; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ.

Family 49. Asteraceae Dumort.

355. Achillea collina J. Becker ex Rchb. – Mountain yarrow. Grassy glades, forest edges, meadows, along roads; sporadic – r. Ψ. 356. Achillea inundata Kondr. – Floodplain yarrow. Moist meadows in floodplains, on shores of water bodies; frequent - 2-r. Ψ. 357. Achillea pannonica Scheele – Hungarian yarrow. Dry meadows and fallows, along roads; rare - 2-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 358. Achillea submillefolium Klokov & Krytzka - Сommon yarrow. Forest edges, grassy glades, meadows, fallows, along roads, in population centres; common - 2-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 359. Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. – Common (low) ragweed. In population centres (Chornobyl town, 9 Vatutina St.; Yaniv Station); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 360. Antennaria dioica Gaern. - Stoloniferous pussytoes. Pine and birch forests, sandy wastelands, man-made disturbances; frequent – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. RESKR. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 70

361. Anthemis arvensis L. - Corn chamomile. Along roads, in population centres; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 362. Anthemis cotula L. - Stinking chamomile. In population centres; sporadic – r. Archeophyte- epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 363. Anthemis ruthenica Bieb. – Ruthenian chamomile. On the sands of forest edges, roads, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 364. Anthemis subtinctoria Dobrocz. - Golden marguerite (or Yellow chamomile). In population centres; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. 365. Arctium lappa L. - Greater burdock. Black-alder forests, population centres, fallows; sporadic - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ÿ. 366. Arctium minus (Hill) Bernh. - Lesser burdock. Black alder forests, population centres, fallows; sporadic – r. Evapophyte. Ÿ. 367. Arctium tomentosum Mill. - Woolly burdock. In population centres, alder forests; sporadic – r. Evapophyte. Ÿ. 368. Artemisia abrotanum L. - Southern wormwood. Cultivated and wild-growing in floodplain sands and man-made disturbances; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-agriophyte-ergasiophygophyte [Pachoskyi, 1899]. Ω. 369. Artemisia absinthium L. - Absinthe wormwood. Meadows, fallows, along roads, in population centres; common - 2-r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. 370. Artemisia annua L. - Sweet wormwood. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres; rare - r, Kenophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte [Pachoskyi, 1899]. Ý. 371. Artemisia austriaca Jacq. – Austrian wormwood. Dry post-pasture meadows (Illintsi, Kopachi, Chornobyl town); rare – r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ 372. Artemisia campestris L. – Sand wormwood. Dry meadows, forest edges, grassy glades, along roads; frequent - 3-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 373. Artemisia marschalliana Spreng. - Field wormwood [Savchenko, 1999]. Fallows and meadows, population centres, roadsides; frequent - 3-r. Evapophyte. RBRB(DD). Ψ. 374. Artemisia scoparia Waldst. & Kit. - Redstem wormwood. On the sands in population centres, in fallows, roadsides; sporadic – r. Evapophyte. Ý. 375. Artemisia vulgaris L. – Mugwort (or Common wormwood). Meadows, fallows, forest edges, along roads, in population centres; frequent - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 376. Aster amellus L. - European Michaelmas-daisy. In dry sparse oak-pine forests in the Belarusian part of EZ; very rare - r. RBRB (III). Ψ. 377. Aster lanceolatus Willd. - Lance-leaf aster. Cultivated and wild-growing; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 71

378. Aster novae-angliae L. - New England aster. Cultivated and wild-growing; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 379. Aster novi-belgii L. - aster. Cultivated and wild-growing; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 380. Aster x salignus Willd. - Willow-leaved aster. Cultivated and wild-growing; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. Bellis perennis L. - Common daisy. Cultivated and wild-growing; rare – r. Kenophyte- colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 381. Bidens cernua L. - Nodding beggarticks. Marshy meadows, marshes, shores of water bodies; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ý. 382. Bidens frondosa L. – Devil's beggarticks. In meadows, marshes, amid shrubs, in population centres; frequent - 1-r. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 383. Bidens tripartita L. - Three-lobe beggarticks. Meadows, fallows, shrubs, roadsides, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. Calendula officinalis L. – Pot marigold or Ruddles. Cultivated, seeds sprout in man-made and zoogenous soil disturbances; rare – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 384. Carduus acanthoides L. - Spiny plumeless thistle. In dry meadows, fallows, along roads, in population centres; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. 385. Carduus crispus L. - Curly plumeless thistle. Grassy glades and forest edges, fallows, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ. 386. Carduus nutans L. - Nodding thistle. Dry meadows, fallows, along roads, in population centres; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ. 387. Carlina biebersteinii Bernh. ex Hornem. – Bieberstein’s carline. In dry meadows, fallows, sparse forests, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý-Ÿ. Carlina cirsioides Klokov - Thistle-shaped carline. On slopes, dry meadows [Pachoskyi, 1897; Chopyk, 1978]; very rare – r. RBU(Vuln.), IUCN Red List (Е). Ÿ. 388. Centaurea borysthenica Grun. – Dnipro knapweed. Sandy meadows, forest edges and grassy glades, along roads; sporadic – r. Ÿ. 389. Centaurea cyanus L. – Cornflower (bluebottle). In fallows, fields, ornamental form is cultivated in flower-beds; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 390. Centaurea diffusa Lam. - Tumble knapweed. In population centres (Pripyat city), in the dams made of imported calcium-containing stone; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- acolutophyte. Ÿ. 391. Centaurea jacea L. - Brown knapweed. Meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, amid shrubs; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 72

Centaurea marschalliana Spreng. – Marshall’s knapweed. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained; rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. 392. Centaurea mollis Waldst. et. Kit. – Soft knapweed. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. 393. Centaurea phrygia L. - Wig knapweed. In grassy glades, forest edges, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. RBRB(LC). Ψ. 394. Centaurea pseudomaculosa Dobrocz. - False-maculate knapweed. In grassy glades, forest edges, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Ÿ. 395. Centaurea scabiosa L. - Greater knapweed. In sparse forests, dry meadows, population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 396. Centaurea stoebe L. – Spotted knapweed. Sparse pine and mixed forests, shrubs (v. Shevchenkove in the Polissia district, [Summary…, 1998]); sporadic – r. RSUP. Ÿ 397. Centaurea sumensis Kalen. - Sumy knapweed. Grassy glades, forest edges, dry meadows, cultivated; sporadic – r. RSUP. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. Chamaemelum nobile (L.) All. - Roman chamomile. Wilding along roads; very rare – r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. 398. Chondrilla juncea L. - Rush skeletonweed. Dry meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. 399. Chondrilla latifolia Bieb. - Broad-leaved skeletonweed. On sandy plots, on the slopes, along roads in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. Chrysanthemum carinatum Schousb. - Tricolour chrysanthemum. Cultivated and wild- growing (Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. Chrysanthemum x coreanum Nak. – Korean chrysanthemum. Cultivated in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. Chrysanthemum segetum L. - Corn marigold or Corn daisy. Cultivated and wild-growing (Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 400. Cichorium inthybus L. – Leaf chicory. In population centres, meadows and fallows, roadsides; frequent - 1-r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-ergasiolypophyte. Ψ. 401. Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. - Creeping thistle. Meadows and fallows, population centres, roadsides; frequent - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 402. Cirsium oleraceum (L.) Scop. - Cabbage thistle. Marshes, marshy meadows and shrubs; frequent – r. Ψ. 403. Cirsium palustre (L.) Scop. - Marsh thistle. Marshes, marshy meadows; sporadic – r. Ÿ. 404. Cirsium pannonicum (L.) Link – Pannonian thistle. Meadows in the Belarusian part of EZ; very rare – r. RBRB(II). Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 73

405. Cirsium rivulare (Jacq.) All. - Brook thistle. Marshes, marshy meadows, forests, shrubs; sporadic – r. Ψ. 406. Cirsium setosum (Willd.) Bess. – Entire-leaved Canada thistle. In meadows and fallows, population centres, roadsides; sporadic – r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 407. Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. - Common thistle. In meadows and fallows, population centres, roadsides; frequent – r. Evapophyte. Ÿ. 408. Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. – Canadian horseweed. Fallows, burned areas, in population centres; common - 3-r. Kenophyte-agriophyte-acolutophyte. Ý-Ÿ. Coreopsis grandiflora Hogg. ex Sweet. – Large-flowered tickseed. Cultivated and wild- growing; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. Coreopsis tinctoria L. - Garden (or golden) tickseed. Cultivated and wild-growing; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 409. Cosmos bipinnatus Cav. – Garden cosmos or Mexican aster. Cultivated and wild-growing in zoogenous disturbances; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 410. Crepis biennis L. - Rough hawksbeard. Meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, shrubs, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ. 411. Crepis paludosa (L.) Moench. – Marsh hawk's-beard. In marshes, marshy meadows, forests; sporadic – r. Ψ. 412. Crepis praemorsa (L.) Tausch. - Leafless hawksbeard. In forests, meadows, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Ψ. Crepis rhoeadifolia M.Bieb. – Poppy-leaved hawksbeard. In the fine earth deposits on asphalt in the Kirov St. in Chornobyl; very rare – r. -. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 413. Crepis tectorum L. - Narrow-leaved hawksbeard. Grassy glades, forest edges, dry fallows and meadows, population centres; sporadic – r. Evapophyte. Ÿ. Echinops sphaerocephalus L. - Glandular globe-thistle. Is wild growing from a culture in Zalissia; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 414. Erigeron acris L. - Bitter (blue) fleabane. In dry meadows, fallows, forest edges, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ. 415. Erigeron droebachiensis О. Muell. – Droebachien fleabane. In pine forests on sandy grassy glades [Tsvelev, 1990]; sporadic – r. Ÿ. 416. Eupatorium cannabinum L. - Hemp-agrimony. Marshes, marshy forests, shrubs, meadows, population centres; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 417. Filago arvensis L. – Field cudweed (cottonroses). Forest edges, grassy glades pine forests, sandy meadows and fallows, along roads, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 418. Filago minima (Smith) Pers. - Small cudweed. Forest edges and grassy glades of pine forests, sandy meadows and fallows; rare - r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 74

Gaillardia x hybrida hort. – Hybrid blanket flower. Cultivated and wild-growing; very rare - r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. 419. Gaillardia pulchella Foug. - Firewheel. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres, in the Red Forest; rare - r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. 420. Galatella linosyris (L.) Rсhb. – Goldilocks aster. In meadows, forest edges of the floodplain dubrava derivatives of the Pripyat River (suburbs of Otashiv and Opachychi [Bortniak, 1962]) and Teterev River [Bortniak, 1977]; rare – r. Ψ. 421. Galinsoga parviflora Cav. - Potato weed. In population centres, fallows; sporadic - r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 422. Galinsoga urticifolia (Kunth) Benth - Fringed quickweed. In population centres, ameliorated fallows in the Belarusian part of EZ; sporadic - r. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 423. Gnaphalium luteoalbum L. - Jersey cudweed. Bare sands of the river shores, fallows; sporadic - r. Spontaneophyte. RESKR. Ý. 424. Gnaphalium sylvaticum L. – Wood cudweed. In grassy glades, forest edges, meadows and fallows, population centres; rare - r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 425. Gnaphalium uliginosum L. - Marsh cudweed. Peaty meadows, moor edges, fallows; sporadic - r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 426. Grindelia squarrosa (Pursh) Dunv. - Curly-top gumweed. At Yaniv railway station; very rare - r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte (1997). Ÿ-Ψ. 427. Helianthus subcanescens (A. Gray) E. E. Wats. – Greyish sunflower. Cultivated in population centres and vegetatively maintained; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. Ξ. 428. Helianthus tuberosus L. - Jerusalem artichoke, sunchoke. Cultivated in population centres and vegetatively maintained; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. Ξ. 429. Helichrysum arenarium (L.) Moench. - Dwarf everlast. Dry pine forests, fallows, man-made disturbances, population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. Heliopsis scabra Dun. - Rough oxeye. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. 430. Hieracium filifolium Juxip – Thread-leaved hawkweed. In sparse forests and in meadows; rare - 1-r. Ψ. 431. Hieracium pervagum Jord. ex Boreau - Canadian hawkweed. Grassy glades, forest edges, fallows, meadows, in population centres in the Belarusian part of EZ; sporadic - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 432. Hieracium umbellatum L. – Narrow-leaf hawkweed. Grassy glades, forest edges, fallows, meadows, population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 433. Hypochaeris maculata L. - Spotted hawkweed. In forests, amid shrubs, in dry meadows; sporadic – r. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 75

434. Hypochaeris radicata L. - Cat's-ear. In forest edges, meadows, fallows, roadsides, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 435. Inula britannica L. - British yellowhead (Meadow fleabane). Moist meadows, ameliorated fallows, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 436. Inula helenium L. - Horse-heal or Elfdock. Cultivated and wild-growing (Chornobyl town, Pripyat city, Nova Krasnytsia); very rare – r. Kenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophygophyte [Pachoskyi, 1899]. Ψ. 437. Inula hirta L. - Hairy fleabane. Meadows and shrubs on the slopes of the Teterev River valley side [Bortniak, 1977]; very rare – r. RBRB (LC). Ψ. 438. Inula salicina L. – Willow-leaf yellowhead. Forest edges, shrubs; rare – r. Ψ. 439. Iva xanthiifolia Nutt. - Giant sumpweed. In population centres; sporadic – r. Kenophyte- epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 440. Jurinea cyanoides (L.) Rchb – Dark-blue jurinea. On forest (bor) sands and in dry pine forests; rare – r. RBRB(LC), BC(I). Ψ. 441. Lactuca serriola Torner - Prickly lettuce (Milk thistle). In fallows, meadows, population centres; frequent – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ. 442. Lactuca tatarica С. А. Меу - Blue lettuce. In garbage dumps, along roads in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare - r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. 443. Lapsana communis L. - Common nipplewort. Fallows, meadows, forest plantations, in population centres; sporadic – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 444. Leontodon autumnalis L. - Autumn hawkbit (Fall dandelion). Meadows, fallows, population centres; rare – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 445. Leontodon hispidus L. – Bristly hawkbit. In dry meadows; frequent – r. Ψ. 446. Lepidotheca suaveolens (Pursch) Nutt. – Pineappleweed. In population centres; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 447. Leucanthemella serotina (L.) Tzvel. - Autumn ox-eye. Marshy meadows of the Uzh River floodplain on the island near Polisske [Pachoskyi, 1897; Field guide..., 1987; Summary…, 1998]; very rare – r. RBU(Endn.). Ψ. Leucanthemum maximum (Ramond) DC. - Max chrysanthemum. Is vegetatively cultivated and maintained; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 448. Leucanthemum vulgare Lam. - Ox-eye daisy. Meadows, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 449. Matricaria recutita L. – Wild chamomile. In population centres, self-renewed; rare – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 450. Mycelis muralis (L.) Dumort. – Wall lettuce. In pine and mixed forests, fallows, meadows, population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 76

451. Onopordum acanthium L. - Cotton thistle. In population centres, fallows; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ. 452. Petasites hibridus (L.) Gaertn., May. & Scherb. – Hybrid butterbur. In river floodplains; sporadic – r. RBRB(LC). Ψ. 453. Phalacroloma annuum (L.) Dumort. – Annual fleabane. In fallows, meadows, population centres [Tsvelev, 1991]; frequent - 1-r. Euchenophyte-agriophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ. 454. Phalacroloma septentrionale (Fern. & Wieg.) Tzvel., – Northern fleabane. Meadows, fallows, forest edges, grassy glades, amid shrubs, along roads [Tsvelev, 1990, 1991]; frequent - 1- r. Euchenophyte-agriophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ. 455. Picris hieracioides L. - Hawkweed oxtongue. In fallows (Rozsokha), waterstop dams, population centres (Chornobyl town, ChNPP site); sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- acolutophyte. Ψ-Ÿ. 456. Pilosella aurantiaca (L.) F.Schultz & Sch.Bip. – Orange hawkweed. Wild-growing in the cracks on concrete sites and in slabs (Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 457. Pilosella caespitosa (Dumort.) P. D. Sell & West - Meadow hawkweed. In meadows, fallows, forest plantations, population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 458. Pilosella x collina (Gochn.) Sojak - Hard-bristled hawkweed. Sandy meadows, forests, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 459. Pilosella cymosa (L.) Schultz & Sch. Вір. – Cymose mouse-ear hawkweed. In dry meadows, fallows, grassy glades, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 460. Pilosella x bifurca (M. Bieb.) F.Schultz & Sch. Bip. – Double-forked hawkweed. Dry pine forests; sporadic – r. Ψ. 461. Pilosella echioides (Lumn.) F. Schuitz & Sch. Вір – Bugloss mouse-ear hawkweed. In bors, on bare sands; sporadic – r. Ψ. 462. Pilosella x flagellaris (Willd.) Arv.-Touv. – Whiplash hawkweed. Forest edges, meadows; sporadic – r. Ψ. 463. Pilosella hispidissima (Rehman ex Naeg. & Peter) Schljak - Bristled hawkweed. Meadows, fallows, grassy glades; sporadic – r. Ψ. 464. Pilosella officinarum F. Schultz & Sch. Bip. – Mouse-ear hawkweed. Forest plantations, fallows, meadows, population centres; common - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 465. Pilosella onegensis Norrl. – Onega hawkweed. In meadows, fallows, grassy glades; sporadic – r. Ψ. 466. Pilosella x polymastix (Peter) Holub. – Multicaulis hawkweed. Grassy glades, forest edges, overshrubbed meadows in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare – r. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 77

467. Pilosella praealta (Vill. ex Gochn.) F. Schultz & Sch. Bip. – Kingdevil. Grassy glades, forest edges, overshrubbed meadows in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare – r. Ψ. 468. Pilosella x schultesii (F. Schultz) F. Schultz – Schultes’s hawkweed. In meadows, grassy glades, forest edges; sporadic – r. Ψ. 469. Pilosella vaillantii (Tausch) Sojak – Vaillant’s (umbellate) hawkweed. On the slopes, grassy glades; rare – r. Ψ. 470. Ptarmica cartilaginea (Ledeb.) Ledeb. – Cartilage sneezewort. Moist meadows, ameliorated fallows, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 471. Ptarmica salicifolia (Bess.) Serg. – Willow-leaf sneezewort. Moist meadows, fallows; rare – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 472. Ptarmica vulgaris Blackw. ex DC. – Common sneezewort. Wet meadows, fallows [Horbyk…, 1983]; rare – r. Ψ. 473. Pulicaria vulgaris Gaertn. – Small fleabane. Moist meadows, ameliorated fallows, roadsides, population centres; rare – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 474. Pyrethrum corymbosum (L.) Scop. – Scentless feverfew (Corymbflower tansy). Mixed forests, shrubs, grassy glades; rare – r. RBRB(III). Ψ. 475. Rudbeckia hirta L. - Black-eyed Susan. Cultivated and wild-growing; sporadic - 3-r. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. 476. Rudbeckia laciniata L. 'Goldball' - Рудбекія роздільнолиста «золота куля». Cultivated and vegetatively maintained; rare – r. Kenophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. 477. Scorzonera humilis L. – Viper’s-grass. Dry pine forests, meadows and fallows; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. RESKR. Ψ. 478. Scorzonera purpurea L. - Purple vipergrass. Grassy glades and forest edges of dry pine forests, dry meadows and fallows, population centres; rare – r. Hemiapophyte. RBRB(III). RESKR. Ψ. 479. Senecio arcticus Rupr - Arctic ragwort. In the Pripyat River alluvium; sporadic – r. Ÿ. 480. Senecio erucifolius L. – Hoary ragwort. In forest edges, dry slopes in the Belarusian part of EZ; very rare – r. Ψ. 481. Senecio jacobaea L. – Common (tansy) ragwort. Grassy glades, forest edges, fallows, population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. 482. Senecio ovatus (P.Gaertn., B.Mey. & Scherb.) Willd. – Round-leaf ragwort. Grassy glades, forest edges, fallows, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 483. Senecio paludosus L. - Fen ragwort. Shores of water bodies, swamps, moist meadows of the left-bank floodplain of the Pripyat River (confirmation [Pachoskyi, 1899; Summary…, 1998]); rare – r. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 78

484. Senecio sylvaticus L. – Woodland ragwort. On bare sands of grassy glades and forest edges; rare – r. Ý. 485. Senecio tataricus Less. – Tartarian ragwort. Shores of water bodies, swamps, moist meadows, in shrubs; rare – r. Ψ. 486. Senecio vernalis Waldst. & Kit. - Eastern groundsel. Population centres, fallows; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 487. Senecio viscosus L. - Sticky ragwort. At the Yaniv railway station and in drained peatbogs in the Teterev River floodplain near the village of Zaprudky in the district [Bortniak, 1962]; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ. 488. Senecio vulgaris L. - Common groundsel. In population centres, fallows, uprooted forest burned areas; frequent – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 489. Serratula coronata L. – Crowned plumeless saw-wort. Grassy glades and forest edges of mixed forests; rare – r. Ψ. 490. Serratula tinctoria L. - Dyer's plumeless saw-wort. Grassy glades and forest edges of mixed forests; rare - 1-r. Ψ. Silphium perfoliatum L. – Cup plant. Cultivated and wild-growing; rare – r. Euchenophyte- colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. Silybum marianum Gartn. - Marian thistle. Cultivated and wild-growing; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý, Ÿ. 491. Solidago canadensis L. - Canadian goldenrod. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres, by roads; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 492. Solidago x hybrida hort. - Hybrid goldenrod. Cultivated and wild-growing; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 493. Solidago serotinoides A.Löve & D.Löve – Late goldenrod. Cultivated and wild-growing; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 494. Solidago virgaurea L. - European goldenrod or woundwort. Dry pine forests, fallows, meadows; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ, rhizome, anemochore, oligomesotroph, xeromesophyte, skioheliophyte. 495. Sonchus arvensis L. - Field sowthistle. In fallows, meadows, population centres; frequent - 1- r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. 496. Sonchus asper (L.) Hill. - Prickly sow-thistle. In fallows, meadows, population centres; sporadic - r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 497. Sonchus oleraceus L. - Common sowthistle. In fallows, meadows, population centres; frequent - 1-r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ. 498. Sonchus palustris L. - Marsh sowthistle. Marshes, marshy meadows; frequent - r. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 79

499. Tanacetum vulgare L. - Common tansy. Dry forests, forest edges, fallows, meadows, population centres; frequent - 2-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 500. Taraxacum officinale Webb. ex Wigg. - Common dandelion. Fallows and meadows with gleyed soils, population centres; common - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. Telekia speciosa (Shreb.) Baumg. – Heart-leaf oxeye. Cultivated and produces natural seeding; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 501. Tragopogon bjelorussicus Artemcz. - Belarusian goatsbeards (salsifies). Sands in catchment areas of the Dnipro and Pripyat Rivers [Tsvelev, 1985]; rare - 1-r. RBRB(DD). Ÿ. 502. Tragopogon major Jacq. – Yellow salsify. In fallows and meadows, in population centres; sporadic - r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ. 503. Tragopogon orientalis L. – Eastern goatsbeards. On dry slopes; rare - r. Ÿ. 504. Tragopogon ucrainicus Artemcz. - Ukrainian goatsbeards (salsifies). On fluvial sands; rare - r. IUCN Red List (R). Ÿ. 505. Tripleurospermum inodorum (L.) Sch. Bip.– Scentless chamomile. Fallows, population centres; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ. 506. Tussilago farfara L. - Сoltsfoot. In meadows, in black alder forests, in outcrops along roads, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 507. Xanthium albinum (Widd.) H. Scholz – Elbe cocklebur. In population centres, in alluvial deposits; sporadic - 1-r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. Xanthium spinosum L. - Spiny cocklebur. In population centres, floodplain sands; data deficient – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 508. Xanthium strumarium L. - Common cocklebur. In population centres, floodplain sands [Horbyk..., 1983]; rare – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. Verbesina encelioides (Cav.) Benth. &Hook. f. ex A. Gray – Golden crownbeard (American dogweed). Cultivated and wild-growing; very rare - r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. Ÿ.

Family 50. Balsaminaceae A. Rich.

509. Impatiens glandulifera Royle. - Himalayan balsam. Cultivated and disseminates in population centres, in garbage dumps, in floodplains; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-epecophyte- ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 510. Impatiens noli-tangere L. - Touch-me-not balsam. In black alder forests; sporadic - 1-r. Ý. 511. Impatiens parviflora DC. - Small balsam. In population centres, in marshy forests; frequent - 1-r. Euchenophyte-agriophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý.

Family 51. Berberidacae Juss. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 80

Berberis thunbergii DC. - Thunberg's barberry. Cultivated in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiolypophyte. һ. 512. Berberis vulgaris L. - Common barberry. Cultivated in population centres and wild-growing, is also mentioned on the slopes of the right valley side of the Pripyat River floodplain amid shrubs in the Belarusian part of EZ [Kozlovska..., 1972]; sporadic – 1-r. Kenophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. һ. Berberis vulgaris L. f. atropurpurea Rgl. - Common barberry, f. dark-purple. - Cultivated in population centres and wild-growing; rare - r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. Mahonia aquifolium (Pursh.) Nutt. – Oregon-grape. Cultivated (Chornobyl town); very rare - r. Euchenophyte-ergasiolypophyte. һ.

Family 52. Betulaceae S. F. Gray

513. Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. - Black alder. Forms alder forests, in marshy meadows, ameliorated fallows, population centres; common - 5-r. Spontaneophyte. ђ. 514. Alnus incana (L.) Moench. - Grey (speckled) alder. Forest plantations aged 35-60 in the Denysovetske (sq. 32), Zymovytske (sq. 54), Korohodske (sq. 152), Paryshivske (sq. 47) and Staroshepelytske (sq. 120) forestry centres over the area of 47 ha [Draft organization…, 1997]); rare - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. RSUP(1). RESKR. ђ. 515. Betula humilis Schrank - Kamchatka birch. In mesotrophic bogs [Ecoflora..., 2000]; data deficient - r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(LC). һ. 516. Betula pendula Roth - Silver birch. Forests, fallows, meadows, cultivated in forests and in population centres; common - 5-r. Hemiapophyte. ђ. Betula pendula Roth var. carelica (Mercklin) – Curly birch. Forest edges of green moss and myrtillus pine forest 1.5 km west of the Radyn village in the Khoinickskyi district of the Homel region in Belarus - 6 trees [Flora…, 2002]. ђ-һ. 517. Betula pubescens Ehrh. - Downy birch. Marshy forests, ameliorated fallows, meadows, cultivated; common - 5-r. Hemiapophyte. ђ.

Family Bignoniaceae Guss.

Campsis radicans (L.) Seem. – Trumpet vine. Was cultivated (Pripyat city); very rare - r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. - һ-liana.

Family 53. Boraginaceae Juss.

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 81

518. Anchusa officinalis L. - Common bugloss. Population centres, roadsides, meadows; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. 519. Asperugo procumbens L. - Madwort. In fallows, population centres; rare – r. Archeophyte- epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. Borago officinalis L. – Borage (starflower). Cultivated and wild-growing in vegetable gardens, flower-beds; rare – r. ЕKenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 520. Brunnera sibirica Stev. - Siberian bugloss. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. 521. Buglossoides arvensis (L.) Johust. - Field gromwell. In population centres, fallows; rare – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 522. Cynoglossum officinale L. - Houndstongue. In population centres; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ. 523. Echium vulgare L. - Viper's bugloss (Blueweed). In population centres; frequent – 1-r. Evapophyte. Ÿ. 524. Lappula patula (Lehm.) Menyh. - Sprawling stickseeds. In fallows, along roads [Balashov, Nehrutsa, 1999]; rare – r. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ. 525. Lappula squarrosa (Retz.) Dumort. - European stickseed. In population centres; rare – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ. 526. Lithospermum officinale L. - Common gromwell (European stoneseed). In population centres, roadsides; rare – r. RBRB(III). Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 527. Lycopsis arvensis L. - Small bugloss. In population centres, fallows; rare – r. Archeophyte- epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 528. Myosotis alpestris F. W. Schmidt - Alpine forget-me-not. Cultivated and wild-growing [Tiutiunnyk…, 1998]; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 529. Myosotis arvensis (L.) Hill. - Field forget-me-not. In population centres, fallows; frequent – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 530. Myosotis laxa Lehm. – Tufted forget-me-not. Moist forests, meadows, marshes; sporadic – r. Ψ. 531. Myosotis micrantha Pall. ex Lehm. - Upright forget-me-not. In dry sandy meadows, fallows, grassy glades, forest edges, in population centres; frequent - r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 532. Myosotis pineticola Klokov & Des.-Shost. – Pine-forest forget-me-not. In bors; sporadic – r. Ý-Ÿ. 533. Myosotis scorpioides L. - True forget-me-not (Scorpion grass). In marshes, marshy meadows, forests, on shores of water bodies; sporadic – r. Ψ. 534. Myosotis sparsiflora Mikan – Rariflorous forget-me-not. In forests, population centres, fallows; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý-Ÿ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 82

535. Myosotis sylvatica Ehrh. ex Hoffm. - Wood forget-me-not. Grassy glades, forest edges; sporadic – r. Ψ. 536. Nonea rossica Stev. – Russian monkswort. In population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 537. Pulmonaria angustifolia L. - Narrow-leaved lungwort. In pine and mixed forests, amid shrubs, in population centres (Chornobyl town); rare – r. RBRB(LC). Ψ. 538. Pulmonaria obscura Dumort. - Unspotted lungwort. Forests, shrubs, cultivated and wild- growing in population centres; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 539. Symphytum officinale L. - Common comfrey. In meadows, marshes, alder forests, floodplains, population centres; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ.

Family 54. Brassicaceae Burnett (Cruciferae Juss.)

540. Alliaria petiolata (Bieb.) Cavara & Grande - Garlic Mustard. In black locust thickets, in population centres; frequent – 1-r. Evapophyte. Ÿ-Ý. 541. Alyssum desertorum Stapf. - Desert madwort. Fallows, population centres, roadsides; rare – r. Evapophyte. Ý. 542. Alyssum gmelinii Jord. – Gmelin’s madwort. On sands, in dry pine forests; sporadic – r. RBRB(DD). Ψ. 543. Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. - Thale cress. Along roads, in fallows, man-made disturbances; frequent - r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 544. Arabis planisiliqua (Pers.) Rchb. - Flat-podded rockcress. In moist meadows, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Ý-Ÿ. 545. Arabis sagittata (Bertol.) DC. – Sagittal rockcress. In dry meadows, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Ý-Ÿ. 546. Armoracia rusticana Gaertn. - Horseradish. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. 547. Barbarea stricta Andrz. - Small-flowered winter-cress. In wet meadows, in alder forests; sporadic – r. Ý. 548. Barbarea vulgaris R. Br. - Bittercress. In meadows and fallows, in population centres; frequent – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ. Barbarea vulgaris R.Br. subsp. arcuata (Opiz ex J.Presl & C.Presl) Hayek - Arcuate bittercress. In meadows, along roads, in garbage dumps; rare – r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ. 549. Berteroa incana DC. - Hoary alyssum. In meadows, fallows, forest edges, population centres; common – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 83

550. Brassica campestris L. - Turnip rape. Along roads, in fallows; common – 1-r, Archeophyte- epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 551. Brassica juncea (L.) Czern. - Brown mustard. Along roads, in fallows, predominantly in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare - r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. Brassica napus L. - Oilseed rape. Cultivated and maintained during 2-3 years on the field edges after sowing; sporadic - 1-r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý-Ÿ. 552. Brassica nigra (L.) Koch - Black mustard. Along roads, in fallows; frequent - 1-r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 553. Bunias orientalis L. - Turkish wartycabbage (Hill mustard). In dry meadows, fallows, along roads, in population centres; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ-Ÿ. Camelina alyssum (Mill.) Thell. – False flax. Along roads, in fallows; rare – r. Archeophyte- epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 554. Camelina microcarpa Andrz. - Littlepod false flax. Along streets (Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 555. Camelina sylvestris Wallr. (C. pilosa (DC.) N. Zing) – Little-pod false flax. Along roads, in fallows; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 556. Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz - Camelina. Along roads, in fallows; sporadic – r. Archeophyte- epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 557. Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic. - Shepherd's purse. Along roads, in fallows; common – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 558. Cardamine amara L. - Large bitter-cress. In marshes, on brook shores, in alder forests; frequent – r. Ψ. 559. Cardamine dentata Schult. – Toothed bitter-cress. Marshy meadows, marshes; sporadic – r. Ψ. 560. Cardamine impatiens L. – Narrow-leaf bitter-cress. In forests, in shrubs; sporadic – r. Ý-Ÿ. 561. Cardamine parviflora L. - Small-flowered bitter-cress. Moist meadows, forests, shrubs; sporadic – r. Ý-Ÿ. 562. Cardamine pratensis L. - Meadow cress. In moist and marshy meadows, marshes; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 563. Cardaminopsis arenosa (L.) Hayek - Sand rock-cress. In man-made disturbances; sporadic – r. Evapophyte. Ÿ. 564. Cardaria draba (L.) Desv. – Whitetop (Hoary cress). Along roads, in fallows, in population centres; frequent – r. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. 565. Dentaria bulbifera L. - Coralroot. In deciduous forests; very rare – r. RBRB(IV). Ψ. 566. Descurainia sophia (L.) Webb. ex Plantl - Flixweed. In fallows, population centres; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 84

567. Draba nemorosa L. - Nemorose whitlow-grass. In meadows, grassy glades and forest edges, population centres; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ý. 568. Erophila verna (L.) Bess. - Common whitlowgrass. On sands, dry meadows, forest edges, in population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 569. Erysimum aureum M.Bieb. – Wood wallflower. Dry meadows, wastelands; rare - r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ. 570. Erysimum cheiranthoides L. – Wormseed wallflower. In fallows, population centres; frequent – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 571. Erysimum diffusum Ehrh. - Diffuse wallflower. In dry meadows, fallows; rare - r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ. 572. Hesperis matronalis L. – Dame's rocket. Cultivated and wild-growing; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte- colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ÿ. 573. Isatis tinctoria L. - Dyer's woad or Glastum. Garbage dumps and along roads in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophygophyte-colonophyte. Ÿ. 574. Lepidium campestre (L.) R. Br. - Field pepperwort. Fallows, population centres; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. 575. Lepidium densiflorum Schrad. - Common pepper-weed. In dry meadows and fallows, in population centres; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý-Ÿ. 576. Lepidium perfoliatum L. - Clasping pepper-weed. Fallows, population centres; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte- epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ. 577. Lepidium ruderale L. - Narrow-leaf pepper-wort. In fallows, population centres; frequent – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ. Lobularia maritima (L.) Desv. - Sweet alyssum (alison). Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres; rare – 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 578. Lunaria annua L. - Annual honesty. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 579. Lunaria rediviva L. - Perennial honesty. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres (Chornobyl town); rare - 2-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. RBU(Not ev.), RBRB(IV). Ψ. 580. Matthiola incana (L.) R. Br. - Hoary stock. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 581. Neslia paniculata (L.) Desv. – Ball mustard. In crops and in fallows, along roads; very rare - r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 582. Raphanus candidus Worosch. – White radish. In crops and by roads (Lubianka, [Bortniak, 1962]); very rare - r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 85

583. Raphanus raphanistrum L. - Wild radish. Along roads, in fallows; sporadic - r, Archeophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. Raphanus sativus L. – Garden radish. Cultivated and in garbage dumps in population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ÿ. 584. Rorippa {Roripa} amphibia (L.) Bess. - Great yellowcress. In marshes, on shores of water bodies, in shallow waters; frequent – 1-r, Ψ. Rorippa austriaca (Crantz) Bess. - Austrian yellow-cress. In wet meadows, on shores of water bodies; data deficient - r, Ψ. 585. Rorippa palustris (L.) Bess. - Bog yellow-cress. In meadows, marshes, on shores of water bodies; sporadic – r. Ý-Ψ. 586. Rorippa sylvestris (L.) Bess. - Creeping yellow-cress. Meadows, marshes, shores of water bodies, in population centres; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 587. Sinapis arvensis L. - Charlock (field) mustard. Along roads, in fallows; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 588. Sinapis dissecta Lag. – Dissected mustard. Along roads, in fallows; rare – r. Kenophyte- epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 589. Sisymbrium altissimum L. – Tall mustard. Roadsides, landfills of construction waste; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 590. Sisymbrium loeselii L. - Small tumbleweed mustard. Waste grounds, along roads, fallows, crops; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 591. Sisymbrium officinale Scop. - Hedge mustard. Along roads, in fallows; frequent – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý-Ÿ. Strigosella maritima L. – Seaside strigosella. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres (Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 592. Thlaspi arvense L. - Field pennycress. Along roads, in fallows, in population centres; frequent – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 593. Turritis glabra L. - Tower rockcress (mustard). In forests, in forest edges, in fallows, in population centres, sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý-Ÿ.

Family Buxaceae Dumort.

Buxus sempervirens L. – Common boxwood. Cultivated (Chornobyl town, Pripyat city, ChNPP site); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte. һ.Родина 55. Caesalpiniaceae R. Br.

Family 55. Caesalpiniaceae R. Br.

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 86

594. Gleditsia triacanthos L. – Honey (thorny) locust. Cultivated (Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ.

Family 56. Callitrichaceae Link

595. Callitriche cophocarpa Sendtner – Long-styled water starwort. In shallow waters, marshy meadows, marshes with stream water; rare – r. Ý. 596. Callitriche palustris L. - Spiny water starwort. In shallow waters, in marshes and canals with stream water (melioration system named “Kupovate”); sporadic – r. Ý.

Family 57. Campanulaceae Juss.

Adenophora lilifolia (L.) Ledeb. ex A.DC. - Lily-leaf lady-bell. Forest edges deciduous forests, floodplain meadows of the Dnipro River [Pachoskyi, 1899]; data deficient - r. RBRB(II). RESKR. Ψ. 597. Campanula bononiensis L. - Bolognian bellflower. In forests, grassy glades, forest edges; sporadic – r. RBRB(LC). Ψ. 598. Campanula glomerata L. - Clustered bellflower. In forests, in meadows; sporadic – r. Ψ. Campanula latifolia L. - Giant bellflower. Cultivated and maintained in population centres; sporadic – r. RBRB(IV). Ψ. Campanula medium L. - Canterbury bells. Cultivated; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. Ÿ. 599. Campanula patula L. - Spreading bellflower. Moist and marshy meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, shrubs; sporadic – r. Ÿ. 600. Campanula persicifolia L. - Peach-leaved bellflower. Forests, shrubs, population centres; frequent – r. RBRB(LC). Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 601. Campanula rapunculoides L. - Creeping bellflower. In grassy glades, forest edges, amid shrubs, in population centres; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 602. Campanula rapunculus L. - Rampion bellflower. In grassy glades, forest edges, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 603. Campanula rotundifolia L. - Harebell, bluebell. Grassy glades, forest edges, shrubs, in fallows and meadows, in population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 604. Campanula sibirica L. - Siberian bellflower. In deciduous forests; rare – r. RBRB(IV). Ÿ. 605. Campanula trachelium L. - Nettle-leaved bellflower. Forests, shrubs, population centres; frequent – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 87

606. Jasione montana L. - Sheep's bit scabious. Dry pine forests, sandy meadows and fallows, population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ. 607. Phyteuma spicatum L. – Spiked rampion. In grassy glades and forest edges of deciduous forests (Hornostaipil [Pachoskyi, 1899]); very rare – r. RSUP(1), RESKR, RBRB(orbiculare DD). Ψ. Family 58. Cannabaceae Endl.

608. Cannabis ruderalis Janisch. – Weed hemp. In population centres, roadsides; frequent - 1-r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 609. Cannabis sativa L. – Common hemp. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres; frequent - 1-r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 610. Humulus lupulus L. - Common hop. In moist and wet forests and shrubs, in population centres; common - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ.

Family 59. Caprifoliaceae Juss.

Lonicera caprifolium L. –Goat-leaf honeysuckle. Cultivated in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. һ. 611. Lonicera tatarica L. - Tartarian honeysuckle. Cultivated and wild-growing; rare - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. 612. Lonicera xylosteum L. - European fly honeysuckle. An island settlement in the north-west of the Kyiv region [Barbarych, 1955]; cultivated and wild-growing; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte- colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. 613. Sambucus nigra L. - Black elderberry. In population centres, in adjoined forests and shrubs; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte [Pachoskyi, 1897; Barbarych, 1955; Yakushenko, 2001]. һ. 614. Sambucus racemosa L. - Red elderberry. In population centres, burned areas in forests and in newly-formed grassy glades in middle-aged pine forests; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte [Pachoskyi, 1897; Barbarych, 1955; Aksenova, 1975]. һ. 615. Symphoricarpos rivularis Suksdorf – Common snowberry. Cultivated and maintained vegetatively; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. Viburnum lantana L. - Wayfarer or Wayfaring tree. Cultivated in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. һ. 616. Viburnum opulus L. - Guelder-. Moist and marshy meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, shrubs, cultivated in population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. һ. Viburnum opulus L. f. roseum - Guelder-rose, f. “Snowball”. Cultivated; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. һ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 88

Weigela floribunda (Sier. & Zucc.) K. Koch. – Crimson weigela. Cultivated (Pripyat city, Zalissia); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. һ.

Family 60. Caryophyllaceae Juss.

617. Agrostemma githago L. - Common corn-cockle. In fallows (oral report from L.S. Balashov); very rare – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. RBRB(LC). Ý. 618. Arenaria viscida Hall. f. ex Lois., - Viscid sandwort. Man-made disturbances, psammophytic fallows; sporadic – 1-r. Evapophyte. Ý. 619. Cerastium arvense L. - Field chickweed. In dry meadows, forest edges, grassy glades, fallows; sporadic - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 620. Cerastium holosteoides Fries - Lance-leaf (turfy) chickweed. In meadows, fallows, grassy glades, forest edges, amid shrubs; frequent - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. 621. Cerastium semidecandrum L. - Five-stamen chickweed. On sandy hills and in meadows, along roads, in pine forests; sporadic - r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 622. Coronaria flos-cuculi (L.) A. Br. - Ragged-Robin. In moist and marshy meadows; frequent – r. Ψ.

623. Dianthus armeria L. - Deptford (grass) pink. In meadows, forest edges, amid shrubs (Zoryn, [Pachoskyi, 1897]); rare – r. RBRB(II). Ý-Ÿ. 624. Dianthus barbatus L. – Sweet William. Cultivated, wild-growing in forests; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 625. Dianthus borbasii Vand. – Borbas’s pink. In pine forests, in sandy meadows, fallows, on sands; sporadic - r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 626. Dianthus campestris Bieb. – Field pink. In forests, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Ψ. 627. Dianthus deltoides L. - Maiden pink. In meadows, grassy glades, amid shrubs; frequent – r. Ψ. 628. Dianthus pineticola Kleopow – Pine-forest pink. In pine and mixed forests; sporadic – r. Ψ. 629. Dianthus pseudosquarrosus (Novak) Klokov - False-squarrose carnation. In pine forests; sporadic – r. RSUP. Ψ. 630. Dianthus stenocalyx Juz. - Fringed (large) pink. In moist pine and oak-pine forests; rare – r. (Dianthus superbus L. RBRB(LC). Ψ. 631. Elisanthe noctiflora (L.) Rupr. - Night-blooming elisanthe. In meadows, forest edges, amid shrubs, in population centres; sporadic - 1. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 89

632. Elisanthe viscosa (L.) Rupr. – Sticky elisanthe. In forest edges, in shrubs; frequent – 1-r. Ý- Ÿ. 633. saxatilis (L.) Ikonn. - Rock eremogone. Pine forests, bare sands; rare - r. Spontaneophyte. RBRB(LC). RSUP(2). RESKR. Ψ. 634. fastigiata L. - Fastigiate gypsophila. In dry pine forests; sporadic – r. Ψ. 635. Gypsophila paniculata L. - Common gypsophila. Fallows, meadows, along roads, in garbage dumps; common – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 636. Herniaria glabra L. – Smooth rupturewort. Sandy meadows, fallows, forest edges; common – 1-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 637. Herniaria polygama J. Gay. - Polygamous rupturewort. Sandy meadows and fallows, forest edges; common – 1-r. Evapophyte. Ý. Holosteum umbellatum L. - Jagged chickweed. Sandy meadows, fallows, forest edges; rare - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 638. Lychnis chalcedonica L. – Maltese-cross. Cultivated and wild-growing in meadows; rare – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. 639. Melandrium album (Mill.) Garske – White (bladder) campion. In meadows, fallows, forest edges, in population centres; common – r. Evapophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. Minuartia glomerata (Bieb.) Degen – Glomerate sandwort. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres [Tiutiunnyk…, 1998]; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. Ý-Ÿ. 640. Minuartia leiosperma Klokov - Smooth-seeded sandwort. Dry sandy meadows, by roads; rare – r. Ψ. 641. Moehringia trinervia (L.) Clairv. - Apetalous (Three-nerved) sandwort. In mixed and deciduous forests, in population centres; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ý-Ÿ. 642. Myosoton aquaticum (L.) Moench. - Water chickweed or Giant chickweed. In meadows and ameliorated fallows, in moist forests, amid shrubs; sporadic - r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 643. Oberna behen (L.) Ikonn. - Bladder campion. In meadows, fallows, grassy glades, forest edges, amid shrubs, in population centres; common - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 644. Otites borysthenicus (Grun.) Klokov – Dnipro otite. In pine forests, on sands, in fallows, in population centres; frequent - r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 645. Psammophiliella muralis (L.) Ikonn. – Mural psammophiliella. In dry meadows, fallows, forests, amid shrubs, in population centres; common – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 646. Sagina nodosa (L.) Fenzl. - Knotted pearlwort. In meadows and marshes; frequent – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 647. Sagina procumbens L. - Procumbent pearlwort. In meadows, forest edges, grassy glades, fallows, population centres; common – r. Evapophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 90

Saponaria ocymoides L. – Rock soapwort. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in flower- beds and cemetery (Chornobyl town); very rare - r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiolypophyte. Ψ. 648. Saponaria officinalis L. - Common soapwort. Meadows, fallows, forest edges, population centres; frequent - 1-r. Kenophyte-agriophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 649. Scleranthus annuus L. - Annual knawel. In pine forests, on sandy plots, in fallows; frequent - 1-r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 650. Scleranthus perennis L. - Perennial knawel. In pine forests, on sands, in fallows; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 651. Silene armeria L. - Sweet William catchfly. On bare sands in population centres, along roads, ornamental form is cultivated; sporadic - r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ÿ. 652. Silene chlorantha (Willd.) Ehrh. - Green-flowered catchfly. In forests, amid shrubs; frequent – r. Ψ. 653. Silene dichotoma Ehrh. – Forked catchfly. On the slopes, in fields and along roads; sporadic – r. Evapophyte. Ÿ. 654. Silene lithuanica Zapal. - Lithuanian catchfly. On bare sands in forests and meadows, along roads, in population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. RBU(Not ev.) RBRB(LC), IUCN Red List (І). Ÿ. 655. Silene nutans L. - Nottingham catchfly. In forests, amid shrubs; frequent – r. Ψ. 656. Silene tatarica (L.) Pers. – Tartarian catchfly. In sandy alluvium, in the thickets of sharp-leaf willows, in population centres; frequent – 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 657. Spergula arvensis L. - Corn spurrey. On sandy plots, along roads, in fallows, in population centres; common - 1-r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý.

658. Spergula morisonii Boreau – Pearlwort spurrey. On sands in bors, in pine forests; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 659. Spergula sativa Boenn. – Corn spurrey. In sandy fallows, in population centres; sporadic - 1- r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 660. Spergularia rubra (L.) J. & C. Presl - Red sand-spurrey. In sandy meadows, fallows, in population centres; sporadic - r. Evapophyte. Ÿ. 661. Stellaria alsine Grimm. – Bog stitchwort. In meadows, marshes and in moist forests; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. 662. Stellaria crassifolia Ehrh. - Fleshy starwort. Moist meadows and marshes (Brahyn, [Pachoskyi, 1897]); rare - 1-r. RBRB(III). Ψ. 663. Stellaria fragilis Klokov – Fragile starwort. In sandy meadows; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ, long- rooted, balist, anemochore, eutroph, hygromesophyte, heliophyte. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 91

664. Stellaria graminea L. - Lesser stitchwort. In forests, amid shrubs, in fallows, meadows; common - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 665. Stellaria hippoctona (Czern.) Klokov – Winy stitchwort. In meadows, in fallows, amid shrubs; sporadic - r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 666. Stellaria holostea L. - Greater stitchwort. In mixed and deciduous forests, amid shrubs, in meadows and fallows; common - 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 667. Stellaria media Vill. - Common chickweed. Meadows, fallows, forests, shrubs, population centres; common - 2-r. Evapophyte. Ý. 668. Stellaria nemorum L. - Wood stitchwort. In shady moist and marshy forests; sporadic - 1-r, Ψ. 669. Stellaria palustris Retz. - Marsh stitchwort. Meadows, marshes; frequent - 1-r. Ψ. Vaccaria hispanica (Mill.) Rauschert – Cowherb (soap-wort). In fallows; data deficient - r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 670. Viscaria vulgaris Bernh. - Sticky catchfly. Dry grassy glades, forest edges, meadows, by road sides; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ.

Family 61. Celastraceae R. Br.

671. Euonymus europea L. - European spindle. In forests, cultivated; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. һ. 672. Euonymus verrucosa Scop. – Warty spindle. In forests, shrubs, cultivated; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. һ (when shaded, forms a creeping form).

Family 62. Ceratophyllaceae S. F. Gray

673. Ceratophyllum demersum L. - Rigid hornwort. Standing and low-flow parts of water bodies; frequent - 2-r. Hemiapophyte. Ξ. 674. Ceratophyllum submersum L. - Soft hornwort. In standing and slowly flowing waters [Balashov…, 1999; Balashov, 2003]; rare – r. Hemiapophyte. Ξ.

Family 63. Chenopodiaceae Vent.

675. Atriplex nitens Schkuhr - Glossy-leaved orache. In population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 676. Atriplex patula L. - Common orache. In fallows, in population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 677. Atriplex prostrata Bouscher - Spear-leaved orache. In population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 92

678. Chenopodium acerifolium Andrz. - Maple-leaved goosefoot. On shore sands in floodplain of the Dnipro River; rare - r. RESKR. Ý. 679. Chenopodium album L. - White goosefoot. In population centres, in fallows; common – 1. Evapophyte. Ý. 680. Chenopodium glaucum L. – Glaucous goosefoot. In population centres; sporadic - r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 681. Chenopodium hybridum L. – Hybrid goosefoot. In population centres; sporadic - r, Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 682. Chenopodium polyspermum L. – Many-seeded goosefoot. In population centres; frequent – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 683. Chenopodium rubrum L. - Red goosefoot. On shore sands, meadows, along roads; sporadic – r. Evapophyte. Ý. 684. Chenopodium schraderanum Schult. – Schrader’s goosefoot. In population centres (the towns of Chornobyl, Ivankiv [Bortniak, 1962]); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- acolutophyte. Ý. 685. Chenopodium strictum Roth - Striped goosefoot. In garbage dumps and along roads; rare – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 686. Chenopodium suecicum J. Murr. - Green goosefoot. In population centres; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 687. Chenopodium urbicum L. - Upright goosefoot. In fallows, in population centres; frequent - 1. Evapophyte. Ý. 688. Chenopodium vulvaria L. - Stinking goosefoot. Man-made disturbances in population centres; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 689. Corispermum declinatum Stерh. ex Stev. - Nodding bugseed. On forest (bor) sands (Ivankiv district, v. Liubudva [Bortniak…, 1989]; rare – r. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 690. Corispermum hyssopifolium L.– Tumbleweed. On the sands in the Red Forest, in psammophytic fallows, in population centres; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. IUCN Red List (R). Ý. 691. Corispermum marschallii Stev. - Dnipro bugseed. On sands in floodplains; sporadic – r. RESKR. Ý. 692. Corispermum nitidum Kit. – Shiny bugseed, anemochore, endozoochore, mesotroph, xerophyte, heliophyte. 693. Corispermum pallasii Steven - Siberian bugseed. In sandy garbage dumps, along roads [Bortniak..., 1989]; rare - r. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 694. Kochia laniflora (S. G. Gmel) Bobr. - Woolly-flowered burningbush. On sparsely overgrown sands; frequent – r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 93

695. Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad. - Burningbush. Wild-growing in farmsteads and garbage dumps in population centres; rare – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 696. Polycnemum arvense L. – Field needleleaf. In population centres, psammophytic fallows, the Red Forest; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 697. Salsola tragus L. s.str. - Prickly Russian thistle (Common saltwort). On railway banked grounds; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ý.

Family 64. Clusiaceae Lindl. (Hypericaceae Juss.)

698. Hypericum maculatum Crantz - Imperforate St. John's-wort. In moist forests, amid shrubs; rare – r. Ψ. 699. Hypericum montanum L. - Pale St. John's-wort. In forests and amid shrubs in the Belarusian part of EZ; RBRB(III); rare - r. Ψ. 700. Hypericum perforatum L. - Perforate (common) St. John's-wort. In meadows, fallows, forest edges, amid shrubs, along roads, in population centres; common - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ.

Family 65. Convolvulaceae Juss.

701. Calystegia sepium (L.) R. Br. – Hedge bindweed. In marshes, on shores of water bodies, in population centres; frequent – 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. Calystegia sylvatica (Kit.) Griseb. – Large bindweed. Cultivated (Chornobyl town) and vegetatively maintained; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. 702. Convolvulus arvensis L. - Field bindweed. In fallows, meadows, population centres, along roads; common – 1-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth. – Common (purple) morning-glory. Cultivated, occasionally found in garbage dumps; rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. Ý.

Family 66. Cornaceae Dumort.

Cornus mas L. – European cornel or Cornelian cherry dogwood. Cultivated in population centres and forest plantations (sq. 32 of the Denysovetske forestry centre, over the area of 2 ha, aged 50 years [Draft organization…, 1997]); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte- ergasiophyte. һ. 703. Swida alba (L.) Opiz – White dogwood. Cultivated and wild-growing in forests, in population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 94

704. Swida sanguinea (L.) Opiz - Common dogwood. In floodplain forests and shrubs, cultivated; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. һ. Swida sericea (L.) Holub - Red osier dogwood. Cultivated and wild-growing in forests, in population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ.

Family 67. Corylaceae Mirb.

705. Carpinus betulus L. - European or common hornbeam. In forests, rarely cultivated in population centres; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. ђ. 706. Corylus avellana L. - Common hazel. In forests, cultivated in population centres; frequent – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. һ.

Family 68. Crassulaceae DC.

707. Hylotelephium maximum (L.) Holub. - Tallest stonecrop. Forests, dry meadows, fallows, in population centres (cultivated form also exists); sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 708. Jovibarba globifera (L.) J.Parn. – Rolling hen-and-chicks. In pine forests (Starosillia [Sobko…, 2004], Cultivated; rare – r. Spontaneophyte. RBU(Р). Ψ. 709. Sedum acre L. - Goldmoss stonecrop. Sparsely overgrown sands; common - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 710. Sedum album Eichw. - White stonecrop. In street lawns (Chornobyl town) and on sandy- humus substrate on concrete roads (ChNPP site, Pripyat, Kopachi); rare – r. Euchenophyte- colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. Sedum album f. atropurpureum - White stonecrop, f. dark-purple. In street lawns (Pripyat city); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. 711. Sedum kamtschaticum Fisch. - Orange stonecrop, Kamschatka stonecrop. Cultivated and wild-growing (Chornobyl town); very rare - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. Sedum ochroleucum Vill. - European stonecrop. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres; very rare - 1-r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 712. Sedum rupestre L. – Rock stonecrop. Sandy meadows, along roads, in waterstop dams, in population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. 713. Sedum sexangulare L. - Tasteless stonecrop. Dry sandy meadows and bors; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 714. Sedum spathulifolium Hook. - Broadleaf stonecrop, Colorado stonecrop. Cultivated and wild-growing (Chornobyl town); rare - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 95

Sedum spurium M. Bieb. – Caucasian stonecrop. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained (Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Kenophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. 715. Sempervivum ruthenicum Schnittsp. & C. B. Lehm. - Ruthenian houseleeks. On sands in forests (Unyn = Teterevske [Pachoskyi, 1897]), Cultivated (cemeteries); rare – r. RBRB(II). Spontaneophyte. Ψ.

Family 69. Cucurbitaceae Juss.

716. Bryonia alba L. - White bryony. In population centres, floodplains; rare – r. Euchenophyte- colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. Bryonia dioica Jacq. – Red bryony. In population centres (Zalissia, Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum & Nakai - Tsamma melon, Wild watermelon. Cultivated in population centres, in garbage dumps (Otashiv); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte- acolutophyte. Ý. Cucurbita maxima Duch. - Buttercup squash. Cultivated in population centres, in garbage dumps (Otashiv); rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 717. Echinocystis lobata (Michx.) Torr. & Gray - Wild cucumber. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres, in shrubs along water bodies; frequent – 2-r. Kenophyte-agriophyte- ergasiophygophyte. Ý. Thladiantha dubia Bunge. - Manchu tubergourd or Wild potato. Cultivated and wild- growing in population centres (Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiolypophyte. Ξ, diecious (♂ clones in Chornobyl town).

Family 70. Cuscutaceae Dumort

718. Cuscuta epithymum (L.) L. - Lesser dodder. Parasitizes on herbaceous plants; very rare – r. Evapophyte. Ý. 719. Cuscuta europaea L. - Greater dodder. Parasitizes on herbaceous plants; rare – r. Evapophyte. Ý. 720. Cuscuta lupuliformis Krock. – Hop dodder. Parasitizes on trees, shrubs, herbaceous plants; very rare – r. Evapophyte. Ý.

Family 71. Dipsacaceae Lindl.

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 96

Dipsacus sativus (L.) Scholler. – Fuller's teasel. Was seeded and ran wild near Polisske (= Khabne [Pachoskyi, 1897]) in garbage dumps; data deficient - r. Kenophyte-agriophyte- ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 721. Knautia arvensis (L.) Coult. - Field scabious. In meadows and fallows, amid shrubs, in population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 722. Scabiosa ochroleuca L. - Cream pincushions. In meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, along roads, in fallows, in population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 723. Succisa pratensis Moench - Devil's-bit scabious. In moist small-leaved forests and meadows; sporadic – r. Ψ. 724. Succisella inflexa (Klik) G. Beck – Southern succisella. In moist meadows and marshes; very rare – r. RBU(Р), RBRB(LC). Ψ.

Family 72. Droseraceae Salisb.

725. Aldrovanda vesiculosa L. - Waterwheel plant. У standing and slow-flow waters; sporadic - 1-r. RBU(Р), RBRB(III), BC(R). Ξ. 726. Drosera intermedia L. - Oblong-leaved (spoon-leaf) sundew. In mesotrophic bogs [Bortniak, 1962, 1978], shore of drained water body [Flora and vegetation…, 2002]; very rare – r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(III). Ψ. 727. Drosera rotundifolia L. - Round-leaved sundew. In mesotrophic bogs, man-made extractions; rare – r. Ψ.

Family 73. Elaeagnaceae Juss.

728. Elaeagnus angustifolia L. - Russian olive. Cultivated in population centres; rare - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. 729. Hippophaë rhamnoides L. - Common sea buckthorn. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. һ.

Family 74. Elatinaceae Dum.

730. Elatine alsinastrum L. - Whorl-leaf waterwort. Standing and slow-flow waters; sporadic – r. RBRB(DD). Ý. 731. Elatine hydropiper L. - Eight-stamen waterwort. У standing and slow-flow waters and in marshes; very rare - r. RBRB(II). Ý.

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 97

Family 75. Ericaceae Juss.

