dinaric karst poljes — floods for life · 2017. 8. 1. · dinaric karst poljes – floods for...

1

Adriatic Flyway – Closing the gap in bird Conservation preface

Dinaric Karst Poljes — Floods for Life

Edited by: Peter Sackl, Romy Durst, Dražen Kotrošan and Borut Stumberger

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Edited by: Peter Sackl, Romy Durst, Dražen Kotrošan and Borut Stumberger

Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Karst Poljes as Wetlands of National and International Importance, Livno, 30 September - 1 October 2014

2

In cooperation with Naše ptice, Sarajevo (BiH); Naša bastina Tomislavgrad (BiH) and Zagreb (HR); Universalmuseum Joanneum, Graz (AT)

The project “Identification and Promotion of Karst Poljes in Bosnia-Herzegovina as Wetlands of National and International Importance” was financial supported by MAVA Foundation”

EuroNatur, 2014Konstanzer Str. 22, D-78315 Radolfzell, Germanyhttp://www.euronatur.org/

All rights reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior written permission of the publisher.

Permissions may be sought directly fromEuronatur Geschäftsstelle RadolfzellKonstanzerstr. 22, D-78315 Radolfzell, Germanyphone +49(0)7732 - 92 72 - 0 or +49(0)7732 - 92 72 - 0fax: +49(0)7732 - 92 72 -22email: [email protected]

ISBN 978-3-00-045287-1

Recommended citations:

Sackl P., Durst R., Kotrošan D. & Stumberger B. (eds.): Dinaric Karst Poljes - Floods for Life. EuroNatur, Radolfzell.

Bonacci O. (2014): Ecohydrology of karst poljes and their vulnerability. In: Sackl P., Durst R., Kotrošan D. & Stumberger B. (eds.). Dinaric Karst Poljes - Floods for Life. EuroNatur, Radolfzell; p. 25-37.

Cover design & design: Jasna AndricLanguage editor: Peter SacklTypesetting by Camera d.o.o. (Slovenia)Printed and bound by Tiskarna Povše d.o.o. (Slovenia)Number of copies: 400

Cover photo: Flooded Livanjsko polje, Bosnia-Herzegovina, 4 May 2010 (Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby)

3

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life Contents

Contents

I. PrefaceProf. dr. sc. Jaroslav Vego, NFP Ramsar Convention for Bosnia and Herzegovina 5Karst polje conservation – the legacy of Dr Martin Schneider-Jacoby 7Borut Stumberger, Romy Durst and Peter Sackl II. Karst Poljes as Wetlands of National and International Importance, Workshop Proceedings and Project Results

Wetlands in drylands: the global importance of Karst poljes 11Tobias Salathé

General aspects of the Karst Poljes of the Dinaric Karst 17Ivo Lučić

Ecohydrology of karst poljes and their vulnerability 25Ognjen Bonacci

Flooding analysis of the karst poljes in Bosnia and Herzegovina 39Ulrich Schwarz

Floristic values of the Karst Poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina 45Sabaheta Abadžić & Nermina Sarajlić

A preliminary survey of the wet- and grassland vegetation of the karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina 59Gerhard Bronner

Endangered Proteus: combining DNA and GIS analyses for its conservation 71Gregor Aljančič, Špela Gorički, Magdalena Năpăruş, David Stanković & Matjaž Kuntner

The wintering population of Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus in Glamočko, Duvanjsko and Kupreško polje (Bosnia-Herzegovina) 77Ena Šimić-Hatibović

Spring Migration 2013 of Eurasian Crane Grus grus of the Adriatic Flyway population in the Western Balkans and in the Eastern Adriatic 83Goran Topić, Ana Vujović, Bariša Ilić, Ivan Medenica & Nermina Sarajlić

The distribution and population numbers of Corncrakes Crex crex in the karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina – results of a large-scale survey in 2012 and 2013 91Peter Sackl, Ilhan Dervović, Dražen Kotrošan, Goran Topić, Sumeja Drocić, Mirko Šarac, Nermina Sarajlić, Romy Durst & Borut Stumberger

The ecological value of free-ranging livestock 105Waltraud Kugler & Elli Broxham

An ecological approach to the management of the Dinaric Karst’s renewable natural resources 115Jozo Rogošić & Branka Perinčić

Grabovica trail – rediscovering the natural heritage at the border of Duvanjsko polje 121Denis Radoš, Mirko Šarac-Mićo & Maja Perić III. Dossiers of the Karst Poljes of Bosnia and HerzegovinaList of Karst poljes in Bosnia and Herzegovina 129Borut Stumberger, Romy Durst, Dražen Kotrošan & Jasminko Mulaomerović

Index 197

4

Livanjsko polje, 6 January 2008 (Photo: Kenan Pašić)

5

PrefaceDinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Preface

Prof. dr. sc. Jaroslav Vego

NFP Ramsar Convention for Bosnia and Herzegovina

I am pleased to address a few words to the participants of the “First International

Workshop on Dinaric Karst Poljes as Wetlands of National and International

Importance”.

It is gratifying that the agenda of the Workshop covered a wide range of very

interesting topics related to the various important aspects of Dinaric karst poljes.

The Workshop aimed at the development of adequate approaches for mastering

the challenges of karst polje conservation; I did hope that one of the results

of the workshop could be the demonstration of the national and international

importance of the Dinaric’s karst poljes, as well. It is my great pleasure that such

workshop, the first one of its kind, has been realised in the area of Livanjsko

polje, the largest karst polje in Bosnia and Herzegovina, recently identified as a wetland of international

importance under the Ramsar Convention.

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s karst areas are probably among the best preserved in the region, but until the

present day, they are still unprotected. Unfortunately, some of them are directly threatened by water

extraction, drainage and unsustainable use of their natural resources. Their protection is not only vital for

maintaining the unique natural and cultural assets of the karst environment and its inhabitants but will

also make all the difference between short term - and perpetual sustainable use of the area’s resources

for the benefit of local societies. This is why I am sure that the conducted workshop will contribute to the

evolution and implementation of the Ramsar Convention in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

My gratitude goes to all those who show interest in the conservation of the Dinaric karst poljes, and to the

participants of the First International Workshop on Karst Poljes as Wetlands of National and International

Importance who came to Livno from near and far to take part in our discussions and exchange. Not only

was the Workshop an enjoyable stay in the unique Livanjsko polje, one of the best preserved karst poljes

in the Dinaric region, more importantly, it has opened up an interesting and urgently needed debate on the

ecology, protection and future use of the karst environment.

6

Duvanjsko polje, 27 June 2010 (Photo: Mirko Šarac)

7


Karst polje conservation – the legacy of Dr Martin Schneider-Jacoby

Borut Stumberger, Romy Durst & Peter Sackl

When looking back at the very beginning of the global nature conservation movement and the dawn of

ecological awareness, we find that it basically started growing from the feeling of in-measurable loss.

Sacrificing the major part of formerly pristine wilderness and its wildlife to economical benefits or fun

sports like trophy hunting and turning wilderness into urban, industrial and intensive agricultural lands,

was suddenly perceived a deficiency. Remember the implementation of the world’s first national park in the

United State’s Yellowstone Valley. Or the causes for first formal acts for the protection of birds in modern

history, following the exploitation of the North Atlantic Ocean’s seabird colonies as food for seafarers

and fishermen. Also the flourishing feather industry at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries in the favour of

fashionable ladies and commercial profits had caused a dramatic decline of egret and heron populations in

Western and Southern Europe at that time.

The same appears to be true for the Dinaric karst poljes in the

hinterlands of the Eastern Adriatic. Almost simultaneously to

first inventories of their natural values, started by scientists like

the ornithologist Othmar Reiser (1861-1936), karst geographer

Jovan Cvijić (1865-1927) and the paleontologist and zoologist Karel

Absolon (1877-1960) during the 19th and early 20th centuries, Austro-

Hungarian engineers started to tame the seasonal floods in the

karst poljes. Simultaneously, the economical exploitation and

amelioration of these invaluable wetland habitats started. Although

a few outstanding examples of karst wetlands, like the Plitvica Lakes and Hutovo blato, were protected

as national or nature parks in former Yugoslavia, many karst poljes were drained or used for construction

of large hydro-accumulations for energy production back then. One of the most devastating examples

worldwide is the Popovo polje (Trebišnjica River) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Nowadays, politicians and other officials still perceive the karst areas as economically useless wastelands.

In the wake of the upheavals of the last wars which have changed the cultural landscapes of the Western

Balkans, the natural and cultural heritage of the karst hinterlands, beyond the Adriatic Sea’s Eastern shores,

was almost forgotten by international conservationists and for some time even by the scientific community.

But fortunately, there are historic records of the bird fauna in the uplands of Bosnia and Herzegovina

prepared by Othmar Reiser which may have nurtured that feeling that there is something - something

really significant and invaluable - behind the coastal mountains. This idea of something precious made our

late friend, Dr. Martin Schneider-Jacoby (1958 – 2012), visit the Cetina karst poljes in March 2003. Leading

a small team of ornithologists visiting Skadar Lake and the Bojana/Buna Delta during the preparations of

EuroNatur’s “Adriatic Flyway” project, Martin decided to take their way home through the Dinaric karst’s

hinterlands of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The impressions of the inundated Livanjsko and Duvanjsko poljes with resting cranes, snow-capped

mountains in the background and fens in the foreground, which made the area look more Scandinavian

During the 19th and early 20th centuries, Austro-Hungarian engineers started to tame the seasonal floods in the karst poljes.

8

Livanjsko polje, 1 May 2010 (Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby)

9


than Mediterranean, were highly inspiring and impressed Martin deeply. Fascinated by the unique hydrology

and alarmed by old hydropower and mining plans that would be fatal for the karst poljes, he began to

travel across the Dinaric karst to numerous working meetings in Albania and Montenegro by car. He quickly

realized that the majority of Karst poljes in Slovenia and Croatia were already, or should in the future be,

included in the EU Natura 2000 network. However, he

found that one of the most significant karst poljes in

the world, the ones located in Bosnia and Herzegovina,

were not protected at all. Even worse, for practically

each of these poljes plans for technical alterations

existed or had already been implemented in the past.

As an advocate of international nature conservation

standards, particularly referring to the Ramsar and

Bonn Conventions (AEWA) and the Biosphere Reserves

(UNESCO), he endeavoured to implement ways of

sustainable development for the overlooked karst

poljes and their tremendous natural values. These

values recently raised high international attention – for example, a recent study published by the European

Environment Agency depicted the significance of the Dinaric karst poljes within the framework of European

mountainous regions.

One major result of Dr Martin Schneider-Jacoby’s exceptional energy and commitment, supported by local

partners, such as the Youth Centre Livno and Naše ptice and financial support from the MAVA Foundation,

was the proclamation of Livanjsko polje as wetland of international importance (Ramsar site) in 2008 and

Important Bird Area (IBA) a couple of years later – a success that gave hope for the return of colonies of

waterbirds, including the charismatic spoonbills, that disappeared from the area some hundred years ago.

Furthermore, he succeeded in co-conceptualizing the project of renaturation of 7.5 km2 bog habitats at

Ždralovac with a total funding of 2.2 million USD. This restoration project accompanied by a study carried

out by the United Nations (UNDP) should, with the aid of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), i.e. the

BioDiv Convention (CBD), revitalize the binding of big amounts of CO2 in the peat bogs mitigating the

harmful impacts of the global greenhouse effect. This development should bring back the courting cranes

to their old homeland Ždralovac which carries their name (crane = ždral).

In July 2012, however, Dr Schneider-Jacoby was dumbstruck when seeing photographs showing newly grown

monocultures at Ždralovac on a surface of no less than 10 km2 and the Corncrake population of Livanjsko

polje halved. The impacted area was the very area envisaged for the UNDP restoration project and, at the

same time, represented the ideal habitat for the key ecological indicator in this project – the Corncrake. Such

development applies for the majority of Dinaric Karst poljes today.

We held this First Workshop on the National and International Importance of Dinaric Karst Poljes in the

spirit of Martin with the aim to join forces for the better protection and preservation of the Dinaric karst

poljes in the future, not least in their function as traditional crane habitats along the Eastern Adriatic.

However, he found that one of the most significant karst poljes in the world, the ones located in Bosnia and Herzegovina, were not protected at all.

10

Livanjsko polje, 28 June 2010 (Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby)


11

Workshop and project results

Wetlands in drylands: the global importance of Karst poljes

Tobias Salathé

Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 28 Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland; E-mail: [email protected]

Summary

Wetlands take care of water. This is particularly visible and

tangible in karst poljes. First on a spatial scale: Karst poljes

fill up with water at regular intervals and become huge

wet-lands. Doing so, they provide above-ground evidence

of their underground water connections. Connections

that are often little understood or ignored. Specially in

non-karst wetlands. This makes karst polje wetlands

particularly good examples to demonstrate that wetlands

are the fundamental regulators of water regimes: storing,

regulating, releasing, providing the precious resource

for humans and all other life on Earth. Sustainable

management of the water-related ecosystems is therefore

essential, and particularly in karst poljes, where our

agriculture, transport, energy and urban infrastructure

so directly depend on them. Without the appropriate

management of wetlands, there is no water of the right

quality and quantity, where and when it is needed. Water

resources are delivered by and through wetlands to our

society.

We are all water managers and therefore also responsible

for the management of wetlands. Wetlands should not

be viewed as competitors for water, because they are

essential elements of water infrastructure, within water

management. Water management is complex. Water

scarcity during dry seasons in karst poljes is increasing

water stress. Such stress needs to be addressed

through inter-sectoral and multidisciplinary cooperative

approaches. Otherwise the karst polje wetland ecosystes

will not be able to deliver any longer many esential services

for sustainble water management. Where karst poljes and

their underground aquifers spread across administrative

and national borders, transboundary water management is

essential. Any sustainable approach of modern integrated

karst polje landscape management is actually about

wetland management, and it needs to focus on the nexus

(i.e. the connexions) between food (agricultural practices),

energy (solar, hydro, other renewable productions), water

(for drinking and irrigation) and ecosystem security

(wetland services and their biodiversity). This is the focus

of the work of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.

Sažetak

Močvare su važni oblici površinske vode, što je posebno

vidljivo u kraškim poljima, koja se u redovnim vremenskim

intervalima, u periodu poplava, pune vodom i postaju

ogromne močvare. Na taj način se može steći slika o

njihovim podzemnim vodotocima, koji su veoma malo

istraženi i o kojima se još uvijek ne zna mnogo. To posebno

važi za močvare koje se ne nalaze u kraškim područjima.

Kraške močvare su dobri primjeri na kojima se vidi kako

močvare regulišu vodni režim nekog područja, tako što

zadržavaju, regulišu i otpuštaju vodu, i na taj način

predstavljaju dragocjene resurse za ljude i druga živa bića

na Zemlji. Održivo upravljanje vodenim ekosistemima

je veoma važno, posebno u podučjima kraških polja,

gdje poljoprivreda, prometnice, energetska i urbana

infrastruktura direktno zavise od njih. Bez odgovarajućeg

upravljanja močvarama, nema ni dovoljno kvalitetne vode

kada i gdje je potrebna. Preko močvara, vodeni resursi

postaju dostupni našem društvu. Svi mi smo upravitelji

vodama na ovaj ili onaj način, i odgovorni smo za upravljanje

močvarama. One su važni regulatori vodenih sistema, a ta

regulacija je veoma složen proces. Nestašica vode tokom

sušnog perioda povećava vodeni stres, koji treba rješavati

kroz međusektorske i multidisciplinarne pristupe.

U suprotnom, močvarni ekosistemi kraških polja neće

više biti u mogućnosti da održavaju optimalno stanje

voda u njima. Na mjestima gdje se kraška polja i njihovi

podzemni akviferi pružaju preko administrativnih i

12

državnih granica, neophodno je uspostaviti prekogranični

program upravljanja vodama. Svaki održivi pristup

modernom upravljanju kraškim poljima je zapravo održivo

upravljanje močvarama, i važno je obratiti pažnju na

poveznice između poljoprivrednih praksi, izvora energije

(solarni, vodeni i drugi obnovljivi izvori energije), vode (za

piće i navodnjavanje) i ekosistema (močvara i njihovog

biodiverziteta). Ta problematika je u središtu pažnje

Ramsarske konvencije o močvarama.

Keywords: karst poljes, wetlands, floods, water

managment, Karst, Ramsar

Introduction – wetlands and water management

All life on our planet depends on water. Freshwater

resources are critical for sustainable development and for

human health and well-being. Integrating the management

of water, land and people remains a major challenge for our

21st century, especially in karst poljes. Water fundamentally

connects the underground source to the sea, through the

never-ending water cycle. Wetlands occupy key positions in

the water cycle. They are key providers of water resources.

We constantly underestimate the role of wetlands as basic

infrastructure for water management. Wetlands perform

hydrological supply and regulatory functions in the water

cycle on which our society depends. However, impacts from

changes in land use, water diversions and infrastructure

development continue to drive the degradation and loss

of wetlands. And this in turn negatively affects our food

production, hinders economic development and is likely to

result in social conflict. Unfortunately, human pressures on

essential wetland ecosystems continue to increase, through

the intensification and expansion of urban and built-up

areas,through the establishment of heavy infrastructure

for transport and energy production, intensive agricultural

practices and tourist development. These development

pressures are key challenges. Especially in the Dinaric Karst‘s

poljes it is essential to find ecologically and socio-economically

sustainable solutions, because these ecosystems depend

particularly on wetlands and their water supply.

Wetlands at the heart of karst polje management

Wetlands take care of water. And this is particularly visible,

and also tangible in karst poljes. First on a spatial scale:

karst poljes fill up with surface water at regular intervals

and become huge, visible wet lands. This provides,

albeit limited, above-ground evidence of the specific

underground hydrological connections. Connections that

are still today, often little studied and understood, or to a

large extent simply ignored. Given the spectacular changes

between above-ground wet and dry seasons in karst

poljes, it is easy to understand that water, and the wetland

We constantly underestimate the role of wetlands as basic infrastructure for water management.

Duvanjsko polje, 11 Janaury 2010 (Photo: Mirko Šarac)


13


ecosystems related to the water flows, make up the

essence of karst poljes. Therefore, wetland management

is key to sustainable karst polje management.

The water cycle in karst poljes shows very visible, and

to some extent also measurable, connections between

the above-ground terrestrial part and the underground

aquifers. The science of understanding the interactions

between water flow dynamics above and underground,

is best studied and understood in karst areas, notably in

those landscape units represented by karst poljes and their

relatively clear-cut above-ground water catchment basins

(but be aware of unexpected underground connections).

A fundamental starting point is to acknowledge that

karst water cycles need space to accommodate large

quantities of water above ground on a temporary basis,

when karst poljes fill up with water in spectacular ways.

A substantial challenge is to understand the spatial limits

of underground aquifers and to link them with the more

obvious above ground watershed limits of karst polje

catchment basins in the classical sense. Such connections

are often very complex, little understood and difficult to

predict. However, the state of these poljes depends on

such comprehension. Substantial research and monitoring

efforts have therefore still to cover aspects of karst polje

hydrology. We need to be able to predict, and anticipate

to some degree, periods of flood and drought. Local

economies in karst poljes heavily depend on avoiding high

frequencies of natural distasters of flood and drought.

It is therefore urgent that the national ministries of the

environment, water management, agriculture and related

issues, continue to provide the means to improve our

methodologies, our regular data collection and its state-

of-the art analysis.

Karst poljes need to be studied in their entirety, going

beyond the study of particular aspects, or only specific

parts of them. Local land use planning and its further

development needs to focus on entire karst poljes, on their

entire water catchment above and underground. Livanjsko

Polje, one of the largest karst poljes in the world, illustrates

this integrated approach through its designation by the

relevant authorities in its entire watershed extension as a

Ramsar Site. This remains the ultimative method to study

and better understand the functioning of karst poljes.

Karst wetlands and agriculture

In the modern, intensively industrialised western world,

with its heavily-modified landscapes, the karst poljes often

stand out as last remaining near-natural landscape units

with specifically functioning ecosystems. Landscapes that

are covered at regular intervals by rapidly increasing water

bodies. Water bodies that cover extensive areas, before

receeding again, often at a slower pace. During the period

of lowering water levels, large extents of open, flat and

slightly sloped areas are uncovered and become ready for

terrestrial vegetation growth.

Along many rivers in former floodplain landscapes of a

dynamic nature, temporarily flooded areas have been lost

to river embankments, floodplain drainage and landfills.

With their extreme nature and regular occuring of

14

important water level fluctuations, karst poljes are among

the last remaining spots where the essential dynamic

between extensive floods and slowly increasing areas

of well fertilised plains along the edge of the receeding

waters, come into place. Many pioneering plant and animal

species are adapted to colonize these, formerly regularly

occuring, new and empty areas. Receeding waters create

habitats for specifically adapted communities and provide

foraging areas for iconic species such as the nearly extinct

Northern Bald Ibis Geronticus eremita. A species that was

wide spread across large parts of Europe in the Middle

Ages. Human settlements make use of these lands

along the edges of receeding floods. Particularly in karst

poljes, where the cycle of extensive flooding, followed

by receeding water levels and progressing liberation of

fertile plains, is most pronounced, human societies have

developed grazing patterns for their domestic livestock,

and devised cultivation practices that make optimal use of

the fertilised land freed up after the floods receed.

In times of EU agricultural subsidies and global trade

connections, it is important for local economies in

karst poljes, to maintain or redevelop their sustainable

acgricultural practices that respond to the spatial dynamics

created along the edges of the receeding waters after

the floods. Here lays the specific karst polje advantage,

and often also a unique selling point for the products

produced in karst poljes, such as particular meat, milk,

cheese, leather and wool of specifically adapted domestic

cattle, sheep and other livestock. We have to learn again

how to practice agricultural land use in a shifting way,

following receeding or advancing water levels, changing

from grazing to cultivation, and duly respecting the spatial

limits imposed by karst polje water systems. Water and

agricultural practices are part of the specific karst polje

wetland ecosystems. Ecosystems that are ideal places to

illustrate how ingenious human adaptation has developed

over time ways, how to make best use of the available

resources in a dynamic landscape.

Dealing with hydrological stress

Across many areas of the globe, hydrological stress

factors are increasing. Particularly in industrial and densely

populated areas. On the contrary, human population

increase is slowed down, at standstill or even negative

in Dinaric karst poljes. But despite this trend, modern

infrastructure development, urbanisation and increased

water abstraction often increase hydrological stress on these

karst wetland ecosystems. Furthermore, changing climate

patterns provoke increased periods of drought, or stronger

storms and related floods and landslides. Additional factors

worsen hydrological stress. Excessive use of fertilizers

creates eutrophication of karst waters. Agricultural runoffs

increase diffuse water pollution with negative effects above

ground, and even more desastrous consequences for the

unique underground ecosystems and their highly adapted

and extremely vulnerable cave animals. Urban waste

waters and household sewage are not adequately treated

in many rural and isolated areas and end up in the fragile

karst hydrological systems. Occasionally this is worsened by

industrial and military effluents.

Livanjsko polje, 13 Janaury 2010 (Photo: Mirko Šarac)

Water and agricultural practices are part of the specific karst polje wetland ecosystems.

Centrally planned constructions of large dams, tunnels and inter-basin water transfers transform landscapes into unpleasant areas, shy away tourists and create lasting impacts on karst polje water cycles.


15


Short-sighted development plans for industrial

agricultural development, not taking into account the

above-mentioned special conditions and limitations of the

agricultural potential of karst poljes, often drain essential

land surfaces of the polje to reclaim them for building

areas or artificialize unduly natural water flows, rivulets

and river beds. Excessive water abstraction for large-

scale, but often not very effective, irrigiation of intenisvely

cultivated fields, contribute to decreasing water levels,

the drying out of underground reservoirs and flows and

will lead, ultimately, to desertification. Centrally planned

constructions of large dams, tunnels and inter-basin water

transfers transform landscapes into unpleasant areas, shy

away tourists and create lasting impacts on karst polje

water cycles. This, eventually, leads to increased drought

and desertification of expanding land areas.

Ramsar provides tools for integrated approaches

The Convention on Wetlands, finalised in Ramsar, Iran, at

the shores of the Caspian Sea in 1971, has developed over the

more than fourty years of its existence a comprehensive set

of tools and guidelines to support wise use, or sustainable

management of all types of wetland ecosystems. The

Ramsar Handbooks for Wetland Wise Use provide a useful

framework for addressing environmental problems and

trying to find sustainable solutions. Karst and underground

wetlands are highlighted therein as needing specific focus

and care when devising management approaches and

interventions. Real-scale projects on the ground serve to

improve the guidelines and tools at a regular pace. Thus,

the tool box evolves with an aim to remain a state-of-

the-art reference for practical solutions. Particularly, case

studies in karst poljes, although far and few in between,

remain speaking examples to illustrate specific issues,

problems and solutions. In this context, the use and

application of Ramsar tools can only be strongly suggested

to anybody confronted with karst polje management.

Operational suggestions for an innovative approach – leading beyond traditional paths

The organisers of the first international workshop on Dinaric

karst poljes as wetlands of national and international

importance can only be congratulated for their initiative to

rally the interest and support needed for the sustainable

management of these outstanding landscapes. Rightly so,

they considered it important to start with a scientific and

historical inventory on the values, services and products

these landscapes provide us with, and to review how

we have profited from this and how we managed these

ecosystems in the past until very recently.

However, this can only be a start. Laying a robust baseline

and providing lasting foundations for an ambitious

programme, bringing together the different forces

and capacities for the redevelopment of these unique

ecosystems in the long term. I hope that the pioneers

from Naša Baština, Naše Ptice and Euronatur, three active

and engaged non-governmental organisations will be

able to federate the different stakeholders, and to arise

common concern for the case of the Dinaric karst poljes

and their wetland ecosystems services upon which so

much the socio-economic development of these regions

depend. Looking together for our common natural and

cultural polje heritage, will allow us to develop commonly

accepted solutions for living Dinaric karst poljes. National,

bilateral and international donors, business sponsors

and philantropists and societies are encouraged to

support these initial efforts. To make sure that this first

international workshop will soon be seen as the trigger

which launched broad citizen support, wide consensus and

a common will to start an action programme focusing on

maintaining and urgently restoring the karst polje values

already lost or degraded. A programme of action that will

spread out from Livno and Tomislavgrad and their poljes

across the entire Dinaric region into other karst areas of

the world.

Livanjsko polje, 5 Oktober 2008 (Photo: Peter Knaus)

16

Cerkniško polje – locus typicus of karst poljes - with the lake of the same name, Slovenia, 3 January 2010 (Photo: Dejan Bordjan)


17


Summary

In the languages of the Dinaric Karst’s countries the term

“polje” has different meanings and wide uses. In its broadest

way, it means “field”: flat and open land, often in the sense

of living space and the source of goods. However, for the

people who live in the Dinaric Karst their most common and

peculiar meanings are related to karst poljes.

In general, typical karst poljes are elongated closed

depressions with bottoms that has been leveled and covered

with arable soils, and with constant or intermittent water

courses. According to literature, more than 130 poljes exist

in the Dinaric Karst, about 50 larger ones. Thus, the Dinaric

Karst harbours the largest number of poljes worldwide. Most

descriptions of the Dinaric Karst are pointing out the larger

depressions of the karst landscape. By integrating almost

all other karst features, the poljes in the Dinaric Mountains

may be the most complex of all karst formations. The karst

poljes are different in origin, size, shape and hydrology.

There are dry as well as occasionally or permanently flooded

poljes. The location of the Dinaric Karst between the Adriatic

Sea and the central Balkans, the highly diverse hydrological

conditions and some other characteristics favour a high

biodiversity in poljes. The Dinaric Karst is characterized by

a diverse, rare and endemic flora and fauna. In particular,

the subterranean fauna of the Dinaric Karst is the richest

and the most diverse in the world. According to these

features the karst poljes sharply contrast to the surrounding

landscape which is often covered by bare rocks, and give

them a special place in local history. Evidence for the latter

is the rich and unique cultural heritage of the area. The karst

poljes of the Dinaric Mountains played an important part

for the development of the karst science (karstology). In

particular, Livanjsko polje has a prominent position which

is substantiated by the fact that the international technical

term “polje” was derived from its name.

GENERAL ASPECTS OF THE KARST POLJES OF THE DINARIC KARST

Ivo Lučić

Speleološka udruga Vjetrenica - Popovo polje, Ravno bb, BiH - 88370 Ravno, Bosnia-Herzegovina; E-mail: [email protected]

Recently, in many karst poljes large-scale water projects

have been realized which have changed the environment

radically by removing seasonal hydrologic rhythms,

characteristic for poljes, and resulting in heavy losses of

their natural values. Although, according to Panoš (1995),

karstology is an integrated scientific system that covers all

aspects of karst, so far most investigations on karst poljes

have focused on geographical, geological, hydrological and

similar aspects. While, up to now, anthropogenic impacts

and damages to karst environments were largely ignored.

Therefore, it is necessary to develop a holistic karstology

that will recognize all values of the karst poljes – natural,

cultural and economical – and to consolidate them to

a single, refined and more credible picture of the karst

environment. Following to the close association of many

birds, other animals and plants to key environmental

factors, biologists investigating the flora and fauna of

karst poljes have to take the specificities of karst areas into

account. According to the broad approach of karstology, by

doing so, biologists will heavily contribute to the scope

and competence of the karst sciences. In particular, due

to the wide acceptance and international regulations for

bird conservation, ornithological research will further

produce potentially significant contributions towards the

conservation of the karst poljes in the Dinarides.

Sažetak

Izraz polje na jezicima dinarskih zemalja ima više značenja

i široku primjenu. U najširem smislu znači ravno zemljište

ili čistinu, vrlo često u smislu životnog prostora i izvora

dobara. No, u Dinarskom kršu njegova najčešća upotreba i

najosebujnija značenja odnose se na krška polja.

Tipična krška polja su u pravilu izdužene zatvorene

depresije s dnom koje je zaravnjeno i pokriveno obradivim

tlom, te sa stalnim ili periodičnim vodenim tokovima.

18

Prema literaturi, u Dinarskom kršu je utvrđeno više od 130

polja, među kojima pedesetak velikih, pa je Dinarski krš

prostor s najvećim brojem polja uopče.

Opisi redovito ističu da su to najveće depresije u kršu. To

su vjerojatno i najkompleksnije krške pojave jer objedinjuju

skoro sve druge krške oblike. Polja su različita po nastanku,

veličini, obliku i hidrologiji. Mogu biti suha, te povremeno

ili stalno plavljena, što bitno uvjetuje njihov živi svijet.

Karakterizira ga raznolika rijetka i endemična flora i fauna.

Podzemna fauna dinarskih krških polja najbogatija je i

najraznolikija u svijetu.

Sve to polja čini kontrastnim u odnosu na njihovo okružje

koje je nerijetko goli krš, te im daje posebno mjesto u

povijesti, o čemu svjedoči kulturna baština s milenijskim

kontinuitetom. Polja su imala poseban značaj za razvoj

znanosti o kršu (karstologiju), među kojima Livanjskom

polju pripada istaknuto mjesto. Livanjsko polje je dalo

međunarodni stručni termin ovoj krškoj pojavi.

U moderno doba polja su predmet opsežnih hidrotehničkih

zahvata, koja stvaraju korjenite okolišne promjene,

uklanjaju sezonske hidrološke ritmove izazivaju teške

gubitke njihovih prirodnih vrijednosti.

Pažnja većine proučavatelja krških polja usmjerena je na

geoznanstvene aspekte te ne uočava okolišne destrukcije.

Zato je potrebno razvijati holističku karstologiju koja

će podjednako vrednovati sve vrijednosti krških polja,

prirodne, upotrebne i kulturološke, te ih objediniti u jednu,

znatno vjerodostojniju sliku. Zbog svoje povezanosti

s ključnim okolišnim aspektima polja, zbog svojih

kozmopolitskih značajki i postignute visoke razine zaštite

ptica, ornitologija u tome može imati istaknutu ulogu.

Keywords: karst poljes, natural environment, land use,

karst environment, conservation, karstology

Introduction

In the languages of the Dinaric Karst’s countries the

term “polje” has different meanings and wide uses. In its

broadest way, it means “field”: flat and open land, often

in the sense of living space and the source of goods. Thus,

in its most common sense, in the languages of the Dinarc

Karst the term “polje” refers to particular areas and special

places, like Lijevče polje or Stjepan polje for a karst field as

well as settlements in northern Bosnia.

Even by the people who live in the karst poljes of the

Dinarids, the word is not in all cases used for referring to

the phenomena “karst polje” as the term is used in the

karst sciences (karstology). In fact, e. g. Sinjsko polje is not

a karst polje, it is rather the geographical name for a river

valley. However, for the people, living in the area of the

Dinaric Karst, their most common use, and most peculiar

meanings are related to karst poljes.

In general, typical karst poljes are elongated and closed

depressions with bottoms that has been leveled and covered

with arable soils which are surrounded by gentle or, more rarely,

by steep mountain slopes. Hydrological conditions of the karst

poljes are characterized by constant or seasonal springs, ponors

as well as constant or intermittent water courses. All karst

poljes have polygenetic origins, governed by tectonic processes

and planation following to the dissolution of bedrock.

Fig. 1: Karst surface: deep karren on the southern face of the Velebit Mountains, Croatia (Photo: Ivica Klanac)

Fig. 2: Main periodically flooded karst depressions (karst poljes) in the Dinaric Karst (from Lewin and Woodward 2009 after Gams 1974)


19


What is Karst?

Karst is the technical term for geomorphological formations

and landscapes which are shaped by the dissolution of

soluble rock, usually carbonate rocks such as limestone or

dolomite. Typical karst landscapes consist of bare karst or

covered karst. While the latter is covered by vegetation,

forests, scrub or grasslands, both are usually characterized

by numerous dolinas. The development of the karst

landscape depends on corrosion, i. e. the ability of rocks

to be dissolved in water, as well as on tectonics, i. e. the

formation of faults and cracks in bedrocks which open up

pathways for surface water into the depths of bedrock.

Cracks and holes are further widened by subsurface water,

and will little by little convert bedrocks into a spongy area

which looks like “Swiss cheese”.

A number of geomorphological phenomena are characteristic

for the karst environment; to mention just the most frequent,

from small- to large-scale: karren (Fig. 1), kamenitzas, dolinas,

caves, karst poljes and karst planes.

The geography of karst poljes

Nobody exactly knows, but it is estimated that worldwide

carbonate rocks cover 10 – 15% of the continental area

(Ford & Williams 2007). Karst poljes are found in Europe,

Africa, Asia and in America. In France similar landforms are

known as “plans”, as “campo” in Italy and Spain, “wangs”

in Malaysia and as “hojos” in Cuba.

Karst poljes are particularly common in Mediterranean

countries: Greece, Italy, France, Spain, Morocco, Tunisia,

Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in Montenegro

(Bonacci 2003), with the Dinaric Karst the largest continuous

karst area in Europe. It was named after the Dinara

Mountain, above Livanjsko polje. By integrating almost all

other karst features, poljes may be the most complex of all

karst forms in the Dinaric Mountains (Kranjc 2003).

According to literature, more than 130 poljes exist in the

Dinaric Karst (Milanović 2003), about 50 larger ones (Fig.

2). Thus, the Dinaric Karst not only harbours the largest

number of poljes worldwide, SW Bosnia, Dalmatia and

Herzegovina also contain the world’s largest concentration

of well-developed karst poljes (Milanović 2003). Currently,

no elaborated systematic inventory of the karst poljes in

the Dinaric Mountains exists. In literature, more than 200

poljes are listed, but in many cases it is not certain, if they

are really karst poljes in sensu stricto or valleys, dolinas

or uvalas. Most karst poljes on the Western Balkans are

elongated depressions, orientated in a NW–SE direction

which follows the main direction of the mountain range of

the Dinarides.

Fig. 3: Duman, source of the Bistrica river, constitutes the main spring in Livanjsko polje, Bosnia-Herzegovina, 9 January 2010 (Photo: Behudin Alimanović)

Fig. 4: Nevesinjsko polje - lower reaches of Zalomka sink river and Biograd, one of largest ponors in the Dinaric Karst, Bosnia-Herzegovina (Photo: Ivo Lučić)

Bosnia, Dalmatia and Herzegovina contain the world’s largest concentration of well-developed karst poljes.

20

Key features of karst poljes

One of the key features of karst poljes is their particular

hydrology: In most cases water flows into poljes through

a spring which is situated at one side of the poljes (Fig. 3),

while water is flowing out through ponors (sinks) on the

other side of poljes. Ponornica (sink rivers) are connecting

springs and ponors (Fig. 4). A very specific phenomena of

karst hydrology are estavelles („rigalo“ or “spitter”), i. e.

caves which periodically function as springs and ponors.

According to the amount of groundwater which flows into

the polje, dry and flooded karst poljes are distinguished. In

flooded poljes the inflow, at least periodically, surpasses

the outflow of water. Following to the dense network

of interconnected subterranean water courses, karst

poljes are not isolated hydrological systems. They rather

consist of a number of different, often interconnected,

hydrological systems (Bonacci 2003). For example, water

flowing into Livanjsko polje originates from three or may

be even four different river basins.

Different types of karst poljes

Karst poljes differ in origin, size, shape and hydrology. They

can be found at different altitudes. One of the highest is

Kupreško polje, situated 1230 m a.s.l., while, situated only

a few meters above sea level, Hutovo blato belongs to the

lowest poljes.

In the Dinaric Mountains karst poljes vary in size, from 0.5

up to 465 km2. The biggest is Ličko polje in Croatia (565

– 590 m a.s.l.). It consists of five smaller poljes - Lipovo,

Kosinjsko, Pazariško, Brezovo, and Gospićko polje – which

are connected by the Lika and Ričina sink river. The second

largest is Livanjsko polje with a total area of 402 - 410

km2. But, most poljes of the Dinaric Karst are smaller than

50 km2 (Gams 1978), while the majority of poljes in other

parts of the world are smaller than 10 km2 (Ford & Williams

2007).

According to their shape two main types of poljes are

distinguished: elliptical poljes, like e. g. Mostarsko blato,

and rough karst poljes which consist of a number of

smaller poljes. Besides Ličko polje, which has been already

mentioned, a typical example of a rough polje is the 48

km2 large Nikšićko polje in Montenegro (622 - 690 m a.s.l.)

which consists of four smaller poljes - Gornje, Krupačko,

Slansko, and Suho polje (Milanović 2003). Nikšićko polje is

drained by the Zeta, Moštanica, and Gračanica rivers.

Following to hydrological features, there are dry,

occasionally and permanently flooded poljes. Dry poljes

are low depressions which are located in higher altitudes,

with small or without any water courses. These poljes are

Fig. 5: Dugo polje between Čvrsnica and Vran Mountain – an example of a dry karst polje, situated in elevations between 1180 and 1230 m a.s.l., Bosnia-Herzegovins (Photo: Mirko Šarac)

Fig. 6: Cerkniško polje – locus typicus of karst poljes - with the lake of the same name, Slovenia. (Photo: Dejan Bordjan)

Following to hydrological features, there are dry, occasionally and permanently flooded poljes.


21


never flooded. A typical example is Dugo polje in Bosnia-

Herzegovina (Fig. 5).

Seasonally flooded poljes to which most karst poljes in the

Dinaric Mountains belong, are deeper then dry poljes. The

extent of floodings ranges from small parts of the polje

which will be periodically flooded, up to totally flooded

poljes. Thus, e. g. only a small part of Dabarsko polje is

flooded for a few weeks per year, while the larger part of

adjoining Fatničko polje, both in Bosnia-Herzegovina, is

for more than 200 days of the year under water. Cerkniško

polje in Slovenia, the locus typicus of poljes, is commonly

called a lake because of its long-term flooding. But the

polje and the lake of the same name are not synonymous,

because the lake (Cerkniško jezero) is smaller than the

polje (Fig. 6). On the other side, in some years Popovo polje

in Bosnia-Herzegovina will be for up to 300 days under

water, while in other years it is covered by water for only 4

hours. During maximum floodings Popovo polje is able to

accumulate up to 1.5 billion m3 of water (Fig. 7).

Most permanently flooded karst poljes, also called

“lake” (jezero) or locally “blato” (mud), are located in

low altitudes close to sea level. These types of poljes are

mostly situated in cryptodepressions. Some examples

are Vransko jezero on Cres Island and the polje of the

same name, Vransko jezero, near Biograd on the Croatian

mainland, as well as Hutovo blato in Bosnia-Herzegovina,

and Skadarsko blato/jezero in Montenegro and Albania

(Fig. 8). Currently, all of them are lakes, but by origin they

are karst poljes.

Because of different size, shape and hydrology, karst poljes

may be best described by their geological origin. There are

three main types:

• Border poljes are located at geological contact

zones, across which allogenic surface runoff

takes place;

• Structural poljes are depressions underlain by

relatively impermeable rock that acts as an

adamant which forces groundwater to flow

across the surface to stream-sinks on the other

side of the basin; and:

• Baselevel poljes, in which the floor is cut

entirely across the karst bedrock and which are

located in the epiphreatic zone (Gams 1978,

Ford & Williams 2007).

History of karst research

The karst poljes of the Dinaric Mountains played an

important role for the development of karstology. The karst

sciences were founded by Johann Weikhard von Valvasor

who described Cerkniško jezero in 1687 and proposed a first

model for the in- and outflow of water from the lake, based

on Cartesian mechanics. After Valvasor, particularly, the

publications of Tobias Gruber 1781 and Belsazar Hacquet

1784 contributed to the development of the karst scienes.

E. von Mojsisovics (Mojsisovics et al. 1880) firstly mentions

the importance of Livanjsko polje and following to a series

of research by Cvijić (1893, 1901; in the references 1895,

1902) and Grund (1903) the international technical term

“polje” was derived from its name.

Fig. 7: Lower End of Popovo polje which may be covered by 40 meter deep water during high floods, Bosnia-Herzegovina (Photo: Ivo Lučić)

Fig. 8: Hutovo blato is situated in the lower Neretva river valley, just a few meters above sea level, and a good example for a permanently flooded karst polje, Bosnia-Herzegovina (Photo: Behudin Alimanović)

22

Karst engineering started with the Austro-Hungarian chief

engineer Philipp Ballif who was the first to undertake

serious melioration works in the Dinaric Karst. He planned

and realized the cleaning of sinks and constructions for

preventing the discharge of soil. The latter simultaneously

shortened the duration of floods and thus allowed the

growing of crops.

Social and cultural aspects

In the Dinaric Karst, poljes constitute the centers of social

and cultural life. In poljes a rich cultural heritage was

developed since prehistoric times till the present days. For

example, in Popovo polje prehistoric mounds, medieval

cemeteries and contemporary churches can be seen in

the same place. Usually, poljes received their name from

main settlements, like e. g. Duvanjsko, Fatničko, Gatačko,

Glamočko, Kupreško, Ličko and Livansjko polje. A number

of traditional tools for agriculture and fishing, water tanks

or grain mills which use the inflow of water from ponors,

have been developed by the inhabitants of the karst poljes.

Perception and the use of karst poljes

Currently, the karst poljes are mainly perceived from

an economical and industrial perspective. Officials

perceive the karst environment as useless wastelands.

