DOCSLIB.ORG

The Representation of Wetland Types and Species in RAMSAR Sites in The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Representation of Wetland Types and Species in RAMSAR Sites in The The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 1 2 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area White waterlily, Nymphaea alba The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area In order to get a better reference the future and long-term planning of activities aimed for the protection of wetlands and their ecological functions, WWF Sweden initiated an evaluation of the representation of wetland types and species in the RAMSAR network of protected sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area. The study was contracted to Dr Mats Eriksson (MK Natur- och Miljökonsult HB, Sweden), who has been assisted by Mrs Alda Nikodemusa, based in Riga, for the compilation of information from the countries in Eastern Europe. Mats O.G. Eriksson MK Natur- och Miljökonsult HB, Tommered 6483, S-437 92 Lindome, Sweden With assistance by Alda Nikodemusa, Kirsu iela 6, LV-1006 Riga, Latvia The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 3 Contents Foreword 5 Summary 6 Sammanfattning på svenska 8 Purpose of the study 10 Background and introduction 10 Study area 12 Methods 14 Land-use in the catchment area 14 Definitions and classification of wetland types 14 Country-wise analyses of the representation of wetland types 15 Accuracy of the analysis 16 Overall analysis of the representation of wetland types in the catchment area 16 Analyses of the representation of species 18 Wetland surface areas and representation of wetland types 20 The inclusion of wetland and inland waters in the RAMSAR network, in relation to total surface area 20 Analysis and comments for the various wetland types 21 Priorities with reference to the various wetland types 26 Representation of species 28 Country-wise analyses and comments 32 Guidelines for the proposal of additional sites 37 Protection and management of the sites 38 Notes, tables and figures 40 Acknowledgements & production 56 References etc 58 4 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Foreword 5 Summary 6 Sammanfattning på svenska 8 Purpose of the study 10 Background and introduction 10 Study area 12 Methods 14 Land-use in the catchment area 14 Definitions and classification of wetland types 14 Kuhmo, Finland Country-wise analyses of the representation of wetland types 15 Accuracy of the analysis 16 Overall analysis of the representation Foreword of wetland types in the catchment area 16 Analyses of the representation of species 18 The Convention of Wetlands was signed network of wetlands which are impor- and sustainable way. These ecosystem Wetland surface areas and in the city of Ramsar, Iran in 1971. Over tant for the conservation of global bio- services are of course of great impor- 150 countries have signed the conven- diversity and for sustaining human life tance for the Baltic Sea. Even more im- representation of wetland types 20 tion covering 1743 wetland sites and diversity trough the ecological and hy- portant, though, are wetlands services The inclusion of wetland and inland waters some 161 million hectares of Wetlands drological functions they perform”. as carbon sinks, reducing greenhouse in the RAMSAR network, in relation to total surface area 20 of International importance. Since the The Baltic Sea catchment is the area emissions and as stores against floods, Analysis and comments for the various wetland types 21 very beginning, WWF has actively par- in Europe with most remaining and which we will see more of due to climate ticipated in the Convention work at all most varied types of wetlands - from change. Priorities with reference to the various wetland types 26 levels - national, regional and interna- unique aapa mires and large rivers in To highlight the importance and Representation of species 28 tional. the northern taiga areas to gypsum beauty of wetlands, WWF presents this We fully support the vision “to de- karst lakes in Lithuanian and large report covering ten countries in the Bal- Country-wise analyses and comments 32 velop and maintain an international floodplains in Bierbza, Poland. The re- tic Sea catchment. This will in fact be gion also has unique coastal and ma- the first time that wetlands in the Baltic Guidelines for the proposal of additional sites 37 rine areas, wide coastal meadows, spits, Sea catchment are assessed and present- and large archipelagos. However, there ed over country borders. Protection and management of the sites 38 are huge differences in wetland cover- WWF thinks that it is time to change age between