732. Andromeda polifolia L. - Bog-rosemary. In oligotrophic swamps of the Denysovetske and Yakovetske forestry centres; sporadic - 1-r. RESKR. Ω. 733. Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng. - Kinnikinnick (pinemat manzanita). On sandy hills in dry pine forests; very rare – r. RSUP(3). RESKR. Ω. 734. Calluna vulgaris (L.) Hull - Common heather. In sandy psychrophile meadows, in pine forests, in population centres; common - 2-r. Hemiapophyte. Ω. 735. Ledum palustre L. - Marsh Labrador tea. Marshy bors, oligotrophic swamps; sporadic - 1-r. һ-Ω. Oxycoccus microcarpus Turcz. ex Rupr. - Small cranberry. In mesotrophic bogs [Ustymenko..., 1993]; data deficient – r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(III). Ω. 736. Oxycoccus palustris Pers. - Common (northern) cranberry. In mesotrophic bogs, in marshy bors; very rare – r. RSUP. Ω. 737. Vaccinium myrtillus L. – European blueberry (Common bilberry). In moist pine and mixed forests; frequent - 2-r. Ω. 738. Vaccinium uliginosum L. – Bog bilberry or Bog blueberry. In oligotrophic swamps of the Denysovetske and Yakovetske forestry centres; sporadic - 1-r. Ω. 739. Vaccinium vitis-idaea L. – Lingonberry or Cowberry. In forests, amid shrubs, along the edges of swamps; frequent - 1-r. Ω.

Family 76. Euphorbiaceae Juss.

740. Euphorbia cyparissias L. - Cypress spurge. In population centres; common - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. Euphorbia helioscopia L. - Sun spurge. In population centres; data deficient - r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 741. Euphorbia klokovii Duвоvіk - Klokov’s spurge. In shrubs on loamy slopes of the Teterev River floodplain [Bortniak, 1962, 1977]; very rare - 1-r. Ψ. 742. Euphorbia lucida Waldst. & Kit. – Shining spurge. Floodplain meadows, shrubs; frequent - 1-r. Ψ. 743. Euphorbia palustris L. – Marsh spurge. Eutrophic bogs, ameliorated fallows, in population centres; common - 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. Euphorbia peplus L. - Petty spurge (Milk-weed). In garbage dumps, along roads; data deficient – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 98

744. Euphorbia seguieriana Neck. – Steppe spurge. Forest edges, sandy meadows and fallows, in population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 745. Euphorbia uralensis Fich. ex Link – Uralian spurge. In meadows, grassy glades, amid shrubs; sporadic - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 746. Euphorbia virgata Waldst. & Kit. – Waldstein's spurge. In meadows, grassy glades, amid shrubs, in population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 747. Euphorbia virgultosa Klokov – Shrub spurge. In dry meadows, in population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 748. Mercurialis perennis L. - Dog's mercury. In forests, amid shrubs; rare - 1-r. Ψ. 749. Ricinus communis L. - Castor bean. Wild-growing (Illintsi); very rare – r. Euchenophyte- colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý.

Family 77. Fabaceae Lindl.

750. Amorpha fruticosa L. - False indigo-bush. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres and forests; frequent - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. 751. Anthyllis macrocephala Wend. - Common kidney vetch. In meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, amid shrubs; rare - r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ-Ψ.

752. Astragalus arenarius L. - Sandy milkvetch . Pine forests; sporadic – 1-r. RBU(Vuln.). Ψ. 753. Astragalus cicer L. - Chickpea milkvetch. Dry meadows, grassy glades, along roads; sporadic – 1-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 754. Astragalus glycyphyllos L. - Wild liquorice (licorice milkvetch). In forests, in population centres; sporadic – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 755. Astragalus onobrychis L. – Sainfoin milkvetch. In dry meadows, sands; rare – r. Ψ. Astragalus pubiflorus DC. - Downy-flowered milkvetch. In dry meadows; data deficient – r. Ψ. 756. Caragana arborescens Lam. – Siberian peashrub or Caragana. Cultivated in population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. 757. Chamaecytisus austriacus (L.) Link. - Austrian broom. In valley side slope of the Pripyat River floodplain near Kopachi, on dams near Ladyzhychi; very rare – r. Hemiapophyte. Ω. 758. Chamaecytisus lindemannii (V. Krecz.) Klaskova - Lindemann’s broom. In grassy glades, forest edges [Bortniak, 1962, Summary…, 1998]; very rare – r. RSUP. Ω. 759. Chamaecytisus pineticola Ivczenco [Шевера, 1989] – Pine-forest broom. Loose sands in pine forest and floodplains; frequent – r. Ω. 760. Chamaecytisus ruthenicus (Fisch.) Klaskova – Ruthenian broom. In forests, fallows, meadows, in population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ω. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 99

761. Genista germanica L. - German green-weed. In pine and mixed forests, amid shrubs; very rare – r. Hemiapophyte. RBRB(IV). RESKR. Ω. 762. Genista tinctoria L. - Dyer’s green-weed. In pine forests, in meadows; frequent – r. Kenophyte-agriophyte-ergasiolypophyte. Ω. 763. Lathyrus niger (L.) Bernh. - Black pea. In forest edges; sporadic – 1-r. Ψ. 764. Lathyrus palustris L. - Marsh pea. Marshy meadows and shrubs; sporadic – 1-r. Ψ. 765. Lathyrus pratensis L. - Meadow vetchling. In moist and marshy meadows, shrubs, fallows, in population centres; frequent – 1-r, Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 766. Lathyrus sativus L. - White pea or chickling vetch. Fallows, population centres; frequent – 1-r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 767. Lathyrus sylvestris L. - Flat pea. Grassy glades, forest edges, shrubs; sporadic – 1-r. Ψ. 768. Lathyrus vernus (L.) Bernh. - Spring pea. In deciduous forests, cultivated in flower-beds (Chornobyl town); rare – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 769. Lotus ambiguus Bess. ex Spreng. - Birdsfoot trefoil. Moist meadows, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 770. Lotus arvensis Pers. – Field bird's-foot trefoil. In moist meadows, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 771. Lotus callunetorum (Juxip) Min. – Heather bird's-foot trefoil. In moist meadows in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare – r. Ψ. 772. Lupinus perennis L. - Wild perennial lupine. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres, in forest plantations; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 773. Lupinus polyphyllus Lindl. - Large-leaved lupine. Wild-growing in population centres, forest plantations; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 774. Medicago lupulina L. - Black medick. In meadows, fallows, in grassy glades, forest edges, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý-Ÿ. 775. Medicago falcata L. - Yellow lucerne (medick). In meadows, in forests, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 776. Medicago sativa L. – Cultivated lucerne. In meadows, in fallows, cultivated and wild- growing in population centres; sporadic – 1-r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 777. Melilotus albus Medik. - White-flowered sweet clover. Roadsides, fallows, population centres; sporadic - 2-r. Evapophyte. Ÿ. 778. Melilotus officinalis Pall. - Yellow sweet clover. Roadsides, population centres, fallows; sporadic - 2-r. Evapophyte. Ÿ. Onobrychis viciifolia Scop. - Common sainfoin. Is sown as a meliferous plant and wild- growing; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 100

Oxytropis pilosa (L.) DC. - Hairy locoweed. Water protection structures made of imported calcium-containing materials; very rare - r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ephemerophyte. RBRB(III). Ψ. Pisum arvense L. – Garden pea. A weed in fields, predominantly in pea crops, in fallows; rare – r. Kenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. Ý. 779. Robinia pseudacacia L. - Black locust. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres and forest plantations (over 220 settlements in forests, where it was most actively planted in the 50s of the 20th century. The oldest plantations are 80 and 100 years old [Draft organization…, 1997]); frequent - 5-r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. Robinia pseudacacia L. f. umbraculifera (DC.) Rehd. - Black locust f. globe-shaped. Cultivated as a graff in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. ђ. 780. Sarothamnus scoparius (L.) Koch - Common broom. In pine forests; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ω. 781. Securigera varia (L.) Lassen – Purple crownvetch. In meadows, fallows, grassy glades, forest edges, along roads, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 782. Trifolium alpestre L. - Alpine clover. Dry meadows, forests, population centres; sporadic - 1- r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 783. Trifolium arvense L. - Hare's-foot trefoil. Dry meadows, fallows, population centres, man- made disturbances in soil; common - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 784. Trifolium aureum Poll. - Large hop trefoil. In forest edges, along roads; rare – r. Spontaneophyte. Ý. 785. Trifolium campestre Schreb. - Hop trefoil. In population centres, fallows, roadsides; rare – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 786. Trifolium dubium Sibth. - Lesser hop trefoil. In population centres, fallows, roadsides; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 787. Trifolium fragiferum L. - Strawberry clover. In population centres, in roadsides; rare – r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. 788. Trifolium hybridum L. (T. elegans Savi). – Alsike (Swedish) clover. In fields, fallows, moist meadows, along roads; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 789. Trifolium medium L. – Meadow (zigzag) clover. Meadows, fallows, forests, population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 790. Trifolium montanum L. - Mountain clover. In dry meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 791. Trifolium pratense L. - Red clover. In meadows, forest edges, fallows, along roads, population centres; frequent – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. 792. Trifolium repens L. - White (Dutch) clover. Meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, population centres, ameliorated fallows; common – 1-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 101

793. Trifolium rubens L. - Reddish clover. In meadows, grassy glades and forest edges of deciduous forests (Teterevske=Unyn [Pachoskyi, 1897]); sporadic – 1-r. RBRB(II). Ψ. 794. Trifolium sativum (Schreb.) Crome – Garden clover. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres, in fallows; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 795. Trifolium spadiceum L. – Chestnut clover. In moist meadows, in population centres; rare – r. Spontaneophyte. Ý-Ÿ. Trigonella coerulea (L.) Ser. – Blue fenugree. In population centres, as a ritual plant; rare – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 796. Vicia angustifolia Reichard – Narrow-leaved vetch. In population centres, roadsides, in fallows; frequent – r. Kenophyte-agriophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 797. Vicia cassubica L. - Kashubian (Danzig) vetch. Pine and pine-birch forests; rare – r. Ψ. 798. Vicia cracca L. - Tufted vetch. In meadows, fallows, grassy glades, forest edges, amid shrubs, in population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 799. Vicia hirsuta (L.) S. F. Gray - Hairy tare. In population centres, in fallows, in roadsides; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 800. Vicia pisiformis L. - Pea-flowered vetch. In deciduous forests, in shrubs; sporadic – r. RBRB(I). Ψ. 801. Vicia sativa L. - Common (narrow-leaved) vetch. In population centres, in fallows, roadsides; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 802. Vicia sepium L. - Bush vetch. In population centres, in fallows, roadsides; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 803. Vicia sylvatica L. - Wood vetch. In deciduous forests, in shrubs; sporadic – r. Ψ. 804. Vicia tetrasperma Schreb. (Ervum tetraspermum L.) - Smooth tare, smooth vetch. In population centres, fallows, roadsides; frequent – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 805. Vicia villosa Roth – Hairy (fodder, winter) vetch. In population centres, fallows, roadsides; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý.

Family 78. Fagaceae Dumort.

Fagus sylvatica L. - Common beech. In forest plantations (2 settlements in the forests of the Yakovetske forestry centre у sq. 103 and 115, aged approximately 25 and 70 years [Draft organization…, 1997]); very rare - 1-r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte. ђ. 806. Quercus borealis Michx - Northern red oak. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres and forest plantations (14 settlements in forests aged between 15 and 40 years [Draft organization…, 1997]); sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 102

807. Quercus robur L. - Common oak. In forests, treelines, population centres; common - 2-r. Hemiapophyte. ђ.

Family 79. Fumaricaceae DC.

808. Corydalis cava (L.) Schweigg. & Koerte - Hollow corydalis. Deciduous forests, population centres; rare – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. RBRB(LC). Ψ. 809. Corydalis solida (L.) Clairv. - Fumewort. Moist deciduous forests and shrubs, population centres; sporadic – 1-2. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. Dicentra spectabilis (L.) Lem. – Bleeding heart. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiolypophyte. Ψ. 810. Fumaria officinalis L. - Common fumitory Fallows, population centres; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 811. Fumaria schleicheri Soy.-Willem. – Schleicher’s fumitory. Fallows, population centres; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 812. Fumaria vaillantii Loisel. – Vaillant’s fumitory. On weedy sites, along roads, in crops in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare - r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý.

Family 80. Gentianaceae Juss.

813. Centaurium erythraea Rafn - Common centaury. In grassy glades, forest edges, in moist meadows and fallows, in population centres; sporadic – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ. 814. Centaurium pulchellum (Sw.) - Lesser centaury. In grassy glades, forest edges, in moist meadows and fallows; rare – r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ. 815. Gentiana cruciata L. - Star (cross) gentian. Dry forest edges, meadows, shrubs in the Belarusian part of EZ; sporadic – r. RBRB(I). Ψ. 816. Gentiana pneumonanthe L. - Marsh gentian. Forest edges, meadows, shrubs, man-made extractions near ‘burials’ in the Red Forest; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. RBRB(LC). Ψ.

Family 81. Geraniaceae Juss.

817. Erodium cicutarium L’Her. - Redstem filaree. In forest edges, meadows, population centres, fallows; frequent – r. Archeophyte-agriophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 818. Geranium divaricatum Ehrh. – Spreading cranesbill. In population centres; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 103

819. Geranium palustre L. – Marsh cranesbill. Moist and marshy meadows, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Ψ. 820. Geranium pratense L. - Meadow cranesbill. In meadows, grassy glades and forest edges, amid shrubs, in population centres; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 821. Geranium pussilum L. – Lesser cranesbill. In meadows, amid shrubs, in population centres; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 822. Geranium robertianum L. - Herb robert (Stinking cranesbill). In forests, in population centres, in fallows; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý, Ÿ. 823. Geranium sanguineum L. - Bloody cranesbill. In grassy glades and forest edges of coniferous and mixed forests; sporadic – 1-r. Ψ. 824. Geranium sylvaticum L. – Wood cranesbill. In forests, amid shrubs; rare - 1-r. Ψ.

Family 82. Grossulariaceae DC.

825. Grossularia uva-crispa (L.) Mill. - Gooseberry. Cultivated, wild-growing in population centres, forests; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. Ribes aureum Pursh – Golden currant. Cultivated in population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. 826. Ribes nigrum L. - Blackcurrant. In alder forests, cultivated in population centres; frequent - r. Evapophyte. һ. 827. Ribes odoratum Wendl. - Clove currant. Cultivated in population centres and collective gardens (Teremtsi, Stechanka, Rudnia Illinetska, Chornobyl town); rare - r, Euchenophyte- colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. 828. Ribes rubrum L. - Red currant. Cultivated in population centres; sporadic – r. Kenophyte- colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. 829. Ribes spicatum - Nordic (downy) redcurrant. - In alder forests, river floodplains (from the suburbs of Chornobyl [Pachoskyi, 1899]), in population centres (confirmed in Usiv); rare – r. һ.

Family 83. Haloragaceae R. Br.

830. Myriophyllum alterniflorum DC. - Alternateflower watermilfoil. In standing and slow-flow waters [Balashov…, 1980]; rare – r. RSUP. Ψ. 831. Myriophyllum spicatum L. - Spiked watermilfoil. In standing and slow-flow waters; frequent – 2-r. Ψ.

832. Myriophyllum verticillatum L. - Whorl-leaf watermilfoil. In standing and slow-flow waters; sporadic – r. Ψ, Ξ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 104

Family 84. Hippocastanaceae Torr. & Gray.

833. Aesculus hippocastanum L. - Horse-chestnut. Cultivated in population centres, wild- growing; sporadic – 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ.

Family 85. Hippuridaceae Link

834. Hippuris vulgaris L. - Common mare's tail. On shores of water bodies, in marshes; sporadic – r. RBRB(LC). Ψ.

Family 86. Hydrangeaceae Dumort.

Deutzia scabra Thunb. - Fuzzy deutzia. Cultivated (Pripyat city); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. һ. Hydrangea macrophylla (Thunb.) Ser. - Bigleaf hydrangea. Cultivated in population centres; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. һ. 835. Philadelphus coronarius L. - Sweet mock-orange. Cultivated in population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. 836. Philadelphus inodorum L. - Scentless mock-orange. Cultivated in population centres; rare - r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ.

Family Hydrophyllaceae R. Brown ex Edwards

Phacelia tanacetifolia Benth. – Lacy phacelia. Wild-growing in flower-beds (Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý.

Family 87. Juglandaceae A. Rich. ex Kunth

837. Juglans cinerea L. – Butternut or White walnut. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. Juglans cinerea x Juglans ailantifolia var. cordiformis Nekrasov - Heartnut. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres (nut reserves were repeatedly found in the city of Pripyat in Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 105

the houses (most likely, squirrels), and nut halves without grains on the paved sites (signs of eating by Corvidae); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. Juglans mandshurica Maxim. - Manchurian walnut or Chinese walnut. Cultivated in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiolypophyte. ђ. 838. Juglans regia L. - Common walnut. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ.

Family 88. Lamiaceae Lindl. (Labiatae Juss.)

839. Acinos arvensis (Lam.) - Basil thyme or Spring savory. In forest edges, dry meadows; sporadic – 1-r. Ý. 840. Ajuga genevensis L. - Upright bugle or Geneva bugleweed. Dry meadows, sparse forests, shrubs, in population centres; frequent – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 841. Ajuga reptans L. - Carpet bugleweed. Moist deciduous and mixed forests, shrubs, meadows, in population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 842. Ballota nigra L. - Black horehound. In population centres; sporadic – r. Archeophyte- epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. Betonica grandiflora L. – Large-flowered betony (hedgenettle). Cultivated in flower-beds, produces natural seeding; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 843. Betonica officinalis L. - Betony. Mixed forests, shrubs, population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 844. Chaiturus marrubiastrum (L.) Rchb.– False motherwort. In forest edges, meadows, garbage dumps, along roads; rare – r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ. 845. Clinopodium vulgare L. - Wild basil. In deciduous and mixed forests, in population centres; rare – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 846. Dracocephalum ruyschiana L. - Northern dragonhead. In pine and mixed forests (Dytiatky [Pachoskyi, 1899]); very rare – r. RBU(Not ev.), RBRB(III), BC. Ψ. 847. Elsholtzia ciliata (Thunb.) Hyl. - Vietnamese balm. Wild-growing in population centres; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 848. Galeopsis bifida Boenn. - Bifid hemp-nettle. Sparse forests, meadows; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 849. Galeopsis ladanum L. – Field hemp-nettle. In population centres, in fallows; frequent – 1-r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 850. Galeopsis speciosa Mill. - Large-flowered hemp-nettle. Grassy glades, forest edges, shrubs, meadows; frequent – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 106

851. Galeopsis tetrahit L. - Common hemp-nettle. In population centres, in fallows; frequent – 1- r. Evapophyte. Ý. 852. Glechoma hederacea L. - Ground-ivy. In moist meadows and forests, in population centres; frequent – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 853. Glechoma hirsuta Waldst. & Kit. – Hirsute cround-ivy. Deciduous and mixed forests, amid shrubs; frequent – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 854. Lamium album L. - White dead-nettle. Along roads, in population centres; rare - r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 855. Lamium amplexicaule L. - Henbit dead-nettle. In vegetable gardens (Zalissia), in test sowings; rare – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 856. Lamium galeobdolon (L.) L. - Yellow archangel or Aluminium plant. Deciduous and mixed forests, shrubs; very rare – r. Ψ. 857. Lamium maculatum (L.) L. - Spotted white dead-nettle. In forests, amid shrubs, in population centres; frequent - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 858. Lamium purpureum L. - Red dead-nettle. Grassy glades, forest edges, along roads, in population centres; frequent – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 859. Leonurus villosus Desf. – Motherwort. In population centres; sporadic – r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 860. Lycopus europaeus L. - European bugleweed. Marshes, marshy forests, meadows, fallows, shores of water bodies, in population centres; frequent – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 861. Lycopus exaltatus L. – Сut-leaved gipsy wort. In moist and marshy meadows, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Ψ. 862. Marrubium vulgare L. – Common horehound. Garbage dumps, along roads; rare – r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. 863. Mentha aquatica L. - Water mint. Shores of water bodies, marshy meadows, fallows; frequent – 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 864. Mentha arvensis L. – Field mint. Shores of water bodies, moist meadows, fallows, in population centres; frequent – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 865. Mentha longifolia (L.) Huds. - Horse mint. Marshy meadows, forests, floodplains; frequent – 1-r. Ψ. Mentha x piperita L. - Peppermint. Cultivated as a ritual plant; sporadic – r. Kenophyte- colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 866. Mentha spicata L. - Garden mint or Spearmint. Cultivated, wild-growing in fallows, meadows; sporadic – 1-r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 867. Mentha x verticillata L. - Whorled mint. In marshy meadows, marshes, on shores of water bodies; sporadic – r. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 107

868. Nepeta cataria L. - Catmint. Forest edges, shrubs [Bortniak, 1977]; very rare - r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. 869. Origanum vulgare L. - Oregano. Sparse forests, shrubs, dry meadows, population centres; frequent – 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 870. Phlomis tuberosa L. – Tuberi-form Jerusalem sage. On valley sides slopes of the Pripyat River (Chornobyl town) [Bortniak, 1962] and Teterev River (Ivankiv) [Bortniak, 1977]; very rare – r. Ψ. Physostegia virginiana (L.) Benth. – Obedient plant. Cultivated (Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. 871. Prunella vulgaris L. - Common self-heal. Meadows, ameliorated fallows, grassy glades, forest edges, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 872. Salvia pratensis L. - Meadow clary (sage). In forest edges, dry meadows, amid shrubs on the slopes of floodplain valley sides of the Pripyat and Teterev Rivers; rare – r. RBRB(IV). Ψ. 873. Salvia verticillata L. - Lilac sage. Amid shrubs on the slopes of left valley side of the Teterev River floodplain [Bortniak, 1977]; very rare – r. Kenophyte-agriophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. 874. Scutellaria galericulata L. - Common skullcap. In marshes, marshy meadows, fallows, forests, shrubs, population centres; frequent – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 875. Scutellaria hastifolia L. - Spear-leaved skullcap. In meadows, grassy glades, forest edges; sporadic – r. Ψ. Stachys annua (L.) L. - Annual woundwort. In test sowings of the Institute of Agricultural Radiology near Chystohalivka; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 876. Stachys palustris L. - Marsh woundwort. Marshy meadows, fallows, shrubs, population centres; frequent – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 877. Stachys recta L.– Yellow-woundwort. Forest edges of birch forests, aspen forests, shrubs; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. RBRB(LC). Ψ. 878. Stachys sylvatica L. - Hedge woundwort. Deciduous and mixed forests, shrubs; sporadic – r. Ψ. 879. Teucrium chamaedrys L. - Wall germander. In forests; sporadic – r. Ω. 880. Teucrium scordium L. – Water germander. Shores of water bodies, swamps; sporadic – r. Ψ. 881. Thymus pulegioides L.– Broad-leaved thyme. In sparse forests, in meadows; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ω. 882. Thymus serpyllum L. - Creeping thyme. In pine and mixed forests, in fallows and meadows, in population centres; frequent – r. Spontaneophyte. Ω.

Family 89. Lentibulariaceae Rich.

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 108

Utricularia intermedia Hayne. – Flat-leaf (intermediate) bladderwort. Water bodies with standing water, mesotrophic bogs; data deficient – r. RBRB(LC). Ξ. 883. Utricularia vulgaris L. - Common (greater) bladderwort. Water bodies with standing water, mesotrophic bogs; frequent – 1-r. Ξ.

Family 90. Linaceae S. F. Gray

884. Linum catharticum L. - Purging (fairy) flax. In moist meadows; very rare – r. Ý-Ÿ. Linum grandiflorum Desf. - Flowering (red, scarlet) flax. Cultivated and wild-growing; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 885. Radiola linoides Roth - Flax-shaped radiola. In moist meadows and on sands; rare – r. Ý.

Family 91. Loranthaceae Juss.

886. Viscum album L. - Common mistletoe. In deciduous trees in population centres, in roadside forests and forest plantations; frequent – 1-r. Evapophyte. һ.

Family 92. Lythraceae Jaume

887. Lythrum hyssopifolia L. - Hyssop loosestrife (grass-poly). In wet areas in meadows near the Kyiv reservoir (Ivanivka); rare – r. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. RBRB(DD). Ý. 888. Lythrum salicaria L. - Purple (spiked) loosestrife. In marshes, on shores of water bodies, in marshy meadows, in fallows, in population centres; common - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 889. Lythrum virgatum L. - European wand loosestrife. In moist and marshy meadows, in fallows, in marshes, on shores of water bodies, in population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 890. Middendorfia borysthenica (Bieb. ex Schrank) Trautv. – Dnipro middendorfia. In moist shore sands and meadows; rare – r. RBRB(DD). RESKR. Ý.

891. Peplis alternifolia Bieb. - Alternate-leaved loosestrife. In moist shore sands and meadows; rare – r. RESKR. Ý. 892. Peplis portula L. – Spatula-leaf loosestrife. In moist sands, marshy meadows; sporadic – r. Ý.

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 109

Family 93. Malvaceae Juss.

Alcea rosea L. – Common hollyhock. Cultivated and wild-growing; sporadic – r. Kenophyte- colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 893. Althaea officinalis L. - Common marshmallow. In population centres; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. Kitaibelia vitifolia Willd. – Grape-leaved kitaibelia. Cultivated and wild-growing (Illintsi); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 894. Lavatera thuringiaca L. - Garden tree-mallow. In upland meadows and fallows, along roads, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 895. Malva excisa Rchb. – Cut-leaved mallow. In meadows, in forest edges, amid shrubs; rare – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 896. Malva mauritiana L. – Large-flowered mallow. In garbage dumps, by roads in the Belarusian part of EZ; very rare - r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 897. Malva moschata L. – Musk mallow. In population centres, in fallows; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. 898. Malva neglecta Wallr.– Dwarf mallow or Buttonweed. In population centres; rare – r. Archeophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. 899. Malva pusilla Smith - Small mallow. In population centres in the Belarusian part of EZ; very rare – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 900. Malva sylvestris L. - Common (or high) mallow. In population centres; rare – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ.

Family 94. Menyanthaceae Dumort.

901. Menyanthes trifoliata L. – Bogbean or Buckbean. In marshes and shallow waters; sporadic – 2-r. Ψ.

Family 95. Monotropaceae Nuttal.

902. Hypopitys hypophegea (Wallr.) G. Don. – Underground Dutchman's pipe. In deciduous and mixed forests [Klokov, 1981, Tsvelev, 1985]; very rare – r. Ψ. 903. Hypopitys monotropa Grantz– Dutchman's pipe. In pine forests; sporadic – r. Ψ.

Family 96. Moraceae Link

904. Morus alba L. - White mulberry. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres, forests, shrubs; frequent - r. Archeophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 110

Family 97. Nympheaceae Salisbury

905. Nuphar lutea (L.) Smith - Yellow water-lily or Brandy-bottle. Shallow waters of water bodies, watered lowerings of eutrophic bogs, cultivated in population centres (pits for water collecting); common - 4-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 906. Nymphaea alba L. - European white water lily. Shallow waters of water bodies, eutrophic bogs; common - 4-r. Hemiapophyte. RBRB(II). RESKR. Ψ. 907. Nymphaea candida J. & C. Presl - White water rose. Shallow waters of water bodies; frequent - 1-r. RESKR. Ψ.

Family 98. Oleaceae Hoffmgg. & Link

Forsythia suspensa (Thunb.) Vahl. - Weeping forsythia or Golden-bell. Cultivated; rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. һ. 908. Fraxinus excelsior L. - Common ash. In forests, cultivated in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. ђ. 909. Fraxinus lanceolata Borkh. - Green ash or Red ash. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres, forest plantations (10 settlements in forests aged between 25 and 70 years [Draft organization…, 1997]), disseminates in the middle-level floodplain of the Pripyat River; sporadic – 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 910. Ligustrum vulgare L. - Wild privet. Cultivated and disseminates in population centres; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. 911. Syringa amurensis Rupr. – Amur lilac. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. һ. 912. Syringa chinensis Willd. – Chinese lilac. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. һ. Syringa josikaea Jacq - Hungarian lilac. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. RBU(Vuln.), BC(I). һ. Syringa persica L. - Persian lilac. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; sporadic - r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. 913. Syringa vulgaris L. - Common lilac. Cultivated in population centres, maintained vegetatively, and disseminates by seeds on rocky substrates in Pripyat city; frequent - 1-r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ.

Family 99. Onagraceae Juss. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 111

914. Chamerion angustifolium (L.) Holub - Rosebay willow-herb or Fireweed. Forest edges, grassy glades, fallows, meadows, burned areas, in population centres; common - 3-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 915. Circaea alpina L. - Small enchanter's nightshade. Amid shrubs on a loamy slope of the floodplain valley side of the Teterev River [Bortniak, 1962], in green moss subors in the Belarusian part of EZ; very rare – r. RESKR. Ψ. 916. Circaea lutetiana L. - Enchanter's nightshade. In moist and marshy forests, amid shrubs; rare – r. Ψ. 917. Epilobium ciliatum Raf. s.l. - Fringed willowherb. In moist and marshy areas; rare – r. Euchenophyte-agriophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. 918. Epilobium collinum C. C. Gmel. – Hill willowherb. Grassy glades, forest edges, fallows, meadows; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 919. Epilobium hirsutum L. - Great hairy willowherb. Marshy meadows, shores of swamps and water bodies, ameliorated fallows, population centres; frequent – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 920. Epilobium lamyi F. Schullz – Lamy’s willowherb. In open wet forests, shrubs, meadows; frequent – r. Ψ. 921. Epilobium montanum L. - Broad-leaved willowherb. In forests, shrubs, fallows, meadows; frequent – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 922. Epilobium obscurum Schreb. - Dwarf (short-fruited) willowherb. In moist areas, shores of water bodies [Horbyk..., 1983]; sporadic – r. Ψ. 923. Epilobium palustre L. - Marsh willowherb. Grassy bogs, ameliorated fallows; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 924. Epilobium parviflorum Schreb. – Small-flowered (hoary) willowherb. Marshy meadows, amid shrubs; frequent – 1-r. Ψ. 925. Epilobium roseum Schreb. - Pale willowherb. In moist and marshy meadows, amid shrubs, in fallows, meadows, in population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 926. Epilobium rubescens Rydb. – Rubescent willowherb. In moist areas, shores of water bodies; very rare - r. Euchenophyte-agriophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. 927. Epilobium tetragonum L. - Square-stemmed willowherb. In marshes, meadows and amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Ψ. 928. Oenothera biennis L. - Biennial evening-primrose. In sandy meadows and fallows, in grassy glades and forest edges, along roads, in population centres; common - 2-r. Kenophyte-agriophyte- acolutophyte. Ÿ. Oenothera fruticosa L. – Narrow-leaf evening primrose. In flower-beds (Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 112

929. Oenothera rubricaulis Klebahn. – Common (red-stalked) evening primrose. In sandy fallows, along roads, in population centres; frequent - 2-r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ. 930. Oenothera villosa Thunb. – Hairy evening-primrose. In garbage dumps and along roads; sporadic - r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ.

Family Vent.

Phelipanche ramosa (L.) - Ramose broomrape. In deciduous forests; data deficient – r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý.

Family 100. Oxalidaceae R. Br.

931. Oxalis acetosella L. - Common wood sorrel. In moist pine and mixed forests; sporadic – 1-r. Ψ. Xanthoxalis corniculata (L.) Small – Corniculate wood sorrel. On the newly repaired (with imported stone) parts of water protection dams; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte- ergasiophyte. Ÿ. 932. Xanthoxalis stricta (L.) Small - Upright yellow-sorrel (Yellow wood sorrel). In population centres, in fallows; sporadic – 1-r. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ.

Family Paeoniaceae Rudolphi

Paeonia officinalis L. - Common (garden) peony. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; sporadic – r. Kenophyte- ergasiolipophyte. Ψ.

Family 101. Papaveraceae Juss.

933. Chelidonium majus L. - Greater celandine or Tetterwort. Black locust forest plantations, in population centres; common - 1-2. Evapophyte. Ψ. Eschscholzia californica Cham. - California poppy. In flower-beds in Chornobyl, wild- growing; very rare - r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. Glaucium flavum Crantz – Yellow hornpoppy. In flower-beds in Chornobyl, wild-growing; very rare - r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. RBU(Vuln.). Ý. Papaver nudicaule L. – Iceland poppy. Cultivated in population centres and wild-growing in flower-beds; very rare - r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. Papaver orientale L. – Oriental poppy. Cultivated in population centres and wild-growing in flower-beds; rare - r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 113

934. Papaver rhoeas L. – Common (red, field) poppy. Man-made disturbances of soil, flower- beds, fallows; rare – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 935. Papaver somniferum L. – Opium poppy (Breadseed) poppy. Man-made and zoogenous disturbances of soil; rare – r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý.

Family 102. Parnassiaceae S. F. Gray

936. Parnassia palustris L. - Marsh grass of Parnassus. In meadows, marshes, amid shrubs; very rare – r. RSUP, RESKR. Ψ.

Family 103. Plantaginaceae Juss.

937. Plantago arenaria Waldst. & Kit. - Branched plantain. Bor and shore sands, fallows, man- made disturbances in population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ý. 938. Plantago lanceolata L. - Ribwort plantain. In meadows, fallows, grassy glades, forest edges, in population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 939. Plantago major L. - Greater (common) plantain. In meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 940. Plantago media L. - Hoary plantain. Forest edges, meadows, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 941. Plantago urvillei Opiz. – Steppe plantain. Forest edges, dry meadows; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. Family 104. Polemoniaceae Juss.

942. Phlox divaricata L. - Wild blue (woodland) phlox. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. Ψ. 943. Phlox paniculata L. - Garden phlox. Cultivated in population centres and wild-growing; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 944. Polemonium caeruleum L. - Jacob's-ladder (Greek valerian). In moist meadows, amid shrubs (to the west of Kopachi; in the Uzh River valley between Hlinka and Novoselky; Dytiatky [Pachoskyi, 1897]), occasionally cultivated (Chornobyl town); very rare – r. RSUP(3), RESKR, RBRB(LC). Ψ.

Family 105. Polygalaceae R. Br.

945. Polygala comosa Crantz – Tufted milkwort. In meadows, grassy glades, forest edges and amid shrubs; rare – r. Ψ. Polygala vulgaris L. – Common milkwort. In moist meadows; data deficient – r. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 114

Family 106. Polygonaceae Juss.

946. Aconogonon weyrichii (Fr. Schmidt) Hara - Weyrich's knotweed. Ran wild from a culture in the Belarusian part of EZ, in garbage dumps; rare - r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 947. Bistorta officinalis Delarbre - European bistort (snake-root). In marshes, meadows, shrubs, population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. RBRB(LC). Ψ. Fagopyrum esculentum Moench - Common buckwheat. Cultivated and maintained during 2- 3 years on the field edges after sowing; sporadic - 1-r. Archeophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 948. Fallopia convolvulus (L.) A.Löve – Black bindweed or Wild buckwheat. Fallows, population centres; frequent – 1-r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 949. Fallopia dumetorum (L.) Holub - Copse bindweed or Small-flower knotweed. In shrubs, in population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ý. 950. Persicaria amphibia (L.) Delarbre - Longroot smartweed or amphibious bistort. Standing and slow-flow waters, shores of water bodies, in wet meadows; frequent – 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 951. Persicaria dubia (Stein) Fourr. – Soft smartweed. On river shores, in forests, in meadows and amid shrubs; sporadic - r. Ý. 952. Persicaria hydropiper Opiz - Water-pepper or marsh-pepper smartweed. In moist meadows, ameliorated fallows, in moist forests and amid shrubs, on shores of water bodies; sporadic - r. Evapophyte. Ý. 953. Persicaria lapathifolia (L.) Delarbre - Pale persicaria. In meadows, marshes, in ameliorated fallows in the Belarusian part of EZ; sporadic - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ý. 954. Persicaria linicola (Sutulov) Nenjukov – Flax persicaria. In flax crops, in fallows; rare - 1-r. Kenophyte-ephemerophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 955. Persicaria maculosa S.F.Gray - Jesusplant, spotted lady's thumb, redshank. In meadows, marshes, in forests, in ameliorated fallows; frequent - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ý. 956. Persicaria minor (Huds.) Opiz - Small water-pepper. In meadows, in forests, amid shrubs, in ameliorated fallows; sporadic - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ý. 957. Persicaria orientalis (L.) Spach - Prince's feather. Wild-growing in garbage dumps in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare - r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 958. Persicaria scabra (Moench) Moldenke – Rough smartweed. In meadows, garbage dumps, ameliorated fallows; frequent - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ý. 959. Polygonum arenastrum Boreau. - Equal-leaved knotgrass. In fallows, along roads, in population centres; common - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ý. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 115

960. Polygonum aviculare L. s.str. - Common knotgrass. In meadows, fallows, along roads, in population centres; common - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ý. 961. Polygonum bellardii All. s.str. – Narrowleaf knotweed. On sandy plots, along roads; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte Ý. 962. Reynoutria japonica Houtt. - Asian knotweed or Japanese knotweed. Cultivated in population centres and wild-growing in the Belarusian part of EZ; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte- colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 963. Reynoutria sachalinensis (F. Schmidt ex Maxim.) Nakai - Giant knotweed or Sakhalin knotweed. Cultivated in population centres; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 964. Rumex acetosa L. - Common (garden) sorrel. Meadows, fallows, forest edges, grassy glades, amid shrubs, cultivated; common - 2-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 965. Rumex acetosella L. - Common sheep (field, red) sorrel. Sandy meadows and fallows, forests, shrubs, in population centres; common - 3-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 966. Rumex aquaticus L. - Western (Scottish) dock. On marshy shores of water bodies; rare – r. Ψ. 967. Rumex confertus Willd. - Asiatic dock. In meadows, forest edges, grassy glades, amid shrubs, in population centres; frequent – 2-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 968. Rumex crispus L. - Curled dock. In meadows, grassy glades, along roads, in population centres; frequent – 1-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 969. Rumex hydrolapathum Huds. - Great water dock. In marshes, on marshy shores of water bodies; common – r. Ψ. 970. Rumex maritimus L. – Golden (bristle, seashore) dock. On shores of rivers and reservoirs; sporadic – r. Ψ. 971. Rumex pseudonatronatus (Borb.) Borb. ex Murb. - Field dock. In moist meadows, on marshy shores of water bodies [Pestova, 1997]; sporadic – r. Ψ. 972. Rumex sylvestris (Lam.) Wallr. - Forest dock (sorrel). In meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, amid shrubs, along roads; sporadic – r. Ψ. 973. Rumex thyrsiflorus Fingerh. - Compact dock (thyrse sorrel). Meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 974. Rumex ucrainicus Fisch. ex Spreng. – Ukrainian dock (sorrel). Moist sandy areas; rare – r. RBRB(DD), IUCN Red List (R). Ψ.

Family 107. Portulacaceae Juss.

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 116

Portulaca grandiflora Hook. - Moss-rose purslane. Cultivated and wild-growing in soil disturbances, garbage dumps; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 975. Portulaca oleracea L. - Common purslane, pigweed. In population centres; common – 1-r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý.

Family 108. Primulaceae Vent.

976. Anagallis arvensis L. - Blue-scarlet pimpernel. Along roads, in fallows, in population centres; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 977. Centunculus minimus L. - Chaffweed. In moist sandy meadows; sporadic – r. RESKR. Ý. 978. Hottonia palustris L. - Water violet or Featherfoil. In marshes, shallow waters; rare – 1-r. Ψ. 979. Lysimachia nummularia L. - Creeping jenny or moneywort. In moist meadows and fallows, in forests, in marshes, in population centres; common - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 980. Lysimachia punctata L. - Dotted loosestrife or Large yellow loosestrife. Cultivated (Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 981. Lysimachia vulgaris L. - Garden yellow loosestrife. In marshes, meadows, fallows, forests, population centres; common - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 982. Naumburgia thyrsiflora (L.) Rchb. - Tufted loosestrife. In marshes, in shallow waters of water bodies; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. Primula acaulis (L.) L. – Common primrose. Cultivated; rare – r. Euchenophyte- colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. Primula cortusoides L. – Cortusoide primrose. Cultivated; very rare – r. Euchenophyte- ergasiophyte. Ψ. Primula elatior (L.) Hill - True oxlip. Cultivated; rare – r. RBRB(IV). Euchenophyte- ergasiophygophyte-ephemerophyte. RESKR. Ψ. Primula obconica Hance. - Poison (German) primrose. Cultivated; rare – r. Euchenophyte- ergasiophyte-ephemerophyte. Ψ. Primula veris L. – Common cowslip. Cultivated; rare – r. RBRB(LC). RESKR. Ψ. 983. Trientalis europaea L. – Chickweed wintergreen. In moist forests, amid shrubs; frequent - 1- r. Ξ.

Family 109. Pyrolaceae Dumort.

984. Chimaphila umbellata (L.) Barton - Umbellate wintergreen (pipsissewa). In pine and mixed forests; frequent – r. RESKR. Ω. 985. Moneses uniflora (L.) Gray - One-flowered wintergreen. In middle-aged green moss pine forests; rare – r. RBRB(III), RSUP(3), RESKR,. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 117

986. Orthilia secunda (L.) House - Sidebells (one-sided) wintergreen. In mixed and deciduous forests; frequent – r. Ψ. 987. Pyrola chlorantha Sw. - Greenflowered wintergreen. In moist pine and mixed forests (Zoryn, Dytiatky [Pachoskyi, 1897]); rare – r. RESKR. Ψ. 988. Pyrola minor L. - Snowline (lesser or common) wintergreen. In pine and mixed forests; very rare – r. Ψ. 989. Pyrola rotundifolia L. - Round-leaved wintergreen. In pine and mixed forests, in population centres; frequent – r-1. Spontaneophyte. Ψ.

Family 110. Ranunculaceae Juss.

990. Aconitum lasiostomum Rchb. – Northern wolfsbane. In forest edges, meadows, amid shrubs (in the suburbs of Zoryn [Bortniak, 1975]); very rare – r. RBRB(II). Ψ. Aconitum variegatum L. – Particoloured wolfsbane. Cultivated in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiolypophyte. Ψ. 991. Actaea spicata L. - Eurasian baneberry. In moist deciduous and mixed forests, cultivated in population centres; very rare – r. Ψ. 992. Anemone nemorosa L. – Wood anemone or windflower. Moist forests, shrubs, cultivated (Chornobyl town); sporadic - 3-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 993. Anemone ranunculoides L. - Yellow anemone. Alder forests, hornbeam forests, birch forests, cultivated (Chornobyl town); sporadic - 3-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 994. Anemone sylvestris L. - Snowdrop anemone. Grassy glades, forest edges of deciduous forests in the Belarusian part of EZ; very rare – r. RBRB(IV). RESKR. Ψ. Aquilegia caerulea James - Colorado blue columbine. Cultivated in population centres [Tiutiunnyk..., 1998], wild-growing; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 995. Aquilegia vulgaris L. - European (common) columbine. In deciduous forests, cultivated and wild-growing in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. RBRB(LC), RSUP(3), RESKR. Ψ. 996. Batrachium aquatile (L.) Dumort – Common water crowfoot. In standing and slow-flow waters (Khabne [Pachoskyi, 1897]); sporadic – r. RBRB(DD). Ψ, Ξ. 997. Batrachium circinatum (Sіbth.) Spach – Fan-leaved water crowfoot. In standing and slow- flow waters; sporadic – r. Ψ, Ξ. 998. Batrachium fluitans (Lam.) Wimmer. – River water crowfoot. Flowing mesotrophic and eutrophic water bodies [Macrophytes..., 1993]; sporadic – r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(DD). Ψ, Ξ. 999. Batrachium trichophyllum (Chaix) Bosch – Thora buttercup. In standing and slow-flow waters; sporadic – r. RESKR. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 118

1000. Caltha palustris L. – Marsh marigold or Kingcup. Alder forests, moor edges and water bodies; common - 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 1001. Clematis recta L. - Erect clematis (ground virginsbower). In oak forests and in floodplain shrubs of the Uzh (Cherevach) and Pripyat River (Leliv, Kopachi [Pachoskyi, 1897]); rare – r. RBRB(III). Ψ. 1002. Consolida regalis S. F. Gray – Forking larkspur or Field larkspur. In fallows. A self- renewed garden form is cultivated; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. Delphinium elatum L. - Alpine delphinium (candle larkspur). Cultivated in population centres; sporadic - r. Euchenophyte-ergasiolypophyte. RBU(Endn.), RBRB(III). Ψ. 1003. Ficaria verna Huds. - Lesser celandine or Pilewort. Alder forests, moor edges and water bodies, in population centres; common - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1004. Hepatica nobilis Mill. – Noble buttercup. In moist deciduous and mixed forests, cultivated (Chornobyl town); rare – r. RBRB(LC), RESKR. Ψ. Isopyrum thalictroides L. – Rue-leaved isopyrum. Cultivated in population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. RBRB(II), RESKR. Ψ. 1005. Myosurus minimus L. - Tiny mousetail. In moist meadows; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ý. Nigella damascena L. – Love-in-a-mist or Ragged lady. Cultivated, wild-growing in disturbances of abandoned flowerbeds; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 1006. Pulsatilla latifolia Rupr. - Broad-leaved wind flower. Forest edges of pine forests; very rare – r. RBU(Not ev.), RBRB(LC), BC(R). Ψ. 1007. Pulsatilla nigricans Störck. – Small wind flower. In dry and damp mixed and pine forests; very rare – r. RBU(Not ev.), RBRB(IV). Ψ. 1008. Ranunculus acris L. (R. acer L., R. verrucosus Schur.) - Meadow buttercup. Moist and marshy meadows, fallows, forest edges, amid shrubs; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. 1009. Ranunculus auricomus L. - Goldilocks buttercup. Moist and marshy meadows, moist forests and shrubs; sporadic - 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 1010. Ranunculus cassubicus L. - Kashubian buttercup. Deciduous forests, shrubs, moist meadows; (Dytiatky [Pachoskyi, 1897]) rare – r. Ψ. 1011. Ranunculus flammula L. - Lesser spearwort. In marshes, in wet areas in moist meadows; sporadic - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1012. Ranunculus lingua L. - Greater spearwort. In marshes; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. 1013. Ranunculus polyanthemos L. - Multiflowered buttercup. In damp meadows, herbaceous slopes, in forests; sporadic - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1014. Ranunculus polyphyllus Waldst. & Kit. ex Wild. - Polyphyllous buttercup. In marshes and shallow waters; sporadic - 1-r. RBRB(DD). Ý. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 119

1015. Ranunculus pseudobulbosus Schur – Pseudobulbosus buttercup. In moist meadows, on shores of water bodies; sporadic - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 1016. Ranunculus repens L. - Creeping buttercup. In moist and marshy meadows, marshes, ameliorated fallows, in moist forests and amid shrubs, in population centres; common - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 1017. Ranunculus reptans L. - Creeping spearwort. In moist and marshy meadows, on shores of water bodies; sporadic - 1-r. RBRB(LC). Ψ. 1018. Ranunculus sceleratus L. - Celery-leaved buttercup. In marshy meadows, marshes, on shores of water bodies, ameliorated fallows; sporadic – 1. Evapophyte. Ý-Ÿ. 1019. Thalictrum aquilegifolium L. - Columbine meadow-rue. In forests (Tovstyi Lis [Pachoskyi, 1897]), cultivated and wild-growing in population centres; rare - r. RBRB(LC). Ψ. 1020. Thalictrum flavum L. - Common (yellow) meadow-rue. In moist and marshy meadows, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 1021. Thalictrum lucidum L. – Shining meadow rue. In moist meadows, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 1022. Thalictrum minus L. – Lesser meadow-rue. In meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, amid shrubs, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. RBRB(LC). Ψ. 1023. Thalictrum simplex L. – Small meadow rue. In damp meadows, forest edges and grassy glades, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 1024. Trollius europaeus L. - Globeflower. In moist and marshy meadows, amid shrubs; very rare – r. RBRB(IV), RSUP(III), RESKR. Ψ.

Family 111. Resedaceae S.F. Gray

1025. Reseda lutea L. - Yellow (wild) mignonette. On piles of abandoned lime materials in fallows, at the Yaniv station, in test sowings of the Institute of Agricultural Radiology near Chystohalivka; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-xenophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. Reseda odorata L. - Common (garden) mignonette. Cultivated (Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ-Ψ.

Family 112. Rhamnaceae Juss.

1026. Frangula alnus Mill. - Alder buckthorn. Everywhere in forests, in marshes, meadows and fallows; common – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. һ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 120

Frangula purschiana Coop. - Cascara buckthorn. Was cultivated and is maintained in public gardens (Chornobyl-2) [Tiutiunnyk..., 1998]; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte- ergasiophygophyte. һ. 1027. Rhamnus cathartica L. - Common buckthorn or Purging buckthorn. Grassy glades, forest edges, shrubs in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare – r. һ.

Family 113. Rosaceae Lindl.

1028. Agrimonia eupatoria L. - Сommon agrimony or Sticklewort. In forest edges and grassy glades, in dry meadows, amid shrubs, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1029. Agrimonia pilosa Ledeb. - Hairy agrimony. In grassy glades of moist forests and shrubs, in floodplains; frequent – r. RBRB(LC). Ψ. 1030. Agrimonia procera Wallr. - Fragrant agrimony. In grassy glades, amid shrubs; rare – r. Ψ. 1031. Alchemilla acutiloba Opiz – Acutilobate mantle. In meadows, forest edges, grassy glades [Summary…, 1998]; rare – r. Ψ. 1032. Alchemilla gracilis Opiz. – Lady's mantle. In meadows, forest edges; rare – r. Ψ. 1033. Alchemilla monticola Opiz - Hairy lady's mantle. In meadows, forest edges; rare – r. Ψ. 1034. Amelanchier ovalis Medik - Snowy mespilus. Cultivated and wild-growing; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. 1035. Amelanchier spicata (Lam.) C. Koch. - Low juneberry or Dwarf serviceberry. Cultivated and wild-growing; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. 1036. Armeniaca vulgaris Lam. – Ansu apricot or Siberian (Tibetan) apricot. Cultivated and wild- growing; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 1037. Aronia melanocarpa (Michx.) Elliot - Black chokeberry. Cultivated and wild-growing; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. Aruncus dioicus (Walter) Fernald – Goat's beard (Bride's feathers). Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. RBRB(III). Ψ. Cerasus avium (L.) Moench.– Wild cherry or Sweet cherry. Cultivated in population centres; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. Cerasus fruticosa (Pall.) Woron. - Tart (dwarf) cherry. Cultivated in population centres (Pripyat city); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. RSUP(2), RESKR. һ. Cerasus tomentosa (Thunb.) Wall. - Nanking (Korean) cherry. Cultivated in population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. 1038. Cerasus vulgaris Mill. – Sour cherry. Cultivated in population centres; frequent - 1-r, Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ-һ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 121

1039. Chaenomeles speciosa (Sweet) Nakai - Flowering (Chinese or Japanese) quince. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. һ. 1040. Crataegus curvisepala Lіndm. - Curved sepal hawthorn. On loamy slopes of floodplain valley sides of the Teterev River [Bortniak, 1977] and Dnipro River [Mykhailovska, 1953]; very rare – r. ђ. Crataegus monogyna Jacq. - Common hawthorn or Single-seeded hawthorn. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 1041. Crataegus sanguinea Pall. - Redhaw hawthorn or Siberian hawthorn. Cultivated and wild- growing in population centres; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. Cydonia oblonga Mill – Quince. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres (in Pripyat city: near a former fruit and vegetable shop); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 1042. Filipendula denudata Fritsch – Naked dropwort. In marshes, alder forests, moist shrubs; frequent – 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 1043. Filipendula stepposa Juz. – Steppe dropwort. Moist meadows, marshes, alder forests in the Belarusian part of EZ; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. 1044. Filipendula vulgaris Moench - Fern-leaf dropwort. In dry meadows, fallows, forest edges, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1045. Fragaria x ananassa (Duchesne) Duchesne - Pineapple strawberry or Garden strawberry. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; sporadic - 1-2. Kenophyte- epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. Fragaria chiloensis Duch. - Beach strawberry. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; sporadic - 1-2. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 1046. Fragaria vesca L. - Woodland strawberry. In forests, in population centres; frequent – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 1047. Fragaria viridis Duch. – Green strawberry. In dubravas of the Pripyat River high floodplain; rare – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. Fragaria virginiana Duchesne - Virginia strawberry. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; sporadic - 1-2. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ψ. 1048. Geum aleppicum Jacq. - Yellow (common) avens. Meadows, forest edges, population centres; rare – r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 1049. Geum rivale L. - Water avens. In moist and marshy meadows, marshes, forests, on shores of water bodies, amid shrubs; frequent - 1-r. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 122

1050. Geum urbanum L. - Wood avens. In forests, in fallows and meadows, in population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. Malus baccata (L.) Borkh. - Siberian (Chinese) crab apple. Cultivated in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. ђ. 1051. Malus domestica Borkh. – Apple tree. Cultivated in population centres, wild-growing in fallows and meadows; frequent – 1-r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 1052. Malus praecox (Pall.) Borkh. – Paradise apple. In population centres, fallows, meadows; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. ђ. Malus x purpurea (Barbier) Rehd. – Purple apple. Cultivated and reproduced (Pripyat city, secondary school No. 1); very rare - r, Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 1053. Malus sylvestris Mill. – European wild apple. In forests, in fallows; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. ђ. 1054. Padus avium Mill. - Bird cherry or Hackberry. In black alder forests, cultivated in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. ђ. 1055. Padus serotina (Ehrh.) Ag. - Wild (mountain) black cherry. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres, in adjoined forests and meadows; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 1056. Padus virginiana (L.) Roem. - Virginia bird cherry. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres, in forests and meadows; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. ђ. Persica vulgaris Mill. – Common peach. Cultivated and wild-growing in Pripyat city; very rare - r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. 1057. Physocarpus opulifolius (L.) Maxim - Common ninebark. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres and forests; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. 1058. Potentilla alba L. - White cinquefoil. In moist deciduous and mixed forests (Brahyn, [Pachoskyi, 1897]); very rare – r. RBRB(III). Ψ. 1059. Potentilla anserina L. - Silverweed cinquefoil. Moist meadows, fallows, marshes, shores of water bodies, population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1060. Potentilla arenaria Borkh. – Sandy cinquefoil. In dry pine forests, fallows, population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1061. Potentilla argentea L. - Silver cinquefoil. Dry meadows, fallows, forest edges, grassy glades, amid shrubs, in population centres; frequent - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 1062. Potentilla canescens Bess. – Grey cinquefoil. In dry meadows and fallows, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1063. Potentilla erecta (L.) Raeusch. - Erect cinquefoil, septfoil. In meadows, marshes, in moist forests; frequent – r. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 123

1064. Potentilla heidenreichii Zimmeter – Heidenreich’s cinquefoil. In forest edges, along roads in the Belarusian part of EZ; very rare – r. Evapophyte. Ÿ. 1065. Potentilla heptaphylla L. – Septemfoliate cinquefoil. On the sands in pine forests; very rare – r. Ψ. 1066. Potentilla intermedia L. - Downy cinquefoil. In forest edges, along roads; very rare – r. Evapophyte. Ÿ. 1067. Potentilla neglecta Baumg. – Neglected cinquefoil. In dry meadows, fallows, forest edges, grassy glades, amid shrubs, in population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1068. Potentilla norvegica L. - Norwegian cinquefoil. In ameliorated fallows, in population centres; sporadic – r. Evapophyte. Ý. 1069. Potentilla palustris (L.) Scop - Swamp (marsh) cinquefoil. In eutrophic and mesotrophic bogs; sporadic – r. Ψ. 1070. Potentilla recta L. - Sulphur (rough-fruited) cinquefoil. In forest edges, grassy glades, amid shrubs; sporadic - r. Ψ. 1071. Potentilla reptans L. - Creeping cinquefoil. Floodplain forests and meadows, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1072. Potentilla supina L. – Supine cinquefoil. In ditches, near shores; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1073. Potentilla thyrsiflora Huels. ex Zimmeter – Thyrso-flowered cinquefoil. On sands, in forest edges of pine forests; sporadic – r. Ψ. 1074. Prunus divaricata Ledeb. – Cherry (Myrobalan) plum. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ-һ. Prunus divaricata Ldb. f. atropurpurea Jacq. – Cherry (Myrobalan) plum, f. dark-purple. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. ђ-һ. 1075. Prunus domestica L. – Common plum. Cultivated in population centres; frequent - 1-r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 1076. Prunus insititia L. - Damson plum. Cultivated in population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 1077. Prunus stepposa Kоtоv - Steppe blackthorn. On loamy slopes of the valley side of the Teterev River floodplain [Bortniak, 1977]; very rare – r. RSUP(3), RBRB(III). һ. 1078. Pyrus achras Gaertn. – Wild pear. Forests, fallows, meadows; sporadic - r. Hemiapophyte. ђ. 1079. Pyrus {Pirus} communis L. - European pear. In forests, fallows, meadows, cultivated in population centres; common - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. ђ. 1080. Rosa alba L. – White rose of York. Cultivated and wild-growing; rare – r. Euchenophyte- colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 124

1081. Rosa canina L. - Dog rose. In fallows, meadows, forest edges, grassy glades, cultivated in population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. һ. Rosa chinensis Jacq. – (Chinese) rose. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. 1082. Rosa majalis Herrm. - Cinnamon rose. In forest edges, grassy glades, shrubs, cultivated in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. һ. 1083. Rosa multiflora Thunb. – Many-flowered rose. Cultivated in population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophyte. һ. 1084. Rosa pimpinellifolia L. - Burnet rose. In overshrubbed slopes in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare - r. һ. 1085. Rosa pratorum Sukacz. – Meadow rose. Overshrubbed slopes and meadows in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare - r. һ. Rosa rugosa Thunb. - Rugosa rose. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. һ. 1086. Rosa sherardii Daviex – Sherard’s rose. Overshrubbed slopes and meadows in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare - r. һ. 1087. Rosa subcanina (Christ.) Dalla Torre & Sar. – Sub-canine rose. On overshrubbed slopes and in meadows in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare - r. һ. 1088. Rosa villosa L. - Apple rose. In forest edges, shrubs (Ostrogliady village in the Belarusian part of EZ); very rare - r. һ. 1089. Rubus caesius L. - European dewberry. In forests and shrubs, in population centres, in fallows; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. һ. Rubus canadensis L. - Canadian blackberry. Cultivated in population centres; very rare - 1-r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. һ. 1090. Rubus idaeus L. – European red raspberry. In forests, amid shrubs, cultivated in population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. һ. 1091. Rubus nessensis W. Hall – Nessen blackberry. In forests, in shrubs and fallows, in population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. һ. 1092. Rubus saxatilis L. – Stone bramble. Moist coniferous and mixed forests; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. 1093. Sanguisorba officinalis L. - Great burnet. In moist meadows, amid shrubs; very rare – r. RBRB(LC). Ψ. 1094. Sorbaria sorbifolia (L.) A. Br. - False spiraea. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained in population centres; rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. һ. 1095. Sorbus aucuparia L. - Rowan or Mountain-ash. In forests, cultivated in population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. ђ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 125

Sorbus aucuparia L. f. pendula (Kirchn.) C. Koch. - Rowan or Mountain-ash f. pendulous. Cultivated as a graff (Pripyat city); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. ђ. Sorbus hybrida L. – Hybrid rowan (mountain-ash). Cultivated and wild-growing (Pripyat city); very rare - r, Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 1096. Spiraea chamaedryfolia L. - Germander meadowsweet or Elm-leaved spirea. Cultivated in population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ. 1097. Spiraea japonica L. - Japanese spiraea. Cultivated in population centres; rare - 1-r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophyte. һ. 1098. Spiraea media Schmidt. - Russian spiraea. Cultivated in population centres; rare - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. RSUP(2). һ. 1099. Spiraea salicifolia L. – Willowleaf meadowsweet. Cultivated in population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ.