By ignoring the ecological and hydrological functions

of the karst ecosystem, in many karst poljes large-

scale water projects have been realized. In many cases

“the best solution” has been to dry out the polje or the

building of large hydro-accumulations, like in Livanjsko,

Popovo, Fatničko, Jezero polje, and in Ličko polje as well

as in Mostarsko and Hutovo blato, in Imotsko-Bekijsko,

Nikšićko polje, Skadarsko jezero, etc. The aim of all these

projects was to remove the seasonal hydrologic rhythm

of the polje. All caused the loss of invaluable natural

values (Fig. 9) and of ecological functions, while up to

Fig 9: Northwest part of Konavosko polje, one of the lower polje near the sea (in the background). Its southwestern slopes exceeding to the karst plane on which Dubrovnik airport has built (Photo: Ivo Lučić)


23


now human impacts and damages to karst environments

are largely ignored (Bonacci 2003).

An exception is Cerkniško polje: During the 20th century

the polje was drained as well as flooded, but it soon

became clear that in the long term the most valuable

and most economical way will be to return the polje in

its approximate natural state. Today Cerkniško polje is

declared and protected as a Regional Park.

Perspectives

After all, the question remains: What are the future

perspectives for the karst poljes environment? In

short, the application of a holistic karst science and the

implementation of sustainable land use and management

is the only acceptable way. This means, to apply sciences

with a holistic paradigm, i. e. ecology, geography,

anthropology, etc. According to its subjects, karstology

is a holistic science - an integrated scientific system that

covers all aspects of Karst (Panoš 1995), although, so

far, most investigations on karst poljes have focused on

isolated geographical, geological, hydrological and some

other aspects. While, up to now, anthropogenic impacts

and damages to karst environments were largely ignored,

it is necessary to develop a holistic karstology that will

recognize all values of the karst poljes – natural, cultural

and economical – and to consolidate them to a single,

refined and more credible picture of the karst environment.

Secondly, a sustainable management of the karst

environment and ecosystems is urgently needed which

means that, based on data and results of a holistic

karstology, sustainable use and management of the karst

environment in which a wide number of local people are

included, as given by the Arhus Convention, have to be

developed. This will demand a complete and versatile

survey of the geology, hydrology and ecology of the

karst poljes in the Dinaric Mountains. Besides Livanjsko

polje which is comparably well studied, to gain a realistic

overview it will be necessary to evaluate the natural values

of all other, smaller karst poljes. By doing so, biologists

will heavily contribute to the scope and competence of the

karst sciences which, in contrast to its broad approach, are

up to now heavily skewed to geophysics. In accordance

with their natural values, Livanjsko polje and adjacent

poljes in the Cetina river basin have a good chance to

develop into world centers of karstology and sustainable

karst management.

References

Bonacci O. (2003): Poljes. In: Gunn J. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Caves and Karst Science. Fitzroy Dearborn, New York and London; pp. 1279 - 1782.Cvijić J. (1895): Karst, geografska monografija. Beograd, 176 pp.Cvijić J. (1902): Karsna polja zapadne Bosne i Hercegovine. Glas. srpsk. kralj. Akad. 59, Beograd; 106 pp.Ford D., Williams P. (2007): Karst Hydrogeology and Geomorphology. John Wiley & Sons, London.Gams I. (1974): Kras - zgodovinski, naravoslovni in geografski oris. Slovenska matica, Ljubljana; pp 358.Grund A. (1903): Die Karsthydrographie. Studien aus Westbosnien (= Geographische Abhandlungen, Band 7. 3). Teubner & Graeser, Leipzig u. Wien; 200 pp. Kranjc A. (2003): Dinaric Karst. In: Gunn J. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Caves and Karst Science. Fitzroy Dearborn, New York and London; pp. 591 - 594.Lewin J. & Woodward J. C. (2009): Karst Geomorphology and Environmental Change. In: Woodward J.C (ed.) The Physical Geography of the Mediterranean. 1st ed. Oxford University Press; p. 287-317.Milanović P. (2003): Dinaride Poljes. In: Gunn J. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Caves and Karst Science. Fitzroy Dearborn, New York and London; pp. 599 – 603.Mojsisovics E., Tietze E., Bittner E. (1880): Geologie von Bosnien. Jhb. Geol. Reichsanstalt 1880, 2 - 272.Panoš V. (1995): Karstology, an integrated system of sciences on karst. Acta carsologica 24: 43 - 50.

Officials perceive the karst environment as useless wastelands.

24

Agricultural lands in drained Popovo polje, 10 July 2007 (Photo: Dejan Kulijer)


25


Summary

In karst sciences the geomorphological term ‘polje’ refers

to large closed depressions with flat bottoms which

have been developed in karst rocks. The surface area of

poljes varies from lesser than 0.5 km2 to more than 500

km2. The ecological and economical importance of karst

poljes derives from the fact that they often form the only

larger, fertile, and habitable oases in karst landscapes. In

general, poljes provide conditions for the development of

rich ecosystems which are favourable for human beings.

Therefore, the ecological functions of poljes are crucial for

a sustainable economical development of the valuable,

but highly vulnerable karst environment. Ecohydrology can

be defined as the science of integrating hydrological and

biological processes over different spatial and temporal

scales. In karst poljes there is a strong and direct interaction

between the circulation and storage of ground- and surface

water. These fluxes, in turn, affect the spatial distribution

of organisms in surface and underground habitats. Karst

poljes are characterized by different, often very complex

hydrological and hydrogeological features, like permanent

and temporary springs and rivers, losing and sinking rivers,

swallow holes and estavelles. Generally, karst poljes are

regularly flooded during cold and wet periods of the year.

Consequently, they have to be recognized and should be

protected as wetland habitats. In the Dinaric Karst under

natural conditions poljes are flooded annually between 3

and 7 months. The importance of seasonal flooding for the

hydrology and ecology of karst poljes is discussed. Many

engineering attempts have been made to prevent the

flooding of poljes. In most engineering projects resulting

benefits were smaller than the ecological damages

they have caused. Anthropogenic interventions in karst

regions may disrupt the natural ecological equilibrium.

Environmental effects of interventions can be very serious,

Ecohydrology of karst poljes and their vulnerability

Ognjen Bonacci

Faculty of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Geodesy, University of Split, Matice hrvatske 15, 21000 Split, Croatia; E-mail: [email protected]

and potentially dangerous and threatening. By combining

hydrological and biological data it will be possible to

develop better strategies for the protection of the valuable

and vulnerable poljes in karst ecosystems. The aim of the

present paper is to move the discussion between different

disciplines forward and to promote a closer cooperation

between engineers, biologists and ecologists for the

protection of karst poljes. The best strategic objective for

the conservation of surface and underground ecosystems

in the Dinaric Karst region will be to preserve the present

character of the landscape, the rich biodiversity of the

karst poljes as a global natural heritage and by securing a

balanced management of their natural resources.

Sažetak

U znanostima koje izučavaju krš geomorfološki izraz “polje”

odnosi se na velike zatvorene depresije s ravnim dnom koje

su razvijene u kraškim stijenama. Površina polja varira od

manje od 0.5 km2 do više od 500 km2 . Ekološki i ekonomski

značaj kraških polja proizlazi iz činjenice ona često čine

jedinu veću, plodnu i naseljivu oazu u kraškim krajolicima.

U principu, polja osiguravaju uvjete za razvoj bogatih

ekosistema povoljnih za ljude. Stoga, ekološke funkcije

polja su ključne za održivi ekonomski razvoj vrijednog, ali

vrlo osjetljivog kraškog okruženja. Ekohidrologija se može

definirati kao nauka o integraciji hidroloških i bioloških

procesa u različitim prostornim i vremenskim skalama. U

kraškim poljima postoji jaka i direktna interakcija između

cirkulacije i skladištenja podzemne i površinske vode.

Te promjene, zauzvrat, utječu na prostornu distribuciju

organizama u površinskim i podzemnim staništima.

Kraška polja odlikuju se različitim, često vrlo složenim

hidrološkim i hidrogeološkim značajkama, poput stalnih

i povremenih izvora i rijeka, ponornica, ponora i estavela.

Generalno, kraška polja redovno plave tokom hladnih

26

i vlažnih perioda godine. Prema tome, ona moraju

biti prepoznata i zaštićena kao močvarna staništa.

U dinarskom kršu, pod prirodnim uvjetima, polja su

poplavljena od 3 do 7 mjeseci godišnje. O značaju sezonskih

poplava za hidrologiju i ekologiju kraških polja vođene su

mnoge rasprave i pravljeni mnogi građevinskih projekti, sa

ciljem da se spriječi plavljenje polja. Većina građevinskih

projekata rezultirala je manjom koristi od ekološke štete

koje su izazvali. Antropogeni zahvati u kraškim regijama

mogu poremetiti prirodnu ekološku ravnotežu. Ekološki

efekti intervencija mogu biti jako ozbiljni i potencijalno

opasni. Kombiniranjem hidroloških i bioloških podataka

bit će moguće razviti bolje strategije za zaštitu vrijednih

i ugroženih polja u ekosistemu krša. Cilj ovog rada je da

promiče diskusiju između različitih disciplina i bližu

saradnju između inžinjera, biologa i ekologa radi zaštite

kraških polja. Najbolji strateški cilj za očuvanje površinskih

i podzemnih ekosistema u dinarskom kršu bit će očuvanje

sadašnjeg karaktera krajolika, bogate biološke raznolikosti

kraških polja kao globalne prirodne baštine i osiguravanje

uravnoteženog upravljanja njihovim prirodnim resursima.

Keywords: karst polje, karst ecohydrology, flood,

anthropogenic influence

Introduction

Karst is estimated to cover about 25 % of the surface of

all the continents. It represents a type of landscape with

many specific surface and underground features, which

facilitate and accelerate the exchange of surface water

and groundwater. By this way karst strongly influences

the development of the environment and its ecosystems.

The total area covered by karst poljes represents

approximately 2 % of the total karst area. Although they

are relatively small in size, they are extremely significant

from an ecological, social and economic standpoint. The

importance of karst poljes is that they are the larger,

fertile, and inhabited oases in karst, commonly providing

the only conditions favourable for human beings as well

as for the development of a rich but very vulnerable

and mostly endemic karst flora and fauna. Karst poljes’

ecological role is extremely important but till now not

enough recognized and investigated. Due to strong and

uncontrolled anthropogenic pressures during the last

hundred years karst poljes belong to the most endangered

environments on the Earth.

A wide range of closed surface depressions, a well-developed

underground drainage system, and a strong interaction

between circulation of surface water and groundwater

typify karst. Due to these reasons karst represents an

extremely vulnerable and hardly predictable hydrological-

hydrogeological as well as ecological system. In this article,

special attention is paid to ecohydrological functions of

karst poljes, which play a crucial role in: (1) hydrology and

hydrogeology of water circulation and storage; and (2)

provide support for a sustainable development of biological

diversity for many rare and endangered species.

The dramatic degradation of global water resources

during the last two centuries has forced environmental

and geoscientists to focus and intensify their research

on integration of biological processes with hydrology and

hydrogeology. The pattern and intensity of hydrological

variability especially in karst media significantly influences

biotic structure and activity. On the other hand, biotic

structures may regulate abiotic ones. As a result of these

interrelationships, a new concept called ecohydrology has

emerged (Zalewski 2002).

A greater demand of the technical, natural and

social sciences for information and interdisciplinary

investigations to protect and manage all processes in

karst poljes emerged. The aim of this article is to move

forward the discussion among different disciplines using

karst ecohydrology as the efficient tool in order to ensure

sustainable development and biological diversity of

The importance of karst poljes is that they are the larger, fertile, and inhabited oases in karst...

A wide range of closed surface depressions, a well-developed underground drainage system, and a strong interaction between circulation of surface water and groundwater typify karst.


27


vulnerable karst polje ecosystems.

In the paper shortly are presented the various threats

that karst poljes are facing due to human interventions,

especially in terms of hydrology and water resources

management. The goal of this paper is to give an insight

into the importance of karst hydrology for the overall

ecological functioning of the superficial and subterranean

compartments of so important karst ecosystems as the

karst poljes are.

The intention of this article is to encourage scientific and

professional discussions that will lead to a more complete

development of karst ecohydrology in case of ecologically,

socially and politically so important karst landscape as the

karst poljes are.

Characteristics of Karst and karst polje

Karst is a type of landscape found on carbonate rocks or

evaporates. Karstification is a geological characteristic

which strongly influences surface and underground water

circulation and storage. It can be evaluated through the

density, frequency, dimensions, locations and number of

all types of karst voids (intergranular porosity, bedding

planes, pores, joints, cracks, fissures, fractures, conduits,

jamas, caves etc.). Generally, karstification is greatest near

surface and decreases with the depth of a karst massif. It

is a fast and continuous process governed by natural and

anthropogenic interventions.

Ford and Williams (2007) defined the following three

zones of water circulation in karst: (1) the unsaturated,

or the vadose zone, the zone of vertical circulation;

(2) intermittently saturated or epiphreatic zone; and

(3) saturated, or phreatic zone, the zone of horizontal

circulation, or karst aquifer. The vadose zone with a karst

aquifer forms in time and space a very dynamic two-

component system in which the major part of storage is

in the form of true groundwater in narrow fissures, where

diffuse and laminar flow prevails. On the other hand, the

majority of groundwater is transmitted through the karst

underground by turbulent flows in solutionally enlarged

conduits in the epiphretaic zone. Figure 1 shows three

different types of karst landscape (covered, bare and karst

polje) with different zones of water circulation during low

groundwater level (GWL) (Fig. 1a) and high GWL (Fig. 1b).

Large karst underground geomorphological patterns occur

in many sizes and varieties, ranging from a few meters

long or deep to very large, the deepest being deeper than

1 km and longer than hundreds of kilometers. The great

variability of the shape of surface and underground karst

forms, as well as the interplay of pervious and impervious

layers within the karst massif, creates practically endless

possibilities for contact between two or more karst

aquifers and feed different karst springs in different karst

poljes.

Oscillations of GWLs in karst are high and fast and could

reach more than few hundred meters. Water circulation

and storage are strongly dependent on hydrogeological

characteristics of the karst massif and the existence of

surface and underground karst features. It can change very

fast in space and time. Due to very high infiltration rates,

overland and surface flow on karst terrains is rare and water

circulation is more heterogeneous in comparison with non-

karst terrains. Karst areas have some of the most complex

aquifers in the world because of extreme and fast GWL

oscillation. Therefore, the complex water network remains

poorly investigated, despite many geological, hydrological,

hydrogeological, hydrochemical and geomorphological

studies performed.

Karst polje as the geomorphological term refers to large

closed depressions with conspicuously flat bottoms

developed on karst rocks (Bonacci 2013). Poljes developed

in karst areas are relatively densely inhabited spaces

surrounded by bare, inhospitable, non arable soil and

biologically poor karst environments, which are practically

not populated.

Karst poljes vary from less than 0.5 km2 to more than

Figure 1 Three different types of karst landscape (covered karst, bare karst and karst polje) with different zones of water circulation during low groundwater level (GWL) (Fig. 1a) and high GWL (Fig. 1b)

28

500 km2 in area. They exhibit complex hydrological and

hydrogeological features and characteristics, such as

permanent and temporary springs and rivers, losing

and sinking rivers, and swallow holes (ponors or sinks)

and estavelles. Geomorphological and hydrogeological

features of poljes, mainly flat surface covered by

impermeable soil, make possible formation of permanent

as well as temporary streams and lakes, which enable the

development of rich biological forms in and around them.

Poljes can be divided into the following groups according

to the hydrological regime: (1) permanently flooded or

lakes; (2) periodically, partly, or completely flooded; and (3)

dry poljes.

Poljes exhibit complex hydrological and hydrogeological

features and characteristics, such as permanent and

temporary springs and rivers, losing and sinking rivers,

and swallow holes and estavelles. Estavelles are the karst

openings that may function as either a ponor or a spring,

depending on the GWL in their environment. Bonacci

(1987, 2004a, 2013) classified poljes into four basic types

based on their inflows and outflows: (1) closed polje; (2)

upstream-open polje; (3) downstream-open polje; and

(4) upstream- and downstream-open polje. In closed and

upstream-open poljes, only underground drainage exists.

In downstream- and upstream- and downstream-open

poljes, both underground and surface drainage are present.

Poljes play an important role in the hydrologic–hydrogeologic

water balance of larger karst areas. Calculating a water

budget for a polje in karst is complicated by the influence

of the surface water and groundwater of higher conditions.

Determination of the karst polje catchment area is an

unreliable procedure due to the unknown morphology of

underground karst features (mainly karst conduits and

characteristics of karst aquifers) and their connections

with surface karst forms. The variability across time and

space of a karst aquifer, as well as conduit parameters,

makes this process extremely sensitive and complex.

Their catchment areas can change very fast in time due

to the influence of fast GWL rising (and falling) caused by

abundant and intensive rainfall. The differences between

the topographic and hydrologic catchments in karst terrain

are, as a rule, so large that data about the topographic

catchment are useless in hydrological and hydrogeological

analyses and water management practice. The previously

mentioned fact very often prevents efficient protection of

karst polje water and environment from pollution.

As a consequence of intensive tectonic activity the poljes

in the Dinaric Karst have been formed as terraces from

an altitude of more than 1000 m above sea level to the

sea level. They represent more or less interconnected

subsystems within the process of surface and groundwater

flow through the karst spring catchment. From the

hydrologic–hydrogeologic perspective, a polje is to be

considered as part of a wider system. It cannot be treated

as an independent system, but only as a subsystem in the

Karst areas have some of the most complex aquifers in the world because of extreme and fast GWL oscillation.

The differences between the topographic and hydrologic catchments in karst terrain are, as a rule, so large that data about the topographic catchment are useless in hydrological and hydrogeological analyses and water management practice.

Karst spring Ćorci 50 m above the level of Duvanjsko polje in village Sarajlije has not been active about a century. On 10 January 2010 a waterfall with an estimated 10 m3/s flow run into the village. Compare the dimension of the waterfall with humans on top of the photo who admire their forgotten spring (Photo: Mirko Šarac)


29


process of surface and groundwater flow through the karst

massif.

In the Dinaric Karst the poljes as the basic structural and

stratigraphic units are elongated in a NW-SE direction

which follows the extension of the Dinarides. Arable

Quaternary sediments (in Dinaric Karst it is mostly “terra

rossa”) cover the bottom of the numerous poljes in karst.

Although rainfall in the Dinaric Karst poljes (as well as

in many other of the world’s karst poljes) is abundant,

surface water is leaked heavily and groundwater is buried

deeply due to the dual hydrological structure. Before the

large human interventions in karst poljes practically each

year poljes were flooded during the wet period of the year

and suffered from severe karst droughts during the hot and

dry summers during the same year. Due to construction of

tunnels nowadays situation is changed. Duration of floods

is shortened but droughts are longer with more serious and

dangerous consequences. The water deficit during the hot

summer period is still the primary factor for influencing

vegetation restoration due to discontinuous shallow soils

and low soil storage capacity.

Karst ecohydrology

Ecohydrology can be defined as the science of integrating

hydrological and biological processes over varied spatial

and temporal scales. Interdisciplinary research efforts to

integrate the ecological aspects of water with its physical

and social roles have a long history as well as some new

developments. A key concern in ecohydrology is how

hydrological processes, including the types, rates, timing,

and pathways of water, influence ecological processes.

Developing the research interface between hydrology

and ecology has been recognised as a research frontier in

geosciences. Despite a history of research that integrates

insight from the two scientific disciplines, they still operate

somewhat independently with different philosophies,

conceptual frameworks, terminology and experimental

approaches. Harte (2002) seeks a synthesis of what he

calls the Newtonian and Darwinian approaches to science.

He believes that such a synthesis offers opportunities for

progress at the intersection of physics and ecology where

many critical issues in earth system science reside.

Ecohydrology as a concept is in a very early phase of

formation. Because of this it offers many scientific

challenges and possibilities for exciting, hardly foreseen

and dynamic development. Ecohydrology has the

potential to provide scientists with environmentally

friendly and sustainable solutions to several problems

related to water quantity, flooding and pollution. Karst

as a specific landscape and environment, to insure its

sustainable development and protection, definitely

needs new achievements in ecohydrology. It needs

specific approaches to ecohydrology, i.e. it needs karst

ecohydrology. Karst ecohydrology should help in answering

on many crucial questions dealing with interactions

between karst hydrology and karst ecology. Both of them

are very different than in other types of environment.

Especially it should take care about the strong interplay

between surface water and groundwater and the existence

of rich karst underground environments, which strongly

depend on surface water management in poljes.

The decisive components of ecology in any physical

setting, including karst, are: (1) species; (2) population; (3)

community; (4) environment; and (5) ecosystem. Species

are organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile

offspring. A population is a collection of individuals, all

members of the same species. A community is a collection

Ecohydrology can be defined as the science of integrating hydrological and biological processes over varied spatial and temporal scales.

Hutovo blato, a permanently flooded karst polje, 8 April 2010 (Photo: Dejan Kulijer)

30

of populations of different species living together in

an environment. The environment represents abiotic

and biotic surroundings. The ecosystem consists of

communities and the abiotic environment. An ecosystem

has three biotic components (producers, consumers and

decomposers) and three abiotic components (organic

matter, inorganic matter and climate).

Subterranean karst ecosystems are sensitive to

environmental changes that occur on the surface. The

importance of maintaining biological diversity goes

far beyond mere protection of endangered species and

beautiful landscapes. It is necessary to obtain a thorough

understanding of how aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems

function and interact in very complex, vulnerable and in

time and space extremely dynamic karst systems.

Determination of water circulation in karst media is crucial for

explaining hydrological and hydrogeological processes and

their influence on resident surface and underground biota

(Palandačić et al. 2012). Interactions between surface and

subsurface in karst are very strong. In karst ecohydrological

investigations, the basic problem is that subsurface water

is highly heterogeneous in terms of location of conduits,

location of vertically moving water toward the phreatic zone,

and flow velocities. The surface and especially subterranean

environment in karst provides a range of habitats with

different chemical and biological processes. To biologists

and ecologists, they are fragile ecosystems, hosting rare and

endangered species. For geochemists, they are the route of

rapid transport of contaminants.

The range of geomorphology, climate, hydrogeology and

hydrology cause a remarkable number of different karst

groundwater environments: (1) inland and coastal caves;

(2) superficial and deep phreatic networks; (3) interstitial-

hyporheic substrates; and (4) epikarst and other

infiltration zones. The habitats inside the subterranean

karst environment can be classified as: (1) terrestrial; (2)

aquatic; and (3) interstitial.

Differences in morphology, hydrology, hydrogeology and

climate have resulted in a range of different environments,

which provide the opportunity for the coexistence of

different species. The role of the epikarst and vadose

zones, as well as caves in ecohydrological processes, is

of special importance. The coupling of thermal, chemical,

mechanical, ecological, and hydraulic processes in karst

fluid-rock interaction is extremely complex and subjected

to multiple feedback loops that often cannot be adequately

understand or properly addressed in models. The first

problem is that science does not know enough about these

feedback loops especially between water and biota.

The importance of maintaining the morphological and

ecological connections between surface and underground

parts of the karst systems should be stressed. The

connectivity of various habitats is important for fulfilling

the needs of organisms to move within the landscape

and karst underground and for sustaining a series of

physical, biological and chemical processes that control

the structure and functioning of the karst system.

A special important role karst ecohydrology should play in the

protection and management of the karst polje environment,

which is under severe anthropogenic as well as natural

Erosion along the meanders of periodical Šuica River, Duvanjsko polje, illustrates the fertile soils of karst polje, 5 June 2010 (Photo: Kenan Pašić)

The importance of maintaining biological diversity goes far beyond mere protection of endangered species and beautiful landscapes. It is necessary to obtain a thorough understanding of how aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems function and interact in very complex, vulnerable and in time and space extremely dynamic karst systems.


31


stresses. The survival of the vulnerable ecosystem of a

broader poljes’ karst area depends on the efficient protection

and management of water in the karst poljes during the

whole year. Occurrence and connection between surface

water and groundwater in karst is strongly influenced by the

location and behaviour of water bodies in and around karst

poljes. From the ecological point of view, the role of vadose

zone, including epikarst is extremely important.

Hydrological and hydrogeological processes involve

flows of matter and energy (water, nutrients, sediments,

species, seeds, heat, microhabitats etc.) between different

landscape components and parts of the ecosystem. The

spatial structure and temporal dynamics of pathways

of connectivity are driven by climatic factors and are

mediate by catchment landscape characteristics (Soulsby

et al. 2006). In karst terrains a special important role play

surface and underground karst features (karren, doline,

sinkhole, dry valley, polje, jama, cave, karst conduit etc.).

The interconnections of surface water and groundwater

change in karst systems very fast in time and space and

by this way add to the vulnerability of the flora and fauna.

In many cases it is very hard (sometimes impossible) to

detect precisely connections between inflow and outflow of

water in the karst system. Karst ecohydrology should help

in explaining the sensitivity of different karst habitats and

their ecological communities to fast and drastic exchanges

of low flow and flood in karst poljes. In order to efficiently

protect karst polje ecosystems karst ecohydrology should

concentrate their scientific investigation efforts in critical

areas, such as surface and underground streams, ponors,

dolines, karst springs and water bodies (lakes and marshes).

Role of floods in karst poljes

Floods are one of the most dramatic interactions between

human beings and the environment. People look at floods

as a catastrophe but in reality floods are an integral part of

nature, playing a critical role in ecosystem function. At the

same time flooding brings many benefits particularly for

ecological variability and soil fertility. Flooding promotes

exchange of materials and organisms between habitats

and plays a key role in determining the level of biological

productivity and diversity. Those processes are especially

important for the karst environment.

Poljes are regularly flooded in the cold and wet periods

of the year. Flooding of the poljes in the Dinaric Karst in

natural conditions lasts on average from 3 to 7 months

per year, mostly between October and April, but there

are cases when flooding can even persist for 10 months.

Poljes may be flooded when: (1) the GWL rises above their

bottoms; (2) inflow exceeds the maximum capacity of the

outflow structures (ponors or swallow holes); or (3) both

occur simultaneously.

With the objective of flood prevention in poljes, attempts

have been made to increase the capacity of ponors. Such

attempts have usually failed because the capacity of

ponors depends on the conduit system to which they drain

and on the GWL as well as their size. The most effective

measure to prevent the flooding or to reduce duration of

floods is the construction of a tunnel. But, it should be

aware that this measure may have very negative ecological

consequences, especially for a long time period.

Flood as a violent periodic disturbance must have

important ecological effects (Hawes 1939). It operates as

agents of distribution, and help in maintaining a regular

food supply. As mechanical agents, floods in karst poljes

introduce species from the surface and so initiate the

colonisation of the karst underground. Hawes (1939)

Occurrence and connection between surface water and groundwater in karst is strongly influenced by the location and behaviour of water bodies in and around karst poljes.

Burnig of peat layers in Ždralovac, Livanjsko polje, 6 October 2011 (Photo: Dejan Kulijer)

32

stresses the importance of karst polje flooding giving

an example of possible underground colonisation of the

karst underground in the Popovo Polje (Trebišnjica River)

in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Generally the cyprinid fish

Phoxinellus ghetaldii, locally named “gaovica”, spends

most of its time underground. Gaovica are the only cyprinid

fish without scales on their skin. Floods wash them out in

great quantities and regularly every year at the beginning

of the wet and cold period (mostly during October or

November). Breeding occurs at this time, and the young

fish are left to spend a year in the open, while their

parents are carried back into the karst underground. After

the next flood, the young fish in turn are swept into the

underground. The eyes of Phoxinellus ghetaldii are normal

but the fish exhibits a tendency to reduce scales, which

is remarkably common among cave fishes. Maybe in this

case we are witnesses of the early stages of colonisation

of caves by an epigean fish.

Development of Trebišnjica Hydroelectric Power Plant

system during the 1970s caused huge changes in Popovo

Polje natural hydrological and hydrogeological regime.

They had a negative influence on the natural ecological

system. The subsequent permanent non-reappearance

of the poljes’ flooding, the main source for this formerly

rich supply of food also dried up. Fishing at the openings

of estavelles, which for centuries had been an important

source of nutrition for the inhabitants of Popovo Polje,

has now completely vanished. Biological diversity of the

surface as well as underground karst flora and fauna is

reduced and many endemic species are endangered.

Wetlands are defined directly or implicitly in a variety of

ways. Several factors, including personal perspective,

position in the landscape, and wetland diversity and

function, contribute to the tractable nature of the

definition. Each individual or group brings to the definition

its own perspective based upon cumulative experience and

personal needs (Kent 2001). In accordance with previously

mentioned definition each of the permanent or temporary

flooded karst poljes can be treated as a wetland. It

especially concerns the lowest part of the polje. Each of

it has very different characteristics (dimensions, water

quantity and quality, hydrological and hydrogeological

characteristics, climate etc.) but they all are extremely

endangered more by human interventions than by climate

changes and/or variability.

Because of the rare natural habitats of water birds, its

fresh water springs and biodiversity, Livanjsko Polje was

protected by the Ramsar Convention on February 3rd

April 2009. The Ramsar site covers a total area of 45,868

ha. It is the largest wetland of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

with important populations of rare birds and significant

communities including Corncrake Crex crex, Montagu’s

Harrier Circus pygargus, Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila

pomarina, Common Redshank Tringa totanus, Common

Snipe Gallinago gallinago and Eurasian Bittern Botaurus

stellaris. Livanjsko Polje vegetation is a very special mix

of northern European grasslands and forests as well as

Mediterranean plants, while large areas are covered with

oak, ash and alder forests important to conservation.

The polje is shaped by seasonal floods which provide

habitat for up to 70,000 wintering water birds. During

the dry season, surface water disappears through many

ponors or evaporate, and leave behind lush pastures, large

fens, alluvial forests and good-quality arable peatlands

that harbour a rich set of species, including in the least

accessible areas, probably the most southern breeding

pairs of Eurasian Cranes Grus grus, the symbol of this

Fishing at the openings of estavelles, which for centuries had been an important source of nutrition for the inhabitants of Popovo polje, has now completely vanished.

Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca (Photo: Andreas Hafen)


33


Ramsar site. In the caves connected with the polje, a

number of endemic fish survive until the next floods.

Negative anthropogenic influences

The karst ecosystem is very fragile and sensitive to

environmental change. Surface water and groundwater

in karst poljes evolve in concert with and in response to

surrounding ecosystems. Changes within a surrounding

ecosystem will impact the physical, chemical and

biological processes occurring within a karst polje. These

systems normally function within natural ranges of flow,

sediment movement, temperature, and other variables, in

what is termed “dynamic equilibrium”. When changes in

these variables go beyond their natural ranges, dynamic

equilibrium may be lost. Karst niches have provided

shelter for many animals to survive environmental crises

by “fossilizing” the evolutionary process, environments

and habitats in karst areas

Human activity has profoundly affected natural state

in all parts of the world, to such an extent that it is now

extremely difficult to find any karst polje which has not

been in some way altered. The cumulative effect of these

activities results in significant changes, not only to the

polje itself, but also to the other parts of the karst system

which with this polje is connected by water circulation.

It is obvious that present-day pressure on the karst

ecosystems, especially in karst poljes, does not ensure

sustainable development as well as biological diversity.

Humanity’s interventions in karst are numerous (Drew &

Hötzl 1999, Milanović 2002, Bonacci 2004b). They can be

categorized as follows: (1) water storage in surface and

underground reservoirs; (2) increase or decrease in the

capacity of outlet structures; (3) construction on the karst

surface (urbanisation, industrialisation, construction of

railways and motorways, dams and reservoirs, irrigation

and drainage, river regulation, etc.); (4) construction in

the karst underground (mining, drilling tunnels and other

underground engineering construction); (5) actions to the

groundwater (mainly massive pumping, rarely recharging,

pollution); (6) use of the karst spring water; (7) interbasin

water transfer; (8) quarrying; (9) grouting; (10) massive

tourism; (11) deforestation and land use changes, which

can have end in “rocky desertification”; (12) changes in fire

regimes; (13) introduced predator species and introduced

competitor species; (14) intensive agriculture (overgrazing,

undergrazing, nutrient enrichment, pollution etc.).

Many subterranean taxa in karst regions, especially in

karst poljes, are threatened by pesticides, storm-water

discharge, microbiological pathogens and nutrient stress

resulting from the remote transport of pollutants.

A cave is a natural subsurface void in rocks (predominantly

in carbonate rocks) that is large enough for human

access. It can be filled by air and/or water, and often is

partially occupied by sediment. Caves are conspicuous

and interesting features of relatively mature karst

terrains. From the karst ecohydrological point of view

it is very important to incorporate numerous pieces

of cave information into site-specific environmental

characterizations (Jancin 1999). Especially in recent times

quarrying and intensive motorway building have destroyed

many caves including their valuable habitats and species.

In the last about hundred years and especially in recent

time anthropogenic influences created a new and very

fast redistribution of surface water and groundwater in

karst areas, which had caused changes of connections

between aquifers of neighbouring (in some cases distant)

karst springs (Bonacci 2004). For this reason technical

and environmental damage in some cases has exceeded

It is obvious that present-day pressure on the karst ecosystems, especially in karst poljes, does not ensure sustainable development as well as biological diversity.

Popovo Minnow Phoxinellus ghetaldii (Photo: Dušan Jelić)

34

the benefits. The most common damages caused by them

are: (1) collapse of surface and underground structures

(Waltham et al. 2005); (2) pollution of groundwater; (3)

increasing risk of flooding; (4) decrease in karst springs

outflow capacity (even their drying up) and the intrusion

of the sea water; (5) changes in local and regional

hydrological and hydrogeological regimes, which can cause

many different negative consequences; (6) the massive

destruction of surface, and especially underground

habitats; and (7) threatening species of karst subterranean

ecosystems, which can cause the disappearance of

endangered species most of which are endemic (Bonacci

et al. 2009b).

The karst region of southwest China is a geology-controlled

eco-environment, and the basic characteristics include

the shortage of surface water and soil resources, low

vegetation coverage and high diversity of microhabitats.

Due to the special geological background, intensive karst

process and recent irrational land uses, both vegetation

destruction and soil and water loss are increasingly serious

in the karst region of southwest China. This results in karst

desertification, a process of land degradation involving

extensive exposure of basement rocks and drastic decrease

in soil productivity. Karst desertification has been leading

for the concentrated population to poverty and the lack of

cultivated land (Chen et al. 2013).

Many dolines in karst poljes today are filled up with

different kinds of unknown waste material, covered with

variable thick layers of cover-material or simply overgrown

by vegeta tion (Breg 2007). Waste materials (excavation

material, municipal, construction, indus trial waste etc.)

deposited in nature represent the most irresponsible

activity affecting the karst features and pro cesses that at

one point became subject to degradation processes that

had not only a great effect on karst hydrology or ecology

but also permanently influenced karst landforms and

the entire landscape. Breg (2007) gives the example of

Logaško Polje (Slovenia), where degradation processes of

dolines have been very intense during the last fifty years.

The analysis of aerial photographs from different periods

(years 1944 and 2000) showed that 77.5 % of the dolines

(441 out of a total of 569) have completely disappeared

mostly by being filled up with different waste materials or

they were built up, while 22.5 % (128) of dolines have been

entirely or partly preserved.

The removal of rock by quarrying results in either the

modification or the destruction of specific and beautiful

karst landforms in the quarried area together with the

total destruction of the existing ecosystems as a result

of the stripping of soil, grassland and woodland (Gunn

& Bailey 1991). The problem is that, although limestone

quarrying represents the most visually obvious and the

most dramatic anthropogenic impact on karst terrain, it

has received little attention from karst geomorphologists

or karst ecologists. Quarrying definitely has a strong

negative influence on karst water circulation and causes

the pollution of groundwater. Many karst freshwater

organisms have a restricted geographical distribution.

Because of that they are extremely vulnerable to habitat

destruction and other anthropogenic modifications to

karst water circulation.

Dams and large-scale impoundments have caused severe

population declines in or the extinction of many karst

aquatic species worldwide (Žganec & Gottstein 2009).

Dams and reservoirs definitely cause changes in the

groundwater as well as surface water regimes, which may

have very distinct negative effects on karst underground

species. The adverse impact of dams and impoundments on

river systems have been recognized as the most important

cause of fragmentation and habitat loss in running

water (Strayer 2006). In open water courses below dams

the changes of physical as well as chemical conditions,

include great modification of natural hydrological and

water temperature regimes so that few native species

can survive. In karst terrains this problem is amplified.

Problems regarding the karst environment do not start

after dam construction is finished and its reservoir is full

of water. Instead, they appear during the civil engineering

works, especially due to massif excavation, transport

with heavy lorries, the work of civil engineering machines,

blasting and the construction of grout curtains (Bonacci et

al. 2009a).

The last mentioned reason, the injection of materials

The injection of materials into karst groundwater, i.e. the construction of grout curtains, definitely could be the cause of unpredictable negative consequences on karst groundwater environments.


35


into karst groundwater, i.e. the construction of grout

curtains, definitely could be the cause of unpredictable

negative consequences on karst groundwater

environments. The building of dams in karst areas

always includes the construction of grout curtains.

Grouting is a procedure by means of which grout is

injected into karst voids, fissures, crevices, conduits and

caves. During construction millions of tons of injection

mass are injected in the underground. Physically as well

as chemically this mass voraciously and quickly destroys

underground habitats and kills an enormous number of

endangered and endemic species. The great problem

is that until now neither engineers nor ecologists took

care of this great and massive negative influence on

underground karst environments.

The dams have made an important and significant

contribution to human development, but the social

and environmental costs have, in too many cases, been

unacceptable and often unnecessary (WCD 2000). There

cannot be one, single, dogmatic a priori answer to the

questions of dams or no dams, in terms of optional

water and environment resources management, which

will suit all the different conditions of all the countries of

the world, either at present, or for the decades to come

(Biswas 2004).

Karst ecosystems have been resilient and resistant to the

long-lasting but slow human pressure, especially land

use changes, whose main activity was “primitive stone

clearing”, i. e. construction of dry stone walls. This kind of

coexistence between human beings and nature resulted in

a sustainable functioning and balance of vulnerable karst

ecosystems.

The present-day karst landscape is the result of natural

and human interactions over thousands of years. Human

societies have been so closely intermingled with their

environment that a complex co-evolution has been claimed

to shape the interactions between ecosystem components

and humans. The components and dynamics of current

geomorphological variability as well as biodiversity

and ecosystem functioning in karst region cannot be

understood without taking into account the history of

human interactions. Various and ingenious systems of

land use and resource management provided a framework

for the development of civilizations living on this region

(Blondel & Aronson 1999).

A high degree of division into parcels, physically delimited

by a very developed network of dry stone walls, represents

the most important feature of the whole Mediterranean

karst region landscape. Dry stone walls are of fundamental

importance as a habitat for a very diverse flora and fauna.

They keep the moisture during the hot summer period,

create shade and serve as the shelter for many species.

Hand-built dry stone wall terraces permitted agricultural

production on slopes up to an inclination of 70 %. Terracing

by dry stone walls prevents overland flow and serves as a

very effective measure against erosion. At the same time

dry stone walls can help in the protection of the rapid

spreading of wildfires.

Massive stone clearings mean the entire disappearance

of stonewalls. This process could be very dangerous from

ecological and hydrogeological points of view. The carbonate

formation of the Murgia (Southern Italy) represents a huge

karst aquifer, holding the main groundwater resource of

the region. Up to the 1980s, agriculture consisted in typical

extensive fields of olive and almond trees, and grapes. A

high degree of division into parcels, physically delimited by

a very developed network of dry stone walls, represented

an important feature of this region. By the massive stone

clearing at the end of 2003, 40 % of the Murgia territory

had been transformed (Conora et al. 2008).

The above scenario represents a worrying example of man-

made evolution of the karst surface’s textural features.

Current studies indicate that the agricultural activities

in the Murgia region have important consequences on

groundwater quality, variable with the season and the trend

of precipitation. Direct observation of the stone cleared

surfaces evidences a net loss of the fine soil component,

so farmers are obliged to add new soil. A great part of the

lost soil finally reaches the sea during the frequent floods.

The soil loss is the closest precursor of the desertification

Olm Proteus anguinus (Photo: Slavko Polak)

36

of the concerned areas (Conora et al. 2008).

The hazard of wildfires has increased over the last decades

throughout the whole Mediterranean region. One of the

reasons can be found in massive stone clearing. Wildfires

can have a significant effect on some hydrological and

ecological parameters. The destruction of the forested

ecosystem of a basin has direct and serious consequences

for its behaviour. At the same time wildfires can affect

ecohydrological processes indirectly, but profoundly, by

altering the physical and chemical properties of the soil,

converting organic ground cover to soluble ash, modifying

the microclimate, etc.

Conclusions

Karst poljes represent small but fertile and for human

beings and biota hospitable geomorphological forms

in generally inhospitable large surrounding karst areas.

Because of this they represent crucial social and ecological

systems. The problem is that this fact is not enough

scientifically and especially politically recognized. In

recent times human pressure on karst poljes is enormous

and uncontrolled what is absolutely unacceptable. If this

dangerous trend will continue it is obvious that values

and functions of karst poljes will be very soon irreparably

destroyed.

A new joint strategy for the protection of all karst polje

values (social, economic, ecologic, political etc.) should

be found in close and democratic cooperation between

different interesting groups based on interdisciplinary

scientific analyses. Of special importance is the restoration

of valuable karst habitats and preservation of endemic

species.

A karst ecohydrological approach means integration of

karst studies into a more general ecological, biological,

hydrological, hydrogeological, geomorphological, and

geochemical context. Works on karst ecohydrology brings

the diverse perspective of ecologists and karst hydrologist

and hydrogeologists together and by this way can help in

achieving previously mentioned goals.

For karst surface water and groundwater management,

water crises are increasingly serious all over the world.

In karst terrains man’s interventions very often are

uncontrolled, and result in hazardous consequences. In

cases of transboundary shared karst surface water and

groundwater catchments, like in the Dinaric Karst region,

they can be a trigger for serious international conflicts. Due

to this reason management of the internationally shared

karst water resources in karst poljes should be performed

with special caution.

The impacts of agriculture on karst poljes ecology is of

special importance. It is crucial to find new management

approaches to minimize negative impacts and maximize

production. The further study should attach the

importance to investigate the relationship between

water movement in soils and fractured rocks and plant

water utilization, and to survey the effects of various

environmental factors on ecohydrological processes in

the atmosphere-plant-soil-rock system. In order to reveal

the interactive mechanism of vegetation and hydrological

processes at hill slope and catchment scales in karst areas,

the multidisciplinary research methods and techniques,

including soil physics, ecohydrology, plant physiology

and karstology, should be applied (Chen et al. 2013). New

modern methods of risk evaluation and management

strategies to minimize impacts of agriculture, including

the use of Best Management Practices, community-based

agro-environmental initiatives, and various legislative

controls can help in efficiently protecting ecosystems and

biological diversity of karst poljes.

The cave protection as well as protection of other

significant karst water features has great and not

only ecological importance. The aim is to prevent their

destruction and ensure their preservation in a condition

in which their ecological and scientific potential can

be realized (Howarth 1993). The unavoidable steps for

realization of these goals are: (1) to designate caves and

other karst features or areas of international importance in

a list of sites; (2) to organize their continuous monitoring

of the most important hydrological, hydrolgeological and

ecological parameters; (3) to enact legislation, especially

in case of transboundary shared karst poljes and/or their

catchments and aquifers.

