Ecosystem services assessment

methods of Ukraine’s habitats

for nature conservation

Yakiv P. Didukh

Ecosystem services are considered as

tools for ecosystem impact assessment

(general environmental risks and risks of

ecosystem loss based on relevant

calculations). Ecosystem services appear

as benefits that society receives from

ecosystems.(Konstanza et al., 1997; МЕА 2005; TEEV, 2010).

Economists regard them as

economic category, contributing to

creation of environmentally friendly

economies and falling under

financial terms. In this narrower

sense many of the available

ecosystem services remain out-of-

focus.

Environmental services are the means of

the National Environmental Policy in the

XXI century, which implies the close

interaction of its economic, environmental

and technological components. These are

the tools for the assessment of

ecosystem use in sustainable regional

development.

THE COMPONENTS OF ECOSYSTEM

SERVICES

R - resource component (production,

procurement) – measured in currency

F - regulatory component (support of

ecosystem functioning) – measured in

energy units)

I - socio-informational component

(satisfaction of the cultural and

axiological requirements and needs) –

measured in points. (ТЕЕВ, 2010).

The challenge: finding the appropriate

assessment methods for ecosystem services,

assessment of the three fundamental

components in one dimension for equal-sized

ecosystems (habitats).

It is important to choose a basic unit for

comparison (elementary ecosystem, biotope,

habitat).

E =R ($); E (Joule); I (points)

BIOTOPE (HABITAT) IS...

Historically established ecosystems,

characterized by a specific organization,

structure, integrity and functioning

object for classification, spatial measurements

(at topological level) and ecosystem mapping;

the object for specific- and coenotic-level

biodiversity conservation;

the base unit for “ecosystem services“

assessment.

G. Forest biotopes EUNIS: G1.A2 Non-riverine [Fraxinus] woodland

NATURA 2000: Pal. Hab. Clas.: 41.3 Non-riverine [Fraxinus] woodland

Garlic ash-oak forests

D. Water-logget biotopes (bogs, fens and water-fringe vegetationEUNIS: D1.11 Active relatively undamaged raised bogs

Natura 2000: 7110 Active raised bogs

Pal. Hab.: 51.11 Bog hummocks, ridgesand lawns

H. Biotopes formed by

geomorphological

processes

EUNIS: E1.11 Euro-

Siberian rock debris

swards

Natura 2000: 6110.

Rupicolous calcareous

or basophilic grasslands

of the Alysso-Sedion albi

Pal. Hab.:34.11 Euro-

Siberian rock debris

swards

This economical category of services is

estimated in monetary equivalent(Emerton et al., 2006).

In Ukraine this problem is complicated

by the fact that we need to develop

special tools, legislative documents for

the refund of monetary resources

covering ecosystem loss and ensuring

ecosystem restoration.

RESOURCE COMPONENT - R

REGULATORY (FUNCTIONAL) COMPONENT (F)

Evaluation of regulatory (functional)

component can be performed through the

assessment of ecosystem energy

performance, which can be calculated

through biomass contents or carbon pool

and subsequently converted to monetary

units.

Monitoring of terrestrial

ecosystems conditions

and changes

GENERAL PHYTOMASS 100 % - gain 3%

ABOVEGROUND

MASS

UNDERGROUND

MASS

CONSUMERS MASS

Energy potential of biomass 18.06 GJ/t

MASS СО2

Energy potential О2

14.7 Г GJ/t

Energy potential О2

7.14 GJ/t

OVERALL ENERGY POTENTIAL

Forest 65%

Lowland bogs 330%

Transition bogs 290%

Raised bogs 260%

Meadows, steppes 90%

MASS О2

140 % from gain

Forest, bog* age (years)

Steppe * 10

Meadows * 5

Disturbed steppe *50

Disturbed meadows

* 25

Grazing , mowing

Grasslands 47 %

Others 10 %

DECAY MASS Grass plants 70 %

Trees and shrubs 3 %

(From overall phytomass)

Forest, bog, steppe* 10 Meadows *3

years of age

The scheme of ecosystem damage assessment in different ecosystem

types and their components based on energy indices

We have established the correlation

of energy performance indices for

various ecosystems (habitat) types:

C - aquatic ecosystems;

D - swamps;

E1 - meadows;

E2 - steppes;

G - forests.