Family 114. Rubiaceae Juss.

1100. Cruciata glabra (L.) Ehrend. – Slender crosswort. Pine-oak forests, shrubs, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1101. Galium aparine L. – Cleavers bedstraw. In black locust plantations, in ameliorated fallows, in population centres; frequent – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 1102. Galium boreale L. - Northern bedstraw. In meadows, forest edges, grassy glades; sporadic - r. Ψ. 1103. Galium elongatum C. Presl. - Marsh (tall) bedstraw. Marshes, marshy forests, shrubs; rare – r. Ψ. 1104. Galium intermedium Schult. – Intermediate bedstraw. In deciduous forests; sporadic – r. Ψ. 1105. Galium mollugo L. - Hedge bedstraw. Grassy glades, forest edges, meadows, shrubs; frequent – 2-r. Ψ. 1106. Galium odoratum (L.) Scop. - Sweetscented bedstraw. In oak forests, in meadows, in population centres; frequent – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1107. Galium palustre L. - Common marsh bedstraw. In moist and marshy meadows, marshes, forests, population centres; frequent – 1-r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 1108. Galium physocarpum Ledeb. - Nine-bark bedstraw. Marshy meadows, shrubs, forests in floodplains; sporadic – r. Ψ. 1109. Galium rivale (Sibth. & Smith) Griseb. – Brook bedstraw. In marshy meadows, in floodplains, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Ψ, long-rooted, epizoochore, barochore, eutroph, mesophyte, helioskiophyte. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 126

1110. Galium tinctorium (L.) Scop. - Stiff marsh bedstraw. In forests, in meadows, in population centres; sporadic – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. RBRB(II). Ψ. 1111. Galium trifidum L. – Three-petal bedstraw. In moss-covered marshy meadows and marshes; sporadic – r. RBRB(LC). Ψ. 1112. Galium uliginosum L. - Fen bedstraw. In moist and marshy meadows; sporadic – r. Ψ. 1113. Galium verum L. – Lady’s (yellow) bedstraw. In meadows, grassy glades, forest edges, amid shrubs, in population centres; common - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ,

Family 115. Rutaceae Juss.

1114. Phellodendron amurense Rupr. - Amur cork tree. Cultivated in population centres (Chornobyl town) and forests (the Denysovetske forestry centre), wild-growing; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 1115. Ptelea trifoliata L. – Common hoptree or wafer (stinking) ash. Cultivated in sq. 53 of the Paryshivske forestry centre, wild-growing; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. һ.

Family 116. Salicaceae Mirb.

1116. Populus alba L. - Silver (white) poplar. In floodplains, in population centres; common – r. Hemiapophyte. ђ. Populus balsamifera L. - Balsam poplar. Cultivated; very rare – r. Euchenophyte- ergasiolypophyte. ђ. 1117. Populus canescens (Ait.) Smith – Grey poplar. Floodplain forests, population centres, man- made disturbances; sporadic - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. ђ. 1118. Populus deltoides Marsh. - Eastern cottonwood or Necklace poplar. Cultivated (17 settlements aged between 25 and 60 years in forests [Draft organization…, 1997]); sporadic – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. Populus italica (Du-Roi) Moench – Lombardy poplar. Cultivated in population centres and forests (2 settlements aged between 35 and 50 years in forests [Draft organization…, 1997]); very rare - 1-r. Kenophyte-ergasiophyte. ђ. 1119. Populus nigra L. - Black poplar. Floodplain forests, population centres, man-made disturbances; common - 1-2. Hemiapophyte. ђ. Populus simonii Carr. - Simon's poplar. Cultivated (the towns of Pripyat, Chornobyl); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 1120. Populus tremula L. - Grey poplar. In forests, fallows, meadows, population centres; common - 1-2; Hemiapophyte. ђ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 127

1121. Salix acutifolia Willd. - Violet willow. Loose sands, in population centres; common - 1-2. Hemiapophyte. һ. 1122. Salix alba L. - White willow. In river floodplains, in population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. ђ. Salix alba L. f. vitellina pendula Rehd. – White willow, f. pendulous. Cultivated; rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. ђ. 1123. Salix aurita L. - Eared willow. In marshes, marshy meadows, amid shrubs, in fallows, in population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. һ. 1124. Salix caprea L. - Goat willow. In forests, in forest edges, in fallows, in population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. ђ. 1125. Salix cinerea L. - Grey sallow. In marshes, in marshy meadows and forests, in ameliorated fallows, in population centres; common – r. Hemiapophyte. һ. 1126. Salix fragilis L. - Crack willow. In forest edges, in river floodplains, in meadows, cultivated; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-agriophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 1127. Salix lapponum L. - Downy willow. In sedge-sphagnum marshes near Mashiv [Kusheriava, 1991]; data deficient – r. RSUP(2), RBRB(LC). һ. Salix matsudana Koidz. f. tortuosa Reld. – Chinese willow, f. tortuous. Cultivated (Pripyat city, laundry factory yard); very rare - r. Euchenophyte-ergasiophyte. ђ. 1128. Salix myrsinifolia Salisb. - Dark-leaved willow. In marshes, moist meadows and forests; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. RSUP(2). һ. 1129. Salix myrtilloides L. - Swamp willow. In mesotrophic bogs, in marshy forests [Bortniak, 1984]; very rare – r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(III). һ. 1130. Salix pentandra L. - Bay willow. Marshes and moist forests floodplain, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. һ. 1131. Salix rosmarinifolia L. - Rosemary-leaved willow. In meadows, marshes, population centres; frequent – r. Spontaneophyte. һ. 1132. Salix starkeana Willd. - Pale willow. In marshy forests, shrubs, marshes (Dytiatky, Leliv [Pachoskyi, 1899; Red …, 1996, 2009]); very rare – r. RBU(Vuln.). һ. 1133. Salix triandra L. - Almond willow. Meadows, marshes, shrubs, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. һ. 1134. Salix viminalis L. (S. rossica Nas. p. p.) - Basket willow or Common osier. In floodplains; frequent – r. һ.

Family Santalaceae R. Br.

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 128

Thesium ebracteatum Hayne. – Bractless thesium. In grassy glades, forest edges; data deficient – r. Evapophyte. RBRB(LC), BC(R). Ψ.

Family 117. Saxifragaceae Juss.

Astilba davidii (Franch.) Henry – David’s astilba. Cultivated (Chornobyl town); very rare - r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte. Ψ. 1135. Chrysosplenium alternifolium L. - Alternate-leaved golden-saxifrage. In marshes, melioration canals, alder forests; sporadic – r. Ψ. 1136. Saxifraga hirculus L. – Yellow marsh saxifrage. In peaty marshes in the Belarusian part of EZ; very rare – r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(I), BC(R). Ψ.

Family Schisandraceae Blume

Schisandra chinensis (Turcz.) Baill. – Chinese magnolia-vine. Cultivated and vegetatively maintained (Chornobyl town, Zalissia); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiolypophyte. һ-liana.

Family 118. Scrophulariaceae Juss.

1137. Chaenorrhinum minus (L.) Lange - Dwarf snapdragon. In fallows, meadows; rare – r. Evapophyte. Ý. 1138. Digitalis grandiflora Mill. - Large yellow foxglove. Moist forests, shrubs, in population centres, cultivated and wild growing; rare - r. Hemiapophyte. RBRB(LC), RESKR. Ψ. 1139. Digitalis lanata Ehrh. - Woolly foxglove. Cultivated in population centres and wild-growing, including also the Uzh River valley to the south west of Novoselky; very rare – r. Euchenophyte- colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. Digitalis purpurea L. - Purple foxglove. Cultivated in population centres and wild-growing; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. 1140. Euphrasia brevipila Burn. & Gremli - Glossy eyebright. In moist and marshy meadows; very rare – r. Ý. 1141. Euphrasia x murbeckii Wettst. – Murbeck’s eyebright. In moist and marshy meadows; very rare – r. Ý. 1142. Euphrasia parviflora Schag. - Small-flowered eyebright. In meadows; rare – r. Ý. 1143. Euphrasia rostkoviana Hayne - Red eyebright. In moist meadows, in shrubs; very rare – r. Ý. 1144. Euphrasia stricta D. Wolff ex J. F. Lehm. - Drug eyebright. In meadows; sporadic – r. Ý. 1145. Gratiola officinalis L. – Gratiole or Common hedgehyssop. In moist meadows and fallows; frequent – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 129

1146. Lathraea squamaria L. - Common toothwort. On roots of the hornbeam, common hazel, black alder; rare – r. Ψ. 1147. Limosella aquatica L. - Water mudwort. Moist shore sands, shallow waters of water bodies (Kopachi [Pachoskyi, 1899]); rare – r. Ý. 1148. Linaria genistifolia (L.) Mill. - Broadleaf (Dalmatian) toadflax. In fallows, in population centres; sporadic – r. Kenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ. 1149. Linaria vulgaris Mill. - Common toadflax. In grassy glades and forest edges, in fallows, meadows, cultivated as ornamental form in population centres; common - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ψ. 1150. Melampyrum arvense L. - Field cow-wheat. Roadsides; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 1151. Melampyrum cristatum L. - Crested cow-wheat. Forests, meadows, shrubs; sporadic – r. Ý. 1152. Melampyrum nemorosum L. - Wood cow-wheat. In forests, grassy glades, forest edges, population centres; frequent – r. Spontaneophyte. Ý. 1153. Melampyrum pratense L. - Common cow-wheat. In grassy glades, forest edges, meadows, population centres; frequent – r. Spontaneophyte. Ý. 1154. Odontites vulgaris Moench – Common bartsia. Meadows and fallows, grassy glades and forest edges; frequent – r. Spontaneophyte. Ý. 1155. Pedicularis palustris L. - Marsh lousewort. In marshy meadows, marshes; sporadic – r. RESKR. Ý-Ÿ. 1156. Pedicularis sceptrum-carolinum L. - Moor-king lousewort. In marshes; very rare – r. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(III). Ψ. 1157. Rhinanthus aestivalis (N. Zing.) Schischk. & Serg. – Summer rattle. Meadows, grassy glades, amid shrubs, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 1158. Rhinanthus minor L. - Little yellow rattle. Meadows, grassy glades. Hemiapophyte; sporadic – r. Ý. 1159. Rhinanthus serotinus (Schoenh.) Oborny – Late rattle. Grassy glades, forest edges, meadows, ameliorated fallows; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý, anemochore, endozoochore, hemiparasite, mesotroph, mesophyte, skioheliophyte. 1160. Rhinanthus vernalis (N. Zing.) Schischk. & Serg. - Spring rattle. In meadows, grassy glades, forest edges and amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 1161. Scrophularia nodosa L. - Woodland (common) figwort. Forests, shrubs, fallows, meadows, population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψт. 1162. Scrophularia umbrosa Dumort. - Green (water) figwort. Marshes and shrubs of floodplains; sporadic – r. Ÿ-Ψ. 1163. Verbascum densiflorum Bertol. - Denseflower mullein. Cleared strips, grassy glades, forest edges, dry sandy meadows and fallows, population centres; frequent - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ÿ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 130

1164. Verbascum lychnitis L. - Дивина волотиста. In dry meadows, fallows, grassy glades, forest edges, population centres; common - 1-r. Evapophyte. Ÿ. 1165. Verbascum nigrum L. - Black (dark) mullein. In forest edges, grassy glades, meadows; sporadic – r. Ψ-Ÿ. 1166. Verbascum phlomoides L. - Clasping mullein. Dry meadows, fallows, grassy glades, forest edges, in population centres; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ÿ. 1167. Verbascum phoeniceum L. - Purple mullein. Dry meadows, sparse forests, shrubs; sporadic – r. Ÿ. 1168. Verbascum thаpsus L. – Bear’s ear mullein. In forest edges, meadows, fallows, population centres; frequent – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ÿ. 1169. Veronica anagallis-aquatica L. - Water speedwell. Marshy meadows, marshes, shores of water bodies; sporadic – r. Ψ. 1170. Veronica arvensis L. - Wall speedwell. In fallows, in population centres; sporadic – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 1171. Veronica beccabunga L. - Brooklime. Marshes, shallow waters; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. 1172. Veronica chamaedrys L. - Germander speedwell. Grassy glades, forest edges, meadows, fallows, population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1173. Veronica dillenii Grantz – Dilleni’s speedwell. In pine forests, in dry meadows; rare – r. Ý-Ÿ. 1174. Veronica hederifolia L. - Ivy-leaved speedwell. Forest edges, fallows, population centres; rare – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 1175. Veronica heureca (Fisch.) Tzvel – Heurec’s speedwell [Tsvelev, 1984]. On the sands situated near a river channel, in marshy meadows, marshes, on shores of water bodies; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. 1176. Veronica incana L. - Silver speedwell. Grassy glades and forest edges of pine and mixed forests; sporadic – r. RBRB(DD). Ψ. 1177. Veronica longifolia L. - Long-leaved speedwell. Moist meadows, ameliorated fallows, population centres; frequent - 2-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1178. Veronica officinalis L. - Heath speedwell. In forests, in meadows, in population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1179. Veronica paczoskiana Klokov - Paczoski’s speedwell. Grassy glades of pine and mixed forests; rare – r. RESKR. Ψ. 1180. Veronica persica Poir. – Common field-speedwell. In vegetable gardens in population centres (Lubianka, [Holiachenko…, 1992]); rare – r. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 1181. Veronica polita Fries - Grey field speedwell. In fallows, in population centres; rare – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý. 1182. Veronica scutellata L. - Marsh speedwell. Moist meadows, marshes, shrubs; sporadic - 1-r. Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 131

1183. Veronica serpyllifolia L. - Thyme-leaved speedwell. In sparse forests, amid shrubs, in meadows, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1184. Veronica spicata L. - Spiked speedwell. Pine forests, dry meadows, population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1185. Veronica spuria L. – Spurious speedwell. Forest edges, grassy glades, shrubs (near Ivankiv [Bortniak, 1962]); very rare – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1186. Veronica teucrium L. - Large speedwell. Grassy glades, forest edges; rare – r. RBRB(LC). Ψ. 1187. Veronica verna L. - Spring speedwell. Forest edges, dry meadows, fallows, population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý.

Family 119. Solanaceae Juss.

Datura innoxia Mill. – Pricklyburr or Recurved thorn-apple. Cultivated and natural seedling growth in flower-beds (Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 1188. Datura stramonium L. – Jimsonweed or Devil's snare. Garbage dumps, vegatable gardens in population centres, man-made disturbances (Andriivka, Zalissia, Chornobyl town); rare – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. Hyoscyamus albus L. - White henbane. In population centres (Zalissia); very rare – r. Kenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ. 1189. Hyoscyamus niger L. - Black henbane. In population centres; rare – r. Archeophyte- colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ÿ. Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. - Tomato plant. Cultivated, is renewing in garbage dumps, crushed stone substrates; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 1190. Lycium barbarum L. - Chinese wolfberry. Steeps of floodplain valley sides of the Pripyat and Uzh Rivers (Zalissia, Chornobyl town); very rare – 1-r. Archeophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. һ. 1191. Nicotiana alata Link & Otto var. grandiflora Comes. - Jasmine (winged) tobacco var. Large-flowered. Cultivated, in garbage dumps and man-made disturbances; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. Nicotiana rustica L. – Wild tobacco. Cultivated, in garbage dumps (Teremtsi); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ý. Petunia x hybrida hort – Garden petunia. Cultivated and natural seeding in garbage dumps, in cracks in asphalt and concrete sites; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. Ý. 1192. Physalis franchetii Mast. – Japanese lantern. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres; sporadic – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. Ÿ-Ψ. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 132

1193. Physalis ixocarpa Brot. ex Hornem. - Mexican ground-cherry. Wild-growing in man-made disturbances in population centres, sand pits; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- acolutophyte. Ý. 1194. Solanum dulcamara L. – Bittersweet nightshade. In moist and marshy forests, in marshes, shrubs, in population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ω-liana. Solanum humile Bernh. – Dwarf nightshade. In garbage dumps, street roadsides (Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-acolutophyte. Ý. 1195. Solanum nigrum L. - Black nightshade. In population centres, in uprooted sites of fire; frequent – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý.

Family Tamaricaceae Link

Tamarix ramosissima Ledeb – Saltcedar. Cultivated (Pripyat city, ChNPP site, Chornobyl town); very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ergasiolypophyte. һ, coppice growth, xylorhizome, mesotroph, xerophyte, heliophyte.

Family 120. Thymelaeaceae Juss

Daphne cneorum L. - Garland flower (Rose daphne). Was cultivated in population centres; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-ephemerophyte-ergasiolypophyte. RBU(Vuln.), RBRB(I). һ. 1196. Daphne mezereum L. - February daphne, mezereon. Deciduous and oak-pine forests in the Belarusian part of EZ; very rare – r. RBRB(LC), RESKR. һ.

Family 121. Tiliaceae Juss.

1197. Tilia cordata Mill. - Small-leaved lime. In deciduous and mixed forests, cultivated in population centres; sporadic - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. ђ. Tilia europea L. – European lime. Cultivated in population centres; very rare - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. ђ. 1198. Tilia platyphyllos Scop. - Large-leaved lime (linden). Cultivated in population centres and forests (9 settlements aged between 35 and 80 years); rare - 1-r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte- ergasiophygophyte. ђ.

Family 122. Trapaceae Dum.

1199. Trapa natans L. s. str. – Water chestnut. In standing and slow-flow waters; frequent - 5-r. RBU(Not ev.), RBRB(III), BC(I). Ý. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 133

Family 123. Ulmaceae Mirb.

1200. Ulmus glabra Huds. - Wych (Scotch) elm. In deciduous forests and in river floodplains; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. ђ. 1201. Ulmus laevis Pall. - Fluttering (white) elm. In deciduous forests, in population centres; frequent - 1-r. Hemiapophyte. ђ. 1202. Ulmus minor Mill. – Field elm. Cultivated (the Leliv forestry centre, sq. 138, lot 3 and 13, aged 45 years; the Lubianske forestry centre, sq. 60, lot 4, 15 years [Draft organization…, 1997]) sporadic – r. ђ. Ulmus pumila L. - Dwarf elm. Was planted approximately 45 years ago in sq. 138 lots 3 and 13 of the Lelivske forestry centre in the area of 19 ha, [Draft organization…, 1997]; very rare - r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ-ђ.

Family 124. Urticaceae Juss.

1203. Urtica dioica L. (U. major Kanitz) - Common (stinging) nettle. In forests, meadows, fallows, population centres; common - 3-1. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1204. Urtica galeopsifolia Wicrzb. ex Opiz - Fen (stingless) nettle. In marshy meadows, marshes, alder forests; common - 3-1. Ψ. Urtica kioviensis Rogow. - Kyivan nettle. Black alder forests, shores of river old channels; data deficient - 1-r. RBRB(II), IUCN Red List (I). RESKR. Ψ. 1205. Urtica sondenii (Simm.) Avror. ex Geltman – Sonden’s nettle. In meadows, on river shores in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare - r. Ψ. 1206. Urtica urens L. - Annual (dwarf) nettle. In population centres; sporadic - r. Archeophyte- epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý.

Family 125. Valerianaceae Batsch.

1207. Valeriana officinalis L. - Garden valerian. In marshes, meadows, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Ψ. 1208. Valeriana stolonifera Czern. – Tetraploid valerian. Forests, meadows, fallows, population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1209. Valeriana wolgensis Kazak. – Volga valerian. In meadows, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Ψ.

Family 126. Verbenaceae Jaume

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 134

1210. Verbena officinalis L. - Common verbena. In meadows, on shores of water bodies; rare – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ψ.

Family 127. Violaceae Batsch

1211. Viola arvensis Murr. - European field pansy. In dry meadows, fallows, population centres; common – r. Archeophyte-epecophyte-acolutophyte. Ý-Ÿ. 1212. Viola canina L. - Dog violet. In forests, amid shrubs, in meadows, in fallows; sporadic – r. Spontaneophyte. Ψ. 1213. Viola collina Bess. - Hill violet. In forest edges, amid shrubs; sporadic – r. Ψ. 1214. Viola hirta L. - Hairy violet. In deciduous forests, amid shrubs, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1215. Viola matutina Klokov – Morning violet. In meadows and fallows; frequent – r. Evapophyte. Ý-Ÿ. 1216. Viola mirabilis L. - Wonder violet. In deciduous forests, amid shrubs, in population centres; frequent – 1-r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1217. Viola montana L. – Mountain violet. In deciduous forests, amid shrubs; very rare - r. RBRB(II). Ψ. 1218. Viola odorata L. - Sweet violet. In forests, predominantly deciduous, amid shrubs, cultivated in population centres; frequent – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1219. Viola palustris L. - Alpine marsh violet. In marshes, in marshy forests and in meadows; frequent – r. Ψ. 1220. Viola riviniana Rchb. - Common dog violet. In forests; rare - r. Ψ. 1221. Viola rupestris F. W. Schmidt. - Rock violet. In forests, in forest edges, in sandy areas; sporadic – r. Ψ. 1222. Viola stagnina Kit. - Fen violet. In meadows; rare – r. RESKR. Ψ. 1223. Viola suavis Bieb. - Russian violet. In forests, amid shrubs, in population centres; sporadic – r. Hemiapophyte. Ψ. 1224. Viola tricolor L. - Wild pansy. Fallows, population centres; common – r. Hemiapophyte. Ý- Ÿ. 1225. Viola uliginosa Bess. – Baltic violet. In marshy forests, in marshes; rare – r. RBRB(IV), RESKR. Ψ.

Family 128. Vitaceae Juss.

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 135

1226. Parthenocissus inserta (A. Kerner) Fitsch - Thicket creeper or Grape woodbine. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres and adjoined forests in the Belarusian part of EZ; rare - 1- r. Euchenophyte-epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ-liana. 1227. Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch. - Five-leaved ivy or five-finger. Cultivated and wild-growing in population centres and adjoined forests; sporadic - 2-r. Euchenophyte- epecophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ-liana. Vitis labrusca L. – Fox grape. Cultivated in population centres and wild-growing; very rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ-liana. 1228. Vitis vinifera L. - Common grape vine. Cultivated in population centres and wild-growing; rare – r. Euchenophyte-colonophyte-ergasiophygophyte. һ-liana.

References

Andrienko T.L. Rare species of vascular plants in the Ukrainian Polissia // Ukr. Journal of Botany, - 2008, Vol. 65, No. 5, - pp. 666-673 (in Ukrainian)

Andrienko T.L., Sheliah-Sosonko Yu.R. The plant community of the Ukrainian Polissia in terms of its protection. - Kyiv, Naukova Dumka, 1983. - 216 p. (in Russian)

Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern, 1979). - Kyiv: Ministry of Environmental Protection of Ukraine, 1998.- 76 p. (in Ukrainian)

Catalogue of rare biodiversity in the nature reserves and national nature parks of Ukraine. The phytogenetic fund, mycogenetic fund, phytocenotic fund / Ed. by Popovych S.Yu. - Kyiv, Phytosciological Centre, 2002. - 276 p. (in Ukrainian)

Flora and vegetation of the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve / Parfenov V.I., Maslovskyi O.M., Valetov V.V., Skuratovych A.P., Dubovik D.V., Stepanovych I.M., Voronetskyi N.N., Rykovskyi G.F., Dunin V.F., Piskunov V.S. - Mozyr: Publishing House "Belyi Veter" Ltd., 2002. - 112 p. (in Russian)

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2017 (http://www.iucnredlist.org/) (in English)

Official listings of locally rare plants in the administrative areas of Ukraine (Reference book) / Compiled by: T.L. Andrienko, Doctor of Biology, Professor; M. M. Peregrym, Cand. Sc. in Biology - Kyiv: AlterPress, 2012. - pp. 53-60 (in Ukrainian)

The Red Data Book of Ukraine. Plant community / Ed. by Ya.P. Didukh - Kyiv: Global Consulting, 2009. - 900 p. (in Ukrainian)

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 136

Rare plant species in the ChEZ

Table 11. Types of plants in the ChEZ that are listed on the Red Data Book of Ukraine, local "Red Data" Lists, appendixes to international conventions, IUCN Red List of globally threatened animal and plant species.

Group, species

ix

English name Latin name

RSChZ

category category

Ukrainian name Appendix

IUCN Red List,

(RSUP, (RSUP, RESKR,

Ukraine, category

CITES, Append

Red Data Book of

Berne Convention,

Republic of Belarus,

Local Red Data Lists

Red Data Book of the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Lycopodiophyta Lycopodiaceae Diphasiastrum Groundcedar Not ev. complanatum Зелениця сплюснута Zeiller’s groundcedar Diphasiastrum zeilleri Endn. Зелениця Цайллера Inundated club-moss Lycopodiella inundata Vuln. IV Плаунець торфовий Interrupted club-moss Lycopodium annotinum Vuln. Плаун колючий Running clubmoss Lycopodium clavatum RESKR. Плаун звичайний Huperziaceae Northern firmoss Huperzia selago Not ev. IV Баранець звичайний Polypodiophyta Brittle bladder-fern Cystopteris fragilis RSCHZ Міхурниця ламка Dryopteridaceae Crested wood fern Dryopteris cristata RESKR Щитник гребенястий Western oakfern RSUP(3), Gymnocarpium dryopteris Голокупник дубовий RESKR Onocleaceae Ostrich fern RSUP(1), Matteuccia struthiopteris LC Страусове перо звичайне RESKR Ophioglossaceae Moonwort Botrychium lunaria Vuln. LC Ключ-трава півмісяцева Leathery grapefern Botrychium multifidum Ключ-трава Р III + багатороздільна Adder's-tongue RSUP(1), Ophioglossum vulgatum Вужачка звичайна RESKR Salviniaceae Floating fern Salvinia natans Not ev. IV + Сальвінія плавуча Pinophyta (Gymnospermae) Cupressaceae Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 137

Common juniper Juniperus communis RESKR Яловець звичайний Pinaceae The Norway spruce Picea abies Ялина європейська RESKR (Смерека) Taxaceae European yew Taxus baccata Vuln. Тис ягідний, негній-дерево Magnoliophyta Liliopsida Alismataceae Narrowleaf water-plantain Alisma gramineum DD Частуха злакоподібна Alliaceae Bear leek (wild garlic) Allium ursinum Цибуля ведмежа Not ev. III (Черемша) Amaryllidaceae Common snowdrop Galanthus nivalis Vuln. + Підсніжник звичайний Pleated snowdrop Galanthus plicatus Vuln. + V Підсніжник складчастий Spring snowflake Leucojum vernum Not ev. Білоцвіт весняний Poet's daffodil Narcissus angustifolius Vuln. + Нарциз вузьколистий Araceae Bog arum Calla palustris RESKR Образки болотяні Asphodelaceae Branched St Anthericum ramosum Bernard's-lily LC Віхалка гілляста Cyperaceae Flat sedge Blysmus compressus RESKR Комишниця стиснута Shaker sedge Carex brizoides RESKR Осока трясучкова Buxbaum's sedge Carex buxbaumii Vuln. II Осока Буксбаума Lesser tussock-sedge Carex diandra RESKR Осока двотичинкова Dioecious sedge Carex dioica Vuln. Осока дводомна Hartman’s sedge Carex hartmanii RSUP(1) Осока Гартмана Bottler sedge Carex juncella RSUP(3) Осока ситничкова Yellow sedge Carex lepidocarpa RSUP(3) Осока лускоплода Bog sedge Carex limosa RESKR Осока багнова Greater tussock-sedge RSUP(1), Carex paniculata Осока волотиста RESKR Pill sedge Carex pilulifera RSUP(2) Осока кульконосна Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 138

Narrow mitra sedge Carex umbrosa Not ev. IV Осока затінкова Sheathed sedge Carex vaginata Endn. Осока піхвиста Michelianus papyrus sedge Cyperus michelianus DD RESKR Смикавець Мікелі Softstem spikerush Eleocharis mamillata Ситняг пипкуватий Vuln. (сосочковий) Narrowleaf cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium Пухівка вузьколиста RSUP (багатоколоскова) Hooked saw grass Mariscus hamulosus RESKR Маріскус гачкуватий Growing-yellow papyrus Pycreus flavescens sedge DD Смикавка жовтувата White beak-sedge Rhynchospora alba RESKR Дзьобонасінник білий Dwarf club-rush Scirpus supinus DD Куга лежача Hyacinthaceae Grape hyacinth Muscari neglectum Гадюча цибулька RESKR китицецвіта Bouche’s star-of-bethlehem Ornithogalum boucheanum Not ev. Рястка Буше Common star-of-bethlehem Ornithogalum umbellatum RESKR Рястка зонтична Alpine squill Scilla bifolia RESKR Проліска дволиста Wood (Siberian) squill Scilla siberica Проліска поникла RESKR (сибірська) Iridaceae Carpathian crocus (Heuffel’s) Crocus heuffelianus Not ev. Шафран карпатський (Гейфеля) Imbricated gladiolus Gladiolus imbricatus Косарики дахівкові (лучні, Vuln. IV черепитчасті) Steppe iris Iris hungarica II RSUP(2) Півники угорські Siberian iris Iris sibirica Vuln. IV Півники сибірські Juncaceae Bulbous rush Juncus bulbosus Vuln. DD Ситник бульбистий Dwarf rush Juncus capitatus DD RESKR Ситник голівчастий Round-fruited rush Juncus compressus RESKR Ситник стиснутий Filamentous rush Juncus filiformis RSUP(3) Ситник ниткуватий Riverain rush Juncus tenageia DD RESKR Ситник прирічковий Juncaginaceae Marsh arrowgrass Triglochin palustre RESKR Тризубець болотяний Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 139

Lemnaceae Gibbous duckweed RSUP(3), Lemna gibba Ряска горбата RESKR Liliaceae Snake's head fritillary Fritillaria meleagris Vuln. Рябчик шаховий Turk's cap lily Lilium martagon Not ev. IV Лілія лісова (кучерява) Melanthiaceae Green-flowered corn lily Veratrum lobelianum LC RESKR Чемериця зеленоцвіта Najadaceae Brittle naiad (waternymph) Caulinia minor I Різушник малий Spiny naiad (waternymph) Najas major III Різуха морська Orchidaceae Bug orchid Плодоріжка блощична Vuln. II II (Зозулинець блощичний) Green-winged orchid Anacamptis morio Vuln. II II Плодоріжка салепова Narrow-leaved Helleborine Cephalanthera longifolia Р III II Булатка довголиста Red Helleborine Cephalanthera rubra Р III II Булатка червона Lady's slipper orchid Cypripedium calceolus Зозулині черевички Vuln. II + II справжні Common marsh orchid Dactylorhiza baltica LC II Зозульки балтійські Common spotted orchid Dactylorhiza fuchsii Not ev. LC II Зозульки Фукса Early marsh-orchid Dactylorhiza incarnata Vuln. LC II Зозульки м’ясочервоні Heath spotted-orchid Dactylorhiza maculata Vuln. LC II Зозульки плямисті Broad-leaved marsh orchid Dactylorhiza majalis Vuln. LC II Зозульки травневі Dark-red helleborine Epipactis Vuln. III II Коручка темно-червона Broad-leaved helleborine Epipactis helleborine Not ev. LC II Коручка морозниковидна Marsh helleborine Epipactis palustris Vuln. LC II Коручка болотяна Creeping lady's-tresses Goodyera repens Vuln. LC II Однобічник повзучий Marsh fragrant orchid Gymnadenia conopsea Vuln. III II Билинець комарниковий Most fragrant orchid Gymnadenia odoratissima Vuln. II Билинець найзапашніший Bog adder's-mouth orchid Hammarbya paludosa Endn. II II М’якух болотяний Fen (yellow widelip) orchid) Liparis loеselii Vuln. II + II Жировик Льозеля Eggleaf twayblade Listera ovata Not ev. IV II Зозулині сльози яйцевидні Burnt-tip orchid Endn. II Зозулинець обсмалений Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 140

Bird's-nest orchid Neottia nidus-avis Not ev. LC II Гніздівка лісова Cucullated neottianthe Neottiante cucullata Endn. II II Неотіанта каптурувата Military orchid Orchis militaris Vuln. I II Зозулинець шоломоносний Lesser butterfly-orchid Platanthera bifolia Not ev. LC II Любка дволиста Greater butterfly-orchid Platanthera chlorantha Not ev. III II Любка зеленоквіткова Poaceae Lesser hairy-brome Bromopsis benekenii IV Стоколосник Бенекена Polesian fescue Festuca polesica RSUP(3) Костриця поліська Hard fescue Festuca trachyphylla RSUP(3) Костриця шорстколиста Volga fescue Festuca valesiaca DD Костриця валіська Southern sweet-grass Hierochloë australis LC RSUP(2) Чаполоч південна Crested hairgrass Koeleria grandis RSUP(3) Кипець великий Dnipro bunch grass Stipa borysthenica Vuln. Ковила дніпровська Potamogetonaceae Whitestem pondweed Potamogeton praelongus RESKR Рдесник довгастий Small pondweed Potamogeton pusillus RESKR Рдесник маленький Shetland pondweed Potamogeton rutilus RESKR Рдесник червонуватий Hairlike pondweed Potamogeton trichoides DD Рдесник волоскуватий Scheuchzeriaceae Rannoch-rush (pod grass) Scheuchzeria palustris Болотянка (шейхцерія) Vuln. болотяна Sparganiaceae Least bur-reed RSUP(2), Sparganium minimum Їжача голівка мала RESKR Zannichelliaceae Horned pondweed Zannichellia palustris Шнурочник (цанікелія, RESKR заннікелія) болотяний Magnoliopsida Aceraceae Sycamore maple Acer pseudoplatanus RSUP(3) Явір Tatarian maple Acer tataricum RSUP(3) Клен татарський Apiaceae Baltic parsley Cenolophium denudatum III Пусторебрик оголений Broad-leaved sermountain Laserpitium latifolium LC Стародуб широколистий Marsh angelica Ostericum palustre III + Маточниця болотяна Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 141

Much-good Peucedanum cervaria III Смовдь оленяча Greater burnet-saxifrage Pimpinella major LC Бедринець великий Lesser (cutleaf) water- Siella erecta parsnip III Потічник прямий Asteraceae Stoloniferous pussytoes Antennaria dioica RESKR Котячі лапки звичайні Field wormwood Artemisia marschalliana DD Полин Маршаллів European Michaelmas-daisy Aster amellus L. Айстра волове око III (степова) Thistle-shaped carline Carlina cirsioides Vuln. Е Дев’ятисил осотовидний Wig knapweed Centaurea phrygia LC Волошка фрігійська Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe Волошка вінична RSUP (райнська) Sumy knapweed Centaurea sumensis RSUP Волошка сумська Jersey cudweed Gnaphalium luteoalbum Сухоцвіт жовтувато- RESKR білий Hairy fleabane Оман Inula hirta LC жорстковолосистий Dark-blue jurinea Jurinea cyanoides LC + Наголоватки волошкові Autumn ox-eye Leucanthemella serotina Endn. Короличка пізня Butterbur Petasites hibridus LC Кремена лікарська Scentless feverfew (Corymbflower tansy) Pyrethrum corymbosum III Маруна щиткова (Піретрум щитковий) Viper's-grass Scorzonera humilis RESKR Зміячка низька Purple viper's-grass Scorzonera purpurea III RESKR Зміячка пурпурова Belarusian goatsbeards Tragopogon bjelorussicus (salsifies) DD Козельці білоруські Ukrainian goatsbeards Tragopogon ucrainicus (salsifies) R Козельці українські Betulaceae Grey (speckled) alder RSUP(1), Alnus incana Вільха сіра (біла) RESKR Kamchatka birch Betula humilis Vuln. LC Береза низька Boraginaceae Common gromwell (European Lithospermum officinale III stoneseed) Горобейник лікарський Narrow-leaved lungwort Pulmonaria angustifolia LC Медунка вузьколиста Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 142

Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) Gmelin’s madwort Alyssum gmelinii DD Бурачок Ґмеліна Coralroot Dentaria bulbifera IV Зубниця бульбиста Perennial honesty Lunaria rediviva Not ev. IV Лунарія гірська Campanulaceae Lily-leaf ladybell Adenophora lilifolia II Дзвінка звичайна Bolognian bellflower Campanula bononiensis LC Дзвоники болонські Giant bellflower Campanula latifolia IV Дзвоники широколисті Peach-leaved bellflower Campanula persicifolia LC Дзвоники персиколисті Siberian bellflower Campanula sibirica IV Дзвоники сибірські Spiked rampion RSUP(1), Phyteuma spicatum DD Шишкар колосистий RESKR Caryophyllaceae Common corn-cockle Agrostemma githago LC Кукіль звичайний Deptford (grass) pink Dianthus armeria II Гвоздики пучкуваті False-squarrose carnation Гвоздики Dianthus pseudosquarrosus RSUP несправжньовідстовбурче ні Fringed (large) pink Dianthus stenocalyx LC Гвоздики вузькочашечкові Rock eremogone RSUP(2), Eremogone saxatilis LC Пісочник скельний RESKR Lithuanian catchfly Silene lithuanica LC І Смілка литовська Fleshy starwort Stellaria crassifolia III Зірочник товстолистий Chenopodiaceae Maple-leaved goosefoot Chenopodium acerifolium RESKR Лобода кленолиста Tumbleweed Corispermum hyssopifolium R Верблюдка гісополиста Dnipro bugseed Corispermum marschallii Верблюдка Маршаллова RESKR (дніпровська) Clusiaceae (Hypericaceae) Pale St. John's-wort Hypericum montanum III Звіробій гірський Crassulaceae Rolling hen-and-chicks Jovibarba globifera Р Cкочки звичайні Ruthenian houseleeks Sempervivum ruthenicum II Молодило руське Dipsacaceae Southern succisella Succisella inflexa Р LC Комонничок зігнутий Droseraceae Waterwheel plant Aldrovanda vesiculosa Р III + Альдрованда пухирчаста Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 143

Oblong-leaved (spoonleaf) Drosera intermedia sundew Vuln. III Росичка середня Elatinaceae Whorl-leaf waterwort Elatine alsinastrum DD Руслиця кільчаста Eight-stamen waterwort Elatine hydropiper II Руслиця водяноперцева Ericaceae Bog-rosemary Andromeda polifolia RESKR Андромеда ряснолиста Kinnikinnick (pinemat RSUP(3), Arctostaphylos uva-ursi manzanita) RESKR Мучниця звичайна Small cranberry Oxycoccus microcarpus Vuln. III Журавлина дрібноплода Common (northern) Oxycoccus palustris cranberry RSUP Журавлина болотяна Fabaceae Sandy milkvetch Astragalus arenarius Vuln. Астрагал піщаний Lindeman’s broom Chamaecytisus lindemannii RSUP Зіновать Ліндеманна German greenweed Genista germanica IV RESKR Дрік колючий Hairy locoweed Oxytropis pilosa III Горобинець волосистий Reddish clover Trifolium rubens II Конюшина червонувата Pea-flowered vetch Vicia pisiformis I Вика горохоподібна Fumaricaceae Hollow corydalis Corydalis cava LC Ряст порожнистий Gentianaceae Star (cross) gentian Gentiana cruciata I Тирлич хрещатий Marsh gentian Gentiana pneumonanthe LC Тирлич звичайний Haloragaceae Alternateflower watermilfoil Myriophyllum alterniflorum RSUP Водопериця черговоцвіта Hippuridaceae Common mare's tail Hippuris vulgaris LC Водяна сосонка звичайна Lamiaceae (Labiatae) Northern dragonhead Dracocephalum ruyschiana Not ev. III + Маточник вузьколистий Meadow clary (sage) Salvia pratensis IV Шавлія лучна Yellow-woundwort Stachys recta LC Чистець прямий Lentibulariaceae Flatleaf (intermediate) Utricularia intermedia bladderwort LC Пухирник середній Lythraceae Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 144

Hyssop loosestrife (grass- Lythrum hyssopifolia poly) DD Плакун гісополистий Dnipro middendorfia Middendorfia borysthenica DD RESKR Плакунець дніпровський Alternate-leaved loosestrife Peplis alternifolia RESKR Щебрик черговолистий Nympheaceae European white water lily Nymphaea alba II RESKR Латаття біле White water rose Nymphaea candida RESKR Латаття сніжно-біле Oleaceae Hungarian lilac Syringa josikaea Vuln. + Бузок угорський Onagraceae Small enchanter's nightshade Circaea alpina RESKR Відьмине зілля низьке Papaveraceae Yellow hornpoppy Glaucium flavum Vuln. Мачок жовтий Parnassiaceae Marsh grass of Parnassus RSUP, Parnassia palustris Білозір болотяний RESKR Polemoniaceae Jacob's-ladder (Greek RSUP, Polemonium caeruleum valerian) LC RESKR Синюха блакитна Polygonaceae European bistort (snake- Bistorta officinalis root) LC Гірчак зміїний Ukrainian dock (sorrel) Rumex ucrainicus DD R Щавель український Primulaceae Chaffweed Centunculus minimus RESKR Недоросток маленький True oxlip Primula elatior RESKR Первоцвіт високий Common cowslip Primula veris LC RESKR Первоцвіт весняний Pyrolaceae Umbellate wintergreen (pipsissewa) Chimaphila umbellata RESKR Порушник звичайний (зимолюбка зонтична) One-flowered wintergreen RSUP(3), Moneses uniflora III Одноквітка звичайна RESKR Greenflowered wintergreen Pyrola chlorantha RESKR Грушанка зеленоцвіта Ranunculaceae Northern wolfsbane Aconitum lasiostomum II Тоя пухнасторота Snowdrop anemone Anemone sylvestris IV RESKR Анемона лісова European (common) RSUP(3), Aquilegia vulgaris columbine LC RESKR Орлики звичайні Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 145

Common water crowfoot Batrachium aquatile DD Водяний жовтець водний River water crowfoot Batrachium fluitans Водяний жовтець Vuln. DD плаваючий Thora buttercup Batrachium trichophyllum Водяний жовтець RESKR волосолистий Erect clematis (ground Clematis recta virginsbower) III Ломиніс прямий Alpine delphinium (candle Delphinium elatum larkspur) Endn. III Цар-зілля високе Noble buttercup Hepatica nobilis LC RESKR Підліски звичайні Rue-leaved isopyrum Isopyrum thalictroides II RESKR Рутвичка звичайна Broad-leaved wind flower Pulsatilla latifolia Not ev. LC + Сон широколистий Small wind flower Pulsatilla nigricans Not ev. IV Сон чорніючий Polyphyllous buttercup Ranunculus polyphyllus DD Жовтець ряснолистий Creeping buttercup Ranunculus reptans LC Жовтець сланкий Columbine meadow-rue Thalictrum aquilegifolium LC Рутвиця орликолиста Lesser meadow-rue Thalictrum minus LC Рутвиця мала Globeflower RSUP(III), Trollius europaeus IV Вовча лапа звичайна RESKR Rosaceae Hairy agrimony Agrimonia pilosa LC Парило волосисте + Goat's beard (Bride's Aruncus dioicus feathers) III Таволжник звичайний Tart (dwarf) cherry RSUP(2), Cerasus fruticosa Вишня кущова RESKR White cinquefoil Potentilla alba III Перстач білий Steppe blackthorn Prunus stepposa III RSUP(3) Слива степова Great burnet Sanguisorba officinalis LC Родовик лікарський Russian spiraea Spiraea media RSUP(2) Таволга середня Rubiaceae Stiff marsh bedstraw Galium tinctorium II Підмаренник фарбувальний Threepetal bedstraw Galium trifidum LC Підмаренник трійчастий Salicaceae Downy willow Salix lapponum LC RSUP(2) Верба лапландська Dark-leaved willow Salix myrsinifolia RSUP(2) Верба чорнувата Swamp willow Salix myrtilloides Vuln. III Верба чорнична. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 146

Pale willow Salix starkeana Vuln. Верба сиза Santalaceae Bractless thesium Thesium ebracteatum Льонолисник LC + безприквітковий Saxifragaceae Yellow marsh saxifrage Saxifraga hirculus Vuln. I + Ломикамінь болотяний Scrophulariaceae Large yellow foxglove Digitalis grandiflora LC RESKR Наперсник великоцвітий Marsh lousewort Pedicularis palustris RESKR Шолудивник болотяний Pedicularis sceptrum- Moor-king lousewort Vuln. III carolinum Шолудивник королівський Silver speedwell Veronica incana DD Вероніка сива Paczoski’s speedwell Veronica paczoskiana RESKR Вероніка Пачоського Large speedwell Veronica teucrium LC Вероніка широколиста Thymelaeaceae Garland flower (Rose Daphne cneorum daphne) Vuln. I Вовче лико запашне February daphne, mezereon Daphne mezereum LC RESKR Вовче лико звичайне Trapaceae Water chestnut Trapa natans Not ev. III + Водяні горіхи звичайні Urticaceae Kyivan nettle Urtica kioviensis II RESKR + Кропива київська Violaceae Mountain violet Viola montana II Фіялка гірська Fen violet Viola stagnina RESKR Фіялка ставкова Baltic violet Viola uliginosa IV RESKR Фіялка багнова

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 147

Status of rare plants in the ChEZ

Notations in Table 12 are as follows:

General assessment of abundance: common species (C), rare species (R), very rare species (V), present species (P).

Type of presence:

! - Autochthonous species that are found in the areas adjacent to the ChEZ, with a similar set of ecotopes.

# - Species that are preserved or are spreading from a culture;

Trend in dynamics: through formation, disseminating agents and range of dissemination:

*1 – all vegetative diasporas and generative ones with minimum dissemination range by barochory and balistochory – retaining of a distribution area;

*2 – dissemination of diasporas by wind (anemochory) and water flows (hydrochory) – expansion of distribution areas;

*3 – dissemination of diasporas by animals (various forms of zoochory) – formation of new distribution areas is possible.

Significance of conservation – establishment of new regenerative niches:

+1 – anthropogenic;

+2 – zoogenic;

+3 – changes in soil and vegetation cover;

+4 – disastrous changes (fires, zoinvasions, etc.).

Assessment of conservation of local population:

- local population is gradually disappearing;

± species local population is stable;

+ species local population is increasing in its abundance and territory.

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 148

Table 12. Abundance of the rare and endangered plant species, assessment of their conservation status

Latin name

Trend in Trend

dynamics

Abundance

conservation conservation

Assessment of Assessment

Significance of Significance Lycopodiophyta Lycopodiaceae Beauv ex Mirb. !Diphasiastrum complanatum (L.) Holub (Diphasium anceps (Wallr.) A.Love et D.Love, D. complanatum (L.) Rothm., P *2 +2 - Lycopodium anceps Wallr., L. complanatum L.) Diphasiastrum zeilleri (Rouy) Holub (D. complanatum ssp. V *2 +2 ± zeilleri (Royi) Pacyna; Diphasium zeilleri (Rouy) Damboldt) Lycopodiella inundata (L.) Holub (Lycopodium inundatum V *2 +3 ± L., Lepidotis inundata (L.) Borner) Lycopodium annotinum L. R *2 +2 + Lycopodium clavatum L. C *2 +2 + Huperziaceae Huperzia selago (L.) Bernh. ex Schrank & Merat. V *1, *2 +2 ± (Lycopodium selago L.) Polypodiophyta # Cystopteris fragilis (L.) Bernh. (C. filix-fragilis (L.) Borhas) V *2 +2 ± Dryopteridaceae Dryopteris cristata (L.) A. Gray (Aspidium cristatum Sw., R *2 +2 ± Polypodium cristatum L.) Gymnocarpium dryopteris (L.) Newm. (Dryopteris linneana V *2 +2 ± C. Chr., Phegopterys dryopteris Fee) Onocleaceae # Matteuccia {Matteucia, Mateuccia} struthiopteris (L.) Tod. (Onoclea struthiopteris (L.) Hoffm, Osmunda struthiopteris P *2 +2 - L., Struthiopteris filicastrum All., S. germanica Willd.) Ophioglossaceae !Botrychium lunaria (L.) Sw. (Ophioglossum pennatum Lam., P *1, *2 +2 ± Osmunda lunaria L.) Botrychium multifidum (S. G. Gmel.) Rupr. (B. matricarioides Willd., B. rutaefolium A. Br., B. ternatum (Thunb.) Swartz., V *1, *2 +2 ± B. matricariae (Schrank) Spreng., Osmunda multifida S.G. Gmel.) Ophioglossum vulgatum L. R *1, *2 +2 ± Salviniaceae Salvinia natans (L.) All. C *1, *2, *3 +1, +2 + Pinophyta (Gymnospermae) Cupressaceae Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 149

Latin name

Trend in Trend

dynamics

Abundance

conservation conservation

Assessment of Assessment

Significance of Significance Juniperus communis L. V *3 +2 ↓

Pinaceae

#Picea abies (L.) Karst. (P. excelsa (Lam.) Link) R *2 +2 + Magnoliophyta Liliopsida Alismataceae Alisma gramineum Lej. (A. arcuatum Michal, A. loeselii R *1, *2 +2, +3 ± Gorski) Alliaceae Allium ursinum L. (A. ucrainicum (Kleopow et Oxner) Bordz.; A. ursinum L. subsp. ucrainicum Kleopow et Oxner, C *1, *2 +2, +3 ± A. ursinum var. ucrainicum (Kleopow et Oxner) Soó). Amaryllidaceae #Galanthus nivalis L. V *1, *2 +1, +3 ± #Galanthus plicatus Bieb. (G. latifolius Salisb.) P *1, *2 +1, +3 ± #Leucojum vernum L. P *1, *2 +1, +3 ± #Narcissus angustifolius Curt. (N. radiiflorus Salisb.) P *1, *2 +1, +3 ± Araceae Calla palustris L. R Asphodelaceae #Anthericum ramosum L. R *2 +2, +3 + Cyperaceae Blysmus compressus (L.) Panz. ex Link. (Scirpus compressus V *1, *2 +2, +3 ± (L.) Pers.) Carex brizoides L. R *1, *3 +3 ± Carex buxbaumii Wahlenb. V *2, *3 +3 ± Carex diandra Schrank (C. teretiuscula Good.) P *2 +3 ± Carex dioica L V *2, *3 +3 ± Carex hartmanii Cajand. (C. emasculata V. Krecz.) R *2, *3 +3 ± Carex juncella (Fr.) Th. Fr. (C. wiluica Meinsh.) C *2, *3 +3 ± Carex lepidocarpa Tausch (C. flava L. var. lepidocarpa V *2, *3 +3 ± (Tausch) Godr.) Carex limosa L. V *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Carex paniculata L. V *2, *3 +3 ± Carex pilulifera L. V *1, *3 +3 ± Carex umbrosa Host. (С. longifolia Host.) P *3 +3 ± Carex vaginata Tausch (С. sparsiflora (Wahl.) Steud.) P *1, *3 +3 ± Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 150

Latin name

Trend in Trend

dynamics

Abundance

conservation conservation

Assessment of Assessment

Significance of Significance Cyperus michelianus (L.). Link (Dichostylis micheliana (L.) V *2 +3 ± Ness, Scirpus michelianus L.) Eleocharis mamillata Lindb. V *1, *2, *3 +3 + Eriophorum angustifolium Roth. (E. polystachyon L.) C *2, *3 +3 + Mariscus hamulosus (M. Bieb.) Hooper (Cyperus hamulosus Bieb., Dichostylis hamulosa (Bieb.) Ness, Scirpus hamulosus V *2 +3 ± (Bieb.) Stev.) Pycreus flavescens (L.) Reichb. (Cyperus flavescens L.) V *1; *2, *3 +3 ± Rhynchospora alba (L.) Vahl. P *1; *2, *3 +3 ± Scirpus supinus L. (Schoenoplectus supinus (L.) Palla) V *2, *3 +3 ± Hyacinthaceae #Muscari neglectum Guss. ((Hyacinthus racemosus L., V *1, *3 +1 - Muscari dolioliforme Sobko, M. racemosum (L.) DC.) #Ornithogalum umbellatum L. R *1, *3 +1 ± #Scilla bifolia L. (S. nivalis Boiss.) P *1, *3 +1 - #Scilla siberica {sibirica} Haw. (S. cernua Delar.) V *1, *3 +1 ± Iridaceae #Crocus heuffelianus Herb. P *1, *3 +1 ± Gladiolus imbricatus L. V *1, *3 +3 ± Iris hungarica Waldst. & Кit. (I. aphylla L., subsp. hungarica P *3 +1 - (Waldst. & Kit.) Hegi) Iris sibirica L. C *1, *2, *3 +2, +3 + Juncaceae Juncus bulbosus L. (J. supinus Moench) V *1, *2, *3 +1, +3 ± Juncus capitatus Weigel. (J. ericetorum Pollich) P *2, *3 +1, +3 ± Juncus squarrosus L. V *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Juncus filiformis L. R *1, *2, *3 +1, +3 ± Juncus tenageia Ehrh. ex L. fil. V *2, *3 +3 ± Juncaginaceae Triglochin palustre L. (Т. komarovii Lipsch. & Pavl.) V *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Lemnaceae Lemna gibba L. R *1, *3 +2, +3 ± Liliaceae #Fritillaria meleagris L. P *1 +1 - Lilium martagon L. V *1, *3 +1, +3 ± Melanthiaceae Veratrum lobelianum Bernh. V *1, *2 +3 ± Najadaceae Caulinia minor (All.) Coss. et Germ. R *2, *3 +3 ± Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 151

Latin name

Trend in Trend

dynamics

Abundance

conservation conservation

Assessment of Assessment

Significance of Significance Najas major All. (N. marina L.) R *2, *3 +3 ±

Orchidaceae

Anacamptis morio (L.) L.M. Bateman, Pridgeon et M.W. P *1, *2 +2, +3 ± Chase (Orchis morio L.) Cephalanthera longifolia (L.) Fritsch (C. ensifolia Rich., С. V *2 +2, +3 ± xiphophyllum Rchb.) Cephalanthera rubra (L.) Rich. V *2 +2, +3 ± Cypripedium calceolus L. V *2 +2, +3 ± Dactylorhiza baltica (Klinge) Orlova ex Aver. ((D. longifolia (L. Neum.) Aver., D. majalis subsp. baltica (Klinge) Senghas, V *1, *2 +2, +3 ± Orchis baltica Klinge, Orchis latifolia subsp. baltica Klinge) Dactylorhiza fuchsii (Druce) Soό (Orchis fuchsii Druce) R *1, *2 +2, +3 ± Dactylorhiza incarnata (L.) Soό (Dactylorhis incarnata (L.) V *1, *2 +2, +3 ± Vermeulen, Orchis incarnata L., Orchis latifolia auct. non L.) Dactylorhiza maculata (L.) Soó (Orchis maculata L.) R *1, *2 +2, +3 ± Dactylorhiza majalis (Reichenb.) P.F.Hunt et Summerhayes R *1, *2 +2, +3 ± Epipactis atrorubens (Hoffm. ex Bemh) Schult. (E. V *1, *2 +2, +3 ± atropurpurea Raf.) Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz (E. latifolia (L.) All.) R *2 +2, +3 ± Epipactis palustris (L.) Crantz. C *1, *2 +2, +3 ± Goodyera repens (L.) R. Br. (Satyrium repens L.) C *1, *2 +2, +3 ± Gymnadenia conopsea (L.) R. Br. P *1, *2 +2, +3 ± Gymnadenia odoratissima (L.) Rich. (Orchis odoratissima L.) V *1, *2 +2, +3 ± Liparis loеselii (L.) Rich. (Ophrys loeselii L.) P *2 +2, +3 ± Listera ovata (L.) R. Br. V *2 +2, +3 ± Neottia nidus-avis (L.) Rich. C *1, *2 +3 ± Orchis militaris L. P *2 +3 ± Platanthera bifolia (L.) Rich. C *2 +3 ± Platanthera chlorantha (Cust.) Rchb. V *2 +3 ± Poaceae Bromopsis benekenii (Lange) Holub P *2 +2, +3 ± Festuca polesica Zapal. (F. beckeri subsp. polesica (Zapal.) C *2 +2, +3 ± Tzvel., F. querceto-pinetorum Klok) Festuca trachyphylla (Hack.) Krajana (F. duriuscula L.) R *2 +2, +3 ± Festuca valesiaca Gaudin (F. sulcata (Hack.) Nym.) C *2 +2, +3 ± Hierochloë australis (Schrad.) Roem. & Schult. V *2, *3 +3 ± Koeleria grandis Bess. ex Gorski (K. polonica Domin) R *2, *3 +3 ± Potamogetonaceae Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 152

Latin name

Trend in Trend

dynamics

Abundance

conservation conservation

Assessment of Assessment

Significance of Significance Potamogeton nodosus Poir. C *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Potamogeton pusillus L. R *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Potamogeton rutilus Wolfg. R *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Potamogeton trichoides Cham. & Schlecht. V *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Scheuchzeriaceae Scheuchzeria palustris L. P *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Sparganiaceae Sparganium minimum Wallr. (Sparganium natans L.) V *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Trilliaceae Paris quadrifolia L. C *1, *3 +3 ± Zannichelliaceae Zannichellia {Zannichelia} palustris L. R *1, *2 *3 +3 ± Magnoliopsida Aceraceae #Acer pseudoplatanus L. V *1, *2 +1 ± Acer tataricum L. C *1, *2 +1 + Apiaceae Cenolophium denudatum (Homem.) Tutin (C. fischeri (Spreng.) Koch ex DC., Athamanta denudata Hornem., C *2 +3 + Cnidium fischeri Spreng.) Laserpitium latifolium L. R *2 +3 ± Ostericum palustre (Bess.) Bess. (Angelica palustris (Bess.) R *2 +3 ± Hoffm.) Peucedanum cervaria (L.) Lapeyr (Сervaria rivini Gaertn.) R *2 +3 ± Pimpinella major (L.) Huds. (P. magna L.) R *2 +3 ± Asteraceae Antennaria dioica Gaern. (Gnaphalium dioicum L.) R *1, *2, *3 +2, +3 ± Artemisia marschalliana Spreng. (A. propinqua P. Smirn.) C *2, *3 +2, +3 ± Aster amellus L. V *3 +3 ± !Carlina cirsioides Klokov P *3 +3 ± !Centaurea phrygia L. (C. austriaca Willd.) P *3 +2, +3 ± Centaurea stoebe L. (С. biebersteinii DC. [Пачоский, 1899], V *2, *3 +2, +3 ± C. rhenana Boreau.) Centaurea sumensis Kalen. (C. marschalliana Spreng. p. p.) V *2, *3 +3 ± !Cirsium pannonicum (L.) Link V *2 +3 ± Gnaphalium luteoalbum L. (Laphangium luteoalbum (L.) R *2 +3 ± Tzvelev) Inula hirta L. V *2 +3 - Jurinea cyanoides (L.) Rchb. (J. pseudocyanoides Klokov) R *2 +3 ± Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 153