The needs for better understanding of the deep and long

lasting mutual relationship between human activities and

natural processes in karst poljes is of crucial importance

in order to achieve their real sustainable development

and protect their rich, valuable and vulnerable biological

diversity.

References

Biswas A. K. (2004): Dams: cornucopia or disaster? International Journal of Water Resources Development, 20(1): 3-14Blondel J., Aronson J. (1999): Biology and Wildlife of the Mediterranean Region. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK Bonacci O. (1987): Karst Hydrology with Special Reference to the Dinaric Karst. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany


37


Bonacci O. (2004a): Poljes. In: Gunn J. (ed), Encyclopedia of Caves and Karst Science. Fitzroy Dearborn, New York, USA, pp: 599–600.Bonacci O. (2004b): Hazards caused by natural and anthropogenic changes of catchment area in karst. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 4, 655-661.Bonacci O. (2013): Poljes, ponors and their catchments. In: Shroder J. F. (ed.), Frumkin A. (vol. ed). Treatise on Geomorphology Vol. 6. Academic Press, San Diego, USA, pp: 112-120.Bonacci O., Gottstein S., Roje-Bonacci T. (2009a): Negative impacts of grouting on the underground karst environment. Ecohydrology, 2(4): 492-502.Bonacci O., Pipan T., Culver D. (2009b): A framework for karst ecohydrology. Environmental Geology, 56(5): 891-900.Breg M. (2007): Degradation of dolines on Logaško Polje (Slovenia). Acta Carsologica, 36(2): 223-231.Canora F., Fidelibus M. D., Sciortino A., Spilotro G. (2008): Variation of infiltration rate through karstic surface due to land use changes: a case study in Murgia (SE-Italy). Engineering Geology, 99(3-4): 210-227.Chen H., Nie Y., Wang K. (2013): Spatio-temporal heterogeneity of water and plant adaptation mechanisms in karst regions: a review. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 33(2): 317-326.Drew D., Hötzl H. (eds.) (1999): Karst Hydrogeology and Human Activities – Impacts, Consequences and Implications. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Ford D., Williams P. (2007): Karst Hydrogeology and Geomorphology. John Wiley, Chichester, UK.Gunn J., Bailey D. (1991): Limestone quarrying and limestone quarry reclamation in Britain. Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Changes in Karst Areas. Padova (Italy), 15-27 Sep. 1991, pp. 69-76.Harte J. (2002): Toward a synthesis of the Newtonian and Darwinian worldviews. Physics Today, 55(10): 29-37. Hawes R. S. (1939): The flood factor in the ecology of caves. Journal of Animal Ecology, 8(1): 1-5.Howarth F. G. (1993): High-stress subterranean habitats and evolutionary change in cave-inhabiting arthropods. American Naturalists, 142: S65-S77.Jancin M. (1999): Role of cave information in environmental site characterization. Karst Water Institute Special Publication, 5: 213-221.Kent D. M. (2001): Applied Wetlands Science and Technology. 2nd ed., CRC Press, Boca Ratom, USA.Milanović P. (2002): The environmental impacts of human activities and engineering constructions in karst regions. Episodes, 25: 13-21.Palandačić A., Bonacci O., Snoj A. (2012): Molecular data as a possible tool for tracing in karst environment: example of Delminichthys adspersus in Dinaric karst system. Ecohydrology, 5(6): 791-797.Soulsby C., Tetzlaff D., Rodgers P., Dunn S. M., Waldron S. (2006): Runoff processes, stream water and controlling landscape characteristics in a mesoscale catchment: an initial evolution. Journal of Hydrology, 325: 197-221.Zalewski M. (2002): Ecohydrology - the use of ecological and hydrological processes for sustainable management of water resources. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 47: 823-832.Žganec K., Gottstein S. (2009): The river before damming: distribution and ecological notes on the endemic species Echinogammarus cari (Amphipoda: Gammaridae) in the Dobra River and its tributaries, Croatia. Aquatic Ecology, 43(1): 105-115.Waltham T., Bell F., Culshaw, M. (2005): Sinkholes and Subsidence - Karst and Cavernous Rocks in Engineering and Construction. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.WCD (World Commission on Dams) (2000): Dams and Development. World Commission on Dams, Cape Town, South Africa.

38

Mostarsko blato, 18 January 2010 (Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby)


39


Summary

The karst poljes of the Dinarides and, in particular, in Bosnia

and Herzegovina are the subject of long-lasting and regular

floods which characterize the habitat conditions of these

unique landscapes. The present study tries to summarize

the potential flooding situation of the karst poljes in

Bosnia and Herzegovina for highlighting the most sensible

habitat areas and to identify the potential flood risk for

adjacent settlements and infrastructure. Because few and

very scattered data, in particular hydrological data, are

currently available, the applied approach is based on the

freely available ASTER2 elevation model, documentations

of flood events from the field and secondary information,

such as historic maps.

Sažetak

Kraška polja Dinarida, a posebno ona u Bosni i Hercegovini,

su podložna redovnim dugotrajnim poplavama koje

su karakteristične za uslove staništa ovih jedinstvenih

krajolika. Ovaj rad nastoji prikazati potencijalnu situaciju

kraških polja u Bosni i Hercegovini kada su u pitanju

poplave, da bi se naglasila najosjetljivija staništa i

identificirao potencijalni rizik od poplava za susjedna

naselja i infrastrukturu. Zbog malog broja podataka,

posebno hidroloških, pristup je baziran na slobodno

dostupnom ASTER2 modelu, terenskim podacima o

poplavama i sekundarnim izvorima podataka, kao što su

povijesne karte.

Keywords: flood extent, flood water depth, karst polje

landscapes, Bosnia-Herzegovina

Flooding analysis of the karst poljes in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Ulrich Schwarz

FLUVIUS - Floodplain Ecology and River Basin Management, Hetzgasse 22/7, A - 1030 Vienna, Austria; E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction

The Dinarides’ karst poljes in Bosnia-Herzegovina

are subject to regular and long-lasting floods which

characterize the habitat conditions and land use patterns

since centuries. The present Euronatur study tried to

summarize the potential flooding situation in the karst

poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina with the aim to highlighting

the ecologically most sensible habitat areas by using a

digital elevation model, high resolution satellite data of

land use and main habitat types and visual data on floods,

collected over the last 10 years.

Materials and approach

The main goal of the present study was to identify the

area and extent of floods in the more or less frequently

and regularly flooded karst poljes in the Dinaric Mountains

in Bosnia-Herzegovina. While flooding is strongly based

on underground filling and release, including cave springs

and ponors, the hydrological conditions and functioning

of flooding in the karst poljes are basically known (e.

g. Bonacci 1987). However, flood behavior, occurrence,

duration and magnitudes are highly differentiated.

Because, currently, only very scattered hydrological data

and information on the occurrence and extent of floods are

available, the approach which was applied for the present

study, is based on the freely available ASTER2 elevation

model (ASTER GDEM v2 2011), high resolution satellite

images on land use and habitats, documentations of

floods from the field and secondary information, such as

topographical and historical maps.

In a first major analysis step elevation data, derived from

ASTER 2 data, were evaluated. Aside of some limitations,

like resolution and the visualization of elevation artifacts,

the ASTER 2 data set currently constitutes the most

40

Fig. 1: Example Mostarsko Blato: The rather huge and frequently flooded karst polje (3,314 ha) is fed by the Lišitca River and by underground water sources which fill the polje like a “bath tube”, before the water is running through the underground into the Neretva River valley through the 10 km long Jasenica River, 200 m below the surface of the polje (Photo: Borut Stumberger).


41


elaborated digital elevation model which is freely available.

Basically, ASTER 2 elevation information for the rather flat

surfaces of the karst poljes which are mainly covered by

low grassland vegetation, with an estimated accuracy of

30 x 30 m² per pixel and a high accuracy of 2 - 5 m proved

to be useful for analysis. Calculating the model for larger

areas of the poljes differing altitude information, such as

forests or infrastructure, were rather good recognizable

and, consequently, excluded from flood area calculations.

In the case that surrounding areas are deeper and the proof

by satellite images and maps was given, these areas were

assumed as “flooded”, e. g. flooded forests. All calculations

were done in 1 m steps and for better visualization later

aggregated to larger classes.

In a second run of the analysis resulting elevation maps were

directly overlaid with land use/habitat information which

are available by free satellite images such as Google and

Bing maps (cf. former experiences and systematic habitat

classifications by Spot data in the same geographical area

in Schwarz 2010). The resulting overlays indicated some

changes to already existing general outlines of karst poljes

by Stumberger (2010) and thus improved the delimitation

of many karst poljes from surrounding areas. Higher

terrain which is hosting dry vegetation, could be excluded

from “current”, but in most cases not from “potentially”

flooded areas.

Additionally, in a third step a review of raw field data on

flood events in the poljes was prepared. Unfortunately,

existing documentation on the flooding of the karst poljes

is rather poor. However, at least for some localities, local

people have good long-lasting experiences of average

and catastrophic flood events. In particular, the current

Euronatur photo documentation (Euronatur 2000 - 2011)

was helpful to improve the analysis for some poljes.

Based on the results of the previous analyses, in a last step

the flood outlines for individual karst poljes were assessed.

The final flood outlines were prepared regarding:

• Current maximum flood outline, proved by field

documentation: Unfortunately, it is almost

impossible to define return intervals, but in the

best case the current maximum flood outline

should represent the “maximum flood outline

in the last century”, i. e. an approximately 100

year event as it is usual for the definition of

river flood discharge.

• Maximum potential flood outline: Without

considering any flood protection dikes or

similar infrastructure, like canals, the potential

outline of floods is exclusively based on the

elevation model by allowing a certain buffer of

2 - 10 m in terrain height. As mentioned above

for the current flood outline, it is impossible

to define return intervals, but the potential

outline should represent the multi-century

flood outline, similar to the definition of

“morphological floodplains” for rivers which

means the maximum potential extent of

flooding.

Results

All 57 karst poljes in Bosnia-Herzegovina which were

assessed for the present study, are situated between 5

and 1,180 m a.s.l. They are often connected by underground

water courses and range in size from 30 up to 40,000 ha,

with a mean of some 2,500 ha. In most cases flooding

occurs in the winter and spring seasons and can take

from several days to three months. Flood water levels,

ranging from 1 - 40 m, are highly differentiated. Almost all

poljes are more or less feed by underground water (karst

springs) or by partially intermittent karst rivers which

show significant discharges during the flood season. The

release of water is mostly based on ponors (sink holes) and

groundwater, and seldom, but only partially, by surface

discharge.

Out of the total of 57 karst poljes which represent a total

area of 152,574 ha, 37 poljes (67,507 ha) are presumably

regularly flooded. Additionally, in nine more poljes at least

potential flooding can be expected. Thus, only 10 of all

karst poljes in Bosnia-Herzegovina (17,5 %) are mostly dry

and the overall maximum potential for flooding amounts

at 80,261 ha.

Out of the total of 57 karst poljes which represent a total area of 152,574 ha, 37 poljes (67,507 ha) are presumably regularly flooded.

42

Fig. 2: Overview on the current and potential extent of floods in the karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Karst poljes without fillers lie in Croatia.


43


Conclusions

The present first and rapid analysis of the current and

potential extent of floods which by encompassing the karst

poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina covered a relatively large

area, was prepared with a commonly used methodology

to approximate potential flooding in the polje landscape,

mainly by analyzing the elevation model, in combination

with field documentation of flood events within the last

10 years and various other sources. For many karst poljes

the results clearly indicate the importance of flooding.

Therefore, the water sources of the poljes should be used

very carefully and hydro-engineering must be restricted

to structural measures which are absolutely necessary for

flood protection of infrastructure and settlements.

For further analyses hydrological data which will allow

evaluating flood events, returning intervals and flood

durations as important factors of karst hydrology and the

ecological functioning of the habitats of the poljes, are

needed. The karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina represent

an integral part of the “Blue Heart of Europe” of the Balkan

rivers which are closely linked to floodplains and river

flooding (Schwarz 2012) as well as stepping stones within

the “Adriatic Flyway” for migratory birds (Schwarz 2010).

References

ASTER GDEM v2 data (2011): http://gdem.ersdac.jspacesystems.or.jp/index.jsp (Date of access: January 2013).Bonacci O. (1987): Karst Hydrology - With Special Reference to the Dinaric Karst. Springer, Berlin & Heidelberg.Euronatur (2000 - 2010): Karst Polje Photo Documentation, prepared by Martin Schneider-Jacoby and Borut Stumberger. Unpubl. database, Euronatur, Radolfzell.Schwarz U. (2010): Habitat mapping of the Livanjsko Polje (BA), the Neretva Delta (HR, BA) and Lake Skadar-Shkoder (ME, AL). In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M., Stumberger B. (eds.): Adriatic Flyway - Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. Euronatur, Radolfzell; pp. 79 - 87.Schwarz U. (2012): Outstanding Balkan River Landscapes – A Basis for Wise Development Decisions. Unpubl. report, ECA Watch Austria/Euronatur Germany/MAVA Switzerland, 150 pp. (101 pp. Annex „River Catalogue“), Vienna.Stumberger B. (2010): A classification of karst poljes in the Dinarides and their significance for waterbird conservation. In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M., Stumberger B. (eds.), Adriatic Flyway - Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. Euronatur, Radolfzell; pp. 69 - 78.

44

Silene sendtneri Boiss (Photo: Dubravka Šoljan)


45


Floristic values of the karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Sabaheta Abadžić1 & Nermina Sarajlić2

1 National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Zmaja od Bosne 3, BA-71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina; E-mail: [email protected] Ornithological Society „Naše ptice“ Semira Frašte 6, BA-71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina; E-mail: [email protected]

Summary

In the past century, there was a great interest in studying the

flora of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The results of field studies

that have been obtained during several decades indicate

that the karst poljes have the highest biodiversity and

species richness in all Bosnia and Herzegovina. This paper

presents the list of plant species documented in literature

sources and during field surveys conducted during the April

2012 - July 2013 period within the „Karst Poljes of Bosnia

and Herzegovina – Wetlands of National and International

Importance“ project, and analyzes the floristic values of

eight karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Gatačko

polje, Nevesinjsko polje, Livanjsko polje, Mostarsko blato,

Duvanjsko polje, Glamočko polje, Kupreško polje and

Hutovo blato), according to criteria for the identification of

Important Plant Areas (IPA), in order to qualify some of these

areas, some of which have already been designated as IBA

and Ramsar sites, for another designation as conservation

areas of international importance.

Sažetak

U prošlom stoljeću je postojao veliki interes za proučavanje

flore Bosne i Hercegovine. Rezultati do kojih se došlo

višedecenijskim terenskim istraživanjima su pokazali da

kraška polja po svom florističkom i vegetacijskom sadržaju

predstavljaju svojevrstan dragulj jer se radi o neprocjenjivom

bogatstvu biodiverziteta na ovom prostoru. U radu je dat

spisak biljnih vrsta iz raspoloživih literaturnih izvora i vrsta

registrovanih tokom terenskih istraživanja u periodu april

2012 – juli 2013, u okviru projekta „Kraška polja Bosne

i Hercegovine – močvare od državnog i međunarodnog

značaja“, i analizirane florističke vrijednosti osam kraških

polja Bosne i Hercegovine (Gatačko polje, Nevesinjsko polje,

Livanjsko polje, Mostarsko blato, Duvanjsko polje, Glamočko

polje, Kupreško polje i Hutovo blato) u skladu sa kriterijima

za identifikaciju područja značajnih za floru (Important Plant

Areas – IPA), da bi se ova područja, od kojih neka već imaju IBA

i Ramsar status, za još jednu međunarodno značajnu oznaku.

Keywords: Karst poljes, Bosnia-Herzegovina, plant

species, flora, Important Plant Area

Introduction

In his major work “Flora Bosne, Hercegovine i Novopazarskog

sandžaka” (Flora of Bosnia, Herzegovina and Sanjak of Novi

Pazar), the most prominent botanist researcher of the past

century, Dr. Günther Beck-Mannagetta (1856-1931) has listed

a number of plant species distributed in karst poljes. Exactly

60 years ago, in 1953, Dr. Hilda Ritter-Studnička started the

more intensive study of the flora and vegetation of the karst

poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Their results, and the data from

the scientific collection (herbarium) of the National Museum

of Bosnia-Herzegovina indicate that the karst poljes have the

highest biodiversity and species richness in the entire country.

The aim of this paper is to give an overview of the floristic

values of several karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina (Gatačko

polje, Nevesinjsko polje, Livanjsko polje, Mostarsko blato,

Duvanjsko polje, Glamočko polje, Kupreško polje and Hutovo

blato), and to analyze the present status of the flora according

to criteria for the identification of Important Plant Areas (IPA),

in order to qualify karst poljes, some of which have already been

designated as IBA and Ramsar sites, for another designation

as conservation areas of international importance.

Materials and methods

The field work was conducted within Euronatur’s “Karst

poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina – Wetlands of National

46

and International Importance” Project between April 2012

and July 2013. Most plants were identified in situ, using field

keys for determination (Domac 2002). Some specimens

were brought to the laboratory of the National Museum of

Bosnia and Herzegovina, for identification with the help of

magnifying glasses and comparison with specimens from

the scientific collection “Herbarium of the National Museum

of Bosnia and Herzegovina”. Fieldwork was conducted in a

number of localities in a total of 20 karst poljes in Bosnia-

Herzegovina: Bjelajsko polje, Dabarsko polje, Dugo polje,

Duvanjsko polje, Fatničko polje, Gatačko polje, Glamočko

Family Species Common name Duvanjsko polje

Gatačko polje

Glamočko polje

Hutovo blato

Kupreško polje

Livanjsko polje

Mostarsko blato

Neve- sinjsko

polje

Equisetaceae Equisetum hyemale L. Rough Horsetail X X XEquisetaceae Equisetum limosum L. Water Horsetail X X XEquisetaceae Equisetum palustre L. Marsh Horsetail X XThelypteridaceae Thelypteris palustris Schott Marsh Fern XPolypodiaceae Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn Bracken Fern X XCupressaceae Juniperus communis L. Common JuniperBetulaceae Betula pendula Roth. Silver Birch XBetulaceae Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. Common Alder XBetulaceae Corylus avellana L. Common Hazel X X XBetulaceae Ostrya carpinifolia Scop. Hop Hornbeam XBetulaceae Carpinus betulus L. Common Hornbeam XBetulaceae Carpinus orientalis Mill. Oriental Hornbeam XFagaceae Quercus conferta Kit. Hungarian OakFagaceae Quercus lanuginosa (Lam.) Thuill. Pubescent OakFagaceae Quercus robur L. Pedunculate Oak X XFagaceae Quercus trojana Webb. Macedonian Oak XSalicaceae Populus tremula L. Quaking Aspen X XSalicaceae Populus nigra L. Black Poplar XSalicaceae Salix alba L. White Willow X X X XSalicaceae Salix cinerea L. Gray Willow X X X X X XSalicaceae Salix incana Schrank Elaeagnus willow XSalicaceae Salix pentandra L. Laurel Willow X X XSalicaceae Salix purpurea L. Purple Willow X X X XSalicaceae Salix repens L. var. rosmarinifolia (L.) W.Gr. Creeping Willow X X XUlmaceae Ulmus campestris L. Field Elm XUlmaceae Ulmus laevis Pall. White Elm XSantalaceae Thesium intermedium Schrad. Flaxleaf X X XPolygonaceae Rumex acetosa L. Common Sorrel X X X XPolygonaceae Rumex acetosella L. Red Sorrel X X X XPolygonaceae Rumex conglomeratus Murray Clustered Dock X X XPolygonaceae Rumex crispus L. Curled Sorrel X X X X X XPolygonaceae Rumex hydrolapathum Huds. Water Dock X XPolygonaceae Rumex patientia L. Patience Dock X XPolygonaceae Rumex pulcher L. Fiddle Dock XPolygonaceae Rumex sanguineus L. Red-veined Dock XPolygonaceae Polygonum amphibium L. f. natans Mch. Water Knotweed X X XPolygonaceae Polygonum amphibium L. f. terrestris Leers Water Knotweed X X X XPolygonaceae Polygonum bellardi All. Narrowleaf Knotweed XPolygonaceae Polygonum hydropiper (L.) Delabre Water-pepper XPolygonaceae Polygonum aviculare L. Common Knotgrass XPolygonaceae Polygonum mite Schrank Tasteless Water-pepper XPolygonaceae Reynoutria japonica Houtt Japanese KnotweedPolygonaceae Polygonum bistorta L. Meadow Bistort, Adderwort X X XPolygonaceae Polygonum persicaria L. Spotted Ladysthumb X X X XPolygonaceae Polygonum tomentosum Schrk Curlytop Knotweed X X XChenopodiaceae Chenopodium album L. White Goosefoot X XChenopodiaceae Chenopodium glaucum L. Oak-leaved Goosefoot XChenopodiaceae Chenopodium murale L. Nettle-leaved Goosefoot XChenopodiaceae Chenopodium polyspermum L. Many-seeded Goosefoot XChenopodiaceae Amaranthus retroflexus L. Common Amaranth XChenopodiaceae Atriplex latifolia Wahlenb Wide-leaved Orache XEuphorbiaceae Euphorbia chamaesyce L. var. massiliensis Thellg. Prostrate Spurge XEuphorbiaceae Euphorbia cyparissias L. Cypress Spurge XEuphorbiaceae Euphorbia dulcis L. Sweet Spurge XEuphorbiaceae Euphorbia exigua L. Dwarf Spurge X XEuphorbiaceae Euphorbia falcata L. Sickle Spurge XEuphorbiaceae Euphorbia helioscopia L. Sun Spurge X XEuphorbiaceae Euphorbia lucida Waldst. & Kit. Shining Spurge X XEuphorbiaceae Euphorbia palustris L. Marsh Spurge X X XEuphorbiaceae Euphorbia spinosa L. Spiny Spurge XEuphorbiaceae Euphorbia villosa Waldst. & Kit. Hairy Spurge X XCelastraceae Euonymus europaeus L. Common Spindle XCaryophyllaceae Herniaria glabra L. Smooth Rupturewort X X X X

Tab. 1: List of the plant species found in eight karst poljes in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

polje, Hutovo blato, Imotsko polje, Kupreško polje, Livanjsko

polje, Lukavačko polje, Lušci polje, Nevesinjsko polje, Medeno

polje, Mostarsko blato, and in Petrovačko, Popovo, Rakitno

and Rudo polje. The data which were collected during field

surveys, have been completed with the data from the

available literature sources (Abadžić 2007, Jasprica & Carić

2002, Milanović & Kotrošan 2012, Ritter-Studnička 1954, 1972,

1973, 1974; Ritter-Studnička & Grgić 1971). This paper presents

the results for eight selected poljes, i. e. Duvanjsko polje,

Gatačko polje, Glamočko polje, Hutovo blato, Kupreško polje

Livanjsko polje, Mostarsko blato and Nevesinjsko polje.


47



Gatačko polje

Glamočko polje

Hutovo blato

Kupreško polje

Livanjsko polje

Mostarsko blato

Neve- sinjsko

poljeCaryophyllaceae Herniaria incana Lam. Gray Rupturewort X X X XCaryophyllaceae Corrigiola litoralis L. Strapwort XCaryophyllaceae Spergularia rubra (L.) Presl. Purple Sandspurry XCaryophyllaceae Scleranthus annuus L. Knawel, German Knotgrass X XCaryophyllaceae Scleranthus uncinatus Schur. Knawel XCaryophyllaceae Moenchia mantica (L.) Bartl. Upright Chickweed X X X XCaryophyllaceae Cerastium brachypetalum var. glandulosum Frenzl. Gray Chickweed XCaryophyllaceae Cerastium brachypetalum Desp. var. tauricum Gray Chickweed XCaryophyllaceae Cerastium caespitosum Gilib. Mouse-Ear Chickweed X X XCaryophyllaceae Cerastium semidecandrum L. Five-stamened Chickweed X XCaryophyllaceae Cerastium sylvaticum Waldst. et Kit. Wood Chickweed XCaryophyllaceae Stellaria graminea L. Common Stitchwort X X X XCaryophyllaceae Stellaria holostea L. Greater Stitchwort XCaryophyllaceae Tunica saxifraga Scop. Tunic Flower X X X XCaryophyllaceae Dianthus armeria L. Deptford Pink XCaryophyllaceae Dianthus cruentus Gris. f. baldacci (Degen) Beck Feld Pink X XCaryophyllaceae Dianthus deltoides L. Maiden Pink X X X XCaryophyllaceae Dianthus sanguineus Vis. Dark-Red Pink X X X XCaryophyllaceae Dianthus superbus Vis. Large Pink, Fringed Pink XCaryophyllaceae Saponaria officinalis L. Common Soapwort XCaryophyllaceae Saponaria officinalis L. f. alluvionum Dum. Common Soapwort X XCaryophyllaceae Vaccaria grandiflora (Fisch) Janb. et Spach Cow Soapwort XCaryophyllaceae Silene otites (L.) Wibel Spanish Catchfly X X XCaryophyllaceae Silene sendtneri Boiss. Sendtner's Campion XCaryophyllaceae Silene vulgaris (Mch.) Garcke Bladder Campion X X X X XCaryophyllaceae Silene vulgaris (Mch.) Garcke var. colorata Hampe Bladder Campion XCaryophyllaceae Melandrium album (Mill.) Garcke White Campion X XCaryophyllaceae Lychnis flos-cuculi L. Ragged Robin X X X X XCaryophyllaceae Viscaria vulgaris Bernh. Sticky Catchfly X X XAristolochiaceae Aristolochia clematitis L. European Birthwort XAristolochiaceae Aristolochia rotunda L. Round-leaved Birthwort X XHydrocharitaceae Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L. Frogbit XRanunculaceae Anemone nemorosa L. Wood Anemone X XRanunculaceae Caltha palustris L. Marsh Marigold X X X X X XRanunculaceae Caltha laeta Sch. Marsh Marigold XRanunculaceae Nigella damascena L. Love In A Mist XRanunculaceae Delphinium consolida L. Royal Knight's-Spur XRanunculaceae Clematis flammula L. Fragrant Virgin's Bower XRanunculaceae Clematis recta L. Ground Virgin's Bower XRanunculaceae Clematis vitalba L. Traveller's JoyRanunculaceae Clematis viticella L. Virgin's Bower X X XRanunculaceae Thalictrum aquilegifolium L. Greater Meadow Rue X X XRanunculaceae Thalictrum flavum L. Yellow Meadow Rue X X X X X XRanunculaceae Thalictrum flexuosum Bernh. Lesser Meadow Rue X XRanunculaceae Thalictrum simplex L. Small Meadow Rue XRanunculaceae Ranunculus acer L. Meadow Buttercup X X X X X X XRanunculaceae Ranunculus arvensis L. Corn Buttercup X XRanunculaceae Ranunculus auricomus L. Goldilocks Buttercup X X X X XRanunculaceae Ranunculus circinatus Sibth. Fan-leaved Water-crowfoot XRanunculaceae Ranunculus ficaria L. Lesser Celandine XRanunculaceae Ranunculus flammula L. Lesser Spearwort X X X X XRanunculaceae Ranunculus flammula L. var. reptans Rchb. Lesser Spearwort X XRanunculaceae Ranunculus lanuginosus L. Wooly Buttercup XRanunculaceae Ranunculus lingua L. Greater Spearwort X X XRanunculaceae Ranunculus neapolitanus Ten. Bulbous ButtercupRanunculaceae Ranunculus ophioglossifolius Vill. Badgeworth Buttercup X XRanunculaceae Ranunculus paucistamineus Tsch. Thread-leaved Water Crowfoot X X X X XRanunculaceae Ranunculus repens L. Creeping Buttercup X X X X X X XRanunculaceae Ranunculus sardous Cr. Hairy Buttercup X X X X X XRanunculaceae Ranunculus velutinus Ten. Velvet ButtercupRanunculaceae Ranunculus sceleratus L. Celery-leaved Buttercup XRanunculaceae Trollius europaeus L. Globe Flower XRanunculaceae Helleborus multifidus Vis. Early Green Hellebore X X XNymphaceae Nuphar luteum (L.) Sm. Yellow Waterlily X X XNymphaceae Nymphaea alba L White Waterlily X XNymphaceae Nymphoides peltata (S.G. Gmel.) Kuntze Fringed Waterlily XPapaveraceae Papaver rhoeas L. Field Poppy X X X XPapaveraceae Fumaria rostellata Knaf. Fumitory XPapaveraceae Fumaria vaillantii Lois. Few-flowered Fumitory XBrassicaceae Lepidium graminifolium L. Grassleaf Pepperweed XBrassicaceae Sisymbrium officinale (L.) Scop. Hedge Mustard XBrassicaceae Aethionema saxatile (L.) Desv. Golden-tuft Madwort XBrassicaceae Nasturtium officinale R. Br. Watercress X XBrassicaceae Barbarea vulgaris R. Br. Bittercress X X X XBrassicaceae Rorippa amphibia (L.) Bess. Great Yellowcress X X X XBrassicaceae Rorippa lippizensis (Wulfen) Rchb. Yellowcress X X X XBrassicaceae Rorippa sylvestris (L.) Bess. Creeping Yellowcress X X X X X X XBrassicaceae Cardamine pratensis L. Cuckoo Flower X X X X XBrassicaceae Arabis hirsuta (L.) Scop. Hairy Rockcress XBrassicaceae Arabis glabra (L.) Bernh Tower Mustard XBrassicaceae Berteroa mutabilis (Vent.) DC Roadside False Madwort X XBrassicaceae Sinapis arvensis L. Wild Mustard X X XCucurbitaceae Ecbalium elaterium (L.) A.Rich Exploding Cucumber XCistaceae Helianthemum nummularium (L.) Mill. Common Rockrose X X XViolaceae Viola canina Borb. Dog Violet XViolaceae Viola reichenbachiana Jord. ex Boreau Early Dog-violet XViolaceae Viola saxatilis F.W. Schmidt Mountain Violet X X XViolaceae Viola stagnina Kit. Fen Violet XDroseraceae Drosera rotundifolia L. Round-leaved Sundew X

continuation of List from page 46

48


Gatačko polje

Glamočko polje

Hutovo blato

Kupreško polje

Livanjsko polje

Mostarsko blato

Neve- sinjsko

poljeHypericaceae Hypericum barbatum Jacq. Bearded St. John's Wort XHypericaceae Hypericum perforatum L. Common St. John's Wort X XHypericaceae Hypericum quadrangulum L. Square St. John's Wort XMalvaceae Hibiscus trionum L. Flower-of-an-Hour XMalvaceae Abutilon theophrasti Med. Velvetleaf X XMalvaceae Malva moschata L. Musk Mallow XMalvaceae Malva parviflora L. Small-flowered Mallow XMalvaceae Malva sylvestris L. Common Mallow XMalvaceae Althaea hirsuta L. Rough Marsh Mallow XMalvaceae Althaea officinalis L. Marsh Mallow X X XLinaceae Linum angustifolium Huds. Pale Flax XLinaceae Linum catharticum L. Fairy Flax X X X X XLinaceae Linum flavum L. Golden Flax X XLinaceae Linum hirsutum L. Hairy Flax XLinaceae Linum montanum Schleich. ex DC Mountain Flax XLinaceae Linum tenuifolium L. Slim-leaved Flax X X X XLinaceae Radiola linoides Roth. Allseed XGeraniaceae Geranium dissectum L. Cut-leaved Cranesbill X X XGeraniaceae Geranium molle L. Dove's-foot Cranesbill XGeraniaceae Geranium robertianum L. Herb RobertGeraniaceae Geranium sanguineum L. Bloody Cranesbill X XRutaceae Ruta patavina L. Rue of Padua X X X XPolygalaceae Polygala oxyptera Rchb. var. variegata Frbg. & Sag. Milkwort XPolygalaceae Polygala oxyptera Rchb. f. collina Rchb. Milkwort X X XPolygalaceae Polygala comosa Schkuhr Tufted Milkwort XAceraceae Acer campestre L. Field Maple X XAceraceae Acer monspessulanum L. Montpellier Maple XAceraceae Acer tataricum L. Tatar Maple XRhamnaceae Frangula alnus Mill. Glossy Buchthorn X XRhamnaceae Rhamnus cathartica L. Common Buckthorn XRhamnaceae Rhamnus intermedia Steud. et Hochst Medium Buchthorn XRhamnaceae Frangula rupestris (Scop.) Schur. Rock Buckthorn X XRhamnaceae Paliurus spina-christi Mill. Christ's Thorn X XAnacardiaceae Pistacia terebinthus L. Turpentine Tree XPunicaceae Punica granatum L. Pomegranate XCrassulaceae Sedum acre L. Goldmoss Stonecrop X X X XCrassulaceae Sedum album L. White StonecropCrassulaceae Sedum boloniense Lois. Tasteless Stonecrop X XSaxifragaceae Parnassia palustris L. Grass of Parnassius X XRosaceae Filipendula hexapetala Gilib. Dropwort X X X X X XRosaceae Filipendula ulmaria (L.) Maxim Meadowsweet X X X X XRosaceae Fragaria moschata Duch. Musk Strawberry XRosaceae Fragaria vesca L. Wild Strawberry XRosaceae Potentilla anserina L. Silverweed Cinquefoil X X XRosaceae Potentilla argentea L. Silvery Cinquefoi X X XRosaceae Potentilla erecta (L.) Rauschel Common Tormentil X X X XRosaceae Potentilla palustris (L.) Scop. Marsh Cinquefoil XRosaceae Potentilla reptans L. Creeping Cinquefoil X X X X XRosaceae Geum rivale L. Water Avens X XRosaceae Geum urbanum L. Wood Avens XRosaceae Agrimonia eupatoria L. Common Agrimony X X X XRosaceae Agrimonia odorata Mill. f. glandulosa Simonk Creeping Grovebur X XRosaceae Agrimonia procera Walhr. Fragrant Agrimony XRosaceae Sanguisorba minor Scop. Salad Burnet X X X X X X XRosaceae Sanguisorba officinalis L. Great Burnet X X X X X XRosaceae Rosa arvensis Huds. Field RoseRosaceae Rosa canina L. Dog Rose XRosaceae Rosa gallica L. Gallic Rose X X XRosaceae Rosa spinosissima L. Burnet Rose XRosaceae Pyrus amygdaliformis Vill. Almond-leaved PearRosaceae Pyrus communis L. Common Pear X X X XRosaceae Pyrus pyraster (L.) Borkh. Wild Pear XRosaceae Rubus caesius L. Dewberry XRosaceae Rubus dalmaticus (Ser.) Guss. Dalmatian Raspberry XRosaceae Crataegus monogyna Jacq. Common Hawthorn X X X X XRosaceae Prunus mahaleb L. Mahaleb Cherry XRosaceae Prunus spinosa L. Blackthorn X X X XRosaceae Alchemilla xanthochlora Rothm. Lady's Mantle XAraliaceae Hydrocotyle vulgaris L. Marsh Pennywort XAraliaceae Hedera helix L. Ivy XVitaceae Vitis vinifera L. ssp. sylvestris (Gmel.) Hegi Wild Grape XCannabaceae Celtis australis L. European Nettle Tree XCannabaceae Humulus lupulus L. Hop XFabaceae Petteria ramentacea Webb & Berthel. Dalmatian Laburnum XFabaceae Astragallus illyricus Bernh. Illirian Milkvetch X X XFabaceae Astragallus gremlii Burn. Gremli’s MilkvetchFabaceae Glycyrrhiza echinata L. Wild Liquorice XFabaceae Vicia grandiflora Scop. Large Yellow Vetch X XFabaceae Vicia grandiflora Scop. var. scopoliana Koch Large Yellow Vetch XFabaceae Vicia hirsuta (L.) Gray. Hairy VetchFabaceae Vicia onobrychoides L. False Sainfoin X X XFabaceae Vicia sativa L. Common VetchFabaceae Vicia striata M.B. Striped Vetch X X XFabaceae Vicia tenuifolia Roth. Fine-leaved Vetch X X X XFabaceae Vicia tetrasperma (L.) Schreb. Smooth Vetch X XFabaceae Vicia cracca L. Bird Vetch X XFabaceae Lens culinaris Med. Lentil XFabaceae Lathyrus aphaca L. Yellow Vetchling X X X XFabaceae Lathyrus niger (L.) Bernh. Black Pea X



49



Gatačko polje

Glamočko polje

Hutovo blato

Kupreško polje

Livanjsko polje

Mostarsko blato

Neve- sinjsko

poljeFabaceae Lathyrus palustris L. Marsh Vetchling XFabaceae Lathyrus pannonicus (Jacq.) Garcke Felted Vetchling X X X X X XFabaceae Lathyrus pratensis L. Meadow Vetchling X XFabaceae Lathyrus tuberosus L. Tuberous Vetchling X X X X XFabaceae Lathyrus latifolius L. Everlasting Sweet Pea XFabaceae Ononis antiquorum L. Rock Rest Harrow X XFabaceae Ononis hircina Jacq. Common Rest Harrow X XFabaceae Ononis spinosa L. Spiny Rest Harrow XFabaceae Trigonella corniculata L. Cultivated Fenugreek XFabaceae Medicago arabica (L.) Huds. Spotted Medick XFabaceae Medicago falcata L. Yellow-flowered Alfalfa X X X XFabaceae Medicago hispida Gaertn. Toothed MedickFabaceae Medicago lupulina L. Black Medick X X X X X XFabaceae Medicago minima (L.) Bartl. Small Medick X XFabaceae Medicago orbicularis (L.) Bartl. Button Medick XFabaceae Medicago prostrata Jacq. Prostrate Medick X XFabaceae Melilotus officinalis (L.) Desrs. Yellow Sweet Clover X X X XFabaceae Trifolium alpestre L. Owl Head Clover X XFabaceae Trifolium campestre Schreb. Hop Trefoil X X X X XFabaceae Trifolium dalmaticum Vis. Dalmatian Clover X XFabaceae Trifolium dubium Sibtth. Lesser Hop Trefoil X X X XFabaceae Trifolium fragiferum L. Strawberry Clover X X X X X X X XFabaceae Trifolium hybridum L. Alsike Clover X X X X X XFabaceae Trifolium incarnatum var. molinieri (Balb.) DC. Crimson Clover XFabaceae Trifolium lappaceum L. Burdock Clover XFabaceae Trifolium medium L. Zigzag Clover XFabaceae Trifolium montanum L. Mountain Clover X X X X X XFabaceae Trifolium ochroleucum Huds. Sulphur Clover X XFabaceae Trifolium patens Schreb. Hop Clover X X XFabaceae Trifolium pratense L. Red Clover, Purple Clover X X X X X X X XFabaceae Trifolium repens L. White Clover X X X X X X XFabaceae Trifolium resupinatum L. Reversed Clover XFabaceae Trifolium strictum L. Upright Clover XFabaceae Trifolium strepens Cr. Golden Clover X XFabaceae Dorycnium herbaceum Vill. Herbaceous Canary Clover X X X X XFabaceae Lotus anguistissimus L. Slender Bird's Foot Trefoil XFabaceae Lotus corniculatus L. Common Bird's Foot Trefoil X X X X X X XFabaceae Lotus tenuifolius L. Narrow Bird's Foot Trefoil X X X X X X XFabaceae Lotus uliginosus Schk. Marsh Bird's Foot Trefoil XFabaceae Anthyllis vulneraria L. Kidney Vetch X X X X XFabaceae Anthyllis illyrica Beck. Illyrian Kidney Vetch X XFabaceae Genista ovata Waldst. & Kit. Oval Broom XFabaceae Genista sagittalis L. Winged Broom X X X XFabaceae Genista tinctoria L. Dyer's Broom X XFabaceae Coronilla scorpioides (L.) Koch Annual Scorpion Vetch XFabaceae Coronilla varia L. Crown Vetch X X X X X XFabaceae Hippocrepis comosa L. Horseshoe Vetch X X X XFabaceae Onobrychis ocellata Beck n/a X XFabaceae Onobrychis viciifolia Scop. Common Sainfoin X X XLemnaceae Lemna minor L. Common Duckweed X XLythraceae Lythrum hyssopifolia L. Hyssop LoosestrifeLythraceae Lythrum salicaria L. Purple Loosestrife X X X X X XLythraceae Peplis portula L. Spatulaleaf Loosestrife XOenotheraceae Epilobium adnatum Gris. Square-stalked Willowherb XOenotheraceae Epilobium hirsutum L. Great Hairy Willowherb X X XOenotheraceae Epilobium palustre L. Marsh Willowherb X X XOenotheraceae Epilobium parviflorum Schreb. Smallflower Hairy Willowherb X X XHalorrhagidaceae Myriophyllum spicatum L. Eurasian Water Milfoil X X X XHalorrhagidaceae Myriophyllum verticillatum L. Whorled Water Milfoil X X XHippuridaceae Hippuris vulgaris L. Common Mare's Tail X XCallitrichaceae Callitriche palustris L. Water Starwort X X XCallitrichaceae Callitriche stagnatilis Scop. Pond Water Starwort XCornaceae Cornus sanguinea L. Common Dogwood X XCornaceae Cornus mas L. Cornelian CherryApiaceae Foeniculum vulgare Mill. Fennel XApiaceae Eryngium amethystinum L. Amethyst Sea Holly X X XApiaceae Eryngium campestre L. Field EryngoApiaceae Bupleurum aristatum Bartl. Thorow Wax X X X X XApiaceae Bupleurum lancifolium Hornem. Lanceleaf Thorow Wax XApiaceae Carum carvi L. Caraway X X XApiaceae Sium erectum Huds. Cut Leaf Water Parsnip X XApiaceae Sium latifolium L. Great Water Parsnip X X XApiaceae Oenanthe fistulosa L. Tubular Water Dropwort X X X XApiaceae Oenanthe silaifolia M.B. var. media Gris. Narrow-leaved Water Dropwort X X X X X XApiaceae Oenanthe aquatica (L.) Poir. Fine-leaved Water Dropwort XApiaceae Ferulago galbanifera Koch Giant Fennel XApiaceae Peucedanum oreoselinum (L.) Mch. Mountain Parsley XApiaceae Peucedanum palustre Mnch. Milk Parsley X XApiaceae Peucedanum coriaceum Rchb. Leather Parsley X X X X X XApiaceae Laserpitium latifolium L. Broad Leaved Sermountain X XApiaceae Laserpitium prutenicum L. Sermountain XApiaceae Daucus carota L. Wild Carrot X X XApiaceae Orlaya grandiflora (L.) Hoffm. White Lace Flower X X X X X X XApiaceae Anthriscus nemorosus M.B. Hedge Parsley XApiaceae Scandix pecten-veneris L. Venus' Comb X X XApiaceae Bifora radians M.B. Wild Bishop XApiaceae Tordylium apulum L. Mediterranean Hartwort XApiaceae Selinum carvifolia L. Milk Parsley XApiaceae Pimpinella major (L.) Huds. Burnet Saxifrage X