different parts of the Baltic attitudes and practices – we need to stop Notes, tables and figures 40 Sea catchment, from 25% coverage in seeing wetlands as problematic useless the north to only 2% in the south. areas filled with mosquitoes and not Acknowledgements & production 56 Wetlands have been drained for ag- suitable for anything but exploitation. ricultural or forest production, used for Instead, we need to start appreciating References etc 58 peat extraction, sand landfills or differ- wetlands for their many functions that ent kinds of exploitation, and construc- we will be needing more and more in tion works. The price of this destruction the future. has been a massive loss of biodiversity as well as other ecosystem services. To- day we know that wetlands can be im- portant natural sinks reducing nutri- Lasse Gustavsson ents and others substances in a natural Secretary General, WWF Sweden The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 5 Summary The purpose of the present study is to investigate the representation of different wetland types in the RAMSAR network in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area, in order to get a reference for the future work by WWF for protection of wetlands and their ecological functions. There are 171 RAMSAR sites in total in The need of complements has the catchment area, i.e. 10.6% of the to- been identified with reference tal number of 1609 sites in the world (as to three priority levels: by June 2006). However the total area of 24 336 km² corresponds to only 1.7% Very high priority: High priority: of the world-wide area of 1 458 000 km² Mires: Further sites with mire habi- Long stretches of large rivers with (in (and 1.4% of the Baltic Sea Catchment tats is top priority, considering the key all essentials) ecologically and hydro- Area). Thus, the mean size of the RAM- role of the countries in the Baltic Sea logically intact sections are almost com- SAR sites inside the Baltic Sea Catch- Catchment Area for the protection of pletely missing; at least one of the large ment Area is much smaller, 142 km², mires on a global scale, and taking into non-regulated rivers in Northern Sweden than the average of 906 km² for the account that peatlands in general are (Rivers Vindelälven, Piteälven, Kalixäl- whole world. under-represented on the world-wide ven, Torne Älv) should be included in the Taking the catchment area as a whole, RAMSAR list. Priority should be giv- RAMSAR list (transboundary site with 3% of the total of around 357 400 km² en to additional sites with raised bogs Finland for River Torne Älv). The upper/ of wetlands and inland waters is locat- in Denmark and Germany, aapa mires northern part of River Gauja in Latvia is ed inside the RAMSAR sites. For most in Sweden and Russian part of Karelia, another obvious candidate site. countries, the corresponding percentage and an overall better representation of Freshwater lakes are in general poorly is on the same level, with exceptions for calcareous/alkaline fens and bog wood- represented: Considering the richness of Latvia, Estonia and Denmark (8%, 9% lands. oligotrophic lakes in Finland and Swe- and 21%, respectively). For Estonia and Freshwater lakes: Inclusion of some of den, while not elsewhere in the catch- Latvia this reflects a general representa- the unique gypsum karst lakes in north- ment area (or Europe as a whole), under- tion above the level for most countries, ern Lithuania. representation in these two countries is and for Denmark the high percentage is not acceptable. For Denmark, some eu- primarily related to large areas of shal- trophic lakes on Sjælland and Jutland low marine habitats in the RAMSAR should be considered. network. Additional sites with marine and The work is based on country-wise coastal habitats in Latvia, Lithuania and analysis of the representation of various the Kaliningrad Region of Russia, in- wetland types inside the RAMSAR sites cluding relevant parts of the Kuronian in relation to the total coverage in the Lagoon. part of each country that falls in- Swamp woods / alluvial forests: Con- side the catchment areas. The sidering the constant threat and decline goals is to evaluate whether of this habitat, additional sites should be any biases and under-repre- considered for all parts of Sweden and sentation of wetland types (especially) Finland. have to be compensated with Also to be considered with priority are additional sites and exten- additional sites with marine and coast- sions to existing sites, al habitats along the coasts of Poland taking the objective of and Germany, watercourses for several a full representation of count ries (e.g. Belarus, Denmark, Fin- the diversity of wetlands land) and better representation of fresh- on the national levels into water lakes in Estonia, Germany and account. Lithuania. 6 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area If the objective of a full representation of the diversity of wetland and their key ecological and hydrological functions is to be achieved, there is an overall need for additional sites.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States