Latin name

Trend in Trend

dynamics

Abundance

conservation conservation

Assessment of Assessment

Significance of Significance Leucanthemella serotina (L.) Tzvel. (Chrysanthemum serotinum L., Leucanthemum serotinum (L.) Stank., P *1, *2 +3 - Pyrethrum uliginosum W. К.) Petasites hibridus (L.) Gaertn., May. & Scherb. (Petasites R *2 +3 ± officinalis Moench.) Pyrethrum corymbosum (L.) Scop. (Chrysanthemum P *3 +3 ± corymbosum L.) Scorzonera {Scorsonera} humilis L. V 2 +2 ± Scorzonera {Scorsonera} purpurea L. V 2 +2 ± Senecio erucifolius L. (S. tenuifolius Jacq.) V *2, *3 +2, +3 ± Tragopogon bjelorussicus {bielorussicus} Artemcz. V *2 +2, +3 ± Tragopogon ucrainicus Artemcz. (T. floccosus auct. Fl. ucr.) V *2 +2, +3 ± Betulaceae #Alnus incana (L.) Moench. V *1, *2 +1 ± Betula humilis Schrank. P *1, *2 +3 - Boraginaceae #Lithospermum officinale L. V *2, *3 +1, +2 ± Pulmonaria angustifolia L. (P. azurea Bess.) R *3 +1, +2 ± Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) Alyssum gmelinii Jord. R *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Dentaria bulbifera L. V *1, *3 +2 ± Lunaria rediviva L. V *1, *3 +2 ± Campanulaceae Adenophora lilifolia (L.) Ledeb. ex A.DC. P *2 +3 ± Campanula bononiensis L. (C. ruthenica Bieb.) V *2 +3 ± #Campanula latifolia L. V *2 +3 ± Campanula persicifolia L. V *1, *2 +3 ± Campanula sibirica L. V *2 +3 ± Phyteuma spicatum L. P *1, *2 +3 ± Caryophyllaceae Agrostemma githago L. (Githago segetum Desf.) P *2 +1, +2 - Dianthus armeria L. R *2 +1, +2 ± Dianthus pseudosquarrosus (Novak) Klokov (D. arenarius L. C *1, *2 +1, +2 ± subsp. pseudosquarrosus (Novak) Kleopow) Dianthus stenocalyx Juz. (D. superbus L. subsp. stenocalyx R *1, *2 +1, +2 ± (Juz.) Kleopow) Eremogone saxatilis (L.) Ikonn. (Arenaria graminifolia auct., non Shrad., A. saxatilis L., A. stenophylla Ledeb., A. R *2 +3 ± syreistschikowii P. Smirn.) Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 154

Latin name

Trend in Trend

dynamics

Abundance

conservation conservation

Assessment of Assessment

Significance of Significance Silene lithuanica Zapal. (Atocion lithuanicum (Zapal.) C *2 +2 + Tzvelev.) Stellaria crassifolia Ehrh. V *2 +3 ± Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium acerifolium Andrz. (Ch. kliggroeffii (Abrom.) V *2 +3 ± Aell.) Corispermum {Coryspermum} hyssopifolium L. (C. hybridum R *2, *3 +1, +2 ± Besser ex Andrz, С. glabratum Klokov, C. insulare Klokov) Corispermum marschallii Stev. (C. borysthenicum Andrz.) R *2, *3 +1, +2 ± Clusiaceae (Hypericaceae) Hypericum montanum L. V *2 +2 ± Crassulaceae Jovibarba globifera (L.) J.Parn. (J. sobolifera (Sims.) Opiz., V *1, *2 +3 ± Sempervivum soboliferum Sims). Sempervivum ruthenicum Schnittsp. & C. B. Lehm. (S. V *1, *2, *3 +3 ± globiferum L. p. p. ) Dipsacaceae Succisella inflexa (Klik) G. Beck (Scabiosa inflexa Kluk., V *1, *2 +3 ± Succisa inflexa (Kluk.) Jundz.) Droseraceae Aldrovanda vesiculosa L. R *1, *2, *3 +3 + Drosera intermedia L. V *1, *2 +1, +3 ± Drosera rotundifolia L. R *1, *2 +1, +3 ± Elatinaceae Elatine alsinastrum L. R *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Elatine hydropiper L. V *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Ericaceae Andromeda polifolia L. C *1, *2 +3 ± Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng. (Arbutus uva-ursi L.) V *1, *2 +3 ± Oxycoccus palustris Pers. (O. quadripetalus Gilib., Vaccinium C *1, *2 +3 ± oxycoccus L.) Fabaceae Astragalus arenarius L. R *1; *3 +3 ± Chamaecytisus lindemannii (V. Krecz.) Klaskova (Cytisus P *1; *3 +3 ± lindemannii V. Krecz.) Genista germanica L. P *1, *3 +2 ± Trifolium rubens L. V *1, *3 +3 ± Vicia pisiformis L. R *1, *3 +3 ± Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 155

Latin name

Trend in Trend

dynamics

Abundance

conservation conservation

Assessment of Assessment

Significance of Significance

Fumaricaceae

Corydalis cava (L.) Schweigg. & Koerte (C. bulbosa (L.) C *1, *3 +3 + Pers., C. tuberosa DC., Fumaria cava (L.) Mill.) Gentianaceae Gentiana cruciata L. R *1, *2 +3 ± Gentiana pneumonanthe L. R *1, *2 +3 ± Haloragaceae Myriophyllum alterniflorum DC. P *1, *2 +3 ± Hippuridaceae Hippuris vulgaris L. (H. lanceolata Retz., H. melanocarpa N. V *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Semen.) Lamiaceae (Labiatae) Dracocephalum ruyschiana L. P *1 +3 ± Salvia pratensis L. R *1, *3 +3 ± Stachys recta L. (S. czernjaevii Shost., S. transsilvanica V *1, *2 +3 ± Schur) Lentibulariaceae Utricularia intermedia Hayne. V *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Lythraceae Lythrum hyssopifolia L. V *2, *3 +3 ± Middendorfia borysthenica (Bieb. ex Schrank) Trautv. V *2, *3 +3 ± (Lythrum borysthenica (Bieb. ex Schrank) Litv) Peplis alternifolia Bieb. (Lythrum volgense D. A. Webb.) V *2, *3 +3 ± Nympheaceae Nymphaea alba L. (N. minoriflora (Simonk.) Wissjul.) C *2, *3 +3 ± Nymphaea candida J. & C. Presl C *2, *3 +3 ± Oleaceae #Syringa josikaea Jacq P *1 +1 ± Onagraceae Circaea alpina L. P *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Papaveraceae #Glaucium flavum Crantz P *1 +1 - Parnassiaceae Parnassia palustris L. P *1; *2, *3 +3 ± Polemoniaceae Polemonium caeruleum L. R *1, *3 +3 ± Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 156

Latin name

Trend in Trend

dynamics

Abundance

conservation conservation

Assessment of Assessment

Significance of Significance Polygonaceae Bistorta officinalis Delarbre (B. major S.F. Gray, Polygonum C *1, *2, *3 +3 ± bistorta L., P. carneum C. Koch.) Rumex ucrainicus Fisch. ex Spreng. V *2, *3 +3 ± Primulaceae Centunculus minimus L. P *1, *2 +3 ± #Primula elatior (L.) Hill P *1 +1 - #Primula veris L. (P. officinalis (L.) Hill) P *1 +1 - Pyrolaceae Chimaphila umbellata (L.) Barton (Pyrola umbellata L.) R *1, *2 +3 ± Moneses uniflora (L.) Gray (M. grandiflora Salisb., Pyrola V *1, *2 +3 ± uniflora L.) Pyrola chlorantha Sw. (P. virens {P. virescens} Schweigg.) V *1, *2 +3 ± Ranunculaceae Aconitum lasiostomum Reichenb. P *1 +3 ± Anemone sylvestris L. P *1, *2, *3 +3 ± #Aquilegia vulgaris L. C *1 +3 ± Batrachium aquatile (L.) Dumort (B. carinatum Chur., B. V *1, *2 +3 ± giliberti V. Krecz., Ranunculus aquatilis L.) Batrachium fluitans (Lam.) Wimmer. (B. fluviatile (F.Weber) V *1, *2 +3 ± S.F. Gray, B. giliberti V. Krech., Ranunculus fluitans (Lam.) Batrachium trichophyllum (Chaix) Bosch (В. divaricatum V *1, *2 +3 ± (Schrank) Schur, Ranunculus trichophyllus Chaix) Clematis recta L. (С. lathyrifolia Bess. ex Rchb., С. V *2, *3 +3 ± pseudoflammula Schmalh. ex Lipsky) #Delphinium elatum L. (D. intermedium Soland., D. V *1 +1 + nocladense Zapal.) Hepatica nobilis Mill. (H. triloba Gilib., Anemone hepatica R *1, *3 +3 ± L.) #Isopyrum thalictroides L. V *2, *3 +1 ± Pulsatilla latifolia Rupr. (P. kioviensis Wissjul., P. patens (L.) V *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Mill., Anemone patens L., A. wolfgangiana (Bess.) Rupr.) Pulsatilla nigricans Störck. (P. pratensis (L.) Mill, Anemone V *1, *2, *3 +3 ± pratensis L., A. ucrainica (Ugrinsky) Wissjul.) Ranunculus polyphyllus Waldst. & Kit. ex Wild. R *1, *2 +3 ± Ranunculus reptans L. (R. flammula L. subsp. reptans (L.) V *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Syme) Thalictrum aquilegifolium L. V *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Thalictrum minus L. R *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Trollius europaeus L. P *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 157

Latin name

Trend in Trend

dynamics

Abundance

conservation conservation

Assessment of Assessment

Significance of Significance

Rosaceae

Agrimonia pilosa Ledeb. C *3 +3 ± #Aruncus dioicus (Walter) Fernald (=A. vulgaris Rafin., P *2 +1 - Spiraea aruncus L.) #Cerasus fruticosa (Pall.) Woron. P *1, *3 +1 ± Potentilla alba L. P *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Sanguisorba officinalis L. P *2, *3 +3 ± #Spiraea media Schmidt. (S. polonica Blocki) V *1, *2 +1 ± Rubiaceae Galium tinctorium (L.) Scop. (Asperula tinctoria L.) C *1, *3 +3 ± Galium trifidum L. (G. ruprechtii Pobed.) R *1, *3 +3 ± Salicaceae Salix lapponum L. V *1, *2 +3, +4 - Salix myrsinifolia Salisb. (S. nigricans Smith). R *2 +3 ± Salix myrtilloides L. R *1, *2 +3, +4 - Salix starkeana Willd. (S. livida Wahl.) V *1, *2 +3, +4 - Santalaceae Thesium ebracteatum Hayne. P *1, *3 +3 ± Saxifragaceae Saxifraga hirculus L. P *1, *2, *3 +3 ± Scrophulariaceae #Digitalis grandiflora Mill. (D. ambigua Murr.) V *1, *2 +1, +2 + Pedicularis palustris L. C *1, *2 +2, +3 ± Pedicularis sceptrum-carolinum L. P *1, *2 +2, +3 ± Veronica incana L. R *1, *3 +3 ± Veronica paczoskiana Klokov V *1, *3 +3 ± Veronica teucrium L. (V. latifolia L.) V *1, *3 +3 ± Thymelaeaceae Daphne mezereum L. P *1, *3 +3 ± Trapaceae Trapa natans L. C *2, *3 +3 + Urticaceae Urtica kioviensis Rogow. (U. dioica L. subsp. kioviensis P *1, *2, *3 +3 ± (Rogow.) Domin) Violaceae Viola montana L. V *1, *3 +3 ± Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 158

Latin name

Trend in Trend

dynamics

Abundance

conservation conservation

Assessment of Assessment

Significance of Significance Viola stagnina Kit. (V. commutata Waisb., V. persicifolia R *1, *3 +3 ± Schreb.) Viola uliginosa Bess. R *1, *3 +3 ±

Assessment of the ecosystems in the ChEZ for supporting the biodiversity and ecological balance in the Eastern European region

In terms of its vegetation, the ChEZ territory belongs to the zone of deciduous forests [The Eastern European ..., 1994]. This territory was completely covered by deciduous forests (Fig. 8). Starting from the 3rd-2nd century BC, they have been gradually destroyed and forest cover of the modern ChEZ area has decreased to 11-12%. A significant decline in the land fertility and impossibility of its further agricultural use made people revive restoration of forests. The first projects towards artificial reforestation were started in the 1920s, and in the 50-60s of the 20th century they became massive. Over that time, the area of forests increased fourfold, and the forest cover in the region was approximately 50%. After the Chornobyl accident, some of the lands have been naturally and artificially afforested, and the forest cover in the ChEZ has reached 57.8%.

The long-term anthropogenic impacts caused fragmentation and destruction of forest systems and individual species. An island pattern of the residual forests makes restoration of the mosaic-tier structure of phytocenoses much more complicated. The position of ChEZ in the modern zone of deciduous forests is illustrated by the sketch map of vegetation cover zones in the Eastern [The Eastern European ..., 1994].

According to the geobotanical zoning, the ChEZ is located in the Polissia subprovince of the European deciduous forest area in the forest zone. Most of ChEZ territory is referred to the Kyiv- Polissia geobotanical district of the oak and pine forests; and a part of ChEZ on the left bank of the Pripyat River is referred to the Polissia-Dnipro geobotanical district of pine and oak-pine forests and hornbeam oak dubravas, eutrophic marshes and flood-meadows. [Geobotanical zoning ..., 1977]. Within the Kyiv-Polissia district, ChEZ partially covers the Vilcha-Chornobyl, Narodnitske- Ivankiv and Hornostaipyl-Dymer geobotanical regions. Within the Polissia-Dnipro district, ChEZ covers the Zymovyshche geobotanical region and partially the Perhan-Vystupovychi geobotanical region; and the PSRER covers a part of the South Paliessie geobotanical region [Flora and Vegetation ..., 2002]. The Zymovyshche and Perhan-Vystupovychi regions, which adjoin the South Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 159

Paliessie geobotanical region, are sometimes also referred to as its parts [The vegetation cover, 1969].

Figure 8. Present position of the ChEZ (black circle) with regard to deciduous forests distribution. Northern borders of the forests: 1 – north-taiga, 2 – medium taiga, 3 – south taiga, 4 – deciduous and spruce, 5 – deciduous (including meadow steppes) of steppes, 6 – mixed-grass and feather-grass, 7 – typically feather-grass, 8 – desert; 9 – typical desert. The pollen content of broad-leaved tree species in the Mesoholocene spectra is as follows: 10 – 3-5%, 11 – 5-10%, 12 – 25-30 (50) %, 13 – modern distribution of deciduous forests, 14 – mountainous areas.

Most likely, phytocenosis where tree species of deciduous forests prevail (common oak, common ash, hornbeam, Norway maple, aspen ≈ about 6% of forested lands) were originally present on their modern growth sites. They were subject to greater or lesser changes, but still retained some aboriginal elements of biota, synusiae and tiers, which allows (and triggers) spontaneous self-restoration of the deciduous forest ecosystems (demutation).

The Polissia environmental corridor runs through ChEZ. It passes through the entire Ukrainian Polissia, through the entire zone of deciduous forests; and considerable amounts of boreal Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 160 species and plant communities (forest, swamp and meadow) are stored in its territory [Sheliah- Sosonko et. al., 2005]. The environmental corridor is the centre of specific postglacial vegetation and flora and one of the main bird migration routes.

Biodiversity of the Ukrainian Polissia was mainly formed out of specimens in the migration waves and is characterized by markedly fewer endemic and relict species. The Polissia environmental corridor was established to conserve oak, oak-pine, oak-lime, oak-hornbeam and pine pro-forests, meadows and the whole variety of swamps (oligo-, meso- and eutrophic ones). The following endemic, relict and rare species are found there: Dianthus pseudosquarrosus, D. polonicus, D. rogoviczii, Corispermum glabratum, Festuca polesica, Betula humilis, Salix myrtilloides, Chamaedaphne calyculata, Goodyera repens, Carex dioica, C. limosa, Daphne cneorum, Melittis sarmatica and many others.

There are 20 natural nuclei throughout the length of the Polissia environmental corridor, and the ChEZ area coincides with the Chornobyl nucleus. 96 species of higher vascular plants, which have a conservation status in Ukraine and the Republic of Belarus, were found here; 19 more species were found in the adjacent areas and can grow in similar existing ecotopes. Among these 115 species, 38 are included into the international conservation lists: 25 species are on the list of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), 11 species are on the list of the Bern Convention (BC), 5 species are on the list of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species [The Red Data Book of the Republic of Belarus, 2005, The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009].

79 species of natural flora in the ChEZ have conservation status, 25 of them are protected in both countries, 9 – in Ukraine only, 31 – in Belarus only, 1 is in CITES, 9 are in BC, 2 are in the IUCN Red List.

16 formerly cultivated species and 1 species that was brought in with construction gravel are subject to protection. They include: 3 species protected in both countries, 9 – in Ukraine only, 5 – in Belarus only, 2 are in CITES, 1 is in BC, 1 is in the IUCN Red List.

19 species of natural flora in the adjacent territories include: 7 species that are protected in both countries, 7 – in Ukraine only, 5 – in Belarus only, 6 are in CITES, 1 is in BC, and 2 are in the IUCN Red List.

In addition to the above-listed, 50 more plant species out of the locally found ones [3] require preventive monitoring in the Republic of Belarus according to the following categories: DD – data deficient (insufficient research was done into a taxon in order to assess its extinction threat), and LC – least concern (taxon requires attention). Another 75 regionally rare, endangered plant species require protection within the Kyiv region. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 161

Totally, 235 higher species out of the 1,228 known ones are to be protected in the ChEZ.

Also, the vegetative cenoses, which are listen on the Green Book of Ukraine, grow on the ChEZ waters [The Green Book of Ukraine, 2009], namely: Aldrovandeta vesiculosae; Myriophylleta alterniflori; Trapeta natantis; Nuphareta luteae; Sparganieta minimi; Ceratophylleta submersi; Nymphaeeta albae; Nymphaeeta candidae; Potamogetoneta praelongi; Potamogetoneta obtusifolii; Potamogetoneta rutili; Salvinieta natantis. There is a cenosis of spruce forests (Piceeta abietis) on the ChEZ west border. There are 13 communities in total

References

Flora and vegetation of the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve / Parfenov V.I., Maslovskyi O.M., Valetov V.V., Skuratovych A.P., Dubovik D.V., Stepanovych I.M., Voronetskyi N.N., Rykovskyi G.F., Dunin V.F., Piskunov V.S. - Mozyr: Publishing House "Belyi Veter" Ltd., 2002. - 112 p. (in Russian)

Geobotanical zoning of the Ukrainian SSR. - Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1977, pp. 73-136 (in Ukrainian)

Seliah-Sosonko Yu.R., Tkachenko V.S., Andrienko T.L., Movchan Ya.I. Environmental network of Ukraine and its natural nuclei // Ukr. Journal of Botany. - 2005, Vol. 62, No. 2. - pp. 142-158 (in Ukrainian)

The Eastern European deciduous forests / R.V. Popadiuk, A.A. Chystiakova, S.I. Chumachenko et. al.; Ed. by O.V. Smirnova – M.: Nauka, 1994 - 364 p. (in Russian)

The Green Book of Ukraine / Ed. by Ya.P. Didukh - K.: AlterPress, 2009. - 448 p. + 48 coloured p. (in Ukrainian)

The Red Data Book of the Republic of Belarus: rare and endangered species of wild plants. - Minsk: Bel. Encycl. - 2005. - 454 p. (in Russian)

The Red Data Book of Ukraine. Plant Community / Ed. by Ya.P. Didukh - Kyiv: Global Consulting, 2009. - 900 p. (in Ukrainian)

Vegetative cover of Belarus / Ed. by I.D. Yurkevych and V.S. Heltman. - Minsk, 1969. - 176 p. (in Russian)

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 162

Deliverables. Fauna in the ChEZ.

Introduction

Establishment of the Chornobyl Radiation and Ecological Biosphere Reserve (ChBR) in April 2016 [Presidential Decree, 2016] was the logical completion of activities to implement the national policy for the development of ecological network in Ukraine [, 2004]. Also, establishment of the reserve could contribute to addressing the whole range of problems that have accumulated in the exclusion zone and in the zone of absolute (mandatory) resettlement (ChEZ). Firstly, after the completion of initial and most difficult stages in overcoming the consequences of the Chornobyl accident and after the significant mitigation and stabilization of the radiation situation, there was an urgent need to identify a long-term management strategy for the lands withdrawn from economic uses in 1986. Secondly, the radiation situation and ecological characteristics of the area still excluded renewal of traditional economic activities or substantially impeded its implementation. Finally, value of the natural complexes formed in ChEZ and their continental importance (taking into account its total area of approximately 4,750 km2 jointly with Belarusian Polessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve) required a thoughtful and consistent approach to the issues of their protection and research.

Nonetheless, different quality of sites in ChEZ is not in doubt. And areal zoning dealing with lands’ usage and protection conditions should be based on it. However, there are only a few clear ideas in this regard, just like in the period that preceded the reserve establishment. There are a very few research groups working in this direction, and there are also few scientists, who study the biodiversity of ChEZ. Comprehensive assessments of the lands’ conservation value were carried out only for a few sites occupying not more than 15% of the ChEZ total area [SSRI Report ..., 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015]; therefore, their continuation should be prioritized in the early years of ChBR.

The value criteria include diversity of animal and plant species, number of rare (protected) and highly-specific species, and the role of sites in their conservation, support and expansion.

This report deals with the issues of biological diversity (mainly vertebrates) of ChEZ fauna, with an emphasis on protected species and consideration of the role of certain sites in their lives. The report is based on the results of literature data analysis and the author’s field research.

References

Decree of the No. 174/2016 "On the establishment of the Chornobyl Radiation and Ecological Biosphere Reserve" (dated April 26, 2016). Kyiv (in Ukrainian). Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 163

Law of Ukraine "On the environmental network of Ukraine" (No. 1864-IV of June 24, 2004). Kyiv (in Ukrainian).

SSRI Report "Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology", 2012, on the research results for the "Studying and identification of sites in the exclusion zone with the most valuable natural complexes that are worthy of the highest conservation status and their characterization" (KPKV 3202110). , 2012. – 107 p. (in Ukrainian).

SSRI Report "Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology", 2013, on the research results for “Studying and identification of sites in the exclusion zone with the most valuable natural complexes that are worthy of the highest conservation status and their characterization" (KPKV 3202110). Slavutych, 2013. – 71 p. (in Ukrainian).

SSRI Report "Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology", 2014, on the research results for “Studying and identification of sites in the exclusion zone with the most valuable natural complexes that are worthy of the highest conservation status and their characterization" (KPKV 3202110). Slavutych, 2014. – 64 p. (in Ukrainian).

SSRI Report "Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology", 2015, on the research results for “Studying and identification of sites in the exclusion zone with the most valuable natural complexes that are worthy of the highest conservation status and their characterization" (KPKV 3202110). Slavutych, 2015. – 115 p. (in Ukrainian).

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 164

The current status of studying CEZ fauna

Research of the invertebrate fauna was mainly focused on those phenomena that occurred in communities of various ecosystems due to the changes caused by stopped economic activity and/or radioactive contamination effects. The most of studies were carried out by the experts of SSE “Ecocenter” in cooperation with the National University of Bio-resources and Environmental Management (Ukraine), Institute of Plant Protection (Ukraine), All-Russian Research Institute of Plant Protection and All-Russian Research Institute of Agricultural Radiology and Agricultural Ecology [Radioecological Aspects ..., 2012, Haichenko et al., 2016]. Their studies covered almost the entire period after the Chornobyl accident and were focused on the processes of arthropod communities’ formation in former agrocenoses after being taken out of service. They demonstrated that changes in the structure and relative abundance of arthropods followed transformations of plant communities. Whereby, radiation contamination did not have any effect in most cases. In addition, development of the plant communities towards the formation of natural complexes resulted in an increased diversity of invertebrates. For example, the abundance of phytophagous insect species increased five-fold during the period from 1995 to 2009. Generally, the fluctuations in qualitative and quantitative characteristics, which are observed in arthropod communities over the last 15-20 years, are mainly due to abiotic factors (weather, climate, seasonal changes), as well as due to their intra- and inter-species relationships. Unfortunately, the most attention in the studies was paid to large taxonomic groups, and individual species got less attention. Therefore, there are practically no available data on the presence, distribution and status of rare invertebrate species.

The radiation contamination effects in invertebrate fauna were also studied by some foreign groups. In particular, the researchers from the French Universite'Paris-Sud and from the University of South Carolina (USA) [Moller, Mousseau, 2009] have obtained mixed results indicating a decrease in the abundance of bumblebees, butterflies, grasshoppers, dragonflies and spiders with increasing contamination of sites, which contradict all previous studies in ChEZ. In this regard, in 2015-2017 and within the framework of the TREE project (http://tree.ceh.ac.uk/), researchers from the University of Sterling (UK) with the assistance of the Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology (Ukraine), SSE “Ecocenter” (Ukraine) and the Institute of Hydrobiology of the Ukrainian NAS started the works to study radiation effects in the fruit flies (drosophila) (http://tree.ceh.ac.uk/content/population-genetics-drosophila), bumblebees (http://tree.ceh.ac.uk/content/ecological-impacts-radiation) and daphnia (http://tree.ceh.ac.uk/content/radiation-effects-daphnia-pulex). During the studies, special attention was paid to the assessment of dose burdens. Also, the studies addressed radiation impact on the abundance, diversity, reproduction, and genetic effects. To date (2017), the project is at the stage of Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 165 received data processing. The study of bumblebees has prospects to provide information on composition and distribution of their species in ChEZ, including the species listed in the Red Data Book of Ukraine (2009).

Over the last 15 years, the fauna of invertebrate hydrobionts in ChEZ is mostly being studied by researchers from the Institute of Hydrobiology of the Ukrainian NAS [Hudkov et al., 2009, 2015]. Similarly to the most of research within ChEZ, the main emphasis is made on studying radionuclides accumulation and assessing radiation exposure effects. The biodiversity and its changes are assessed only for large taxonomic groups. Data on the composition of species can be obtained only for the most abundant species. The above-mentioned studies are focused on the invertebrate fauna of the ChNPP cooling pond and some lakes in the Pripyat River’s floodplain; the rest of rivers and lakes in ChEZ stay non-investigated. The studies note that qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the biodiversity primarily depend on seasonal changes. The researchers draw attention to the fact that decommissioning of the ChNPP cooling pond (draining of water to the natural level) shall result in drastic changes in the hydrochemical conditions and, as a consequence, in serious changes in the composition of species and quantity., It will cause a general depletion of local biocenoses. Studies of hydrobionts, which are carried out by researchers from western universities (for example, Jim T. Smith, Adelaide Lerebours, University of Portsmund (UK)) deal exclusively with eco-toxicological issues and do not provide any idea about the biodiversity of water bodies within ChEZ.

In 2013-2017, a pilot project to assess the diversity and distribution of earthworm species in ChEZ was performed within the framework of the pan-European Project COMET (Emmanuel Lapied, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Oslo, Norway). Its preliminary results were obtained to demonstrate that this group of animals does not have great variety and abundance, which is due to agrochemical characteristics of local soils.

Fish in ChEZ were studied much more often. The biggest amount of data was obtained by the experts from the Institute of Nuclear Research of NASU (O.L. Zarubin), Institute of Hydrobiology of NASU (D.N. Hudkov, O.E. Kahlian), SSE "Ecocenter" (A.A. Zalisskyi, O.B. Nazarov), Russian Institute of Ecology and Evolution named after A.N. Severtsov (I.N. Riabov, N.I. Poliakova). Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of these works were focused on radioecology issues (contamination of and radiation effects). Much less papers are devoted to the diversity and changes of ichthyofauna species in 1986-2017 [Riabov, 2006, Gashchak et al., 2006, Hudkov et al., 2015]. According to the research data, the changes that occurred in the fish fauna had several stages and reflected human influence to one degree or another. In particular, the removal of anthropogenic pressure (cessation of fishing) has firstly resulted in the increased diversity of species in the local rivers. Negative effects (pestilence of fish) were caused by climatic Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 166 factors and occasionally by human-caused pollution. However, the stop of ChNPP operation produced changed hydrothermal and hydrochemical conditions in the ChNPP cooling pond (which the best studied water body in ChEZ), which resulted in disappearance of invasive species that have been introduced during previous decades, and in the restructuring of ichthyocomplexes towards the locally natural ones. And further decommissioning of the cooling pond (drainage of water to its natural level) promises to aggravate the situation and shall lead to a substantial depletion of the ichthyofauna. But this exclusively applies to the cooling pond. The diversity of fish species in the Pripyat and Uzh Rivers, as well as in the ChEZ lakes, should not be subject to changes. Nevertheless, the composition of ichthyocomplexes in most of ChEZ water bodies is poorly studied now, similarly to the previous period. There are only fragmentary data on the "Red Data Book" species.

The local fauna of amphibians and reptiles remains practically unstudied. Currently, only fragmentary data, which are collected from other studies, are available [Gashchak et al., 2006, 2009]. Nonetheless, habitation of the smooth snake (which is the only arealogically possible "Red Book" species) has been ascertained.

The most studied local group of animals are birds. In 2006, we presented the first review of composition of the bird species and the data available on each species [Gashchak et al., 2006]. At that time, 186 bird species have been registered in ChEZ; they stayed there for nesting and during seasonal migration periods. At the same time, amounts of data on each species were very different; and the group of seasonally migrating birds and those staying in ChEZ only in winter was obviously under-studied. As of 2017, we already know about the presence of 203 bird species, including the 32 species listed in the "Red Data Book" of Ukraine (2009) (see below). In addition to the general overview of the avifauna, some studies were focused on the diversity of birds on the sites within ChEZ, which are the most valuable in terms of their conservation status, namely:

1. The site of “Tovstyi Lis” [SSRI Report …, 2012, Gashchak, Domashevskyi, 2013], 2. The site of “Novoselky” [SSRI Report …, 2012], 3. The site of “Horodyshche” [SSRI Report …, 2013], 4. The site of “Budniansko-Rechytski Luha” [SSRI Report …, 2014], However, a lack of experts working on this issue prevented from obtaining data on the reproduction of birds, long-term dynamics and development of ornithocomplexes. The available information is either limited to the research data obtained in the first years after the accident [Mykytiuk et al., 1990, Haber, Halynska, 1993, Mykytiuk, 1995, Sabinevskyi, 1995, Lebedeva et al., 1996, Haichenko, 2001], when the conditions were significantly different from the present ones, or have not been published yet (the author’s data). Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 167

The scientists paid special attention to carnivore birds in ChEZ. The studies were performed by the Ukrainian Research Center for Carnivore Birds, and allowed description of the status and prevalence of owls and daylight carnivore birds, i.e. the group that constitutes the main share (18 out of 32) of the local “Red Data Book” species [Domashevsky et al., 2012, Domashevsky, Chyzhevskyi, 2009]. Registrations of some birds in ChEZ (the pygmy owl, great grey owl, spotted eagle) are among the few facts of their recording in Ukraine. At the same time, these studies provide practically no data on these species’ reproduction and feeding; there is very little data on their territorial distribution and preferences, little information on their quantity dynamics and possible risks.

Also, there were radioecological research of birds in ChEZ. In 2003-2005, the Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology jointly with the University of South Carolina (USA) was assessing the radioactive contamination parameters of Passeriformes by the method of intravital measurements [Gashchak et al., 2008, 2009, Gashchak et al., 2009]. The study provided the data on 44 species inhabiting different sites in ChEZ.

A particular attention should get the set of researches, which was carried out by the international team led by Anders P. Moller () and Timothy A. Mousseau (USA) [Moller, Mousseau, 2007a, b, c, 2009, Moller et al., 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012]. To a greater or lesser extent, it dealt with the biology of reproductive period and development of birds (mostly, the barn swallow and cavity nesting birds), as well as with the ornithocomplexes’ diversity; however exclusively in the context of radiation exposure effects. One of the papers is devoted to the recording of carnivore birds [Moller, Mousseau, 2009]. The radiobiological focus does not allow use of the obtained data for the assessment of bird species composition, distribution and relative abundance within the entire region. The data presented in the papers were obtained in a limited quantity and from the same points, and description of the research methodology raises doubts as to the validity of presented conclusions. Moreover, the data do not add any new information to the previously obtained ideas about avifauna within ChEZ [Gashchak, 2000, Gashchak et al., 2006]. Nonetheless, these are among the few published papers that contain data on the parameters of reproductive period for a series of species.

Currently, within the framework of the TREE Project (http://tree.ceh.ac.uk/), researchers from the University of Stirling (UK) with the assistance of the Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology (Ukraine), have started a new research on the nesting biology of the cavity nesting birds living on sites with different radioecological conditions (http://tree.ceh.ac.uk/content/investigation-exposure-radioactive-contaminants-free-living-birds). And although the project’s goal is to assess the effects of radiation exposure, the end results also tend to provide extensive information on reproductive period of the birds. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 168

Mammals in ChEZ were studied to varying degrees. Despite a large number of studies conducted in the first years after the accident (and especially by the Institute of Zoology of the Ukrainian NAS), they gave only general ideas about the composition and dynamics of the fauna, and only about the first period [Boiarchuk et al., 1990, Haichenko et al., 1990, Haichenko et al., 1993, Haichenko et al., 1994, Taskaev, Testov, 1999]. Most of the studies were focused on radiation effects, while the issues of biodiversity, population development and interspecies relationships have got almost no attention. The full list of species registered within ChEZ, with an annotated description of each one, was firstly presented in 2006 only [Gashchak et al., 2006]. Totally, 60 species have been registered by now, including the 22 species listed on the “Red Data Book” of Ukraine (2009). The best studied among them are the small mammals: mouse rodents and shrew mice [Baker et al., 1996, Gashchak et al., 2000, Oleksiuk et al., 2004, Wickliffe et al., 2003, Makliuk et al., 2006, Vyshnevskyi, 2006, Hoffer et al., 2007, Gashchak et al., 2008, Beresford et al., 2008]. Generally, most of these studies were also aimed at the assessments of dose burdens and radiation exposure effects. However, they can provide some data on the species composition on various sites in ChEZ, on their sex-age structure and development trends in the populations. There is a paper presenting data on mass indexes in organs and tissues for a model species, i.e. the bank [Makliuk et al., 2006]. During the genetic research that began in ChEZ and gradually spread over almost the entire Ukraine, first established was the presence of a new form of field mouse Sylvaemus sylvaticus, of a subspecies or even species rank [Hoffer et al., 2007, Gashchak et al., 2008]. Nevertheless, the multiyear dynamics of population indicators is almost not described. Also, there are very little or absolutely no data on some species. Currently, regular studies of small mammals are conducted in ChEZ (by the researchers from the Kyiv Shevchenko National University, Center for Ecology and Hydrology (UK)), but results of the research will be known later.

The second most studied group of mammals are bats, which are listed on the “Red Data Book” of Ukraine in corpora (2009). Until 2007, when systematic studies began, there were practically no ideas about them. The field work carried out in 2007-2013 with the participation of experts from the Kharkiv Karazin National University and from the Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology made it possible to firstly describe the species composition, status of their presence in ChEZ, sex-age structure, relative abundance and distribution pattern [Gashchak et al., 2009, 2013, Vlashchenko et al., 2010]. These studies have identified the ChEZ sites, which were the most valuable in terms of bats conservation. A separate study of their radioactive contamination has indirectly provided an idea of diet impact on the studied parameters [Gashchak et al., 2010]. Nonetheless, many questions remain open. In particular, there is still little data on mother colonies and on the success of bats reproduction in Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 169

ChEZ. There is no data on their nutrition and interspecies relationships. The lack of data for a wide range of species is due to a lack of research. There is practically no information on migration seasons and wintering of the bats.

Despite the fact that these mammals most often catch our eye, there is very little data on ungulates in ChEZ, and the data are surface and fragmentary [Boiarchuk et al., 1990, Haichenko et al., 1990, Haichenko et al., 1993, Haichenko et al. ., 1994, Haichenko, 2001, Gashchak et al., 2006, Zharkykh, Yasynetska, 2008]. This also holds true for the and hares. In most cases, the methodology of information gathering is either not described at all, or its adequacy gives rise to doubt. No classical recording of the ungulates were made, almost all assessments are based on indirect data and do not reflect the actual state [Vyshnevskyi, Kotliarov, 2008]. At the same time, it is quite obvious that large mammals are an important component of local ecosystems and are of a considerable environmental value.

There is also a lack of data on most carnivore mammals; mostly we know about the and [Boiarchuk et al., 1990, Zhyla, 1997, 1999, 2002, 2012, Shkvyria, 2005, Gashchak et al., 2006, Dykyi et al., 2015, Shkvyria, Vyshnevskyi, 2012]. A statement of approximate number of animals is too little to understand the role of higher carnivores in ChEZ ecosystems. Information about and weasels, foxes, raccoon dogs is generally limited to a statement about their presence.

Generally, all studies of the large mammals conducted in ChEZ in 1986-2017 had simplified approaches and outdated methodologies. Taking into account the size of the area and complexity of the situation, they cannot actually provide a high-quality scientific data. The recent studies of in the territory of the neighbouring Polessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve (Belarus) by means of satellite transmitters [Dombrovskyi, 2017a, b] demonstrated that our knowledge about the relationship within both the predator-prey system and the carnivore population would be much richer on condition of applying modern technologies.

The tarpans are among the few exceptions with regard to the level of knowledge about them. They were brought into the region in 1998. In the first decade after the introduction, their periodic observations were conducted by researchers from the Askania-Nova Biosphere Reserve, Institute of Zoology of the Ukrainian NAS, and SSE “Ecocenter” [Zharkykh et al, 2002, Slivinska, 2005, Vyshnevskyi, 2005, Zharkykh, Yasynetska, 2008, Yasynetska, Zvehyntsova, 2013]. The data on gender, age and social structure, mortality and fertility, population dynamics and territorial behaviour, nutrition and parasites of the horses were obtained then. At the same time, the researchers noted that since the mid-2000s monitoring of the horses was seriously complicated by the reforestation processes in former meadows. In the beginning, control of three dozen animals was Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 170 possible; however, now even a hundred horses are almost invisible. It is obvious that new research techniques are needed.

Automatic registration of animals by photo traps is among the techniques. We applied it for the first time in 2001-2005 with the assistance of the Texas Technological University [Gashchak, 2008]. Then used film-type cameras and energy inefficient electronics posed many restrictions and would not allow making quantitative recordings, as well as describing fauna of the sites in general. However, we obtained an irreplaceable experience in working with photo traps in the field. Starting from 2012, we started application of modern digital photo traps for the comprehensive description of lands having valuable natural complexes [SSRI Report ..., 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015]. Due to this technique, we obtained data on the sites fauna and even proved habitation of some new species (the lynx, bear, ). The efficient use of photo traps in our studies has formed a basis for a large international project. In 2014-2016, using 42 photo traps, the Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology (Ukraine) jointly with the Center for Ecology and Hydrology (UK) has assessed the dynamics of faunal complexes on the three sites with a radius of 5 km (http://tree.ceh.ac.uk/content/exposure-uncertainty). So far, only two papers have been published basing on the research results. They describe exceptional cases of registering the and the bison in ChEZ [Gashchak et. al., 2016, 2017]; this is about the animals that have not been locally seen for hundreds of years. But the obtained information (over 8,500 registrations of animals) is much more extensive. On its basis, publications on relative abundance of different species, structure of ungulate populations, biotopic preferences of animals and seasonal phenomena in their life shall be prepared. However, searches for the bison and the bear should be continued. Analysis of the available data suggests that these animals also live in some other ChEZ areas, where photo traps have not been installed yet. The same technique should also be applied to the tarpan due to the complexity of its monitoring in forest conditions.

Currently, similar studies with the use of photo traps are also conducted by the following: 1) international team led by Mr. Timothy Mousseau (USA, University of South Carolina) and including researchers from SSE "Ecocenter" and Kyiv Shevchenko National University; 2) Mr. M. Shkvyria (Institute of Zoology of the Ukrainian NAS); 3) Mr. S.A. Paskevych (Institute for NPP Safety Problems of the Ukrainian NAS). Results of their studies have not been published yet.

The above mentioned works on the comprehensive description of sites, which the Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology was performing since 2012, included not only recording of birds and registration of large mammals by means of photo traps. We also assessed radioecological, forest, plant, and landscape conditions, were searching for rare plant species. We searched for and mapped nests of large birds, assessed the species composition of bats. Basing on the observation results, we assessed the degree of the lands’ anthropogenic Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 171 transformation and prospects for their protection. To date, only 4 ChEZ sites with the gross area of approximately 26,800 hectares (or only 10% of the ChEZ total area) have got the relevant description [SSRI Report ..., 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015]. We may also add to this end some 10,000 hectares of other areas that do not partially or completely coincide with the above sites, where the studies of large were conducted by means of photo traps in 2014-2016 (TREE Project, UK) [SSRI Report..., 2016]. Therefore, approximately 85% of ChEZ area do not have such descriptions at all. Due to the establishment of the Chornobyl Radioecological Biosphere Reserve, such studies should become a priority, because they form an information base for the justified zoning of the territory and for the implementation of environmental and scientific activities.

References Baker R.J., Hamilton M.J., Bussche R., Wiggins L.E., Sugg D.W., Smith M.H., Lomakin M., Gashchak S., Bundova E. Small mammals from the most radioactive sites near the Chornobyl plant // Journal of Mammalogy, 1996. — 77 (1): 155–170 (in English).

Beresford N.A., S. Gashchak, C.L. Barnett, B.J. Howard, I. Chyzhevskyi, G. Strømann, D.H. Oughton, S.M. Wright, D. Copplestone, A. Maksymenko. Estimating the exposure of small mammals at three sites within the Chornobyl exclusion zone – a test application of the ERICA-Tool // Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 2008. — 99:1496–1502 (in English).

Boiarchuk V.P., Kryzhanovskyi V.I., Kolesnik A.D. et al. Hunting resources of the 30-km zone and strategy of their use // Reports of the 2nd All-Union scientific-technical meeting on the results of the liquidation of the Chornobyl accident consequences. - Chornobyl, 1990. - 6 (3): 435-448 (in Russian). Dombrovskyi V. (2017a) About the life of Chornobyl wolves. Results of radio tracking / Wildlife of Belarus (Wildlife.by), 02/20/2017 (https://wildlife.by/science/articles/iz-zhizni-Chornobyl skikh-volkov- rezultaty-radioslezheniya/?sphrase_id=1951) (in Russian). Dombrovskyi V. (2017b) The wolf’s fate: results of radio tracking in the Chornobyl zone / Wildlife of Belarus (Wildlife.by), 30.10.2017 (https://wildlife.by/science/articles/sudba-volka-rezultaty- radioslezheniya-v-Chornobyl skoy-zone/) (in Russian). Dykyi I.V., Shkvyria, M.G., Hoietskyi P.B. Modern state of the brown bear population in Ukraine: spatial structure and ecology characteristics, abundance and research methods // The Brown Bear (Ursus arctos): problems of conservation and population studies in Ukraine / Scientific editors I.V. Dykyi, M.G. Shkvyria. - Kyiv: TOV "SIK HRUP UKRAINA", 2015. - pp. 36-72 (in Ukrainian). Haber N.A., Halinskaia I.A. Results of oolological studies in the Chornobyl NPP 30-km zone // Reports of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, 1993. - 1: 123-127 (in Russian). Haichenko V.A. Characteristics of wild animals’ life under the conditions of radioactive contamination of biogeocoenoses // Collection of scientific works: Chornobyl. Exclusion zone. – K.: Naukova Dumka, 2001. - pp. 317-324 (in Ukrainian). Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 172

Haichenko V.A., Zhezherin I.V., Nebohatkin I.V. Changes in the species composition and number of small mammals in the Chornobyl NPP 30-km zone in the post-accident period // Mammals of Ukraine. - K.: Naukova Dumka, 1993. - pp. 153-164 (in Russian). Haichenko V.A., Kryzhanovskyi V.I., Stovbchatyi V.N. et al. Ecological situation in the 30-km zone of the Chornobyl NPP and its changes during the 3 post-accident years // Reports to the 2nd All-Union scientific-technical meeting on the results of the liquidation of the Chornobyl accident consequences. - Chornobyl, 1990. - 6 (3): 4-11 (in Russian). Haichenko V.A., Kryzhanovsky V.I., Stovbchatyi V.N. The state of fauna complexes of the Chornobyl NPP exclusion zone in the post-accident period // Ecological and faunistic studies in the Chornobyl NPP zone: Coll. - K., 1994. - pp. 4-18. - (Preprint / NAS of Ukraine, Institute of Zoology named after I. Shmalhauzen, 94.5, issue 1) (in Russian). Haichenko V.A., Chaika V.M., Buntova O.G., Krainiuk O.Yu. The micro evolutionary shifts in the populations of in the Chornobyl exclusion zone and their potential consequences for the agrocenoses of the adjoining areas // Nuclear Physics and Power Engineering, 2016. - 17 (2): 180-188 (in Ukrainian). Gashchak S., Bondarkov M., Makliuk Yu., Maksymenko A., Martynenko V., Chyzhevskyi I., Mousseau Ta. Assessment of radionuclide export from Chornobyl zone via birds 18 years following the accident // Radioprotection, 2009. — 44 (5): 849–852. – (Proceedings of the International congress organized by IRSN: Radioecology and environment radioactivity – ECORAD-2008. 15–20 June, 2008, Bergen, Norway) (in English).

Gashchak S.P., Beresford N.A., Maksymenko A.M., Vlaschenko A.S. -90 and -137 activity concentrations in the bats in the Chornobyl exclusion zone // Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 2010. — 49 (4): 635–644. (doi: 10.1007/s00411-010-0322-0) (in English). Gashchak S.P., Huliaichenko Y.O., Beresford N.A., Wood M.D. The brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) in the Chornobyl exclusion zone // Proceedings of Theriological School. — Vol. 14 (2016): 71–84 (in English). Gashchak S.P., Huliaichenko Y.O., Beresford N.A., Wood M.D. The (Bison bonasus) in the Chornobyl exclusion zone (Ukraine) and prospects for its revival // Proceedings of Theriological School. — Vol. 15 (2017): 58–66 (in English). Gashchak S.P. Ornithofauna of the evacuated city of Pripyat // Bulletin of Zoology, 2000. - Suppl. 14: 90- 100 (in Russian) Gashchak S.P. About the experience of automatic photographing of wild animals in the Chornobyl zone // Rare theriofauna and its protection / Ed. by I. Zahorodniuk. - Luhansk, 2008. - pp. 28-36 - (Proceedings of the Theriological School, Issue 9) (in Ukrainian). Gashchak S.P., Bondarkov M.D., Makliuk Yu.A., Maksymenko A.M., Martynenko V.I., Chyzhevskyi I.V. The inventory of 90Sr and 137Cs in the biomass of birds within the Chornobyl zone and the amount of radionuclide outlet by the birds beyond its boundaries // Problems of the Chornobyl exclusion zone, 2009. - 9: 87-101 (in Russian). Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 173

Gashchak S.P., Buntova E.G., Rudenskaya G.A., Chyzhevskyi I.V. Characteristics of species composition of the insectivorous (Insectivora) and rodents (Rodentia) in the Chornobyl exclusion zone // Bulletin of Zoology, 2000. - 34 (6): 51-56 (in Russian). Gashchak S.P., Vlashchenko A.S., Nahlov A.V. Research data on fauna and radioactive contamination of bats in the Chornobyl exclusion zone in 2007-2009 // Problems of the Chornobyl exclusion zone, 2009. - 9: 102-124 (in Russian). Gashchak S.P., Vlashchenko A.S., Nahlov A.V., Kravchenko K.A., Prilutska A.S. The fauna of bats in the exclusion zone in the context of the assessment of its sites’ conservation value // Problems of the Chornobyl exclusion zone, 2013. - 11: 56-79 (in Russian). Gashchak S.P., Domashevskyi S.V. Ornithocomplexes of “Tovstyi Lis" site as a prerequisite for the giving it a conservation status // Problems of the Chornobyl exclusion zone, 2013. -11: 80-90 (in Ukrainian). Gashchak S.P., Makliuk Yu.A., Maksymenko A.M., Bondarkov M.D. Radioecology of amphibians in the Chornobyl zone // Problems of the Chornobyl exclusion zone, 2009. - 9: 76-86 (in Russian) Gashchak S.P., Makliuk Yu.A., Maksymenko A.M., Maksymenko V.M., Martynenko V.I., Chyzhevskyi I.V., Bondarkov M.D., Mousseau T.A. The characteristics of radioactive contamination of small birds in the Chornobyl zone in 2003 - 2005 // Radiobiology. Radioecology, 2008. - 48 (1): 28-47 (in Russian). Gashchak S.P., Hoofer S., Makliuk Yu.A., Meeks H., Wickliffe D., Baker R. About the species diversity of the Sylvaemus genus mice in Ukraine // Rare theriofauna and its protection / Ed. by І. Zahorodniuk. - Luhansk, 2008. - pp. 80-92. - (Proceedings of Theriological School, Issue 9) (in Russian). Hoofer S.R., Gashchak S., Dunina-Barkovskaia Y., Makliuk Yu., Meeks H.N., Wickliffe J.K., Baker R.J. DNA sequence sariation, systematics, and phylogeography of the genus Apodemus (Sylvaemus) in Ukraine // J. Mammalogy, 2007. — 88 (2): 330–342 (in English).

Hudkov D.I., Nazarov A.B., Dziubenko Ye.V., Kaglian A.Ye., Klenus V.G. Radioecological studies of freshwater mollusks in the Chornobyl exclusion zone // Radiation Biology. Radioecology, 2009. - 49 (6): 703 -713 (in Russian). Hudkov D.I., Protasov A.A., Shcherbak V.I., Diachenko T.N., Kaglian A.E., Silaieva A.A., Pashkova O.V. Modern hydrobiological and radioecological state of the Chornobyl NPP cooling pond // Reports of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 2015. - 1: 173-179 (in Russian). Lebedeva N.V., Riabtsev I.A., Beloglazov M.V. Radioecology of a model species; populations of the great tit in Chornobyl // Abstract of the report: V International scientific and technical conference "Chornobyl- 96". – Zelenyi Mys, 1996. - pp.361-362 (in Russian).

Makliuk Yu.A., S.P. Gashchak, A.I. Lipskaia, A.I. Maksymenko. Assessment of 90Sr and 137Cs distribution in organs and tissues of the bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus) under the conditions of the Chornobyl zone. // Nuclear Physics and Power Engineering, 2006. - 2 (18): 115-123 (in Russian).

Moller A., Mousseau T. Reduced abundance of insects and spiders linked to radiation at Chornobyl 20 years after the accident // Biology Letters, 2009. — 5: 356–359 (doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2008.077) (in English). Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 174

Møller A.P., Bonisoli-Alquati A., Rudolfsen G., Mousseau T.A. Chornobyl birds have smaller brains // PLoS ONE, 2011. — 6. — e16862 (in English).

Møller A.P., Bonisoli-Alquati A., Rudolfsen G., Mousseau T.A. Elevated mortality among birds in Chornobyl as judged from skewed age and sex ratios // PLoS ONE, 2012. — 7. — e35223 (in English).

Møller A.P., Karadaş F., Mousseau T.A. Antioxidants in of great tits Parus major from Chornobyl and hatching success // Journal of Comparative Physiology B, 2008. — 178: 735–743 (in English).

Moller A.P., Mousseau T.A. Birds prefer to breed in sites with low radioactivity in Chornobyl // Proceedings of the Royal Society. Biology, 2007a. — 274: 1443–1448 (doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0005) (in English).

Moller A.P., Mousseau T.A. Determinants of interspecific variation in population declines of birds after exposure to radiation at Chornobyl // Journal of Applied Ecology, 2007c. — 44: 909–919. (doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01353.x) (in English).

Moller A.P., Mousseau T.A. Reduced abundance of raptors in radioactively contaminated areas near Chornobyl // Journal of Ornithology, 2009. — 150: 239–246 (doi: 10.1007/s10336-008-0343-5) (in English).

Møller A.P., Mousseau T.A. Species richness and abundance of forest birds in relation to radiation at Chornobyl // Biology Letters, 2007b. — 3: 483–486 (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0226) (in English).

Møller A.P., Mousseau T.A., Milinevskyi G., Peklo A., Pysanets E., Sze´p T. Condition, reproduction and survival of barn swallows from Chornobyl // J. Anim. Ecol., 2005. —74: 1102–1111. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.01009.x) (in English).

Mykytiuk A.Yu. Change in the state of the aqueous wetland ornithocomplex in the Chornobyl NPP exclusion zone in the period from 1986 to 1992 / In the collection: Ecological and faunistic studies in the Chornobyl NPP zone. - Kyiv: "Medekol", UkrRNPF, 1995. - pp. 53-69 (in Russian).

Mykytiuk A.Yu., Haber N.A., Poluda A.M. et al. Ornithocomplexes of the ChNPP 30-km zone and their changes as impacted by the radiation factor // Reports to the 2nd All-Union scientific-technical meeting on the results of the liquidation of the Chornobyl accident consequences “Chornobyl-90”. Radioecological aspects of the accident consequences. - Chornobyl, 1990. - V. 6, part 3: pp. 582-599 (in Russian)

Oleksiuk T.K., Novak J.M., Perdue J.R., Gashchak S.P., Smith M.H. High levels of fluctuating asymmetry in populations of Apodemus flavicollis from the most contaminated areas in Chornobyl // Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 2004. — 73: 1–20 (in English).

Radioecological aspects and problems of plants protection against diseases and pests within an area contaminated with radionuclides // Editors in chief: I.N. Hudkov, E.H. Buntova, V.N. Chaika. - Kyiv- Chornobyl, 2012. – 187p. (in Russian). Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 175

Sabinevskyi B.V. About the state of terrestrial ornithocomplexes in the 30-km exclusion zone of the Chornobyl NPP / In Collection: Ecological and faunistic studies in the Chornobyl NPP zone. - Kyiv: "Medekol", UkrRNPF, 1995. - pp. 29-52 (in Russian).

Shkvyria M. Monitoring studies of large carnivore mammals in Ukrainian Polissia // Scientific Bulletin of the University of Uzhhorod. Biology Series, 2005 -17: 100-104 (in Ukrainian).

Shkvyria, M., Vyshnevskyi, D. Large carnivores of the Chornobyl NPP exclusion zone // Journal of Zoology, 2012. — 46 (3): 239–246 (in English). Slivinskaya K.A. The tarpan (Equus przewalskii Poljakov, 1881) under the conditions of the Chornobyl exclusion zone // Bulletin of the ecological state of the exclusion zone and the zone of absolute (mandatory) resettlement, 2005. - 1 (25): 37-41 (in Ukrainian).

SSRI Report "Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology", 2012, on the research results for the "Studying and identification of sites in the exclusion zone with the most valuable natural complexes that are worthy of the highest conservation status and their characterization" (KPKV 3202110). Slavutych, 2012. – 107 p. (in Ukrainian).

SSRI Report "Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology", 2013, on the research results for “Studying and identification of sites in the exclusion zone with the most valuable natural complexes that are worthy of the highest conservation status and their characterization" (KPKV 3202110). Slavutych, 2013. – 71 p. (in Ukrainian).

SSRI Report "Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology", 2014, on the research results for “Studying and identification of sites in the exclusion zone with the most valuable natural complexes that are worthy of the highest conservation status and their characterization" (KPKV 3202110). Slavutych, 2014. – 64 p. (in Ukrainian).

SSRI Report "Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology", 2015, on the research results for “Studying and identification of sites in the exclusion zone with the most valuable natural complexes that are worthy of the highest conservation status and their characterization" (KPKV 3202110). Slavutych, 2015. – 115 p. (in Ukrainian).

Taskaiev A.I., Testov B.V. Abundance and reproduction of mouse-like rodents in the zone of Chornobyl accident // Bioindication of radioactive contamination. - Moscow: Nauka, 1999. - pp. 200-205 (in Russian).

Vlaschenko A., Gashchak S., Gukasova A., Nahlov A. New record and current status of Nyctalus lasiopterus in Ukraine (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) // Lynx, n. s. (Prague), 2010. — 41: 209–216 (in English). Vyshnevskyi D. Sexual structure of small mammals populations in the Chornobyl NPP exclusion zone // Fauna in anthropogenic medium / Ed. by І.V. Zahorodniuk. - Luhansk, 2006. - pp. 56-58 (Proceedings of Theriological School, Issue 8) (in Russian) Vyshnevskyi D. Results of the tarpan (Equus przewalskii) introduction into the ChNPP exclusion zone // Scientific Bulletin of the University of Uzhhorod. Biology Series, 2005 - 17: 39-41 (in Ukrainian) Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 176

Vyshnevskyi D., Kotliarov O. The estimates of mammals macrofauna abundance in the Chornobyl NPP Exclusion Zone: analysis of various data sources // Rare theriofauna and its protection / Ed. by I. Zahorodniuk. - Luhansk, 2008. - pp. 21-37. (Proceedings of Theriological School, Issue 9) (in Ukrainian). Wickliffe J.K., Chyzhevskyi I., O’Neill M.B., Rodgers B.E., Dunina-Barkovskaia Y.V., Baker R.J. Identifying voucher specimens involving risk: Shrews from Chornobyl, Ukraine // Journal of Mammalogy, 2003 Feb. — 84 (1): 117–122 (in English).

Yasynetska N.I., Zvehyntsova N.S. Structure and current status of the tarpan population in the ChNPP zone // News of the Askaniia-Nova Biosphere Reserve, 2013. - 5: 203-211 (in Russian).

Zharkykh T., Yasynetska N. Route records of ungulates in the Chornobyl NPP exclusion zone // Rare theriofauna and its protection / Ed. by І. Zahorodniuk. - Luhansk, 2008. - pp. 219-222. (Proceedings of Theriological School, Issue 9) (in Russian). Zharkykh T.N., Yasynetska N.I. Demographic indicators of the tarpan (Equus przewalskii Polj., 1881) population in the Chornobyl NPP exclusion zone // Bulletin of Moscow Naturalist Society. Department of Biology. - 2008. - 113 (5): 3-9 (in Russian). Zharkykh T.N., Yasynetska N.I., Borovskyi A.N., Zvehyntsova N.S. Studying the population of tarpan in the Chornobyl NPP zone // Bulletin of Moscow Naturalist Society. Department of Biology, 2002. - 107 (5): 9-16 (in Russian). Zhyla S.M. Modern state of wolf population in Ukrainian Polissia // Bulletin of Zoology, 1999. - 33 (4-5): 115-117 (in Ukrainian). Zhyla S. Lynx in Ukrainian Polissia: state of the population and distribution // Bulletin of the University of Lviv. Biological series, 2002. - 30: 61-64 (in Ukrainian). Zhyla S. The population of lynx (Lynx lynx) in Ukrainian Polissia and action plan for its conservation // Variability and ecology of mammals / Ed. by I. Zahorodniuk. - Kyiv, 2012. - pp. 98-112 (Series: Proceedings of Theriological School, Volume 11) (in Ukrainian). Zhyla S.M. The brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) in Ukrainian Polissia. - Bulletin of Zoology, 1997. - 31 (3): 77 (in Ukrainian).

General description of ChEZ fauna and trends of its development after the Chornobyl accident

Generally, local fauna has formed as early as in the Pleistocene and Holocene (10,000 – 20,000 years ago) due to the comprehensive changes of conditions in the late Ice Age and after it [Kirikov, 1960, 1979]. It was a fauna of the southern zone of taiga (boreal) forests with a moderate climate: pine, broadleaf and mixed forests, podzolic and sandy soils, relative abundance of wetlands, presence of large and small rivers. Even a thousand years ago the fauna was rich. However, increase in the number of people and escalating human impact on nature have resulted in a considerable depletion of biocenoses. Some species have totally disappeared (aurochs, bison, Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 177 forest horse, wolverine, wildcat, bear, European mink), abundance of others has sharply decreased (elk, , lynx, upland game, predatory birds, cranes), some invasive species has appeared (, American mink, , a range of fish, rodent and bat species) [Gashchak et al. 2006, Zahorodniuk ???]. Reduction of forests (up to 13% of the total area by the early 20th century [Kuchma et al., 1998]) and drainage marshlands resulted in appearance of the species typical of steppe complexes (bustard, little bustard, pallid harrier, hamster). Construction of the Dnipro water reservoirs system facilitated penetration of animals, which previously inhabited only the lower reaches of the Dnipro River or even the (gannet, bearded tit, broadnosed pipefish, some gobies), to the north [Gashchak et al. 2006]. Development of natural and territorial residential systems (villages, cities, industrial zones) caused an increase in the number of synanthropic species (brown , house mouse, rock pigeon, barn swallow and common house martin, a range of bats, stray dogs and cats).