50


Gatačko polje

Glamočko polje

Hutovo blato

Kupreško polje

Livanjsko polje

Mostarsko blato

Neve- sinjsko

poljeApiaceae Smyrnium perfoliatum L. Perfoliate AlexandersPlumbaginaceae Plumbago europaea L. Common Leadwort XPlumbaginaceae Armeria canescens Host. Sea Pink X X XPrimulaceae Hottonia palustris L. Water Violet XPrimulaceae Cyclamen repandum Sm. Wavy-edged Cyclamen XPrimulaceae Primula vulgaris Huds. Primrose XPrimulaceae Lysimachia nummularia L. Creeping Jenny X X X X X X XPrimulaceae Lysimachia vulgaris L. Yellow Loosestrife X X X X XConvolvulaceae Convolvulus arvensis L. Field Bindweed X X X X X X XConvolvulaceae Convolvulus cantabricus L. Cantabrican Morning GloryConvolvulaceae Calystegia sepium (L.) R. Br. Larger Bindweed XCuscutaceae Cuscuta epithymum (L.) Murr. Dodder XSolanaceae Solanum dulcamara L. Bittersweet Nightshade X XBoraginaceae Symphytum tuberosum L. Tuberous Comfrey XBoraginaceae Heliotropium europaeum L. European Heliotrope XBoraginaceae Cynoglossum officinale L. Dog's Tongue XBoraginaceae Lappula echinata Gilib. Flat Spine Sheepburr XBoraginaceae Anchusa barrelieri (All.) Vitm. Barrelier's Bugloss X X XBoraginaceae Myosotis caespitosa Schultz. Tufted Forget-Me-Not X X X XBoraginaceae Myosotis caespitosa Schultz. f. glabriuscula Rouy. Tufted Forget-Me-Not XBoraginaceae Myosotis scorpioides L. Water Forget-Me-Not X XBoraginaceae Echium altissimum Jacq. Pale Bugloss X X XBoraginaceae Echium vulgare L. Viper's Bugloss X X XSamolaceae Samolus valerandi L. Water Cabbage XScrophulariaceae Verbascum nigrum L. Dark MulleinScrophulariaceae Verbascum pulverulentum Vill. Hoary Mullein X X XScrophulariaceae Verbascum thapsus L. Common MulleinScrophulariaceae Gratiola officinalis L. Common Hedgehyssop X X X X X X XScrophulariaceae Veronica anagallis-aquatica L. Water Speedwell X X X XScrophulariaceae Veronica anagalloides Guss. Marsh Speedwell X X XScrophulariaceae Veronica beccabunga L. Brooklime X X XScrophulariaceae Veronica jacquinii Baumg. Jacquin's SpeedwellScrophulariaceae Veronica officinalis L. Heath Speedwell XScrophulariaceae Veronica maritima L. Longleaf Speedwell X XScrophulariaceae Veronica orbiculata Kern. n/a X X X XScrophulariaceae Veronica poljensis Murb. n/a X X X XScrophulariaceae Veronica scutellata L. Marsh Speedwell X X X XScrophulariaceae Veronica serpyllifolia L. Thyme-leaved Speedwell X XScrophulariaceae Veronica spicata L. Spiked Speedwell X X XScrophulariaceae Veronica chamaedrys L. Germander Speedwell X XScrophulariaceae Euphrasia liburnica Wettst. Liburnian Eyebright XScrophulariaceae Euphrasia rostkoviana Hayne Red Eyebright XScrophulariaceae Euphrasia stricta Wolff ex J. F. Lehm. Drug Eyebright X XScrophulariaceae Rhinanthus major (Ehrh.) Rchb. Great Yellow Rattle X XScrophulariaceae Rhinanthus minor L. Little Yellow Rattle X X X X X X XScrophulariaceae Rhinanthus rumelicus Vel. Glandulous Yellow Rattle X XScrophulariaceae Rhinanthus serotinus (Schonh) Obomy Late-flowering Yellow Rattle XScrophulariaceae Pedicularis brachyodonta Schloss. et Vuk. Short-toothed Lousewort XScrophulariaceae Pedicularis palustris L. Marsh Lousewort XScrophulariaceae Melampyrum barbatum Waldst. & Kit. Bearded Cow Wheat XScrophulariaceae Melampyrum cristatum L. Crested Cow Wheat XScrophulariaceae Melampyrum pratense L. ssp. vulgatum (Pers.) Ronn Common Cow Wheat XLentibulariaceae Pinguicula vulgaris L. Common Butterwort X X XLentibulariaceae Utricularia vulgaris L. Common Bladderwort X X X XOrobanchaceae Orobanche alba Steph. White Broomrape X XOrobanchaceae Orobanche caryophyllacea Sm. Bedstraw Broomrape X XOrobanchaceae Orobanche reticulata Wallr. Thistle Broomrape X XVerbenaceae Verbena officinalis L. Common Vervain X X X XVerbenaceae Vitex agnus-castus L. Chaste Tree X XLamiaceae Ballota nigra L. Black Horehound XLamiaceae Lamium maculatum L. Spotted Dead-nettle XLamiaceae Ajuga chamaepitys (L.) Schreb. Yellow Bugle X XLamiaceae Ajuga genevensis L. Upright Bugle X X X XLamiaceae Teucrium chamaedrys L. Common Germander X X XLamiaceae Teucrium montanum L. Mountain Germander XLamiaceae Teucrium scordioides Schreb. Water Germander X XLamiaceae Teucrium scordium L. Wall Germander X X X X X XLamiaceae Teucrium polium L. Felty Germander X XLamiaceae Scutellaria altissima L.. Tall Skullcap X X XLamiaceae Scutellaria galericulata L. Marsh Skullcap X X X XLamiaceae Scutellaria hastifolia L. Spear-leaved SkullcapLamiaceae Nepeta pannonica L. Catmint X X XLamiaceae Prunella laciniata L. Cut-leaved Self-Heal X X X X XLamiaceae Prunella vulgaris L. Common Self-Heal X X X XLamiaceae Stachys annua L. Annual Yellow Woundwort X XLamiaceae Stachys germanica L. Downy Woundwort X X XLamiaceae Stachys palustris L. Marsh Woundwort XLamiaceae Stachys serotina (Host.) Fritsch Bishopwort X X X X XLamiaceae Salvia bertolonii Vis. Meadow Sage X X X X X XLamiaceae Salvia verticillata L. Lilac Sage X X XLamiaceae Satureja montana L. Winter Savory X X XLamiaceae Satureja subspicata Bartl. ex Vis Creeping Winter Savory XLamiaceae Lycopus exaltatus L. Tall Bugleweed XLamiaceae Lycopus europaeus L. European Bugleweed X X X XLamiaceae Thymus longicaulis Presl. Creeping Thyme X X X XLamiaceae Thymus striatus Vahl NeedleThyme XLamiaceae Mentha aquatica L. Water Mint X X X X XLamiaceae Mentha pulegium L. European Pennyroyal X X X X X XLamiaceae Marrubium incanum Desr. Silver Horehound X



51



Gatačko polje

Glamočko polje

Hutovo blato

Kupreško polje

Livanjsko polje

Mostarsko blato

Neve- sinjsko

poljeOnagraceae Ludwigia palustris (L.) Elliott Marsh Seedbox XGlobulariaceae Globularia willkommii Nym. Globe Daisy X X XPlantaginaceae Plantago altissima L. Tall Ribwort Plantain X X X XPlantaginaceae Plantago bellardii All. Hairy Plantain XPlantaginaceae Plantago carinata Schrad. Slim-leaved Plantain X X X X XPlantaginaceae Plantago lanceolata L. Ribwort Plantain X X X X XPlantaginaceae Plantago major L. Greater Plantain X X X X X X X XPlantaginaceae Plantago maritima L. Sea Plantain X X XPlantaginaceae Plantago media L. Hoary Plantain X X X X X XGentianaceae Centaurium pulchellum (Sw.) Druce Lesser Centaury X X XGentianaceae Centaurium umbellatum Gilib. Common Centaury X XGentianaceae Blackstonia serotina (Koch.) Beck Yellow Wort XGentianaceae Gentiana crispata Vis. Curled Dwarf Gentian XGentianaceae Gentiana crispata Vis. ssp. poljensis Rt. St. Curled Dwarf Gentian X XGentianaceae Gentiana pneumonanthe L. Marsh Gentian X X XGentianaceae Gentiana utriculosa L. Bladder Gentian X X X X X XMenyanthaceae Menyanthes trifoliata L. Buckbean X X X XOleaceae Phillyrea latifolia L. Broad-leaved Phillyrea XOleaceae Fraxinus angustifolia Vahl. Narrow-leaved Ash X XOleaceae Ligustrum vulgare L. Privet X X X X X X XRubiaceae Sherardia arvensis L. Blue Field Madder XRubiaceae Asperula cynanchica L. Squincywort XRubiaceae Galium boreale L. Northern Bedstraw X X XRubiaceae Galium cruciata (L.) Scop. Crosswort X X X XRubiaceae Galium divaricatum Lam. Lamarck's Bedstraw XRubiaceae Galium palustre L. Marsh Bedstraw X X X X X XRubiaceae Galium purpureum L. Purple Bedstraw X XRubiaceae Galium verum L. Yellow Bedstraw X X X X X X X XRubiaceae Galium mollugo L. Upright Bedstraw X XRubiaceae Galium aparine L. Stickywilly X XRubiaceae Galium corrudaefolium Vill. Bald Bedstraw XSambucaceae Sambucus ebulus L. Dwarf Elder XSambucaceae Sambucus nigra L. ElderCaprifoliaceae Viburnum lantana L. Wayfaring Tree X XCaprifoliaceae Viburnum opulus L. Snowball Tree XValerianaceae Valerianella dentata (L.) Poll. var. leiosperma Rchb. Lamb's Lettuce XValerianaceae Valeriana officinalis L. Valerian X X XDipsacaceae Dipsacus laciniatus L. Cutleaf TeaselDipsacaceae Succisella petteri (Kern. & Murb.) Beck n/a X X X X XDipsacaceae Succisa pratensis Mch. Devil's Bit Scabious X X X X XDipsacaceae Knautia arvensis (L.) Coult. Field Scabious X X X X XDipsacaceae Scabiosa canescens Waldst. & Kit. Fragrant Scabious X XDipsacaceae Scabiosa delminiana Abadžić Delminian Scabious X X XDipsacaceae Scabiosa gramuntia L. ssp. agrestis (W.K.) Sch. et Kell. n/a XDipsacaceae Scabiosa leucophylla Borb. White-leaved Scabious XCampanulaceae Campanula moesiaca Vel. n/a XCampanulaceae Campanula patula L. Spreading Bellflower X X X XCampanulaceae Campanula pyramidalis L. Chimney BellflowerCampanulaceae Campanula rapunculus L. Rampion X X XCampanulaceae Campanula trachelium L. Nettle-leaved Bellflower XCampanulaceae Campanula erinus L. Small Bellflower XCampanulaceae Edraianthus dalmaticus A. DC. Dalmatian Rockbell X X X XUrticaceae Urtica dioica L. Stinging Nettle XUrticaceae Parietaria judaica L. Spreading Pellitory XAsteraceae Eupatorium cannabinum L. Hemp-agrimony XAsteraceae Scolymus hispanicus L. Common Golden Thistle XAsteraceae Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronquist Horseweed XAsteraceae Carlina corymbosa L. Clustered Carline Thistle XAsteraceae Lapsana communis L. Common Nipplewort XAsteraceae Stenactis annua (L.) Nees Daisy FleabaneAsteraceae Sonchus oleraceus L. Common Sowthistle XAsteraceae Sonchus arvensis L. Corn Sow Thistle XAsteraceae Sonchus asper (L.) Hill. Prickly Sow Thistle XAsteraceae Arctium lappa L. Greater BurdockAsteraceae Bellis perennis L. Common Daisy XAsteraceae Micropus erectus L. Upright Cudweed XAsteraceae Filago minima (Sm.) Pers. Small Cudweed X XAsteraceae Antennaria dioica (L.) Gaertn. Mountain Everlasting X XAsteraceae Gnaphalium uliginosum L. Marsh Cudweed X XAsteraceae Inula britannica L. British Yellowhead X X X XAsteraceae Inula helenium L. Elecampane XAsteraceae Inula hirta L. Yellow Pheasant's Eye X XAsteraceae Inula oculus-christi L. Hairy Fleabane X XAsteraceae Inula salicina L. Willowleaf Yellowhead XAsteraceae Pulicaria vulgaris Gaertn. Small Fleabane XAsteraceae Xanthium spinosum L. Spiny Cocklebur X XAsteraceae Xanthium strumarium L. Common Cocklebur X X X XAsteraceae Bidens cernuus L. Nodding Beggarticks X X XAsteraceae Bidens tripartitus L. Three Lobe Beggarticks X XAsteraceae Anthemis arvensis L. Corn Chamomile XAsteraceae Achillea collina Beck. ex Rchb. Yarrow XAsteraceae Achillea millefolium L. Common Yarrow X X XAsteraceae Achillea nobilis L. Noble Yarrow XAsteraceae Achillea pannonica Scheele Pannonian Yarrow X XAsteraceae Achillea ptarmica L. Sneezeweed XAsteraceae Chrysanthemum tenuifolium Kit. n/a XAsteraceae Leucanthemum vulgare Lam. Ox Eye Daisy X X X X X X XAsteraceae Artemisia abrotanum L. Southern Wormwood X X XAsteraceae Artemisia absinthium L. Absinthe Wormwood X


52


Gatačko polje

Glamočko polje

Hutovo blato

Kupreško polje

Livanjsko polje

Mostarsko blato

Neve- sinjsko

poljeAsteraceae Artemisia lobelii All. Camphor Wormwood X XAsteraceae Artemisia campestris L. Field Wormwood XAsteraceae Artemisia vulgaris L. MugwortAsteraceae Senecio barbareifolius Wimm. et Grab. Ragwort X XAsteraceae Senecio jacobea L. Tansy Ragwort XAsteraceae Senecio paludosus L. Fen Ragwort X X X XAsteraceae Senecio vulgaris L. Common Groundsel XAsteraceae Carduus acanthoides L. Spiny Plumeless Thistle X X XAsteraceae Carduus candicans Waldst. & Kit. Hoary Plumeless Thistle X XAsteraceae Carduus nutans L. Nodding Plumeless Thistle X XAsteraceae Carduus pycnocephalus L. Italian Thistle XAsteraceae Cirsium acaule L. Dwarf Thistle X XAsteraceae Cirsium arvense Scop. Creeping Thistle X X X XAsteraceae Cirsium palustre (L.) Scop. Marsh Thistle XAsteraceae Cirsium rivulare (Jacq.) All. Brook Thistle X X XAsteraceae Cirsium oleraceum (L.) Scop. Cabbage Thistle XAsteraceae Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. Mediterranean Milk Thistle X XAsteraceae Serratula lycopifolia (Vill.) Kern. Saw Wort X X X X XAsteraceae Serratula tinctoria L. Dyer's Saw Wort X X X X XAsteraceae Centaurea cyanus L. Cornflower X X XAsteraceae Centaurea deusta Ten. Cicada Star Thisle XAsteraceae Centaurea jacea L. Brown Knapweed X X XAsteraceae Centaurea pannonica (Heuff.) Simonk. Pannonian Knapweed X X X X X XAsteraceae Centaurea weldeniana Rchb. Brown Knapweed X X X XAsteraceae Centaurea scabiosa L. Greater Knapweed X X XAsteraceae Erigeron acer L. Bitter Fleabane XAsteraceae Cichorium intybus L. Common Chicory X X X XAsteraceae Hypochoeris radicata L. Cat's Ear XAsteraceae Leontodon hispidus L. Rough Hawkbit XAsteraceae Leontodon autumnalis L. Fall Dandelion X XAsteraceae Leontodon crispus Vill. Curled Hawkbit XAsteraceae Picris hieracioides L. Hawkweed Oxtongue X XAsteraceae Tragopogon dubius Scop. Western Goat's Beard XAsteraceae Tragopogon orientalis L. Eastern Goat's Beard X X X X X XAsteraceae Tragopogon pratensis L. Meadow Goat's Beard XAsteraceae Scorzonera rosea Waldst. & Kit. Viper's Grass XAsteraceae Scorzonera villosa Scop. Villous Viper's Grass XAsteraceae Chondrilla juncea L. Rush Skeletonweed X XAsteraceae Taraxacum officinale Webb. Common Dandelion XAsteraceae Taraxacum paludosum (Scop.) Crepin. n/a X X X X XAsteraceae Taraxacum palustre Lam. et DC. Marsh Dandelion X XAsteraceae Crepis chondrilloides Jacq. Narrow-leaved HawksbeardAsteraceae Crepis biennis L. Rough Hawksbeard X XAsteraceae Crepis neglecta L. Longleaf Hawksbeard XAsteraceae Crepis paludosa (L.) Mch. Marsh Hawksbeard X XAsteraceae Crepis setosa Hall. Bristly Hawksbeard X X XAsteraceae Hieracium pilosella L. Mouse Ear Hawkweed X X X XAsteraceae Hieracium bauhinii Schult. ssp. cattarense (NP)Z. Mouse Ear Hawkweed XAsteraceae Hieracium pavichii Heuff. Slender Hawkweed X X X XAsteraceae Hieracium umbellatum L. Narrowleaf Hawkweed XAlismataceae Sagittaria sagittifolia L. Arrowhead X XAlismataceae Echinodorus ranunculoides (L.) Engelm. Lesser Water Plantain X XAlismataceae Alisma gramineum Lej. Narrowleaf Water Plantain X X X X XAlismataceae Alisma plantago-aquatica L. Common Water Plantain X X X X XAlismataceae Baldellia ranunculoides (L.) Parl. Lesser Water-plantain XButomaceae Butomus umbellatus L. Flowering Rush X X X X X XScheuchzeriaceae Triglochin palustre L. Marsh Arrowgrass X X XPotamogetonaceae Zannichellia palustris L. Horned Pondweed XPotamogetonaceae Potamogeton crispus L. Curly Leaf Pondweed X X X X XPotamogetonaceae Potamogeton fluitans Roth. Long-leaved Pondweed X X XPotamogetonaceae Potamogeton lucens L. Shining Pondweed X X X XPotamogetonaceae Potamogeton natans L. Broad-leaved Pondweed X X X X XPotamogetonaceae Potamogeton perfoliatus L. Clasping Leaf Pondweed X X XPotamogetonaceae Potamogeton pusillus L. Small Pondweed X X X XCeratophyllaceae Ceratophyllum demersum L. Rigid Hornwort XNajadaceae Najas minor All. Brittle Waternymph X XAraceae Arum maculatum L. Lords-and-Ladies XOphioglossaceae Ophioglossum vulgatum L. Adder's Tongue XLiliaceae Polygonatum latifolium (Jacq.) Def. Broadleaf Solomon's Seal XLiliaceae Polygonatum multiflorum (L.) All. Common Solomon's Seal XLiliaceae Tofieldia calyculata (L.) Wahl. False Asphodel XLiliaceae Veratrum album L. White Hellebore X X X XLiliaceae Colchicum autumnale L. Meadow Saffron X X X X X XLiliaceae Convallaria majalis L. Lily-of-the-Valley XLiliaceae Allium angulosum L. Mouse Garlic X XLiliaceae Allium carinatum L. Keeled Garlic X X X X X XLiliaceae Allium saxatile Bieb. Globe Garlic XLiliaceae Allium scordoprasum L. Sand Leek XLiliaceae Allium vineale L. Wild Garlic XLiliaceae Lilium bosniacum G. Beck Bosnian Lily XLiliaceae Scilla pratensis Waldst. & Kit. Amethyst Meadow Squill X X X X X X XLiliaceae Ornithogalum comosum L. Star-of-Betlehem XLiliaceae Ornithogalum pyrenaicum L. Spiked Star-of-Bethlehem XLiliaceae Ornithogalum umbellatum L. Common Star-of-Bethlehem XLiliaceae Ornithogalum tenuifolium Guss. Narrow-leaved Star-of-Betlehem XLiliaceae Muscari comosum (L.) Mill. Tassel Hyacinth X X X X XLiliaceae Muscari racemosum (L.) Lam. Grape Hyacinth XLiliaceae Asparagus acutifolius L. Wild Asparagus XLiliaceae Asparagus tenuifolius Lam. Slim-leaved Asparagus X



53



Gatačko polje

Glamočko polje

Hutovo blato

Kupreško polje

Livanjsko polje

Mostarsko blato

Neve- sinjsko

poljeLiliaceae Ruscus aculeatus L. Butcher's Broom XAmaryllidaceae Leucojum aestivum L. Summer Snowflake X X X X X X XAmaryllidaceae Narcissus angustifolius Curtis Sweet-scented Jonquil X X X XIridaceae Crocus vernus Wulf. Spring Crocus XIridaceae Crocus albiflorus Kit. White Crocus XIridaceae Iris pseudacorus L. Yellow Iris X X X XIridaceae Iris sibirica L. Siberian Iris X XIridaceae Gladiolus illyricus Koch. Illyrian Gladiolus X X X XJuncaceae Luzula campestris (L.) DC. Field Wood-rush XJuncaceae Juncus anceps Laharpe var. hercegovinus Sag. Sand Rush X X X X X XJuncaceae Juncus bufonius L. Toad Rush X X X X X XJuncaceae Juncus compressus Jacq. Round-fruited Rush X X X X X XJuncaceae Juncus conglomeratus L. Compact Rush X X XJuncaceae Juncus effusus L. Common Rush X X XJuncaceae Juncus glaucus Erh. Blue Rush X XJuncaceae Juncus atriculatus L. Jointleaf Rush X X X X X XJuncaceae Juncus murbeckii Sag n/a XJuncaceae Juncus tenageja Ehrh. Sand Rush XJuncaceae Juncus tenuis Willd. Slender Rush XCyperaceae Cyperus longus L. Common Galingale X XCyperaceae Cyperus serotinus Rottb. Tidalmarsh Flatsedge XCyperaceae Cyperus fuscus L. Brown Flatsedge XCyperaceae Cyperus flavescens L. Yellow Flatsedge XCyperaceae Cyperus michelianus (L.) Delile Pygmy Flatsedge XCyperaceae Scirpus lacustris L. Common Club-rush X X X X X XCyperaceae Schoenoplectus tabernemontani (Gmel.) Palla Softstem Bulrush XCyperaceae Schoenoplectus triqueter (L.) Palla Triangular Club-rush XCyperaceae Scirpus maritimus L. Sea Club-rush X XCyperaceae Blysmus compressus (L.) Panz. Flat-sedge X XCyperaceae Holoschoenus vulgaris Link. Roundhead Bulrush XCyperaceae Eleocharis acicularis (L.) R. S. Needle Spikerush X X XCyperaceae Eleocharis carniolica Koch Spikerush X X XCyperaceae Eleocharis palustris (L.) R. S. Common Spikerush X X X X X X X XCyperaceae Eleocharis quinqueflora (Hartm.) O. Schwarz Fewflower Spikerush X X XCyperaceae Eriophorum angustifolium Honch. Common Cottonsedge X XCyperaceae Eriophorum gracile Koch ex Roth Slender Cottonsedge X XCyperaceae Eriophorum latifolium Hoppe Broad-leaved Cottonsedge X X X XCyperaceae Schoenus nigricans L. Black Bogrush X XCyperaceae Cladium mariscus (L.) Pohl. Sawtooth Sedge X X XCyperaceae Carex acutiformis Ehrh. Lesser Pond Sedge XCyperaceae Carex appropinquata Sch. Fibrous Tussock-sedge XCyperaceae Carex caryophyllea Lattour Spring Sedge X XCyperaceae Carex davalliana Sw. Bath Sedge XCyperaceae Carex digitata L. Fingered Sedge XCyperaceae Carex disticha Huds. Two-ranked Sedge XCyperaceae Carex distans L. Distant Sedge X X X X XCyperaceae Carex divisa Huds. Divided Sedge XCyperaceae Carex flava L. Yellow Sedge X XCyperaceae Carex goodenowii Gay. Black Sedge X X X X XCyperaceae Carex glauca Murr. Blue Sedge X XCyperaceae Carex gracilis Curt. Gracile Sedge X XCyperaceae Carex hirta L. Hairy Sedge X X X X XCyperaceae Carex hostiana DC Tawny SedgeCyperaceae Carex humilis Leyss. Dwarf Sedge XCyperaceae Carex lasiocarpa Ehrh. Woollyfruit Sedge XCyperaceae Carex lepidocarpa Tsch. Slender Sedge XCyperaceae Carex leporina L. Oval Sedge X X XCyperaceae Carex oederi Retz. Small Fruited Yellow Sedge X X XCyperaceae Carex pallescens L. Pale Sedge X X XCyperaceae Carex panicea L. Grass-like Sedge X X X X XCyperaceae Carex paniculata L. Greater Tussock Sedge X X X XCyperaceae Carex pendula Huds. Pendulous Sedge X XCyperaceae Carex pseudocyperus L. Sedge Hop X X XCyperaceae Carex remota L. Remote Sedge XCyperaceae Carex riparia Curb. Greater Pond Sedge X XCyperaceae Carex rostrata Stok. Bottle Sedge XCyperaceae Carex stellulata Good. Star Sedge X XCyperaceae Carex stricta Lam. Tussock Sedge X XCyperaceae Carex sylvatica Huds. Wood Sedge XCyperaceae Carex tomentosa L. Downy-fruited Sedge XCyperaceae Carex vesicaria L. Blister Sedge X X XCyperaceae Carex vulpina L. var. nemorosa (Reb.) Koch Fox-sedge X XCyperaceae Fimbristylis dichotoma (L.) Wahl. Two-rowed Rush XPoaceae Crypsis alopecuroides (Piller & Mitterp.) Schrad. Foxtail Pricklegrass XPoaceae Avena fatua L. Wild OatPoaceae Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) P. Beauv. Tor Grass XPoaceae Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. Barnyard Grass XPoaceae Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. Hairy Crabgrass XPoaceae Phalaris arundinacea L. Reed-canary Grass X X XPoaceae Anthoxanthum odoratum L. Sweet Vernal Grass X X X X X XPoaceae Heleochloa alopecuroides (Pill. & Mitt.) Host Foxtail Pricklegrass X X XPoaceae Phleum pratense L. Meadow Cat's-tail X X XPoaceae Phleum pratense L. var. bertolonii DC. Meadow Cat's-tail XPoaceae Phleum pratense L. var. Nodosum L. Meadow Cat's-tail X X XPoaceae Phleum subulatum (Savi) A. et G. Italian Timothy Grass XPoaceae Alopecurus aequalis Sch. Orange Foxtail X XPoaceae Alopecurus geniculatus L. Marsh foxtail XPoaceae Alopecurus pratensis L. Meadow Foxtail X X X XPoaceae Alopecurus utriculatus (L.) Sol. Rendle's Meadow Foxtail X X X X


54


Gatačko polje

Glamočko polje

Hutovo blato

Kupreško polje

Livanjsko polje

Mostarsko blato

Neve- sinjsko

poljePoaceae Agrostis alba L. Creeping Bent Grass X X X X X XPoaceae Agrostis canina L. Velvet Bent Grass XPoaceae Agrostis olivetorum Gren. et Gord. Highland Bent Grass XPoaceae Holcus lanatus L. Soft Meadow Grass X X XPoaceae Holcus mollis L. Creeping Soft Grass X XPoaceae Aira capillaris Host. Annual Hair Grass X XPoaceae Deschampsia caespitosa (L.) Beauv. Tufted Hairgrass X X X X X XPoaceae Deschampsia media R. Sch. Small Hairgrass X X X X XPoaceae Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv. Green Bristlegrass XPoaceae Arrhenatherum elatius (L.) J. & K. Presl. Tall Oatgrass XPoaceae Danthonia calycina (Vill.) Rchb. Alpine Oatgrass XPoaceae Sesleria uliginosa Opiz. Blue Moor Grass X X X X X XPoaceae Phragmites communis Trin. Common Reed X X X X X XPoaceae Sieglingia decumbens (L.) Bernh. Common Heath Grass X XPoaceae Molinia arundinacea Schrank. Moor Grass X XPoaceae Molinia caerulea (L.) Mnch. Purple Moor Grass X X X X XPoaceae Koeleria gracilis Pers. Hair Grass X X XPoaceae Koeleria phleoides (Vill.) Pers. Annual Junegrass XPoaceae Koeleria splendens Presl. Shiny Hair Grass X XPoaceae Briza media L. Common Quaking Grass X X X X X XPoaceae Dactylis glomerata L. Cocksfoot X X X XPoaceae Dactylis hispanica Roth. Spanish Cocksfoot XPoaceae Cynosurus cristatus L. Crested Dog's Tail X X X XPoaceae Sclerochloa dura (L.) P. B. Common Hardgrass X XPoaceae Poa annua L. Annual Meadow Grass XPoaceae Poa bulbosa L. Bulbous Meadow Grass X X X X XPoaceae Poa compressa L. Flattened Meadow Grass X X XPoaceae Poa sylvicola Guss. Rough Bluegrass X X X X X X XPoaceae Glyceria fluitans (L.) R. Br. Water Mannagrass X X X XPoaceae Glyceria plicata Fries Plicate Sweet Grass X XPoaceae Festuca elatior L. Meadow Fescue X X X X X X XPoaceae Festuca pseudovina Hack ssp. illyrica Mgf.- Dbg. Illyrian False Striated Fescue XPoaceae Festuca pseudovina Hack False Striated Fescue X X X X X XPoaceae Festuca valesiaca Schl. Wallis fescue X X X X XPoaceae Festuca rubra L. Red Fescue X XPoaceae Festuca arundinacea Schreb. Tall Fescue XPoaceae Vulpia myuros (L.) Gmel. Rat’s-tail Fescue X X XPoaceae Bromus arvensis L. Field Brome X X XPoaceae Bromus erectus Huds. Upright Brome X X X X X XPoaceae Bromus mollis L. Soft Brome X X X X X X X XPoaceae Bromus racemosus L. Bald Brome X X X X X X XPoaceae Bromus squarrosus L. Rough Brome X XPoaceae Bromus sterilis L. Barren Brome X X XPoaceae Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf. Annual Beard Grass XPoaceae Cynodon dactylon Pers. Dog's Tooth Grass X XPoaceae Nardus stricta L. Matgrass XPoaceae Lolium perenne L. Perennial Rye-grass X X X X X XPoaceae Lolium temulentum L. Darnel X X XPoaceae Agropyron intermedium (Host) Beauv. Intermediate Wheatgrass XPoaceae Haynaldia villosa Schur. Mosquito Grass X X X XPoaceae Aegilops ovata L. Ovate Goatgrass XPoaceae Aegilops triuncialis L. Barbed Goatgrass XPoaceae Hordeum gussoneanum Parl. Sea Barley X X X X XPoaceae Hordeum marianum Huds. Sea Barley X XPoaceae Hordeum secalinum Schreb. Meadow Barley X X X XPoaceae Leersia oryzoides (L.) Sw. Rice Cutgrass X XPoaceae Stipa pennata L. Feather Grass XOrchidaceae Listera ovata (L.) R. Br. Common Twayblade XOrchidaceae Neottia nidus-avis (L.) C. Rich Bird's-nest Orchid XOrchidaceae Orchis coriophora L. Bug Orchid X XOrchidaceae Orchis coriophora L. var. fragrans Fragrant Bug Orchid XOrchidaceae Orchis incarnata L. Early Marsh Orchid X X X XOrchidaceae Orchis laxiflora Lam. Loose-flowered Orchid X XOrchidaceae Orchis mascula L. Early Purple Orchid XOrchidaceae Orchis maculata L. var. ochrantha (Panč.) Fgleisch. Spotted Orchid X XOrchidaceae Orchis militaris L. Military Orchid XOrchidaceae Orchis morio L. Green-winged Orchid X X XOrchidaceae Orchis palustris Jacqu. Marsh Orchid X X X X X XOrchidaceae Orchis simia Lam. Monkey Orchid X XOrchidaceae Orchis tridentata Scop. Three-toothed Orchid X XOrchidaceae Ophrys apifera Huds. Bee OrchidOrchidaceae Anacamptis pyramidalis (L.) Rich. Pyramidal Orchid XOrchidaceae Gymnadenia conopsea (L.) R. Br. Fragrant Orchid X X X XOrchidaceae Platanthera bifolia (L.) Rchb. Lesser Butterfly Orchid X XOrchidaceae Epipactis palustris (L.) Cr. Marsh Helleborine X X XOrchidaceae Liparis loeselii (L.) Rich. Fen Orchid XSparganiaceae Sparganium erectum L. Branched Bur-reed X XSparganiaceae Sparganium microcarpum Čelak. Bur-reed X XSparganiaceae Sparganium simplex Huds. var. longissimum Fries n/a XTyphaceae Typha angustifolia L. Narrowleaf Cattail XTyphaceae Typha latifolia L. Broadleaf Cattail X X XTyphaceae Typha shutllerworthi Koch et Sond. Shuttleworth's Bulrush X X



55


Results and discussion

The sharp seasonal changes of the climate and the fact

that most karst poljes are flooded during winter and dry

up in summer, allowed the development of a diverse

and specific floristic composition, from continental

forests and hygrophilous grasslands, to thermophilic

plant communities that are characteristic for the

Mediterranean region. At present, the number of plant

species recorded in different localities in eight selected

karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina, found during field

surveys and listed in available literature sources, contain

768 species of 92 families (Tab. 1). The most numerous is

Tab. 2: List of endemic (marked with *), rare and vulnerable plant species in eight karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Red Book of Bosnia-Herzegovina: R - rare, V - vulnerable, RE - regionally extinct; IUCN Red List: LC – least concern, DD – data deficient, n/a - data not available

Species Red Book of B&H IUCN Red List

Salix repens L. var. rosmarinifolia (L.) W. Gr. R -

Dianthus sanguineus Vis.* V -

Dianthus superbus Vis. R n/a

Silene sendtneri Boiss.* R -

Thalictrum flavum L. R n/a

Nuphar luteum (L.) Sm. V n/a

Nymphaea alba L. V n/a

Drosera rotundifolia L. V n/a

Astragallus illyricus Bernh.* R -

Astragallus gremlii Burn.* V -

Veronica anagalloides Guss. V LC

Veronica maritima L. V n/a

Veronica poljensis Murb.* V -

Euphrasia liburnica Wettst. R -

Pedicularis brachyodonta Schloss. et Vuk. V -

Pedicularis palustris L. V n/a

Pinguicula vulgaris L. V -

Utricularia vulgaris L. V n/a

Satureja subspicata Bartl. ex Vis V -

Menyanthes trifoliata L. V n/a

Succisella petteri (Kern. & Murb.) Beck* V -

Scabiosa delminiana Abadžić* R -

Scabiosa leucophylla Borb. R -

Edraianthus dalmaticus A. DC.* V n/a

Serratula lycopifolia (Vill.) Kern. V DD

Echinodorus ranunculoides (L.) Engelm. V n/a

Tofieldia calyculata (L.) Wahl. V n/a

Lilium bosniacum G. Beck V n/a

Scilla pratensis Waldst. & Kit.* V DD

Narcissus angustifolius Curtis V n/a

Iris sibirica L. V n/a

Gladiolus illyricus Koch. V n/a

Eriophorum gracile Koch ex Roth V n/a

Carex acutiformis Ehrh. V n/a

Orchis maculata L. var. ochrantha (Panč.) Fgleisch. V -

Orchis simia Lam. V n/a

Liparis loeselii (L.) Rich. RE -

Anacamptis pyramidalis (L.) Rich. V n/a

Platanthera bifolia (L.) Rchb. R n/a

Typha shutllerworthi Koch et Sond. V -

the family Asteraceae, with 85 species or 11% of all plant

species found, followed by Poaceae (73 or 9%, Fabaceae

(65/8%), Cyperaceae (54/7%), Ranunculaceae (31/4%),

Caryophyllaceae (30/4%), Lamiaceae (30/4%), and

Rosaceae (29 or 4% of all species).

With a total of 768 plant species which were found during

our field surveys or which are documented in available

literature sources, the karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina

harbour a high species diversity. Among others, there is a

significant number of rare, vulnerable (as proposed by Šilić

1992-1995) and endemic plant species (Šilić 1988, Ritter-

Studnička 1954) which are listed in Tab. 2.

56

In addition, the list contains a number of medicinal herbs

and berries that have been used by local communities for

centuries and which have the potential as commercial

crops: Symphytum tuberosum L., Hypericum perforatum

L., Teucrium montanum L., Rosa canina L., and Fragaria

vesca L.

Although Livanjsko polje and Hutovo blato have been

designated as Important Bird Areas (IBA) and Wetlands of

International Importance (Ramsar sites), so far the habitats

in those poljes are not formally protected by national laws. In

order to contribute to the protection of these areas which have

already been seriously endangered by antrophogenic impacts,

the data presented in the above tables were analyzed in

accordance to criteria for the identification of Important Plant

Areas (IPA). IPAs are selected with the intention of focusing

on the conservation of important wild plant populations in

these areas, and act as a subset in the broader context of Key

Biodiversity Areas. Designating an IPA is intended to gain

awareness and encourage long-term conservation through

an ‘ecosystem-based’ approach.

In order to qualify for the Important Plant Areas (IPA) status,

the karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina have to fullfill at least

one of three IPA criteria:

• Presence of threatened plant species: the

site holds significant populations of one or

more species that are of global or regional

conservation concern

• Presence of botanical richness: the site has an

exceptionally rich flora in a regional context in

Delminian Scabious (Scabiosa delminiana Abadžić)(Photo: Dubravka Šoljan)

Bosnian Lily (Lilium bosniacum G. Beck)(Photo: Dubravka Šoljan)

relation to its biogeographic zone

• Presence of threatened habitats: the site is an

outstanding example of a habitat or vegetation

type of global or regional plant conservation

and botanical importance.

The data presented in Tab. 2 show that none of the species

listed as endemic, vulnerable or rare in Bosnia-Herzegovina

are currently listed in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

(http://www.iucnredlist.org/, access date: 16.11.2013.). On the

IUCN website species marked with ‘n/a’ are commented as „…

taxon has not yet been assessed for the IUCN Red List, but is

in the Catalogue of Life“, species marked with ‘-‘ as „… taxon

has not yet been assessed for the IUCN Red List, and also is

not in the Catalogue of Life.“. However, the recent discovery of

the endemic species Scabiosa delminiana Abadžić (Abadžić

2007) in Duvanjsko polje and the rediscovery of the orchid

Liparis loeselii (L.) Rich. in Livanjsko polje (Milanović 2012)

which was thought that it is already regionally extinct,

indicate the need for further research on the flora and plant

communities which, presumably, will qualify many karst

poljes - additionally, to the actual status of Livanjsko polje

and Hutovo blato as IBA and Ramsar sites - as conservation

areas of international importance.

Conclusions

The number of plant species recorded in different localities

in eight selected karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina, found

during field surveys and by comparison with available

literature sources, consists of 768 species of 92 families. The

most numerous is the family Asteraceae, with 85 species or


57


11% of the total number, followed by Poaceae (73 or 9%),

Fabaceae (65 or 8%), Cyperaceae (54 or 7%), followed by the

families Ranunculaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Lamiaceae, and

Rosaceae, each of it containing approximately 4% of the

total number of species. Among others, there are significant

numbers of rare, vulnerable and endemic plant species,

listed in the national Red Book of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as

well as medicinal herbs and berries that have been used

by local communities for centuries and which have the

potential as crops. In contrast, the conservation status of

many species, listed in the national Red List, has not yet

been assessed in the IUCN Red List. While some of the latter

species have been already included, a total of 15 taxons, half

of it (7 taxons) which are endemic to the Dinaric Karst, up

to now have not been assessed for the Catalogue of Life.

Thus, with regard to the large number of endemic species

whose global conservation status has not been assessed,

many karst poljes or habitats in the karst poljes of Bosnia-

Herzegovina may, in addition to already designated IBAs and

Ramsar sites, qualify as conservation areas of international

importance. The results of the present study further indicate

that additional research on the plantlife of the karst poljes

is urgently needed. Continuing the investigation of the flora

and plant communities of the karst poljes should be one of

the priorities of science in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Given the

fact that it harbours one of the country’s largest botanical

libraries and scientific plant collections (SARA) which is

highly recognized by the international scientific community,

it is recommended to establish the National Museum in

Sarajevo as a center for the study of the flora and plant

communities of karst poljes in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Acknowledgements

We cordially thank Prof. dr Dubravka Šoljan for the

photographs.

References

Abadžić S. (2007): Nova vrsta genusa Scabiosa L. (Dipscaceae). Hrvatska misao 1/07(42) Nova serija 30: 38-49Anonymus (2004): Identifying and protecting the world’s most Important Plant Areas. The Important Plant Area Secretariat, Plantlife International, Salisbury, UK Domac R. (2002): Flora Hrvatske: Priručnik za određivanje bilja. Školska knjiga, Zagreb.Jasprica N., Carić M. (2002): Vegetation of the natural park of Hutovo Blato (Neretva river delta, Bosnia and Herzegovina). Biologia (Bratislava) 57: 505 - 516.Milanović Đ. (2012): Liparis loeselii (L.) Rich. – a plant rediscovered in the Balkan peninsula. Botanica Serbica 36 (2): 85 – 89.Milanović Đ., Kotrošan D. (2012): Ptice i šaševi Livanjskog polja: Priručnik za praćenje stanja šaševa (Carex sp.) i indikatorskih vrsta ptica na širom području Ždralovca. Ornitološko društvo Naše ptice i Centar mladih Livno, Livno.Ritter-Studnička H. (1954): Flora i vegetacija kraških polja Bosne i Hercegovine. Godišnjak Biološkog instituta u Sarajevu. Sveska 1-2.:25–101.Ritter-Studnička H. (1972): Neue Pflanzengesellschaften aus den Karstfeldern Bosniens und Hercegovina. Bot. Jhb. Syst. 92: 108 – 154.Ritter-Studnička H. (1973): Reliktgesellschaften des Caricion davallianae aus den Karstfeldern Bosniens. Ber. Geobot. 51: 179 – 182.Ritter-Studnička H. (1974): Die Karstpoljen Bosniens und der Hercegovina als Reliktstandorte und die Eigentümlichkeit ihrer Vegetation. Bot. Jhb. Syst. 94: 139 – 189.Ritter-Studnička H., Grgić P. (1971): Die Reste der Stileichenwälder in Livanjsko polje (Bosnien). Bot. Jhb. 91: 330 – 347. Šilić Č. (1988): Endemične biljke. Svjetlost, SarajevoŠilić Č. (1992-1995): Spisak biljnih vrsta (Pteridophyta i Spermatophyta) za Crvenu knjigu Bosne i Hercegovine. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine Sarajevo 31: 323 – 367.

Dalmatian Rockbell (Edraianthus dalmaticus A. DC.)(Photo: Dubravka Šoljan)

58

Wet meadow with Narcissus angustifolius in the northern part of Gatačko polje, 31 May 2012 (Photo: Gerhard Bronner)


59


A preliminary survey of the wet- and grassland vegetation of the karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina

Gerhard Bronner

Talstraße 27, D-78166 Donaueschingen, Germany; E-mail: [email protected]

Summary

In June 2012, the vegetation of 16 karst poljes in Bosnia-

Hercegovina was studied and classified according to

vegetation types. Vegetation was roughly mapped for

those parts of the poljes, covered by wetlands, pastures

and meadows. The ecological values, threats and the

importance of the karst poljes for the conservation of

habitats, protected under the EU Habitats Directive, are

discussed based on vegetation mapping.

Sažetak

U junu 2012 godine obavljeno je istraživanje vegetacije 16

kraških polja Bosne i Hercegovine. Vegetacija je klasificira

prema vegetacijskim tipovima i okvirno su napravljene

vegetacijske mape za dijelove polja pokrivene močvarama,

pašnjacima i livadama. U radu su na osnovu vegetacijskih

mapa razmatrane ekološke vrijednosti, opasnosti i značaj

kraških polja za očuvanje staništa koja su zaštićena

evropskom Direktivom o staništima.