    Pfego-/6^7fV SDMS DocID 463450 ^7'7/ Biological Services Program \ ^ FWS/OBS-79/31 DECEMBER 1979 Superfund Records Center ClassificaHioFF^^^ V\Aetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States KPHODtKtD BY NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFOR/V^ATION SERVICE U.S. IKPARTMEN TOF COMMERCt SPRINGMflO, VA. 22161 Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) C # The Biological Services Program was established within the U.S. Fish . and Wildlife Service to supply scientific information and methodologies on key environmental issues which have an impact on fish and wildlife resources and their supporting ecosystems. The mission of the Program is as follows: 1. To strengthen the Fish and Wildlife Service in its role as a primary source of Information on natural fish and wildlife resources, par­ ticularly with respect to environmental impact assessment. 2. To gather, analyze, and present information that will aid decision­ makers in the identification and resolution of problems asso­ ciated with major land and water use changes. 3. To provide better ecological information and evaluation for Department of the Interior development programs, such as those relating to energy development. Information developed by the Biological Services Program is intended for use in the planning and decisionmaking process, to prevent or minimize the impact of development on fish and wildlife. Biological Services research activities and technical assistance services are based on an analysis of the issues, the decisionmakers involved and their information neeids, and an evaluation of the state^f-the-art to Identify information gaps and determine priorities. This Is a strategy to assure that the products produced and disseminated will be timely and useful.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Classification As Per Cowardin Et Al. 1979
    Wetland Classification as per Cowardin et al. 1979 PSS01-e0tg Ω PEM01-f0tg PAB03-h0tg Matthew J. Gray University of Tennessee Why Classify Wetlands? 1) Delineate their edges •Boundary of development 2) Estimate their area •Management, Excavation, Mitigation 3) To Create maps Caribbean Classification of Wetland and Deepwater Habitats of the United States http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/classwet/classwet.htm FWS/OBS-79/31 December 1979 Lewis Cowardin (USFWS) Virginia Carter (USGS) Francis Golet (URI) Edward LaRoe (NOAA) Biological Classification System •Wetlands •Deepwater Habitats Jurisdictional USACE 1987 Manual 1 Boundary Between Wetland and Deepwater Systems Non-tidal: Emergent Plants! >2 m (6.6 ft) in Depth (low water level—fall) Permanently flooded rivers and lakes Tidal: Extreme low water level (spring tides) Permanently flooded brackish marshes or marine areas The Classification System Hierarchical Structure Systems (5), Subsystems (8), Classes (11), Subclasses (28), Dominance Type, Modifiers (3) Marine Estuarine Riverine Lacustrine Palustrine •Hydrologic •Geomorphic •Chemical •Biological Hierarchical Structure 2 Marine System Open ocean overlying the continental shelf and its coastline, where salinities are >30 ppt except at the mouths of estuaries. OR, 1) Extreme high water 3) Estuarine system OR, limit of spring tides If #2 not present 2) Wetland emergent 4) Continental shelf vegetation (ocean extent) “High-energy Systems” Subsystems: Subtidal: Substrate is continuously submerged (deepwater) Intertidal: Substrate is exposed and flooded by tides (wetland) Marine Subsystems Intertidal Subtidal Splash Zone Estuarine System Tidal deepwater systems and wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by land but have open, partly- obstructed, or sporadic access to the open ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from Pubfactory at 09/26/2021 04:59:35PM Via Free Access 424 Index