At the time of the Chornobyl accident, that was a region modified by humans to a great extent. Most of the area was covered by agricultural landscapes (45%) and pine plantations (40%). Former marshlands were covered by a network of drainage canals. Construction and development of the industrial complex around the Chornobyl NPP, up to 135,000 of total population, agricultural and forestry activities, hunting, fishing and have not contributed to the welfare of most species. For a long period of time, there no comprehensive descriptions of the local fauna were. A few and mostly outdated publications focused only on some groups of species. The studies conducted in the first years after the accident mostly pursued only the assessment of radiation exposure effects, and filled up the information gaps only partially. The first more or less complete report, and on the vertebrate fauna only, appeared in 2006 [Gashchak et al. 2006]. The situation at the time of the accident (1986) could be only judged from the synthesis of all available data and from the assumption that most of current species have been living in the area in at least previous 40- 50 years. The lack of data was firstly due to a lack of relevant research and secondly due to small number and sporadic distribution, which are the consequences of human deterrence: both direct (hunting and fishing, pursuit of "pest species") and indirect ones (disturbance and/or changes of living conditions). Generally, by the time of the accident, the region had a quantitative and qualitative imbalance in favour of the species that were in this or that way connected to humans and results of their economic activities. Wild forest, marshland and meadow zoo-cenoses were in a depressed state, animals were pushed into semi-natural "reservations" that had the lowest level of anthropogenic pressure (forests, remaining wetlands, rivers). Natural residential regions were inhabited by most flexible synanthropic species, or even urbanophilic and anthropophilic (the classification according to Hulai, 2006). Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 178

In May 1986, the situation changed drastically, and for some species even disastrously. 135,000 people and 35,000 of livestock were evacuated from the area of over 4,700 km2 (including the adjacent exclusion zone in Belarus); this corresponded to a removal of anthropogenic load of 9- 10 tons1 per a square kilometre, which is 1-2 orders of magnitude more than the biomass of all wild vertebrates that were living there then [Chornobyl Disaster, 1995]. Extremely favourable conditions have been formed for the wild flora and fauna; previously humans used to be a major constraint for them and agricultural animals and plants were undoubted competitors. Local artificially over- regulated ecosystems were left at the mercy of natural forces and began their development towards successive replacement of some phyto- and zoo-cenoses by others: from unstable complexes of anthropogenic environment to the balanced natural ones corresponding to the natural and geographical zone.

At the first stage, flexible and aggressive synanthropic species (with regard to assimilation into a space) with a high reproductive potential were the most advantageous. Firstly, these were mouse-like rodents, which are distinguished by a large yield and several generations per a year. Unharvested fields, abandoned grain depots, food stores and small number of predators resulted in an unprecedented local outburst of rodent abundance. In 1987, their number was up to 2,500 animals per a hectare [Haichenko et al., 1993, Taskaiev, Testov, 1999]. Afterwards, a number of predators increased (owls, day-light predatory birds, foxes, badgers and weasels). This phenomenon was of a short duration and was replaced by depression in the following year, and afterwards was a return to the level of natural long-term fluctuations (30-250 animals per a hectare) in 1989-1990. However, quantitative characteristics and species composition of the small mammals group (mouse- like rodents and shrews) depended to a large extent on current ecological conditions of a given site; therefore, sometimes they did not coincide with the local average [Haichenko et al., 1993, Taskaiev, Testov, 1999, Rozhdestvenskaia , 1995]. Apparently, the largest changes in the species abundance and structure occurred in agricultural cenoses and in abandoned settlements, whereas in the forests they were developing smoothly. During the first 5 years after the accident, the composition and structure of small mammal species have changed considerably as a result of the succession transformations and exhaustion of the human-abandoned food stocks. The house mice, which were a dominant species in the early years, disappeared from fallow and meadow lands, and in the 2000s they disappeared from many former settlements. Currently, the house mice and are found only in the places where people stay. Nonetheless, the composition of rodent and insectivores species has enriched. Gradual afforestation of former fields, pastures and hayfields benefited the tree and shrub species: bank vole, yellow-necked mouse, field mouse and dormouse. On the contrary, the relative abundance of meadow and field mice started to decline, and the species named tundra vole

1 We believe this is an overestimate. The biomass of domestic animals (livestock, poultry, etc.) was likely to be 2 times less. However, even in such a case their correlation with the biomass of wild animals would not change principally. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 179 almost completely disappeared from the areas, where it was previously observed for a long time. Since the processes of forest regeneration are far from being complete, the species of forest and tree-shrub group shall continue their territorial expansion.

In the post-accident period, the fauna of birds also has changed considerably.

The explicit radiation effects caused by the Chornobyl accident, which demonstrated themselves as a decrease in the number of nesting birds and in nesting efficiency, were recorded mainly in the early years and only on the ChEZ central sites [Mykytiuk et al., 1990; Haichenko et al., 1994; Sabinevskyi, 1995; Chornobyl Disaster, 1995].The situation improved a little in the 1990s; though reduction in the number of semi-aquatic bird colonies continued further. Effects from the evacuation of people and cessation of economic activities had a much larger scale and were registered during the whole post-accident period. Food resources left by humans provoked an increase in the abundance of synanthropic species, including the rock dove, rook, sparrows; and mostly in population centres and industrial zones, where people stayed [Mykytiuk et al., 1990; Sabinevskyi, 1995; Nikiforov et al., 1995; Chornobyl Disaster, 1995]. However, it did not last long; the numbers began declining in the 1990s, along with a reduction in the number of staff working within ChEZ. In the same period, abundance of other synanthropic species decreased (starlings, swallows, swifts, collared doves, white storks). Some species, such as white stork, collared dove and rook, have practically or completely disappeared in the 2000s. Despite this, the total abundance of bird population has increased. The birds of forest, tree and shrub complexes (and of meadow and coastal ones, on condition favourable conditions were available) started colonization of abandoned settlements [Nikiforov et al., 1995; Gashchak, 2000].

Transformation of former fields, hayfields and pastures into fallow and meadow cenoses resulted in the increased diversity and abundance of the birds of meadow complex [Sabinevskyi, 1995; Nikiforov et al., 1995; Chornobyl Disaster, 1995; Gashchak et al., 2006]. Nonetheless, their share began to decrease with further reforestation and was replaced by the birds of tree, shrub and forest complexes. As a result, the common partridge, which was a common species in the 1990s, became a rare species then; and the number of the "Red Data Book" black has noticeably increased [Gashchak et al., 2006].

Construction of temporary dams on the small rivers in the first years after the accident caused flooding of vast areas in ChEZ. This had a swift implication on the increased number and diversity of the birds of water, marshland and coastal complexes (gulls, terns, sandpipers, Anatidae, herons) [Mykytiuk et al., 1990; Sabinevskyi, 1995; Nikiforov et al., 1995; Chornobyl Disaster, 1995]. Though after the dams were dismantled, a re-depletion occurred in the early 1990s. Birds disappeared not only from the former flooded areas, but number of nesting colonies began to decrease everywhere; experts [Haichenko et al., 1994] attributed this to the radiation contamination Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 180 of the area. Generally, specific characteristics of local water bodies do not contribute to a high abundance of these birds. However, absence of disturbance, engineering and technical activities caused an undoubted increase in the diversity of species, whereby their population density used to be low. The swans began their regular nesting in ChEZ water bodies only after the accident [Gashchak, 2005].

Forest ornithocomplexes were mainly altered due to the increased abundance of birds sensitive to human disturbance. As early as in the first years after the accident, registrations of large predatory birds became more frequent (white-tailed eagle, golden eagle, spotted eagle, as well as the black stork, common crane, hazel grouse) [Mykytiuk et al., 1990; Boiarchuk et al., 1990; Nikiforov et al., 1995; Sabinevskyi, 1995; Chornobyl Disaster, 1995; Panov, 2005; Gashchak, 2002]. Later, the eagle owl, great gray owl, short-eared owl and pygmy owl were recorded repeatedly [Gashchak et al., 2006; Domashevskyi et al., 2012].

The mammals of medium and large size groups, which are traditional hunting objects, were also subject to notable changes.

During the first phase, the changes were facilitated by the absence of humans, small number of predators and low interspecies competition. In the first five years, the abundance of elks and deers increased several times, the one of the wild boar and became orders of magnitude higher [Dunin et al., 1995; Kozlo et al., 1995; Haichenko et al., 1990; Boiarchuk et al. 1990]. It was noted that ungulates remained cautious for several years of the human absence; they avoided open sites and human settlements [Kozlo et al., 1995]. However, they became common there in five years after the accident. Moreover, a stereotype of their behaviour has also changed. Their activity periods covered daytimes also. Generally, the growth rates of moose and roe deer began to decrease in the mid-1990s. The deer demonstrates a completely different picture. After the accident, only a few dozen animals lived in the region on the sites of former hunting farms; however, in the following years their number increased many dozens of times, they spread both in Ukrainian and Belarusian areas of ChEZ. Currently, the red deer is the most numerous ungulate species in the region. Unlike deer, the wild boar has twice experienced significant declines in its abundance due to the swine fever epidemics (in 1994-1997 [Kozlo et al., 1995] and since 2014). As of autumn 2017, its population was still in a depressed state.

In addition to ungulates, the number of large predators has also increased. Up to three wolf families lived there before the accident [Boiarchuk et al., 1990]; but by the early 1990s there lived 5-7 families [Haichenko et al., 1994]. Despite regular shooting campaigns both in ChEZ and in the neighbouring Belarusian Reserve, the number of wolves remains at a high level. No accurate data are available; but the estimated numbers are from 70 to 150 animals living in ChEZ only [Gashchak et al., 2006; Shkvyria, Vyshnevskyi, 2012], some animals live on adjacent Belarusian sites. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 181

It is remarkably that absence of people and the near-conservation regime have created the conditions for a return of lynx and bear. Previously, were extremely rare and bears were absent for a hundred years there [Gashchak et al., 2006]. No full-scale recordings of lynx were carried out within ChEZ, but the frequency of it registration by photo traps (the author’s unpublished data) and field observations indicate that its current number is the same as the one of wolves. These estimates coincide with the ones made in the territory of the neighbouring reserve in Belarus, where the lynx has also appeared in several years after the accident and now it is reaching up to 30-40 animals [Deriabina, 2008]. The registrations of bear began a bit later; approximately 5- 10 animals currently live within ChEZ and in the adjacent Belarusian reserve, she-bears with cubs have occurred [Gashchak et al., 2016].

The abundance of smaller predators, i.e. foxes, raccoon dogs, martens, otters, badgers, has also increased. If compared to the pre-accident period, they have spread across all suitable habitats. Similar trends were registered for beavers, , hares [Gashchak et al., 2006].

There are very little data on the state of herpetofauna, because there is no appropriate research.

The fauna of terrestrial vertebrates in ChEZ is represented mostly by autochthonous animals. If not to consider the long- and near-range invaders (according to the classification: Zahorodniuk, 2006), but take account of only introduced species (whether intentionally or accidentally introduced by humans into the biocenosis), then there are only four such species there. Three of them (the raccoon dog, the muskrat and the American mink) were introduced as far back as in the 1930s and 1970s [Sokur, 1961; Panov, 2002], and by 1986 they were completely naturalized. Currently, they are distributed in all suitable habitats. Two of them (the muskrat and the American mink) have actually replaced the local fauna representatives: the water vole and the European mink, respectively, which were not registered within ChEZ in the last 30 years [Gashchak et al., 2006].

The tarpan is another introduced species that was imported to ChEZ in 1998 [Akimov et al., 1999; Vyshnevskyi, 2005]. Despite the fact that an initial state of this animal represents the fauna of the steppes and semi-deserts in , it has fully accommodated itself in the region (and also spread to the territory of Belarus). Its number has increased by 3-4 times by now.

In 1998 and within the framework of the same program named "Fauna" (under which the horses were introduced), an unsuccessful attempt to re-introduce was made. The two imported animals died in the corral. However, similar efforts in the territory of the neighbouring reserve (since 1996) in Belarus yielded good results; the livestock population of bison increased many times and they began spreading to adjacent territories. The bison was first noted in ChEZ in Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 182

2012 [Gashchak et al., 2017]. Since that time, the animals have been repeatedly registered in the north-west and south-east of ChEZ.

The bats are another mammal group, which is worth mentioning in the context of the development of faunalal complexes after the Chornobyl accident. On the one hand, there is little data on their species composition and distribution before 1986 and in the first 20 years after the accident. However, the studies of 2007-2013 indicate formation of favourable conditions, which arose just after the accident due to the stop of forestry activities [Gashchak et al., 2013]. Most of the 14 species known to date include dendrophils, which need a large number of hollow trees with peeled off bark that used to be unacceptable with the regulated forestry activities. Absence of disturbance in the abandoned buildings also contributes to the conservation and reproduction of this vulnerable group.

The ichthyofauna has undergone significant changes also. Before 1986, the fish fauna demonstrated the highly altered qualitative and quantitative characteristics due to intensive operations, fish farming, engineered and technical measures for the construction and regulation of water bodies [Gashchak et al., 2006]. The species of catching group prevailed; species from other world regions were introduced into the aquaculture. After the Chornobyl accident, the ichthyofauna of rivers, canals and lakes has been developing towards the restoration of native complexes. By late 1990s, the diversity of fish species in the Pripyat River in the Chornobyl NPP area exceeded the one in the upper reaches of the Kyiv Reservoir, where fishing did not stop. The only exception was the Chornobyl cooling pond (22 km2), which was in operation before 2000 and had an artificial hydrothermal and hydro-chemical regime. Also, there were several species introduced into the cooling pond. In 2000-2014, after ChNPP operation was stopped, profound changes occurred in the species and quantitative representation of fish. First of all, thermophilic adventitious species were excluded; and restoration of the ichthyocomplexes peculiar to this region started. In 2014-2017, due to the water discharge from the reservoir (decommissioning), a period of even more drastic changes began. It is expected that the reduced area and depth will provoke starvation phenomena and significant depletion of fauna. This should not affect other water bodies in ChEZ.

Therefore, a rapid increase in the abundance and diversity of wild animals, which was noted after the Chornobyl accident, was due to several favourable facts. Firstly, availability of a huge food supply (abandoned granaries, fields, gardens, forest plantations) under the conditions of a small number of predators, low competition and almost complete absence of people. Another reason was high reproductive potential of those species that demonstrated a particularly noticeable increase in their abundance. Also important was the fact that the area included into ChEZ was close to other reserves of wild fauna: forest and wetlands of the Pripyat Polissia including Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian reserves (the Polissia Natural Reserve (Ukraine), Paliessie State Radiation and Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 183

Ecological Reserve (Belarus), Pripyat National Nature Park (Belarus), Biosphere Reserve of Briansk Forest ()), as well as the Dnipro-Teterev Hunting Reserve in the south. Animals could migrate to the attractive lands of ChEZ from the above areas. The cascade of Dnipro reservoirs has a similar role in the enrichment of local fauna. During the last five decades, the cascade has "supplied" many birds and to the lower reaches of Pripyat River. In addition, some species of migratory birds and bats could also opt for this region.

The spontaneous development of natural complexes has brought into effect some specific regulatory mechanisms, which were almost absent in the cultural landscapes. In particular, it is known that diversity of ecological conditions promotes an increased diversity of biological forms. And if hunting farms and some nature reserves achieve this by a set of biotechnical measures, the variety of conditions in natural cenoses is maintained due to the activity of edificatory species and as a result of disastrous abiotic phenomena (fires, windfalls, floods). These produce a mosaic of natural communities. Among the modern vertebrate animals in ChEZ these are the ungulates: elk, red deer, roe deer, bison, tarpan. However, the priority surely belongs to beavers and wild boars.

Beavers have spread over practically all the water bodies. They ensure land improvement and form mosaic nature of plant complexes [Panov, 1990]. Beaver dams change hydrological regime, watercourses turn into cascades of ponds. In the areas where beavers cut trees, phytocenoses change: proportion of tree species changes, meadow and fringe grass communities appear. Such a significant change in landscapes also enriches fauna. Gats are used by fish and amphibians for spawning, and beaver huts and burrows are used for life activities of other animal species. Beaver "cutting areas" become a food source for phytophagous mammals (hares, ungulates).

And the results of the wild boar activities have even larger territorial manifestation. In the periods between the epizootics of African swine fever, when its number decreased sharply, this was the most numerous species of all large mammals. The greatest effect of the wild boar’s habitat forming activity took place at the early stages of plant succession; composition of vegetation and pedobionts changed drastically in potholes of the wild boar (the area was 50-100 m2 and in some sites up to 500 m2). In the first five years after the accident, the boars dug up to 50% or more of the total area of the research sites in the central part of ChEZ [Abaturov et al., 1996]. Nowadays, there’s hardly a site that would not have been dug by wild boars. This is especially true of former agrocenoses and pine forests. Favourable conditions for the distribution of woody and herbaceous plants, which are usually impeded by a layer of dense sod, form on the potholes. Activity of the wild boar contributes to reforestation process of open landscapes and establishment of more mosaic ecological conditions. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 184

The role of the other ungulates is to regulate density and diversity of undergrowth of woody, shrubby and grassy vegetation; they can determine the direction of forest communities’ succession. However, their habitat forming activity is of a limited, local nature due to modern conditions, when the number of ungulates is in equilibrium with the land food supply (and historically they are not the richest ones) and with the predator press. For example, the moose damages young undergrowth of pine and the deer restrains woody growth in meadows and burned areas.

In the absence of a "corrective" human care, natural disasters also contribute to the expansion of biodiversity. Extensive fires that damaged pine forests in the 1990s and in 2015-2016 have significantly increased the area of lands, which are now overgrown by broadleaved and shrub species. The same effect is caused by outbreaks of pine fungus and underfloodings caused by the regulation of small rivers’ and canals’ runoff. There is a tremendous quantity of fallen trees in ChEZ forests, more than elsewhere. Weakened, dead and fallen tree bodies facilitate the development of unique animal and plant communities that are usually oppressed in industrial forests.

A specific feature of ChEZ is presence of a large number of ecotopes that are not characteristic of natural ecosystems; namely biogeocenoses formed in the abandoned human settlements and industrial areas. Buildings, structures and communications were subject to gradual destruction during the entire post-accident period. At the same time an intensive transformation of soil and plant complexes in former vegetable and fruit gardens, flower beds and parks occurred there. Urban landscapes attracted animals [Nikiforov et al., 1995; Kozlo et al., 1995; Gashchak, 2000; Gashchak et al., 2006]. They had a varied food stock, safe conditions, sites for nesting and lair. Nowadays, almost all kinds of terrestrial vertebrates regularly live or stay in the settlements (especially in those completely abandoned by humans). To this end, local cities and towns are of a particular interest: Chornobyl, Pripyat and Chornobyl-2. All these have multi-storey buildings, which are being destroyed more slowly than single-storey wooden rural houses. Similarly to the agricultural landscapes, degradation of urban environment is accompanied by a loss of synanthropic species and an increased share of species of meadow and forest complexes. Also, these landscapes have additional types of biotopes, which are similar to mountainous ones and include underground communications and multi-storey buildings. These attract troglophil species, including bats, swifts, swallows, etc.

The most intensive rates of plant succession and landscape transformations took place in the first 5-10 years after the accident. The fauna was subject to changes along with them. Their subsequent development was not so dynamic, but would not stop. The total reforestation caused a decreased share of meadow cenoses, a more dominant role of species of woody and shrub complexes. Rare species became stronger, their population was increasing in number. The major Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 185 changes in future will include territorial redistribution of animals and alterations in the structure of zoo-complexes in some areas. No significant changes in species composition are expected. The faunal complexes and populations of most species have reached the stage of natural perennial fluctuations. If humans do not interfere with natural processes, their development (abundance, distribution) will depend on a current state of food stock and on interspecies relationships, i.e. on the capacity of ecological niches. Appearance of new species is possible only due to migratory species or species prone to periodic territorial expansion (these usually include birds). More likely, the most of potentially "new" species permanently or periodically stay in ChEZ already: lack of information about them is a consequence of just a lack of appropriate research.

Loss of some species is principally possible, but the causes will include general problems of some species or populations, not related to the ChEZ conditions. For example, break of reproductive potential under the conditions of low abundance and significant fragmentation (insularization) of a population.

Apparently, degradation of the synanthropic species complex ceased. Since humans currently have no intentions to fully abandon the region, but are developing new local development directions (power engineering, radioactive waste management), this faunal complex has every reason to exist in certain areas.

References Abaturov Yu.D., Abaturov A.V., Bykov A.V. et al. Ionizing radiation effects in pine forests in the “near zone” of the Chornobyl NPP. – M.: Nauka, 1996. - 240 p. (in Russian). Akimov I.A., Dvoinos G.M., Kryzhanivskyi V.I. About the prospects of restoration of historical faunal complexes in Polissia and the possibility of introduction and reintroduction of some animal species in the exclusion zone and the zone of absolute (mandatory) resettlement (for discussion) // Bulletin of environmental state in the exclusion zone and the zone of absolute (mandatory) resettlement. - 1999 (14): 40-41 (in Ukrainian). Chornobyl Disaster / Ed. by V.G. Bariakhtar. - K.: Naukova Dumka, 1995. - 559 p. (in Russian). Deriabina T.G. Distribution and number of large mammals listed on the Red Data Book of the Republic of Belarus (bison, bear, lynx, ) in the territory of the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve. // Faunal research in the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve: Collection of research papers. / Ed. by H.V. Antsipov. - Homel: RNIUP "Institute of Radiology", 2008. - pp. 19-35 (in Russian). Domashevskyi S.V., Gashchak S.P., Chyzhevskyi I.V. Data on the Falconiformes and Strigiformes of the Chornobyl exclusion zone (Ukraine). – Berkut, 2012 - (1-2): 64-81 (in Russian). Haichenko V.A., Zhezheryn I.V., Nebohatkin I.V. Changes in the composition and number of small mammal species in the ChNPP 30-km zone in the post-accident period // The mammals of Ukraine. - K.: Naukova Dumka, 1993. - pp. 153-164 (in Russian). Haichenko V.A., Kryzhanivskyi V.I., Stovbchatyi V.N. et al. Environmental situation in the ChNPP 30-km zone and its changes in 3 post-accident years // Reports of the 2nd All-Union scientific-technical meeting on the results of the liquidation of the Chornobyl accident consequences. - Chornobyl, 1990. - Vol. 6, part 3. - pp. 4-11 (in Russian). Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 186

Haichenko V.A., Kryzhanivskyi V.I., Stovbchaty V.N. The state of faunal complexes in the ChNPP exclusion zone in the post-accident period // Ecological and faunal studies in the Chornobyl NPP zone: Collection. - K., 1994. - pp. 4-18. - (Pre-print / NAS of Ukraine, Institute of Zoology named after I. Shmalhausen, 94.5, Issue 1) (in Russian). Gashchak S.P., Huliaichenko Y.O., Beresford N.A., Wood M.D. Brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) in the Chornobyl exclusion zone // Proceedings of Theriological School. — Vol. 14 (2016): 71–84 (in English). Gashchak S.P., Huliaichenko Y.O., Beresford N.A., Wood M.D. European bison (Bison bonasus) in the Chornobyl exclusion zone (Ukraine) and prospects for its revival // Proceedings of Theriological School. – Vol. 15 (2017): pp.58–66 (in English). Gashchak S.P. Ornithofauna in the evacuated city of Pripyat // Bulletin of Zoology. Zoological studies in Ukraine: Fauna and Systematics. - 2000. - Sep. issue 14 (1). - pp. 90-100 (in Russian). Gashchak S.P. Notes on some rare birds in the Chornobyl exclusion zone. - Berkut, 2002. - 11 (2): 141-147 (in Ukrainian). Gashchak S.P. About nesting of the whooper swan in the Chornobyl zone of Ukraine // Berkut, 2005. - 14 (2): 269-270 (in Russian). Gashchak S.P., Vyshnevskyi D.O., Zaliskyi O.O. The vertebrate fauna in the Chornobyl exclusion zone (Ukraine). - Publishing house of the Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology, 2006. - 100 p. (in Ukrainian). Gashchak S.P., Vlashchenko A.S., Nahlov A.V., Kravchenko K.A., Prylutska A.S. The fauna of bats in the exclusion zone in the context of assessing conservation value of its sites // Problems of the Chornobyl exclusion zone. - 2013. - Issue 11. - pp. 56-79 (in Russian). Hulai V. Classification of animals according to the level of their adaptation to anthropogenic transformation of the environment // Fauna in anthropogenic environment. - Luhansk, 2006. - pp. 14-17 (Proceedings of the Theriological School, Issue 8) (in Ukrainian). Kirikov S.V. Changes in animal world in the natural zones of the USSR (13-19 centuries): Forest zone and forest-tundra. Moscow: Publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1960. 158 p. (in Russian). Kirikov S.V. The man and the nature in the Eastern European forest-steppe in the 10th - early 19th centuries. Moscow: Nauka, 1979. 184 p. (in Russian). Kuchma M.D., Arkhipov A.M., Tikhanov E.K., Arkhipov M.P. Assessment of phytobioresources state and contamination in the exclusion zone // Reports to the scientific and practical conf. "Science-Chornobyl-97" (Kyiv, February 10-12, 1998). - K., 1998. - pp. 95-107 (in Ukrainian). Mykytiuk A.Yu., Haber N.A., Poluda A.M. et al. Ornithocomplexes of the ChNPP 30-km zone and their changes as impacted by the radiation factor // Reports to the 2nd All-Union scientific-technical meeting on the results of the liquidation of the Chornobyl accident consequences “Chornobyl-90”. Radioecological aspects of the accident consequences. - Chornobyl, 1990. – V. 6, part 3: pp. 582-599 (in Russian)

Nikiforov M.E., Tishechkin A.K., Samusenko I.E., Pareiko O.A. Structural formation of the ornithocomplexes and populations of model bird species // Animal world in the Chornobyl NPP accident zone. Ed. by L.M. Sushcheni, M.M. Pikulik, A.E. Plenin. - Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika, 1995. - pp. 158-174 (in Russian). Panov H.M. The beavers. - K.: Urozhai, 1990. - 176 p. (in Russian). Panov H.M. Spatial distribution and abundance of the white-tailed eagle in the Chornobyl exclusion zone. - Berkut, 2004. - 13 (2): 226-229 (in Russian). Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 187

Panov H.M. Dynamics of habitats and number of semi-aquatic fur animals in Ukraine in the second half of the 20th century // Bulletin of the University of Lviv. Biology Series. - 2002 (30): 119-132 (in Ukrainian). Rozhdestvenskaia A.S. Structural and functional characteristics of small mammals // Animal world in the Chornobyl NPP accident zone. Ed. by L.M. Sushcheni, M.M. Pikulik, A.E. Plenin. - Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika, 1995. - pp. 183-193 (in Russian). Sabinevskyi B.V. About the state of terrestrial ornithocomplexes in the 30-km Chornobyl NPP exclusion zone // In the Collection: Ecological and faunal studies in the Chornobyl NPP zone. - Kyiv: "Medekol", UkrRNPF, 1995. - pp. 29-52 (in Russian). Shkvyria M., Vyshnevskyi D. Large predators of the Chornobyl NPP exclusion zone // Bulletin of Zoology. — 2012. — Vol. 46, N 3. — P. 239–246 (in English). Taskaiev A.I., Testov B.V. Number and reproduction of mouse rodents in the Chornobyl accident zone // Bioindication of radioactive contamination. - Moscow: Nauka, 1999. - pp. 200-205 (in Russian). Vyshnevskyi D. Results of the tarpan (Equus przewalskii) introduction into the ChNPP exclusion zone // Scientific Bulletin of the University of Uzhhorod. Biology Series. - 2005 (17): 39-41 (in Ukrainian). Zahorodniuk I. Adventive theriofauna of Ukraine and the role of invasions in historical changes of fauna and groups // Fauna in anthropogenic environment. - Luhansk, 2006. - pp. 18-47. - (Proceedings of the Theriological School, Issue 8) (in Ukrainian).

The species composition of vertebrate fauna registered in CEZ in 1986-2017

As noted above, the species composition of vertebrates in ChEZ was most fully described only by the beginning of the 2000s. However, if the studies of birds and mammals continued, there were very few studies of fish; and there was never any deep investigation of the herpetofauna. This had an impact on a form of the submitted annotated list of species registered in ChEZ after the Chornobyl accident. Basing on the combination of field observations and literature data, there are 339 vertebrate species live in the region, including 60 fish-like species, 12 amphibians, 7 reptiles, 202 birds and 58 mammals.

The fish-like species are represented by 1 round-mouthed fish species and 59 fish species of 13 orders and 18 families (Table 13). Most of them (40 out of 60) are local species. If compared to other vertebrates, the ichthyofauna is characterized by the highest percentage (33%) of invasive and introduced species. There is a lack of quantitative estimates on the abundance of each species. The estimates were previously carried out for the ChNPP cooling pond, some small lakes and certain sections of the Pripyat River [Gashchak et al., 2006]; however, there were no such studies in the last decade. The status of small and rare species is unclear, as well as a complete list of small and rare species. To this end, conduction of a targeted research with specific techniques is needed. With regard to the eight adventitious species, which were introduced into the cooling pond’s ecosystem before and after the accident, an assumption may be made that they could have disappeared both Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 188 from the cooling pond’s fauna and from the region in general after the ChNPP operation was stopped (2000) and moreover after the water was drained (since 2014). Therefore, their presence in the list of local ichthyofauna should be verified additionally.

The fauna of amphibians is not abundant and is represented by 12 species, 2 orders and 6 families (Table 14). All the species are local, common; though there is practically no data on their distribution and abundance [Gashchak et al., 2006].

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 189

Table 13. The annotated list of ichthyofauna fauna in ChEZ registered after 1986*

The Russian, Ukrainian and English No. Scientific name of species Status Origin Conservation statuses Note names of species Минога украинская Berne-1979 (3), 1 Eudontomyzon mariae (Berg, 1931) Мінога українська ++ local IUCN (LC) Ukrainian brook lamprey Стерлядь RBU-2009 (1), 2 Acipenser ruthenus Linnaeus, 1758 Стерлядь + local Berne-1979 (3), Sterlet IUCN (VU) Бестер Huso huso L. х Acipenser ruthenus L. Presumably 3 Бестер +++ introduced Linnaeus, 1758 disappeared Beluga x Sterlet hybrid Угорь речной 4 Anguilla anguilla Linnaeus, 1758 Вугор річковий ++ local IUCN (CR) European Тюлька черноморско-каспийская Clupeonella cultriventris (Nordmann, 5 Тюлька звичайна ++ invasive IUCN (LC) 1840) Black Sea sprat Лещ 6 Abramis brama Linnaeus, 1758 Лящ +++ local IUCN (LC) Common bream Быстрянка RBU-2009 (1), 7 Alburnoides bipunctatus (Bloch, 1782) Бистрянка звичайна ++ local Berne-1979 (3), Spirlin IUCN (LC) Уклейка Berne-1979 (3), 8 Alburnus alburnus Linnaeus, 1758 Верховодка звичайна +++ local IUCN (LC) Common bleak Жерех Berne-1979 (3), 9 Aspius aspius (Linnaeus, 1758) Білизна звичайна +++ local IUCN (LC) Asp Синец Berne-1979 (3), 10 Ballerus ballerus (Linnaeus, 1758) Синець звичайний +++ local IUCN (LC) Blue bream Белоглазка Berne-1979 (3), 11 Ballerus sapa Pallas, 1814 Білоочка +++ local IUCN (LC) White-eye bream Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 190

The Russian, Ukrainian and English No. Scientific name of species Status Origin Conservation statuses Note names of species Усач днепровский RBU-2009 (1), IUCN 12 borysthenicus (Dybowski, 1862) Марена дніпровська + local (NE) Dnieper Густера 13 Blicca bjoerkna (Linnaeus, 1758) Плоскирка +++ local IUCN (LC) Silver bream Карась золотой RBU-2009 (2), IUCN 14 Carassius carassius (Linnaeus, 1758) Карась звичайний +++ local (LC) Crucian carp Карась серебрянный 15 Carassius gibelio (Bloch, 1782) Карась сріблястий +++ invasive/ introduced IUCN (LC) Prussian carp Подуст обыкновенный Berne-1979 (3), 16 Chondrostoma nasus Linnaeus, 1758 Підуст звичайний +++ local IUCN (LC) Common nase Амур белый Ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes, Presumably 17 Амур білий +++ introduced IUCN (NE) 1844) disappeared Grass carp Карп 18 Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758 Короп звичайний +++ invasive/ introduced IUCN (LC) Common carp Пескарь обыкновенный 19 Gobio gobio (Linnaeus, 1758) Пічкур звичайний ++ local IUCN (LC) Gudgeon Толстолобик белый Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Presumably 20 Товстолобик білий +++ introduced IUCN (NT) (Valenciennes, 1844) disappeared Silver carp Толстолобик пестрый Hypophthalmichthys nobilis (Richandson, Presumably 21 Товстолобик строкатий +++ introduced IUCN (DD) 1845) disappeared Bighead carp Тостолобик (гибрид) Presumably 22 H. molitrix (Val.) х H. nobilis (Rich.) Гібрид товстолобиків +++ introduced disappeared Silver and Bighead carp hybrid Верховка Berne-1979 (3), 23 Leucaspius delineatus Heckel, 1843 Вівсянка ++ local IUCN (LC) Sunbleak Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 191

The Russian, Ukrainian and English No. Scientific name of species Status Origin Conservation statuses Note names of species Язь 24 Leuciscus idus Linnaeus, 1758 В’язь +++ local IUCN (LC) Ide Елец RBU-2009 (2), IUCN 25 Leuciscus leuciscus (Linnaeus, 1758) Ялець звичайний +++ local (LC) Common dace Чехонь Berne-1979 (3), 26 Pelecus cultratus (Linnaeus, 1758) Чехоня +++ local IUCN (LC) Sabre carp Бобырец Petroleuciscus borysthenicus (Kessler, 27 Бобирець звичайний + local IUCN (LC) 1859) Black Sea Chub Гольян обыкновенный 28 Phoxinus phoxinus (Linnaeus, 1758) Мересниця річкова ++ local IUCN (NE) Eurasian minnow Чебачок амурский Pseudorasbora parva Temminck & 29 Чебачок амурський ++ invasive IUCN (NE) Schlegel, 1846 Stone moroko Горчак обыкеновенный Berne-1979 (3), 30 Rhodeus amarus Bloch, 1782 Гірчак європейський +++ local IUCN (LC) European bitterling Гольян озерный RBU-2009 (1), IUCN 31 percnurus (Pallas, 1814) Мересниця озерна + local (LC) Lake minnow Пескарь днепровский белоперый Romanogobio belingi (Slastenenko, Berne-1979 (3), 32 Пічкур-білопер дніпровський ++ local 1934) IUCN (LC) Northern whitefin gudgeon Плотва обыкновенная 33 Rutilus rutilus Linnaeus, 1758 Плітка звичайна +++ local IUCN (LC) Common roach Краснопёрка Scardinius erythrophthalmus (Linnaeus, 34 Краснопірка звичайна +++ local IUCN (LC) 1758) Common rudd Голавль 35 Squalius cephalus Linnaeus, 1758 Головень європейський +++ local IUCN (LC) Chub Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 192

The Russian, Ukrainian and English No. Scientific name of species Status Origin Conservation statuses Note names of species Линь 36 Tinca tinca (Linnaeus, 1758) Лин +++ local IUCN (LC) Tench Рыбец Berne-1979 (3), 37 Vimba vimba Linnaeus, 1758 Рибець звичайний ++ local IUCN (LC) Vimba bream Буффало большеротый Presumably 38 Ictiobus cyprinellus (Valenciennes, 1844) Буффало великоротий +++ introduced IUCN (NE) disappeared Bigmouth buffalo Щиповка обыкновенная Berne-1979 (3), 39 Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 Щипавка звичайна +++ local IUCN (LC) Spined loach Вьюн обыкновенный Berne-1979 (3), 40 Misgurnus fossilis (Linnaeus, 1758) В'юн звичайний ++ local IUCN (LC) European weatherfish Голец усатый 41 Barbatula barbatula (Linnaeus, 1758) Слиж звичайний ++ local IUCN (LC) Stone loach Сомик канальный Presumably 42 Ictalurus punctatus Rafinesque, 1818 Сом канальний +++ introduced IUCN (NE) disappeared Channel Сом обыкновенный Berne-1979 (3), 43 glanis Linnaeus, 1758 Сом європейський +++ local IUCN (LC) Микижа Presumably 44 Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum, 1792) Пструг райдужний + introduced IUCN (NE) disappeared Rainbow trout Щука 45 Esox lucius Linnaeus, 1758 Щука звичайна +++ local IUCN (LC) Pike Налим RBU-2009 (2), IUCN 46 Lota lota Oken, 1817 Минь річковий +++ local (LC) Burbot Колюшка трехиглая 47 Gasterosteus aculeatus Linnaeus, 1758 Колючка триголкова ++ invasive IUCN (LC) Three-spined stickleback Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 193

The Russian, Ukrainian and English No. Scientific name of species Status Origin Conservation statuses Note names of species Колюшка малая южная 48 Pungitius platygaster (Kessler, 1859) Колючка південна ++ invasive IUCN (LC) Ukrainian stickleback Рыба-игла итальянская Berne-1979 (3), 49 Syngnathus abaster Risso, 1826 Іглиця пухлощока ++ invasive IUCN (LC) Black-striped pipefish Подкаменщик обыкновенный 50 Cottus gobio Linnaeus, 1758 Бабець європейський + local IUCN (LC) European bullhead Бычок-гонец 51 Babka gymnotrachelus (Kessler, 1857) Бичок-гонець + invasive IUCN (LC) Racer goby Пуголовка звёздчатая 52 Benthophilus stellatus (Sauvage, 1874) Пуголовка зірчаста + invasive IUCN (LC) Stellate tadpole-goby Бычок-песочник Berne-1979 (3), 53 Neogobius fluviatilis (Pallas, 1814) Бичок-бабка +++ invasive IUCN (LC) Monkey goby Бычок-кругляк 54 Neogobius melanostomus (Pallas, 1814) Бичок-кругляк ++ invasive IUCN (LC) Round goby Бычок-цуцик Berne-1979 (3), 55 Proterorhinus marmoratus (Pallas, 1814) Бичок-цуцик морський +++ invasive IUCN (LC) Tubenose goby Ерш-носарь Gymnocephalus acerina Güldenstädt, RBU-2009 (1), IUCN 56 Носар ++ local 1774 (LC) Donets ruffe Ерш дунайский Gymnocephalus baloni Holcík & Hensel, RBU-2009 (4), IUCN 57 Йорж дунайський ++ local 1974 (LC) ruffe Ерш обыкновенный 58 Gymnocephalus cernua Linnaeus, 1758 Йорж звичайний +++ local IUCN (LC) Eurasian ruffe Окунь речной 59 Perca fluviatilis Linnaeus, 1758 Окунь звичайний +++ local IUCN (LC) European perch Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 194

The Russian, Ukrainian and English No. Scientific name of species Status Origin Conservation statuses Note names of species Судак обыкновенный 60 Sander lucioperca (Linnaeus, 1758) Судак звичайний +++ local IUCN (LC) * Symbols and abbreviations. Status: +++ – species was repeatedly registered in ChEZ during the studies [Gashchak et al., 2006]; ++ – species was noted in ChEZ according to the data from other researches [survey in Gashchak et al., 2006]; + – species is mentioned in scientific literature, but there is no data on its capture [survey in: Gashchak et al., 2006]; Conservation statuses: RBU-2009 (1) – The Red Data Book of Ukraine (2009): endangered; RBU-2009 (2) – The Red Data Book of Ukraine (2009): vulnerable; RBU-2009 (4) – The Red Data Book of Ukraine (2009): deficient data; Berne-1979 (3) – Appendix III – Protected fauna species as per the Berne Convention, 1979; IUCN (CR) – The International Union for Conservation of Nature: critically endangered; IUCN (EN) – The International Union for Conservation of Nature: endangered; IUCN (VU) – The International Union for Conservation of Nature: vulnerable; IUCN (NT) – The International Union for Conservation of Nature: near threatened; IUCN (LC) – The International Union for Conservation of Nature: least concern; IUCN (DD) – The International Union for Conservation of Nature: deficient data.

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 195

Table 14. The annotated list of the amphibian fauna in CEZ registered after 1986.

The Ukrainian No. Scientific name of species The Russian name The English name name Тритон 1 Lissotriton vulgaris (Linnaeus, 1758) Тритон звичайний Smooth newt обыкновенный Тритон Тритон Nothern crested 2 Triturus cristatus (Laurenti, 1768) гребенчатый гребінчастий newt Жерлянка Кумка European fire- 3 Bombina bombina (Linnaeus, 1761) краснобрюхая червоночерева bellied toad Чесночница Часничниця Common spadefoot 4 Pelobates fuscus (Laurenti, 1768) обыкновенная звичайна toad Квакша 5 Hyla arborea (Linnaeus, 1758) Рахкавка звичайна European tree обыкновенная 6 Bufo bufo (Linnaeus, 1758) Жаба серая Ропуха сіра Common toad European green 7 Bufo viridis Laurenti, 1768 Жаба зеленая Ропуха зелена toad 8 Rana temporaria Linnaeus, 1758 Лягушка травяная Жаба трав'яна Common frog Лягушка 9 Rana arvalis Nilsson, 1842 Жаба гостроморда Moor frog остромордая 10 Pelophylax ridibundus (Pallas, 1771) Лягушка озерная Жаба озерна Marsh frog 11 Pelophylax lessonae (Camerano, 1882) Лягушка прудовая Жаба ставкова Pool frog Лягушка 12 Pelophylax esculentus (Linnaeus, 1758) Жаба їстівна Edible frog съедобная Note: According to the Berne Convention (1979), the species marked with * are included into the list of ‘Strictly protected fauna species’ (Appendix II).

The reptile fauna in ChEZ includes only 7 species that represent two orders and five families (Table 15). All of them are local, and most are common. However, the level of knowledge about them is low [Gashchak et al., 2006]. Basing on visual observations and the number of findings, the rarest species is the smooth snake.

Table 15. The annotated list of reptiles in ChEZ registered after 1986 (For the acronyms of their conservation statuses see Table 13).

Conservation The Russian The Ukrainian The English No. Scientific name of species statuses name name name Болотная Болотна IUCN (NT), European pond 1 Emys orbicularis (Linnaeus, 1758) черепаха черепаха Berne-1979 (2) turtle европейская європейська Веретеница Веретінниця 2 Anguis fragilis Linnaeus, 1758 Slowworm восточная ламка Ящерица Ящірка 3 Zootoca vivipara (Jacquin, 1787) IUCN (LC) Viviparous lizard живородящая живородна IUCN (LC), Ящерица 4 Lacerta agilis Linnaeus, 1758 Ящірка прудка Sand lizard Berne-1979 (2) прыткая Гадюка Гадюка Common 5 Vipera berus (Linnaeus, 1758) IUCN (LC) обыкновенная звичайна European adder RBU-2009 (2), Медянка Мідянка 6 Coronella austriaca Laurenti, 1768 IUCN (LC), Smooth snake обыкновенная звичайна Berne-1979 (2) Уж 7 Natrix natrix (Linnaeus, 1758) IUCN (LC) Вуж звичайний Grass snake обыкновенный

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 196 Birds are the largest vertebrate group in ChEZ (Tabl. 16). 202 species were registered in the period after 1986; they represent 18 orders and 47 families. Most of them (178 species or 88%) were registered in their nesting period. The rest were recorded in the season of migrations and winter nomadic migrations. The birds that live there all the year round make up approximately 20% of the entire stock. Due to the structure of landscapes formed in ChEZ, the species of tree-shrub, forest and water-marsh complexes dominate there. Due to the lack of systematic observations, data on the species visiting the region during their seasonal migrations and nomadic migrations are far from being complete; future expansion of the list is possible.

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 197

Table 4. The annotated list of birds in ChEZ registered after 1986.

The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Status names abundance Гагара чернозобая 1 Gavia arctica (Linnaeus, 1758) Гагара чорношия Berne-1979 (2) 1 M Black-throated Diver Поганка черношейная 2 Podiceps nigricollis C.L. Brehm, 1831 Пірникоза чорношия Berne-1979 (2) 2 MN Black-necked Grebe Поганка большая 3 Podiceps cristatus (Linnaeus, 1758) Пірникоза велика 3 MN Great Crested Grebe Баклан большой 4 Phalacrocorax carbo (Linnaeus, 1758) Баклан великий 3 MN Cormorant Выпь большая 5 Botaurus stellaris (Linnaeus, 1758) Бугай Berne-1979 (2) 3 MN Bittern Выпь малая 6 Ixobrychus minutus (Linnaeus, 1766) Бугайчик Berne-1979 (2) 3 MN Little Bittern Кваква 7 Nycticorax nycticorax (Linnaeus, 1758) Квак Berne-1979 (2) 1 MN Night Heron Цапля большая белая 8 Egretta alba (Linnaeus, 1758) Чепура велика Berne-1979 (2) 3 MN Great Whitе Egret Цапля серая 9 Ardea cinerea Linnaeus, 1758 Чапля сіра 3 MN Grey Heron Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 198 The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Status names abundance Цапля рыжая 10 Ardea purpurea Linnaeus, 1766 Чапля руда Berne-1979 (2) 2 MN Purple Heron Аист белый 11 Ciconia ciconia (Linnaeus, 1758) Лелека білий Berne-1979 (2) 2 MN White Stork Аист черный RBU-2009 (4), Berne-1979 12 Ciconia nigra (Linnaeus, 1758) Лелека чорний 3 MN (2), IUCN (LC) Black Stork Гусь серый 13 Anser anser (Linnaeus, 1758) Гуска сіра 3 M Greylag Goose Гусь белолобый M 14 Anser albifrons (Scopoli, 1769) Гуска білолоба 4 White-fronted Goose Пискулька M RBU-2009 (2), Berne-1979 15 Anser erythropus (Linnaeus, 1758) Гуска мала 3 (2) Lesser White-fronted Goose Гуменник M 16 Anser fabalis (Latham, 1787) Гуменник 4 Bean Goose Лебедь-шипун 17 Cygnus olor (Gmelin, 1789) Лебідь-шипун 3 MNW Mute Swan Лебедь-кликун 18 Cygnus cygnus (Linnaeus, 1758) Лебідь-кликун Berne-1979 (2) 3 MNW Whooper Swan Кряква 19 Anas platyrhynchos Linnaeus, 1758 Крижень 4 MNW Чирок-свистунок 20 Anas crecca Linnaeus, 1758 Чирянка мала 3 MN Teal Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 199 The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Status names abundance Утка серая 21 Anas strepera Linnaeus, 1758 Нерозень RBU-2009 (3) 2 MN Gadwall Свиязь 22 Anas penelope Linnaeus, 1758 Свищ 3 MN Wigeon Шилохвость 23 Anas acuta Linnaeus, 1758 Шилохвіст 3 MN Pintail Чирок-трескунок 24 Anas querquedula Linnaeus, 1758 Чирянка велика 4 MN Garganey Широконоска 25 Anas clypeata Linnaeus, 1758 Широконіска 3 MN Shoveler Чернеть красноголовая 26 Aythya ferina (Linnaeus, 1758) Попелюх 3 MN Pochard Чернеть хохлатая 27 Aythya fuligula (Linnaeus, 1758) Чернь чубата 3 MN Tufted Duck Гоголь обыкновенный 28 Bucephala clangula (Linnaeus, 1758) Гоголь RBU-2009 (3), IUCN (LC) 2 MNW Goldeneye Луток 29 Mergus albellus Linnaeus, 1758 Крех малий Berne-1979 (2) 1 M Smew Крохаль большой 30 Mergus merganser Linnaeus, 1758 Крех великий 2 MW Goosander Скопа RBU-2009 (1), Berne-1979 31 Pandion haliaetus (Linnaeus, 1758) Скопа 2 M (2), IUCN (LC) Osprey Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 200 The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Status names abundance Осоед обыкновенный 32 Pernis apivorus (Linnaeus, 1758) Осоїд Berne-1979 (2), IUCN (LC) 2 MN Honey Buzzard Коршун черный RBU-2009 (2), Berne-1979 33 Milvus migrans (Boddaert, 1783) Шуліка чорний 1 M (2) Black Kite Лунь полевой RBU-2009 (3), Berne-1979 34 Circus cyaneus (Linnaeus, 1766) Лунь польовий 1 MN (2), IUCN (LC) Hen Harrier Лунь степной RBU-2009 (1), Berne-1979 35 Circus macrourus (S. G. Gmelin, 1771) Лунь степовий 1 M (2) Pallid Harrier Лунь луговой RBU-2009 (2), Berne-1979 36 Circus pygargus (Linnaeus, 1758) Лунь лучний 3 MN (2), IUCN (LC) Montagu`s Harrier Лунь болотный 37 Circus aeruginosus (Linnaeus, 1758) Лунь очеретяний Berne-1979 (2), IUCN (LC) 3 MN Marsh Harrier Тетеревятник 38 Accipiter gentilis (Linnaeus, 1758) Яструб великий Berne-1979 (2), IUCN (LC) 3 MNR Goshawk Перепелятник 39 Accipiter nisus (Linnaeus, 1758) Яструб малий Berne-1979 (2), IUCN (LC) 3 MNR Sparrowhawk Зимняк 40 Buteo lagopus (Pontoppidan, 1763) Зимняк Berne-1979 (2), IUCN (LC) 3 MW Rough-legged Buzzard Канюк обыкновенный 41 Buteo buteo (Linnaeus, 1758) Канюк звичайний Berne-1979 (2), IUCN (LC) 3 MN Buzzard Змееяд RBU-2009 (3), Berne-1979 42 Circaetus gallicus (Gmelin, 1788) Змієїд 2 MN (2), IUCN (LC) Short-toed Eagle Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 201 The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Status names abundance Подорлик большой RBU-2009 (3), Berne-1979 43 Aquila clanga Pallas, 1811 Підорлик великий 2 MN (2), IUCN (VU C2a(ii)) Spotted Eagle Подорлик малый RBU-2009 (3), Berne-1979 44 Aquila pomarina C. L. Brehm, 1831 Підорлик малий 3 MN (2), IUCN (LC) Lesser Spotted Eagle Могильник RBU-2009 (3), Berne-1979 45 Aquila heliaca Savigny, 1809 Могильник 1 MO (2), IUCN (VU C2a(ii)) Imperial Eagle Беркут RBU-2009 (2), Berne-1979 46 Aquila chrysaetos (Linnaeus, 1758) Беркут 2 MNW (2), IUCN (LC) Golden Eagle Орлан-белохвост RBU-2009 (3), Berne-1979 47 Haliaeetus albicilla (Linnaeus, 1758) Орлан-білохвіст 3 MNRW (2), IUCN (LC) White-tailed Eagle Балобан RBU-2009 (2), Berne-1979 48 Falco cherrug Gray, 1834 Балабан 1 MN (2), IUCN (EN) Saker Сапсан RBU-2009 (3), Berne-1979 49 Falco peregrinus Tunstall, 1771 Сапсан 1 MWO (2), IUCN (LC) Peregrine Чеглок 50 Falco subbuteo Linnaeus, 1758 Підсоколик великий Berne-1979 (2), IUCN (LC) 2 MN Hobby Дербник 51 Falco columbarius Linnaeus, 1758 Підсоколик малий Berne-1979 (2), IUCN (LC) 2 M Merlin Кобчик 52 Falco vespertinus Linnaeus, 1766 Кібчик Berne-1979 (2), IUCN (NT) 2 MN Red-footed Falcon Пустельга обыкновенная 53 Falco tinnunculus Linnaeus, 1758 Боривітер звичайний Berne-1979 (2), IUCN (LC) 3 MN Kestrel Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 202 The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Status names abundance Тетерев 54 Lyrurus tetrix (Linnaeus, 1758) Тетерук RBU-2009 (1) 4 NR Black Grouse Рябчик 55 Tetrastes bonasia (Linnaeus, 1758) Орябок RBU-2009 (2) 3 NR Hazel Grouse Куропатка серая 56 Perdix perdix (Linnaeus, 1758) Куріпка сіра 3 NR Partridge Перепел 57 Coturnix coturnix (Linnaeus, 1758) Перепілка 3 MN Quail Журавль серый RBU-2009 (3), Berne-1979 58 Grus grus (Linnaeus, 1758) Журавель сірий 3 MN (2), IUCN (LC) Crane Погоныш 59 Porzana porzana (Linnaeus, 1766) Погонич звичайний Berne-1979 (2) 3 MN Spotted Crake Погоныш малый 60 Porzana parva (Scopoli, 1769) Погонич малий Berne-1979 (2) 3 MN Little Crake Коростель 61 Crex crex (Linnaeus, 1758) Деркач Berne-1979 (2) 3 MN Corncrake Камышница 62 Gallinula chloropus (Linnaeus, 1758) Курочка водяна 3 MN Moorhen Лысуха 63 Fulica atra Linnaeus, 1758 Лиска 3 MN Coot Авдотка RBU-2009 (4), Berne-1979 64 Burhinus oedicnemus (Linnaeus, 1758) Лежень 2 MN (2), IUCN (LC) Stone Curlew Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 203 The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Status names abundance Тулес 65 Pluvialis squatarola (Linnaeus, 1758) Сивка морська 1 MO Grey Plover Зуек малый 66 Charadrius dubius Scopoli, 1786 Пісочник малий Berne-1979 (2) 3 MN Little Ringed Plover Чибис 67 Vanellus vanellus (Linnaeus, 1758) Чайка 3 MN Lapwing Кулик-сорока 68 Haematopus ostralegus Linnaeus, 1758 Кулик-сорока RBU-2009 (2), IUCN (LC) 3 MN Oystercatcher Черныш 69 Tringa ochropus Linnaeus, 1758 Коловодник лісовий Berne-1979 (2) 3 MN Green Sandpiper Фифи 70 Tringa glareola Linnaeus, 1758 Коловодник болотяний Berne-1979 (2) 1 MN Wood Sandpiper Травник 71 Tringa totanus (Linnaeus, 1758) Коловодник звичайний 4 MN Redshank Перевозчик 72 Actitis hypoleucos (Linnaeus, 1758) Набережник Berne-1979 (2) 3 MN Common Sandpiper Мородунка 73 Xenus cinereus (Guldenstadt, 1775) Мородунка 2 MN Terek Sandpiper Турухтан 74 Philomachus pugnax (Linnaeus, 1758) Брижач 1 M Ruff Бекас 75 Gallinago gallinago (Linnaeus, 1758) Баранець звичайний 4 MN Snipe Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 204 The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Status names abundance Вальдшнеп 76 Scolopax rusticola Linnaeus, 1758 Слуква 3 MN Woodcock Веретенник большой 77 Limosa limosa (Linnaeus, 1758) Грицик великий 3 MN Black-tailed Godwit Чайка малая 78 Larus minutus Pallas, 1776 Мартин малий Berne-1979 (2) 3 MN Little Gull Чайка озерная 79 Larus ridibundus Linnaeus, 1766 Мартин звичайний 4 MN Black-headed Gull Клуша 80 Larus fuscus Linnaeus, 1758 Мартин чорнокрилий 1 M Lesser Black-backed Gull Хохотунья 81 Larus cachinnans Pallas, 1811 Мартин жовтоногий 3 MN Yellow-legged Gull Чайка сизая 82 Larus canus Linnaeus, 1758 Мартин сивий 3 MN Common Gull Крачка черная 83 Chlidonias niger (Linnaeus, 1758) Крячок чорний Berne-1979 (2) 4 MN Black Tern Крачка белокрылая 84 Chlidonias leucopterus (Temminck,1815) Крячок білокрилий Berne-1979 (2) 4 MN White-winged Black Tern Крачка речная 85 Sterna hirundo Linnaeus, 1758 Крячок річковий Berne-1979 (2) 4 MN Common Tern Крачка малая RBU-2009 (3), Berne-1979 86 Sterna albifrons Pallas, 1764 Крячок малий 3 MN (2), IUCN (LC) Little Tern Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 205 The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Status names abundance Вяхирь 87 Columba palumbus Linnaeus, 1758 Припутень 3 MN Woodpigeon Клинтух 88 Columba oenas Linnaeus, 1758 Голуб-синяк RBU-2009 (2), IUCN (LC) 2 MN Stock Dove Голубь сизый 89 Columba livia Gmelin, 1789 Голуб сизий 3 NR Rock Dove Горлица кольчатая 90 Streptopelia decaocto (Frivaldszky, 1838) Горлиця садова 2 MN Collared Dove Горлица обыкновенная 91 Streptopelia turtur (Linnaeus, 1758) Горлиця звичайна 3 MN Turtle Dove Кукушка обыкновенная 92 Cuculus canorus Linnaeus, 1758 Зозуля 3 MN Cuckoo Филин RBU-2009 (3), Berne-1979 93 Bubo bubo (Linnaeus, 1758) Пугач 2 NR (2), IUCN (LC) Eagle Owl Сова ушастая 94 Asio otus (Linnaeus, 1758) Сова вухата Berne-1979 (2), IUCN (LC) 2 MN Long-eared Owl Сова болотная RBU-2009 (3), Berne-1979 95 Asio flammeus (Pontoppidan, 1763) Сова болотяна 2 MN (2), IUCN (LC) Short-eared Owl Сыч мохноногий RBU-2009 (3), Berne-1979 96 Aegolius funereus (Linnaeus, 1758) Сич волохатий 1 NR (2), IUCN (LC) Tengmalm`s Owl Сыч домовый 97 Athene noctua (Scopoli, 1769) Сич хатній Berne-1979 (2), IUCN (LC) 2 NR Little Owl Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 206 The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Status names abundance Сыч воробьиный RBU-2009 (2), Berne-1979 98 Glaucidium passerinum (Linnaeus, 1758) Сичик-горобець 2 NR (2), IUCN (LC) Pygmy Owl Неясыть серая 99 Strix aluco Linnaeus, 1758 Сова сіра Berne-1979 (2), IUCN (LC) 3 MNR Tawny Owl Неясыть бородатая RBU-2009 (3), Berne-1979 100 Strix nebulosa Forster, 1772 Сова бородата 2 MNR (2), IUCN (LC) Great Grey Owl Козодой обыкновенный MN 101 Caprimulgus europaeus Linnaeus, 1758 Дрімлюга Berne-1979 (2) 3 Nightjar Стриж черный MN 102 Apus apus (Linnaeus, 1758) Серпокрилець чорний 3 Swift Сизоворонка MN RBU-2009 (1), Berne-1979 103 Coracias garrulus Linnaeus, 1758 Сиворакша 3 (2) Roller Зимородок обыкновенный MN 104 Alcedo atthis (Linnaeus, 1758) Рибалочка Berne-1979 (2) 3 Kingfisher Щурка золотистая MN 105 Merops apiaster Linnaeus, 1758 Бджолоїдка Berne-1979 (2) 2 -eater Удод MN 106 Upupa epops Linnaeus, 1758 Одуд Berne-1979 (2) 3 Hoopoe Вертишейка MN 107 Jynx torquilla Linnaeus, 1758 Крутиголовка Berne-1979 (2) 4 Wryneck Дятел седой 108 Picus canus Gmelin, 1788 Жовна сива Berne-1979 (2) 3 NR Grey-headed Woodpecker Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 207 The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Status names abundance Желна 109 Dryocopus martius (Linnaeus, 1758) Жовна чорна Berne-1979 (2) 3 NR Black Woodpecker Дятел пестрый NR 110 Dendrocopos major (Linnaeus, 1758) Дятел звичайний Berne-1979 (2) 4 Great Spotted Woodpecker Дятел сирийский NR 111 Dendrocopos syriacus (Hemprich et Ehrenberg, 1833) Дятел сирійський Berne-1979 (2) 2 Syrian Woodpecker Дятел средний NR 112 Dendrocopos medius (Linnaeus, 1758) Дятел середній Berne-1979 (2) 3 Middle Spotted Woodpecker Дятел белоспинный NR RBU-2009 (3), Berne-1979 113 Dendrocopos leucotos (Bechstein, 1803) Дятел білоспинний 3 (2), IUCN (LC) White-backed Woodpecker Дятел малый NR 114 Dendrocopos minor (Linnaeus, 1758) Дятел малий Berne-1979 (2) 3 Lesser Spotted Woodpecker Ласточка береговая 115 Riparia riparia (Linnaeus, 1758) Ластівка берегова Berne-1979 (2) 4 MN Sand Martin Ласточка деревенская 116 Hirundo rustica Linnaeus, 1758 Ластівка сільська Berne-1979 (2) 4 MN Swallow Воронок 117 Delichon urbica (Linnaeus, 1758) Ластівка міська Berne-1979 (2) 3 MN House Martin Жаворонок хохлатый 118 Galerida cristata (Linnaeus, 1758) Посмітюха 1 NR Crested Lark Жаворонок лесной 119 Lullula arborea (Linnaeus, 1758) Жайворонок лісовий 3 MN Woodlark Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 208 The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Status names abundance Жаворонок полевой MN 120 Alauda arvensis Linnaeus, 1758 Жайворонок польовий 4 Skylark Конек полевой MN 121 Anthus campestris (Linnaeus, 1758) Щеврик польовий Berne-1979 (2) 1 Tawny Pipit Конек лесной MN 122 Anthus trivialis (Linnaeus, 1758) Щеврик лісовий Berne-1979 (2) 5 Tree Pipit Конек луговой MN 123 Anthus pratensis (Linnaeus, 1758) Щеврик лучний Berne-1979 (2) 3 Meadow Pipit Трясогузка желтая MN 124 Motacilla flava Linnaeus, 1758 Плиска жовта Berne-1979 (2) 3 Yellow Wagtail Трясогузка белая MN 125 Motacilla alba Linnaeus, 1758 Плиска біла Berne-1979 (2) 4 Pied Wagtail Жулан обыкновенный MN 126 Lanius collurio Linnaeus, 1758 Сорокопуд терновий Berne-1979 (2) 4 Red-backed Shrike Сорокопут чернолобый MN 127 Lanius minor Gmelin, 1788 Сорокопуд чорнолобий Berne-1979 (2) 2 Lesser Grey Shrike Сорокопут серый MN RBU-2009 (3), Berne-1979 128 Lanius excubitor Linnaeus, 1758 Сорокопуд сірий 3 (2), IUCN (LC) Great Grey Shrike Иволга обыкновенная 129 Oriolus oriolus (Linnaeus, 1758) Вивільга Berne-1979 (2) 3 MN Golden Oriole Скворец обыкновенный 130 Sturnus vulgaris Linnaeus, 1758 Шпак звичайний 4 MN Starling Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 209 The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Status names abundance Сойка 131 Garrulus glandarius (Linnaeus, 1758) Сойка 4 NR Jay Сорока 132 Pica pica (Linnaeus, 1758) Сорока 3 NR Magpie Кедровка 133 Nucifraga caryocatactes (Linnaeus, 1758) Горіхівка Berne-1979 (2) 2 MW Nutcracker Галка 134 Corvus monedula Linnaeus, 1758 Галка 3 MNR Jackdaw Грач 135 Corvus frugilegus Linnaeus, 1758 Грак 3 MN Rook Ворона серая 136 Corvus cornix Linnaeus, 1758 Ворона сіра 3 NR Hooded Crow Ворон 137 Corvus corax Linnaeus, 1758 Крук 3 NR Raven Свиристель 138 Bombycilla garrulus (Linnaeus, 1758) Омелюх Berne-1979 (2) 4 MW Waxwing Крапивник 139 Troglodytes troglodytes (Linnaeus, 1758) Волове очко Berne-1979 (2) 3 MNR Wren Сверчок соловьиный 140 Locustella luscinioides (Savi, 1824) Кобилочка солов’їна Berne-1979 (2) 3 MN Savi`s Warbler Сверчок речной MN 141 Locustella fluviatilis (Wolf, 1810) Кобилочка річкова Berne-1979 (2) 4 River Warbler Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 210 The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Status names abundance Сверчок обыкновенный MN 142 Locustella naevia (Boddaert, 1783) Кобилочка-цвіркун Berne-1979 (2) 3 Grasshopper Warbler Камышевка-барсучок MN 143 Acrocephalus schoenobaenus (Linnaeus, 1758) Очеретянка лучна Berne-1979 (2) 5 Sedge Warbler Камышевка садовая 144 Acrocephalus dumetorum Blyth, 1849 Очеретянка садова Berne-1979 (2) 1 NO Blyth`s Reed Warbler Камышевка болотная MN 145 Acrocephalus palustris (Bechstein, 1798) Очеретянка чагарникова Berne-1979 (2) 3 Marsh Warbler Камышевка тростниковая MN 146 Acrocephalus scirpaceus (Hermann, 1804) Очеретянка ставкова Berne-1979 (2) 3 Reed Warbler Камышевка дроздовидная MN 147 Acrocephalus arundinaceus (Linnaeus, 1758) Очеретянка велика Berne-1979 (2) 4 Great Reed Warbler Пересмешка зеленая MN 148 Hippolais icterina (Vieillot, 1817) Берестянка звичайна Berne-1979 (2) 4 Icterine Warbler Славка ястребиная MN 149 Sylvia nisoria (Bechstein, 1795) Кропив’янка рябогруда Berne-1979 (2) 3 Barred Warbler Славка черноголовая MN 150 Sylvia atricapilla (Linnaeus, 1758) Кропив’янка чорноголова Berne-1979 (2) 4 Blackcap Славка садовая MN 151 Sylvia borin (Boddaert, 1783) Кропив’янка садова Berne-1979 (2) 3 Garden Warbler Славка серая MN 152 Sylvia communis Latham, 1787 Кропив’янка сіра Berne-1979 (2) 5 Whitethroat Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 211 The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Status names abundance Славка-завирушка MN 153 Sylvia curruca (Linnaeus, 1758) Кропив’янка прудка Berne-1979 (2) 3 Lesser Whitethroat Пеночка-весничка MN 154 Phylloscopus trochilus (Linnaeus, 1758) Вівчарик весняний Berne-1979 (2) 4 Willow Warbler Пеночка-теньковка MN 155 Phylloscopus collybita (Vieillot, 1817) Вівчарик-ковалик Berne-1979 (2) 4 Chiffchaff Пеночка-трещoтка MN 156 Phylloscopus sibilatrix (Bechstein, 1793) Вівчарик жовтобровий Berne-1979 (2) 4 Wood Warbler Пеночка зеленая MN 157 Phylloscopus trochiloides (Sundevall, 1837) Вівчарик зелений Berne-1979 (2) 3 Greenish Warbler Королек желтоголовый 158 Regulus regulus (Linnaeus, 1758) Золотомушка жовточуба Berne-1979 (2) 3 MNR Goldcrest Мухоловка-пеструшка 159 Ficedula hypoleuca (Pallas, 1764) Мухоловка строката Berne-1979 (2) 4 MN Pied Flycatcher Мухоловка-белошейка MN 160 Ficedula albicollis (Temminck, 1815) Мухоловка білошия Berne-1979 (2) 3 Collared Flycatcher Мухоловка малая MN 161 Ficedula parva (Bechstein, 1794) Мухоловка мала Berne-1979 (2) 3 Red-breasted Flycatcher Мухоловка серая MN 162 Muscicapa striata (Pallas, 1764) Мухоловка сіра Berne-1979 (2) 4 Spotted Flycatcher Чекан луговой MN 163 Saxicola rubetra (Linnaeus, 1758) Трав’янка лучна Berne-1979 (2) 4 Whinchat Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 212 The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Status names abundance Каменка обыкновенная MN 164 Oenanthe oenanthe (Linnaeus, 1758) Кам’янка звичайна Berne-1979 (2) 3 Wheatear Горихвостка обыкновенная MN 165 Phoenicurus phoenicurus (Linnaeus, 1758) Горихвістка звичайна Berne-1979 (2) 3 Redstart Горихвостка-чернушка MN 166 Phoenicurus ochruros (S.G.Gmelin, 1774) Горихвістка чорна Berne-1979 (2) 4 Black Redstart Зарянка MN 167 Erithacus rubecula (Linnaeus, 1758) Вільшанка Berne-1979 (2) 4 Robin Соловей обыкновенный MN 168 Luscinia luscinia (Linnaeus, 1758) Соловейко східний Berne-1979 (2) 4 Thrush Nightingale Варакушка MN 169 Luscinia svecica (Linnaeus, 1758) Синьошийка Berne-1979 (2) 3 Bluethroat Рябинник 170 Turdus pilaris Linnaeus, 1758 Чикотень 4 MNW Fieldfare Дрозд черный MN 171 Turdus merula Linnaeus, 1758 Дрізд чорний 5 Blackbird Белобровик MN 172 Turdus iliacus Linnaeus, 1766 Дрізд білобровий 3 Redwing Дрозд певчий MN 173 Turdus philomelos C.L.Brehm, 1831 Дрізд співочий 4 Song Thrush Деряба MN 174 Turdus viscivorus Linnaeus, 1758 Дрізд-омелюх 4 Mistle Thrush Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 213 The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Status names abundance Синица усатая MN 175 Panurus biarmicus (Linnaeus, 1758) Синиця вусата Berne-1979 (2) 1 Bearded Tit Синица длиннохвостая 176 Aegithalos caudatus (Linnaeus, 1758) Синиця довгохвоста Berne-1979 (2) 3 NR Long-tailed Tit Ремез обыкновенный 177 Remiz pendulinus (Linnaeus, 1758) Ремез Berne-1979 (2) 2 MN Penduline Tit Гаичка черноголовая 178 Parus palustris Linnaeus, 1758 Гаїчка болотяна Berne-1979 (2) 3 NR Marsh Tit Гаичка буроголовая 179 Parus montanus Baldenstein, 1827 Гаїчка-пухляк Berne-1979 (2) 4 NR Willow Tit Синица хохлатая 180 Parus cristatus Linnaeus, 1758 Синиця чубата Berne-1979 (2) 4 NR Crested Tit Московка 181 Parus ater Linnaeus, 1758 Синиця чорна Berne-1979 (2) 3 NR Coal Tit Лазоревка обыкновенная MNR 182 Parus caeruleus Linnaeus, 1758 Синиця блакитна Berne-1979 (2) 4 Blue Tit Синица большая MNR 183 Parus major Linnaeus, 1758 Синиця велика Berne-1979 (2) 5 Great Tit Поползень обыкновенный NR 184 Sitta europaea Linnaeus, 1758 Повзик Berne-1979 (2) 3 Nuthatch Пищуха обыкновенная NR 185 Certhia familiaris Linnaeus, 1758 Підкоришник звичайний Berne-1979 (2) 3 Treecreeper Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 214 The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Status names abundance Воробей домовый NR 186 Passer domesticus (Linnaeus, 1758) Горобець хатній 3 House Sparrow Воробей полевой NR 187 Passer montanus (Linnaeus, 1758) Горобець польовий 4 Tree Sparrow Зяблик 188 Fringilla coelebs Linnaeus, 1758 Зяблик 5 MNW Chaffinch Вьюрок 189 Fringilla montifringilla Linnaeus, 1758 В’юрок 2 MW Brambling Вьюрок европейский 190 Serinus serinus (Pallas, 1811) Щедрик Berne-1979 (2) 3 M Serin Зеленушка обыкновенная 191 Chloris chloris (Linnaeus, 1758) Зеленяк Berne-1979 (2) 4 MN Greenfinch Чиж 192 Spinus spinus (Linnaeus, 1758) Чиж Berne-1979 (2) 4 MW Siskin Щегол черноголовый 193 Carduelis carduelis (Linnaeus, 1758) Щиглик Berne-1979 (2) 4 MNW Goldfinch Коноплянка 194 Acanthis cannabina (Linnaeus, 1758) Коноплянка Berne-1979 (2) 4 MN Linnet Чечетка обыкновенная 195 Acanthis flammea (Linnaeus, 1758) Чечітка звичайна Berne-1979 (2) 2 MW Redpoll Чечевица обыкновенная 196 Carpodacus erythrinus (Pallas, 1770) Чечевиця Berne-1979 (2) 3 MN Scarlet Rosefinch Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 215 The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Status names abundance Снегирь обыкновенный 197 Pyrrhula pyrrhula (Linnaeus, 1758) Снігур 3 MW Bullfinch Дубонос обыкновенный 198 Coccothraustes coccothraustes (Linnaeus, 1758) Костогриз Berne-1979 (2) 4 MNW Hawfinch Просянка 199 Emberiza calandra Linnaeus, 1758 Просянка 2 MN Corn Bunting Овсянка обыкновенная 200 Emberiza citrinella Linnaeus, 1758 Вівсянка звичайна Berne-1979 (2) 4 MNW Yellowhammer Овсянка тростниковая 201 Emberiza schoeniclus (Linnaeus, 1758) Вівсянка очеретяна Berne-1979 (2) 3 MN Reed Bunting Овсянка садовая 202 Emberiza hortulana Linnaeus, 1758 Вівсянка садова 2 MN Ortolan Bunting