Keywords: karst polje, vegetation, conservation, EU

Habitats Directive, flooding, Bosnia-Herzegovina

Introduction

In cooperation with local non-governmental organizations

(NGOs), the EuroNatur Foundation commits itself to the

promotion of nature and biodiversity conservation in

South Eastern Europe. An ongoing project entitled the

’Adriatic Flyway’, aims at identifying important breeding

habitats and resting sites of migratory birds in the

region. Many wet- and grassland habitats which harbour

significant bird numbers, urgently need better protection

under national or European laws (EU Habitats Directive),

as they are frequently at the edge of being converted into

urban or intense agricultural land in the near future.

Together with its partner organization Naše ptice (“Our

Birds”), EuroNatur has identified the karst poljes of the

Dinarides, representing a unique element of global karst

diversity, as the most important habitats for migratory

birds in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Because karst poljes are

characterized by very specific karst phenomena they are

of great geomorphological interest, at the same time.

Many poljes typically harbour vegetation types and plant

communities which depend on flooding, intermittent

karst rivers and karst lakes. Periodically flooded karst

poljes are important for many migrating and resident bird

species. Their ecological functions are unique and cannot

be replaced by other habitats.

In mountainous regions, like Bosnia-Herzegovina, flat-

bottomed temporarily flooded karst poljes constitute priority

areas for agriculture – at least in those parts of the poljes

which fall dry and allow growing of fodder and crops, as well

as livestock grazing. Thus, the actual vegetation of the karst

poljes is highly influenced by human utilization. Without

agricultural use, the poljes would be probably dominated by

forests. Such forests still exist in Livanjsko polje, but are absent

or very repressed in other poljes. For maintaining typical karst

polje habitats extensive farming and traditional agricultural

practices have to be maintained. Like in other countries along

the Western Balkans, the last Bosnian war and its aftermaths

forced many people to move from rural to urban areas, giving

up small-scale traditionally used arable lands. Subsequently,

these are at risk due to desertion, particularly in former war-

zones, or might be lost to intensified land use. According to

Karoglan Todorović (2012), only half of the agricultural lands

are used in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the present day.

60

The plant communities of karst poljes in Bosnia-

Herzegovina were comprehensively studied and classified

by Hilda Ritter-Studnička during the early 1950s (Ritter-

Studnička 1954). A more recent study of the vegetation

of the karst poljes in Croatia was published by Jasenka

Topić from the University in Zagreb (Topić 2009). In recent

times, only a few poljes were thoroughly studied in Bosnia-

Herzegovina, however. Vegetation mapping was restricted

to the most popular poljes – among them „Livanjsko

polje“, the largest and most precious polje of the Dinaric

Karst (Schwarz 2010). For the present study, the author

visited 16 karst poljes in June 2012 together with members

of Naše ptice.

Methods

Because time for field-work was limited, no thorough

vegetation mapping could be done and some parts of

the investigated poljes were not visited. Other parts,

which have not been cleared from landmines yet, could

be only investigated from roads. In the latter, mainly

the vegetation along safe access roads was inspected.

For the classification of vegetation simplified Braun-

Blanquet relevées were used: Altogether, lists of the most

characteristic and dominant plant species (only flowering

plants) were compiled for 51 sites. The frequency of

different species was estimated in three classes: present,

moderately frequent and frequent.

Plant species were arranged in tables and classified

according to indicator values for vegetation classification.

Sites with similar combinations of species were classified

by using syntaxa established by Horvat et al. (1974) and

Ritter-Studnička (1954). With the help of geo-referenced

topographical maps and Google Earth-screenshots, rough

vegetation maps were created of those parts of the poljes

which were visited or, at least, were seen from not too far

away by using GIS.

The roughly localized vegetation units were only

approximately classified, such as „Magnocaricion“,

„Lathyrus-meadow“, „moist meadow“, „pasture“, „mixture

arable fields-meadows“. Therefore, even though the

present results are far from exact as vegetation maps

prepared for Livanjsko polje and Hutovo blato by Schwarz

(2010), the recent survey will give a first impression of the

extension of main vegetation types in the investigated

poljes.

Results

The karst poljes visited in June 2012 are characterized in

Tab. 1. Geographical and hydrological information was

taken from Stumberger (2010). Livanjsko polje is not

explicitly mentioned, as it was already described in detail

by Schwarz (2010). Surface areas of meadows shown in

Tab. 1 represent only these parts of the poljes which were

visited during the present survey and exclude meadows

Fig. 1: Wet meadow with Lathyrus pannonicus and some Scilla litardiere in the southern part of Nevesinjsko polje, 30 May 2012 (Photo: Gerhard Bronner).

Fig. 2: Lukavačko polje with stretches of Scilla meadows; the lake is a remnant of spring flooding, 30 May 2012 (Photo: Gerhard Bronner).


61


situated in small-scale meadow-arable fields-mosaics. In

most cases real figures are assumed to be higher. Overall,

in visited karst poljes (Livanjsko polje excluded) 7,548 ha of

dry meadows and 6,876 ha of wet meadows were recorded

(figures according to GIS based calculations).

Results are shown in Tab. 2, with plant species clustered

according to phyto-ecological indicator values. According

to the analysis in Tab. 2, the karst poljes harbour the

following habitat types listed in the European Union

Habitats Directive:

Potamion eurosibiricum (Code 3150): Vegetation in

deeper waters than reeds of natural eutrophic lakes; most

plants rooted in the bottom, but with leaves floating on

the surface.

Molinietum coeruleae Illyricum (Code 6410): More or less

wet meadows which grow above organic soils, mainly in

areas with regular spring flooding. Molinietum meadows

are very rich in species and result from mowing, and

therefore constitute no natural habitats. Through mowing

most nutrients are removed and, because nutrients are

not replaced by fertilization, Molinietum meadows are

oligotrophic habitats. Characteristic species are Lathyrus

pannonicus, Scilla litardiere and Narcissus angustifolius.

The photo on page 58 and Fig. 1 show typical aspects of

these habitats; Fig. 2 shows a mosaic of Scilla meadows

and some other habitats in Lukavačko polje.

Festuco-Brometea (Code 6210): Dry parts of poljes are

covered by meadows and pastures which belong to this

syntaxon. Festuco-Brometa meadows harbour a lot of

different plant species (e.g., orchids).

Deschampsion caespitosae (Code 6540): This taxon

which grows above mineral soil, is represented with the

associations Centaureetum pannonicae, Plantaginetum

altissimae, Trifolio-Hordeetum secalini and Edraiantho-

Deschampsietum mediae. Although it is not yet included,

Croatia has recently suggested the taxon to include in

the Habitat Directive. Fig. 3 shows this habitat type in

Dabarsko polje. According to the undulating surface which

derives from remnants of Carex nigra-tussocks, Ritter-

Studnička (1954) called this aspect “ant-hill-meadows”.

Rivers with Ranunculion fluitantis (Code 3260): This

habitat type covers some rivers, mainly in Livanjsko polje.

Besides the later, some other habitats of high conservation

value for migrating and nesting birds which are not listed

in the Habitat Directive, were found:

Phragmition communis: Reed-like vegetation grows

on very wet ground and in shallow waters of lakes and

rivers. In the karst poljes these are often areas which are

intermittently flooded. In the study area Phragmites as

well as Typha stands were founds. The most frequent

association in the area which grows at the fringes of

lakes and permanent rivers is Scirpeto-Phragamitetum

Fig. 3: Pasture in Dabarsko polje (Deschampsion) with „ant-hills“ as remnants of previous Carex nigra-tussocks, 31 May 2012 (Photo: Gerhard Bronner)

Fig. 4: Jaruga River in Livanjsko polje with Carex and Typha stands, 5 June 2012 (Photo: Gerhard Bronner).

62

Polje name Altitude Size sqkm Vegetation value and habitats Utilization Conservation Natura 2000 habitats Area meadows

Mostarsko blato 223 - 236 m 33.14 wet vegetation in E part used as meadows; some areas not longer cut, Artemisia campestris dominating; traces of extensive grazing; in W parts riverine forests and large tracts of dry grasslands

mainly used for mowing, some wet central parts not mown; some parcels with crops and some arable fields abandoned, but vegetation still reflecting previous cultivation

(formerly?) large numbers of resident and migrating birds; rubbish dumping should be stopped

Code 3150 Potamion eurosibiricum Code 6410 Molinietum coeruleae Illyricum Code 6210 Festuco-Brometea Code 6540 Deschampsion caespitosae

2341 ha (wet)

Popovo polje 230 - 270 m 118.91 S parts corrugated karst area covered with bushland; central part mixture of pastures, open woodlands and agriculture; in NW arable lands dominating, some areas drained, partly fallow; westernmost part ponors; no typical vegetation of flooded poljes found

good agricultural lands partly used by small-scale, partly by drained larg-scale agricultural fields; many fields fallow as a result of depopulation following and due to artificial flooding; World Bank project financed to (re)establish orchards and vineyards

Code 6210 Festuco-Brometea

Fatničko polje 468 - 478 m 7.72 N part: typical polje vegetation of Scilla-meadows, aerial photographs indicate regular cutting; S part: poorer vegetation used for grazing.

meadows in N and possibly southernmost part, grazing in central part

no obvious agricultural pressure; unclear, if poorer vegetation in the center/south due to natural factors or grazing

Code 6410 Molinietum coeruleae Illyricum 170 ha (wet)

Dabarsko polje 460 - 500 (530) m 28.96 pastures - in comparison to meadows at the same sites – very poor in species; influence of grazing decreasing to the N with higher water levels; SE Berkovici typical polje vegetation (Scilla-meadows); Berkovici - Hatelji downslope sequence Deschampsia-media-Association, previous Carex-nigra-stands and Scilla-meadows

W Bjeljani already cut during our visit at the end of May; adjacent area grazing by sheep

large tracts of untouched typical polje vegetation with vegetation gradients according to wetness; encroachment by agriculture should be prevented; effects of grazing of vegetation should be studied


1108 ha (wet)

Lukavačko polje 870-890 3.39 S parts typical Scilla-meadows; otherewise dry meadows, arable fields and pastures partly small-scale agriculture with dry and wet meadows, arable fields and pastures

following to its typical vegetation the polje should be protected, but small-scale arable fields should be allowed

Code 6410 Molinietum coeruleae Illyricum Code 6210 Festuco-Brometea

249 ha (wet)

Nevesinjsko polje 835 – 870 m 77.53 S Humcani extensive pastures with good polje vegetation with Scilla and orchids; some forests and bushlands; along road Humcani-Kifino mixture of agriculture and meadows, S parts with hedges; southernmost part Scilla-meadows.

small-scale agriculture, but also a huge agricultural project with drainage system

drainage target area with typical polje vegetation, if project not rentable the drainage system should be closed and the medows restored for extensive use; large-scale agriculture might have destroyed some interesting parts; karstic area, N Kifino, could be protected too

Code 6410 Molinietum coeruleae Illyricum Code 6210 Festuco-Brometea Code 3260 Rivers with Ranunculion fluitantis

398 ha (wet)

Gatačko polje 937 - 956 m 60.12 NW part good wetland meadows preserved, containing small deciduous forests on higher elevations; S Gatacko interesting wetland areas, mixed with areas used for agriculture; along river large areas with Typha and other water plants; some wet meadows with Scilla contain large amounts of Narcissus, other poorer in species; wetland vegetation stretches to the SE, but is less developed along the river

W of main road meadows, to the E pastures; no typical wetland vegetation left; pastures of no conservation interest; meadows normally cut in mid-July; S Gatacko interesting wetland areas, mixed with areas used for agriculture

coal mine which feeds a power plant, causes heavy air pollution; huge mountains of rubble deposis; water pumped out of the mine - all these has destroyed several sqkm of previously precious wet meadows, remaining meadows worth protection in which regular mowing should be maintained

Code 3150 Potamion eurosibiricum: Code 6410 Molinietum coeruleae Illyricum: Code 6210 Festuco-Brometea Code 6540 Deschampsion caespitosae Code 3260 Rivers with Ranunculion fluitantis

1025 ha wet

Glamočko polje 858-900 m 62.44 In the northern part almost no interesting habitats. More interesting is the southern part south of Skucani. At first there is a mixture of agriculture and meadows. South of Vidimilje extensive pasture is dominating. In the southernmost part there are lakes with wetland surroundings, Scilla meadows (mown or not).

In the northern part agriculture is prevailing. In the southern part meadows and pasture, possibly more of the latter. In the middle part fields and meadows are mixed.

only the middle and southern part are suitable for a protected area.

Code 6410 Molinietum coeruleae Illyricum Code 6540 Deschampsion caespitosae

122 ha (wet)

Cernica (Cerniško polje)

816 - 848 m 2.95 between Cernica and Kljuc some meadows with Scilla, otherwise small-scale agriculture with dry meadows mixture of meadows, pastures, some arable fields and hedges


Ravanjsko polje 1132 - 1148 m 19.27 grasslands, but no typical polje vegetation; frequently Taraxacum, Vicia, Veronica sp., Asteraceae, Viola cf. tricolor or elegantula

no mowing, pastures, in the W some arable fields

no valuable habitats found

Livanjsko polje 702 m 408.03 Detailed description in Schwarz (2010) Detailed description in Schwarz (2010) Ramsar site; previously (failed?) drainage and agriculture project; NE Prolog big (illegal?) rubbish dump; in Ždralovač area (desperate) agriculture development project; turf extraction areas should be restored for birds; IMCG expertise has to be evaluated

see Schwarz (2010) and Stumberger et al. (2010)

Šuićko polje 914 - 920 m 2.77 vegetation not studied from near, but seems to be in a perfect conditio; along river Carex stands. meadows, grazing along E side of channel a earth dam was built for some 100 m, its purpuse unknown


161 ha (wet) 13 ha (dry)

Vukovsko polje 1160 - 1204 m 28.14 mountain pasture, no typical polje vegetation mainly used by grazing, two larger farms not clear if special protection needed; no obvious dangers; NW part with the highest biodiversity and different habitats

Duvanjsko polje 850 - 900 m 125.08 along river wet meadows, dry grasslands in central area part (low hills); extensive grasslands important as nesting and feeding areas for birds

extent of mowing, grazing and fallow lands unknown; small arable fields around villages; large-scale agriculture S Duvno

the extensive grasslands together with interspersed wet spots are of significant conservation value


6177 ha (dry) 555 ha (wet)

Kupreško polje 1115 - 1150 m 81.82 in wetter sites nice Narcissus- und Trollius-grasslands; mountain pastures in the N with no special vegetation, but spectacular craters W Rasticevo

agriculture and mowing near settlements, otherwise extensive pastures; some large-scale farming S Kupres where grazing is more intensive

erxtensive target habitats in the S should be protected; N part less interesting, but has spectacular craters


594 ha (wet)

Tab. 1: Surface areas, habitat types, land-use and conservation status of karst poljes visited in June 2012.


63


Polje name Altitude Size sqkm Vegetation value and habitats Utilization Conservation Natura 2000 habitats Area meadows

Mostarsko blato 223 - 236 m 33.14 wet vegetation in E part used as meadows; some areas not longer cut, Artemisia campestris dominating; traces of extensive grazing; in W parts riverine forests and large tracts of dry grasslands

mainly used for mowing, some wet central parts not mown; some parcels with crops and some arable fields abandoned, but vegetation still reflecting previous cultivation

(formerly?) large numbers of resident and migrating birds; rubbish dumping should be stopped


2341 ha (wet)

Popovo polje 230 - 270 m 118.91 S parts corrugated karst area covered with bushland; central part mixture of pastures, open woodlands and agriculture; in NW arable lands dominating, some areas drained, partly fallow; westernmost part ponors; no typical vegetation of flooded poljes found

good agricultural lands partly used by small-scale, partly by drained larg-scale agricultural fields; many fields fallow as a result of depopulation following and due to artificial flooding; World Bank project financed to (re)establish orchards and vineyards

Code 6210 Festuco-Brometea

Fatničko polje 468 - 478 m 7.72 N part: typical polje vegetation of Scilla-meadows, aerial photographs indicate regular cutting; S part: poorer vegetation used for grazing.

meadows in N and possibly southernmost part, grazing in central part

no obvious agricultural pressure; unclear, if poorer vegetation in the center/south due to natural factors or grazing

Code 6410 Molinietum coeruleae Illyricum 170 ha (wet)

Dabarsko polje 460 - 500 (530) m 28.96 pastures - in comparison to meadows at the same sites – very poor in species; influence of grazing decreasing to the N with higher water levels; SE Berkovici typical polje vegetation (Scilla-meadows); Berkovici - Hatelji downslope sequence Deschampsia-media-Association, previous Carex-nigra-stands and Scilla-meadows

W Bjeljani already cut during our visit at the end of May; adjacent area grazing by sheep

large tracts of untouched typical polje vegetation with vegetation gradients according to wetness; encroachment by agriculture should be prevented; effects of grazing of vegetation should be studied


1108 ha (wet)

Lukavačko polje 870-890 3.39 S parts typical Scilla-meadows; otherewise dry meadows, arable fields and pastures partly small-scale agriculture with dry and wet meadows, arable fields and pastures

following to its typical vegetation the polje should be protected, but small-scale arable fields should be allowed


249 ha (wet)

Nevesinjsko polje 835 – 870 m 77.53 S Humcani extensive pastures with good polje vegetation with Scilla and orchids; some forests and bushlands; along road Humcani-Kifino mixture of agriculture and meadows, S parts with hedges; southernmost part Scilla-meadows.

small-scale agriculture, but also a huge agricultural project with drainage system

drainage target area with typical polje vegetation, if project not rentable the drainage system should be closed and the medows restored for extensive use; large-scale agriculture might have destroyed some interesting parts; karstic area, N Kifino, could be protected too

Code 6410 Molinietum coeruleae Illyricum Code 6210 Festuco-Brometea Code 3260 Rivers with Ranunculion fluitantis

398 ha (wet)

Gatačko polje 937 - 956 m 60.12 NW part good wetland meadows preserved, containing small deciduous forests on higher elevations; S Gatacko interesting wetland areas, mixed with areas used for agriculture; along river large areas with Typha and other water plants; some wet meadows with Scilla contain large amounts of Narcissus, other poorer in species; wetland vegetation stretches to the SE, but is less developed along the river

W of main road meadows, to the E pastures; no typical wetland vegetation left; pastures of no conservation interest; meadows normally cut in mid-July; S Gatacko interesting wetland areas, mixed with areas used for agriculture

coal mine which feeds a power plant, causes heavy air pollution; huge mountains of rubble deposis; water pumped out of the mine - all these has destroyed several sqkm of previously precious wet meadows, remaining meadows worth protection in which regular mowing should be maintained

Code 3150 Potamion eurosibiricum: Code 6410 Molinietum coeruleae Illyricum: Code 6210 Festuco-Brometea Code 6540 Deschampsion caespitosae Code 3260 Rivers with Ranunculion fluitantis

1025 ha wet

Glamočko polje 858-900 m 62.44 In the northern part almost no interesting habitats. More interesting is the southern part south of Skucani. At first there is a mixture of agriculture and meadows. South of Vidimilje extensive pasture is dominating. In the southernmost part there are lakes with wetland surroundings, Scilla meadows (mown or not).

In the northern part agriculture is prevailing. In the southern part meadows and pasture, possibly more of the latter. In the middle part fields and meadows are mixed.

only the middle and southern part are suitable for a protected area.

Code 6410 Molinietum coeruleae Illyricum Code 6540 Deschampsion caespitosae

122 ha (wet)

Cernica (Cerniško polje)

816 - 848 m 2.95 between Cernica and Kljuc some meadows with Scilla, otherwise small-scale agriculture with dry meadows mixture of meadows, pastures, some arable fields and hedges


Ravanjsko polje 1132 - 1148 m 19.27 grasslands, but no typical polje vegetation; frequently Taraxacum, Vicia, Veronica sp., Asteraceae, Viola cf. tricolor or elegantula

no mowing, pastures, in the W some arable fields

no valuable habitats found

Livanjsko polje 702 m 408.03 Detailed description in Schwarz (2010) Detailed description in Schwarz (2010) Ramsar site; previously (failed?) drainage and agriculture project; NE Prolog big (illegal?) rubbish dump; in Ždralovač area (desperate) agriculture development project; turf extraction areas should be restored for birds; IMCG expertise has to be evaluated

see Schwarz (2010) and Stumberger et al. (2010)

Šuićko polje 914 - 920 m 2.77 vegetation not studied from near, but seems to be in a perfect conditio; along river Carex stands. meadows, grazing along E side of channel a earth dam was built for some 100 m, its purpuse unknown


161 ha (wet) 13 ha (dry)

Vukovsko polje 1160 - 1204 m 28.14 mountain pasture, no typical polje vegetation mainly used by grazing, two larger farms not clear if special protection needed; no obvious dangers; NW part with the highest biodiversity and different habitats

Duvanjsko polje 850 - 900 m 125.08 along river wet meadows, dry grasslands in central area part (low hills); extensive grasslands important as nesting and feeding areas for birds

extent of mowing, grazing and fallow lands unknown; small arable fields around villages; large-scale agriculture S Duvno

the extensive grasslands together with interspersed wet spots are of significant conservation value


6177 ha (dry) 555 ha (wet)

Kupreško polje 1115 - 1150 m 81.82 in wetter sites nice Narcissus- und Trollius-grasslands; mountain pastures in the N with no special vegetation, but spectacular craters W Rasticevo

agriculture and mowing near settlements, otherwise extensive pastures; some large-scale farming S Kupres where grazing is more intensive

erxtensive target habitats in the S should be protected; N part less interesting, but has spectacular craters


594 ha (wet)

64

Vegetation Classification and characteristic species

Taxum Magnocaricion Deschampsion Molinion Phragmition /Scirpteum Phragmition / Typhetum Festuco-Brometea unknown

Classification Carex-stands wet meadow, partly pasture

Scilla-meadow, wet meadow

Scirpus-stands reed swamp meadow, partly dry, some pastures

meadows and pasture

Found in Dabarsko polje Mostarsko blato, Duvanjsko polje, Dabarsko polje

Lukavačko polje, Gatačko polje, Livanjsko polje, Kupreško polje, Nevesinjsko polje, Duvanjsko polje, Dabarsko polje, Fatničko polje

Dabarsko polje, Mostarsko blato

Livanjsko polje, Gatačko polje

Livanjsko polje, Duvanjsko polje, Mostarsko polje, Popovo polje

Mostarsko blato, Livanjsko polje, Dabarsko polje, Gatačko polje

characteristic for: species

Magnocaricion Carex spec.(Magnocarex)

Molinio-Lathyretum ass.,verb.

Lathyrus pannonicus, Sanguisorba officinalis, Iris cf. sibirica, Serratula lycopifolia, Sesleria uliginosa, Gladiolus illyricus

Molinietalia Scilla litardiere, Orchis palustris; Colchicum autumnale; Narcissus angustifolius; Lychnis flos-cuculi; Leucojum aestivum; Polygonum bistorta

*Plantaginetum altissimae Plantago altissima

Centaureetum pannonicae Centaurea pannonica *Deschampsion Gratiola officinalis, Deschampsia media * *Deschampsion Deschampsia media

Scirpetum lacustrisLac Scirpus lacustris * * *Typhetum latifolii Typha latifolia

Festuco-Brometea Trifolium pratense, Tragopogon orientalis, Sanguisorba minor, Rhinanthus cf. minor, Festuca sp., Chrysanthemum leucanthemum, Knautia arvensis, Galium verum, Lotus cf. corniculatus, Salvia cf. bertolonii, Ranunculus acris, Anthoxanthum odoratum, Anthyllis vulneraria

*

Tab. 2: Habitat types and characteristic plant species of karst poljes in Bosnia-Herzegovina, based on 51 surveys.

The fields in table marked in blue show groups of species which are characteristic of the respective vegetation types


65

adriatic flyway conference poster session

Vegetation Classification and characteristic species

Taxum Magnocaricion Deschampsion Molinion Phragmition /Scirpteum Phragmition / Typhetum Festuco-Brometea unknown

Classification Carex-stands wet meadow, partly pasture

Scilla-meadow, wet meadow

Scirpus-stands reed swamp meadow, partly dry, some pastures

meadows and pasture

Found in Dabarsko polje Mostarsko blato, Duvanjsko polje, Dabarsko polje

Lukavačko polje, Gatačko polje, Livanjsko polje, Kupreško polje, Nevesinjsko polje, Duvanjsko polje, Dabarsko polje, Fatničko polje

Dabarsko polje, Mostarsko blato

Livanjsko polje, Gatačko polje

Livanjsko polje, Duvanjsko polje, Mostarsko polje, Popovo polje

Mostarsko blato, Livanjsko polje, Dabarsko polje, Gatačko polje

characteristic for: species

Magnocaricion Carex spec.(Magnocarex)

Molinio-Lathyretum ass.,verb.

Lathyrus pannonicus, Sanguisorba officinalis, Iris cf. sibirica, Serratula lycopifolia, Sesleria uliginosa, Gladiolus illyricus

Molinietalia Scilla litardiere, Orchis palustris; Colchicum autumnale; Narcissus angustifolius; Lychnis flos-cuculi; Leucojum aestivum; Polygonum bistorta

*Plantaginetum altissimae Plantago altissima

Centaureetum pannonicae Centaurea pannonica *Deschampsion Gratiola officinalis, Deschampsia media * *Deschampsion Deschampsia media

Scirpetum lacustrisLac Scirpus lacustris * * *Typhetum latifolii Typha latifolia

Festuco-Brometea Trifolium pratense, Tragopogon orientalis, Sanguisorba minor, Rhinanthus cf. minor, Festuca sp., Chrysanthemum leucanthemum, Knautia arvensis, Galium verum, Lotus cf. corniculatus, Salvia cf. bertolonii, Ranunculus acris, Anthoxanthum odoratum, Anthyllis vulneraria

*

The fields in table marked with asterisk show other groups of species which occur in the respective vegetation types*

66

schoenoplectosum, with Scirpus lacustris as the dominate

species.

Magnocaricion elatae: Grows on similar, but often on lesser

eutrophic sites as Phragmition, and is, particularly, present

in Livanjsko polje. Ritter-Studnicka (1954) assumes that

under natural conditions the association was widespread,

but was through regularly mowing replaced by Molinion-

associations and other grasslands. Fig. 4 shows an example

of these habitats along the Jaruga River in Livanjsko polje.

As an indicator of previous Magnocaricion associations,

Ritter-Studnička (1954) describes “Busike”, i.e. a particular

micro-relief which is formed by the tussocks of previous

Carex elata stands and which is widespread in Livanjsko,

Gatačko and Nevesinjsko polje.

Caricetalia fuscae: Covers permanently wet areas above

acid soils – usually not in permanent water.

In Livanjsko polje as the biggest and most diverse karst

polje in the Dinaric Karst further vegetation types exist,

some of it listed in the EU Habitat Directive, like some wet

forest types.

As examples for maps which have been prepared on the

basis of the field surveys in June 2012, in Fig. 5 – Fig. 7

vegetation maps for Šuičko, Glamočko and Dabarsko polje

are shown, the later together with Fatničko and Lukavačko

polje. Finally, the southernmost part of Glamočko polje is

shown in Fig. 8.

Discussion

The karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina harbour different

vegetation types of high conservation value according to

European Union Habitats Directive. Even if the present

results are too sparse for the generation of detailed

vegetation maps, the coverage of typical polje vegetation

was estimated.

The conservation value of the karst poljes is threatened by

different factors:

• Due to highly fluctuating water-levels many

poljes can be used only for cattle and sheep

grazing or for hay-cutting. Changes of the

hydrological regimes through drainage and

other water engineering projects undermine

the ecological function of the karst poljes.

In former Yugoslavian times, when Ritter-

Studnička conducted her studies, several water

engineering projects were realized, which

significantly altered the hydrology of affected

poljes. Until today, large-scale drainage for

the cultivation of crops, as well as large scale

0 1 2 km

Fig. 5: Vegetation map of Šuičko polje.


67


hydropower projects are in progress in some

poljes putting their ecosystem functions and

ecological values at risk.

• On the other side, important infrastructure is

largely lacking and the depopulation of rural

areas as a result of the last war in Bosnia-

Herzegovina proceeds in many poljes. Since

the percentage of fallow lands is still increasing

and numbers of livestock are in decline, a

minimum of utilization which is necessary to

preserve the conservation value of grassland

habitats, is not guaranteed in some areas. The

later will eventually lead to the transformation

of typical wet meadows (Molinion) into other

vegetation types (Magnocaricion, Phragmition,

bushlands, forests). Regarding the EU’s

Habitats Directive, this development means

that today´s Natura 2000 habitat found in the

karst poljes will progressively be transformed

into non Natura 2000 habitats. This process

was recently described for the karst poljes of

Croatia by Topić (2009).

• Hydroelectric projects have impacted the water

flow of individual poljes as well as between

hydrological connected poljes. In the future,

huge water engineering projects risk changing

the hydrological regimes of several karst

poljes to such an extent, that the typical polje

vegetation will be lost.

• Furthermore, extraction of peat, coal mining

and incineration, rubbish dumping and

urbanization jeopardize the value of some

poljes.

As a potential member of the EU, Bosnia-Herzegovina will

have to establish a network of Natura 2000 areas and has

recently started preparations for the adoption of EU nature

conservation policy. As all habitat types of wet meadows

occurring in the karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well

as many dry grassland habitats, are listed in the Habitats

Directive, the country will be able to use funds of EU

agro-environmental schemes for grassland conservation

and management when joining the EU. On the other

hand, if neither the EU nor national authorities will show

stronger commitment for the preservation of the karst

polje ecosystems in the future, devastating projects and

transformation may progress. EU legislation opens the

chance for NGOs to influence the Natura 2000 process,

Fig. 6: Vegetation map of Dabarsko (left), Fatničko (right) and Lukovačko polje.

0 2 4 6 8 10 km

68

even if national authorities do not take non-governmental

support in account in many cases. In many countries (also in

the Western Balkans) NGOs have prepared “shadow lists”

of habitats which were not designated by local authorities.

Thus, national states are no longer able to “hide” their

natural values, but have to designate protected areas in

a participatory process. A comprehensive and adequate

documentation of the karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina

will reveal these ecosystems to be prominent elements for

the national shadow list.

After the designation as Natura 2000 areas, management

plans will be needed. For the identification of management

needs for different karst poljes, comprehensive understanding

of the effects of previous farming practices for present

habitat conditions is crucial.

The grassland habitats in karst poljes have developed as a

result of regular mowing and grazing or the combination of

both practices. Changes in grassland management will affect

the ecological values of the poljes. For instance, the production

of silage instead of hay will change the composition of plant

communities and heavily reduce grassland biodiversity,

because meadows used for silage are cut earlier, before

many rare and ecologically valuable plants have reproduced.

In the same way, plant species´ diversity will decline if the

grazing pressure is increased, if grazing periods do not

respect the reproductive cycle of the vegetation, or in case

of prolonged grazing seasons. While grazing occurs in most

poljes, it does not necessarily have a negative impact, but

frequently represents the main driver for the development of

characteristic plant communities in the poljes.

Conclusion

The wetlands of periodically flooded poljes are of great

importance for nesting and migrating birds. The karst

poljes harbour a number of ecologically important habitat

types. Among them there are habitats depending on

polje-specific water regimes and regular flooding. These

habitats belong to syntaxa which are protected by the

European Union’s Habitats Directive: Molinietum coeruleae

(Code 6410), Deschampsion caespitosae (Code 6540)

and Festuco-Brometea (Code 6210). Together, Bosnia-

Herzegovina and Croatia harbour more than three quarters

of the karst poljes of the Dinaric Karst. For maintaining

these unique habitats it is crucial to put them under sound

protection in both countries.

Fig. 7: Vegetation map of the southern parts of Glamočko polje.

0 2 4 6 8 10km


69


Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Ena Simić from Naše Ptice for her

comprehensive help in establishing contacts, finding

information and providing logistical assistance; EuroNatur

and its staff for covering travel costs, establishing contacts

and the provision of literature; Sabaheta Abadzić for her

company and help in identifying plants; Ilhan Dervović

for his company, information about his country and its

people, and his help in transportation; to Romy Durst

and Peter Sackl for their comments on an earlier draft of

the manuscript and to Ulrich Schwarz for help with the

processing of geographical information.

References

Horvat I., Glavač V., Ellenberg H. (1974): Vegetation Südosteuropas. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.Ritter-Studnička H.(1954): Flora und Vegetation der Wiesen in den Karstpoljen Bosniens und der Hercegowina. God. Biol. Inst. Sarajevo; 1-2: 25-109 Schwarz U. (2010): Habitat mapping of the Livanjsko Polje (BA), the Neretva Delta (HR, BA) and Lake Skadar-Shkoder (ME, AL). In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M., Stumberger B. (eds.), Adriatic Flyway – Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. EuroNatur, Radolfzell. pp. 79 – 87.Stumberger B. (2010): A classification of karst poljes in the Dinarides

Fig. 8: The intermittent lake in the southernmost part of Glamočko polje is a remnant of spring flooding, 5 June 2012 (Photo: Gerhard Bronner).

and their significance for waterbird conservation. In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M., Stumberger B. (eds.), Adriatic Flyway – Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. EuroNatur, Radolfzell. pp. 69 – 78.Karoglan Todorović S. (2012): Bosnia and Herzegovina. In: Oppermann R., Beaufoy G., Jones G. (eds.), High Nature Value Farming in Europe. Verlag Regionalkultur, Ubstadt-Weiher. pp. 138 – 145.Topić J. (2009): Grassland vegetation in karstic poljes in Croatia. In: Veen P. (ed.), Grasslands in Europe of High Nature Value. KNNV Publishing, Zeist, The Netherlands; pp. 267 - 273.

70

Olm Proteus anguinus (Photo: Gregor Aljančič)


71


Endangered Proteus: combining DNA and GIS analyses for its conservation

Gregor Aljančič1, Špela Gorički1, Magdalena Năpăruş1, 2, David Stanković3 & Matjaž Kuntner4

1 Society for Cave Biology, Tular Cave Laboratory, Oldhamska c. 8a, SI-4000 Kranj, Slovenia, E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] LASIG, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Station 18, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland, E-mail: [email protected] University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Zootechnical Department, Groblje 3, SI-1230 Domžale, Slovenia, E-mail: [email protected] Institute of Biology, Scientific Research Centre, Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Novi trg 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, E-mail: [email protected]

Summary

Proteus anguinus, an endemic amphibian of the

subterranean waters of the Dinaric Karst, is restricted

to its cave habitat. However, during seasonal flooding,

some specimens are washed-out of their subterranean

environment. While this may be considered as a highly

hazardous way for Proteus to disperse into new habitats,

it is obvious that all these individuals present a constant

loss to their population. The Tular Cave Laboratory serves

as a sanctuary for injured specimens accidentally washed-

out of their subterranean habitat during seasonal flooding.

Since 2008, 17 cases have been documented in Slovenia,

and 7 of these animals were successfully returned to

their source populations. Although the periodic loss of

individual animals has been well balanced through the

evolution of Proteus, a concern is raised when possible

effects of climate change, large-scale hydrotechnical works

and agriculture intensification are considered: the timing,

frequency and magnitude of flood events are expected to

be changed within a very short period of time. Here we

discuss the risks and propose the actions necessary to

halt the loss of these rare and highly endangered animals

due to man-induced changes in flood regimes of the karst

poljes.

Firstly, before any animal is returned to nature, the

veterinary care and a strict protocol should minimize the

transmission of potential infection. Secondly, if washed-

out individuals are to be returned to nature, their source

population must be accurately identified. Screening for

DNA markers powerful enough to detect ongoing gene-

flow, such as micro-satellites and single-nucleotide

polymorphisms (SNPs), should minimize the potential

for genetic pollution. Thirdly, the washed-out individuals

deposited on karst fields often cannot be returned directly

to their local cave system, since only small fragments of

Proteus subterranean habitat can be accessed by man.

We are currently developing a method of detection of

traces of Proteus DNA in water samples (environmental

DNA); when integrated in an accurate distribution

Geographic Information System (GIS) model, the potential

pattern of its genetic variability within the complex karst

landscape will be determined. The resulted database

should then be referenced not only to guide the return of

washed-out individuals to nature but also to minimize the

potential impact of any planned hydrotechnical and water-

extraction activities in karst poljes on the genetic integrity

of Proteus populations.

Sažetak

Proteus anguinus, endemični vodozemac podzemnih

voda dinarskog krša, vezan je za pećinska staništa. No,

tokom sezonskog plavljenja, neki primjerci budu izbačeni

vodenom strujom iz svog podzemnog okruženja. Sa jedne

strane, to se može smatrati veoma riskantnim načinom

kojim Proteus naseljava nova staništa, ali je očito i da

ovakve jedinke predstavljaju stalni gubitak za populaciju.

Jamski laboratorij Tulat služi kao utočište za povrijeđene

primjerke koji su slučajno izbačeni iz svog pozdemnog

staništa tokom sezonskih poplava. Od 2008, u Sloveniji

je zabilježeno 17 slučajeva, a 7 tih životinja je uspješno

vraćeno u populacije iz kojih su potekle. Iako je povremeni

gubitak jedinki nešto sa čime se ova vrsta sustetala tokom

evolucije, postoji zabrinutost kada se u obzir uzmu moguće

posljedice klimatskih promjena, hidrotehničkih radova i

razvoja poljoprivrede: vrijeme, učestalost i veličina poplava

će se vjerovatno promijeniti u veoma kratkom vremenskom

periodu. U ovom radu bavimo se rizicima i predlažemo

radnje koje su neophodne da se zaustavi gubitak ovih

rijetkih i veoma ugroženih životinja zbog promjena u režimu

poplava u kraškim poljima, koje je čovjek uzrokovao. Prvo,

72

prije nego što se ijedna životinja vrati u prirodu, veterinarska

njega i strogi protokol treba smanjiti prenos moguće infekcije.

Drugo, ako se izbačene jedinke trebaju vratiti u prirodu, treba

tačno odrediti iz koje populacije su potekle. Screening DNA

markera koji su dovoljno jaki da otkriju protok gena, kao što su

mikrosateliti i jednonukleotisni polimorfizmi (SNPs) trebali bi

smanjiti mogućnost genetičkog onečišćenja. Treće, jedinke

koje su izbačene iz podzemnih staništa i nađene na kraškim

poljima se obično ne mogu direktno vratiti u lokalni pećinski

sistem, jer je samo malidio podzemnih staništa ove vrste

dostupan čovjeku. Trenutno razvijamo metodu za otkrivanje

tragova DNA Proteusa u uzorcima vode (okolišna DNA); kada

se to ujedini sa stvarnim GIS (Geografski Informacioni Sistem)

modelom rasprostranjenja, potencijalni režim genetske

raznolikosti unutak kompleksa kraških polja će biti određen.

Baza podataka koja će biti rezultat toga bit će korištena ne

samo kao vodič za vraćanje izbačenih jedinki u prirodu, nego i

za smanjenje potencijalnog uticaja planiranih hidrotehničkih

aktivnosti u kraškim poljima na genetički integritet populacija

Proteusa.

Keywords: Proteus, Amphibia, environmental DNA, karst

ecohydrology, vulnerability map

Introduction

The Dinaric Karst is one of the world’s prime heritage

landscapes, both for natural and cultural phenomena.

Dinaric Karst is also important for the study of evolutionary

and ecological interplay. For example, here the endemic

subterranean vertebrate fauna meets migrating birds,

both animal groups having been affected by the single

geological evolution of karst polje and its periodical

flooding (sensu Bonacci et al. 2008), and subject to natural

selection of over ten million years (Trontelj et al. 2007). The

flagship species of this unique natural diversity is the olm,

Proteus anguinus Laurenti 1768, a true symbol of karst and

its history of research (M. Aljančič et. al 1993). Periodical

flooding has probably been an important selective force

in the evolution of this cave-dwelling amphibian (Aljančič

& Năpăruş 2012), as well as of some populations of

endemic surface-dwelling fish (Telestes, Phoxinellus and

Delminichthys) (see also Palandačić et al. 2012). Periodical

flooding in this karst system, however, also influences the

occurrence of migratory birds of the Adriatic Flyway; these

represent transitory, yet punctual guests that are also

synchronized with periodical flooding of the Dinaric Karst

(Schneider-Jacoby et al. 2006; Stumberger 2010).

Through the centuries, human populations have also adapted

to the karst landscape developing their own sustainable

strategies. Recently, however, anthropogenic activities

are largely negative, coming from intensive agricultural

activities (e.g., Slovenia: overuse of biogas slurry fertilizer/ B.

Bulog & A. Hudoklin, pers. comm.; Bosnia and Herzegovina:

converting pastures into arable land/ B. Stumberger, pers.

comm.), energy production (hydro and thermal power plants),

and unregulated urbanization. Southeast Herzegovina,

in particular, has seen these human activities reaching

catastrophic proportions (see the case of Popovo Polje; M.

Aljančič 1963, Čučković 1983, Lewarne 1999, Lučić 2013).

The case of Proteus: floods as a constant threat?

Flooding—an important periodic event in caves— is a transport

agent for organic matter (also for contaminants) as well as

for organisms, affecting their colonization, dispersal, and life

cycles. In common with all stygobionts, Proteus is entirely

restricted to its cave environment, and no longer able to be

ecologically competitive in surface habitats. However, during

flooding, a number of specimens get washed-out onto

the surface, where they become stranded away from their

subterranean environment and become exposed to predation

on the open surface of the karst polje. It is reasonable

to speculate that the earliest human knowledge of the

existence of subterranean fauna was through encounters

with such washed-out animals. As early as 1689 J. V. Valvasor

encountered Proteus precisely under these circumstances,

and provided its first description.

While becoming stranded on the surface may in fact be a part of natural history of Proteus intended to enable dispersal into new habitats, this highly hazardous strategy is, obviously, very costly in terms of loss of individuals from source populations.


73


While becoming stranded on the surface may in fact be

a part of natural history of Proteus intended to enable

dispersal into new habitats, this highly hazardous strategy

is, obviously, very costly in terms of loss of individuals from

source populations. The fate of stranded individuals is

quite predictable as the odds to re-enter the underground

and thus to survive are minimal. The animals are often

deposited on temporarily flooded fields and may survive

for up to several weeks and as long as high waters persist;

they may suffer sunburns or chilblains, and eventually

desiccate (Fig. 1). Others may be carried further into

surface streams where they get preyed upon by fish, birds

or other predators.

We presume that Proteus has developed several

responses to reduce the danger of being washed out of its

subterranean habitat (Aljančič & Prelovšek 2010) as well

as adaptations of its feeding and reproductive behaviour.

Due to the extremely long lifespan on the one hand

(animals may survive nearly 100 years in captivity) and

long reproduction cycles on the other (Proteus reproduce

approximately every 8 years in captivity), each individual

loss may be fairly detrimental for the size of its population.

Although this periodic loss has presumably been an annual

constant through its evolution, more rapid changes due

to human induced climate change, which are expected to

change the timing, frequency and magnitude of floods

dramatically, will most probably exceed the ability of

Proteus to cope with environmental changes.