    INDEX A Bordziłowski, Jerzy 233 Agreement Regarding Polish- Borisov, N. 29, 33, 38, 39 Soviet Direct Railway Borowiecki, Jan 73 Communication 279 Branch IV of Headquarters of air bombing of railway tracks 204 Military Transport 56–57, Air Force Command 287, 290, 304 65, 69 American Civil War 13 bridge destruction 187, 188, Andreev, A. 32 198–203 anti-aircraft defence 72–74, 79, – arched stone and concrete 251–253 bridges 203 – air raid alert signalling system 252 – brief description of 198–199 – armaments 251–252 – damming in military – diagram of 253 terminology 200 – permanent state of 251 – delayed-action mining 203–204 – purpose of 251 – delayed explosion time 204 – small-calibre anti-aircraft artillery – explosives 200–201 batteries 252 – fixed mine devices 202–203 anti-aircraft wagon 264 – reinforced concrete bridges 201 Antipenko, N. 34, 36, 38, 39, 87 – special-purpose mining anti-tank defence 253–254 appliances 203 – armaments 253 – steel bridges 202 – instructions 253–254 – stone (arched) bridges 201 – preparations for 253–254 – timber cribs 200 arched stone and concrete – wooden bridges 200–202 bridges 203 Bridge Reconstruction Train 114, Artemenko, N. 34 139, 153, 175–176, 177 Ataman, Jan 321 broad-gauge sidings 37, 115, Austrian railway policy 18 119–120, 122–123, 128, 135, Austro-Hungarian border 15 125–126, 135 broad-gauge stations 126 B broad-gauge steam BARIERA 70 military locomotive 46, 128 exercise 234–235 broad-gauge tracks 118–119, BARIERA 79 military 121–125, 127, 129–130 exercise 112–113, 236–243 broad-gauge Ty23 Bloch, Jan 17, 412 locomotives 123, 136 Board IV of Headquarters of Brych, Jerzy 12, 102 Military Transport 58 Brygiewicz, K.
    [Show full text]
  • Alberta Wetland Classification System – June 1, 2015
    Alberta Wetland Classification System June 1, 2015 ISBN 978-1-4601-2257-0 (Print) ISBN: 978-1-4601-2258-7 (PDF) Title: Alberta Wetland Classification System Guide Number: ESRD, Water Conservation, 2015, No. 3 Program Name: Water Policy Branch Effective Date: June 1, 2015 This document was updated on: April 13, 2015 Citation: Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). 2015. Alberta Wetland Classification System. Water Policy Branch, Policy and Planning Division, Edmonton, AB. Any comments, questions, or suggestions regarding the content of this document may be directed to: Water Policy Branch Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development 7th Floor, Oxbridge Place 9820 – 106th Street Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2J6 Phone: 780-644-4959 Email: [email protected] Additional copies of this document may be obtained by contacting: Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Information Centre Main Floor, Great West Life Building 9920 108 Street Edmonton Alberta Canada T5K 2M4 Call Toll Free Alberta: 310-ESRD (3773) Toll Free: 1-877-944-0313 Fax: 780-427-4407 Email: [email protected] Website: http://esrd.alberta.ca Alberta Wetland Classification System Contributors: Matthew Wilson Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Thorsten Hebben Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Danielle Cobbaert Alberta Energy Regulator Linda Halsey Stantec Linda Kershaw Arctic and Alpine Environmental Consulting Nick Decarlo Stantec Environment and Sustainable Resource Development would also
    [Show full text]
  • Part 1: Wetland Wildlife Values
    Amy Marrella, Acting Commissioner www.ct.gov/dep P a r t 1 : Wetland Wildlife V a l u e s Presentation Objectives Introduce wetland wildlife concepts Identify different types of freshwater wetlands using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USF&W) Wetland Classification System Identify wetland wildlife values 2 Introduction to Wetland Wildlife Concepts 3 Introduction Wetlands are highly productive ecosystems with diverse habitats and vegetative structure. The various types of wetlands provide food and cover for a variety of wildlife. 4 Introduction For example, a vernal pool, which is temporarily flooded, provides critical spring breeding habitat for salamanders but is not suitable for beavers which require permanently flooded areas. 5 Biogeography of Wetland Wildlife Wildlife Distribution Factors Open water to vegetation ratio Adjacent land-use Topography 6 Biogeography Generally speaking the larger the wetland, and the more diverse the habitat, the greater the wildlife diversity. This concept is called biogeography. The park area in the photograph, while aesthetically pleasing, provides little cover and food for wildlife because of minimal habitat diversity. 7 1. The size and shape of the wetland 2. The adjacent topography, landscape, water depth and water quality 3. Type and structure of vegetation present in the wetland 4. The amount of open water and Wetland Wildlife Distribution time of year it is Factors present 8 The distribution of vegetation in comparison to the amount of open water, is also important. Muskrats, for example, prefer 20% open water versus 80% vegetation. Waterfowl, on the other hand, prefer a one to one ratio between open Open Water to Vegetation Ratio water and vegetation.