* Symbols and abbreviations: Conservation status – see Table 13. Relative abundance: 1 – species noted once in the period after 1986; 2 – occasionally noted species; 3 – common species, but relatively few in numbers; 4 – often registered species; 5 – abundant species. Status: M – migrant; N – nesting; R – resident; W – wintering; O – occasional flights. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 216 If not to take into account the domesticated species of mammals that still exist in ChEZ, although in small quantities (cats, dogs, cows, horses, etc.), the wild mammal fauna is represented by 58 species (Table 17). They include 7 orders and 19 families. Most of the species are local. There are only 6 adventive species, two of them (the brown rat and the house mouse) are very old (and distant) invaders and mostly live near people [Zahorodniuk, 2008]. Three species (the muskrat, American mink and raccoon dog) represent fauna of the American continent and Far Eastern region of Asia; they were artificially introduced into local zoo-cenoses during the previous 50-70 years [Panov, 2002] and have completely naturalized by now. Another species (the Kuhl's pipistrelle) belongs to natural invasive species. It penetrated into the region in the 1990s from the southern regions of Europe due to the expansion of the species distribution range. It lives in industrial territories and settlements only [Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. Finally, the two species (the bison and the tarpan) were introduced in the 1990s [Zharkikh, 2002, Deriabina, 2008]. The bison is completely autochthonous species; however, the tarpan is an Asian steppe form of the wild tarpan horse that lived in the south forest zone hundreds of years ago [Sokur, 1961]. The tarpans were released directly into ChEZ; and the bison, which was registered in ChEZ, is representing the herd that was brought into the neighbouring Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve of Belarus in 1996 [Gashchak et al, 2017].

The level of knowledge about most species is very low. For some species (the mountain hare, the stoat, some bats and insectivores, etc.) the data are so deficient, that additional research is required to clarify their distribution and status.

Generally, the list of mammals registered in ChEZ includes practically all species that may theoretically be present in the region.

References

[Berne-1979] The Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats (Berne, 1979). - Kyiv: Publishing house of the Ministry of Environmental Protection of Ukraine, 1998.- 76p. (in Ukrainian). Deriabina T.G. Distribution and number of large mammals listed on the Red Data Book of the Republic of Belarus (bison, bear, lynx, badger) in the territory of the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve // Faunal research in the Paliessie State Radiation Ecological Reserve: Collection of scientific papers / Ed. by H.V. Antsipov. - Homel: RNIUP "Institute of Radiology", 2008. - pp. 19- 35 (in Russian). Gashchak S.P., Huliaichenko Y.O., Beresford N.A., Wood M.D. European bison (Bison bonasus) in the Chornobyl exclusion zone (Ukraine) and prospects for its revival // Proceedings of Theriological School. — Vol. 15 (2017): 58–66. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 217 Gashchak S.P., Vyshnevskyi D.O., Zaliskyi O.O. The vertebrate fauna in the Chornobyl exclusion zone (Ukraine). - Slavutych: Publishing house of the Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology, 2006 – 100p. (in Ukrainian). [IUCN] The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2017-3 (http://www.iucnredlist.org/) (in English) Panov H.M. Dynamics of habitats and number of semi-aquatic fur animals in Ukraine in the second half of the 20th century // Bulletin of the University of Lviv. Biology Series. - 2002 (30): 119-132 (in Ukrainian). [RBU-2009] The Red Data Book of Ukraine. The animal world / Ed. by I.A. Akimov - K.: HlobalConsulting, 2009. - 600 p. (in Ukrainian). Sokur I.T. Historical changes and use of mammal fauna in Ukraine. - Kyiv: Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, 1961. - 84 p. (in Ukrainian). Zahorodniuk I. The adventive fauna of Ukraine and the value of invasions in historical changes of fauna and groups // Fauna in anthropogenic environment. - Luhansk, 2006. - pp. 18-47. - (Proceedings of the Theriological School, Issue 8) (in Ukrainian). Zharkikh T.N., Yasinetskaia N.I., Borovskyi A.N., Zvehintsova N.S. Studying the tarpan population in the Chornobyl NPP zone // Bulletin of the Moscow Society of Naturalists. Biology Department. - 2002. - V. 107, issue 5. - pp. 9-16 (in Russian).

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 218

Table 17. The annotated list of mammals in ChEZ registered after 1986

The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Note names abundance заяц русак Berne-1979 (3), 1 Lepus europaeus Pallas, 1778 заєць сірий 4 IUCN (LC) European hare заяц беляк RBU-2009 (3), 2 Lepus timidus Linnaeus, 1758 заєць білий Berne-1979 (3), 1 Mountain hare IUCN (LC) белка Berne-1979 (3), 3 Sciurus vulgaris Linnaeus, 1758 вивірка лісова 4 IUCN (LC) Red squirrel соня орешниковая Berne-1979 (3), 4 Muscardinus avellanarius (Linnaeus, 1758) ліскулька руда 3 IUCN (LC) Hazel Dormouse соня лесная Berne-1979 (3), 5 Dryomys nitedula (Pallas, 1779) соня лісова 3 IUCN (LC) Forest dormouse бобер европейский Berne-1979 (3), 6 Castor fiber Linnaeus, 1758 бобер європейський 4 IUCN (LC) Eurasian Beaver мышевка лесная RBU-2009 (3), 7 Sicista betulina (Pallas, 1779) мишівка лісова Berne-1979 (2), 3 Northern Birch Mouse IUCN (LC) мышь-малютка 8 Micromys minutus (Pallas, 1771) мишка лучна IUCN (LC) 3 Harvest Mouse мышь полевая 9 Apodemus agrarius (Pallas, 1771) житник пасистий IUCN (LC) 5 Striped Field Mouse мышь желтогорлая 10 Sylvaemus tauricus (Pallas, 1811) мишак жовтогрудий IUCN (LC) 5 Yellow-necked Mouse Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 219

The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Note names abundance мышь европейская 11 Sylvaemus sylvaticus (Linnaeus, 1758) мишак європейський IUCN (LC) 5 Western Wood Mouse мышь домовая 12 Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758 миша хатня IUCN (LC) 3 old invasive House mouse крыса серая 13 Rattus norvegicus (Berkenhout, 1769) пацюк мандрівний IUCN (LC) 3 old invasive Brown rat ондатра 14 Ondatra zibethicus (Linnaeus, 1766) ондатра мускусна IUCN (LC) 4 introduced Muskrat полевка рыжая 15 Myodes glareolus (Schreber, 1780) нориця руда IUCN (LC) 5 Bank Vole полевка подземная 16 subterraneus (Selys-Longchamps, 1836) норик підземний IUCN (LC) 3 European Pine Vole полевка темная 17 agrestis (Linnaeus, 1761) полівка темна IUCN (LC) 3 Field Vole полевка восточноевропейская 18 Microtus levis Miller, 1908 полівка лучна IUCN (LC) 3 Southern Vole полевка серая 19 Microtus arvalis (Pallas, 1779) полівка європейська IUCN (LC) 5 полевка-экономка Berne-1979 (3), 20 Microtus oeconomus (Pallas, 1776) полівка сибірська (шапарка) 3 IUCN (LC) Tundra Vole еж белобрюхий 21 Erinaceus roumanicus Barrett-Hamilton, 1900 їжак білочеревий IUCN (LC) 3 Northern White-breasted Hedgehog Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 220

The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Note names abundance крот европейский 22 Talpa europaea Linnaeus, 1758 кріт європейський IUCN (LC) 4 European Mole белозубка малая Berne-1979 (2), 23 Crocidura suaveolens (Pallas, 1811) білозубка мала 2 IUCN (LC) Lesser White-toothed Shrew кутора обыкновенная Berne-1979 (3), 24 Neomys fodiens (Pennant, 1771) рясоніжка велика 3 IUCN (LC) Eurasian Water Shrew бурозубка малая Berne-1979 (3), 25 Sorex minutus Linnaeus, 1766 мідиця мала 3 IUCN (LC) Eurasian Pygmy Shrew бурозубка обыкновенная Berne-1979 (3), 26 Sorex araneus Linnaeus, 1758 мідиця звичайна 5 IUCN (LC) Common Shrew ночница Брандта RBU-2009 (3), 27 Myotis brandtii (Eversmann, 1845) нічниця північна (брандтова) Berne-1979 (2), 1 Brandt's Bat IUCN (LC) ночница усатая RBU-2009 (2), 28 Myotis mystacinus (Kuhl, 1817) нічниця вусата Berne-1979 (2), 1 Whiskered Bat IUCN (LC) ночница прудовая RBU-2009 (1), 29 Myotis dasycneme (Boie, 1825) нічниця ставкова Berne-1979 (2), 2 Pond Bat IUCN (NT) ночница водяная RBU-2009 (2), 30 Myotis daubentonii (Kuhl, 1817) нічниця водяна Berne-1979 (2), 4 Daubenton's Bat IUCN (LC) ушан бурый RBU-2009 (2), 31 Plecotus auritus (Linnaeus, 1758) вухань бурий Berne-1979 (2), 4 Brown Long-eared Bat IUCN (LC) широкоушка европейская RBU-2009 (1), 32 Barbastella barbastellus Schreber, 1774 широковух європейський Berne-1979 (2), 1 Western Barbastelle IUCN (NT) Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 221

The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Note names abundance вечерница малая RBU-2009 (3), 33 Nyctalus leisleri (Kuhl, 1817) вечірниця мала Berne-1979 (2), 4 Lesser Noctule IUCN (LC) вечерница рыжая RBU-2009 (2), 34 Nyctalus noctula (Schreber, 1774) вечірниця дозірна Berne-1979 (2), 5 Common Noctule IUCN (LC) вечерница гигантская RBU-2009 (1), 35 Nyctalus lasiopterus (Schreber, 1780) вечірниця велетенська Berne-1979 (2), 2 Greater Noctule bat IUCN (VU A4c) нетопырь средиземноморский RBU-2009 (2), 36 Pipistrellus kuhlii (Kuhl, 1817) нетопир білосмугий Berne-1979 (2), 3 invasive Kuhl's Pipistrelle IUCN (LC) нетопырь лесной RBU-2009 (4), 37 Pipistrellus nathusii (Keyserling, Blasius, 1839) нетопир лісовий Berne-1979 (2), 5 Nathusius's pipistrelle IUCN (LC) нетопырь-пигмей RBU-2009 (4), 38 Pipistrellus pygmaeus (Leach, 1825) нетопир пігмей Berne-1979 (2), 4 Soprano Pipistrelle IUCN (LC) кожан двухцветный RBU-2009 (2), 39 Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758 лилик двоколірний Berne-1979 (2), 3 Parti-coloured bat IUCN (LC) кожан поздний RBU-2009 (2), 40 Eptesicus serotinus (Schreber, 1774) пергач пізній Berne-1979 (2), 3 Serotine bat IUCN (LC) рысь RBU-2009 (3), 41 Lynx lynx (Linnaeus, 1758) рись євразійська Berne-1979 (3), 3 Eurasian lynx IUCN (LC) собака енотовидная 42 Nyctereutes procyonoides (Gray, 1834) єнот уссурійський IUCN (LC) 4 introduced Raccoon Dog волк Berne-1979 (2), 43 Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758 вовк 3 IUCN (LC) Gray wolf Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 222

The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Note names abundance лиса 44 Vulpes vulpes (Linnaeus, 1758) лиc рудий IUCN (LC) 4 Red fox медведь бурый RBU-2009 (1), 45 Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758 ведмідь бурий Berne-1979 (2), 2 Brown bear IUCN (LC) ласка Berne-1979 (3), 46 Mustela nivalis Linnaeus, 1766 ласиця 4 IUCN (LC) хорь черный RBU-2009 (4), 47 Mustela putorius Linnaeus, 1758 тхір темний Berne-1979 (3), 2 European polecat IUCN (LC) норка американская 48 Neovison vison (Schreber, 1777) візон річковий IUCN (LC) 3 introduced American mink куница лесная Berne-1979 (3), 49 Martes martes (Linnaeus, 1758) куниця лісова 3 IUCN (LC) Pine Marten куница каменная Berne-1979 (3), 50 Martes foina (Erxleben, 1777) куниця кам'яна 3 IUCN (LC) Beech Marten барсук Berne-1979 (3), 51 Meles meles (Linnaeus, 1758) борсук європейський 3 IUCN (LC) European badger выдра RBU-2009 (4), 52 Lutra lutra (Linnaeus, 1758) видра річкова Berne-1979 (2), 3 European otter IUCN (NT) конь Пржевальского RBU-2009 (0), 53 Equus ferus (Boddaert, 1785) кінь тарпан 3 re-introduced IUCN (EN D) Tarpan кабан Berne-1979 (3), 54 Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758 свиня лісова 4 IUCN (LC) Wild boar Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 223

The Russian, Ukrainian and English Relative No. Species Conservation status Note names abundance олень благородный Berne-1979 (3), 55 Cervus elaphus Linnaeus, 1758 олень шляхетний 4 IUCN (LC) Red deer косуля европейская Berne-1979 (3), 56 Capreolus capreolus (Linnaeus, 1758) сарна європейська 4 IUCN (LC) European Roe Deer лось европейский Berne-1979 (3), 57 Alces alces (Linnaeus, 1758) лось європейський 4 IUCN (LC) Eurasian elk зубр RBU-2009 (0), 58 Bison bonasus (Linnaeus, 1758) зубр Berne-1979 (3), 2 re-introduced European bison IUCN (VU D1) * Symbols and abbreviations: For the conservation status and relative abundance see Table 16.

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 224

The Red Data Book animal species in CHEZ. Annotated profiles

1. Ukrainian brook lamprey (Мінога українська, Минога украинская) Eudontomyzon mariae (Berg, 1931)

Taxonomy: Order – Lampreys (Petromyzontiformes), Family – Petromyzontidae.

Conservation status: critically endangered [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature – LC: Least Concern [IUCN- 2017]. Listed on Appendix III – Protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The Ukrainian brook lamprey was first described basing on the specimens caught in the Teterev River [Berh, 1948]. In 1959- 1961 it was fished in the nearby rivers of Belarus [Zhukov, 1965], and in 1984 it was fished in the Uzh River near the village of Cherevach (16 specimens are stored in the collection of the Zoological Museum of the National Science and Natural History Museum under the NAS of Ukraine, Ref. No. 2360 [Movchan et al., 2003]). In 1997, an adult specimen was caught in the Teterev River near the village of Orane, and in 1998 a larva was caught in the Chornobyl NPP cooling pond [Riabov, 2004]. According to I.N. Riabov, the local decrease in abundance of the lamprey may be due to its increased radio sensitivity, although he gave no evidence. It is obvious that availability of the species in ChEZ most likely depends on its presence in the nearest sectors of the Pripyat and Dnipro Rivers. Generally, presence of lampreys in the region can be described as "unclear" due to an extremely small amount of data, which in caused by the lack of targeted research, respectively.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

According to literature data [Berh, 1948], clean flowing water reservoirs with silty bottom areas are needed for the reproduction, growth and development of the lampreys. Rivers and streams in ChEZ meet these characteristics only partially. They have both sandy and silty bottom areas, they are not subject to chemical contamination (due to the absence of agricultural activities), and Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 225 they have almost no artificial barriers. In contrast to standing water bodies, they are characterized by relatively low radioactive contamination. However, all local watercourses have weak water supply, frequent shallowing and relatively low oxygen content. Therefore, there are no best conditions for lampreys here. Nevertheless, since the species was noted in the past and conditions have improved over the 30 years, chances to preserve the brook lamprey in the local fauna are still high. The brook lamprey has no commercial value, and under the ChEZ conditions it is obviously not experiencing a significant pressure from humans. Consequently, water bodies in ChEZ are favourable for its development and conservation.

2. Sterlet (Стерлядь, Стерлядь) Acipenser ruthenus Linnaeus, 1758

Taxonomy: Order – Sturgeons (Acipenseriformes), Family – Acipenseridae.

Conservation status: critically endangered [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature – VU: vulnerable [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix III – Protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

There is no reliable data on the presence of sterlet in ChEZ water bodies. Far back in the past (before 1940) it was regularly fished in the Dnipro and Pripyat Rivers [The Fauna of Ukraine, 1980; Rare and endangered species ..., 1988]. However, abundance of sterlets decreased due to the overfishing and dams construction, and they became extremely rare throughout Ukraine. The species was not registered in ChEZ for a long time. However, we evidenced a sale of a live sterlet (approximately 35 cm long) in July 2007; it was caught in the Dnipro River, across the town of Slavutych. The sellers said, this fish is extremely rare, but sometimes it is caught from the river starting with Pravednyi Isle and to the upper reaches of the Kyiv reservoir. Since it is close to the Pripyat River's offing, we do not exclude possible presence of sterlets in ChEZ water bodies.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

According to literature data [Berh, 1948, The Fauna of Ukraine, 1980], reproduction of the sterlet takes place in flowing water bodies with a rocky or shelly bottom. Therefore, rivers in ChEZ, which are characterized by silty and sandy bottoms, are suitable only for the growth and Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 226 development of the fish. Apparently, the sterlets caught in this area come from upper reaches of the Dnipro and Pripyat Rivers and their confluents, where conditions are more favourable. For example, sterlets were noted in the Pripyat Reserve (currently named the Pripyat National Park of Belarus) in 1983 and 1989 [Vertebrate animals ..., 1995]. Generally, this area should be of secondary importance for the species ecology. However, due to a relatively low pressure from humans it can contribute to the species conservation and increase.

3. Spirlin (Бистрянка звичайна, Быстрянка) Alburnoides bipunctatus (Bloch, 1782)

Taxonomy: Order – carps (), Family –

Conservation status: critically endangered [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature – LC: Least Concern [IUCN- 2017]. Listed on Appendix III – Protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

There is no detailed information on this species recording in ChEZ. However, there are some reports about fishing it in the Teterev [Riabov, 2004] and Pripyat Rivers after 1986 [Hashchak et al., 2006].

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions Taking into account the fish’s small size and the lack of studies, under which it could be caught, it is currently difficult to tell about the extent to which the ChEZ water bodies meet the needs of this species. Previously, it was mentioned that the spirlin needs in-flow clean flowing water bodies with sufficiently high oxygen content [The Fauna of Ukraine, 1983]. There are few such rivers and streams within ChEZ. Nonetheless, the spirlin is being periodically recorded in the Teterev River for many decades; it is also present in the Pripyat River [Riabov, 2004, Hashchak et al., 2006]. Absence of the fish’s commercial value, waterworks and man-caused contamination of water bodies, low pressure from humans produce low risks for the spirlin. Therefore, these are favourable for its conservation and increase. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 227

4. Dnipro barbel (Марена дніпровська, Усач днепровский) Barbus borysthenicus (Dybowski, 1862)

Taxonomy: Order – carps (Cypriniformes), Family – Cyprinidae.

Conservation status: critically endangered [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature – NE: not evaluated [IUCN- 2017].

Data on the species in ChEZ

There is no detailed information on the recording of this species in ChEZ. However, there are some reports that a barbell was caught in the Teterev River in 2003 [Riabov, 2004]. Earlier it was seen in the Sluch River (the Pripyat River basin, 1984) and the Teterev River (the Dnipro basin, 1964) in the neighbouring Zhytomyr region [Movchan et al., 2003].

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The Dnipro barbel is known as a species favouring flowing water bodies with a relatively fast flow and good oxygenating [The Fauna of Ukraine, 1981]. Construction of water power plants and changed hydrological regime resulted in a general reduction of the barbel abundance throughout Ukraine. Its periodical registration in the Teterev River is apparently related to the preservation of favourable conditions in the river upper reaches (outside ChEZ). Apparently, similar conditions exist in some tributary rivers of the Pripyat basin. Consequently, further recordings of the barbel in the Teterev and Pripyat Rivers could be expected; however these would be a few occasionally entering specimens.

5. Crucian carp (Карась звичайний, Карась золотой) Carassius carassius (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomy: Order – carps (Cypriniformes), Family – Cyprinidae. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 228

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature – LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017].

Data on the species in ChEZ

Despite its conservation status, the crucian carp is a common species in many water bodies within ChEZ, both in rivers and lakes [Hashchak et al., 2006, Riabov, 2004]. And it is one of the most numerous species in some lakes of the Pripyat River floodplain [Hashchak et al., 2006]. However, it is much less common in Chornobyl area, lower reaches of the Pripyat River and in the Kyiv reservoir.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Listing of the crucian carp on the Red Data Book of Ukraine was due to a sharp decrease in its abundance that has been caused by changed hydrological regime and pollution of rivers, as well as by overfishing [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. In ChEZ sector of the Pripyat River, this was demonstrated by a reduced share of the species in the catches towards the Kyiv reservoir, where fisheries would not stop [Hashchak et al., 2006]. At the same time with the absence of fishing, the crucian carp remained the most numerous species, even in the most "dirty" radioactively contaminated lakes. This species is tolerant to silted water bodies with low oxygen content, which are most typical of the region; therefore, the crucian carp has a wide selection of habitats. Absence of any man-caused and anthropogenic impacts within the most of ChEZ territory is another favourable factor that is supporting stable population of the species. However, actual state of the species can only be assessed based on additional studies.

6. Common dace (Ялець звичайний, Елец) Leuciscus leuciscus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomy: Order – carps (Cypriniformes), Family – Cyprinidae.

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature – LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017].

Data on the species in ChEZ Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 229

According to the results of former studies [Hashchak et al., 2006, Riabov, 2004], the common dace is a common but few fish in the ChEZ water bodies. It was caught in the Pripyat and Teterev Rivers and in the ChNPP cooling pond. More detailed data are unavailable.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Listing of the common dace on the Red Data Book of Ukraine was due to a sharp decrease in its abundance that has been caused by changed hydrological regime and pollution of rivers, as well as by overfishing [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. Absence of any man-caused and anthropogenic impacts within most ChEZ areas favours conservation of the species in upper reaches of the Pripyat, Uzh and Teterev Rivers. However, transformation of the ChNPP cooling pond into a system of oxbow swamps as a result of its decommissioning is likely to cause the common dace’s extinct from the central part of ChEZ. Actual state of the species can only be assessed based on additional studies.

7. Lake minnow (Мересниця озерна, Гольян озерный) Rhynchocypris percnurus (Pallas, 1814)

Taxonomy: Order – carps (Cypriniformes), Family – Cyprinidae.

Conservation status: critically endangered [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature – LC: Least Concern [IUCN- 2017].

Data on the species in ChEZ

There is no detailed data on the lake minnow registration in ChEZ. It is only known that after it was caught in the basin of the Pripyat River the Chornobyl accident [Hashchak et al., 2006]. In the past, it was registered in low-flow and closed water bodies of the Teterev River basin (the Kyiv region) and in upper tributaries of the Pripyat River [The Fauna of Ukraine, 1981].

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 230

Since the lake minnow is a small fish that does not have commercial value, mainly lives in low- flow and stagnant water bodies with a silty bottom and is resistant to oxygen deficiency [The Fauna of Ukraine, 1981], the conditions in ChEZ fully meet its needs and are favourable for the species conservation. The lack of data may just result from the lack of appropriate studies.

8. Burbot (Минь річковий, Налим) Lota lota Oken, 1817

Taxonomy: Order – Gadiformes, Family – Lotidae.

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature – LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017].

Data on the species in ChEZ

There is no detailed information on the burbot abundance and distribution within ChEZ. However, it was fished in the Rivers of Pripyat and Teterev, and in the Kyiv reservoir [Riabov, 2004, Hashchak et al., 2006]. According to our data, the burbot is also commonly fished in winter season on the adjacent areas of the Dnipro River (from Liubech to the Kyiv Reservoir).

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Due to its biology, the burbot is not very demanding on the types of water bodies [Fauna of Ukraine, 1988]. However, it is a cold-loving species and therefore prefers deeper habitats; it enters shallow parts of water bodies only in cool seasons. As it is being regularly fished in ChEZ and in its adjacencies, it may be stated that this region meets its biological needs and is favourable for the species conservation, which is also facilitated by a relatively low pressure from humans in the ChEZ territory. The most favourable habitats are located in the course of the Pripyat River and in lower reaches of the Uzh and Teterev Rivers.

9. Donets ruffe (Носар, Ерш-носарь) Gymnocephalus acerina Güldenstädt, 1774 Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 231

Taxonomy: Order – Perciformes, Family – Percidae.

Conservation status: critically endangered [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature – LC: Least Concern [IUCN- 2017].

Data on the species in ChEZ

There is no detailed data on the abundance and distribution of the Donets ruffe within ChEZ. However, after 1986 it was periodically fished in the Pripyat and Teterev Rivers, in the Kyiv reservoir and in the ChNPP cooling pond [Riabov, 2004, Hashchak et al., 2006]. In all the cases it was reported as a few, rarely occurring species.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Since the Donets ruffe is considered to be a non-migratory species [The Fauna of Ukraine, 1982] and periodically occurs in local fish catches, we may state that local conditions meet its needs, and therefore are favourable for the species conservation. This is also facilitated by a relatively low pressure from humans within the ChEZ area. At the same time, the Donets ruffe prefers rivers with a relatively swift current, sandy or rocky bottom and also with sufficiently cool and oxygenated water. Consequently, its most favourable habitats should be in the Pripyat River course and in lower reaches of the Uzh and Teterev Rivers.

10. Danube ruffe (Йорж дунайський, Ёрш дунайский) Gymnocephalus baloni Holcík & Hensel, 1974

Taxonomy: Order – Perciformes, Family – Percidae.

Conservation status: not evaluated [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature – LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017].

Data on the species in ChEZ Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 232

There is no detailed information on the abundance and distribution of the Danube ruffe within ChEZ area. However, after 1986 it was periodically fished in the Pripyat and Teterev Rivers, in the Kyiv reservoir [Riabov, 2004, Hashchak et al., 2006]. It is considered as a few species in all the cases.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

In addition to the data on periodic catches of the Danube ruffe within ChEZ, it was caught at other points in middle reaches of the Dnipro River [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009, The Fauna of Ukraine, 1982]. Consequently, an assumption can be made that local conditions meet needs of the species, and thus are favourable for its conservation. This is also facilitated by a relatively low pressure from humans within ChEZ. Since the Danube ruffe prefers deep sections of water bodies with oxygenated water, its most optimal habitats should be in the Pripyat River riverbed and in lower reaches of the Uzh and Teterev Rivers.

11. Smooth snake (Мідянка звичайна, Медянка обыкновенная) Coronella austriaca Laurenti, 1768

Taxonomy: Order – scaled reptiles (Squamata), Family – Colubridae.

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature – LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

There is no detailed data on the abundance and distribution of the smooth snake within ChEZ. However, after 1986 we met it twice: 1) on 31 July 2008, on the bank of the Uzh River, in the area of the abandoned recreation camp named "Kazkovyi" (E 030.042047°, N 51.191994°), one Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 233 specimen; and 2) on 16-21 July 2013, near the destroyed bridge across the Illia River, in the area of the abandoned forestry centre named "Yakovetske" (E 029.615500°, N 51.394740°), two specimens. Another discovery was later reported by I.V. Chyzhevskyi (SSE "Ecocentre"): on 7 October 2017, by the side of the road, between the villages named Kryva Hora and Zymovyshche (E 030,204480°, N 51.397325°), one specimen (the finding was confirmed by a photo). The first two findings were sited near flowing water bodies, near old broad-leaved and mixed forest sites. And the latter one was on the outskirts of young pine and birch plantations, 200 m from the nearest canal and moist alder stand.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Despite the fact that the smooth snake was seen in 3 ChEZ points only, these points are located very far from each other and differ in their environmental characteristics. This gives us grounds to assume a wide spread of the smooth snake. A significant part of ChEZ territory includes coniferous, mixed and deciduous forests, which is in line with the species needs [The Fauna of Ukraine, 1959, Kurylenko, Verves, 1998]. Absence of humans and agricultural activities reduces the risks and favours the smooth snake’s conservation and reproduction. However, a small amount of data is most likely a consequence of the lack of research.

12. Black stork (Лелека чорний, Аист черный) Ciconia nigra (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomy: Order – storks (Ciconiiformes), Family – Ciconiidae.

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature – LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The black stork is a common though few nesting species in ChEZ. It was little known in the mid-20th century [Zhezheryn, 1969, Rare and endangered, 1988]. However, 14 inhabited nests and up to 12 probable nesting sites were found there in the 1980s Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 234

[Holovach et al., 1990, Hryshchenko, 1996]. After the Chornobyl accident, inhabited nests, probable nesting sites and broods of young birds were repeatedly found on many sites in ChEZ [Hashchak, 2002, Hashchak et al., 2006]. According to our data, under favourable conditions the density of nesting sites is up to 1 per 1000 hectares of forest. However, no comprehensive records of the nesting birds were made. According to conservative estimates, there were from 20 to 40 black stork couples in the mid-2000s [Hashchak et al., 2006]; these numbers are comparable to the estimated nesting population in the neighbouring Paliessie State Radiation and Ecology Reserve in Belarus [Yurko, 2008].

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

ChEZ is distinguished by a fairly large number of sites that are suitable for the nesting of the black stork. According to the State Forest Inventory data [Draft organization..., 2006], at least 40,000 hectares of forest areas have plantations aged 60-120 years or more, which are most suitable for nest building by such a large bird. They are mostly surrounded by favourable foraging sites (watery swamp meadows, moist meadows, moist forests). With a nesting density of up to 1.0 couple per 1,000 hectares, at least 40 couples can nest here. However, the ChEZ conditions are not fully favourable. Firstly, forestry activities are going on here and result in a local reduction of the mature forests that are most important for these birds. Secondly, we have found numerous evidence of a predator press over the last 15 years: remains of adult and young birds, destroyed and abandoned nests [Hashchak et al., 2006]. Remains of 8 black storks were found in one nest of the white-tailed eagle only [Domashevskyi et al., 2012]. Apparently, destruction of nests and death of nestlings are also caused by the increased number of lynxes recorded in the same period. Therefore, prospects for the increased abundance of black storks in ChEZ are vague.

13. Lesser white-fronted goose (Гуска мала, Пискулька) Anser erythropus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomy: Order – Anseriformes, Family – Anatidae.

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature – VU A2bcd+3bcd+4bcd: vulnerable [IUCN- 2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 235

Data on the species in ChEZ

The lesser white-fronted goose was registered in ChEZ only occasionally and only during its spring migration periods [Hashchak et al., 2006]. This is the fewest goose recorded by us during its transient flights.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

It is commonly known that this area is located at the intersection of the two main routes for bird seasonal migrations: along the Pripyat River and along the Dnipro River. Therefore, it will further play an essential role in supporting transient birds, similarly to the past period. Nesting of the lesser white-fronted goose in ChEZ is hardly probable, because it nests in the tundra zone, in the north of Eurasia. However, a low level of anthropogenic pressure within ChEZ is a favourable factor and contributes to the conservation of this species.

14. Gadwall (Нерозень, Утка серая) Anas strepera Linnaeus, 1758

Taxonomy: Order – Anseriformes, Family – Anatidae.

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix III – Protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

There are little data on this species. We found a gadwall nest only once, in 1998, at the ChNPP cooling pond, in a mixed colony of silver gulls and cormorants. However, according to observations in a seasonal migration period (August 2001), the gadwall population can be compared to the abundance of mallard (which is the most common representative of this order) [Hashchak et al., 2006]. Consequently, it may be considered that this is a few breeding species in ChEZ, but more often it occurs during seasonal migration periods. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 236

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Generally, conditions in ChEZ meet biological needs of the species. A small number of registration cases are most likely due to the lack of target studies combined with a total decrease of the number of this species in Europe. However, it should be noted that moist and marshy lands of ChEZ are not very productive and have a relatively small density of nesting water birds. Additionally, predator pressure is also high here. As a result, the abundance of the gadwall nesting group will continue to be low; though absence of human population is a favourable factor and contributes to the conservation of this species.

15. Goldeneye (Гоголь, Гоголь обыкновенный) Bucephala clangula (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomy: Order – Anseriformes, Family – Anatidae.

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix III – Protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

After 1986, the goldeneye was locally observed only during the periods of seasonal migrations (for example, in March and April of 1997, near the city of Pripyat) [Hashchak et al., 2006]. We saw it also during its wintering in December 2000 near the town of Chornobyl. However, nesting of goldeneyes is not excluded as well. In 1985, a goldeneye nestled in an artificial nest near Buda-Varovychi village [Hryshchenko, Osavliuk, 1990]. And recently it nested in the neighbouring Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve (2008, near the village of Krasnoselie) [Yurko, 2008]. Generally, it's difficult to say whether goldeneyes nest in ChEZ or not, since there were no targeted searches to this end.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 237

Since the goldeneye nests in the hollows of old trees, the combination of old hollow stands and water bodies is the key factor to support its nesting group. There are such sites in ChEZ, in the floodplains of the Pripyat, Uzh, Ilia rivers and in some other points, although generally there are relatively few of them. Under the current conditions, the situation could only be fundamentally corrected by artificial nests building and their placing in suitable sites. Failing this, the goldeneye shall remain a bird staying here mainly during migrations and winter nomadic migrations.

16. Osprey (Скопа, Скопа) Pandion haliaetus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomy: Order – bird hawks (Accipitriformes), Family – Pandionidae.

Conservation status: critically endangered [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN- 2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

According to our data [Hashchak et al., 2006], the osprey appears in ChEZ only occasionally: firstly during autumn migration periods (16 September 1997, 27 August 1999, 6 September 1999, 10 September 2014, 4 September 2016), and only once it was noted during nesting period (10 June 1995 and 7 July 1995). In all the cases these were lone birds, they stayed in the Pripyat River floodplain or close to it. Similar observations were made in the neighbouring Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve [Yurko, 2008]. There were no cases of ospreys nesting in ChEZ.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The osprey is a fish-eating predator, and ChEZ offers a large selection of suitable stations for it. However, its nesting prospects seem small. In the last century it almost stopped nesting in Ukraine [The Fauna of Ukraine, 1977]. The nearest currently known nests are located in the Volyn region [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009] and in the north of Belarus [Nikiforov et Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 238 al., 1989]. Moreover, nesting of ospreys can be hampered by food competition with the white- tailed eagle, which is relatively abundant in ChEZ. However, there is every reason to expect that ospreys will continue to appear in ChEZ during their seasonal migrations.

17. Black kite (Шуліка чорний, Коршун черный) Milvus migrans (Boddaert, 1783)

Taxonomy: Order – bird hawks (Accipitriformes), Family – Accipitridae.

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The black kite is a rare migratory and presumably nesting species in ChEZ. It nested here in the distant past, but started to decrease in the mid-20th century [Zhezheryna, 1969, The Fauna of Ukraine, 1977]. It was observed directly in ChEZ area only once: in the summer of 1991, near the village named Kopachi [Balashov et al., 1999]. In the 1990s, the black kite was considered to be a rare and presumably nesting species in the neighbouring Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve (Belarus) [Dombrovskyi et al., 2001]. It was marked there on two sites during the nesting period of 2005 [Yurko, 2008], later the number of breeding birds was estimated at 1-3 couples [Dombrovskyi, Zhuravlev, 2008].

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

With due regard for the fact that the black kite lived in this area in the past [The Fauna of Ukraine, 1977], and that modern large nesting group lives relatively close, i.e. along the Desna River in the Chernihiv region [Domashevskyi, 2006], and also the fact that nesting birds have appeared in the neighbouring area in Belarus [Dombrovskyi, Zhuravlev, 2008], there are some prospects for the local restoration of this species. Absence of regular human population and low pressure from humans can also contribute to this end. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 239

18. Hen harrier (Лунь польовий, Лунь полевой) Circus cyaneus (Linnaeus, 1766)

Taxonomy: Order – bird hawks (Accipitriformes), Family – Accipitridae.

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

Although rarely, the hen harrier was locally noted during its autumn migrations [Yurko, 2008, Dombrovskyi, Zhuravlev, 2008]. Right in the ChEZ area this species was noted only once during nesting period (on 9 July 2010) at two remote points, near the village of Ilintsy, two females [Domashevskyi et al., 2012]. The nature of the birds' stay was not established, but nesting was not excluded. At the same time, the number of nesting birds in the neighbouring Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve (Belarus) was estimated to be 0-10 couples [Dombrovskyi, Zhuravlev, 2008].

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The hen harrier is Quite likely to be a rare migratory and occasionally nesting species in ChEZ. Availability of open landscapes and absence of people favour this. At the same time, the continued afforestation of meadows is steadily reducing the number of its suitable habitats, so local prospects for the conservation of this predatory bird are low.

19. Pallid harrier (Лунь степовий, Лунь степной) Circus macrourus (S. G. Gmelin, 1771)

Taxonomy: Order – bird hawks (Accipitriformes), Family – Accipitridae. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 240

Conservation status: critically endangered [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– NT: Near Threatened [IUCN- 2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

This species was registered only in the adjacent areas and only during its seasonal migration periods [Domashevskyi et al., 2012]. For instance, a male of pallid harrier was seen 8 km from ChEZ border in August 2007, near the village of Kosachevka in the Kozelets district of the Chernihiv region. During its spring migrations, it was seen in the neighbouring Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve, on 7 April 1996 [Dombrovskyi et al., 2001] and on 6 April 2006 [Yurko, 2008].

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The pallid harrier is an unrepresentative species occasionally flying into this area. Absence of people and availability of open landscapes still facilitate its occurrence. Though afforestation of meadows and former agrocenoses is steadily reducing the number of its suitable habitats. Therefore, local prospects for the conservation of this bird are low.

20. Montagu`s harrier (Лунь лучний, Лунь луговой) Circus pygargus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomy: Order – bird hawks (Accipitriformes), Family – Accipitridae.

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009] The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The Montagu`s harrier is a rare breeding species of ChEZ. A nest with chicks was found only once, in June 1995, not far from the nuclear power plant [Hashchak et al., Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 241

2006]. But hunting adult birds were seen repeatedly. Only in the last few years they were noted at the following points: near the village of Ilintsy (territorial male, 5 July 2010), 4 km west of Chornobyl town (nesting couple, 6 July 2010), also an adult male was observed at the same point near Chornobyl town later (24 May 2012) [Domashevskyi et al., 2012]. The number of nesting birds in that period could be up to 10 couples, but no accurate data are available due to the lack of research.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The Montagu`s harrier used to be a common nesting and migratory predatory bird in this area [The Fauna of Ukraine, 1977]. However, its number started decreasing in the mid-20th century. The bird prefers moist meadow landscapes and there are still quite a lot of them in ChEZ. Absence of people also facilitates its nesting. At the same time, gradual afforestation of meadows and former agrocenoses is steadily reducing the number of its suitable stations. It may happen that the Montagu`s harrier will be even rarer in future.

21. Short-toed eagle (Змієїд, Змееяд,) Circaetus gallicus (Gmelin, 1788)

Taxonomy: Order – bird hawks (Accipitriformes), Family – Accipitridae.

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II – Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The short-toed eagle is a few nesting species in ChEZ. Its nests and nesting sites were found before 1986 [Zhezheryn, 1969, Hryshchenko et al., 1994]. After the Chornobyl accident, territorial (nesting?) birds (sometimes couples) were observed on many sites in ChEZ [Hashchak et al., 2006; Domashevskyi et al., 2012; data on file]: near the village of Rudki (26 July 2014); between the villages of Old Krasnytsis and Tovstyi Lis (24 November 2006, 23 May 2012, 14 June Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 242

2012); south of Stari Shepelychi village (29 April 2013); in the area between the abandoned Novoshepelychi forestry centre and ChNPP (8 July 2002, 28 May 2004, 29 May 2004, 15 June 2004, 7 August 2005, 9 August 2005, 6 June 2013, 26 July 2014); in the area between the villages of Korhod, Novoselky and Hlynka (23 June 1998, 5 July 2010, 25 May 2012); in the area between the villages of Zymovyshche, Krasno and Mashevo (1 July 1998, 3 August 1999, 8 June 2010); near the village of Paryshiv (1 August 1999, 13 June 2003, 17 July 2003, 9 June 2010); near the village of Horodyshche (July 2010); near the villages of Martynovychi and Rudnia-Ilinetska (July 2010). We assume that up to 15 couples of short-toed eagles are nesting here in recent years. Short-toed eagles also occur here during their seasonal migration periods.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The short-toed eagle was always a common nesting and migrating predatory bird in this area [The Fauna of Ukraine, 1977]. It needs old forests and is sensitive to disturbance from humans, so the conditions in ChEZ are very favourable to it. Current estimates of the short-toed eagle abundance and distribution in the region are based on episodic observations, and therefore they are surely incomplete. It may well be that more of these birds nest here.

22. Spotted eagle (Підорлик великий, Подорлик большой) Aquila clanga Pallas, 1811

Taxonomy: Order – bird hawks (Accipitriformes), Family – Accipitridae.

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– VU C2a: vulnerable [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II – Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 243

The spotted eagle used to be a common eagle, though nowadays it is an extremely rare one, in the fauna of Ukraine. Its visual identification in the field (unlike the lesser spotted eagle) is quite difficult and usually unreliable. Therefore, there was no reliable evidence of its presence for a long time. The birds closest in appearance, with a light upper tail coverts, were seen from in close [Hashchak et al., 2006]: on 12 July 2000 a bird flew off the road ahead of the car in the area of Zymovyshche village; on 18 April 2002 a bird flew off the nest 3 km to the north of Stari Shepelychi village (further checks revealed that the nest was abandoned). Finally, a large nest was found in 2012, 3 km to the north of Bovyshche village, during a survey of forest areas of the Lubianske forestry centre (sq. 280) [Domashevskyi et al., 2012]. During the second check on 22 May 2012, a female spotted eagle flied up there. That turned out to be a hybrid couple, since the male was a lesser spotted eagle (A. pomarina). During the next nest check on 26 July 2012, a chick in a pre-flyout state was found with a mixed type of plumage colour. Another couple of spotted eagles was seen in the area of Stari Shepelychi village on 25 June 2015 (oral report from S.V. Domashevskyi), which coincided with the nesting site of previously identified bird. According to literature data, no less than 3-5 couples of spotted eagles nest in the nearby Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve [Dombrovskyi, Zhuravlev, 2008].

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

During its nesting, the spotted eagle prefers marshy forests either in the vicinity of large water bodies or swamps or surrounded by them [The Fauna of Ukraine, 1977]. Precisely such like habitats were found both in the case of a single nest discovered in ChEZ and in other nesting cases in Ukraine [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. There are several sites with similar characteristics in ChEZ: 1) forest and marshy tracts on the northwest outskirts of ChEZ; 2) between the villages of Richytsia, Stari Shepelychi and Buriakivka; 3) between the villages of Usov, Mashevo, Krasno; 4) between the villages of Zymovushche, Horodchan; 5) forest stands in the southeast of ChEZ. Therefore, a further survey of such like areas can substantially supplement information on the species abundance during its nesting periods. The spotted eagle’s stay in ChEZ during its seasonal migrations is beyond doubt. Absence of human and forestry activities in ChEZ favours conservation of this species.

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 244

23. Lesser spotted eagle (Підорлик малий, Подорлик малый) Aquila pomarina C. L. Brehm, 1831

Taxonomy: Order – bird hawks (Accipitriformes), Family – Accipitridae.

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The lesser spotted eagle is a common though few species in ChEZ. Since in Ukraine it is more numerous than the spotted eagle [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009], the most of spotted eagles observed in ChEZ can be attributed to this very species. Only two inhabited nests were found during the whole observation period: 1) 1.5 km to the north of Bovyshche village (8 May 2006); 2) 2 km to the south of Ivanovka village (9 June 2010). The remaining nests, which were previously identified (10-15 pcs.) and could belong to the lesser spotted eagle according to their characteristics, either were empty when tested or were not checked. However, lone birds or couples staying in some areas during their nesting periods were observed on many sites [Hashchak et al., 2006, Domashevskyi et al., 2012; and authors’ unpublished data]: 1) near the villages of Kryva Hora and Starosillia (18 May 1997, 2 July 1998); 2) to the east of Paryshiv village (23 April 2002, 3 June 2004, 6 June 2010); 3) the site between Paryshiv-2 checkpoint and Koshevka village (12 June 1997, 21 May 1998, 26 June 1998, 23 May 1999); 4) the village of Rudki (22 May 1999); 5) near the villages of Richytsia and Nova Krasnytsia (25 April 2009, 17 April 2012, 24 May 2012, 11 April 2013, 30 April 2013, 21 June 2013); 6) west of Stara Krasnytsia village (22 April 2000, 24 April 2013); 7) suburbs of Stari Shepelychi village (21 April 2002, 3 August 2005, 16 April 2014); 8) near the abandoned farmstead of the Novoshepelychi forestry centre (16 May 2008, 25 May 2014); 9) north of the village of Hlynka (27 May 2012); 10) near Novoselky village (24 April 2012, 15 June 2012); 11) near the village named Krasno (13 July 2015); 12) near the village of Rudnia-Ilinetska (9 June 2010); 13) near Kupovate village (5 July 2012); 14) near Zapolie village (12 July 2010, 29 May 2013, 24 April 2015). According to preliminary estimates, at least 20 couples of lesser spotted eagles can nest Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 245 within ChEZ [Domashevskyi et al., 2012]. This bird is also common during its seasonal migrations.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The lesser spotted eagle prefers moist forests bordering on open landscapes [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. There are many such habitats in ChEZ, absence of people and forestry activities also positively affects this species. Its prospects in ChEZ are positive, there may be a further increase in its abundance. However, currently available estimates on the number of breeding couples and their local distribution are certainly incomplete, more deep research is required.

24. Imperial eagle (Могильник, Могильник) Aquila heliaca Savigny, 1809

Taxonomy: Order – bird hawks (Accipitriformes), Family – Accipitridae.

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– VU C2a: vulnerable [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

To date, there is only one case of the imperial eagle registration in the area. According to radio tracking data, an immature bird named Panni, which was marked by a satellite transmitter in 2011 in , reached the south-western outskirts of ChEZ (the Kotovske forestry centre, near the village of Nova Markovka) in the first decade of May 2012 (http://www.satellitetracking.eu/inds/showtable) [Domashevskyi et al., 2012].

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Since the well-known nesting area of the imperial eagle is located much more to the south of ChEZ, on the border of forest and forest-steppe zones of Ukraine [The Fauna of Ukraine, 1977], Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 246 the fact of its appearance in the region can be considered accidental. Such occurrences cannot be ruled out for the future; however ChEZ territory cannot play a significant role in the conservation of this species.

25. Golden eagle (Беркут, Беркут) Aquila chrysaetos (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomy: Order – bird hawks (Accipitriformes), Family – Accipitridae.