G

g

G

f

D

L

M

K

R

P

S

GfGg

DM

S

KP

R

L

Y =14 : 1

Y = 1 : 4

K – energy of biomass disposed by consumments, L – gross energy of biomass, P – energy of increment,

М – energy of decay, D – energy of organic waste, R – energy of respiration, Gg – energy of humic acids in

soil, Gf – energy of fulvic acid in soil, S – energy of synthesis, Y – ecosystem stability degree

Comparative assessment of energy indices in different forest and steppe ecosystem

components

Forests

Ecosystem energy pool:

Biomass

(100 %)

СО2 (65%) О2 (140%)

Decay (

3%

)

INTERRELATION OF ENERGY POOLS BETWEEN

DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS

Consumers (10%)

Gain

(3%

)

Swamps

Decay

(3 %)

Biomass

(100 %)

СО2 О2 (140%)

Peat

Oligotrophic (260%)

Mesotrophic (290%)

Eutrophic (330%)Consumers (10%)

INTERRELATION OF ENERGY POOLS BETWEEN

DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF SWAMP ECOSYSTEMS

Steppes

INTERRELATION OF ENERGY POOLS IN

STEPPE VEGETATION

СО2 (90%)

Dec

ay (

20

%)

Bio

mass (

100%

)

О2 (140%)

Co

nsu

mers

(4

7%

)

Ga

in (

20

%)

Meadows

Biomass

(100 %)

СО2 (90 %) О2 (140 %)

Decay (20 %)

Consumer (47%)

Gain (20 %)

INTERRELATION OF ENERGY POOLS IN MEADOWS

AGRICULTURAL ECOSYSTEMS

Area

32480 000 ha = 53.8%

Energy pool

10.39∙1018 J = 26%

Energy gain

10.39∙1018 J

EVALUATION OF THE MATHEMATICAL TOOLS FOR

THE CALCULATION OF ECOSYSTEM DAMAGE

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RESTORATION

OF 1 HECTARE OF DIFFERENT ECOSYSTEM TYPES

Oligotrophic bogs

20 Tcal/ha

Meso- and

Eutrophic bogs

10-12 Tcal/ha

Forests (100 – 140 years)

10-11 Tcal/ha

Forests (40 – 60 years)

5 Tcal/ha

Bogs without peat

5 Tcal/ha

Steppes 0.5 Tcal/ha

Meadows 0.2 Tcal/ha

I – SOCIO- INFORMATIONAL COMPONENT

Appears in various aspects that are

difficult to consider and assess:

cultural, scientific, recreational,

conservational value etc.

It can not be converted to currency

or estimated in relative units (points).

Factors4 3 2 1

1. Influence of

anthropogenic

transformation

complete

destruction and

restoration from

pioneer stages

changes of dominant

structure

species composition

changes

minor changes or

development under

anthropogenic factors

2. Sustainability VERY LOW LOW SATISFACTORY GOOD

3. Position in succession

row in relation to

anthropogenic

successions

terminal stable

climax and

subclimax stages

endoecogenetic stages,

not affecting the

changes of soil and

microclimate

serial syngenetic

stages, not affecting

soil and microclimate

pioneer, short stages

4. Regional

representation

occurs at the

geobotanical

district level

occurs at the

geobotanical

subprovince level

occurs at the

geobotanical region or

physiographic zone

level

occurs at the level of

several geobotanical

regions or

physiographic zones

5. Distribution features several small

localities

has disjunctive range occurs sporadically at

the edge of the range

widely occurs under

favorable conditions

6. Ecological amplitude has narrow (<5%)

amplitude in

several edaphic

factors

has narrow (<5%)

amplitude in one

factor and <10% - in

majority of edaphic

factors

has <10% amplitude in

more than one edaphic

factors

has >10% amplitude

in various edaphic

factors

CONSERVATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF BIOTOPES ACCORDING TO YA. P. DIDUKH (2012)

7. Ecological

conditions for

propagation

occurs only under

specific and

extreme

ecological

conditions

rare occurrence

in rare

habitats

sporadic occurrence

under favorable

conditions

occur widely under

favorable

conditions

8. Presence of

invasive

species

absence of invasive

species

presence of

invasive

species

presence of invasive

species with high

persistency level

domination of

invasive species

9. Conservational

value

many red list species

present

dominated

species is

red listed

red listed species

present

no rare and

endangered

species present

10. Synphytosozologic

status

listed in

international

and national red

lists

listed in the

Green

Book of

Ukraine

Listed in EUNIS,

CORINE or

Natura 2000 lists

not listed in

protection lists.

do not require

protection

table extension...

CONSERVATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE RARE

HABITATS OF THE KRASNA RIVER VALLEY

Biotopes/Habitats

Infl

uen

ce o

f an

thro

pogen

ic

tran

sform

ati

on

Su

stain

ab

ilit

y

Su

cces

sion

ser

ies

Reg

ion

al

rep

rese

nta

tion

Dis

per

sal

chara

cter

Eco

logic

al

am

pli

tud

e

Eco

logic

al

con

dit

ion

s

Invasi

ve

spec

ies

pre

sen

ce

Con

serv

ati

on

al

valu

e

Syn

ph

yto

sozo

logic

al

valu

e

Tota

l p

oin

ts

Ran

k

F 4.2111 dominated by

Artemisia hololeuca3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 37 І

F 4.2111 b dominated by

Hyssopus cretaceus0 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 36 І

Е 2.2131 b and Е 2.2132 b: dominated by

Carex pediformis4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 38 І

Е 2.2131 а and Е 2.2132 а: dominated by

Carex humilis4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 38 І

Е 2.2131 dominated by

Helianthemum сretophilum4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 39 І

Е 2.1311 dominated by Stipa capillata 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 24 ІІІ

E 2.1312 dominated by Stipa lessingiana 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 4 3 28 ІІІ

Е 2.2131 d: dominated by Stipa pennata 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 33 ІІ

Biotopes are evaluated by 12 indicators

using 4-point scale, based on the formula:

E = (N - 12)∙2.77Calculated significance percentage index

reflects the five degrees of ecosystem

loss risk:

І-ІІІ – habitats of regulatory type (E + I> R),

require protection;

IV-V – habitats of resource type (E + I <R),

do not require protection.

HABITAT MAPPING

Habitat maps are of great

importance as they represent

the basis for the development

of ecological networks and

“eco-corridors”

FI

R

I - informational

F - functional

R - resource

This approach is far from being

perfect for proper direct assessment

of ecosystem services,

however, it can be used indirectly to

assess and effectively allocate best

conservation cores, buffer zones,

ecological corridors and transit zones

in biosphere reserves, national parks

and other protected areas.

HABITAT MAP OF SHATSKIY NATIONAL NATURE PARK

(ACCORDING TO EUNIS CLASSIFICATION) 1:100000Умовні позначення:

– G3.42112. Субконтинентальні соснові лишайниковіліси

– G3.42111. Субконтинентальні соснові зеленомошніліси

– G3.4F. Штучні лісонасадження з Pinus sylvestris

– G4.7. Мішані ацидофільні ліси Pinus sylvestris -Quercus

– G1.A. Мезо- та евтрофні ліси з Quercus, Carpinus, Fraxinus, Acer, Tilia, Ulmus

– G1.52. Вільхові болотні ліси на кислому торфі

– G1.4. Дрібнолистяні болотні ліси не на кислому торфі

– G1.9. Позазаплавні ліси з Betula, Populustremula– G1.513 Мезо-ацидофільні болотніберезові ліси

– G1.513. Мезо-ацидофільні болотні березові ліси

– C3.2. Прибережні постійно обводнені заростіочерету та інші високі гелофітні угруповання

– D5.2. Угруповання високих осок, зазвичай, тимчасово обводнені

– D2.3. Відкриті або пригнічено рідколісніперехідні болота і трясовини

– D1.1. Верхові болота

– E3.4. Сирі або вологі евтрофні та мезотрофнілуки

– E2.1. Мезотрофні пасовища та відновленіпісля випасу луки

– C1.1. Оліготрофні ставки й озера

– C1.2. Мезотрофні ставки й озера

– C1.3. Евтрофні ставки й озера

– J1. Міста, містечка та села

– I1. Біотопи сегетального типу

– G3.A1. Ялинові ліси

– J4. Транспортні мережі та інші конструкції зтвердим покриттям

In Ukraine, there are 7 Biosphere Reserves (4 of

which are transboundary), currently considered

as models for sustainable regional development

providing monitoring of ecosystems under global

climate changes (the Madrid Action Plan, Dresden

Declaration).

BR have great political, social, economic,

educational, scientific value, but in order to fully

understand it we need to assess their ecosystem

services. For this reason we need to develop

approaches to such ecosystem assessment.

THE NETWORK OF EXISTING AND PROSPECTIVE

BIOSPHERE RESERVES IN UKRAINE

Objectives should include the

development in two directions:

1. Implementation of the preceding developments, TEEA

developments in relation to Ukraine and its various

regions, development of practical recommendations for

political and administrative units – “broadwise approach”.

2. The development and improvement of new methods

and approaches for ecosystem assessment on the basis

of “ecosystem services“ concept and their testing on

model sites in Ukraine – “depthward approach”.

THANK YOU FOR

YOUR ATTENTION !