    [Show full text]
  • Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, Version 2018-07-24
    Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, version 2018-07-24 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge biology staff July 24, 2018 2 Cover image: map of 16,213 georeferenced occurrence records included in the checklist. Contents Contents 3 Introduction 5 Purpose............................................................ 5 About the list......................................................... 5 Acknowledgments....................................................... 5 Native species 7 Vertebrates .......................................................... 7 Invertebrates ......................................................... 55 Vascular Plants........................................................ 91 Bryophytes ..........................................................164 Other Plants .........................................................171 Chromista...........................................................171 Fungi .............................................................173 Protozoans ..........................................................186 Non-native species 187 Vertebrates ..........................................................187 Invertebrates .........................................................187 Vascular Plants........................................................190 Extirpated species 207 Vertebrates ..........................................................207 Vascular Plants........................................................207 Change log 211 References 213 Index 215 3 Introduction Purpose to avoid implying
    [Show full text]
  • NKK Saaremaa Ringkonna Liikmeskond 1925-1940
    Kasutatud järgmistes algallikates esitatud andmeid: Saaremaa Muuseumi arhiiv Ajalehed "Saaremaa Maleva Teataja", "Meie Maa" ja "Saarte Hääl" Ajakiri "Kaitse Kodu!" KL ja NKK trükiväljaanded ja perioodika E. Kask "Naiskodukaitse Saaremaa Ringkond 1925-1940I osa" - Kuressaares, 1998 E. Kask "Naiskodukaitse Saaremaa Ringkond 1925-2001" - Kuressaares, 2004 E. ja P. Kask "Kaitseliidu Saaremaa Maleva pealikud 1918-1940" - Kuressaares, 2012 Andmed prk. Kaskede erakogust Ellen Kask (koostaja) NKK Saaremaa Ringkonna liikmeskond 1925-1940 Ühendus "Linnus" Kuressaares, 2020 8. detsember 2020 - NKK Saaremaa ringkonna aastapäev Saateks Igas organisatsioonis omab suurimat tähtsust tema liikmeskond, kelle aktiivsus määrab kogu tema edukuse taseme ja tegevuse tulemuslikkuse. Ometi kaovad just üksikliikmete nimed tihti olude sunnil meie ajaloolisest mälust pea täielikult. Et põlistada nende tublide eesti naiste mälestust, tänu kellele meie suurepärane organisatsioon - Naiskodukaitse, Saaremaal üldse loodi, on k.o. kogumiku koostaja püüdnud välja selgitada nende ni- med, et jäädvustada neid tulevastele põlvedele. Kui palju naiskodukaitsjaid aastatel 1925-1940 kohalikku ringkonda üldse kuulus, pole päris täpselt teada, ehkki erinevad allikad kinnitavad võrdlemisi üksmeelselt, et organisatsiooni likvideerimise ajal suvel 1940 kuulus sinna cà 900 naist. 2004. a. ilmunud kogumikus "Naiskodukaitse Saaremaa Ring- kond 1925-2001" suudeti neist ära tuua vaid 490 liikme nimed. Nüüdseks teame, et aastatel 1925-1940 kuulus 15 tegevusaasta jooksul NKK Saaremaa Ringkonda mingi aja jooksul teadaolevalt kokku ligi 1750 naist. Arvestused näitavad aga, et kui siia lisada needki, kes liitusid organisatsiooniga või lahkusid sealt organisatsiooni tegutsemise esimestel aastatel 1925- 1928 ja kelle nimedest paljud on veel teadmata, võib see arv suureneda isegi mitmesaja inimese võrra. K.o. kogumikku pole kantud mitte ühegi inimese nime, kelle liikmelisus pole kindlat tõendamist leidnud kirjalike andmete alusel.