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

According to the results of field observations, the golden eagle appears in ChEZ extremely rarely and exclusively during its seasonal migrations [Domashevskyi et al., 2012]. For instance, it was observed in the Uzh River floodplain on 31 March 2010, near the village of Bovyshche on 7 April 2012, and 4 km south of Korohod village on 31 October 2015. In February 1998, 5-10 birds were noted in the neighbouring Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve (Belarus) [Dombrovskyi, Pareiko, 1999]. Golden eagles were never observed in summer and we doubt earlier reports; most likely they resulted from wrong identifications of the white- tailed eagle, which is comparatively abundant in this area.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The nearest to ChEZ nesting places of the golden eagle are currently located in the Carpathians [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009], and probability of the golden eagle nesting in ChEZ (or even staying in summer) is extremely low. However, flights of these birds during their seasonal migrations cannot be ruled out. And though the ChEZ area cannot play a significant role in the conservation of this species, absence of human disturbance and good food supply can play a positive role in supporting the migratory birds. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 247

26. White-tailed eagle (Орлан-білохвіст, Орлан-белохвост) Haliaeetus albicilla (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomy: Order – bird hawks (Accipitriformes), Family – Accipitridae.

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The white-tailed eagle is a common though few predatory bird in the region. It is regularly recorded both during nesting and in seasonal nomadic migration periods. In the mid-20th century it was rare, there were no data on its nesting [Zhezheryn, 1969], but there were tendencies towards an increase in its abundance in the area of Kyiv reservoir in the 1980s [Poluda, 2000]. From 4 to 6 couples of white-tailed eagles were assumed to be nesting within ChEZ in 1987-1989 [Legeida et al., 1996]. Assumptions of 5-8 nesting couples were also reported in the 1990s [Panov, 2004, Hashchak et al., 2006]. According to the latest estimates [Domashevskyi et al., 2012], at least 10 couples nest here. Due to the lack of research, only 4 sites with the nests are known to date: 1) 3 km north of Kupovate village (sq. 99 of the Opachychi forestry centre), in an oak, in an island forest area in the middle of a marsh, is used at least since 2003; 2) 3 km west of the Chornobyl NPP, Stupnykove stow (sq. 22 of the Korohod forestry centre), on the outskirts of the old pine forest, is used at least since 2003; 3) 2.5 km west of Novoselky village, in a pine tree in the old oak-hornbeam forest (sq. 324 of the Korohod forestry centre), is used at least since 2012; 4) 3 km northwest of Stari Shepelychi village, in an oak tree, on the outskirts of alder stand (sq. 129 of the Lubianske forestry centre), is used at least since 2014. Also there was an earlier report about a finding of another nest in 1992, in the area of Koshovka village [Havryliuk, Hryshchenko, 2000], though it was not found later. Despite the nests large sizes, a search for them is very difficult. Not all of them are located near forest openings (the nest near the village of Novoselky is located deep in the forest), birds often have several nests in one area, and they do not nest annually. Therefore, only further careful studies can clarify the situation with the Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 248 abundance and distribution of these eagles within ChEZ. White-tailed eagles are even more abundant locally during their seasonal migrations and winter nomadic migrations. There are a lot of reports about gatherings of 40-100 birds together on a site (usually, near an open water patch on water bodies) [Hashchak et al., 2006, Domashevskyi, Chyzhevskyi, 2009, Yurko, 2008].

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The most dense population of white-tailed eagles in Ukraine is in the upper reaches of Dnipro River [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. They stay here throughout the year, which is due to the availability of forests and abundant fish resources. ChEZ also provides a wide selection of favourable habitats. Drainage of the ChNPP cooling pond, where large quantities of eagles used to concentrate, is unlikely to have serious effects. There are a lot of other water bodies in ChEZ, and additionally the eagle is not an obligate fish-eating predator, it also hunts birds and animals and never rejects carrion. The wide selection of terrestrial fauna and absence of humans contribute to its well-being. However, it is still difficult to say to what extent the white-tailed eagle abundance has reached its saturation point, and whether its well-being depends on ChEZ resources only. Additional studies are required to this end.

27. Saker (Балабан, Балобан) Falco cherrug Gray, 1834

Taxonomy: Order – Falconiformes, Family – falcons (Falconidae).

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– EN A2bcde+3cde+4bcde: critically endangered [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

At present, the saker is a rare, migratory species in the region, but it nested here in the past. Prior to the Chornobyl accident, the saker nesting was known near the Uzh River's offing [The Fauna of Ukraine, 1977]. Afterwards, the saker's nest with Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 249 chicks was found in May 1988, in an old crow's nest on a power line, in the Uzh River valley, near the village of Martynovychi (reported by S.P. Prokopenko according to: [Domashevskyi et al., 2012]). Since that time, the saker has not been seen in ChEZ. However, according to radio tracking data, a female saker, which was marked by a satellite transmitter in Hungary, was noted in July 2008 on ChEZ western outskirts (http://www.satellitetracking.eu/inds/showtable) [Domashevskyi et al., 2012]. According to the same source, other specimens covered by the satellite tracking also flew near this area.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Currently, the saker’s nesting area is mainly located in the steppe zone of Ukraine, hundreds of kilometres to the south [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. Therefore, probability of its nesting within ChEZ is extremely low. But flights of moving birds are not ruled out. And though the ChEZ area cannot play a significant role in the species conservation, absence of disturbance from humans and good food supply can facilitate support of the migratory birds.

28. Peregrine (Сапсан, Сапсан) Falco peregrinus Tunstall, 1771 Taxonomy: Order – Falconiformes, Family – falcons (Falconidae).

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

This species was previously observed in the north Kyiv region only during its migration or in winter [Zhezheryn, 1969]. The most recent known cases were in April 1988: on the outskirts of Teremtsy village and right at the Chornobyl NPP (reported by S.P. Prokopenko according to: [Domashevskyi et al., 2012]). In the following years, the bird was noted only on the flight in the adjacent area of Chernihiv region, in the village of Sorokoshychi: on 8 October 1998 and on 7 October 2011 [Domashevskyi et al., 2012]. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 250

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Since ChEZ is located far from all its nesting areas [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009], appearance of the peregrine in the area is only possible on flights, during its nomadic migration. And though ChEZ area cannot play a significant role in the species conservation, absence of disturbance from humans and good food supply can facilitate support of the migratory birds.

29. Black grouse (Тетерук, Тетерев) Lyrurus tetrix (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomy: Order — Galliformes, Family — Phasianidae.

Conservation status: critically endangered [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN- 2017]. Listed on Appendix III – Protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The black grouse is a common non- migratory species in the region. It was relatively frequently recorded before 1986 [Zhezheryn, 1969], but its abundance has increased even more after the accident. The birds have spread in all former agrocenoses and meliorative systems in ChEZ due to the absence of people and stop of agricultural activities [Hashchak et al., 2006]. The black grouse demonstrates the most activity in the period from October to May. There are no accurate estimates of its abundance, but according to our data there are up to 0.6 leks per 1 km2 in the favourable stations in spring. Taking into account the area of suitable habitats, total number of black in ChEZ can reach several thousand.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Current conditions in ChEZ not only meet biological needs of the species, but are also the most favourable in terms of time. However, the future is not that simple. The black grouse is a bird of semi-open stations: meadows combined with sparse tree and shrub vegetation. However, due to Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 251 the succession of agrocenoses launched by termination of economic activity, the area of open cenoses (former fields and meadows) was almost halved over 30 years after the accident. Accordingly, the area of habitats that are favourable for the black grouse is also decreasing. Reforestation in ChEZ continues, and therefore abundance and distribution of the black grouse across the region shall decrease. Nonetheless, the black grouse is an autochthonous species of Polissia and will undoubtedly stay in the meadow systems that are most resistant to reforestation. Taking into account the fact that people have been always hunting this bird, ChEZ provides vast opportunities for the conservation and multiplying of this species.

30. Hazel grouse (Орябок, Рябчик) Tetrastes bonasia (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomy: Order — Galliformes, Family — Phasianidae.

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix III – Protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The hazel grouse was always typified as a common sedentary species of the region [Kistiakivskyi, 1952, Zhezheryn, 1969]. After the accident, it was regularly recorded on many sites in ChEZ [Hashchak et al., 2006]. Although its abundance was not counted, generally it seems that the species became more abundant. The hazel grouse is a forest bird, and is most often found in deciduous and mixed forests with good moistening and developed undergrowth. It is rare in other forest types.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The hazel grouse is an autochthonous species of the region. And although ChEZ covers the southern border of its modern geographic range, many opportunities and positive prospects are available here. Regeneration of forests, which continues throughout the entire area, increases a number of potentially suitable stations. Taking into account the fact that people have been Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 252 always hunting the hazel grouse, ChEZ provides vast opportunities for the conservation and multiplying of this species.

31. Crane (Журавель сірий, Журавль серый) Grus grus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomy: Order — Gruiformes, Family — Gruidae.

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The cranes were always common nesting birds in the region. Though according to previous studies, intensive development of the wetlands resulted in a reduction of their nesting group and disappearance of cranes from a number of sites [Zhezheryn, 1969, Hryshchenko, 1990]. After the accident, the frequency of their registration and number of nesting territories have certainly increased, although no accurate counts were performed [Hashchak et al., 2006]. According to our observations, cranes regularly nest in almost all meliorative systems and swamps within ChEZ. In May-July they were most often seen in the following areas: 1) meliorative system between the villages of Usov and Mashevo; 2) the stow named Halo east of Krasno village; 3) the stow named Boloto Topylo east of Zymovyshche village; 4) marshy forests on the ChEZ border between the villages of Paryshiv and Hden; 5) meliorative system near the village of Novoselky; 6) the stow named Korohodsky Kruh 3 km west of Novoselky village; 7) near the village of Hlynka; 8) meliorative systems to the south of Ilintsy village; 9) floodplain of the Ilia River in the area of Olshanka village; 10) marshy meadows near the village of Lubianka; 11) a wood swamp to the north of Bovyshche village; 12) meliorative systems between the villages of Bovyshche, Tovstyi Lis and Stara Krasnytsia; 13) swamps 2 km west of the villages named Buda and Krasne; 14) meliorative systems between the villages named Buda and Rudki; 15) meliorative systems and marshes near the villages of Novyi Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 253

Myr, Buda-Varovychi, Klyvyn; 16) wood swamps 2 km west of the abandoned farmstead of the Yakovetske forestry centre; 17) Akulyno Halo stow 7 km west of the village named Denysovychi; 18) an old peat bog and the stow named Chornyi Mokh near the village of Rudky; 19) marshy meadow sites along the Rudiavka River near the village of Nova Krasnytsia; 20) wetlands along the Rudiavka River to the east of Richytsia village; 21) moist meadows, swamps and meliorative systems to the north of Buriakivka village; 22) meliorative systems and swamps 2-3 km west of Stari Shepelychi village; 23) peat bog 2 km south-west from the village of Stari Shepelychi; 24) meliorative systems and swamps between the villages of Stari Shepelychi and Novi Shepelychi; 25) the stows named Stupnikovo and Borshchi between the villages of Chystohalivka and Kopachi. Similarly indwelled can be the analogous stations in the area of Polisske village, to the south of the Uzh River and to the north-east of the village named Ladyzhychi. Due to the birds’ covertness and the apparent lack of research, nests of cranes were found only in the swamps to the north of Buriakivka village (May 1995) and in the stow named Korohodskyi Kruh (12 May 2015). Adult birds with rising chicks were more often noted on the following sites: in Richytsia village (14 June 2012); north of Buriakivka village (6 June 2013, 17 June 2013, 17 July 2013); meliorative systems near the village of Hlynka (25 July 2015, 13 August 2015, 15 August 2015); the stow named Chornyi Mokh (4 July 2015). Currently, it is difficult to say whether cranes form nesting congregations as there is no clear evidence of this; 1- 3 birds are usually recorded. But taking into account the quantity of surveyed sites and unchecked potential habitats, we can assume that a nesting group of cranes in ChEZ consists of at least 40-50 couples, which is close to the estimates made in the neighbouring Paliessie State Radioecological Reserve (Belarus) [Yurko, 2008]. Local quantity of unproductive birds is unknown. Quantity of flying cranes is much larger during their seasonal migration periods (March-April and September-October).

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Conditions in ChEZ fully meet biological needs of the crane. It lives almost in all swamped forests and meadows. Degradation of meliorative systems and gradual re-formation of marshes facilitate this. Absence of disturbance from humans also favourably affects the birds. ChEZ is a territory that has great importance in the life of cranes, both during the breeding season and during their seasonal migrations.

32. Stone curlew (Лежень, Авдотка) Burhinus oedicnemus (Linnaeus, 1758) Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 254

Taxonomy: Order — wading birds (Charadriiformes), Family — Burhinidae.

Conservation status: not evaluated [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The stone curlew was periodically recorded in the region in the past [Sharleman, 1926, Dolbik, 1959, Kirikov, 1960, Nikiforov et al., 1989], though apparently it was very rare. We first recorded it on 29 July 2004, on the left-bank sandy dam built lengthwise Pripyat, in the Hlyboke Lake area [Hashchak et al., 2006]. Again it was noted three years later, almost in the same place (8 August 2007). Finally, a corpse of the stone curlew was found in June 2009 on the road in Kopachi village. The bird was shot down by a car. Apparently, the stone curlew is a few secretive species nesting along sandy dams and other similar habitats with poor shrubby and grassy vegetation along the Pripyat River. Though this bird is relatively large in size and has loud voice, it is difficult to find it due to its predominantly nocturnal habits. Probably, this is the reason for such a small number of observations.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

According to modern data, the stone curlew’s nesting area in Ukraine is mostly located in the steppe areas along the Azov and Black Seas [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. In other areas, the stone curlew lives along large rivers, on the least overgrown sandy or stony areas, and it is universally few. Man-made sandy dams and embankments of this kind along the Pripyat River in the central part of ChEZ perfectly fit the needs if stone curlews, so this was the reason of all its findings. A selection of suitable habitats has significantly expanded recently, due to sandy and shelly areas at the bottom of the Chornobyl NPP cooling pond, which stay uncovered after the water drainage in 2014-2017. Absence of people and farm animals in ChEZ also form supportive environment. In this regard, the stone curlew conservation prerequisites in the ChEZ fauna are very positive, but actual situation can be clarified only basing on targeted studies. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 255

33. Oystercatcher (Кулик-сорока, Кулик-сорока) Haematopus ostralegus Linnaeus, 1758

Taxonomy: Order — wading birds (Charadriiformes), Family — Haematopodidae.

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix III – Protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The oystercatcher is a common migratory nesting species in ChEZ. It lives exclusively along the Pripyat River. Most often it was seen in the central part of ChEZ. For instance, its nests were found on 26 May 1998, on a sandy island amid the ChNPP cooling pond. Generally, there were up to 5 bird couples there, in an area of approximately 3-4 hectares [Hashchak et al., 2006]. Nesting bird couples, which were worried when humans appeared, were noted on a sandy plateau near the town of Pripyat (11 June 1997), on a dam between the Pripyat River and the ChNPP cooling pond (15 June 2007), near a railway bridge across the Pripyat River (28 April 2009). According to previous estimates [Hashchak et al., 2006], several dozens of couples were expected to nest within ChEZ. However, no frequent observations of such a bright, large and loud bird indicate that it is still few. According to 2007 data, there were only 12 couples in the neighbouring Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve [Yurko, 2008]. Targeted surveys are needed for more definitive estimates.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

According to modern data [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009], the oystercatcher nests mostly along the seacoasts of Ukraine and along the rivers of Dnipro, Desna and Pripyat. This is confirmed by our observations within ChEZ. There are quite a lot of suitable stations here, and disturbance is minimal. The prospects of oystercatchers conservation in ChEZ fauna are very positive, though actual situation can be clarified only basing on the results of targeted studies. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 256

34. Little tern (Крячок малий, Крачка малая) Sterna albifrons Pallas, 1764

Taxonomy: Order — wading birds (Charadriiformes), Family — larids (Laridae).

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

According to literature data [Melnichuk, Holovach, 1984], the little tern colonies were known in the 1980s, on the islands in upper reaches of the Kyiv reservoir. Later (23 June 2007), we observed nesting of a little tern in a colony mixed with common terns on the Pripyat River, near the railway bridge. According to Belarusian colleagues [data Yurko, 2008], there were 3 colonies of little terns with a total population of up to 50 couples in 2007, on the temporary islands near the Ukrainian border. The lack of other records renders impossible the estimates of the little tern’s actual number and distribution within ChEZ.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Since the little tern population is decreasing in Ukraine due to the anthropogenic degradation of nesting sites and disturbance from humans [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009], ChEZ conditions seem very favourable for the conservation of this species. There is practically no navigation on the Pripyat River, the riverbed is not cleaned, there are few people here. The prospects for the little tern conservation in ChEZ fauna are very positive, but the actual situation can be estimated only basing on the results of targeted studies.

35. Stock dove (Голуб-синяк, Клинтух) Columba oenas Linnaeus, 1758 Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 257

Taxonomy: Order — pigeons and doves (Columbiformes), Family — .

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The stock dove used to be a common and in some areas relatively abundant bird of the region [Zhezheryn, 1969]. We also observed it after the accident [Hashchak et al., 2006]. First and foremost, in the forests with old hollow trees (the stow named Medyn Lis, forest area to the east of Richytsia village, deciduous forests in the abandoned farmstead of the Tovstoliske forestry centre). But those were single instances. In 2012-2013, during our surveys of deciduous forests to the west of Novoselky village, east of Richytsia village, and west of Buda village, we did not find a single stock dove. Nesting of the stock dove was not found also in the neighbouring Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve [Yurko, 2008].

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The stock dove’s status within ChEZ is unclear. According to its biological characteristics, it prefers old forests with a large number of hollow trees, and the decrease in its population in Ukraine is due precisely to rejuvenation of forests, to a decrease in the number of suitable habitats [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. There is a fairly large number of such forests in ChEZ. Moreover, there are a lot of man-abandoned bee-trees in this region, and the stock dove often occupies them (e.g., Medyn Lis stow). One possible reason for the small amount of data is a pressure of predators (marten, hawk), which are quite abundant in ChEZ. But the more obvious reason for the lack of data seems to be the lack of targeted searches. ChEZ forests have a wide variety of nesting conditions for the stock dove and can have an important role in the conservation of this species. However, additional studies are needed to understand the actual situation and prospects.

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 258

36. Eagle owl (Пугач, Филин) Bubo bubo (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomy: Order — owls (Strigiformes), Family — Strigidae.

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The eagle owl has always lived in this area. In the past, it was noted in the Yakovetske forestry centre and in the neighbouring area of the Dnipro-Teterev hunting farm [Zhezheryn, 1969], also it was seen in the forest to the south of Korohod village [Rare and endangered .., 1988]. For the first time after the accident it was mentioned on 27 March 2001; then the bird flushed from a ditch, near abandoned buildings in sq.196 of the Paryshiv forestry centre [Hashchak et al., 2006]. Foresters also saw an eagle owl in that very place in 1997. Another eagle owl was also found next year, near the Chornobyl NPP; on 5 June 2002 the NPP workers caught a two-month chick that was sitting on an excavator just 800 m from a power unit (the chick was handed over to the ). A year later (13 June 2003), an adult bird flushed 2 km south-west of the Chornobyl NPP (a site in the Red Forest, was sitting on the ground). In February 2009, an eagle owl flushed in the alder forest near the village of Varovychi (personal report from A.V. Yastremskyi) [Domashevskyi et al., 2012]. We also flushed eagle owls twice in the Denysovychi forestry centre, in the abandoned farmstead of the Yakovetske forestry centre: sq. 109 (24 July 2010) and sq. 42 (17 July 2013). Another occurrence was in the area of village (26 June 2016), sq. 72 in the Paryshiv forestry centre. In April 2012, a nest of eagle owl was found in the attic of a small bathhouse in the village of Bovyshche. During another check in May, we found three chicks there. As for the nest cushion state, this shelter was used at least for a second year. However, the nest was empty when checked in 2013, though we observed an adult bird on 10 April 2013, 1.5 km to the south, near the village of Lubianka. The bird’s secrecy, nocturnal habits, inaccessibility of habitats and lack of relevant research do not allow us to assess its local Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 259 group abundance. It is assumed that up to 10-15 owl couples may live in the area [Domashevskyi et al., 2012].

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Polissia is among the Ukrainian regions, where eagle owls still live [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The conditions that formed within ChEZ over the past 30 years significantly increased attractiveness of the land. Abundance of old forests with fallen trees, abandoned buildings, absence of people and extensive food supply jointly contribute to a stable nesting cluster formation. At the same time, its increased abundance can be restrained by high risks of dead non-flying chicks: they are not protected from predator attacks when happen to be on the ground. However generally, ChEZ can have an important role in the conservation of this species. Further targeted studies are needed to know actual abundance of eagle owls and their distribution within ChEZ.

37. Short-eared Owl (Сова болотяна, Сова болотная) Asio flammeus (Pontoppidan, 1763)

Taxonomy: Order — owls (Strigiformes), Family — Strigidae.

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

Apparently, the short-eared owl can be considered a common though few nesting and winter-migratory species within ChEZ. It inhabits meadows and meliorative systems. The bird was seen in the early 1990's on a meadow near the village of Kopachi; on 23 June 1997 near the village of Lelev; on 26 March 2003 on a site in the "Red Forest" near Chornobyl NPP [Hashchak et al., 2006]. Later, belling males were also noted in some other places: near the villages of Zamoshnia and Hlynka (2 April 2012) and 4 km west of Chornobyl town (04 April 2012) [Domashevskyi et Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 260 al., 2012], also near the village of Rudki (10 April 2013), and 2 km south-east of Hlynka village (26 June 2015). Taking into account the difficulties in assessing the owl abundance and the number of potential suitable habitats, we can assume that it is much more common. According to Belarusian scientists [Yurko, Pareiko, 2006], abundance of short-eared owls in the neighbouring Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve is subject to abrupt changes and may be up to 1.1 couples/km2 in favourable habitats. Only additional studies can make the situation clear.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Currently, the short-eared owl is most often recorded on nesting in the Chernihiv and Sumy regions of Ukraine [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The decrease in its number is attributed to agricultural activities, pasture farming and dry grass burn off. In this regard, the conditions prevailing in ChEZ become extremely favourable for the support and conservation of this species. Nesting success of local short-eared owls only depends on the food supply and predator pressure.

38. Tengmalm`s owl (Сич волохатий, Сыч мохноногий) Aegolius funereus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomy: Order — owls (Strigiformes), Family — Strigidae.

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The actual presence of this species in ChEZ is still unclear. Listing of the tengmalm`s owl on the "Red Data Book" as a ChEZ species is based only on a single verbal report from A.V. Yastremskyi about meeting an owl near Vilcha in the mid- 2000s [Domashevskyi et al., 2012]. At the same time, nesting of the tengmalm`s owl in ChEZ seems quite possible. It was repeatedly seen in the adjacent areas: in the district of the Zhytomyr region [Tsytsiura, Khlebeshko, 1991], in the Pripyat NPP (Belarus) [Klakotskyi, 1983], in the Ripky district of the Chernihiv Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 261 region [Afanasiev, 1997]. The latter author states that tengmalm`s owls often use hollows of the black woodpecker, which is the most common woodpecker in ChEZ. Also, the tengmalm`s owl was repeatedly seen during its seasonal migrations on the left bank of the Kyiv reservoir [Poluda et al., 1997; Poluda et al., 1999] and in the Mizhrichynskyi Regional Landscape Park [Domashevskyi, 2008].

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Currently, Polissia is among the few regions in Ukraine, where the tengmalm`s owl still lives [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The reasons for its decrease are considered to include cuts of old forests with hollow trees and predation of forest martens. In this regard, the conditions prevailing in ChEZ may be quite favourable for the support and conservation of this species. Tree felling in the area is only of local importance, most of forests (including old ones) are abound in hollow trees. Though only targeted studies can answer to the questions about the actual situation, presence of the tengmalm`s owl, its abundance and distribution.

39. Pygmy owl (Сичик-горобець, Сыч воробьиный) Glaucidium passerinum (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomy: Order — owls (Strigiformes), Family — Strigidae.

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 262

Appearance of the pygmy owl in ChEZ was considered possible [Hashchak et al., 2006] but only as living in some Polissia areas [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. There was no any other evidence, including distant ones. The pygmy owl was seen for the first time on 30 June 2009, in sq. 30 of the Lubianske forestry centre, 7 km west of Denysovychi village (personal report from A.S. Vlashchenko) [Domashevskyi et al., 2012]. Further attempts to find it using provocative recordings of the bird’s voices did not yield any results. In the evening of 15 February 2013, we saw a small pygmy owl, which flew across the road in front of the car in sq. 325 of the Lubianske forestry centre, but due to the transient nature of the event, it was not possible to identify its species. However later (17 February 2017), the audio provocations made possible a pygmy owl finding in the abandoned farmstead of the Tovstoliske forestry centre (sq. 252 of the Lubianske forestry centre) [Domashevskyi et al., 2017]. Similar occurrence happened on the same day 3-4 km to the south, east of Bovyshche village; and also at one more point in this area – on 3 March 2017. Currently, the forest area between the villages of Lubianka, Bovyshche, Tovstyi Lis and Stara Krasnytsia is the only place in ChEZ where the pygmy owl was seen several times. No result was yilded by the attempts to attract a pygmy owl to artificial nests (40 pcs., hanged all over ChEZ), which were made in 2017 by a joint group of scientists from the SSE "Ecocenter", the National University named after T.G. Shevchenko and the University of Jyväskylä () (personal reports from I.V. Chyzhevskyi, E.V. Tukalenko).

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Generally, the pygmy owl represents zoo-cenoses of the northerner dark coniferous forests. For a long time it was believed to be a nesting bird only in the Carpathians and an occasional migratory species in the rest of Ukrainian regions [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. Recent instance of its registration in the north of Ukraine are considered to result from the expansion of its range to the south [Domashevskyi et al., 2017]. Both the reasons for this expansion and the reasons for its low abundance are not entirely clear. ChEZ forest lands are not rich in dark coniferous forests (the area of spruce plantings does not exceed 0.03%), and therefore they cannot be the main reason for the pygmy owl appearance. But there is no doubt that absence of large-scale tree felling contributes to the conservation of a large number of hollow trees and can favourably affect the support of this species. In the case with pygmy owls Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 263

(similarly to other owls) only targeted surveys of the areas can clarify the situation and make possible assessment of the species prospects within ChEZ.

40. Great grey owl (Сова бородата, Неясыть бородатая) Strix nebulosa Forster, 1772

Taxonomy: Order — owls (Strigiformes), Family — Strigidae.

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

Before the Chornobyl accident, there were no data on the great grey owl in the region. For the first time it was seen in April 2001, in Belarus (the territory sharing borders with ChEZ), near the village of Hden (personal report from S.A. Paskevych) [Hashchak et al., 2006]. The following two cases came from its illegal prey. In the first instance, a female with a brood-patch, which attacked people, was killed in May 2003 [Domashevskyi, 2004]. In the second instance, an owl’s carcass preyed in ChEZ (no details) was sold at the animal market in Kyiv in the winter of 2006. Later, in the winter of 2009-2010, a great grey owl was seen thrice near the village of Vilcha (personal report from A.V. Yastremskyi) [Domashevskyi et al., 2012]. The author of these reports also observed a great grey owl sitting at the nest of a carnivorous bird (possibly, also nesting there) in the spring of 2010, near the village of Novyi Myr. We first found a great grey owl’s nest in April 2012, in sq. 325 of the Lubianske forestry centre (in a pine tree, in an old nest of the buzzard). During the second check (21 May 2012), we found a female and chicks there. Further, great grey owls were thrice recorded by photo-traps: 2 times in Krasne village (20 July 2015 and 7 August 2015) and one occurrence was near the village of Rudki (6 June 2015). Taking into account the fact that the distance between the points was approximately 2 km, it could be one and the same bird or a representative of a couple. So, all cases of the great grey owl registration known to date occurred in the western sector of ChEZ. Nesting of the great grey owl Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 264 in the neighbouring Paliessie State Radioecological Reserve (Belarus) was also noted only in its right-bank area (2008, Narovlianskyi site) [Yurko, 2008].

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The great grey owl appeared in Ukraine only in the 1980s, when registration of its nesting started in the Zhytomyr region [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. Its subsequent recording in ChEZ and in some other areas of the Kyiv region is considered to be an evidence of gradual expansion of its breeding area to the east [Domashevskyi, 2009]. The conditions of Polissia in general and of ChEZ in particular, fully correspond to biological needs of the species. Its low abundance is not only due to the marginal location of ChEZ with regard to its main range, but also due to the timber logging impact and direct harassment in the adjacent territories. The great grey owl prefers moist forests adjacent to wetlands. There are a lot of such habitats in ChEZ. Absence of large-scale timber logging, low disturbance from humans and rich food supply jointly contribute to the species local consolidation and increase in its nesting group. Focused research is required to refine the abundance, distribution and nesting success of the great grey owl.

41. Roller (Сиворакша, Сизоворонка) Coracias garrulus Linnaeus, 1758

Taxonomy: Order — Coraciiformes, Family — Coraciidae.

Conservation status: critically endangered [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN- 2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The roller used to be a common species in the region, and in some areas it was a relatively numerous [Zhezheryn, 1969]. Felling of forests caused its penetration even deeper into large forests. In the 1960s, it amounted to from 0.6% to 3% of all recorded birds at the sites of the former Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 265

Yakovetske forestry centre (now Lubianske and Denysovychi) [Zhezheryn, 1969]. However, now it is an extremely rare nesting species. For the first time a couple of rollers was noted on 20 May 1997 in Pripyat (then they disappeared), for the second time they were reported by Wayne Scott, a bird-watcher from the USA, on 3 June 2004 from the area of Lubianka village [Hashchak et al., 2006]. In June 2010, rollers were seen at 4 points in ChEZ [Domashevskyi, Chyzhevskyi, 2011]: 1) 2 couples near Kupovate village (one couple was in a house), 2) 1 bird near the village of Korohod, 3) 1 bird 4 km to the west of Chornobyl town, 4) 2-3 couples near the power line poles in Opachychi. The authors of the latter paper made an assumption that up to 15 roller couples lived within ChEZ. We also recorded the rollers later: 1) up to 3 birds near the village of Opachychi (27 May 2012), 2) 1 specimen in Klyvin village (3 June 2013), 3) 1 couple near the power line poles 2 km west of Chornobyl (15 July 2013), 4) 1 specimen in sq. 290 of the Lubianske forestry centre (June 2015, power line poles), 5) 1 couple near Kopachi village (25 June 2016, power line poles). Consequently, an increased registration of rollers during their nesting period is being observed over the last decade; and in most of cases the birds stay near power line poles, where they can arrange nests in cavities.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

In the 20th century, the number of rollers started to drastically decrease across Europe, the bird became rare in most regions of Ukraine [Hryshchenko, 1998]. For several decades there were no data on it, even in the north Kyiv region. And the fact that recently rollers are increasingly registered within ChEZ can possibly indicate a favourable development of the case, at least in this area. At the same time, there are still very few data on its total number and distribution in ChEZ. Since the roller is a natural local species, which uses hollows and pole cavities for its nesting, it has a wide range of potential habitats. Absence of large-scale timber logging, low disturbance from people and rich food supply should facilitate an increase in its breeding group. Targeted studies are required to clear up the actual situation and potential risks.

42. White-backed woodpecker (Дятел білоспинний, Дятел белоспинный) Dendrocopos leucotos (Bechstein, 1803)

Taxonomy: Order — Piciformes, Family — Picidae.

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979]. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 266

Data on the species in ChEZ

For the first time, the white-backed woodpecker was observed in ChEZ on 14 March 2000, in the swamp alder and birch forest of the Paryshiv forestry centre (sq. 82) [Hashchak et al., 2006]. Types of habitat coincided in all subsequent observations: the Lubianske forestry centre - sq. 197 (21 April 2002), sq. 211 (17 May 2013), sq. 194 (22 May 2013), sq. 189 (27 May 2014), sq. 144 (3 June 2015); sq. 11 of the Korohodske forestry centre (30 May 2004, a couple of birds were caught). Therefore, it can be stated that the white-backed woodpecker is a common local small bird that prefers moist forests (and first of all, alder stands).

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The white-backed woodpecker used to be a common, and in some areas an abundant, bird species in most of Ukraine, but in the second half of the 20th century it started to disappear everywhere [Hryshchenko, 1998]. It was rarely registered in the north of the Kyiv region far back in the 1950s-1960s [Zhezheryn, 1969]. According to the results of our observations, the species is still common in the region, although it is evidently few and more towards stenotopic: all cases of its registration were either on or nearby moist forest sites with predominating alder. Considering the generally unfavourable dynamics of the species within the entire range, the attention should be paid to the fact of its presence in ChEZ. The abundance of moist softwood forests and absence of large-scale forestry activities are likely to be the main reasons for the species conservation and will contribute to it in future.

43. Great grey shrike (Сорокопуд сірий, Сорокопут серый) Lanius excubitor Linnaeus, 1758

Taxonomy: Order — perching birds (Passeriformes), Family — shrikes (Laniidae).

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979]. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 267

Data on the species in ChEZ

The great grey shrike is a common nesting species in ChEZ and it is often recorded during its winter nomadic migrations [Hashchak et al., 2006]. It stays in many meadow sites of ChEZ. Most often (annually) we recorded it in meadows, near the villages of Krasno, Mashevo, Zymovyshche, Staroselie, Koshevka, near "Paryshiv-2" checkpoint, in the Pripyat River floodplain near Chornobyl, the villages of Kopachi, Richytsia, Rudki, Nova Krasnytsia, Stechanka, Korohod, at several points of the Uzh River floodplain between the villages of Hlynka and Novoselky, Cherevach. The number of nesting birds is unknown, but there are at least 20 couples.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Despite the fact that the great grey shrike is listed in a conservation category, it is a common though few bird in Polissia [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. Under ChEZ conditions, it has a fairly stable nesting group, prefers fallows and meadows with moderate moistening and sparse tree and shrubby vegetation. Taking into account the ongoing afforestation processes at open landscapes, there exist risks of its reduced number in the future. However, currently lands of ChEZ play an important role in the conservation of this species.

44. Mountain hare (Заєць білий, Заяц беляк) Lepus timidus Linnaeus, 1758

Taxonomy: Order — Leporiformes, Family — Leporidae.

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix III – Protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 268

Status of this species in ChEZ is still unclear. There was no information about it for a long time [Hashchak et al., 2006]. For ? the first time we saw a hare "looking like ? the mountain hare" in the headlights, on 18 December 2002, on the border with Belarus, between the villages of Paryshiv and Hden. In 2012-2017, during our studies with the use of photo traps, which produced plenty of photos with hares, an animal "looking like the mountain hare" was noted only once: on 16 February 2013 in sq. 254 of the Lubianske forestry centre. No more information has been obtained over all the years of research. The uncertainty is supported by inconsistency of data on the mountain hare from the neighbouring territory of Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve. Nothing was known about the mountain hare before 1997, in 1997-1998 its abundance was estimated to be 360 specimens, but in 2001-2006 there were no data again [Kuchmel, 2008]. It is believed that mountain hares avoid open spaces and prefer moist forests with developed undergrowth.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The mountain hare is a rare species in Ukraine. In the last decades it was noted only in the and in the far north of the Chernihiv and Sumy regions [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. Its crepuscular and nocturnal habits and the lack of experts capable of conducting surveys make it difficult to clarify the status of the mountain hare. At the same time, there is no doubt that ChEZ is rich in the lands that meet its needs. Regardless of the actual state and taking into account only the fact that this is an extremely rare species in Ukraine and that it is present within ChEZ, it is necessary to conduct targeted studies to assess the size of its local group and the species distribution nature across the ChEZ territory.

45. Northern birch mouse (Мишівка лісова, Мышовка лесная) Sicista betulina (Pallas, 1779)

Taxonomy: Order — rodents (Muriformes), Family — birch mice (Sicistidae).

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 269

Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The northern birch mouse is a common though few mammal species in ChEZ. For the first time it was seen in May 1995, in a meadow 2 km north-east of Chystohalivka village, but later it was also found on other sites: Nova Krasnytsia, Stechanka, Paryshiv, Korohod, "Red Forest", “Hlyboke Lake”, Krasno [Hashchak et al., 2006]. On all the occasions, these were single specimens and meadow sites typically had sparse tree and shrub vegetation. Due to the reduced number of studies under which small mammals are being caught, there were no data on the northern birch mouse over the past 10 years. There is a similar situation regarding this species in the neighbouring Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve [Kuchmel, 2008].

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The northern birch mouse is a rare, sporadically distributed species of the forest and forest- steppe zones in Ukraine [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. According to Belarusian scientists [Kuchmel, 2008], it was most often caught near meliorative canals, in the areas with dense herbaceous vegetation. There are a lot of such lands within ChEZ. Absence of agricultural and human activities contributes to the conservation of such habitats, so the prospects for the species conservation in the region are very positive. Additional studies are required to obtain more detailed information on the ecology and distribution nature of the northern birch mouse.

46. Brandt's bat (Нічниця північна, Ночница Брандта) Myotis brandtii (Eversmann, 1845)

Taxonomy: Order — bats (Vespertilioniformes), Family — vesper bats (Vespertilionidae).

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 270

Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

Similarly to many other bat species, there was no data about the Brandt's bat presence in the region for a long time. For the first time we caught it on 31 July 2011, in the area of Vilcha, on the shore of a forest lake (E 029,459124°, N 51,358085°) [Hashchak et al., 2013]. It was an immature male. We do not know whether it flew in accidentally, or there were some parent colonies. However, recent studies of Belarusian colleagues demonstrated that the Brandt's bat is a few, though breeding species in Polissia [Shpak, 2010, Dombrovsky et al., 2017, Dombrovsky, 2017]: the nearest findings of its parent colonies were 30 km to the north of ChEZ in the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve, and 130 km to the north-west in the Petrykivskyi district of the Homel region.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Currently, there is still very little data on the ecology of this bat. This complicates its searches and assessments of lands quality in ChEZ. Some findings of the Brandt's bats in Belarusian territory demonstrate that the species is more likely to live in the areas near marshes or in marshy forests with a wide selection of dead trees. There are many such habitats within ChEZ. Absence of meliorative and forestry activities should contribute to the conservation of this species. Additional studies are required to get more detailed information about the Brandt's bat ecology and nature of its distribution.

47. Whiskered bat (Нічниця вусата, Ночница усатая) Myotis mystacinus (Kuhl, 1817)

Taxonomy: Order — bats (Vespertilioniformes), Family — vesper bats (Vespertilionidae). Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 271

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

Similarly to many other bat species, there was no information about the whiskered bat presence in the region for a long time. For the first time we caught it on 1 August 2009 in the stow named Akulyno Halo, near a forest marsh, 7 km west of Denysovychi (E 029.61274°, N 51.47172°) [Hashchak et al., 2013]. It was a mature male. There were no other cases of the whiskered bat recording within ChEZ. There is also no information from the nearest areas of Belarusian Paliessie [Dombrovsky et al., 2017] and Ukrainian Polissia [Hodlevska et al., 2016, Hodlevska, Rebrov, 2017]. The nearest known findings of whiskered bats were in farther southward regions of Ukraine [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009].

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Current status of this bat is unclear. Due to the fact that its main range is located farther to the south, in the forest-steppe and steppe zones of Ukraine, its occurrence in ChEZ may result from sporadic migrations of some specimens. At the same time, there is no doubt that local conditions, i.e. absence of forestry activities and rich food supply, can produce a favourable effect. The whiskered bat is a very rare species in Ukraine [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009], and therefore its finding in ChEZ is worthy of attention and further studying.

48. Pond bat (Нічниця ставкова, Ночница прудовая) Myotis dasycneme (Boie, 1825)

Taxonomy: Order — bats (Vespertilioniformes), Family — vesper bats (Vespertilionidae).

Conservation status: critically endangered [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– NT: Near Threatened [IUCN- Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 272

2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

There have been no data on the pond bat until 2007. For the first time we caught it on 14 June 2007, on the Pripyat River, 5.5 km southeast of the ChNPP (E 030,17598°, N 51.3474796°). [Hashchak et al., 2009]. It was a mature male. Another two mature males were caught in 2011: on the Pripyat River near the northern border of ChEZ (28 May 2011), and in Zymovyshche village (23 July 2011). Therewith, the first one was then again caught in the same place 2 months later (28 July 2011) [Hashchak et al., 2013]. No immature specimens and females were found. Consequently, this species status in ChEZ remains unclear.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Other nearest places of the pond bat findings were farther southward: in Mizhrichynskyi Regional Landscape Park (Chernihiv region) and in the district of the Kyiv region [Hodlevska et al., 2016, Hodlevska, Rebrov, 2017]. The bats both breed and winter there, therefore their reproduction within ChEZ is also not excluded. Small amount of available data is due to the lack of research on large water bodies, which are the main habitats of this species. Absence of people and large-scale economic activities, abundance of water bodies, shelter places and rich food supply cumulatively contribute to the conservation of the pond bat. Since this bat is also of an international high conservation status, its finding in ChEZ is worthy of attention and further studying.

49. Daubenton's bat (Нічниця водяна, Ночница водяная) Myotis daubentonii (Kuhl, 1817)

Taxonomy: Order — bats (Vespertilioniformes), Family — vesper bats (Vespertilionidae).

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 273 on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

Apparently, the Daubenton's bat is a common though few species in ChEZ, which is breeding in this area. In 2007-2013, it was caught at 15 points [Hashchak et al., 2009, 2013], including both sexually mature and immature specimens, males and females. In most cases, they were caught near or above large water bodies, rarely – far off, inside forest tracts.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The Daubenton's bat is a common, and in some places dominant, bat species in many Ukrainian areas [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. It also has a wide selection of habitats, potential shelters and food supply within ChEZ, local conditions here fully meet its biological needs. Absence of people and large-scale economic activities also contribute to its conservation.

50. Brown long-eared bat (Вухань бурий, Ушан бурый) Plecotus auritus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomy: Order — bats (Vespertilioniformes), Family — vesper bats (Vespertilionidae).

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The brown long-eared bat is a common, sedentary, sporadically distributed species mainly living in deciduous and mixed forests as well as in all populated centres. In 2007-2013 it was caught at 33 points Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 274

[Hashchak et al., 2009, 2013], including both sexually mature and immature specimens, males and females. It was also noted in wintering shelters (a basement in Chornobyl town). Nowhere does it form large settlements.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The brown long-eared bat is a common bat species of the forest and forest-steppe zones of Ukraine [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. It has a wide selection of habitats, potential shelters and food supply within ChEZ; its local conditions fully meet biological needs of the species. Absence of people and large-scale economic activities also contribute to its conservation.

51. Western barbastelle bat (Широковух європейський, Широкоушка европейская) Barbastella barbastellus Schreber, 1774

Taxonomy: Order — bats (Vespertilioniformes), Family — vesper bats (Vespertilionidae).

Conservation status: critically endangered [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– NT: Near Threatened [IUCN- 2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

Status of the western barbastelle bat in ChEZ is still uncertain. All previous information was limited to the fact that it is ? ? a sedentary species living in Vilcha area [Abelentsev, Popov, 1956, Kovaleva, Taraborkin, 2001]. After all, a female western barbastelle bat was caught on 28 July 2010 at "Horodysche" site (E 029.86501°, N 51.39762°) (its age has not been identified) [Hashchak et al., 2013]. Also when listening to the bats vocalization on an ultrasound detector, we discovered two more points, where sound track characteristics resembled the ones of the western barbastelle bat: abandoned farmstead of the Novoshepelychi forestry centre (17 May 2008) and in the village of Tovstyi Lis (5 August 2014). Though audio records form a less Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 275 reliable evidence, they still suggest that the case of one specimen catching was not an exception, and they do live here.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The western barbastelle bat is a rare species in Ukraine and Europe [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. In Ukraine it was registered mainly in the forest-steppe zone of the Right Bank, in the Carpathians and in the Crimea. However, its parent colonies were found only in 2016 in Polissia, in the [Hodlevska t., 2016]. Also, in 2015-2016 breeding western barbastelle bats were found even closer to ChEZ: in the Stary Zhaden Reserve of Belarusian Paliessie [Dombrovsky et al., 2017]. All these facts give grounds to believe that deficient data on ChEZ are only the result of an insufficient number of studies. The western barbastelle bat need old forests with many hollow and dead trees, and ChEZ has a wide selection of these. The local conditions fully meet biological needs of the species. Absence of people and large-scale economic activities also contribute to its conservation.

52. Lesser noctule (Вечірниця мала, Вечерница малая) Nyctalus leisleri (Kuhl, 1817)

Taxonomy: Order — bats (Vespertilioniformes), Family — vesper bats (Vespertilionidae).

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The lesser noctule was among the few species, on which at least some data were available from the north Kyiv region and its neighbourhood: in the distant past it was noted in the area of Novi Shepelychi village [Abelentsev, Popov, 1956]. In the first year of our research (2007), we established that it was a subdominant species (13% of all bats total catch), but it mainly stayed in broadleaved or mixed forests [Hashchak et al., 2009]. This was confirmed during further studies Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 276

[Hashchak et al., 2013]. The species is breeding in this area, but the number of mature males is almost 9 times less than the number of females. The lesser noctule is common in the neighbouring Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve (Belarus) [Dombrovskyi, 2017].

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

This species is believed to be few and sporadically distributed in Ukraine, preferring broad- leaved forests, forest-park massifs and deciduous forests along rivers [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The decrease in its number is associated with rejuvenation of tree stands. According to the research results in ChEZ, the local population of the lesser noctule is in a very good condition thus indicating an enabling environment: wide selection of broadleaved and mixed forests and hollow trees. Absence of people and large-scale economic activities also has a positive role. Hence, ChEZ can be regarded as a conservation area for the lesser noctule.

53. Common noctule (Вечірниця дозірна, Вечерница рыжая) Nyctalus noctula (Schreber, 1774)

Taxonomy: Order — bats (Vespertilioniformes), Family — vesper bats (Vespertilionidae).

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

According to our research data from 2007- 2013, the common noctule is among the largest and also the most numerous bat species in ChEZ: its share in the total catch of 14 species was 46% [Hashchak et al., 2009, 2013]. Though preferring middle- aged and old broadleaved and mixed forests as its parent colonies localities, it hunts everywhere but more often not far from the boundaries of forest tracts and open spaces (including water bodies). This species is breeding in the region, but usually leaves it in winter. However, in recent years, there have been registered some cases of the common noctule’s wintering in Chornobyl. The ratio of mature females to males is 2:1 [Hashchak et al., 2013]. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 277

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The common noctule is among the most numerous and widely distributed bat species in Ukraine [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. Its vulnerability to anthropogenic impact is determined by rejuvenation of forests and by the tendency towards settlement in urban buildings (especially in winter season), where it comes into conflict with people. In this regard, ChEZ conditions have the most favourable characteristics. Local timber stands provide a huge selection of hollow trees, there is no intensive felling and there is a wide selection of forage lands here, and also there are practically no people. Consequently, the species is highly abundant here. Local prospects for the support and protection of the common noctule are very positive.

54. Greater noctule bat (Вечірниця велетенська, Вечерница гигантская) Nyctalus lasiopterus (Schreber, 1774)

Taxonomy: Order — bats (Vespertilioniformes), Family — vesper bats (Vespertilionidae).

Conservation status: critically endangered [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– VU A4c: vulnerable [IUCN- 2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

Until 2009, the greater noctule bat was not registered in Ukrainian territory for about 50 years. After all, we caught an immature male of the greater noctule bat on 30 July 2009, in the abandoned farmstead of the former Yakovetske forestry centre (E 029.6155°, N 51.39474°) [Vlashchenko et al., 2010]. The site had old oak-hornbeam and mixed forests stretching along a partially waterlogged floodplain of the Ilia River, inside vast forest stands. Four years later, on 22 July 2013, we caught another specimen, which was an immature female of the greater noctule bat, at the same place [Hashchak et al., 2013]. It is still unknown whether this bat is breeding in ChEZ or we caught young specimens that just flew in from other regions.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 278

The greater noctule bat is the largest and one of the rarest species in Europe [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. Despite its relatively large range, it was recently registered only in certain locations. Finding it in ChEZ in 2009 prompted intensive and focused searches both in Ukraine and in the adjacent areas. As a result, its first parent colonies were found in 2015 in the wetland reserve named "Staryi Zhaden" in the west of the Homel region (Belarus) [Dombrovsky et al., 2016], approximately 150 km north-west of ChEZ. And in July 2016, 5 immature specimens were caught near Kharkiv [Kovalov et al., 2017]. This gives hope for further searches of parent colonies in ChEZ. Local forest stands provide a huge selection of hollow trees and wide selection of food supply, there is no intensive felling here, also there are practically no people here. Local prospects for the conservation and protection of the greater noctule bat are very positive.

55. Kuhl's pipistrelle (Нетопир білосмугий, Нетопырь средиземноморский) Pipistrellus kuhlii (Kuhl, 1817)

Taxonomy: Order — bats (Vespertilioniformes), Family — vesper bats (Vespertilionidae).

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

Until the 1980s, the Kuhl's pipistrelle was known in Crimea only [Abelentsev, Popov, 1956], but in the following decades it spread throughout Ukraine, including the Chernihiv and Kyiv regions that are adjacent to ChEZ [Kedrov, Sheshurak, 1999, Godlevska et al., 2000, Merzlykin, Lebed, 2001, Havrys, Kontserzhynska, 2002]. First we identified its presence basing on the findings of dead animals in the area of Chornobyl NPP in April and November 2007 [Hashchak et al., 2009]. Later, during the study on ChEZ bat fauna, it was repeatedly caught almost exclusively near the city of Pripyat and ChNPP, and only once it was caught near the town of Chornobyl [Hashchak et al., 2013]. According to oral reports from ChNPP workers (G.I. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 279

Shursha) supported by photo and video materials, the pipistrelles winter in the premises of Chornobyl NPP. Though there is still no direct evidence of their breeding, such a possibility may be suggested basing on its year-round stay in the region, inclusive of sexually mature males and females.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The Kuhl's pipistrelle is a recent invading species that has significantly expanded its area to the whole of Ukraine [Zahorodniuk, 2006]. Whereby, its distribution in northern areas is almost exclusively connected with urban landscapes. Despite its conservation category, the species actually increased both in its abundance and distribution. However, a close connection to cities and industrial areas (which is the case in ChEZ) retains high risks for its survival and development. Based on the available data, a status of the Kuhl's pipistrelle in ChEZ is still unclear. The risks that can be borne by its living in the industrial structures of Chornobyl NPP are also unclear. Additional studies are required to assess actual status of the species and local prospects for its conservation.

56. Nathusius's pipistrelle (Нетопир лісовий, Нетопырь лесной) Pipistrellus nathusii (Keyserling, Blasius, 1839)

Taxonomy: Order — bats (Vespertilioniformes), Family — vesper bats (Vespertilionidae).

Conservation status: not evaluated [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

During the studies of ChEZ bats in 2007- 2013, it was determined that the Nathusius's pipistrelle is a common breeding migratory species, which accounted up to 16% in total catches [Hashchak et al., 2013]. Unlike many other local species, the ratio of sexually mature males and females is close Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 280 to 1:1, with some predominance of the latter. The Nathusius's pipistrelle is very widely distributed, though prefers forest lands near water bodies.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The Nathusius's pipistrelle lives almost throughout the entire territory of Ukraine, however it is most common in Polissia [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. According to the available data, its ChEZ group is in good condition. There is a wide selection of shelters (both hollows and niches in buildings) and food supply here. There is no intensive felling in ChEZ, there are practically no human settlements, nobody disturbs animals. Consequently, local prospects for the conservation and protection of the Nathusius's pipistrelle are very positive.

57. Soprano pipistrelle (Нетопир пігмей, Нетопырь пигмей) Pipistrellus pygmaeus (Leach, 1825)

Taxonomy: Order — bats (Vespertilioniformes), Family — vesper bats (Vespertilionidae).

Conservation status: not evaluated [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The soprano pipistrelle is the only representative of the twin species group Pipistrellus pipistrellus s.l., which presence in ChEZ was firmly established. In May 2001 it was first found in Chornobyl due to its specific ultrasonic vocalization characteristics [Hashchak, 2003]. Further, after a careful analysis of the animals’ morphology and the recorded sound tracks, a decision was made that in most cases only this species is unambiguously recorded in the region [Hashchak et al., 2013]. According to Belarusian colleagues [Dombrovskyi, 2017], the common pipistrelle P. pipistrellus also lives in the neighbouring Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve: its abundance is an order of magnitude less than that of the soprano pipistrelle. However, these conclusions are based only on the results of analyzing the echolocation signals, and therefore are Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 281 not that reliable. Additional studies including genetic analysis of tissue samples are needed to solve this problem. As for the soprano pipistrelle, it is a common breeding migratory species in ChEZ, which prefers forest habitats (including the forested population centres). As for its relative abundance, it is a subdominant species that demonstrates up to 11% of total bat catches [Hashchak et al., 2013]. In the first half of summer it is represented exclusively by sexually mature females.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The soprano pipistrelle is a relatively "recent" species in Ukrainian fauna. Its difficult identification in the field caused vagueness of data regarding its distribution and abundance. It is currently believed that it lives in Polissia and in the forest-steppe, though in other regions it is rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The factors that limit its abundance are similar to the ones of many other bats: various types of anthropogenic pressure. Available data demonstrate that local grouping of the soprano pipistrelle is in good condition in ChEZ. There is a wide selection of shelters (both hollows and niches in buildings) and food supply here. Intensive felling is not carried out within ChEZ, there are practically no human settlements here, nobody disturbs animals. Therefore, local prospects for the conservation and protection of the soprano pipistrelle are very positive.

58. Parti-coloured bat (Лилик двоколірний, Кожан двухцветный) Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758

Taxonomy: Order — bats (Vespertilioniformes), Family — vesper bats (Vespertilionidae).

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The parti-coloured bat is among the few species, which local presence was known in the past. In particular, it was noted in the village of Bovyshche in the mid-20th century [Abelentsev, Popov, 1956]. The Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 282 first recent registration was the discovery of a mummified corpse in Pripyat city in July 1995 [Hashchak et al., 2006]. In 2007-2013, during the research on bats, it was established that it is a common though few species within ChEZ (5% of total catches), which was breeding here [Hashchak et al., 2013]. In the first half of summer, the sex ratio in a group of sexually mature individuals is 1:9, males and females, respectively. Parti-coloured bats were caught practically in all types of stations, although to a much greater extent – near population centres. There are no data on their wintering in ChEZ territory. However, according to our observations, they are recorded in winter 50 km east, in the town of Slavutych. Therefore, they are not excluded in ChEZ.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

According to modern views, the parti-coloured bat is a common species in almost entire territory of Ukraine [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The factors that limit its abundance are similar to the ones of many other bats: various types of anthropogenic pressure, rejuvenation of forest plantations. It is indicated that in recent years more and more bats stay in urban landscapes for wintering [Tyshchenko, Hodlevska, 2008]. Results of our research demonstrate that local grouping of parti-coloured bats is in good condition. There is a wide selection of shelters (both hollows and niches in buildings) and food supply here. Intensive felling is not carried out in ChEZ, there are practically no human settlements here, nobody disturbs animals. Therefore, the region's prospects for the conservation and protection of the parti-coloured bat are very positive.

59. Serotine bat (Пергач пізній, Кожан поздний) Eptesicus serotinus (Schreber, 1774)

Taxonomy: Order — bats (Vespertilioniformes), Family — vesper bats (Vespertilionidae).

Conservation status: vulnerable [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The serotine bat is a common breeding although few species in ChEZ. During the research on bats in 2007-2013, its share in Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 283 the total catches was only 2% [Hashchak et al., 2013]. In most cases, it was registered in population centres, industrial zones or nearby. It was rarely recorded far away from urban landscapes. In the first half of summer, the sex ratio is close to 1:1, with some predominance of males; there are even more sexually mature males in the second half of summer. At least part of local group are sedentary: they are registered in Chornobyl town and near the Chornobyl NPP in winter season.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

According to modern views, the serotine bat is a common species in the entire territory of Ukraine, though it is less common in Polissia [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The factors limiting its abundance are similar to the ones of many other bats: various types of anthropogenic pressure, destruction and degradation of shelters. The serotine bat is protected from these factors under ChEZ conditions. However, the prospects for the species conservation in ChEZ are not quite clear. Being a synanthropic species, it prefers population centres and industrial zones, moreover, populated by people. Selection of such conditions is limited in ChEZ. Additional studies are required to assess the species future prospects in the region.

60. Eurasian lynx (Рись євразійська, Рысь) Lynx lynx (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomy: Order — Caniformes, Family — Felidae.

Conservation status: rare [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix III – Protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The lynx used to be a common animal in Polissia, including the lands currently included in ChEZ [Kirikov, 1960; Sokur, 1961]. Reduction of forests and direct persecution by humans caused its reduced abundance dating back to the 19th century. In the 20th century, lynxes only occasionally entered some northern parts of Ukraine, while the major breeding groups lived Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 284 much farther north, in Belarus [Heptner, Naumov, 1972; Lynx, 2003; Savytskyi, 2005]. Poaching, fragmentary nature of its range and depletion of food supply have caused a prolonged depression of the species. The situation started to get better only in the 1990s, abundance and distribution of the animal started to increase in Belarus [Savytskyi, 2005, Deriabina, 2008] and in the north Ukraine [Zhyla, 2002]. That was particularly the case in the areas depopulated after the Chornobyl accident. In 1991 lynxes were noted in the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve (Belarus); there were up to 10-12 specimens there in 1996-1997; 28 in 2001; and by the mid-2000s there were 30-40 animals [Deriabina, 2008]. At the beginning of the 1990s the lynx was also spoken in ChEZ [Hashchak et al., 2006]. Number of reports and geography of its findings were increasing, though there were no scientific studies to that end. According to oral reports from the local wildlife service, there were 18 specimens in the winter of 2000 in the exclusion zone (personal report from N.H. Samchuk). Possibly basing on the same information source, S.M. Zhyla (2002) stated that 10 lynxes lived in 2000 in "the resettled territories" of the northern Kyiv region with a total area of 500 km2 (which is noticeably smaller than the actual ChEZ area). Since there are no explanations in the article about the information source and about the concerned part of the zone, an assumption can be made that those were western parts of the region with extensive forest areas and comparable in size. Generally, nobody has carried out comprehensive recordings of the lynx in ChEZ, both at that time and afterwards. Consequently, its number is unknown. Apparently, in the first half of the 2000s it was still low, because this species was not recorded during the automatic registration of animals by photo traps (2001-2005) [Hashchak, 2008]. Our renewed and expanded surveys with the use of photo traps in 2012-2017 demonstrated that the lynx was a common large predator inhabiting practically the whole of ChEZ, including the population centres. It has the highest density in the right-bank ChEZ: from Stari Shepelychi and Chystohalivka in the east to Vilcha in the west and Denysovychi in the north. The lynx is less common in the southern, south-western sector and on the left bank, which is possibly due to the pressure from humans. Most often it was recorded on the border between forests and meadow, wetland areas. Taking into account the frequency of its registration and the structure of ChEZ lands, it can be assumed that current group of lynxes has from 50 to 130 animals. This is comparable to the abundance previously stated for the entire Polissia [Zhyla, 2012]. Specific studies are required to refine the numbers.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The lynx is an autochthonous species of the region. The facts of its independent return after a century of depression and a noticeable increase in its abundance indicate that ChEZ conditions fully meet biological needs of this animal and also that limiting anthropogenic effects, i.e. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 285 poaching lynx and its victims [Zhyla, 2012], were minimized. Vast territory, diversity of biotopic conditions and abundance of food supply (roe deer, hare, black grouse, hazel grouse, etc.) are able to ensure formation of a self-sustaining population with the highest possible density (up to 10 spec./100 km2).