The Tular Cave Laboratory has extensively studied this

neglected phenomenon since 2008, documenting 17 cases

of stranded Proteus in Slovenia. All animals were found

by chance and reported by locals. Through this research

we unexpectedly became involved in a rescue mission:

seven of these animals were saved and returned to their

source population (Aljančič & Năpăruş 2012), while injured

animals found sanctuary in the Tular Cave Laboratory.

Why location matters

When an individual found on the surface cannot be returned

directly to the cave or spring from which it was washed out

by flood, the data on the exact distribution of its source

population can guide its return. Analyses of mitochondrial

DNA sequences revealed distinct lineages of Proteus from

the Dinaric Karst of (1) Istria, (2) Dalmatia-Herzegovina,

(3) Bosanska Krajina, (4) Lika, (5) SW Slovenia and (6)

SE Slovenia (Gorički 2006; cf. Fig. 4 in Gorički & Trontelj

2006; Trontelj et al. 2007, 2009; and unpublished data).

A study of highly variable nuclear DNA sequences is still

lacking, but will, hopefully, resolve the complex network

of relationships on a more local scale, i. e. within the

populations that mitochondrial DNA indicated. To clearly

delimit populations with on-going gene flow, intensive

sampling coupled with datasets of karst features and their

spatial relationships within the karst system, datasets

with geological and hydrogeological features and their

spatial relationships, a high resolution digital elevation

model of the area, and spatial statistical modelling

are needed. This is especially significant in the case of

populations with very small ranges or which inhabit areas

that have received little attention in the past.

The Tular Cave Laboratory is developing an indirect, forensic

approach (which will be published elsewhere) to facilitate

the search for Proteus in even the most inaccessible

locations. Namely, during the process of skin growth and

regeneration, fragments of epidermal cells, along with the

DNA they contain, are constantly shed from the skin of

aquatic vertebrates and carried away by water. Such DNA

dissolved in water is called environmental DNA (eDNA).

In its most basic form, the methodology aims at detecting

traces of Proteus DNA released in water; as new genetic

markers are found, it can be expanded for fast and routine

genotypization of water samples. DNA extracted from the

mucous of a washed-out individual is then compared to the

integrated DNA-GIS database. In this way it will be possible

to determine the origin of the washed-out animal, and the

appropriate site to release the animal can be identified.

Fig. 1: Proteus stranded in Kljunov ribnik near Pivka, Slovenia, 29 December 2008; serious chilblains on dorsal side (Photo: Gregor Aljančič)

74

Further implications of combined DNA and GIS analysis for Proteus conservation

Due to their high specialization to a narrow range of

abiotic conditions in the subterranean environment, all

groundwater organisms are extremely vulnerable to direct

and indirect alterations of their habitats. In Southeastern

Bosnia and Herzegovina, large scale hydrotechnical

activities are the main cause for disturbances to the

natural flooding regime of caves and karst poljes,

reduction of the catchment area, land amelioration, and

water pumping (Ozimec 2011). Through reduction or loss of

aquatic habitats in caves, or microclimatic and ecological

changes such as temperature increase, reduction of

dissolved oxygen, and reduction or increase in the quantity

of organic matter (Ozimec 2011) these activities may have

a detrimental impact on the density of groundwater fauna,

including its flagship species Proteus (e. g., the case of

Popovo Polje; M. Aljančič 1963, Čučković 1983, Lewarne

1999, Lučić 2013). In particular, intensive engineering works

to divert the waters from Dabarsko polje towards Fatničko

polje and further towards Bileća, Trebinje, and the Ombla

hydroelectric plant near Dubrovnik considerably reduce the

flow of groundwater towards the lower Neretva River and

its delta (J. Mulaomerović, pers. comm.). Furthermore, a

substantial portion of waters from Popovo polje is being

diverted towards Ombla spring, while only a small part is

directed to the reversible hydroelectric plant “Čapljina”,

located on the eastern side of the Svitavsko-Deransko

polje. The reduction of input of groundwater from karst

poljes of Eastern Herzegovina into the Neretva River’s

lower course and the delta results in an increase of

saltwater penetrating further upstream. The observed

increase of salinity may have a direct adverse effect on the

localities of Proteus in the Neretva River delta and Hutovo

Blato. Changes in the direction of watercourses may also

affect the gene pool of Proteus populations (Sket 1997).

Existing legal acts – with Bosnia and Herzegovina being

the only political entity within the range of Proteus that

lacks any legislation enforcing its conservation – do not

entirely protect aquatic cave animals and their habitats

from negative human impacts on groundwater integrity. A

decline of several populations of Proteus has been reported,

and in some localities Proteus has already become extinct

(Sket 1997). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

defines Proteus anguinus as vulnerable, and recommends

urgent measures to revert its population decline (Arntzen

et al. 2009). The extent of its decline, however, cannot be

estimated without an extensive survey of its distribution.

Current knowledge on the distribution of Proteus in Bosnia

and Herzegovina (Kotrošan 2002) is particularly scarce in

the area along the lower course of the Neretva Rivier and

its tributaries. In the area of Hutovo blato, only a single

Proteus locality is known: a well in the village Čore near the

Babino oko spring. Undoubtedly, Proteus can also inhabit

other caves in the area. This is supported by the oldest

known depiction of Proteus in Bosnia and Herzegovina, on

a ‘stećak’ (monumental gravestone typical for Medieval

Bosnia) from ca. 1477, found in the Boljuni necropolis

near Stolac (Mulaomerović & Hodžić 2012), which conveys

Proteus as having a long symbolic presence.

Conclusions

The Tular Cave Laboratory has started utilizing the eDNA to

infer the presence of Proteus in the most threatened sites.

The results of this intensive survey will provide a scientific

basis for enforcing the long-term protection of Proteus

populations and its habitats, and will help to mitigate

current and future threats. The highly efficient, non-

invasive, DNA-based method to detect Proteus from water

samples coupled with a set of spatial data will provide a

vulnerability map of Proteus which will visualize zones

most threatened by human impacts along with the most

active threats. When integrated in an accurate Geographic

Information System (GIS) distribution model, the patterns

of the genetic variability of Proteus within the complex

karst landscape will emerge. The DNA-GIS database will

further provide the scientific basis for the return of washed-

out individuals to their source cave system. Furthermore,

it will also help to prepare urgently needed vulnerability

models for assessing potential impacts of hydrotechnical

and water-extraction activities in karst poljes on the

The highly vulnerable Proteus has a huge potential to become a symbol of a successful balance between conservation and sustainable management of the karst environment.


75


genetic structure of Proteus populations. The accuracy

of the resulting distribution and vulnerability models

will be validated by spatial statistical analysis (Năpăruș

& Kuntner 2012; Meleg et. al 2013). This analytical tool is

designed to implement future conservation action plans

needed for building sustainable strategies for landscape

management and ecological forecasting. Future activities

may even reach beyond local geography and specifics of

the distribution of Proteus in the Dinaric Karst – with the

present survey serving as a model for future assessments

of the vulnerability of aquatic cave fauna worldwide – and,

thus, offer the possibility to implement science based

conservation strategies for a sustainable management of

the karst environment and its biodiversity.

The present study has strengthened our belief that a complex

ecosystem of Dinaric Karst poljes (above and underground) can

only be preserved through multidisciplinary scientific efforts

and with the support of international nature conservation

organizations. An active alliance of organisations committed

to nature conservation of the Dinaric Karst is urgently needed

in order to embark on an ambitious task to promote, share

and implement an advanced action plan to save Proteus,

Europe’s only cave vertebrate, along its fragmented range

in the Western Balkans. The highly vulnerable Proteus has a

huge potential to become a symbol of a successful balance

between conservation and sustainable management of the

karst environment.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Borut Stumberger and Peter Sackl

for helpful comments on the manuscript, and Brian Lewarne

for linguistic review. We thank Ivan Bebek, Ilhan Dervović,

Jelena Kadić, Dražen Kotrošan, Brian Lewarne, Ivo Lučić,

Jasminko Mulaomerović, Dušan Musa, Goran Panić and Sara

Todorović for the valuable information on greatest threats

to Proteus in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We also thank

EuroNatur and Naše ptice for hosting the workshop. The

eDNA survey in Southeastern Herzegovina and Montenegro

is performed in partnership with the Center for Karst and

Speleology (Sarajevo), the Republic Institute for Protection

of Cultural, Historical and Natural Heritage (Banja Luka),

the Biospeleological Society of Montenegro (Podgorica), the

Herzegovinian Mountain Rescue Service (Mostar), and with

the financial support of the Critical Ecosystem Partnership

Fund/BirdLife International and DOPPS, the University

of Maryland, and the Institute of Biology at the Scientific

Research Centre (Ljubljana).

References

Aljančič G., Prelovšek M. (2010): Does Proteus detect and react to a sudden rise of water conductivity which indicates incoming flood? Abstract Book 20th International Conference on Subterranean Biology. Postojna, Slovenia; pp. 114 – 115.Aljančič G., Năpăruş M. (2012): Stygobionts washed out to surface: A case of Proteus anguinus. Abstract Book 21st International Conference on Subterranean Biology. Košice, Slovakia; pp. 22 – 23.Aljančič M. (1963): Po jamah Popovega polja [In caves of Popovo Polje]. Proteus 25(9-10): 239 – 245.Aljančič M., Bulog B., Kranjc A., Josipovič D., Sket B., Skoberne P. (1993): Proteus: The Mysterious Ruler of Karst Darkness. Vitrum, Ljubljana, 75 pp.Arntzen J.W., Denoël M., Miaud C., Andreone F., Vogrin M., Edgar P., Crnobrnja Isailovic J., Ajtic R., Corti C. (2009): Proteus anguinus. In: IUCN (2013), IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 25 November 2013.Bonacci O., Pipan T., Culver D. C. (2008): A framework for karst ecohydrology. Environmental Geology 65(5): 891 – 900.Čučković S. (1983): Uticaj promjene režima vodotoka hidrosistema Trebišnjica na faunu kraškog podzemlja [The influence of the change in the water-course regime of the Trebišnjica water-system on the fauna of the karst underground regions]. Naš Krš 9: 129 – 142.Gorički Š. (2006): Filogeografska in morfološka analiza populacij močerila (Proteus anguinus). [Phylogeographic and morphological analysis of European cave salamander (Proteus anguinus) populations.] Ph.D. Dissertation, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 76 pp.Gorički Š., Trontelj P. (2006): Structure and evolution of the mitochondrial control region and flanking sequences in the European cave salamander Proteus anguinus. Gene 378: 31 – 41.Kotrošan D. (2002): Rasprostranjenje čovječije ribice na području Bosne i Hercegovine [Distribution of the Proteus (Proteus anguinus Laurenti, 1768) in Bosnia and Herzegovina]. Naš Krš 35: 57 – 64.Lewarne B. (1999): A joint strategy for the protection of the Trebinje Proteus anguinus and its natural karst habitat. Naš Krš 32: 35 – 50.Lučić I. (2013): Obrnuti tokove vode i povijesti [Turning course of water and history]. Međunarodni forum Bosne – IFB, 61/62(13): 75 - 116.Meleg I. N., Năpăruş M., Fiers F., Meleg H. I., Vlaicu M., Moldovan O. T. (2013): The relationships between land cover, climate and cave copepod spatial distribution and suitability along the Carpathians. Environmental Conservation. FirstView: 1 - 11.Mulaomerović J., Hodžić M. (2012): Proteus anguinus in Bosnia and Herzegovina: from the Middle ages to today. Abstracts 21st International Conference on Subterranean Biology, Košice, Slovakia; p. 77.Năpăruş M., Kuntner M. (2012): A GIS Model Predicting Potential Distributions of a Lineage: A Test Case on Hermit Spiders (Nephilidae: Nephilengys). PLoS ONE 7/1: e30047.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030047.Ozimec R. (2011): Red book of Dinaric cave fauna – an example from Croatia. In: Prelovšek M., Zupan Hajna N. (eds.), Pressures and Protection of the Underground Karst: Cases from Slovenia and Croatia. Karst Research Institute ZRC SAZU, Postojna; pp. 182 – 190.Palandačić A., Bonacci O., Snoj A. (2012): Molecular data as a possible tool for tracing groundwater flow in karst environment: example of Delminichthys adspersus in Dinaric karst system. Ecohydrology 5/ 6: 791 – 797. Schneider-Jacoby M., Rubinić B., Sackl P., Stumberger B. (2006): A preliminary assessment of the ornithological importance of Livanjsko Polje (Cetina River Basin, Bosnia and Herzegovina). Acrocephalus 27: 45 − 57.Sket B. (1997): Distribution of Proteus (Amphibia: Urodela: Proteidae) and its possible explanation. Journal of Biogeography 24: 263 – 280.Stumberger B. (2010): A classification of karst poljes in the Dinarides and their significance for waterbird conservation. In: Denac D., Scheneider-Jacoby M., Stumberger B. (eds.), Adriatic Flyway – Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. Euronatur, Radolfzell; pp. 69 - 78.Trontelj P., Gorički Š., Polak S., Verovnik R., Zakšek V., Sket B. (2007): Age estimates for some subterranean taxa and lineages in the Dinaric Karst. Acta carsologica 36: 183 – 189.Trontelj P. , Douady C. J., Fišer C., Gibert J., Gorički Š., Lefébure T., Sket B., Zakšek V. (2009): A molecular test for cryptic diversity in ground water: how large are the ranges of macro-stygobionts? Freshwater Biology 54: 727 – 744.

76

Kupreško polje, May 2009 (Photo: Alimanović Behudin)


77


The wintering population of Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus in Glamočko, Duvanjsko and Kupreško polje (Bosnia-Herzegovina)

Ena Šimić-Hatibović

Ornithological Society „Our Birds“, Semira Frašte 6, BA - 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; E-mail: [email protected]

Summary

The karst poljes of Bosnia constitute hotspots of

biodiversity. But the karst wetland habitats of Bosnia

and Herzegovina are under threat. Except the largest, i. e.

Livanjsko polje, all karst poljes are unprotected. Livanjsko

polje has been recognized as a Ramsar site and since 2011

it is designated as an Important Bird Area (IBA). In 2013 it

was ranked as a medium threatened IBA site by BirdLife

International (2013).

Because habitat types and land use practices are similar to

that in Livanjsko polje, Duvanjsko, Glamočko and Kupreško

polje may, in the same way, harbor a high biodiversity. In

particular, the bird fauna appears to be as rich and diverse

as in Livanjsko polje. So far the avifauna of the karst poljes

was never systematically investigated and no historic data

are available for comparison with recent, systematically

collected data.

The presence and population numbers of Hen Harriers

Circus cyaneus were investigated across a one year period,

between May 2011 and June 2012. Because all karst poljes

in western Bosnia seem to fulfill IBA criteria, the three

poljes investigated have the potential for harbouring high

biodiversity and need to be protected urgently. The aim of

the present study was to make a preliminary assessment

of the wintering population of Hen Harrier in three karst

poljes - Kupreško, Glamočko and Duvanjsko polje.

The Hen Harrier is an important indicator species of open,

extensively used grassland habitats. The species is listed

in Annex I of the European Union’s Bird Directive. During

one year of field research Hen Harriers were studied by

using the point count method in all three karst poljes.

The species was present in poljes between November and

March. During the winter 2011/12, due to heavy snow, field

conditions were unusually bad in January and February

and some of the constant observation points were not

accessible. In the present paper results of the one year

study are presented.

Sažetak

Kraška polja Bosne i Hercegovine predstavljaju žarišta

biodiverziteta, ali močvarnim kraškim staništima u Bosni

i Hercegovini prijeti nestanak. Osim najvećeg, Livanjskog

polja, sva ostala kraška polja su nezaštićena. Livanjsko polje

je prepoznato kao Ramsarsko područje, i od 2011. Godine

ima oznaku područja važnog za ptice (Important Bird Area

- IBA). U 2013. godini organizacija BirdLife International je

rangirala Livanjsko polje kao srednje ugroženo IBA područje.

S obrizom na činjenicu da Duvanjsko, Glamočko i Kupreško

polje imaju slične tipove staništa i praksu korištenja

zemljišta kao i Livanjsko polje, i ova polja bi mogla imati

visok stepen biodiverziteta. Konkretnije, ornitofauna ovih

polja izgleda isto tako bogata i raznolika kao što je to

slučaj u Livanjskom polju. Do sada ornitofauna ovih polja

nije sistematično istraživana i ne postoje historijski podaci

za upoređivanje sa nedavno prikupljenim sistematskim

podacima. Prisustvo i brojnosnost populacije eje strnjarice

Circus cyaneus praćeni su tokom jedne godine (maj 2011.

– juni 2012.). Sva kraška polja zapadne Bosne okvirno

ispunjavaju IBA kriterije, tri navedena polja imaju veliki

potencijal za očuvanje biološke raznolikosti i potrebno

ih je hitno zaštititi. Cilj ovog rada bio je da se napravi

preliminarna procjena zimske populacije eje strnjarice u

tri kraška polja: Kupreškom, Glamočkom i Duvanjskom.

Eja strnjarica je važna indikatorska vrsta na otvorenim,

ekstenzivno korištenim travnatim staništima. Ova vrsta je

navedena u Aneksu I Direktive o pticama Evropske Unije.

Tokom jedne godine istraživanja, eje strnjarice proučavana

su metodom brojanja iz tačke na sva tri kraška polja. Tokom

zimskog perioda 2011./2012. zbog velikog snijega uslovi su

bili neuobičajeno loši u januaru i februaru, pa neke tačke na

78

kojima ja vršeno brojanje nisu bile dostupne. U ovom radu

prikazani su rezultati jednogodišnjeg istraživanja.

Keywords: Bosnia-Herzegovina, karst poljes, Hen Harrier,

Circus cyaneus, wintering population, population numbers

Introduction

The karst areas in Bosnia-Herzegovina constitute

biodiversity hotspots. Nevertheless, only the largest karst

polje, i. e. Livanjsko polje, was recognized as a Ramsar site

2008 (cf. Ramsar Secretariat website) and in 2011 it was

designated as an Important Bird Area (IBA). In 2013 it was

ranked as a medium threatened Important Bird Area (IBA)

by BirdLife International (2013).

Because habitats and land use practices are similar in Bosnian

karst poljes, Duvanjsko, Glamočko and Kupreško polje may, in

the same way, harbour a high biodiversity. In most poljes, in

particular, the bird fauna appears to be as rich and diverse as in

Livanjsko polje. So far, the avifauna of the karst poljes of Bosnia

was never systematically investigated and no historic data are

available for comparison with recent, systematically collected

data. Because the three poljes may, like many other, fulfill IBA

criteria, a first assessment of the wintering population of Hen

Harrier Circus cyaneus was launched in 2011.

The aim of this paper is to present a short review of the

current knowledge on the distribution and seasonal

occurrence of the Hen Harrier in the karst poljes of Bosnia,

according to existing literature, and to present first data

on the presence and population numbers of the species in

western Bosnia. Although, the results of the present study

are in some way preliminary, this is the first study of the

species and one of the few bird studies for which, so far,

quantitative methods were used in Bosnia.

Study area

Between May 2011 and June 2012 the seasonal occurrence, i.

e. presence, and numbers of Hen Harrier were investigated

in Glamočko, Duvanjsko and Kupreško polje (Fig. 1).

Glamočko polje is a 130 km2 large, almost closed karst

plain. The maximum length of the karst polje which is

elongated in the NW-SE direction, amounts to 45 km.

The polje is widest in its central part, i. e. 12 km between

Glamoč and Podgreda. While the narrowest section of the

area, between Vidimlije and Osoje, measures only 700 m.

Duvanjsko polje covers a total area of 121.6 km2; it is

situated between 860 and 890 meters a.s.l. The karst polje

is surrounded by five mountains: Ljubuša (1797 m) and

Vran (1961 m) in the E, Lika (1391 m) to the SE and Tušnica

(1700 m) as well as Jelovača (1572 m) in the NW.

Like Duvanjsko polje, the 93 km2 large Kupreško polje

represents a rather large and open karst plain, situated

on the east side of Livanjsko and Glamočko polje, and

Duvanjsko polje in the N. Like Glamočko polje, the shape of

the polje is elongated in the NW-SE direction. The maximal

length and width of the polje amount to 24 km and 10 km,

respectively (Kanaet 1954).

Fig. 1: Location of the study area; A - Glamočko, B - Duvanjsko, C - Kupreško polje.

Methods

Over the study period the three karst poljes studied were

visited during 12 field trips or 33 field days, i. e. one field

day per month and polje (see below). All individual birds

which could be seen or heard were counted during 10 – 20

minutes long point counts. Ahead of the study all poljes

So far, the avifauna of the karst poljes of Bosnia was never systematically investigated


79


and areas of interest were visited, adequate observation

points selected and locations of count points measured

with GPS. In all, 60 observation points were selected: 25

in Glamočko, 23 in Duvanjsko and 12 in Kupreško polje (Fig.

2). For bird counts binoculars and a telescope were used.

The winter 2011/12 was extremely harsh with a lot of

snow. With snow heights over more then a metre, some

observation points were not accessible during February

2012 (FHMZBiH 2012). But, following to the extreme

weather conditions and unusually high snow cover which

covered all potential hunting surfaces, very few or even no

Hen Harriers may have been present during this period.

Dates of point counts in Glamočko, Duvanjsko and

Kupreško polje, respectively, are given below as:

21st, 22nd and 20th November 2011

26th, 27th and 25th December 2011

25th, 26th, 24th January 2012

08th, 09th and 7th March 2012

Results and discussion

Currently, few and largely scattered data on the migration

and wintering of Hen Harriers in Bosnia-Herzegovina

exist. Following to Reiser (1939) the species is a regular

migrant and winter visitor in Herzegovina, particularly in

Hutovo blato. In Bosnia he has seen the species annually

in the surroundings of Sarajevo between late October and

April. Additionally, Zaplata (1933) spotted the species on

two occasions, i. e. on 11 January and 7 February 1891, in

Sarajevsko polje. In the second half of the last century

Hen Harriers were recorded during autumn migration in

Gatačko polje (Obratil 1986), in winter as well as during

spring and autumn migration in Hutovo blato (Obratil

Fig. 2: Location of observation points used for bird counting (point counts), May 2011 – June 2012, in the three study areas

Glamočko polje

Duvanjsko polje

Kupreško polje

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus (Photo: Heinz Kolland)

80

1985), in spring in Gatačko and during autumn migration,

only, in Nevesinjsko, Gatačko and Dabarsko polje (Obratil

1984). However, because the species has been recorded in

similar habitats in Slovenia during both, migrations and

winter periods, in Dravsko polje and at Medvedce reservoir

(Bordjan & Božić 2009), and Hen Harriers are present in

Serbia in the meadows surrounding Mali pesak (Deliblato

sands) between October and April (Vučanović et al. 2010),

the few sightings, reported for the Bosnian karst poljes,

most probably result from low observation effort. The

latter is substantiated by observations of Stumberger

et al. (2010) in Livanjsko polje, who note that “In winter

the migrating Montagu’s Harriers are replaced by Hen

Harriers from more northern parts of Europe….” and that

“Livanjsko polje is the most important wintering site...” in

the western Balkans.

During the present study a total of 21 target bird species

have been noted. Hen Harriers were seen between

November 2011 and March 2012 in all karst poljes

investigated. In all, 46 individuals (ind.) were recorded: 9

in Glamočko, 26 in Duvanjsko and 11 ind. in Kupreško polje

(see Tab. 1).

Hen Harriers were noted in a total of 24 counts between

November – March, i. e. during 7 counts in Glamočko (78%),

11 in Duvanjsko (42%), and 6 point counts in Kupreško

polje (55% of all counts). Unfortunately, due to extremely

bad weather and the inaccessibility of the poljes, no data

for February are available. Although, there was a lot of

snow in January in Duvanjsko polje all count points were

accessible, however in Glamočko polje we could not reach

observations points no. 2 - 14, and in Kupreško polje no.

7 - 12. Presumably, the birds which were present in January,

stayed during February or have left the study area and

went further to the south.

The present study indicates that Hen Harriers, most

probably, are regular winter visitors which were seen in

substantial numbers in all karst poljes studied. Because

habitat conditions in other karst poljes are similar to those

in Livanjsko polje (cf. Stumberger et al. 2010) and in the

poljes which were investigated for the present study,

Bosnia-Herzegovina may harbour a significant portion of

the European winter population. But for substantiating

this, like for many other species of European and

international conservation concern, further surveys and

more systematic research will be needed.

References

BirdLife International: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sitefactsheet.php?id=29790 (access date: 5 September 2013).Bordjan D., Božić L. (2009): Waterbirds and raptors occurring in the area of Medvedce reservoir (Dravsko polje, NE Slovenia) during the 2002 - 2008 period. Acrocephalus 30 (141-143): 55 – 163. Federalni hidrometeorološki zavod BiH (FHMZBiH): http://www.fhmzbih.gov.ba/bilten/2012-bilten.pdf (access date: 5 September 2013).Kanaet T. (1954): Polja zapadne Bosne i Hercegovine. Prilog poznavanju prirodnih osobina i ekonomskog značenja. Zbornik radova III kongresa geografa Jugoslavije. Narodna štamparija, Sarajevo; pp. 45 - 58.

Period/karst polje Glamočko polje Duvanjsko polje Kupreško polje Seasonal movement

2011

November 3 8 3 autumn migration

December 1 9 1 wintering

2012

January 4 9 5 wintering

February - - - wintering

March 1 - 2 spring migration

Tab. 1: Numbers of Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus recorded during point counts, November 2011 – March 2012, in three karst poljes in western Bosnia.

Because habitat conditions in other karst poljes are similar... Bosnia-Herzegovina may harbour a significant portion of the European winter population.


81


Obratil S. (1984): Naselje ptica (Aves) u kopnenim biocenozama kraških polja Hercegovine. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine Sarajevo, Prirodne nauke 23: 147 - 184.Obratil S. (1985): Ornitofauna Hutova blata do izgradnje akumulacionog jezera phe “Capljina”. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo Prirodne nauke 24: 175 - 209.Obratil S. (1986/87): Naselja ptica (Aves) u ekosistemima Gatačkog polja i okoline prije izgradnje termoelektrane Gacko. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine Sarajevo, Prirodne nauke 25/26: 211 – 237.Ramsar Secretariat: http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-news-archives-2008-ramsar-bulletin-22665/main/ramsar/1-26-45-85%5E22665_4000_0 (access date: 5 September 2013).Reiser O. (1939): Materialien zu einer Ornis Balcanica. I. Bosnien und Herzegowina, nebst Teilen von Serbien und Dalmatien. Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien.Stumberger B., Schneider-Jacoby M., Schwarz U., Sackl P. (2010): Zonation concept for the Livanjsko polje Ramsar site. In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M., Stumberger B. (eds.), Adriatic Flyway - Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. Euronatur, Radolfzell (Germany); pp. 125 - 134.Vučanović M., Đorđević I., Stojnić N. (2010): Raptors of Mali Pesak. Ciconia 19: 74 - 88.Zaplata R. (1933): Ptice Sarajeva i okoline. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Bosni I Herzegovini Sarajevo 45: 1 - 34.

82

Eurasian Cranes Grus grus feeding on flooded Duvanjsko polje, 5 April 2013 (Photo: MIrko Šarac)


83


Summary

As part of an ongoing monitoring program the paper

presents an analysis of data on the spring migration of

Eurasian Crane Grus grus along the Adriatic Flyway in 2013.

With a total of 32 observers, involved in the survey, crane

migration was studied in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,

Montenegro and Serbia, from February till early May. In a

whole of 37 observation sites, scattered across the western

Balkans, a total of 8,702 birds were counted: 3,853 actively

migrating and 4,849 birds, resting in different stop-over

sites, were counted. According to our data, most birds

crossed the eastern Adriatic region over Metković (Croatia)

in the lower Neretva river valley, while Mostarsko blato

and Duvanjsko polje in Bosnia-Herzegovina with more

than 1,400 and 1,500 birds, respectively, were identified as

the most important resting and feeding sites for Eurasian

Cranes in the study area. Peak migration was recorded in

mid-March. In addition to monitor the migration corridor

across the western Balkan Peninsula, the study aims to

identify important stop-over sites and main conservation

issues of the species along the Adriatic Flyway.

Sažetak

Kao dio monitoring programa koji je u toku, ovaj rad

predstavlja sumirane podatke za proljećnu migraciju

ždralova Grus grus duž jadranskog migratornog puta u

2013. godini. Monitoring je provođen u Hrvatskoj, Bosni

i Hercegovini, Srbiji i Crnoj Gori od februara do kraja aprila

2013. godine. U cenzusu je učestvovao 31 popisivač. Na 37

lokaliteta ukupno je evidentirano 6,950 primjeraka, od

čega je 4,101 ptica zabilježeno na preletu, dok je 2,849 ptica

izbrojano naodmaralištima.Premadobijenimpodacima,ždral

ovisunajvišeletjeliprekoMetkovića. Mostarsko blato sa preko

1,400 jedinki, izdvaja se kao lokalitet od najvećeg značaja za

Spring migration 2013 of Eurasian Crane Grus grus of the Adriatic Flyway population in the Western Balkans an in the Eastern Adriatic region

Goran Topić1, Ana Vujović2, Bariša Ilić3, Ivan Medenica4 & Nermina Sarajlić1

1 Ornithological Society „Naše ptice“, Semira Frašte 6, BA-71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina; E-mail: [email protected] Biology Department, Faculty of Sciences, University of Montenegro, Džordža Vašingtona bb, MNE-81000 Podgorica, Montenegro;

E-mail: [email protected] Croatian Ornithological Society, Draškovićeva 54, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia; E-mail: [email protected] Natural History Museum, Njegoševa 51, SR-11000 Belgrade, Serbia ; E-mail:

odmor i prehranu ždralova na istraživanom području. Period

najintenzivnije seobe odvijao se sredinomm marta. Pored

praćenja ptica na preletu, rad ima za cilj mapiranje najvažnijih

odmorišta, kao i otkrivanje faktora koji ugrožavaju ždralove

na Jadranskom migratornom putu.

Keywords: Eurasian Crane, Grus grus, spring migration,

Adriatic Flyway, stop-over sites, Balkan Peninsular

Introduction

European populations of Eurasian Crane Grus grus reach

their wintering grounds along three major migration

routes: Scandinavian and northern continental European

populations migrate through Western Europe to wintering

areas in France, Spain and Morocco; birds from Northeastern

Europe cross central Europe, the Western Balkans and Italy

to wintering areas in Tunisia, Libya and Algeria (Adriatic

Flyway), while populations from Northeastern Europe

and Western Russia fly over the Balkans and across/

around the Black Sea to wintering areas in East Africa

(del Hoyo et al. 1996). Until now, crane migration across

the Balkan Peninsula is insufficiently known (Stumberger

& Schneider-Jacoby 2010). Currently, up to 20,000 birds

are reported to gather at Slano Kopovo in Vojvodina

(Knežev 2010, Lukač 2000), while up to 7,000 birds use

Lonjsko polje in Croatia for stopping-over during spring

and autumn migration (Stumberger & Schneider-Jacoby

2010). However, few data on migration seasons, migration

routes and stop-over sites south of the Sava and Danube

rivers exist. In order to gain more information on migration

patterns of Eurasian Cranes along the Adriatic Flyway, in

cooperation with local ornithologists, conservationists

and ornithological organizations Euronatur started to

collect observations on crane migration in the countries

84

Herzegovina as Wetlands of National and International

Importance” and “Adriatic Flyway 2” projects. A part of the

present data were collected during the monitoring of illegal

hunting activities and bird shooting in the karst poljes of

the Western Balkans. Relevant information were noted

in the field on standard data sheets, which, in addition to

date, location, and the numbers of flying and resting birds,

contain information on altitude, habitat type and direction

of migration.

Results

Between 22 February, as the earliest observation, and

6 May 2013, as the latest date, during 99 observations a

total of 8,702 cranes were noted. Overall, 3,853 actively

migrating and 4,849 resting individuals (ind.) were counted

in different stop-over sites.

Fig. 1: Migration and stop-over sites of Eurasian Crane Grus grus of the Adriatic Flyway population in the Western Balkans and the eastern Adriatic region in spring 2013.

of the western and southern Balkans in 2007. First results

were presented at the 7th European Crane Conference in

Stralsund (Stumberger & Schneider-Jacoby 2010).

The present paper summarizes data on the migration of

Eurasian Cranes along the Adriatic Flyway which have been

gathered by a network of observers in Croatia, Bosnia-

Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro in spring 2013.

Materials and methods

From mid-February to early May 2013 a survey of spring

migration of Eurasian Crane in former Yugoslavia, in

the area between the Sava and Danube rivers and the

Adriatic Sea, in Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and

Montenegro, was organized. Both, actively migrating and

resting birds, in known stop-over sites were counted. In

all, 31 observers were involved in the survey. The survey in

spring 2013 is part of the regular monitoring of Eurasian

Crane migration within the framework of Euronatur’s

“Identification and Promotion of Karst Poljes in Bosnia and

Common Crane Grus grus,migrating , resting

1-50

51-100

101-300

301-500

501-1000

1001-2000

SR

HR

MN

AL

BA


85


Tab. 1: Observations of migrating and resting Eurasian Cranes Grus grus in the Western Balkans and eastern Adriatic region in spring 2013. Legend: HR Croatia, CG Montenegro, BA Bosnia-Herzegovina, SRB Serbia.

Country Location Date Numbers Migration direction

Behaviour Habitat Observer(s)

HR Jezero Njivice, Krk 22.02.2013 9 - resting lake Andrej RadaljHR Rijeka 24.02.2013 6 N flying x Kristijan MandićBA Omarska (Prijedor) 25.02.2013 45 - x mine Dario DuvnjakHR Križevci 28.02.2013 4 NE flying X Smiljka SelanecCG Ulcinj 28.02.2013 16 N circling town Stefan Heitmann & Katarina DenacCG Ada Bojana (Ulcinj) 04.03.2013 37 N migrating x Jakob Smole, Luka BožičCG Krnovo (Nikšić) 05.03.2013 34 N migrating karst plateau Darko SaveljićBA Veliko Blaško (Laktaši) 05.03.2013 30 N migrating x Dragan PraštaloCG Podgorica 07.03.2013 16 N migrating town Darko SaveljićHR Metković 08.03.2013 270 - circling delta Bariša IlićBA Ljubuški (Vitina) 08.03.2013 66 N circling x Dario VukojevićHR Jezero, Njivice, Krk 09.03.2013 126 resting lake Andrej RadaljHR Žrnovo, Korčula 09.03.2013 100+ N flying X Ursula LoosHR Metković 09.03.2013 177 NE migrating delta Bariša Ilić

24 NWCG Danilovgrad 09.03.2013 120 NW migrating town Ana VujovićBA Donji Radišići (Ljubuški) 09.03.2013 52 N migrating x Ranko MedićBA Ljubuški (Vitina) 09.03.2013 60 N circling x Dario VukojevićBA Šipovo 09.03.2013 90 NE migrating town Goran Topić, Mladen TopićHR Metković 10.03.2013 71 NW migrating delta Bariša Ilić

35 NEHR Sinj 10.03.2013 100 N flying Ivan BudinskiHR Grobničko polje 10.03.2013 59 resting Andrej RadaljCG Danilovgrad 10.03.2013 100+ NW migrating town Ana VujovićBA Mandin (Duvanjsko polje) 10.03.2013 60 - migrating x Miro ŠumanovićBA Potkraj (Sanski most) 10.03.2013 79 NE migrating x Dragan PraštaloHR Metković 11.03.2013 110 NW migrating delta Bariša IlićHR Grobničko polje 11.03.2013 54 resting Andrej RadaljHR Metković 12.03.2013 158 NW migrating delta Bariša Ilić

5 N88 NE

BA Gatačko polje 12.03.2013 8 - flying karst polje Dražen Kotrošan, Ilhan DervovićBA Livanjsko polje 12.03.2013 30 - migrating karst polje Jelena Gotovac, Mato GotovacBA Ljubuški (Vitina) 12.03.2013 7 N circling x Dario VukojevićBA Donji Radišići (Ljubuški) 12.03.2013 45 N migrating x Ranko MedićBA Duvanjsko polje 12.03.2013 1500 resting Karst polje Mirko ŠaracBA Dabarsko polje 12.03.2013 10 resting karst polje Dražen Kotrošan, Ilhan DervovićBA Gatačko polje 12.03.2013 168 resting karst polje Dražen kotrošan, Ilhan DervovićBA Nevesinjsko polje 12.03.2013 93 resting karst polje Dražen KotrošanHR Metković 13.03.2013 286 NE migrating delta Bariša IlićCG Danilovgrad 13.03.2013 54 NW migrating town Ana VujovićBA Hutovo blato 13.03.2013 14 resting x Dražen Kotrošan, Ilhan DervovićBA Mostarsko blato 13.03.2013 1400 resting karst polje Dražen Kotrošan, Ilhan DervovićHR Metković 15.03.2013 203 NE migrating delta Bariša IlićCG Danilovgrad 15.03.2013 250 NW migrating town Ana VujovićHR Borak, Omiš 17.03.2013 100+ N flying x Andrej RadaljCG Martinići (Danilovgrad) 17.03.2013 70+ N migrating x Darko SaveljićBA Livanjsko polje 17.03.2013 25 - migrating karst polje Jelena Gotovac, Mato GotovacCG Podgorica 18.03.2013 300+ N migrating town Darko SaveljićBA Livanjsko polje 18.03.2013 30 - migrating karst polje Jelena Gotovac, Mato GotovacBA Livanjsko polje 19.03.2013 30 - migrating karst polje Jelena Gotovac, Mato GotovacBA Visoko 19.03.2013 260 NE migrating - Ilhan DervovićBA Haljinići 19.03.2013 1 resting x Ilhan DervovićBA Lisovo (Visoko) 19.03.2013 34 resting x Ilhan DervovićBA Mostarsko blato 20.03.2013 473 resting karst polje Ilhan DervovićCG Ada Bojana (Ulcinj) 21.03.2013 32 N,NE migrating x Dejan Bordjan, Tilen BasleCG Brezovik (Nikšić) 21.03.2013 53 resting x Darko SaveljićCG Budoš (Nikšić) 22.03.2013 38 resting x Darko SaveljićBA Dabarsko polje 23.03.2013 86 resting karst polje Ilhan DervovićBA Nevesinjsko polje 23.03.2013 107 resting karst polje Ilhan DervovićHR Koljane, Perućko lake 25.03.2013 3 - circling x Ivan BudinskiBA Livanjsko polje 29.03.2013 120 migrating karst polje Jelena Gotovac, Mato GotovacCG Budoš (Nikšić) 03.04.2013 50 resting x Duško MrdakBA Ljubuško polje 04.04.2013 X - - karst polje NNBA Duvanjsko polje 04.04.2013 115 resting karst polje Dražen KotrošanBA Pašića polje 06.04.2013 1 resting karst polje Dražen KotrošanBA Ždralovac (Livanjsko polje) 06.04.2013 5 resting karst polje Dražen KotrošanBA Haljinići 08.04.2013 5 resting x Ilhan DervovićBA Haljinići 09.04.2013 9 resting x Ilhan DervovićBA Mostarsko blato 14.04.2013 48 resting karst polje Erik BovenBA Hutovo blato 19.04.2013 X resting x Erik BovenBA Mostarsko blato 19.04.2013 39 resting karst polje Dražen Kotrošan, Ilhan Dervović, Sanja

Radulović, Nermina SarajlićSRB Vidlič (Stara planina) 21.04.2013 47 - migrating mountain Ivan MedenicaBA Duvanjsko polje 06.05.2013 251 resting Mirko ŠaracBA Duvanjsko polje 10.07.2013 1 resting Karst polje Mirko ŠaracBA Duvanjsko polje March 2013 100 resting karst polje Miro Šumanović

86

Discussion

Unlike autumn migration, Eurasian Cranes can appear

anywhere on the eastern Adriatic coast during their return

from North Africa which makes the monitoring of spring

migration more complicated and demanding. Between 22

February and 6 May 2013, a total of 3,853 actively migrating

birds were recorded. Considering the relatively small number

of observers along the 800 km long eastern coast of the

Adriatic Sea which participated in the survey, the number

of Eurasian Cranes which crossed the Western Balkans in

spring 2013 was, most probably, much larger. Most cranes

(1,427 ind.) were seen while crossing over the Neretva river

delta and Metković (Croatia) inland towards Mostarsko

blato and Duvanjsko polje in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Currently,

both, Mostarsko blato and Duvanjsko polje, are the

most important resting sites in the Dinaric Mountains,

south of the Sava and Danube rivers. Furthermore,

significant numbers of overall 944 cranes were seen while

approximately following the route Podgorica – Danilovgrad

– Nikšić in the Zeta river valley (Montenegro). In other

localities smaller flocks were recorded: In Croatia small

flocks were observed in Križevci (4), Sinj (ca. 100), Ženovo

on Korčula Island (ca. 100), Omiš (ca. 100), Rijeka (6) and

in Koljane (3 ind.); in Bosnia-Herzegovina in Visoko (260),

Ljubuški (230), Livanjsko polje (235), Šipovo (90), Sanski

most (79), Duvanjsko polje (60), Prijedor (45), Laktaši (30)

and in Gatačko polje (8 ind.). Additionally, three flocks with

a total of 85 ind. were noted in Ulcinj (Montenegro) during

daytime observations of waterbird migration on Ada Island

(Euronatur, unpubl.). In Serbia only a single flock of 47 ind.

was recorded in Vidlič on Stara planina.

During migration Eurasian Cranes periodically gather in

floodlands, swampy meadows, and shallow sheltered bays

for feeding and resting (Cramp & Simmons 1980). Currently,

few information on stop-over sites in the Western Balkans,

south of the Sava and Danube rivers, and at the eastern

shores of the Adriatic Sea and the numbers of birds which

use different stop-over sites, are available. According to

Stumberger & Schneider–Jacoby (2010), cranes almost

exclusively use the karst poljes of the Dinaric Alps, up to

1,300 m a. s. l., which are periodically flooded during winter

and early spring, for resting.

In spring 2013, more than 3,500 cranes were recorded in

the karst poljes in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Considering the

fact that the number of birds at stop-over sites, with birds

arriving and leaving, may constantly change, the actual

number of birds in the karst poljes of the Dinarides may be

considerably larger than our data in Tab. 1 indicate. With

a maximum of 1,400 and 1,500 birds, respectively, which

were counted during a single visit, Mostarsko blato and

Fig. 2: Eurasian Cranes Grus grus feeding during stopping-over in Duvanjsko polje, Bosnia-Herzegovina, 5 April 2013 (Photo: Mirko Šarac)

With a maximum of 1,400 and 1,500 birds Mostarsko blato and Duvanjsko polje currently constitute the most significant stop-over sites for Eurasian Cranes in the Western Balkans


87


Duvanjsko polje currently constitute the most significant

stop-over sites for Eurasian Cranes in the Western Balkans

(see Fig. 1 & 2). During spring 2013, Mostarsko blato

as well as Duvanjsko polje were largely flooded which

provided almost ideal resting and feeding conditions

for large numbers of cranes. Maximum numbers in both

karst poljes further correspond with the period of main

migration in the lower Neretva River, near Metković. In

addition, Eurasian Cranes were recorded while stopping-

over in Livanjsko polje (5), Gatačko polje (168), Nevesinjsko

polje (ca. 107), Hutovo blato (14), Dabarsko polje (86) and

in Pašića polje (1 ind.) in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Besides

karst poljes, cranes occasionally rested around Haljinići in

Visoko (43 ind.). In Montenegro smaller numbers rested in

Nikšićko polje in the vicinity of Nikšić, i. e. in Budoš (50)

and Brezovik (53 ind.), while in Croatia resting cranes were

observed at Njivice Lake (126) and in Grobničko polje (59

ind.). By excluding both major sites, Mostarsko blato and

Duvanjsko polje, a total of 22 records of resting/feeding

flocks with an average of 46 ind. (± 122 SD) in all other

stop-over sites remain. Thus, in addition to Mostrasko

blato and Duvanjsko polje, all karst poljes in the Dinarides

are potentially significant resting and feeding habitats for

cranes and other migrating waterbirds (Stumberger 2010).