    [Show full text]
  • The Białowieża Forest – a UNESCO Natural Heritage Site – Protection Priorities
    DOI: 10.1515/frp-2016-0032 Leśne Prace Badawcze / Forest Research Papers Available online: www.lesne-prace-badawcze.pl Grudzień / December 2016, Vol. 77 (4): 302–323 REVIEW ARTICLE e-ISSN 2082-8926 The Białowieża Forest – a UNESCO Natural Heritage Site – protection priorities Anna Kujawa1* , Anna Orczewska2, Michał Falkowski3, Malgorzata Blicharska4 , Adam Bohdan5, Lech Buchholz6, Przemysław Chylarecki7, Jerzy M. Gutowski8 , Małgorzata Latałowa9, Robert W. Mysłajek10 , Sabina Nowak11 , Wiesław Walankiewicz12 , Anna Zalewska13 1Institute for Agricultural and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Sciences, Bukowska 19, 60–809 Poznań, Poland; 2Department of Ecology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, University of Silesia, Bankowa 9, 40–007 Katowice, Poland; 3the Mazowiecko-Świętokrzyskie Ornithological Society, Radomska 7, 26-760, Pionki, Poland; 4Uppsala University, Department of Earth Sciences, Villavägen 16, 75 236 Uppsala, Sweden; 5Foundation “Dzika Polska”, Petofiego 7 lok. 18, 01–917 Warszawa, Poland;6 Polish Entomological Society, Dąbrowskiego 159, 60–594 Poznań, Poland; 7Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wilcza 64, 00–679 Warszawa, Poland; 8Forest Research Institute, Department of Natural Forests, Park Dyrekcyjny 6, 17–230 Białowieża, Poland; 9University of Gdańsk, Department of Plant Ecology, Laboratory of Paleoecology and Archaeobotany, Wita Stwosza 59, 80–308 Gdańsk, Poland; 10University of Warsaw, Faculty of Biology, Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology, Pawińskiego 5a, 02–106 Warszawa, Poland; 11Association for Nature “Wolf”, Twardorzeczka 229, 34–324 Lipowa, Poland, 12Institute of Biology, Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities Prusa 12, 08–110 Siedlce, Poland; 13Warmia and-Mazury University in Olsztyn, Faculty of Biology and Biotechnology, Department of Botany and Nature Protection, pl. Łódzki 1, 10–727 Olsztyn, Poland *Tel.
    [Show full text]
  • The Distribution of Lead, Zinc, and Chromium in Fractions of Bottom Sediments in the Narew River and Its Tributaries
    Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies International Journal of Oceanography and Hydrobiology Vol. XXXVII, No. 4 Institute of Oceanography (85-91) University of Gdańsk ISSN 1730-413X 2008 eISSN 1897-3191 Received: July 05, 2008 DOI 10.2478/v10009-008-0019-8 Original research paper Accepted: November 07, 2008 The distribution of lead, zinc, and chromium in fractions of bottom sediments in the Narew River and its tributaries Mirosław Skorbiłowicz1, Elżbieta Skorbiłowicz Institute of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Białystok ul. Wiejska 45 A, 15-351 Bialystok, Poland Key words: bottom sediments, heavy metals, grain distribution. Abstract The purpose of the paper was to evaluate the distribution of lead, zinc and chromium contents in different grain fractions of bottom sediments in the Narew River and some of its tributaries. This study also aimed to determine which fractions are mostly responsible for bottom sediment pollution. The studies of the Narew and its tributaries (the Supraśl, Narewka, and Orlanka) were conducted in September 2005 in the upper Narew catchment area. The analyzed bottom sediments differed regarding grain size distribution. The studies revealed the influence of the percentage of particular grain fractions present on the accumulation of heavy metals in all bottom sediments. 1 Corresponding author: [email protected] Copyright© by Institute of Oceanography, University of Gdańsk, Poland www.oandhs.org 86 M. Skorbiłowicz, E. Skorbiłowicz INTRODUCTION The presence of heavy metals in bottom sediments are a good indicator of aqueous environmental pollution (Helios-Rybicka 1991). The amount of heavy metals in river bottom sediments is not uniform. This is not only because of river-bed processes (Ladd et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Volume 2