61. Brown bear (Ведмідь бурий, Медведь бурый) Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758 Taxonomy: Order — Caniformes, Family — Ursidae

Conservation status: critically endangered [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN- 2017]. Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The brown bear used to be a common ? animal in Polissia. But it disappeared from the region by the early 20th century due to ? persecution, reduction of habitats and food ? supply [Kirikov, 1960; 1979, Sokur, 1961, ? ? Heptner et al., 1967]. There were only its occasional visits to the northern border areas of Ukraine in the 20th century [Heptner et al., 1967; Kryzhanivskyi, 1999; Zhyla, 1997, Dykyi et al., 2015]. Appearance of bear in ChEZ was spoken since 1993, though it was impossible to double-check the information. In most cases, one and the same site of the exclusion zone was stated: vast northwest forests near the villages of Vilcha, Denysovychi, Lubianka and Kovshvylivka, although there were also some observations near the villages of Opachychi and Koshovka. Most of the reports came in the early 2000s. The first finding of its traces, which we have checked, dates back to June 2003. They were found on a fire line, near the village of Korohod [Hashchak et al., 2006]. Next time, an evidence of bear presence was discovered by researchers in the summer of 2009: those were scores from its paws on a fir-tree, at an abandoned farmstead of the former Tovstoliske forestry centre [Shkvyria, Vyshnevskyi, 2012]. In 2015, we also found similar scores just 700 m northwest of that forestry centre [Hashchak et al., 2016]. A series of oral reports about observations of a bear (including the one supported by a video recording and one of a female with cubs) was received in 2015-2016, it was Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 286 related to the south-eastern part of ChEZ, near the villages of Paryshiv, Ladyzhychi and Cherevach [Hashchak et al., 2016]. Finally, the bear's presence was definitively confirmed in 2014-2016 during the research with the use of photo traps. Photos of at least 3 bear specimens were taken near the villages of Tovstyi Lis, Buda, Bovyshche [Hashchak et al., 2016]. Both total number of bears within ChEZ and whether they are local or regularly come from the adjacent territory of Belarus are not yet known. The first reports about bears in the neighbouring Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve (Belarus) appeared in 1992; there were already up to 70 cases of its registration in 2003-2010; and there are currently up to 4-5 adult animals [Deriabina, 2008, 2011]. Females with cubs were reported.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

In view of the critical situation with the bear in Ukraine [Dykyi et al., 2015, The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009], the fact of its independent return and consolidation within ChEZ is worthy of special attention. Local conditions fully meet its biological needs: rich food supply, huge selection of places for arranging winter lairs, vast territory deprived of human population. With due regard for the brown bear’s density in various regions of Europe (from 0.3 to 2.5 spec./1000 hectares), at least 50 animals can live in future in a territory as big as ChEZ [Hashchak et al., 2016]. Therefore, ChEZ can become another wildlife reserve of this rare species in Ukraine.

62. European polecat (Тхір темний, Хорь черный) Mustela putorius Linnaeus, 1758

Taxonomy: Order — Caniformes, Family — Mustelidae.

Conservation status: not evaluated [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– LC: Least Concern [IUCN-2017]. Listed on Appendix III – Protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 287

The European black (or forest) polecat used to be the most common representative of mustelids in Polissia, it populated almost all the landscapes [Abelentsev, 1968]. Its density was estimated to be up to 10 spec./1000 hectares. However, there were no reliable data on the polecat after the Chornobyl accident. Our own observations are limited to only two cases: 1) a photo-trap record on 4 October 2002 in sq. 179 of the Lubianske forestry centre (old mixed forest with a predominance of deciduous species) [Hashchak et al., 2006]; 2) visual observation on 1 August 2012 in sq. 324 of the Korohodske forestry centre (oak and hornbeam forest). We have not noticed polecats in a variety of ChEZ sites and biotopes during our intensive researches with photo traps in 2012-2017. The polecat’s population density in the neighbouring Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve (Belarus) was estimated to be 0.6-1.5 spec./1000 hectares in the early 1990s [Savytskyi et al., 2005]; and it was only 0.2 spec./1,000 hectares according to the results of the winter surveys in 2005 [Kuchmel, 2008]. It cannot be ruled out that there was a decrease in the species abundance within 30 years after the Chornobyl accident, which was caused by changed environmental conditions and increased competition with the pine marten. Anyway, a great shortage of information is obvious.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Although the European black polecat is being registered almost all over Ukraine, the available data indicate a noticeable decrease in its number [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. Possibly, this trend continues even under the conditions of such wild areas as ChEZ. Though generally, it is an autochthonous species and local conditions meet its needs. The lack of data can result from the lack of targeted research. The polecat’s perspectives in ChEZ and its current status are still unclear.

63. European otter (Видра річкова, Выдра речная) Lutra lutra (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomy: Order — Caniformes, Family — Mustelidae.

Conservation status: not evaluated [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– NT: Near Threatened [IUCN-2017]. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 288

Listed on Appendix II - Strictly protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Data on the species in ChEZ

The otter is a common and comparatively abundant predator in ChEZ. However, its direct records were not conducted. According to some visual observations and photo trap recordings, it lives in all suitable stations (lakes, rivers, canals, reservoirs) throughout the entire ChEZ territory. According to data from Belarusian colleagues [Kuchmel, 2008], the otter’s density varies from 0.5 spec./10 hectares at floodplain lakes to 1-3 spec./10 km along the watercourses of rivers and canals, totally these give up to 450-500 specimens for the entire area of reserve. It can be expected that the otter’s population in ChEZ is of the same order of magnitude. However, specific studies are required to clarify this issue.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The abundance of otters in Ukraine has increased significantly over the past 50 years, which is the result of conservation measures and the declined interest from hunters [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. ChEZ is among the areas, where otters find the most favourable conditions: abundance of lakes, rivers, canals, numerous beaver settlements, rich food supply. Moreover, humans produce almost no effect on water and marsh systems here and minimally pursue otters. Local prospects for the conservation of this species are very positive.

64. Przewalski's horse (tarpan) (Кінь-тарпан, Конь Пржевальского) Equus ferus (Boddaert, 1785)

Taxonomy: Order — odd-toed ungulates (Equiformes), Family — Equidae.

Conservation status: extinct in the wild [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– EN D: critically endangered [IUCN-2017].

Data on the species in ChEZ Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 289

The tarpan is an introduced species that was ? imported into ChEZ in order to form a free population, as an analogue of wild tarpans,

which lived in the region hundreds of years ? ago [Zharkykh et al., 2002]. The horses were imported in several phases: 3 specimens from the Lozovskyi stud farm (May 1998), 28 specimens from the Askania-Nova Biosphere Reserve (July 1998 - October 1999), 3 specimens from the Kyiv Zoo (January 2004), 10 specimens from the Zoo (September 2004) [Zharkykh, Yasinetskaia, 2008]. 21 animals died during their transportation and acclimatization. The remained 23 specimens (all were from Askania-Nova), including 2 males and 15 females, gave rise to the subsequent population. According to the results of field observations, tarpans occupied the entire area of right-bank ChEZ relatively quickly, although for a long time they stayed exclusively in meadow systems of the inter-stream area between the Rivers of Pripyat and Uzh. On the left bank of the Pripyat River (more precisely, in the left bank floodplain), tarpans used to appear in exceptional cases only [Deriabina, 2013, our observations]. Since the mid-2000s, some tarpans have moved across the Uzh River and started going beyond the south border of ChEZ [Yasinetskaia, Zvehintsova, 2013], two more groups left for north, to the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve, where they started a local group [Deriabina, 2013]. At least 144 foals were born since the herd inception (1998-2013) [Yasinetskaia, Zvehintsova, 2013]. The number of harem and stallion groups increased to 9-11, and their sizes decreased to 5-12 specimens, some stallions roamed in couples or alone. There were up to 75-80 tarpans in ChEZ by the end of 2012. Another 17 specimens lived in the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve [Deriabina, 2013]. Apparently, about 70 animals have died over the entire period (55 cases of death were recorded in 1999-2006 only). Traumas and diseases caused deaths of 9% of horses, 24% of the animals were killed by poachers, causes of other horses’ deaths were not established [Zharkykh, Yasinetskaia, 2008]. The researchers noted that the search for tarpans became very difficult since the mid-2000s. This was due to the active reforestation processes in the meadows. Therefore, the estimation results for their total number are not that reliable. According to the results of our researches with the use of photo traps (unpublished data), tarpans ceased to stay exclusively in meadow areas and are often recorded in the depths of forest tracts, especially in winter. The increasing importance of forests in their lives is supported by the observed use of woody forage, which is not typical of steppe animals [Slivinska, 2005]. They also visit abandoned farm structures regularly. Also tarpans start making an environmental-forming effect by trampling grass and upper layer of litter in the places of their regular stay and on their constant pathways [Slivinska, 2005]. However, Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 290 this effect is still not noticeable on the scale of ChEZ due to the size of their population. Generally, status of the population is assessed to be a good one; the total population is approximately 100 horses (2017). However, actual situation can be assessed during a targeted research only.

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

The tarpan is known to originate from Central Asia [Klimov, 1990, Sokolov et al., 1991], although it is believed to be a form related to the wild tarpan horse that formerly lived in the steppe and forest-steppe zone, including the south forest zone currently locating ChEZ. The horses released into ChEZ are quite comfortable here, and their population has increased 4-5 times despite the whole set of existing problems. Among the most urgent problems is poaching. Large animals that do not escape from humans have no future without their strict security in the area. Another problem is their naturally depleted and "spoilt" genetic profile. The 17 animals that gave rise to the Chornobyl population had unknown or hybridization-spoilt breeding background. Therefore, they are excluded from the breeding process under international programs for the regeneration of species (personal report from T.L. Zharkykh). Actually, they are a substandard. Stock breeding works were almost never carried out on the horses of Chornobyl, new breeders were not brought in, and the specimens deviating from tarpan characteristics were not sorted out. Currently, here exists a free population of tarpan horses, which do not fully belong to the species of Przewalski's horse and bear no relationship to the species restoration program. Another problem for the future of tarpans lies in the ongoing processes of reforestation and reduction of open landscape area. The wild horses need to learn to live in the forest in order to survive in this region. Therefore, future of these horses depends on their protection, rate of adaptation to forest existence and possibly on spontaneous genetic processes that occur in their population.

65. European bison (Зубр, Зубр) Bison bonasus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomy: Order — even-toed ungulates (Cerviformes), Family — hollow-horned (Bovidae).

Conservation status: extinct in the wild [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009]. The status in the list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature –– VU D1: vulnerable [IUCN- 2017]. Listed on Appendix III – Protected fauna species of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats [Berne-1979].

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 291

Data on the species in ChEZ

According to historical evidence, bisons ? lived in the Pripyat Polissia hundreds of years ago, but then disappeared completely by the 18th century [Kirikov, 1979a, b]. In ? 1998, an attempt to reintroduce the bison into ChEZ was made under the Fauna Program [Program for the restoration…, 2000] though failed; both imported animals died in the acclimatization enclosure [Hashchak et al., 2006]. In April 2012, we found typical "cowpats" when surveying the forest lands to the west of Tovstyi Lis village (sqs. 204, 230 of the Lubianske forestry centre). However, the animal itself, which was an adult male bison, we recorded by a photo trap only on 9 March 2015, in sq. 204 of the Lubianske forestry centre [Hashchak et al., 2017]. In 2015-2016 a bison was photographed 19 times. The animal stayed on forest and meadow sites in the area between the villages of Bovyshche, Krasne, Tovstyi Lis. This is a combination of old oak and hornbeam forests and moist meadows covered with woody growth. The animal came here at least in 2011, from the left-bank of Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve (Belarus), where bisons, which were supplied from Belovezhskaya Pushcha, live since 1996 [Deriabina, 2008]. Over the 20 years, their population has increased 7-fold and reached up to 116 animals [Penkevich, 2016]. Hence, bisons started to expand their domain since the mid-2000s [Deriabina, 2012]. The bison, which presence in ChEZ is confirmed by photographs, is a single specimen so far. However, there were also some oral reports about bison visits from Belarus: 1) Yu.I. Bondar (before 2013, the left-bank ChEZ), 2) A. Kalmykov (3 November 2015, near the village of Bovyshche), 3) A.N. Borovskyi (2016, two bisons in the area of Ladyzhychi, Teremtsi villages).

Prospects of the species under ChEZ conditions

Despite the fact that bisons have a high conservation status in Ukraine [The Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009], the greatest problem for its survival is the lack of areas where it could live without a conflict with humans [Kryzhanivskyi, 2007]. ChEZ is possibly the only place in Ukraine, where a combination of suitable natural conditions, vast areas and absence of humans allow free development to the bison. According to experts [Kryzhanivskyi, 2007], up to several hundred animals can live in this area, which is very important for the conservation of species. The increased population of bisons in the neighbouring Belarusian reserve can certainly result in the formation of an own livestock in ChEZ. However, the prospects for its establishment in our Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 292 territory will be very uncertain without proper protection and monitoring. Though even greater contribution may come from an organized breeding work.

References

Abelientsev V.I. Mammals: the mustelidae // Fauna of Ukraine. - K.: Naukova Dumka, 1968. - Vol. 1, Issue 3 - 280 p. (in Ukrainian).

Abelientsev V.I., Popov B.M. Mammals: the order of chiropterans or bats - Chiroptera // Fauna of Ukraine. - K.: Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, 1956. - Vol. 1, Issue 1. - pp. 229-446 (in Ukrainian).

Afanasiev V.T., The Tengmalm`s Owl in the North-East of Ukraine // Berkut, 1997. - 6 (1-2): 47-48 (in Russian)

Balashov L.S., Haichenko V.A., Frantsevich L.I. et al. The "Red Data Book of Ukraine" in the exclusion zone // Bulletin of ecological state of the exclusion zone and the zone of absolute (mandatory) resettlement. - ChornobylInterInform, 1999. No.14: 35-37 (in Ukrainian).

Berh L.S. The freshwater fishes of the USSR and neighbouring countries. - M.-L., 1948. Vol. 1. – 468p. (in Russian).

Deriabina T.G. Tarpan (Equus przewalskii Poljakov): results of invasive species observations // Ecosystems and radiation: existence and development aspects: Coll. of scientific papers dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve / Ed. by Yu.I. Bondar. - Minsk: BORBITS RNIUP "Institute of Radiology", 2013. - pp. 301-308 (in Russian).

Deriabina T.G. The Chornobyl NPP exclusion zone as a reserve of protected wild animal species // The Red Data Book of the Republic of Belarus: state, problems, prospects: data of the international scientific conference, Vitebsk, December 13-15, 2011 / Vitebsk State Un-ty; editorial board: V.Ya. Kuzmenko (editor-in-chief) and [et al.]. - Vitebsk: UO named after P.M. Masherov, 2011. - pp. 43- 45 (in Russian).

Deriabina T.G. The Paliessie population of bison (1996-2011) // Wild nature of Belarus. 2012 (3.12.2012) https://goo.gl/IL5HVg (in Russian).

Deriabina T.G. Distribution and number of large mammals (bison, bear, lynx, badger) listed on the Red Data Book of the Republic of Belarus within the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve // Faunal research in the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve: Coll. of scientific papers. / Ed. by H.V. Antsipov. - Homel: RNIUP "Institute of Radiology", 2008. - pp. 19-35 (in Russian).

Dolbik M.S. Birds of Belarusian Paliessie. - Minsk: Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the BSSR, 1959. - 268 p. (in Russian). Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 293

Domashevskyi S.V. The great grey owl (Strix nebulosa) in Kyiv Polissia // Bulletin of Zoology, 2004. - 38 (2): 20 (in Russian).

Domashevskyi S.V. Data on the ecology of honey buzzard and black kite in the northern Ukraine // Berkut. - 2006. - Vol. 15, Issue 1-2. - pp. 125-131 (in Russian).

Domashevskyi S.V. Distribution of the great grey owl in Ukrainian Polissia // The owls of Northern Eurasia: ecology, spatial and biotope distribution / Volkov S.V. (ch. ed.), Sharikov A.V., Morozov V.V. - M. 2009: 126 (in Russian).

Domashevskyi S.V. Predatory birds in the Mizhrichynskyi Regional Landscape Park // The newest studies of the Falconiformes and Owls. Proceedings of the 3rd International Scientific Conference "Predatory Birds of Ukraine", Kryvyi Rih city, 24-25 October 2008 - Kryvyi Rih, 2008. - pp. 106- 117 (in Russian).

Domashevskyi S.V., Hashchak S.P., Chyzhevskyi I.V. Proceedings on the falconiformes and strigiformes of the Chornobyl exclusion zone (Ukraine) // Berkut, 2012. - (1-2): 64-81 (in Russian).

Domashevskyi S.V., Komarovskyi A., Teteruk R., Sapuga A. Registration of the Eurasian pygmy owl in the Kyiv region // Internet publication of the Ukrainian Centre for Studying Predatory Birds (4.03.17). - https://raptors.org.ua/en/1018 (in Russian).

Domashevskyi S.V., Chyzhevskyi I.V. (2009v): Results of the white-tailed eagle and other predatory birds recording in the winter season of 2008-2009 in the Chornobyl exclusion zone. – Berkut. 18 (1-2): 45-48 (in Russian).

Domashevskyi S.V., Chyzhevskyi I.V. The roller in the exclusion zone of the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant // Results of the surveying season of 2010. Proceedings of the 1st regional scientific zoological conference dedicated to the International Year of Biodiversity (Brest, December 11, 2010). - Brest: "Alternative", 2011. - pp. 84-86 (in Russian).

Dombrovskyi V.V. Parent colony of the Brandt's bat Myotis brandtii in the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve (Belarus) // Proceedings of Theriological School. -Kyiv, 2017. - Volume 16. - pp. 137-140 (in Russian).

Dombrovskyi V.Ch. The results of bats (Chiroptera) recording in the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve in 2016-2017. // Urgent problems of zoological science in Belarus: Coll. of papers of the 11th Zool. Int. Scientific-Practical Conference Dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the GNPO National Research Centre for Biological Resources of the NAS of Belarus (Belarus, Minsk, 1-3 November 2017). - Vol. 1. / Editorial board: O.I. Borodin [et al.]. - Minsk: Publisher А.N. Varaksin, 2017.- pp. 105-112 (in Russian).

Dombrovskyi V.Ch., Zhuravlev D.V. Rare species of daytime predatory birds in the specially protected natural territories of Belarusian Paliessie bordering on Ukraine. - The newest studies of Falconiformes and Owls. Proceedings of the 3rd International Scientific Conference "Predatory Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 294

Birds of Ukraine", Kryvyi Rih city, 24-25 October 2008 - Kryvyi Rih, 2008. - pp. 125-133 (in Russian).

Dombrovskyi V.Ch., Zhuravlev D.V., Demongin L. The rare predatory birds of Belarusian Paliessie - Subbuteo // Belarusian ornithological bulletin, 2001. - 4 (1): 11-24 (in Russian).

Dombrovskyi V.Ch., Pareiko V.A. Wintering of large predatory birds in the resettlement zone of Chornobyl NPP in 1998. - Subbuteo, 1999. - 2 (1): 46-47 (in Russian).

Dombrovskyi V.C., Fenchuk V.A., Zhurauliou D. V. New occurrence and the first breeding record of the Nyctalus lasiopterus in Belarus // Vespertilio. — 2016. — Vol. 18. — pp. 55–59 (in English).

Dombrovskyi V., Fenchuk V., Zhurauliou D. Bat fauna (Mammalia, Chiroptera) in the Staryi Zhaden Reserve, Southern Belarus // Proceedings of Theriological School. — Kyiv, 2017. — Vol. 15. — pp. 3–9 (in English).

Draft organization and development of forestry in the State Special Integrated Enterprise named "Chornobylska Pushcha (Forest)" of the State Department - Administration of the exclusion zone and zone of absolute (mandatory) resettlement. The Ukrainian State Design and Production Association of Forestry. Combined expedition, Irpin - 2006 (in Ukrainian)

Dykyi I.V., Shkvyria M.H., Hoetskyi P.B. Present state of the brown bear population in Ukraine: spatial structure and ecological characteristics, number and methods of research // The brown bear (Ursus arctos): the problems of conservation and researching the population in Ukraine / Scientific Ed. I.V. Dykyi, M.H. Shkvyria. - Kyiv: TOV SIK GRUP UKRAINE, 2015. - pp. 36-72 (in Ukrainian)

Godlevska L., Tyshchenko V., Negoda V. First records of the Pipistrellus kühlii from Kyiv // Bulletin of Zoology. — 2000. — 34 (3). — p. 78 (in English).

Hashchak S.P., Huliaichenko Y.O., Beresford N.A., Wood M.D. Brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) in the Chornobyl exclusion zone // Proceedings of Theriological School. – Vol. 14 (2016): 71–84 (in English).

Hashchak S.P., Huliaichenko Y.O., Beresford N.A., Wood M.D. European bison (Bison bonasus) in the Chornobyl exclusion zone (Ukraine) and prospects for its revival // Proceedings of Theriological School. — Vol. 15 (2017): 58–66 (in English).

Hashchak S.P. Notes on some rare birds in the Chornobyl exclusion zone. - Berkut, 2002. - 11 (2): 141- 147 (in Ukrainian).

Hashchak S.P. Interesting zoological findings from the north of the Kyiv and Chernihiv regions // Bulletin of Zoology, 2003. - 37 (3): 64 (in Russian).

Hashchak S.P. About the experience of automatic photographing of wild animals in the Chornobyl zone // Rare theriofauna and its conservation / Ed. by I. Zahorodniuk. - Luhansk, 2008. - p. 28-36 - (Proceedings of the Theriological School, Issue 9) (in Ukrainian). Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 295

Hashchak S.P., Vyshnevskyi D.O., Zaliskyi O.O. The fauna of Vertebrates of the Chornobyl Exclusion zone (Ukraine). - Slavutych: Publishing house of the Chornobyl Centre for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology, 2006 – 100 p. (in Ukrainian).

Hashchak S.P., Vlashchenko A.S., Nahlov A.V. Results of studying the fauna and radioactive contamination of bats in the Chornobyl exclusion zone in 2007-2009 // The problems of the Chornobyl exclusion zone. - 2009. - No. 9. – pp. 102-124 (in Russian).

Hashchak S.P., Vlashchenko A.S., Nahlov A.V., Kravchenko K.A., Prylutska A.S. The fauna of bats in the exclusion zone in the context of assessing conservation value of its sites // Problems of the Chornobyl exclusion zone. - 2013. - Issue 11. - pp. 56-79 (in Russian). Havryliuk M.N., Hryshchenko V.N. (2000): The present state of the white-tailed eagle population in the Middle Dnipro. - Berkut. 9 (1-2): 28-38 (in Russian).

Havrys G.G., Kotserzhynska I.M. A discovery of the Kuhl's pipistrelle Pipistrellus kühlii (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae) at northern border of the areal in Ukraine // Bulletin of Zoology. - 2002. - 36 (6). - p. 50 (in Russian).

Heptner V.G., Naumov N.P. Mammals of the . Predators (hyenas and cats). - Moscow: Vysshaia Shkola. - 1972. - Volume 2, part 2. - 552 p. (in Russian).

Heptner V.G., Naumov N.P., Yurhenson P.B. et al. Mammals of the Soviet Union. The sea cows and predators. - Moscow: Vysshaia Shkola. - 1967. - Volume 2, part 1. - 1004 p. (in Russian).

Hodlevska L., Buzunko P., Rebrov S., Hkhazali M. Underground storages of the bats in "non-cave" regions of Ukraine, according to the results of 2002-2015 // Journal of the University of Lviv. Biology Series. - 2016. - Issue 71. - pp. 178-189 (in Ukrainian).

Hodlevska L., Rebrov S. The bats of northern and central Ukraine in the left bank area of the Dnipro River // Proceedings of the Theriological School. - Kyiv, 2017. - Volume 16. - pp. 3-32 (in Ukrainian).

Hodlevska L., Rebrov S., Panchenko P. New data on the bat fauna in the Rivne region (Ukraine) // Reserve management and studies (Zapovidna Sprava). - 2016. – Issue 1, No. 22. - pp. 72-77 (in Ukrainian).

Holovach O.F., Hryshchenko V.N., Serebiyakov V.V. Distribution, number and migration of the black stork in Ukraine. - Dep. in VINITI 26.02.1990, No. 1110-V90. - 48 p. (in Russian).

Hryshchenko V.M. About listing new bird species on the Red Data Book of Ukraine // Berkut, 1998. - 7 (1-2). - pp. 94-103 (in Ukrainian).

Hryshchenko V.N. About the spread of the grey crane in the Kyiv region // Ornithology: Coll. – M.: Publishing House of the Moscow State Un-ty, 1990. - Issue. 24. - p. 146 (in Russian). Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 296

Hryshchenko V.N. The black stork in Ukraine: Mythmaking continues // Berkut. - 1996. - 5 (1). - pp. 91- 94 (in Russian).

Hryshchenko V.N., Osavliuk D.S. On the nesting of the golden-eye in the Kyiv region // Ornithology: Coll. - M.: Publishing house of the Moscow State Un-ty, 1990. - Issue. 24. - p. 147 (in Russian).

Hryshchenko V.N., Havryliuk M.N., Horoshko O.A., Dremliuha G.N., Nechai I.I., Osaviuk D.S. About the spread of rare predator bird species in the Kyiv region. - Berkut, 2004. - 3 (2): 152-153 (in Russian).

Kedrov B., Sheshurak P. The first finding of Kuhl's pipistrelle in the Chernihiv region (Ukraine) // Bulletin of Zoology. - 1999. - 33 (3). - p. 60 (in Russian).

Kirikov S.V. Changes in animal world in the natural zones of the USSR (13-19 centuries): The forest zone and forest-tundra. Moscow: Publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1960. 158p. (in Russian).

Kirikov S.V. Distribution of bison in the territory of the Soviet Union in the 11th-20th centuries. / / The bison. Morphology, systematics, evolution, ecology // Ed. by V.E. Sokolov. Moscow: Nauka, 1979 a. – pp. 476-487 (in Russian).

Kirikov S.V. The man and the nature in the Eastern European forest-steppe in the 10th - early 19th centuries. - Moscow: Nauka, 1979 b. - 184 p. (in English).

Kistiakivskyi O.B. The fauna of industrial birds in the Polissia of the Ukrainian SSR // Collection of papers of the Zoological Museum of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR. - 1952. - No. 25. - pp. 11-34 (in Ukrainian)

Klakotskyi V.P. Birds of the Pripyat Landscape and Hydrological Reserve // Reserves of Belarus. - Minsk, 1983. - Issue 7. - pp. 98-106 (in Russian).

Kovalov V., Hukov V., Rodenko O. New record of the Nyctalus lasiopterus (Schreber, 1780) in Ukraine with contribution of carnivore behaviour of the species // V Ogolnopolska studencka konferencja teriologiczna (18–21.05.2017, Poznan). — Poznan, 2017. — p.69 (in English).

Kovaleva I.M., Taraborkin L.A. The present status and distribution of the Barbastella barbastellus (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae) in Ukraine // Bulletin of Zoology. - 2001. - 35 (3). - pp. 79-84 (in Russian).

Kryzhanivskyi V.I. Condition of populations of hunting mammal species // Development of the ecological network in Ukraine. - Kyiv: UNDP, Ecological Network Project, 1999. - pp. 89-91 (in Ukrainian)

Kryzhanivskyi V.I. Action plan for the conservation of bison (Bison bonasus L.) in the fauna of Ukraine. Approved by the Order of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the State Committee of Forestry of Ukraine dated May 8, 2007, No. 231/163 // Hunting in Ukraine. 2007. Special issue. - pp. 1-9 (in Ukrainian) Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 297

Kuchmel S.V. Species composition of the mammal orders of Eulipotyphla, Lagomorpha, Carnivora, Rodents and Ungulates of the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve // Faunal research in the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve: Coll. of scientific papers / Ed. by H.V. Antsipov. - Homel: RNIUP "Institute of Radiology", 2008. - pp. 38-64 (in Russian).

Kurilenko V.Ye., Verves Yu.H. Amphibians and reptiles of Ukraine: The guide book. - Kyiv: Publishing house "Heneza", 1998. – 208p. (in Russian).

Leheida I.S., Mykytiuk A.Yu., Panov H.M. (1996): State of the white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) in 30-km zone of Chornobyl NPP. – Proceedings of the Conference on 7-9 April 1995 in Nizhyn city. K.: 30-31 (in Russian).

Melnychuk V.A., Holovach O.F. Distribution of colonial birds in the northern part of the Kyiv reservoir in the period of its stabilization // Bulletin of Zoology. - 1984. - 5. - pp. 85-86 (in Russian).

Merzlikin I.R., Lebed E.A. Meetings with the Kuhl's pipistrelle Pipistrellus kühlii (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae) in the Sumy region of Ukraine // Bulletin of Zoology. - 2001. - 35 (4). - pp. 92 (in Russian).

Movchan Yu.V., Manylo L.H., Smyrnov A.I., Shcherbukha A.Ya. The Cyclostomata and fishes - K.: Zoological Museum of NNPM of NAS of Ukraine, 2003. - 241 p. - (Catalogue of collections of the Zoological Museum of NNPM of NAS of Ukraine (in Russian).

Nikiforov M.Ye, Yaminskyi B.V., Shkliarov L.P. The birds of Belarus: The guide book for nests and eggs. - Minsk: Vysheishaia Shkola, 1989. - 479 p. (in Russian).

Panov H.M. (2004): Spatial distribution and abundance of the white-tailed eagle in the Chornobyl exclusion zone. – Berkut. 13 (2): 226-229 (in Russian).

Penkevich V. A. The European bison. 2016. https://goo.gl/u5qMtx (in Russian).

Poluda А.М. (2000): About the distribution of the white-tailed eagle in the Kyiv region - Berkut. 9 (1-2): 122–123 (in Ukrainian)

Poluda А.М., Baiev V.A., Havrys H.H. et al. The 18th and 19th seasons of the ornithological station named "Lebedivka" // Bulletin of Zoology, 1997. - 31 (3): 86-88 (in Russian).

Poluda А.М., Davydenko I.V., Zemlianskykh I.I. et al. The ornithological station named "Lebedivka": the 21st and 22nd seasons // Bulletin of Zoology, 1999. - 33 (4-5): 119-122 (in Russian).

Program for the restoration of the initial faunal complex and biodiversity of Ukrainian Polissia in the exclusion zone and the zone of absolute (mandatory) resettlement (The Fauna Program): Approved by V.V. Durdynets, the ME Minister of Ukraine, on April 13, 2000. - Kyiv, 2000. – 8 p. (in Ukrainian) Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 298

Rare and endangered plants and animals of Ukraine: The guidebook / V.I. Chopyk, N.N. Shcherbak, T.B. Ardamatskaia et al.; Ed. by K.M. Sytnik et al. - K.: Naukova Dumka, 1988. - 256 p. (in Russian).

Riabov I.N. Radioecology of fish in water bodies of the zone affected by the Chornobyl accident: based on expedition research materials. - M.: KMK Association of Scientific Publications, 2004. – 215 p. (in Russian).

Savytskyi B.P., Kuchmel S.V., Burko L.D. The mammals of Belarus / General editorship of B.P. Savytskyi. - Minsk: Publishing Centre of the Belarusian State University, 2005. - 319 p. - ISBN 985-476-316-1 (in Russian).

Slivinska K.A. The tarpan (Equus przewalskii Poljakov, 1881) in the conditions of the Chornobyl exclusion zone // Bulletin of the ecological state of the exclusion zone and the zone of absolute (mandatory) resettlement, 2005. – No.1 (25): 37-41 (in Ukrainian).

Sokur I.T. Historical changes and use of mammal fauna in Ukraine. - Kyiv: Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, 1961. - 84 p. (in Ukrainian).

The Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats (Berne, 1979). - Kyiv: Publishing house of the Ministry of Environmental Protection of Ukraine, 1998. – 76 p. (in Ukrainian). The Lynx. Regional characteristics of its ecology, use and protection / Editor-in-chief Ye.N. Matiushkin, M.A. Waissfeld. - Moscow: Nauka, 2003. - 523 p. (in Russian).

The Fauna of Ukraine. In 40 volumes. Volume 5. The birds. Issue 2. Predatory birds / Zubarovskyi V.М. - Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1977. – 332 p. (in Ukrainian).

The Fauna of Ukraine. In 40 volumes. Volume 7. The amphibia and reptilia / Tarashchuk V.I. - Kyiv: Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, 1959. – 247 p. (in Ukrainian).

The Fauna of Ukraine. In 40 volumes. Volume 8. The fishes. Issue 1: The Tunicata (Ascidiacea, Larvacean), Cephalochordata, Chondrichthyes (Cyclostomata, Chondrichthyes, Osteichthyes - Sturgeons, Herrings, Anchovies, Salmonids, Graylings, Pikes, Mudminnows) / Pavlov P.Y. - Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1980. – 352 p. (in Ukrainian).

The Fauna of Ukraine. In 40 volumes. Volume 8. The fishes. Issue 2: The Cypriniformes. Part 1: Roach, Dace, Minnow, Rudd, Grass Carp, Asp, Sunbleak, Tench, Stone Moroko, Nase, Gudgeon, Barbel / Movchan Yu.V., Smirnov A.I. - Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1981. – 428 p. (in Ukrainian).

The Fauna of Ukraine. In 40 volumes. Volume 8. The fishes. Issue 2: The Cypriniformes. Part 2: Chalcalburnus, Bleak, Spirlin, Silver Bream, Abramis, Vimba Bream, Sabre Carp, Bitterling, Crucian, Carp, Hypophthalmichtis, Aristychtis / Movchan Yu.V., Smirnov A.I. - Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1983. – 360 p. (in Ukrainian).

The Fauna of Ukraine. In 40 volumes. Volume 8. The fishes. Issue 3: The Cobitidae, , Ictaluridae, Freshwater , Congridae, Belonidae, Gadidae, Gasterosteidae, Syngnathidae, Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 299

Poeciliidae, Zeuses, Sfirens, Mullets, Old World Silversides, Cusk-Eels / Movchan Yu.V. - Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1988 – 368 p. (in Russian).

The Fauna of Ukraine. In 40 volumes. Volume 8. The fishes. Issue 4: The Perciformes (Percoidei, Wrasses, Weeverfishes, Blennies, Ammodytes, Callionymidae, Scombridae) / Shcherbukha A.Ya. - Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1982. – 384 p. (in Ukrainian).

The Red Data Book of Ukraine. The Animal World / Ed. by I.A. Akimov - K.: HlobalConsulting, 2009. - 600 p. (in Ukrainian).

Tsytsiura V.K., Khlebeshko V.N. The Tengmalm`s Owl (Aegolius funereus) as a new nesting species in Zhytomyr Polissia // Bulletin of Zoology, 1991. - 5. - p. 86 (in Russian).

Tyshchenko V.M., Hodlevska O.V. The first findings of the Vespertilio murinus and Nyctalus noctula (Chiroptera) during their wintering in Kyiv city // Bulletin of Zoology. - 2008. - Vol. 42, No. 3. - p. 280 (in Ukrainian).

Sharleman M. Notes on the birds in the Kyiv region. Proceedings for the ornithological fauna of Ukraine // Proceedings of the Phys.-Math. Dpt. of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. - 1926. - V. 2, Issue 2. - pp. 1-32 (in Ukrainian).

Shkvyria, M., Vyshnevskyi, D. Large predators of the Chornobyl NPP exclusion zone // Bulletin of Zoology. — 2012. — Vol. 46, N 3. — pp. 239–246 (in English).

Shpak A.V. The first record of the Myotis brandtii (Mammalia, Vespertilionidae) in the Central Paliessie of Belarus // Bulletin of Zoology, 2010. —Vol. 44. — Issue 3. — p. 252 (in English).

Vertebrate animals in the Pripyat Nature Reserve: Annotated list of species / Compiled by A.V. Uglianets, V.P. Klakotskyi, I.M. Zenina. - Minsk: Uradzhai, 1995. - 40 p. (in Russian).

Vlashchenko A., Hashchak S., Hukasova A., Nahlov A. The new record and present state of the Nyctalus lasiopterus in Ukraine (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) // Lynx, n. s. (Prague). — 2010. — Vol. 41. — pp. 209–216 (in English).

Yurko V.V. The present state of ornithological fauna in the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Preserve // Faunal research in the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve: Coll. of scientific papers. / Ed. by H.V. Antsipov. - Homel: RNIUP "Institute of Radiology", 2008. - p. 65- 115 (in Russian).

Yurko V.V., Pareiko O.A. Monitoring of the PSRER ornithological fauna. Results of 2005 // 20 years after the Chornobyl Disaster: Collection of scientific papers of the Paliessie State Radiation and Ecological Reserve. - Homel, 2006. - p. 226-238 (in Russian).

Yasinetskaia N.I., Zvehintsova N.S. The structure and present state of the tarpan population in the Chornobyl NPP zone // News of the Askania-Nova Biosphere Reserve. - 2013. - Volume 5. - pp. 203-211 (in Russian). Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 300

Zharkykh T.N., Yasinetskaia N.I. Demographic figures of the tarpan population (Equus przewalskii Polj., 1881) in the Chornobyl NPP exclusion zone // Bulletin of the Moscow Society of Naturalists. Department of Biology. - 2008. - 113 (5): 3-9 (in Russian).

Zharkykh T.N., Yasinetskaia N.I., Borovskyi A.N., Zvehintsova N.S. Studying the tarpan population in the Chornobyl NPP zone // Bulletin of the Moscow Society of Naturalists. Department of Biology. - 2002. - V. 107, Issue 5. - pp. 9-16 (in Russian).

Zhezheryn V.P. The ornithological fauna of Ukrainian Polissia and its dependence on landscape conditions and anthropic factors. The composition of nesting bird species, distribution in the territory, abundance, conservation issues, zoogeography: Thesis of the cand. of biol. sciences. K., 1969. - 539 p. (in Russian).

Zhukov P.I. Distribution and evolution of freshwater lamprey in the BSSR water bodies // Issues of ichthyology, 1965. - V.5, Issue 2 (35). – pp. 240-244 (in Russian).

Zhyla S. Lynx in Ukrainian Polissia: state of the population and distribution // Bulletin of the University of Lviv. Biology Series, 2002. – Issue 30. – pp. 61-64 (in Ukrainian).

Zhyla S.M. Brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) in Ukrainian Polissia. - Bulletin of Zoology, 1997. – Volume 31 (3). – p. 77. (in Ukrainian).

Zhyla S. The population of lynx (Lynx lynx) in Ukrainian Polissia and action plan for its conservation // Variability and ecology of mammals / Ed. by I. Zahorodniuk. - Kyiv, 2012. - pp. 98-112 (Series: Proceedings of Theriological School, Volume 11) (in Ukrainian). Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 301

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 302

Assessment of the extent of anthropogenic transformation of natural ecosystems and the level of current anthropogenic impact

The results of our multi-year observations, including 2017 in particular, demonstrate that ChEZ lands are currently at different levels of anthropogenic transformation, which is primarily due to the initial state of these sites in 1986 and the history of economic activity.

The greatest deviations from natural standard exist in the areas of former (and current) population centres, in industrial areas, localities of domestic, construction and industrial debris and waste, along transport infrastructure structures (roads and railways, power lines). Despite the fact that in the absence of people animals and plants are occupying these territories, the buildings, structures, debris and other man-caused pollutants bear huge risks. We marked the following negative impacts resulting from the past and present human activities:

1) Death of animals caused by crashes against moving transport (amphibians, reptiles, birds, large mammals); 2) Death of animals in "traps" that include interstitial spaces (birds, bats), indoor premises in buildings (birds, mammals), water wells (mammals, amphibians), wire barriers (mammals, birds), items abandoned by people (for example, glassware); 3) Death of animals from eating inedible or toxic items of man-made origin (plastic, chemicals, etc.); 4) Death of birds on live power lines; 5) Death of birds caused by collisions with window panes. However, the frequency of these negative occurrences should not be assumed to be too high (except for the deaths on roads). Firstly, because attitude of animals towards urbanized and industrial landscapes, especially those where people are performing their activities, is very careful; and secondly, the total area of such sites does not exceed 10-15% of ChEZ total area. Nevertheless, the risk factors will remain for hundreds of thousands of years, especially on sites with on-going economic activity.

Almost the entire ChEZ territory falls into group 2 of the anthropogenically transformed lands. The local nature has been intensively exploited and transformed by people over a millennium. An originally forest area stayed almost without forests by the early 20th century; afterwards it was planted with the most convenient breed, i.e. pine. Pine monocultures are unstable formations exposed to fungal diseases, impacts of phytophagous insects and xylophages; they also have high fire hazards. Moreover, dominance of one culture entails formation of conditions that ensure low diversity of other organisms. During all the post-accident Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 303 years, people continued their policy of preservation and augmentation of artificial pine plantations, and thereby they hindered the processes of recovering natural balanced abundance inherent in this natural and climatic zone. The results were not long in coming; the extensive fires of 2015-2016 destroyed tens of thousands of hectares of forests and also damaged a no less proportion of meadows and wetlands. Along with the latter, animals died. Enabling the nature to independently perform reforestation in line with local conditions and the inter-specific relationships system is the only alternative to the traditional forestry activities and the only correct one with regard to the Biosphere Reserve. Such an approach will lay the groundwork for restoration of former biodiversity and balance inherent in Polissia. In the meantime, a reversible return of current forest areas to the state of "Polissia Pristine Forests" may take 2-3 centuries. However, it will be worth it: according to the results of our studies, the highest biodiversity is related to mixed and deciduous forests. And these very forests are most resistant to the impacts of pests, diseases and fires.

Despite such a profound and long-lasting transformation, forests in ChEZ still exist as natural ecosystems and do not impose anthropogenic risks on animals and plants. Most of organisms in ChEZ are attributed to these very forests. These are exactly the forests that ensure ecological stability, including the radioecological one.

Local wetland systems were subject to no less profound transformation during the previous centuries. Melioration of lands in Polissia started in the 19th century. Original wetlands were drained by the mid-20th century. Approximately a half of ChEZ area is covered with a network of drainage canals. Development of peat deposits was started in many places. On the one hand, it provided an opportunity for the cultivation of new lands and exploitation of forest resources, but on the other one it has drastically changed living conditions of many organisms thus resulting in a reduction in their abundance or even complete extinction. To date, contradictory trends have formed in people’s attitude to the ChEZ wetland systems. Some of the meliorative systems lost their former value, people stopped maintaining them, and this resulted in a secondary water logging. Animals (primarily beavers) and plants actively contribute to this effect, thus increasing the mosaic of living conditions and diversity of biological forms. At the same time, operational condition of some meliorative systems (in the central part of ChEZ, around the ChNPP and in the north left-bank of the Pripyat River) is continuously maintained by people in order to control transfer of radioactive substances by water. This destabilizes the animal and plant systems, predetermines retention of the relatively low biodiversity level. Since radiation safety issues still retain their highest priority and will retain it in the foreseeable future, situation in these areas should not be expected to change much. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 304

Special attention should be paid to the conditions around artificial waterworks in ChEZ: ChNPP cooling pond, sand dikes along the Pripyat River and temporary dikes on some small watercourses.

The area that is currently locating the cooling pond will not be formally included into the Biosphere Reserve; the cooling pond is a technological facility belonging to the Chornobyl NPP. However, initially its area was vast (22 km2), it was 7 m higher than the floodplain level and therefore determined the hydrological regime of an even larger territory, as well as the microclimate, composition and development of biological communities. Since 2014, the cooling pond is at the decommissioning stage (water drainage) and this has already caused significant changes: the level of groundwater fell by 2-3 meters, the flow of groundwater changed its direction, the shallow surface water bodies dried up, huge areas of the former bottom stay open. This could not but affect local flora and fauna. A significant change in the hydrothermal and hydrochemical conditions should result (if not yet resulted) in complete disappearance of invasive thermophilic fish species, which were introduced by humans in the 1970s and 1980s. Also, increased starvation phenomena are expected in the residual reservoirs due to the rapid growth of blue-green algae and oxygen deficiency. All these can only lead to the depletion of ichthyofauna. However, it will only take place in this territory. At the same time, abundance of wetland birds is already increasing due to the shallowing of the cooling pond. New colonies of Laridae, nests of swans, ducks and waders appeared on emerging islands and shallow spits. White-tailed eagles are staying continuously. Numerous flocks of migratory birds stop here. Some birds will disappear due to the depletion of ichthyofauna, but development of wetland vegetation will cause an increased number of species living in these thickets. It will be a while before vast areas of bottom sandy plots will be covered by vegetation. And they can also form their own unique systems. In particular, an increased abundance of the “Red Data Book" stone curlews can be expected on such sites.

Canalling (lining) of the Pripyat River bed during the ChNPP cooling pond construction in the 1970s and construction of huge sand dikes along the river in the 1990s have also undoubtedly caused drastic changes in the floodplain systems. They became more depleted. The annual floods are no longer able to transfer substances and affect the transformations typical of floodplain ecosystems. Nevertheless, absent navigation and economic activity do not prevent formation of modified though natural systems on the Pripyat River banks.

Artificial dams on small streams that were constructed of stones immediately after the accident are still playing a certain environmental-forming role, even after their disassembly. The dams were destructed partially, so they still dam the water upstream (often with the help of beavers, which stabilize stone dams) thus causing swamping of some sites or at least maintain Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 305 good moistening of soil. In addition, the difference of water level causes aeration of water at the man-made "rapids" and should favourably affect aquatic organisms downstream.

Another consequence of former human activities is transformation of soil cover. When ploughing during their agricultural and forestry activities, people damaged and mixed natural soil layers, overturned and severely depleted them in some cases. Podzol, peat and bog soils of Polissia are characterized by high acidity, low mineral content, unstable water regime; and local sandy soils also have a deficiency of organic substances. They are extremely vulnerable to the impacts from economic activity. In the cases when they were not badly affected, the soils had a chance to recover, and this probably happened. However, in some areas people just destroyed a thin fertile layer. These sandy "bare spots" can be seen on many sites in ChEZ and are attributed to former agricultural landscapes and forest areas. They will be recovering for a very long time.

Finally, another result of former economic activity that is determining the development of local cenoses is invasive animal and plant species. They are not just staying in the area, they compete with local species, and in many cases very successfully. Re-wildening of the lands has not caused their disappearance. With regard to fauna, the situation is not that tragic. Within the entire system of vertebrates, only a few adventitious species have actually replaced local ones, namely: 1) the muskrat has replaced the water vole, 2) the brown rat has replaced the black rat, 3) the American mink has replaced the European mink. After their naturalization, the rest of species (the Ussuri raccoon, Przewalski's horse or tarpan) have occupied a vacant niche of the bygone allied species. It is more difficult to say what is happening in the world of invertebrate animals and fish, since there is very little research to this end. As for the plants, it may be stated that invasive species introduced by humans have not just survived, they determine living conditions on many sites. First of all, this applies to the American species: the ash-leaved poplar (Acer negundo) and the black locust (Robinia pseudacacia). Vegetation composition of many meadow sites still retains traces of agricultural activity. This is especially true for those ones where were kept or grazed. Removal of invasive species from local cenoses seems impossible with modern technologies. Therefore, recovery of local biodiversity to its original state will be only conditional.

Modern human impacts on natural systems develop in varying degrees and in several ways:

1) Traffic (disturbance and crashes, as discussed above). This impact is generally of little importance to wildlife. The traffic flow is small, mainly on a few main roads and almost exclusively in the daytime; 2) Maintenance of transport communications (roads, power lines) in operating condition (repairs, routine maintenance, cleaning from woody vegetation and grass, appears in Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 306

the disturbance of animals and environmental pollution). These activities are not frequent, and therefore the impact on wildlife is low; 3) Construction activities (major changes in the landscape, destruction of habitats, contamination, disturbance). This impact form is extremely rare and is limited to few small areas. However, its consequences are often drastically negative for these areas; 4) Maintenance of waterworks (canals, bridges, locks, dikes) in operating condition (appears in the disturbance, establishment of unnatural conditions in a given area). This is a permanent low-intensive impact on natural systems. It is mostly limited to only several sites in ChEZ; 5) Economic activity on the industrial sites and in some centres of population (Chornobyl NPP, RAW management centres, utilities, transport and other enterprises and organizations within ChEZ). Despite the fact that this impact id localized to only 5-7% of the total ChEZ area, it has a decidedly negative and permanent nature, and not only on the sites but also in the nearest adjacent areas. It contaminates the environment, forms huge amounts of various wastes, disturbs the fauna; 6) Fire-fighting activity, mainly in the form of mineral fire bands establishment along roads and forest tract edges. It is performed for the most part of ChEZ, 1-3 times a year. Except for the ongoing disturbance during the ploughing, these measures produce minimal impact on natural systems; 7) Fires. They are actually rare, but are always caused by people and have negative consequences of large-scale for the nature. All fires that occurred in ChEZ over the 30 years after the accident began from wherever people stayed. These included either direct arsons or resulted from incautious handling of fire. Where there were no people, there were no fires. Irregular availability of water on the lands, dominance of pine plantations, immense amount of pine deadwood, abundance of dry vegetative mortmass in the meadows pose extremely high risks of fire re-occurrences; 8) Forest management. Since the mid-1990s, this kind of anthropogenic impact became of a fairly large scale. It appears in different types of felling. Particularly damaging is felling of mature forest stands (over 60-80 years old) that are distinguished by the presence of favourable conditions for many rare animal and plant species. Felling destroy their habitats, damage soil cover, scare animals. Such sites often become the points of fires. The severest impacts of forestry activities and their consequences are observed in the south and west parts of ChEZ. Except for cutting, forestry companies plant new forest species, and not only in the areas of cutting, but also in ChEZ meadows thus causing destruction of the meadow plant and animal systems, destruction of habitats of the meadow organisms. Along with fires, forestry Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 307

management is currently the most serious and most negative kind of anthropogenic impact on ChEZ nature; 9) Poaching (unauthorised use of natural resources). All forms of poaching occur in ChEZ: manhunt for mammals and birds, fishing, picking mushrooms and berries, picking horns, selective felling. No relevant statistics is available. However according to our observations, the most severe pressure from poaching exists in the southern and western parts of ChEZ, sometimes it occurs on its left bank. People, who illegally cross into the territory of Ukraine, are poaching in the areas adjacent to the Republic of Belarus. According to occasionally published official data, poaching are both staff of local companies and just people penetrating from outside. However, taking into account the ChEZ size, abundance of forests and wetlands, absence or poor quality of roads, pressure from poaching may be believed to have only local concern on some sites in ChEZ and only in certain seasons. In the meantime if this problem is not addressed, the Biosphere Reserve will have no prospects. Specific and new form of poaching is amber extraction. Sporadic evidences have been reported from ChEZ. Though with due regard for the catastrophic scales in the central and western Polissia, possible spread of amber extraction to ChEZ area raises serious concerns. 10) Stay of humans (other than poachers) on natural sites outside the industrial zones. Usually this impact (in itself and under the present conditions) does not produce any notable damage, except for the instant disturbance of animals. Representatives of monitoring organizations, scientific institutions, security, etc. work within ChEZ. Some forms of tourism (including an unauthorized one) have formed and are actively developing over the last decade. There are also some representatives of illegal businesses engaged in collecting metal. In addition to disturbance, stay of people poses another potential threat: many people leave garbage and carelessly handle sources of fire. 11) Locals. Officially, exclusively employees of local enterprises can live on ChEZ territory, and only during their work and in the places reserved for this purpose. Actually, a limited pool of permanent residents (several hundred people) lives in some villages in the south-east and west of ChEZ (Paryshiv, Ladyzhychi, Kupovate, Opachychi, Otashiv, Ilintsi, Lubianka, Dibrova, Vilcha and some others). They are involved in traditional agriculture and livestock farming and use local plant and animal resources. Since there are no public utilities, monitoring, service and management systems, which are typical of the population centres outside ChEZ, these settlements accumulate stocks of various wastes, provoke forest felling, form sources of fires; these people actually bring into effect certain forms of poaching. Their Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 308

ecological culture is of a low level. The decreased quantity of "self-settlers" in the 1990s, when those were former residents, often elderly ones, who returned to their houses after the accident, is now replaced by a trend towards the increased quantity of people working for local enterprises and not wanting to leave ChEZ on weekends. To date this anthropogenic impact has a local and relatively non-threatening form; however, if the state fails to establish control and management here, it can become a serious problem for the Biosphere Reserve. Therefore, landscapes and natural complexes in ChEZ are not fully natural. Over a long time they were subject to the anthropogenic transformations, which consequences cannot be mitigated or corrected over several decades. Continued economic activity (even on a limited scale) also creates obstacles to the recovery of lost characteristics. Various forms of anthropogenic impact are being implemented in ChEZ, but in most cases they are either of local or small concern. However, there is currently a lack of state’s control and management, which can result in the development of negative trends and cause great damage to nature.

Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 309

ChEZ sites with the highest environmental value

ChEZ has been in a status of reserve for over 30 years. This resulted in the growth of biodiversity, appearance and increased abundance of rare species, and finally in the establishment of the Chornobyl Radiation and Ecological Biosphere Reserve. To date, preliminary outlines of the area functional zoning were presented basing on the environmental management regime. However, this zoning mostly covers the prospects the lands’ economic use, and this can be easily demonstrated. Buffer zones stretch along the state border and along railways. And the zones of anthropogenic landscape covering over a third of the Reserve area are directly adjacent to the areas inhabited by people. Only remote reservations are left for reservation conditions. However, basing on the reserve management logic, reservation conditions should be maintained on the sites having the highest natural value. And this should be the main criterion of the sites selection.

In terms of nature protection, lands value is determined by their role in the life of plant and animal systems, by higher diversity of biological forms there, by the presence of rare and highly specific species, rare communities, by higher risks to their local existence.

In 2012–2015, the Chornobyl Centre for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology carried out the works to identify such sites within ChEZ [SSRI Report ..., 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015]. Each site was given a comprehensive description, including:

1) Radioecological characteristics of the sites; 2) Description of landscapes and soils; 3) Description of vegetation conditions (including forests, meadows, wetlands); 4) Description of species composition for the vertebrate animals found on the sites; 5) List of the "Red Data Book" species of the animals and plants found on the sites, with a description of surrounding circumstances; 6) Identification of the most valuable plots on the sites and explanation of the decision- making reasons; 7) Assessment of the extent of the lands anthropogenic transformation and the extent of anthropogenic pressure. To date, the most complete description was given to the sites with the following code names (Fig. 8):

1) “Tovstyi Lis (forest)” [SSRI Report …, 2012], 2) “Novoselky” [SSRI Report …, 2012], 3) “Horodyshche” [SSRI Report …, 2013], Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 310

4) “Budniansko-Rechytski Luha (meadows)” [SSRI Report …, 2014],

Fig. 8. Layout of the sites described in 2012-2017 (red lines) and prospective sites for surveying in 2018-2019 (green lines): TL - "Tovstyi Lis", BR - "Budniansko-Rechytski Luha", H - "Horodyshche", N - "Novoselky", NW - north-western woodlands, ML - "Medyn Lis", LB - left- bank woodlands.

The first three sites are characterized by a relatively high percentage of their area having rare landscape, soil and vegetation conditions in terms of ChEZ, i.e. fertile soils with a normal or high moisture level (sudubravas, oak forests). These are few plots, where the age of plantations is exceeding 100-120 years. A significant area is covered by deciduous forests, which have become locally rare over the past several hundred years. The site named "Budniansko-Rechytski Luha" is a set of meadows and wetlands that replaced the pre-accident agrocenoses. Forests were carved out there hundreds of years ago. In the meantime, this is a link between the sites of "Tovstyi Lis" and "Horodyshche", and therefore it plays an important role in the life of local fauna. 11 "Red Data Book" plant species were found on these sites (“Horodyshche" – 5 species, "Tovstyi Lis" - 8, “Novoselky” - 6, "Budniansko-Rechytski Luha" - 4) and 17 animal species (“Horodyshche” – 14 species, "Tovstyi Lis" - 13, "Novoselky" - 12, "Budniansko-Rechytski Luha" - 13). Presence of some species (the pygmy owl, great grey owl, spotted eagle, western barbastelle bat, brown bear, bison) is reliably known on these sites only.

The search works were continued in 2016 and 2017, they were also performed in the central and north-eastern parts of ChEZ. To date, we have obtained data on the species Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 311 composition of mammals and some birds. However, it is already clear that noticeably poorer are the faunal systems in the areas subject to current factors of anthropogenic impacts. Only flexible species with a good reproductive potential are able to thrive near operating enterprises and in the sites subject to melioration. The only exception is wetland systems along the Pripyat River; they attract a large number of rare species that live only here. In this regard, we believe that inclusion of the floodplains into the zone of anthropogenic landscapes of the Biosphere Reserve is absolutely wrong. The same applies to the Uzh River floodplain.

The data obtained so far suggest the following promising ChEZ sites in terms of their natural systems’ value, which should be comprehensively characterized (Fig. 8):

1) Forests of the Lubianske and Denysovychske Forest Centres in the northwest ChEZ (between the villages of Vilcha, Denysovychi, Rudki, Krasne, Klyvyn). Their total area is up to 25,000 hectares. According to the forest inventory data [Draft organization..., 2006], they are distinguished by a great variety of soil and vegetation conditions, large areas of deciduous forests, numerous wetlands, including the rare ones – upland swamps; there are many old plantations in this area; these forests are far from all places of current human economic activity. A number of rare animal and plant species, including those being rare in the whole of Europe (the greater noctule bat), have been already discovered here during the previous preliminary studies. 2) The stow named "Medyn Lis" is in the north of ChEZ (up to 3,000 hectares with adjoining floodplain sites and terrace above flood-plain). It is among the few places, where the old floodplain forest has been preserved, i.e. it is a unique system that was usual along the Pripyat River hundreds of years ago, but has been almost completely destroyed by people then. It is extremely attractive for the species associated with wetlands and forests. The pond bat, which is a rare species in Europe, was previously found here. Eagles, black storks were constantly observed there, but the site was never subject to a comprehensive survey. 3) Forests and wetlands along the eastern ChEZ border (most of the Paryshivske forest centre, up to 30,000 hectares). Currently, it is the area least studied by scientists (except for the northern part of the left bank). According to the forest management layout, favourable conditions for the formation of mosaic natural systems are formed here. The southern part has a lot of old deciduous forests. Large predatory birds are regularly observed here (spotted eagles, eagles, eagle owls, short-toed eagles). This site is among the few ones in ChEZ, where meetings of bear and bison are regularly orally reported. In the meantime, proximity of lower reaches of the Pripyat River and of the Kyiv reservoir pose high risks for the fauna due to the presence of people there. Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 312

Surveys of these sites should become a priority for the coming years, since it allows identification of the most valuable natural objects that need special protection and development of a justified program of nature conservation and research activities.

References

Draft organization and development of forestry in the State Special Integrated Enterprise named "Chornobylska Pushcha (Forest)" of the State Department - Administration of the exclusion zone and zone of absolute (mandatory) resettlement. The Ukrainian State Design and Production Association of Forestry. Combined expedition, Irpin - 2006 (in Ukrainian)

SSRI Report "Chornobyl Centre for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology", 2012, on the research results for the "Studying and identification of sites in the exclusion zone with the most valuable natural complexes that are worthy of the highest conservation status and their characterization" (KPKV 3202110). Slavutych, 2012. – 107 p. (in Ukrainian).

SSRI Report "Chornobyl Centre for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology", 2013, on the research results for “Studying and identification of sites in the exclusion zone with the most valuable natural complexes that are worthy of the highest conservation status and their characterization" (KPKV 3202110). Slavutych, 2013. – 71 p. (in Ukrainian).

SSRI Report "Chornobyl Centre for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology", 2014, on the research results for “Studying and identification of sites in the exclusion zone with the most valuable natural complexes that are worthy of the highest conservation status and their characterization" (KPKV 3202110). Slavutych, 2014. – 64 p. (in Ukrainian).

SSRI Report "Chornobyl Centre for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology", 2015, on the research results for “Studying and identification of sites in the exclusion zone with the most valuable natural complexes that are worthy of the highest conservation status and their characterization" (KPKV 3202110). Slavutych, 2015. – 115 p. (in Ukrainian).