A first flock of 9 ind. was observed on 22 February, near

Njivice Lake, on the Island of Krk in Croatia, while a solitary

bird was seen in Duvanjsko polje as late as 10 July 2013.

Peak migration took place between 9 and 13 March when

5,283 ind. which represent 61% of the total number,

crossed the Western Balkans. Of these, almost 40% or

2,112 ind. were seen on 12 March (Tab. 1).

Currently, human disturbances, in particular poaching and

illegal bird shooting, are the most significant conservation

issues for the Adriatic Flyway population in the Western

Balkans (e.g. Stumberger & Schneider-Jacoby 2013). This

is also illustrated by our observations in spring 2013:

On 9 March unknown “hunters” were seen while firing

at a migration flock in Zagorak, in the surroundings of

Danilovgrad, in Montenegro. According to anecdotal data,

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

22.02.2013

01.03.2013

08.03.2013

15.03.2013

22.03.2013

29.03.2013

05.04.2013

12.04.2013

19.04.2013

26.04.2013

03.05.2013

10.05.2013

17.05.2013

24.05.2013

31.05.2013

07.06.2013

14.06.2013

21.06.2013

28.06.2013

05.07.2013

date

number

Fig. 3: Phenology of Eurasian Crane Grus grus migration in the Western Balkans and in the eastern Adriatic region in spring 2013.

Because the karst plains of the Dinaric Alps constitute main stop-over sites for migrating Eurasian Cranes, after the crossing of the Adriatic Sea, the karst poljes deserve immediate international protection.

88

in Ljubuško polje poachers shot on cranes on several

occasions, while the birds rested in the area for a few days.

Based on previous experiences during spring migration,

illegal hunting and bird shooting is unsustainably intense

in the karst poljes (e.g. Stumberger et al. 2008/09,

Schneider-Jacoby & Spangenberg 2010, Stumberger &

Schneider-Jacoby 2010). Because in the Western Balkans,

the karst plains of the Dinaric Alps constitute main stop-

over sites for migrating Eurasian Cranes, after the crossing

of the Adriatic Sea, the karst poljes deserve immediate

international protection.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Andrej Radalj, Dario Duvnjak, Dario

Vukojević, Darko Saveljić, Dejan Bordjan, Dragan Praštalo,

Dražen Kotrošan, Duško Mrdak, Erik Boven, Ilhan Dervović,

Ivan Budinski, Jakob Smole, Jelena Gotovac, Katarina Denac,

Kristijan Mandić, Luka Božič, Mato Gotovac, Mirko Šarac,

Miro Šimunović, Ranko Medić, Sanja Radulović, Smiljka

Selanec, Stefan Heitmann, Tilen Basle, Ursula Loos and

Zvonimir Kujundžić for providing their observations for the

present study. Further, we are grateful to Gospava Kalaba

and Danijela Ćetković for translation as well as Mladen

Topić for technical assistance.

References

Cramp S., Simmons K. E. L. (eds.) (1980): Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. The Birds of the Western Palearctic, Vol. 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.del Hoyo J., Elliott A., Sargatal J. (eds) (1996): Handbook of the Birds of the World, Vol. 3. Lynx Edicions, BarcelonaKnežev M. (2010): Special Nature Reserve „Slano Kopovo“ Novi Bečej, Serbia.In: Nowald G., Weber A., Franke J., Weinhardt E. & Donner N. (eds.): Proceedings of the VIIth European Crane Conference. Crane Conservation Germany, Groß Mohrdorf; pp 174 - 179. Lukač Š. (2000): Seoba ždrala (Grus grus) na Slanom Kopovu od jeseni 1998. do proloća 2000. Ciconia 9: 173 - 175.Schneider-Jacoby M., Spangenberg A. (2010): Bird hunting along the Adriatic Flyway – an assessment of bird hunting in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Serbia. In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M., Stumberger B. (eds.), Adriatic Flyway – Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. Euronatur, Radolfzell; pp. 33 - 53.Stumberger B. (2010): A classification of karst poljes in the Dinarides and their significance for waterbird conservation. In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M., Stumberger B. (eds.), Adriatic Flyway – Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. Euronatur, Radolfzell; pp. 69 – 78.Stumberger B., Sackl P., Dervovic I., Knaus P., Kitonić D., Schneider-Jacoby M., Kotrošan D. (2008/09): Primjeri uznemiravanja ptica i kršenja Zakona o lovu u močvarnim staništima krša Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine. Bilten – Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 97 – 114.Stumberger B., Schneider-Jacoby M. (2010): Karst poljes in the Dinarides and their significance for water bird conservation. In: EEA (ed.), Europe’s Ecological Backbone: Recognising the True Value of Our Mountains. EEA Report 6: 151.

Stumberger B., Schneider-Jacoby M. (2010): Importance of the Adriatic Flyway for the Common Crane (Grus grus). In: Nowald G., Weber A., Franke J., Weinhardt E., Donner N. (eds.): Proceedings of the VIIth European Crane Conference. Crane Conservation Germany, Groß Mohrdorf; pp. 64 - 68.


89


Duvanjsko polje, 12 March 2010 (Photo: Mirko Šarac)

Duvanjsko polje, March 2004 (Photo: Mirko Šarac)

90

Corncrake Crex crex (Photo: Peter Hochleitner)


91


Summary

Extensive wetlands and traditionally used grassland

habitats in the karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina are

expected to harbour viable Corncrake populations. In

2012 and 2013, night-time surveys of calling males were

conducted in 44 of the country’s 57 karst poljes between

late May and early July. In both years 62% - 64% (969.7

km2) and 84% - 86% (1,308.1 km2) of the total surface area

of karst poljes in Bosnia-Herzegovina were investigated.

Corncrakes were present in 29 poljes (66%) located

between 58 m (Rastoka i Ljubuško polje) and 1,186 m a.s.l.

(Kruško polje). With the numbers of calling males ranging

from 0.1 – 6.1 males/km2, the largest population (141 – 192

territorial males) was found in Livanjsko polje (408.0 km2),

the world’s largest karst polje. Poljes with large-scale

periodical flooding harboured 97% - 99% of the overall

Corncrake population. In relation to surface (≈ survey)

areas of individual poljes, exceptionally high numbers of ≥

2.1 calling males/km2 were observed in Šuičko, Lukavačko,

Pašića and Lušci polje. As a result of highly differentiated

flood water-levels, seasons, flood duration and vegetation

type, no differences between breeding densities for

poljes with maximum flood surfaces covering < 1% of

the polje’s total surface area and karst poljes with large-

scale periodical flooding were found. Poljes harbouring

large Corncrake numbers were characterized by extensive

wet Molinion and Deschampsion meadows, pronounced

gradients between wet and dry grasslands, and small-

scale mosaics of meadows and arable fields. Based on the

present survey, the total population for the karst poljes

in Bosnia-Herzegovina is estimated at 480 – 790 calling

males, while in the uplands of the Dinaric Karst smaller

and more scattered populations exist in mountain and

subalpine grassland habitats up to 1,468 m a.s.l. Although

overall population numbers may exceed current estimates

The distribution and population numbers of Corncrakes Crex crex in the karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina – results of a large-scale survey in 2012 and 2013

Peter Sackl1, Ilhan Dervović2, Dražen Kotrošan2, Goran Topić2, Sumeja Drocić2, Mirko Šarac3, Nermina Sarajlić2, Romy Durst4 & Borut Stumberger4

1 Universalmuseum Joanneum, Biowissenschaften, Weinzöttlstraße 16, A - 8045 Graz, Austria; E-mail: [email protected] Naše ptice, Semira Frašte 6, BA - 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina; E-mail: [email protected] Naša baština, Mandino Selo bb, BA - 80240 Tomislavgrad, Bosnia-Herzegovina; E-mail: [email protected] EuroNatur, Konstanzer Straße 22, D - 78315 Radolfzell, Germany; E-mail: [email protected]

of 500 – 800 males for Bosnia-Herzegovina, the numbers

of calling males have declined by 40% - 55% in Livanjsko

polje compared to earlier counts in 2007 and 2009. The

cumulative impacts of further alteration of the hydrological

regimes of karst poljes through hydropower development

in the drainage area of the upper Cetina River and the

realization of the “Upper Horizons” hydropower project

in the Neretva River basin will affect 28% - 47% of the

current Corncrake population. In the near future breeding

habitats will be further lost through natural succession

in former war-zones which currently harbour substantial

Corncrake numbers.

Sažetak

Smatra se da se u močvarnim područjima i ekstenzivno

korištenim travnjačkim staništima kraških polja Bosne i

Hercegovine nalazi znatna populacija kosca. 2012. i 2013.

godine je urađeno brojanje glasajućih mužjaka na 44 od

ukupno 57 kraških polja Bosne i Hercegovine. Istraživanje je

vršeno tokom noći, u periodu između kraja maja i početka

jula. 2012 godine istraženo je 62 - 64% (969.7 km2), a 2013

84 - 86% (1,308.1 km2) ukupne površine kraških polja u

Bosni i Hercegovini. Kosac je zabilježen na 29 (66%) polja,

na nadmorskoj visini od 58 (Rastoka i Ljubuško polje)

do 1,186 metara (Kruško polje). Broj glasajućih mužjaka

varirao je između 0.1 – 6.1 po km2, a najveća populacija od

141, odnosno 192 zabilježena je u Livanjskom polju (408.0

km2), najvećem plavnom kraškom polju na svijetu. Prilikom

ovih istraživanja, 97 - 99% populacije kosca zabilježeno je

poljima koja većim dijelom plave. U odnosu na površinu

polja, posebno velika gustina populacije (≥ 2.1 glasajućih

mužjaka/km2) zabilježena je na Šuičkom, Lukavačkom,

Pašića polju i Lušci polju. Međutim, nije zabilježena

značajna razlika u gustini populacije na poljima na

kojima poplave prekrivaju manje od 1% ukupne površine

92

i poljima koja plave većim dijelom, zbog različitih nivoa

podzemne vode, dužine trajanja poplava i tipa vegetacije.

Polja na kojima je zabilježena najveća brojnost kosca su

prekrivena ekstenzivno korištenim vlažnim livadama

na kojima dominiraju sveze Molinion i Deschampsion,

mješovitim livadama na kojima je jasno naglašena razlika

između vlažnih i suhih regiona i obradivim površinama.

Na osnovu ovih istraživanja, ukupna populacija kosca na

kraškim poljima Bosne i Hercegovine procijenjena je na 480,

odnosno 790 glasajućih mužjaka, ali su zabilježene i manje

populacije na planinskim i vlažnim travnjačkim staništima

na nadmorskoj visini do 1,468 m. Iako postoji mogućnost

da je ukupna populacija kosca u Bosni i Hercegovini veća od

trenutne procjene, koja iznosi 500, odnosno 800 mužjaka,

brojnost glasajućih mužjaka u Livanjskom polju se smanjila

za 40 - 55% u odnosu na ranija prebrojavanja iz 2007. i 2009.

godine. Izmjena vodnog režima kraških polja do koje će

dovesti konstrukcija hidroelektrana u gornjem toku rijeke

Cetine i realizacija projekta “Gornji horizonti” u slivu rijeke

Neretve imat će negativan uticaj na 27 - 47% populacije

ove vrste. U bliskoj budućnosti će zbog prirodne sukcesije

doći do gubitka adekvatnih staništa u nekadašnjih ratnim

zonama, na kojima se trenutno nalazi znatan broj kosaca.

Keywords: Corncrake, Crex crex, distribution, altitudinal

distribution, karst poljes, population numbers, Bosnia-

Herzegovina, Dinaric Karst

1. Introduction

In the Dinaric Karst fertile soils are largely restricted to

karst poljes, flat-bottomed lands of closed depressions

within karst limestone. The karst poljes of the Dinaric Alps,

which range in size from a few ten hectares up to more

then 400 km2, harbour a number of significant wetlands

and extensive grassland habitats. While in the wake of

the last wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina (1991-

1995) extensive former war-zones were abandoned by

local people, in many karst poljes agricultural production is

based on traditional farming, such as growing fodder and

the grazing of cattle, sheep and other domestic animals

(Barać et al. 2011). Consequently, following to low human

population and largely intact ecosystems, many karst

poljes in Bosnia-Herzegovina are expected to harbour

substantial numbers of water- and farmland birds. Besides

high waterbird abundance in winter and during migration

(Stumberger & Sackl 2008/09, Stumberger & Schneider-

Jacoby 2013), a first assessment of the bird fauna of

Livanjsko polje and other karst poljes in the catchment area

of the upper Cetina River indicated significant populations

of breeding farmland birds, like Common Quail Coturnix

coturnix, Corn Bunting Miliaria calandra, Yellow Wagtail

Motacilla flava cinereocapilla, M. f. feldegg, Red-backed

Lanius collurio and Lesser Grey Shrike L. minor (Schneider-

Jacoby et al. 2006, Ozimec et al. 2013).

Corncrakes Crex crex inhabit at least 20 – 30 cm tall

vegetation of open and semi-open, extensively managed

grasslands which provide cover and plenty of food. In

the primeval landscapes of Europe lowland marshes,

mosaic-like patchworks of floodplain habitats and riverine

meadows presumably constituted their predominant

habitats (Flade 1991, 1997, Green et al. 1997). Although

Corncrakes are found in drier habitats then most other

rails (Rallidae), they require regular flooding and react

to changes in the hydrological regime of grasslands and

intensification of grassland management (Trontelj 1994,

1997, Green et al. 1997, Schäffer & Green 1997, Schäffer 1999,

Schäffer & Koffijberg 2004).

According to its dependence on extensive wet grassland

habitats, Schneider-Jacoby (1991) stressed the importance

of the floodplains in the lowlands of the Sava and Danube

rivers for the species in a first review of the distribution

and population numbers in former Yugoslavia (cf. Antal et

al. 1971). Following to scattered museum specimens and

occasional reports he further addressed the necessity for

systematic surveys and counts of periodically flooded

karst poljes in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and

Montenegro (Schneider-Jacoby 1991, Trontelj 1994, 1997).

In particular, estimates of > 200 - 1000 calling males for

Livanjsko polje, the world’s largest karst polje, observed

until 1991 (Schneider-Jacoby 1991, Radović & Dumbović

2001), indicated that the karst poljes of the Dinarides may

harbour viable Corncrake populations.

While, up to now, most karst poljes remained unexplored,

314 and 315 calling males were found during first total

counts in Livanjsko polje in 2007 and 2009, respectively

(Stumberger et al. 2010). Except of an additional survey

of Vukovsko polje in western Bosnia, consecutive counts

remained occasional. However, based on these data,

Kotrošan et al. (2012) estimated the current population in

Bosnia-Herzegovina at 500 – 800 calling males. Because

of their role as suitable bioindicators for grassland


93


biodiversity and management (Trontelj 1997, Wettstein

& Szép 2003, Schäffer & Koffijberg 2004) systematic

Corncrake surveys covering almost all periodically flooded

karst poljes in Bosnia - Herzegovina were conducted within

the framework of a EuroNatur project for the conservation

and sustainable use of the karst environments in the

Dinaric Alps in summer 2012 and 2013. The present paper

also includes a concise review of historic Corncrake records

in Bosnia-Herzegovina compiled from collected specimens,

as well as from published and unpublished sources which

served as background information for the recent surveys.

2. Study area

The continuous Dinaric Karst of the Western Balkans

occupies a total area of approximately 70,400 km2 between

Slovenia and Albania (Božičević 1992) and harbours about

140 karst poljes (3,056 km2). Two thirds of the poljes are

Tab. 1: Location, total area, maximum and potential flood surface of karst poljes surveyed in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 2012 and 2013, according to Stumberger (2010) and Schwarz (2013). FBH = Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, RS = Republika Srpska.

Karst polje Administration Altitude(m a.s.l.)

Total area(km2)

Max. flood surface (km2)

Pot. flood surface (km2)

Coverage

2012 2013

Kruško polje Livno, FBH 1186 3.6 0 0 - total

Vukovsko polje Kupres, FBH 1160 28.1 0.4 0.4 total total

Ravna Mliništa Glamoč, FBH 1157 4.4 0.2 0.2 - total

Ravanjsko polje Kupres, FBH 1131 19.2 0 0 - total

Kupreško polje Kupres, FBH 1115 81.2 36.2 43.8 < 90% < 90%

Borovo polje Livno, FBH 1102 4.0 0 0 - total

Slato polje Nevesinje, RS 1012 4.1 0.7 0.7 total total

Vučipolje Posušje, FBH 977 1.1 0 0 - total

Gatačko polje Gacko, RS 936 60.1 38.2 42.9 total < 90%

Šuičko polje Tomislavgrad, FBH 914 2.7 1.5 1.5 total total

Roško polje Tomislavgrad, FBH 894 3.9 0.1 0.1 < 90% -

Rakitno Posušje, FBH 890 14.1 5.1 5.1 - total

Glamočko polje Glamoč, FBH 883 62.4 47.2 47.2 < 90% < 90%

Carevo polje Trebinje, RS 875 0.3 0 0 - total

Duvanjsko polje Tomislavgrad, FBH 865 125.0 53.1 78.5 total < 90%

Lukavačko polje Nevesinje, RS 865 3.3 0.6 0.6 total total

Konjsko polje Trebinje, RS 829 1.4 0 0 - total

Nevesinjsko polje Nevesinje, RS 829 77.5 16.6 16.6 - < 90%

Cernica Gacko, RS 816 5.5 1.9 1.9 total total

Pašića polje Bosansko Grahovo, FBH 792 13.6 5.8 5.8 total total

Marinkovci Bosansko Grahovo, FBH 788 10.1 0 0 - total

Grahovsko polje Bosansko Grahovo, FBH 782 23.0 1.7 4.1 < 90% total

Dugo polje Bosanski Petrovac, FBH 776 2.5 0 0.4 - total

Podrašničko polje Mrkonjić Grad, RS 729 34.2 12.7 12.7 total total

Livanjsko polje Livno, Tomislavgrad & Bosansko Grahovo, FBH 702 408.0 274.5 307.3 total total

Petrovačko polje Bosanski Petrovac, FBH 637 22.4 3.5 3.5 total total

Medeno polje Bosanski Petrovac, FBH 602 5.7 0 1.7 - total

Bjelajsko polje Bosanski Petrovac, FBH 578 9.4 0 3.6 - total

Posušje Posušje, FBH 578 21.7 5.1 5.1 - < 90%

Ljubomir polje Trebinje, RS 506 12.7 1.3 1.3 - total

Dabarsko polje Berkovići, RS 472 28.9 16.7 22.3 total total

Fatničko polje Bileća, RS 452 7.7 7.3 7.3 total total

Ljubinjsko polje Ljubinje, RS 396 6.9 0.9 0.9 - total

Palanka (Lušci polje) Sanski Most, FBH 380 22.7 7.4 7.4 total total

Kočerinsko polje Grude & Široki Brijeg, FBH 302 4.9 2.5 2.5 - total

Mokro polje (Trebinje) Trebinje, RS 269 6.2 3.0 4.2 - total

Mokro polje (Široki Brijeg) Široki Brijeg, FBH 260 2.8 0.7 0.7 - total

Imotsko (Bekijsko) polje Grude, FBH 251 87.4 3.9 8.8 - < 90%

Popovo polje Trebinje, RS & Ravno, FBH 227 118.9 42.1 77.8 < 90% total

Mostarsko blato Mostar, FBH 223 33.1 31.8 33.1 - total

Crničko polje Stolac, FBH 212 2.9 0 1.2 - total

Gradac Neum, FBH 88 2.2 0 0.1 - total

Rastoka i Ljubuško polje Ljubuški, FBH 58 74.5 12.7 12.7 - total

Hutovo blato1 Čapljina, FBH 2 32.7 32.7 32.7 total total

1 According to Schwarz (2014), surface area, maximum and potential flooded surface 39.7 km2, respectively

94

rarely or frequently flooded (Stumberger 2010). In general,

the Dinaric Karst’s poljes are flooded during the wet and

cold periods of the year between October and April, while in

spring and summer, due to low precipitation, water-levels

slowly recede (Bonacci 1987). Flood duration and flood

water-levels in the poljes fluctuate between several days

and six months, and from < 1 m up to 40 m, respectively

(Bonacci 1987, Milanović 2003). According to Stumberger

(2010), the overall surface area of 57 karst poljes, identified

in Bosnia-Herzegovina, amounts to 1,550.5 km2. An

evaluation of Schwarz (2013) revealed a total area of 1,525.7

km2, based on elevation models and remote sensing data

(ASTER 2). Schwarz (2013) estimated 37 poljes (675.1 km2)

to be periodically flooded and the overall potential for

flooding amounting to 802.6 km2. In Bosnia-Herzegovina,

harbouring some of the best preserved poljes of the region,

karst poljes are situated in altitudes between 2 m (Hutovo

blato) up to 1206 m a.s.l. (Dugo polje/Dugorudo).

For the present study 44 poljes between 2 and 1187 m a.s.l.

were investigated. In total, the survey area amounted to

1,435.8 km2, i.e. 93% – 94% of the total surface area of

karst poljes in Bosnia-Herzegovina, with the surface area of

individual poljes ranging from 0.3 – 408.0 km2 (Stumberger

2010, Schwarz 2013). A third of all poljes, covering 55% of

the total survey area, is situated in the altitudinal belt

between 700 and 900 meters a.s.l. (Tab. 1). For the present

study 13 poljes covering a total area of 53.5 km2 were not

visited. Aside from Dugo polje (Dugorudo) with a surface

area of 19.1 km² the latter include predominantly dry poljes

(fossil karst poljes) with smaller surface areas between 0.5

– 9.6 km2. In 2012 a total area of 969.7 km2 (62% - 64%)

was investigated, while in 2013 the survey area covered

1,308.1 km2 (84% - 86% of the total surface area of

karst poljes in Bosnia-Herzegovina) (Tab. 3). While most

counts covered the whole surface area of the poljes, some

extensive former war-zones remained inaccessible due to

land mines. Consequently, some karst poljes which lack

safe access roads and tracks were only partially counted

(cf. Tab. 3).

3. Methods

Calling males were counted during night-time surveys

from fixed observation points along paved roads and

tracks between 22:00 h and 3:00 h. With a maximum

distance of 1,500 m, observation points were, as far as

possible, distributed in that way that the whole surface

area of the poljes was intercepted. At all observation

points a minimum of 5 minutes were spent to locate

spontaneously calling males. Besides on the surface

area, the number of observation points depended on the

accessibility of the poljes (s. 2. Study area), and varied

between two for the smallest site (Carevo polje) and 152

observation points for the largest polje (Livanjsko polje).

Playbacks of male territorial calls were only occasionally

applied during cold weather or at points where no

spontaneously calling males were present. In no case

Corncrakes responded to playbacks. A minimum of two

simultaneously calling males were considered as a single

calling group (cf. Schäffer 1994, Schäffer & Koffijberg

2004). Due to the open and flat bottoms of the karst

poljes which provide optimal sound propagation and with

many poljes being largely undisturbed by artificial noise,

groups separated by a distance of ≥ 3 km were defined

as different calling groups. Group size was calculated for

counts where observation points and calling males were

located on the spot with the mapping method (n = 30).

2012 censuses were conducted by 9 observers between 4

and 27 June, while the census in 2013 was supported by

15 field observers from 31 May - 3 July. Although at least

two counts per season are recommended for Corncrakes

(Schäffer 1994, Gilbert et al. 1998), two consecutive visits

of the poljes were not possible for the present survey in

the same year.

4. Results

4.1 Historic records

Apart from the present study, 84 unpublished and

published records of Corncrakes are known within the

current borders of Bosnia-Herzegovina. With the first

written report dated back to 1847 when the species was

heard in riverine meadows near Fojnica in central Bosnia

during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, almost all

records represent observations and collected specimens

listed in Othmar Reiser’s (1861 – 1936) unpublished

inventory Ornitologica balcanica II in the National Museum

of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Sarajevo and the first volume of

his monumental work Materialien zu einer Ornis Balcanica

(1939). Following to a revision in 2000, all specimens

(6 , 2 ) are still kept in the National Museum in

Sarajevo (Tab. 2).


95


Tab. 2: Corncrake records in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 1847 – 2013. C = central, SE = south-east etc.; Ornitologica balcanica = unpublished inventory of O. Reiser in the National Museum of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Sarajevo.

Locality/region Altitude (m) Date Numbers References/sourcesFojnica, C Bosnia 762 1847 calling (spring) Reiser (1939)Sarajevsko polje, C Bosnia 505 Sept. 1888 1 , leg. O. Reiser Ornitologica balcanicaHutovo blato, Herzegovina 2 9.10.1888 2 ind. (migration), leg. O. Reiser Ornitologica balcanica, Reiser (1939)Sarajevsko polje, C Bosnia 504 27.9.1890 7 ind. migration (1 ind., leg. O. Reiser) Reiser (1939)Trebević, C Bosnia 1300 29.9.1890 1 ind., leg. O. Reiser Reiser (1939)Čengiv Vila, Novo Sarajevo, C Bosnia 596 1.12.1890 1 , leg. O. Reiser Ornitologia balcanica, Obratil (1975)Reljevo, C Bosnia 485 8.12.1890 1 ind. Reiser (1939)Vrngorač, W Bosnia 162 8.7.1891 1 calling Reiser (1939), Obratil (1975)Blažaj, Sarajevsko polje, C Bosnia 495 8.11.1891 1 , leg. J. Knotek Reiser (1939)Matrag, Glamoč; W Bosnia 1277 25.8.1897 1 calling Reiser (1939)Bosanska Gradiška, Posavina 95 12.10.1897 ‘first migrating birds’ Reiser & Knotek (1901), Obratil (1975)Bosanska Gradiška, Posavina 95 26.10.1897 ‘last migrating birds’ Reiser & Knotek (1901), Obratil (1975)Ključ, W Bosnia 260 1.11.1897 2 (migrantion) Reiser & Knotek (1901), Obratil (1975)Ključ, W Bosnia 260 15.12.1897 1 (migration) Reiser & Knotek (1901), Obratil (1975)Sarajevo, C Bosnia 537 16.9.1897 several migrating ind. Reiser & Knotek (1901)Sarajevsko polje, C Bosnia 504 25.8.1899 unusually strong migration Reiser (1939), Obratil (1975)Sarajevsko polje, C Bosnia 505 19.9.1899 1 ind. (migration), leg. O. Reiser Ornitologica balcanicaKoševo, Sarajevo, C Bosnia 560 15.10.1900 1 ind. (migration) Reiser & Knotek (1901)Doboja - Usore, C Bosnia 165 14.5.1904 1 calling Reiser (1939)Sarajevsko polje, C Bosnia 489 19.8.1906 1 juv. , leg. J. Baier Ornitologica balcanicaOrahovo na Savi, Posavina 82 30.8.1906 several ind. (possibly migrants) Reiser (1939), Obratil (1975)Vozuča na Krivaji, C Bosnia 275 21.10.1906 1 , leg. O. Reiser Ornitologica balcanica, Reiser (1939)Orašje, Posavina 83 28.6.1911 here and there calling Reiser (1939), Obratil (1975)Jablanica, Maglaj na Bosni, C Bosnia 186 26.6.1918 many calling Reiser (1939)Donja Paklenica, Maglaj na Bosni, C Bosnia 159 26.6.1918 many calling Reiser (1939)Bardača, Posavina 88 June 1970 species present Obratil (1983)Bardača, Posavina 88 June 1971 species present Obratil (1983)Bardača, Posavina 88 June 1972 species present Obratil (1983)Bardača, Posavina 88 June 1973 species present Obratil (1983)Svilaj - Bosanski Šamac, S Bosnia 86 1970s/80s (unknown date) species present Obratil (1999)Tjentište, SE Bosnia 560 1970s/80s (unknown date) species present Rucner & Obratil (1973), Obratil (1999)Gatačko polje, SE Herzegovina 947 1970s/80s (unknown date) species present Obratil (1999)Japra posle Hašana, S Bosnia 263 31.7.1990 1 ind. Karanović (1990)Livanjsko polje, S Bosnia 702 1980s/90s c.1000 calling Radović & Dumbović (2001)Nević polje, Novi Travnik, C Bosnia 459 1.6.2000 7 calling N. Drocić in lit.Gojevići - Fojnica, C Bosnia 618 May 2002 1 calling (first date) Iviš D. (2008/09)Bistrica polje, Žepče, C Bosnia 219 24.6.2002 1 calling N. Drocić in lit.Ždralovac, Livanjsko polje, S Bosnia 700 5. - 7.7.2002 45 calling (early morning counts) Schneider-Jacoby et al. (2006)Gojevići - Fojnica, C Bosnia 613 11.5.2003 3 calling Iviš (2008/09)Zenica, Raspotočju, C Bosnia 383 4.7.2003 2 calling N. Drocić in lit.Bistrica polje, Žepče, C Bosnia 218 27.5.2004 3 calling N. Drocić in lit.Sitnica, Ključ, C Bosnia 502 20.7.2004 1 calling S. Polak & P. Trontelj in lit.Livanjsko polje, S Bosnia 702 1. - 3.6.2007 6 calling (daytime count) Stumberger & Sackl (2008/09)Livanjsko polje, S Bosnia 702 1. - 3.6.2007 314 calling (night count) Stumberger et al. (2010)Glamočko polje, S Bosnia 883 8.6.2007 3 calling (night count) L. Božič & J. Smole in lit.Šuičko polje, S Bosnia 914 9.6.2007 10 calling (night count) L. Božič & J. Smole in lit.Duvanjsko polje, S Bosnia 865 9.6.2007 31 calling (night count) L. Božič & J. Smole in lit., Ozimec et al. (2013)Livanjsko polje, S Bosnia 702 27. - 30.5.2009 23 calling (daytime count) Stumberger & Sackl (2008/09)Livanjsko polje, S Bosnia 702 27. - 30.5.2009 315 calling (night count) Stumberger et al. (2010)Haljinići, C Bosnia 490 11.5.2008 1 calling (first date) Dervović (2008/09)Haljinići, C Bosnia 507 2008 (breeding season) max. 6 calling Dervović (2008/09)Gojevići - Fojnica, C Bosnia 684 13.5.2008 1 calling (first date) Iviš (2008/09)Planina Vitreusa, Požetva, C Bosnia 1224 8.6.2008 2 calling (daytime) I. Dervović unpubl. dataGojevići - Fojnica, C Bosnia 618 13.5. - 14.7.2008 max. 5 calling Iviš (2008/09)Gojevići - Fojnica, C Bosnia 775 21.8.2008 1 juv. (corpse) Iviš (2008/09)Močvara Bistrik - Haljinići, C Bosnia 519 2008 - 2012 2 - 5 breeding pairs Kotrošan & Hatibović (2012)Haljinići, C Bosnia 461 21.5.2009 1 calling D. Kotrošan unpubl. dataSeoca, C Bosnia 493 21.5.2009 5 calling D. Kotrošan unpubl. dataUloško jezero, Ulog, Herzegovina 1081 26.5.2009 1 calling D. Kotrošan unpubl. dataTjentište, SE Bosnia 575 28.5.2009 1 calling D. Kotrošan unpubl. dataDabarsko polje, Herzegovina 476 19.7.2009 4 calling (20 - 21 h CET) Schneider-Jacoby (2010)Kraljeva Sutjeska, C Bosnia 478 7.6.2010 1 calling D. Kotrošan unpubl. dataBištrani, C Bosnia 603 7.6.2010 2 calling D. Kotrošan unpubl. dataGaja - Haljinići, C Bosnia 457 7.6.2010 8 calling D. Kotrošan unpubl. dataBulčići - Visoko, C Bosnia 614 7.6.2010 1 calling D. Kotrošan unpubl. dataSeoca, C Bosnia 493 7.6.2010 1 calling D. Kotrošan unpubl. dataBućovaća, Vukovsko polje, S Bosnia 1212 8.6.2010 25 calling (night count) D. Kotrošan unpubl. dataGojevići - Fojnica, C Bosnia 624 3.7.2010 3 calling (night count) I. Dervović unpubl. dataUloško jezero, Ulog, Herzegovina 1081 12.7.2010 1 calling (during day) I. Dervović unpubl. dataNević polje, Novi Travnik, C Bosnia 450 7.6.2011 1 calling (during day) N. Drocić in lit.Masna bara - Planina Zelengora, SE Bosnia 1468 23.6.2011 1 calling (during day) I. Dervović unpubl. dataCarica - Visoko, C Bosnia 538 12.5.2011 1 calling (night count) I. Dervović unpubl. dataHifa, Tešanj; C Bosnia 187 23.5.2012 2 calling (daytime) N. Drocić in lit.Bogdase, Livanjsko polje, S Bosnia 707 23.5.2012 1 calling (during day) S. Ernst in lit.Golješnica - Žepče, C Bosnia 342 11.6.2012 4 calling (night count) N. Drocić in lit.Šemenovci, Kupreško polje, S Bosnia 1121 18.6.2012 1 ind. Topić et al. (2011/12)Vitez, Počulice, C Bosnia 520 27.6.2012 4 calling (night count) N. Drocić in lit.Hifa, Tešanj, C Bosnia 229 6.6.2013 1 calling (during day) N. Drocić in lit.Kraljeva Sutjeska - Haljinići, C Bosnia 459 15.6.2013 8 calling (night count) I. Dervović unpubl. dataLukovo brdo - Kakanj, C Bosnia 565 18.6.2013 1 calling (night count) I. Dervović unpubl. dataLužnica - Visoko, C Bosnia 530 18.6.2013 2 calling (night count) I. Dervović unpubl. dataVrela - Visoko, C Bosnia 516 19.6.2013 1 calling (during day) I. Dervović unpubl. dataNišićka visoravan, Ilijaš, C Bosnia 975 20.6.2013 3 calling (night count) I. Dervović unpubl. dataŽepačko polje, Žepče, C Bosnia 225 26.6.2013 2 calling N. Drocić in lit.

96

During the period 1888 - 1911 most records (n = 23) date

from autumn migration in September until mid-November,

including three December records in 1890 and 1897, while

all remaining observations until 2013 were conducted

during the breeding season (n = 61). Although numerous

winter records are known from western Europe in the 19th

century when breeding populations were much larger

(Glutz von Blotzheim et al. 1973, del Hoyo et al. 1996), the

fact that O. Reiser observed no Corncrakes in Livanjsko

polje, although he visited the area and other karst poljes

several times in May and June during the 1890s and 1911,

remains unexpected (Schneider-Jacoby et al. 2006). An

explanation for the unbalanced distribution of his records

between autumn migration and the breeding season may

derive from extensive grazing pressures in the karst poljes

during the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy which may have

been reduced following to depopulation and economic

recession in the wake of World War I (1914 – 1918).

Records from the 19th and 20th centuries and occasional

observations since the last war in Bosnia (s. Fig. 1) cover

altitudes between a few meters above sea-level, where

two migrants were shot in Hutovo blato in October 1888

(Reiser 1939), up to Vitreusa Planina, Požetva in 1,224 m (2

males, June 2008) and 1,468 m a.s.l. on Zelengora Planina,

Masna bara in south-eastern Bosnia (1 male, June 2011;

both later observations by I. Dervović unpubl. data). Fig. 1

further indicates that in lower altitudes most males may

arrive in (early) mid-May (first dates 11 and 12 May), while

the uplands above 800 meters a.s.l. are colonized from

late May and early June onwards (cf. Schäffer & Koffijberg

2004).

4.2 Distribution

Out of the 20 karst poljes which were visited in June 2012, 17

(85%) harboured Corncrakes. On the contrary, calling males

were found in 28 (65%) of 43 karst poljes in 2013 (Fig. 2),

including a number of smaller poljes. Overall, in both years

Corncrakes were present in 29 (66%) of all karst poljes (n =

44). Only in two poljes, which were visited 2012 as well as

2013, i.e. Vukovsko polje and Hutovo blato, no Corncrakes

were observed (Tab. 3). Vukovsko polje is a rather large

polje, but with a comparatively small maximum flood

surface (0.4 km2) which was recently cultivated for silage

and maize production, while Hutovo blato constitutes the

only totally and permanently flooded karst polje in Bosnia-

Herzegovina.

In accordance with occasional observations (s. 4.1 Historic

records) singing males were found in all altitudes between

58 m in Rastoka i Ljubuško polje, Herzegovina, and 1,186

m a.s.l. in Kruško polje in western Bosnia. As shown in Fig.

3, along altitudes Corncrake numbers closely corresponded

to total survey areas in different altitudinal belts. Hence,

altitude had no effect neither on the number of calling

males (F10,34

= 0.62, P = 0.79) nor population density (F10,34

= 0.94, P = 0.51). We further found no differences between

the surface area of colonized and karst poljes without

Corncrakes (F1,42

= 1.56, P = 0.22); the area of the latter

ranging from 1.4 – 408.0 km2 (x = 44.4 km2, sd = 80.2).

4.3 Population density

With total numbers of 413 and 644 males in 2012 and 2013,

respectively, population numbers increased linearly to the

survey area (≈ surface area) of individual poljes (r = 0.90,

P < 0.001). Overall, breeding densities varied between 0.1

males/km2 in Kupreško and Popovo polje, up to 6.1 males/

km2 in Lukavačko polje (Tab. 3), while the mean density

of positive counts across individual karst poljes (n = 45)

amounted to 1.0 male/km2, sd = 1.1 (median = 0.5 males/

km2; Q25

- Q75

: 0.3 – 1.3 males/km2).

For assessing the habitat quality of individual poljes we

Fig. 1: Seasonal and altitudinal distribution of Corncrakes in Bosnia-Herzegovina according to collected specimens and occasional reports, 1847 – 2013.


97


calculated the relationship between survey (≈ surface)

area and the population density of calling males (Fig. 4). In

contrast to population numbers, breeding density declined

with survey area (r = -0.28, P = 0.06). Due to deviation from

the expected population density in Fig. 4, exceptionally

high abundances of calling males were observed in Pašića

(1.0 – 2.3 males), Lušci (1.8 - 2.4 males), Šuičko (3.3 males)

and Lukavačko polje (4.5 – 6.1 males/km2).

4.4 Population density and flood type

For testing the effect of flood conditions on the presence

and population numbers of Corncrakes we defined karst

poljes with maximum flood surfaces (fide Schwarz 2013),

which cover < 1% of the polje’s respective total surface

area, as dry poljes. According to this classification, 32

poljes were classified as temporarily flooded and 12 poljes

as dry karst poljes (cf. Tab. 1 & 3).

Corncrakes were observed in 5 dry (42%) and 24 flooded

poljes (75%). Population numbers fluctuated between 2

and 192 males (0.1 – 6.1 males/km2, n = 40) in flooded and

between 2 and 6 males (0.3 – 2.1 males/km2, n = 5) in dry

poljes (Fig. 5). As for survey (≈ surface) area, numbers of

territorial males increased with flood area (r = 0.92, P <

0.001), while population densities were not linked to the

Fig. 2a-b: Distribution of Corncrake in the karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina, 2012 and 2013.

Fig. 3: Altitudinal distribution of calling males in the karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina in relation to survey area in 2013 (43 counts)

Fig. 4: Relationship between the survey (≈ surface) area in individual karst poljes and Corncrake breeding density, 2012 and 2013.

98

Karst polje Flood type Survey area (km2) Number calling Calling /km2

2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013

Kruško polje dry 3.6 0 0

Vukovsko polje flooded 28.1 28.1 0 0 0 0

Ravna Mliništa flooded 4.4 3 0.7

Ravanjsko polje dry 19.2 0 0

Kupreško polje flooded 56.8 65.0 8 26 0.1 0.4

Borovo polje dry 4.0 0 0

Slato polje flooded 4.1 4.1 9 7 2.2 1.7

Vučipolje dry 1.1 0 0

Gatačko polje flooded 60.1 48.1 10 18 0.2 0.4

Šuičko polje flooded 2.7 2.7 9 9 3.3 3.3

Roško polje flooded 3.1 2 0.7

Rakitno flooded 14.1 0 0

Glamočko polje flooded 49.9 49.9 51 19 1.0 0.4

Duvanjsko polje flooded 125.0 100.0 52 46 0.4 0.5

Lukavačko polje flooded 3.3 3.3 20 15 6.1 4.5

Konjsko polje dry 1.4 2 1.4

Nevesinjsko polje flooded 54.3 22 0.4

Cernica flooded 5.5 5.5 0 6 0 1.1

Pašića polje flooded 13.6 13.6 13 31 1.0 2.3

Marinkovci dry 10.1 3 0.3

Grahovsko polje flooded 13.8 23.0 6 12 0.4 0.5

Dugo polje dry 2.5 0 0

Podrašničko polje flooded 30.8 34.2 18 44 0.6 1.3

Livanjsko polje flooded 408.0 367.2 141 192 0.4 0.5

Petrovačko polje flooded 22.4 22.4 2 7 0.1 0.3

Medeno polje dry 5.7 0 0

Bjelajsko polje dry 9.4 3 0.3

Posušje flooded 13.0 0 0

Ljubomir polje flooded 12.7 18 1.4

Carevo polje dry 0.3 0 0

Dabarsko polje flooded 28.9 26.0 22 26 0.8 1.0

Fatničko polje flooded 7.7 7.7 3 3 0.4 0.4

Ljubinjsko polje flooded 6.9 4 0.6

Palanka (Lušci polje) flooded 22.7 22.7 40 55 1.8 2.4

Kočerinsko polje flooded 4.9 0 0

Mokro polje (Trebinje) flooded 6.2 8 1.3

Mokro polje (Široki Brijeg) flooded 2.8 0 0

Imotsko (Bekijsko) polje flooded 43.7 0 0

Popovo polje flooded 83.2 118.9 7 42 0.1 0.4

Mostarsko blato flooded 33.1 0 0

Crničko polje dry 2.9 6 2.1

Gradac dry 2.2 2 0.9

Rastoka/Ljubuško polje flooded 74.5 15 0.2

Hutovo blato flooded 32.7 0 0

Total 969.7 1308.1 413 644 0.4 0.5

Tab. 3: Population numbers and breeding densities (calling males) of Corncrakes in karst poljes in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 2012 and 2013 (45 counts).


99


maximum flood surface of individual poljes (r = -0.23, P

= 0.13, n = 45). Additionally, by applying Mann-Whitney-U

statistics, in contrast to absolute numbers of calling males

(Z = 3.04, P = 0.02), no statistically significant differences

between population densities in dry and flooded karst

poljes (Z = 0.04, P = 0.97) were found (Fig. 5).