    Appendix F Species List Appendix F: Species List F. Species List F.1 Lists The following list and three tables denote the bird, mammal, fish, and plant species known to occur in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Arctic Refuge, Refuge). F.1.1 Birds of Arctic Refuge A total of 201 bird species have been recorded on Arctic Refuge. This list describes their status and abundance. Many birds migrate outside of the Refuge in the winter, so unless otherwise noted, the information is for spring, summer, or fall. Bird names and taxonomic classification follow American Ornithologists' Union (1998). F.1.1.1 Definitions of classifications used Regions of the Refuge . Coastal Plain – The area between the coast and the Brooks Range. This area is sometimes split into coastal areas (lagoons, barrier islands, and Beaufort Sea) and inland areas (uplands near the foothills of the Brooks Range). Brooks Range – The mountains, valleys, and foothills north and south of the Continental Divide. South Side – The foothills, taiga, and boreal forest south of the Brooks Range. Status . Permanent Resident – Present throughout the year and breeds in the area. Summer Resident – Only present from May to September. Migrant – Travels through on the way to wintering or breeding areas. Breeder – Documented as a breeding species. Visitor – Present as a non-breeding species. * – Not documented. Abundance . Abundant – Very numerous in suitable habitats. Common – Very likely to be seen or heard in suitable habitats. Fairly Common – Numerous but not always present in suitable habitats. Uncommon – Occurs regularly but not always observed because of lower abundance or secretive behaviors.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This Is a Consolidated List Of
    RWKiger 26 Jul 18 Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volumes 24 and 25. In citations of articles, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recommended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbreviated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix "a"; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with "b". Works missing from any suffixed sequence here are ones cited elsewhere in the Flora that are not pertinent in these volumes. Aares, E., M. Nurminiemi, and C. Brochmann. 2000. Incongruent phylogeographies in spite of similar morphology, ecology, and distribution: Phippsia algida and P. concinna (Poaceae) in the North Atlantic region. Pl. Syst. Evol. 220: 241–261. Abh. Senckenberg. Naturf. Ges. = Abhandlungen herausgegeben von der Senckenbergischen naturforschenden Gesellschaft. Acta Biol. Cracov., Ser. Bot. = Acta Biologica Cracoviensia. Series Botanica. Acta Horti Bot. Prag. = Acta Horti Botanici Pragensis. Acta Phytotax. Geobot. = Acta Phytotaxonomica et Geobotanica. [Shokubutsu Bunrui Chiri.] Acta Phytotax.
    [Show full text]
  • US Fish and Wildlife Service 1979 Wetland Classification: a Review Lewis M
    University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI Natural Resources Science Faculty Publications Natural Resources Science 1995 US Fish and Wildlife Service 1979 wetland classification: A review Lewis M. Cowardin Francis C. Golet University of Rhode Island, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/nrs_facpubs Terms of Use All rights reserved under copyright. Citation/Publisher Attribution Cowardin, L.M. & Golet, F.C. Vegetatio (1995) 118: 139. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00045196 Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00045196 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Natural Resources Science at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Science Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Vegetatio 118: 139-152, 1995. 139 (~) 1995 Kluwer Academic ['ublishers. Printed in Belgium. US Fish and Wildlife Service 1979 wetland classification: A review* Lewis M. Cowardin I & Francis C. Golet 2 1us Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND 58401, USA; 2Department of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, R102881, USA Key words: Classification, Definition, United States, Wetland Abstract In 1979 the US Fish and Wildlife Service published and adopted a classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. The system was designed for use in a national inventory of wetlands. It was intended to be ecologically based, to furnish the mapping units needed for the inventory, and to provide national consistency in terminology and definition. We review the performance of the classification after 13 years of use.
    [Show full text]