4.5 Annual population numbers

Total population numbers in 2012 and 2013 and the

comparison of counts for individual poljes which were

visited in both study years (n = 18), indicate larger numbers

of calling males in 2013. From 2012 to 2013 the population

declined by 32 males in Glamočko polje, while in Livanjsko

polje a considerable increase of 51 males was documented

(cf. Tab. 3). Overall, the average population number in

individual poljes was 9.7 males (sd = 19.2) higher in 2013.

In contrast, respective numbers of calling males in karst

poljes (total area 268.3 km2) which were investigated in

both years in early or in late June, show opposite trends

(Tab. 3). By comparing the population numbers of poljes

which were visited during the same season in 2012 and

2013, in half of the poljes fewer males were noted, while

in only one polje numbers were considerably higher in 2013

(x = -1.9 males, sd = 15.8, n = 8). In addition, annual means

of calling males/km2 (1.1 males/km2, sd = 1.5, n = 17 vs. 1.1

males/km2, sd = 1.0, n = 28) as well as overall population

density (0.4 vs. 0.5 males/km2) did not differ significantly

between 2012 and 2013. Thus, the higher number of

territorial males in many poljes in 2013 may be a result of

differing seasons of the survey in 2012 and 2013.

4.6 Calling groups

During the present study the highest concentration

of 192 males was registered in the Ždralovac area in

Livanjsko polje in late June 2013, where territorial birds

moulded into a 200 – 1,400 m wide continuous carpet of

singing males along the lower flood surface of the polje

comparable to counts in 2007 and 2009 (Stumberger et

al. 2010). Aside from the outlier in the northern parts of

Livanjsko polje, calling groups consisted of 2 - 46 males

(n = 36). The median size of calling groups amounted

to 7.0 males (Q25

- Q75

: 4.0 – 18.8 males) of which more

then 60% included ≥ 7 birds and 25% encompassed ≥ 19

males. Compared to occasional counts, calling groups

are smaller in mountain regions outside karst poljes (cf.

night-time counts in Tab. 2).

5. Discussion

5.1 Distribution and habitat conditions

National counts since 1992 and 1993 showed that 60% -

80% of the Corncrake population in Slovenia (300 – 700

calling males) are concentrated in the country’s Dinaric

region which encompasses the northern foothills of the

Dinarides (Trontelj 1997, 2001, Božič 2005, DOPPS 2009,

Fig. 5a-b: Population numbers and breeding density of Corncrakes in dry and periodically flooded karst poljes (s. 4.4) in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 2012 and 2013 (45 counts).

100

2010). More than half of the Slovenian population was

found in karst poljes. Similarly, Peštersko and Sjeničko

polje, situated in the karst areas of south-western Serbia,

harbour comparatively large numbers of calling males,

currently estimated at 40 – 60 males (Puzović et al. 2009,

Sekulić 2011). In nearby Koštan polje the species may

inhabit similar grassland habitats. In addition, Dumbović

Mazal & Tutiš (2013) recently reported 290 – 500 territorial

males for the Lika karst poljes in Croatia. In the same way,

the present study in Bosnia-Herzegovina confirmed the

significance of karst poljes for Corncrakes (cf. Schneider-

Jacoby 1991, Trontelj 1997).

In Bosnia-Herzegovina, like in other countries in the

Dinaric Karst, the species was further found in different

mountain and subalpine grassland habitats outside karst

poljes during the breeding season (s. 4.1 Historic records,

Tab. 2). However, regarding the small numbers (maximum

of 8 singing males near Haljinići, 510 m a.s.l., in June

2010 and 2013) and the scarcity of records, Corncrakes

distribution is apparently more scattered in the mostly dry

and rocky grasslands in the uplands of the Dinaric Karst,

where rain and snowmelt rapidly enter the limestone

bedrock (Bonacci 1987). Additionally, the species was not

found on the south-eastern slopes of the 1,757 m high

Velebit Massif in Dalmatia during extensive breeding bird

surveys from 1992 until 2009 conducted in Croatia’s 95

km2 large Paklenica National Park (Lukač 2011). According

to current knowledge, the distribution of obviously small

and geographically isolated populations in the foothills

and higher mountains of the Western Balkans is restricted

to the inundation zones of periodically flooded lakes, like

Pošćensko Lake (1003 m) in Montenegro (M. Jovićević pers.

comm.) and infrequently mown (or abandoned) grasslands

above waterlogged deposits, like the slopes of Mt. Snežnik

located between 500 – 1,000 m a.s.l. in Slovenia (S. Polak

pers. comm.) and the Prokletije Mountains in Kosovo and

Montenegro (Puzović et al. 2003, M. Jovićević pers. comm.).

In comparison to dry (fossil) poljes and poljes with

proportionally small flood surfaces, the karst poljes with

large-scale periodical flooding harboured 97% - 99% of the

overall Corncrake population (Tab. 3). Although numbers of

territorial males increased with the maximum flood surface

of the poljes, we found no differences between population

densities in dry and periodically flooded karst poljes. While

population numbers may fluctuate heavily between as

well as within seasons (s. 4.5 Annual population numbers),

even fossil karst poljes without surface water sources,

like Gradac, Konjsko and Crniško polje, can harbour viable

Corncrake numbers. According to highly differentiated

flood water-levels, flooding season, flood duration and

vegetation type, the maximum flood surfaces per se

(estimated by Schwarz 2013) are inadequate for predicting

Corncrake numbers for individual karst poljes.

While growth height, vegetation density and mowing

dates in karst poljes fluctuate according to flood conditions

(Bonacci 1987), Corncrakes prefer at least 20 – 30 cm tall

vegetation and depend on late mowing dates of grassland

habitats managed by farmers. Many authors further

addressed the positive correlation between soil moisture

(flood duration) and the appearance and population

numbers of Corncrakes (e.g., Glutz von Blotzheim et al. 1973,

Schäffer 1999, Schäffer & Koffijberg 2004). In 2012 and 2013

Šuičko, Glamočko, Lukavačko, Dabarsko and Crničko polje

harboured exceptionally high numbers of calling males

which significantly exceeded breeding densities predicted

by survey area (cf. Fig. 4). According to current habitat

surveys in a number of karst poljes conducted by Bronner

(2014), poljes harbouring large numbers of Corncrakes are

characterized by extensive stands of wet Dechampsion

and Molinion meadows, gradients between wet and dry

grasslands, and small-scale mosaics of meadows, arable

fields and pastures. In contrast, grassland habitats of

poljes with comparably low numbers of calling males,

like Gatačko, Nevesinjsko, Fatničko and Popovo polje,

are heavily impacted by grazing, drainage and large-scale

agriculture (Bronner 2014).

In comparison to dry (fossil) poljes and poljes with proportionally small flood surfaces, the karst poljes with large-scale periodical flooding harboured 97% - 99% of the overall Corncrake population.


101


5.2 Population numbers and threats

Although almost all periodically flooded poljes were visited

for the present study, overall population numbers for the

karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina remain preliminary.

Besides seasonal movements between poljes following

to flood conditions and phenology of vegetation types

(c.f. Schäffer & Koffijberg 2004), concentrations of calling

males in some former war-zones are extremely difficult to

count. The latter particularly concerns the Ždralovac area

in the upper parts of Livanjsko polje, where night-time

singing places are concentrated in a continuous, up to

1,400 m wide carpet parallel to the only safe access road

(cf. Stumberger et al. 2010).

With the exception of only 3.3 km2 large Lukavačko polje

which harboured exceptionally high breeding numbers

(4.5 – 6.1 males/km2), breeding densities throughout

the karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina fit well into the

range of 0.1 – 3.5 calling males/km2, which were found

in randomly selected sample plots in Latvia (Keišs 1997)

and Estonia (Elts 1997). However, by adding up minimum

and maximum numbers for individual poljes, total

population numbers in 2012 and 2013 amounted to 460 –

690 males. According to the close relationship between

surface area and Corncrake numbers, those poljes not

included in the present study may harbour another 20

– 30 males. Taking into account some occasional counts

in Duvanjsko, Šuičko and Dabarsko polje, between 2007

and 2010, the total population in the karst poljes of

Bosnia-Herzegovina is roughly estimated at 480 – 790

calling males.

According to present data, the Corncrake population in

Bosnia-Herzegovina may exceed current estimates of 500

– 800 territorial males (Kotrošan et al. 2012). However, in

the Ždralovac area in Livanjsko polje Corncrake numbers

declined by 40% - 55% since 2007. During current counts

no Corncrakes were found in Vukovsko polje, although in

early June 2010 at least 25 calling males were present in

the area. In both cases – just like in Mostarsko blato by

artificial flooding - formerly extensive wetland habitats

and traditionally used grasslands were recently replaced

by arable fields for maize cultivation and silage. Besides

cultivation and intensification of farmland management,

the planned construction of hydropower plants in

Glamočko, Duvanjsko and Livanjsko polje in the drainage

area of the upper Cetina River will affect 13% - 27% of the

overall Corncrake population in Bosnia-Herzegovina’s karst

poljes. At the same time the realization of the “Upper

Horizons” project, for which a cascade of 7 hydropower

plants is projected, will impact the hydrological regimes

of wetland and grassland habitats in at least 10 karst

poljes in the Neretva River basin - including Nevesinjsko,

Lukavačko and Dabarsko polje - which together harboured

61 and 129 calling males, i.e. 15% - 20% of the total

population, in 2012 and 2013. Hence, the cumulative

impacts of hydropower development in the upper Cetina

and Neretva River basins will affect 28% - 47% of the

total Corncrake population. Additionally, in the near future

adequate breeding habitats in former war-zones which

currently harbour substantial numbers of territorial males

will be lost as a result of natural succession.

Although night-time counts remain too occasional for

calculating reliable population trends, the Corncrake

population in the karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina

exceeds population numbers in many Western European

countries. With regard to current threats, the population

needs to be intensely monitored. While future counts may

be restricted to poljes inhabited by substantial numbers of

≥ 25 males (s. Tab. 3), we recommend meeting international

standards for Corncrake monitoring (cf. Schäffer 1994,

Gilbert et al. 1998). Tyler & Green (1996) and other studies

have shown that the singing activity of males changes

according to status of pair-bond during season. According

to recoveries of ringed birds, Corncrakes may further move

widely between poljes and potential breeding habitats

outside karst poljes and the Dinaric region (Schäffer 1999,

Schäffer & Koffijberg 2004). Therefore, it will be essential

for future investigations to count poljes - as far as possible

– simultaneously and to establish two consecutive counts

for individual karst poljes in late May/early June and in late

June/early July, respectively.

Acknowledgements

The present survey was conducted in the framework of the

EuroNatur project „Identification and Promotion of Karst

Poljes in Bosnia-Herzegovina as Wetlands of National and

International Importance“ with financial support from the

MAVA Foundation. Besides the authors, Biljana Blanuša,

Narcis Drocić, Mato Gotovac, Damir Ribić, Ilija Šarčević,

Zoran Šeremet, Đorđe and Mladen Topić participated in the

field surveys. We would further like to thank Goran Sekulić

(Serbia), Ivan Budinski, Vlatka Dumbović Mazal, Jelena

102

Kralj, Gordan Lukač (Croatia), Mihailo Jovićevič, Andrej

Vizi (Montenegro), Luka Božič, Slavko Polak, Jakob Smole

(Slovenia), Taulant Bino (Albania) as well as Stephan Ernst

and Eugeniusz Nowak (Germany) for valuable information

and assistance.

References

Antal L., Fernbach J., Mikuska J., Pelle I. & Slivka L. (1971): Register of the birds of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. Larus 23: 73 – 127.Barać Z., Bedrica L., Čačić M., Dražić M., Dadić M., Ernoić M., Fury M., Horvath Š., Ivanković A., Janječić Z., Jeremić J., Kezić N., Marković D., Mioč B., Ozimec R., Petanjek D., Poljak F., Prpić Z. & Sindičić (2011): Zelena knjiga izvornih pasmina Hrvatska – Green Book of Indigenous Breeds of Croatia. Republika Hrvatska, Zagreb.Bonacci O. (1987): Karst Hydrology, with Special Reference to the Dinaric Karst. Springer Verlag, Berlin.Božič L. (2005): Gnezditvena razširjenost in velikost populacije kosca Crex crex v Sloveniji leta 2004. Acrocephalus 26 (127): 171 - 179. Božičević S. (1992): Fenomen krš. Školska knjiga, Zagreb.Bronner G. (2014): A preliminary survey of the wet- and grassland vegetation of the karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina (this volume).del Hoyo J., Elliott A. & Sargatal J. eds. (1996): Handbook of the Birds of the World, Vol. 3. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Dervović I. (2008/09): Rezultati jednogodišnjih posmatranja ptica na području Haljinića kod Kaknja. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 55 - 67.DOPPS (2009): Monitoring splošno razširjenih vrst ptic v letu 2009 za določitev slovenskega indeksa ptic kmetijske krajine (končno poročilo). DOPPS – BirdLife Slovenia, Ljubljana.DOPPS (2010): Monitoring populacij izbranih vrst ptic. Popis gnezdilk in spremljanje preleta ujed spomladi 2010. Delno poročilo (dopolnjena verzija). DOPPS – BirdLife Slovenia, Ljubljana.Dumbović Mazal V. & Tutiš V. (2013): Kosac Crex crex. In: Tutiš V., Kralj J., Radović D., Ćiković D. & Barišić S. (eds.): Crvena knjiga ptica Hrvatske. Ministarstvo zaštite okoliša i prirode, Državni zavod za zaštitu prirode, Zagreb; pp. 193 - 195.Elts J. (1997): Studies of the Corncrake in Estonia in 1995. Vogelwelt 118: 236 – 238.Flade M. (1991): Die Habitate des Wachtelkönigs während der Brutsaison in drei europäischen Stromtälern (Aller, Save, Biebrza). Vogelwelt 112: 16 - 40.Flade M. (1997): Wo lebte der Wachtelkönig Crex crex in der Urlandschaft? Vogelwelt 118: 141 - 146.Gilbert G., Gibbons D. W. & Evans J. (1998): Bird Monitoring Methods: A Manual of Techniques for Key UK Species. RSBP, Sandy.Glutz von Blotzheim U. N., Bauer K. M. & Bezzel E. (1973): Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas, Bd. 5. Akademische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt a. Main.Green R. E., Rocamora G. & Schäffer N. (1997): Populations, ecology and threats to the Corncrake Crex crex in Europe. Vogelwelt 118: 117 - 134.Iviš D. (2008/09): Gniježđenje kosca (Crex crex) na području Gojevića (opština Fojnica). Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 121.Karanović T. (1990): Građa za ornitofaunu Bosanske krajine. Ciconia 2: 12 – 21.Keišs O. (1997): Results of a randomised Corncrake Crex crex survey in Latvia 1996: population estimate and habitat selection. Vogelwelt 118: 231 – 235.Kotrošan D. & Hatibović E. eds. (2012): Stanje biodiverziteta prirodnog močvarnog područja Bistrik. Istraživačka studija za proglašenje zaštite, Kakanj.Kotrošan D., Drocić N., Trbojević S., Šimić E. & Dervović I. (2012): Program IBA - Međunarodno značajna područja za ptice u Bosni i Hercegovini. Ornitološko društvo “Naše ptice”, unpubl. Report “Evaluacija IBA područja u FBIH”, Sarajevo.

Lukač G. (2011): Atlas ptica Nacionalnog parka Paklenica. Javna ustanova Nacionalni park Paklenica, Starigrad-Paklenica.Milanović P. (2003): Dinaride Poljes. In: Gunn J. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Caves and Karst Science. Fitzroy Dearborn, New York and London; pp. 599 – 603.Obratil S. (1975): Pregled istraživanja ornitofaune Bosne i Hercegovine IV (Galliformes, Gruiformes). Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine, (PN) NS, 13: 153-161.Obratil S. (1983): Avifauna sjeverne Bosne. GZM BiH (PN) NS 22: 115-176.Obratil S. (1999): The Corncrake (Crex crex) in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In: Schäffer, N. & Mammen U. (eds.): Proceedings International Corncrake Workshop 1998, Hilpoltstein/Germany; pp. 19 - 21. http://www.corncrake.net/Download/bosnia.pdfOzimec R., Šarac M. M. & Stumberger B. (2013): Fauna područja Tomislavgrada. In: Radoš M. M. & Šumanović M. (eds.), Prirodoslovno-povijesna baština općine Tomislavgrad. Naša baština, Tomislavgrad and Zagreb; pp. 285 – 344.Puzović S., Sekulić G., Stojnić N., Grubač B. & Tucakov M. (2009): Important Bird Areas in Serbia. Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, Institute for Nature Protection of Serbia & Provincial Secretariat of Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development, Belgrade.Puzović S., Simić D., Saveljić D., Gergelj J., Tucakov M., Stojnić N., Hulo L., Vizi O., Šćiban M., Ružić M., Vučanović M. & Jovanović T. (2003): Ptice Srbije i Crne Gore − veličine gnezdilišnih populacija i trendovi: 1990−2002. Ciconia 12: 35 − 120.Radović D. & Dumbović V. (2001): The Corncrake (Crex crex) in Croatia. In: Schäffer N. & Mammen U. (eds.): Proceedings International Corncrake Workshop 1998, Hilpolstein, Germany; pp. 49 – 53. http://www.corncrake.net/Download/bosnia.pdfReiser O. (1939): Materialien zur einer Ornis balcanica. I. Bosnien und Herzegowina nebst Teilen von Serbien und Dalmatien. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums Wien, Wien.Reiser O. & Knotek J. (1901): Ergebnisse der Ornithologischen Zugsbeobachtungen in Bosnien und der Hercegovina. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und der Hercegovina, Bd. VIII, Carl Gerold‘s Sohn, Wien.Rucner D. & Obratil S. (1973): Prilog poznavanju avifaune planinskog područja Maglića, Volujka i Zelengore. Larus 25: 61 - 94.Schäffer N. (1994): Methoden zum Nachweis von Bruten des Wachtelkönigs Crex crex. Vogelwelt 115: 69 - 73.Schäffer N. (1995): Rufverhalten und Funktion des Rufens beim Wachtelkönig Crex crex. Vogelwelt 116: 141 – 151.Schäffer N. (1999): Habitatwahl und Partnerschaftsystem von Tüpfelralle Porzana porzana und Wachtelkönig Crex crex. Ökol. Vögel 21: 1 - 267.Schäffer N. & Green R. E (1997): Etappen des Wachtekönigschutzes. Vogelwelt 118: 115 - 117.Schäffer N. & Koffijberg K. (2004): Corncrake Crex crex. BWP Update 6: 55 – 76.Schneider-Jacoby M. (1991): Verbreitung und Bestand des Wachtelkönigs in Jugoslawien. Vogelwelt 112: 48 - 57.Schneider-Jacoby M. (2010): Dabarsko polje, značajno područje za kosca (Crex crex) u Bosni i Hercegovini. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 6: 61 - 62.Schneider-Jacoby M., Rubinić B., Sackl P. & Stumberger B. (2006): A preliminary assessment of the ornithological importance of Livanjsko Polje (Cetina River Basin, Bosnia and Herzegovina). Acrocephalus 27 (128/129): 45 - 57.Schwarz U. (2013): Flooding Analysis of Karst Poljes of Bosnia & Herzegovina. Unpubl. Report, EuroNatur and Fluvius, Vienna; 127 pp.Sekulić, G. (2011): Prdavac Crex crex u Srbiji. Ciconia 20: 28 - 45.Stumberger B. (2010): A classification of karst poljes in the Dinarides and their significance for waterbirds conservation. In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Stumberger B. (eds.), Adriatic Flyway - Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. EuroNatur, Radolfzell, Germany; pp. 69 - 77.Stumberger B. & Sackl P. (2008/09): Rezultati brojanja ptica moćvarica i njihov gnijezdeći status na Livanjskom polju 2007. - 2009. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 38 - 54.Stumberger B. & Schneider-Jacoby M. (2013): Importance of the Adriatic Flyway for the Common Crane (Grus grus). In: Nowald G., Weber A., Fanke


103


J., Weinhardt E. & Donner N. (eds.), Proceedings of the VIIth European Crane Conference. Crane Conservation Germany, Groß Mohrdorf; pp. 64 – 68.Stumberger B., Schneider-Jacoby M., Schwarz U. & Sackl P. (2010): Zonation concept for the Livanjsko Polje Ramsar site. In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Stumberger B. (eds.), Adriatic Flyway - Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. EuroNatur, Radolfzell, Germany; pp. 125 - 132.Topić G., Janković M. & Zubić G. (2011/12): Prilog poznavanju ornitofaune Šipova i Novog Sela. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 7/8: 5 - 31.Trontelj P. (1994): Ptice kot indikator ekološkega pomena Ljubljanskega barja (Slovenia). Scopolia 32: 1 - 61.Trontelj P. (1997): Der Wachtelkönig Crex crex in Slowenien: Bestand, Verbreitung, Habitat und Schutz. Vogelwelt 118: 223 - 229.Tyler G. A. & Green R. E. (1996): The incidence of nocturnal song by male Corncrakes Crex crex is reduced during pairing. Bird Study 43: 214 – 219.Wettstein W. & Szep T. (2003): Status of the Corncrake Crex crex as an indicator of biodiversity in eastern Hungary. Ornis Hungarica 12/13: 143 – 149.

104

Kupreško polje, 13 November 2010 (Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby)


105


Summary

In many countries and regions in Europe, there are

populations of feral domestic breeds (“feral populations”).

They are largely ignored by the public, unless they disturb

agriculture and rural development. However, feral populations

can make an important contribution to the conservation of

traditional agro-ecosystems. In many places large herbivores,

important for the conservation of the natural environment,

are no longer present. This gap can be filled by feral or semi-

feral livestock, such as horses or cattle. Furthermore, these

populations can be a model for an extensive conservation

of important genetic resources. The feral populations,

their situation and husbandry conditions and problems

have never been researched in Europe. SAVE-Foundation

launched a project in 2011 to collect data and information on

the occurrence of feral breeds and varieties of livestock, to

promote the interdisciplinary networking of key people from

in situ/on farm conversation work and nature conservation

and to develop best practice management plans. The first

phase of the project was the collection of basic data and

information especially on large animals. On the website

“www.agrobiodiversity.net/regional è Feral Populations”

more than 100 varieties and occurrences throughout Europe

were collected in a database. Additional information about

the project, a workshop and a collection of “best practice”

information for download completes the page. The terms

“feral”, “semiferal” and “semidomesticated” were used in

the project in accordance with the accepted definitions of

the IUCN. Animals living free all year round, but with health

and breeding controls, as is the case in many large protected

areas, particularly in Central Europe, have been defined as

“extensively managed”. Large herbivores played a major role

in the development of diverse landscapes in Europe. Nature

protection bodies view these populations ambivalently: on

the one

The ecological value of free-ranging livestock

Waltraud Kugler & Elli Broxham

SAVE-Foundation Project Office, Schneebergstrasse 17, CH-9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland; E-mail: [email protected]

Sažetak

U mnogim zemljama i regijama Evrope postoje divlje

populacije domaćih životinja, o kojima šira javnost malo

zna, osim u slučajevima kada predstavljaju smetnje za

poljoprivredu i ruralni razvoj. Međutim, divlje populacije

mogu značajno doprinijeti očuvanju tradicionalnih

agroekosistema. U mnogim regionima veliki biljojedi, koji

su važni za očuvanje prirodnog okoliša, više nisu prisutni.

Taj problem se može riješiti uzgojem poludivljih konja

i goveda, čije populacije mogu predstavljati model za

očuvanje važnih genetičkih resursa u širokim razmjerama.

Divlje populacije i njihov odnos prema trenutnoj situaciji

u stočarstvu na području Evrope do sada nisu istraživani.

Fondacija SAVE je 2011. godine pokrenula projekat koji

za cilj ima prikupljanje podataka o pojavi divljih pasmina

stoke, promociju interdisciplinarnog umrežavanja ljudi

koji rade na zaštiti ovih pasmina in situ (na farmama) i

onih koji se bave zaštitom prirode, i razvijanje planova

za optimalno upravljanje u praksi. Prva faza projekta

sastojala se od prikupljanja podataka o krupnim

životinjama. Na web-stranici “www.agrobiodiversity.net/

regional è Feral Populations” nalazi se baza podataka sa

više od 100 pasmina sa područja Evrope. Na web-stranici

se nalaze i dodatne informacije o projektu, radionicama

i zbirka informacija o najboljim načinima upravljanja u

praksi. Pojmovi “divlji”, “poludivlji” i “polupitomi” su

korišteni u projektu u skladu sa prihvaćenim definicijama

IUCN-a. Životinje koje žive na slobodi tokom cijele godine,

ali se kontroliše njihovo zdravlje i razmnožavanje, kao što

je to slučaj u većini velikih zaštićenih područja, posebno

u centralnoj Evropi, se označavaju kao “ekstenzivne

populacije”. Veliki biljojedi su igrali značajnu ulogu u razvoju

različitih evropskih krajolika. Organizacije za zaštitu

prirode dvojako posmatraju ove populacije: sa jedne strane,

one imaju ogroman uticaj na ravnotežu u ekosistemima,

106

a sa druge, korisne su kao poludivlje populacije u zaštiti

prirodnih i parkovskih krajolika. Međudjelovanje između

upravljanja autohtonim pasminama stoke i tradicionalnih

agroekosistema je veoma značajno za očuvanje oba tipa

biodiverziteta – divljeg i udomaćenog. Radionica na temu

“Problemi, šanse i zamke divljih populacija u Evropi”

održana je u Sevilji u Španiji 2012. Rezultati radionice

pokazali su da se u različitim zemljama situacija znatno

razlikuje. U nekim zemljama rijetke pasmine se drže na

tradicionalan način, potpuno ili djelimično slobodne.

Postojeći evropski veterinarski zakoni predstavljaju velike

zapreke kada je u pitanju uvođenje divljih populacija na

tržište. Trenutno se traže zamjene za velike biljojede u

nekim zaštićenim područjima. Posebno u mediteranskim

zemljama zaštita od požara kroz slobodnu ispašu ima

sve važniju ulogu. Događaj “Rijetke pasmine stoke i divlje

populacije (stoka na slobodnoj ispaši) u ekološki značajnim

krajolicima i močvarama” ove konferencije će se fokusirati

na divlje populacije u kraškim predjelima Balkana, najbolje

načine upravljanja, njihove pozitivne strane i probleme.

Keywords: Grazing, large herbivores, feral, indigenous

livestock, conservation, landscape ecology, livestock.

Introduction

In many European countries biodiversity is, to a large

extent, the result of the long-term, traditional use of

the environment. Many authors argue that repeated

disturbances must be guaranteed that periodically affect

the structure and ecological sequences of vegetation

for retaining non-forest habitats, particularly so in

Mediterranean areas (Seligman & Perevolotsky 1994). In

Mediterranean countries, grazing activities were based

on a set of management techniques that were adapted to

local socio-economic constraints and traditions. Grazing is

an important tool to maintain biodiversity in a mosaic of

plant communities and animals. But this only works well

if the system is adapted to the environment. Indigenous

livestock fulfils this precondition of adaptation to the

environment. With these livestock e.g., the build-up of

dry forage and shrub encroachment is diminished which

reduces the danger of natural fire.

Due to the relative lack of water and the absence of large

areas of deep soils, the karst areas of the Mediterranean

region were always used for extensive grazing in the system

of transhumance (a seasonally adjusted semi-nomadic herd

migration). The Koliba tradition in western Montenegro

is similar to typical examples of the economy of remote

pastures in the Alps, while dolinas and poljes were farmed

arable. The introduction of corn to the Mediterranean region

had a massive influence on the karst polje management.

In recent times, in several central and northern European

countries extensive grazing with mobile flocks recently has

become of interest for nature protection issues, e.g. for the

improvement of mesotrophic grasslands (White 2010) or

the fight against problematic plant species such as Green

Alder Alnus viridis which is invading alpine meadows of

high biodiversity and, by fixing nitrogen in the soil, inhibits

Fig. 1: Livno feral horses, Bosnia-Herzegovina (Photo: Elli Broxham)


107


the growth of other plants and hinders the re-emergence

of high forest in alpine areas (Bühlmann et al. 2013).

In Europe large herbivores, important for the conservation

of the natural environment, are no longer present as

wild animals. This gap can be filled by feral or semi-

feral livestock, such as horses or cattle. Furthermore,

free-ranging populations of livestock can be a model for

extensive conservation of important genetic resources.

Although feral husbandry and breeding has been known

for a long time in Europe, feral populations, their situation,

husbandry conditions and problems have never been

researched. Therefore, SAVE Foundation has launched

the project “The Ecological Value of Feral Populations in

Europe” in 2011 to collect data and information on the

occurrence of feral breeds and varieties of livestock, to

promote interdisciplinary networking of key people working

in in situ/on farm–conversation and nature conservation

and for developing best practice management plans.

Terminology

As defined by the IUCN Species Survival Commission,

the terms “feral”, “semi-feral” and “semi-domesticated”

represent points in a continuum from feral to domesticated

species. Animals living free all year, but with health and

breeding controls, as it is the case in many large protected

areas, particularly, in south- and central Europe have been

defined as “extensively managed”. A feral population

is “a population that has escaped or been released from

cultivation or domestication and maintains itself in the

wild state.” (Prescott-Allen 1996).

“Free ranging” is a term which denotes a method of

farming husbandry where the animals are allowed to roam

freely for food, rather than being confined in an enclosure.

In ranching free-range livestock are permitted to roam

without being fenced in, as opposed to fenced-in pastures

(Wikipedia). In many of the cases represented in the

SAVE project “The Ecological Value of Feral Populations

in Europe” it is difficult to ascertain where exactly on

the continuum the animal population falls. Within the

project three terms have been used: feral, semi-feral

and extensively managed. The term “free ranging” and

“extensively managed” can be used as synonyms. These

three terms are used to mean:

• Feral – totally wild, no management at all

• Semi-Feral – some periodic management e.g.

removal of some males, health checks

• Extensively Managed – animals range free all

year, health and breeding is controlled

Feral and free-ranging livestock in Europe

Within the project basic data and information, especially

on large animals, were collected. On the website “www.

agrobiodiversity.net/regional è Feral Populations” more

than 100 varieties and occurrences throughout Europe are

listed (Fig. 2). Up to now the data base lists varieties of

50 horses, 22 cattle, 21 goats, 5 sheep, 4 donkeys, 4 pigs

Additional information about the project, a workshop and

a collection of “best practice” information for downloading

completes the page.

Fig. 2: The database of varieties and occurrences of “feral populations” in Europe, found on www.agrobiodiversity.net

In Europe large herbivores, important for the conservation of the natural environment, are no longer present as wild animals.

Some breeds are so attractive that they are kept outside

their area of origin. However, this often follows the same

requirements as conventional breeding and does not focus

on a feral or semi-feral form of husbandry. These breeds

are recorded in the project, because it may be of value if

there are other breeding centres outside the original area.

Various countries and regions have stocks of feral animals

that cannot be assigned to a breed, such as in the Bosnian-

108

Herzegovinian sanctuary Hutovo blato. These populations

are named according to their area of occurrence, e. g.

Hutovo blato feral horses.

Problems and progress in different countries and regions

Large herbivores played a major role in the development

of diverse landscapes in Europe. 7,000 years ago, at least,

the lowlands were predominantly semi-open parklands.

The hypothesis that, without human influence, only forest

would grow is largely disproved today. Large herbivores

were instrumental in shaping plant communities in

addition to natural events such as fire and wind damage.

The aurochs Bos primigenius as the ancestor of domestic

cattle did not live in the forest, but in open floodplains. They

held these areas free from bushes, etc. and contributed

to the development of meadows and floodplains with

high plant species diversity. Recent studies show that

large herbivores have a much stronger positive impact

on conservation areas than previously thought. But the

deliberate reintroduction of animals has limitations: public

acceptance is (still) low and legal issues complicate the

practice. Besides this, the unintentional release of animals

may have consequences that are difficult to assess.

Nature protection bodies view feral and free-ranging

populations ambivalently: on the one hand, livestock

populations have a massive impact on eco-system

balance, on the other hand semi-feral populations are

used for the conservation of natural and park landscapes.

The interaction between the management of indigenous

livestock breeds and traditional agro-ecosystems are of

great importance for the conservation of both types of

biodiversity – the wild and the domesticated.

Reports from a number of countries show that the

situation differs between countries in many aspects. In

some countries local breeds are kept under traditional feral

or semi-feral conditions. Existing European veterinary

and traceability rules are a hindrance to setting feral

populations into value on the market. The replacement

of large herbivores with feral or semi-feral populations

is becoming more popular and is seen in some nature

protection areas. Especially in Mediterranean countries,

fire protection through (free) grazing with locally adapted

livestock plays an increasingly important role.

The problems and needs for maintaining and promoting

feral and free-ranging livestock populations have been

determined as follows:

• The special status of feral livestock populations

is not recognized yet.

• Information and support of the public and of

the government is needed.

• There is a need for practicable compromises

within veterinary laws and rules

• Problems differ from country to country – and

sometimes also within one country.

• There is competition between institutions:

often the competences are not clear. The

rules of different institutions are sometimes

incompatible. The health policy and sanitary

rules for domestic animals may further lead

to culling, e. g. when only signs of tuberculosis

(TB) are seen, even when there is no outbreak.

• Legal exceptions for feral livestock populations

are necessary. In some respects, feral

populations should be handled according to

regulations for wildlife.

Particularly in southern European countries, the situation

of feral or semi-feral animals is very confusing: In Greece

there are many populations that no one has ever shown

concern for living freely on islands. For example, on

Kefalonia, wild horse populations have lived for some time

without anyone knowing which breed they belong to. As

long as they do not interfere with agriculture, no one cares

about the animals. It is estimated that there are about

3,000 feral horses in various regions and islands of Greece.

In the Balkan countries estimates of feral and semi-feral

populations are almost impossible. Some populations,

like in Hutovo blato and on Cincar plateau, near Livno, in

Bosnia-Herzegovina, are known and described, at least

marginally. Other populations, which became feral during

the last Balkan wars, are sometimes listed by conservation

organizations and other local experts. Other populations

are rumoured to roam freely, but little is known about

them.

Another focus of feral and semi-feral populations of cattle

and horses, particularly, is located in the Pyrenees. In this

Nature protection bodies view feral and free-ranging populations ambivalently


109


area many breeds that are traditionally kept in a semi-feral

state in the border area between France and Spain (Basque

country), exist. In this case breeds are described well and,

at least, population numbers are known. However, there

are regular conflicts with local people and tourists. Similar

to the situation in the Alps, there are reports of clashes

between hikers and feral cattle, animals raiding villages,

etc. Some breeds are marketed very successful, the

demand for the products is great. Therefore, some breeds

have been re-domesticated to an extent that they are now

“extensively managed”. The animals are often crossbred

with mainstream breeds to increase meat quantities

in order to satisfy consumer demand as well as to meet

standards, regulations and guidelines for product hygiene

and traceability.

In Italy, semi-feral populations of horses and cattle are well

documented. They are mainly kept in national or nature

parks and are cared for by the personnel of the parks. But,

in the case of goats the situation is completely different:

For example, Argentata dell’Etna goats are partly kept

within agricultural systems, live also in the wild in Sicily,

near Etna and the Monti Peloritani, like it is the case of the

Montechristo goat. Stock numbers and the status of these

breeds is not well described and largely unknown.

Goat, sheep and pig breeds and varieties appear in some

regions alongside cattle or horse breeds such as in the New

Forest in England. Furthermore, there are goat breeds, for

example in Norway, that were kept in a semi-feral status

for many years and then, since the 1950s, have been left

to themselves.

In most northern and central European countries breeds

and varieties are well described. Leaders are the United

Kingdom and France. In Germany, in addition to traditional

wild horses, such as the Senner or the Dülmener, Konik

horses and Heck cattle and horses are used to graze in

large protected areas.

Most common problems and needs in Europe

Diseases and prevention concepts: EU laws and obligations

on contagious diseases must be fulfilled. There is a need of

cooperation with the veterinarian services. A main problem

is interaction with livestock on farms. When diseases,

like TB, occur in Spain investigations are necessary. In

the Netherlands such investigations are not necessary,

because the country is TB free.

Registering (traceability): Ear tagging is often difficult,

but necessary, e.g. for traceability and disease control.

As long as the animals are not declared as wild animals,

registration is an obligation. In other cases the animals are

not allowed to leave the area.

Herd management/control of population: Data collection

and documentation of feral populations in different

areas and countries is very important. An analysis how

the population is influenced by different factors, like

climate, predation, food resources, and human activities,

will be helpful to find ways for controlling and managing

populations. The reintroduction of predators could be

a possibility to control feral populations. In different

countries, there are different ways to deal with dead feral

animals. In Germany, hunters are allowed to shoot feral

animals, and after the veterinary testing of the dead

Dabarsko polje, 1 September 2010 (Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby) Livanjsko polje, 17 April 2011 (Photo: Dejan Kulijer)

110

body, in the case it is considered a healthy animal, it is

allowed to be sold as food. In contrast in the UK, at least in

Chillingham, after feral animals are killed, must be buried

to ensure that the meat does not enter the food chain. The

animals do not need to be ear tagged.

Animal welfare: There are often misunderstandings about

the welfare of free-ranging animals. More information of

the public is needed. Often the “suffering” of the animals

rise protests and public criticism. Especially in the case

of rewilding projects, the public must be informed about

the reasons of probable “suffering”, like food, density,

diseases, age.

Environmental protection and impact: Feral populations

are very important for biodiversity conservation; they play

important roles in ecosystem services. These services

should be supported by EU law. One use of feral livestock

is for controlling other species like rats, rabbits, etc. This

aspect is nearly unknown in the public. There is still a great

need to know exactly what the problems in an ecosystem

are and what causes it. Population management and other

measures like fencing etc. are necessary.

Forest grazing: Ecosystem services like fire defence are

often unknown or ignored by the authorities and the

public. Information and convincing is necessary. Rules for

forest grazing widely differ between countries. In Greece

the municipality is responsible.

Water protection areas: In protected ground water areas

grazing is not allowed. In Germany, e. g. Heck cattle has to

be kept in stables, buffalo are not allowed.

Slaughtering: Within the actual law, slaughtering is not

possible, because the animals are not allowed to leave

their territory. A solution could be mobile slaughterhouses

as are used for reindeer.

Public acceptance: The acceptance by the public and

perception is very important. Therefore, it is necessary to

communicate the use of free-ranging livestock and their

ecosystem services widely and in various media, including

video documentation, (children’s) books, media and

academic articles.

The subject “Feral populations in Europe” covers many

aspects and areas of knowledge. There is a need to learn

more about the current state of knowledge and the

situation within Europe. In particular, for the karst regions

of the Balkans, best practice management, benefits and

problems need to be determined.

Ecosystem services of feral or free-ranging populations

Feral and free-ranging populations are very important

for biodiversity conservation. They provide important

ecosystem services. A lot of legally protected habitat

types, listed in the Habitat Directive (EC Directive 92/43/

EEC), are suitably for grazing. But management plans need

to be developed for different habitat types and regional

needs. Tab. 1 lists habitat types which are suitable for

grazing.

Ecosystem services of feral and free-ranging livestock,

like fire defence, are often not really seen. Information

and convincing is necessary. The Mediterranean climate,

Tab. 1: Livestock suitable for habitats. Table amended to “Wilde Weiden”, NABU, Bad Sassendorf, 2008/2009

Habitat

Hor

se

Don

key

Pig

Goa

t

Shee

p

Catt

le

Buff

alo

Salty grasland √ √ √ √

Dunes √ √ √ √ √ √

Heathland √ √ √ √ √ √

Oligophilic grassland √ √

Wetlands √ √√ √√ √√

Mesophilic grassland √√ √√ √ √ √√ √

Dry grasland √√ √√ √√ √√ √

Scrubland √ √ √ √√ √ √√ √

Stony land √ √√ √

Sandy soils √ √ √ √ √√ √ √

Shrubland √ √√ √√ √ √ √

Leafy mixed forest √ √√ √√

Deep leafy forest √

Pinus forests √ √

A lot of legally protected habitat types, listed in the Habitat Directive (EC Directive 92/43/EEC), are suitably for grazing.


111


particularly the prolonged dry and hot summer season,

is naturally favourable to wild fires. Their frequency

and impact have increased over the last few decades in

southern European countries, mainly due to land-use and

socio-economic changes. Many traditional rural activities

like firewood collection and livestock grazing systems have

been partly or totally abandoned in favour of alternatives,

like fossil fuels and factory farming. These changes

have led to more homogeneous landscapes and the

accumulation of dry matter greatly increased fire hazard.

The situation is further aggravated by current climate

trends and the persistent high numbers of human-caused

wild fires. Under such conditions, there is an increased

likelihood of severe wildfire events happening in all

countries on the north side of the Mediterranean. These

fires result in losses of human life, major destruction of

wildlife habitats and often subsequent soil erosion, and

result in a significant release of carbon dioxide into the

atmosphere (Ruiz-Mirazo et al. 2009).

Basis for a management plan

Due to rural abandonment, grazing of the karst poljes and

mountainous grasslands of the Balkans has decreased

dramatically. Livestock keeping in karst environments

has decreased by more than 90% in some areas, as the

example of Biokovo Nature Park in Croatia, at the border

to Bosnia-Herzegovina, shows: In 1938 about 23,000

livestock animals were counted on 20,000 hectares. Today

only 4% of this stock, i. e. lesser than 1,000 animals, are

left. Consequently, natural succession causes the loss

of habitats and ecosystem balances change. Therefore,

habitat improvement is necessary. This can be achieved

through grazing with free-ranging livestock which is

adapted to the local flora and its phytotoxins, to local

climates and poor infrastructure. Furthermore, local

breeds are attractive for tourism in the region. The low

input breeds further produce milk and meat, often of

high quality, for the market. Locally adapted livestock

breeds can be utilized to restore the traditional cultivated

landscapes that have existed for centuries. But it is

important that the use of livestock is properly managed

and regularly monitored.

Sometimes conflicting interests exist because of hunting

interests, the protection of nesting habitats for birds,

mainly ground-nesting birds, local needs for income

through agriculture, industries, tourism, etc. These

conflicts have to be taken into consideration. Often the

ownership and rights of land use and, particularly in the

case of feral populations, ownership of the animals is not

clear.

The decision making process for a management plan is

shown in Fig. 3.

According to the Habitat Directive, to preserve the status

quo of habitats, different habitat types can be grazed

with different densities of Livestock Units (LSU): Garrigue

evergreen (0.1 LSU); Maccia (0.5 LSU); grasslands (1-1.5

LSU), rocky pastures (0.1 LSU ); while one livestock unit is

defined as one dairy cow.

EU payments

Since October 2010 nature protection areas are able to

claim agricultural support. The decision of the European

Court of Justice (ECJ) states that there is no conflict in the

goals of supporting nature protection and agriculture.

Protected natural areas, where for example sheep are

grazed as a form of environmental management, are now

able to claim direct payments without any restrictions.

Especially in the karst regions of the Balkans, which were traditionally grazed, the use of locally adapted livestock can help to restore habitats and to keep landscapes open.

Fig. 3: Decision making process for a management plan with freely grazing livestock

112

According to the rule of the ECJ an agricultural area “as

defined in EU regulations exists also, if their use is for

agricultural purposes, even if the predominant purpose is

the pursuit of the objectives of landscape management

and nature conservation (Case C-61 / 09, NABU).” This

decision needs to be implemented at the member

states and regional level. Also within the new Common

Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform, nature protection

services can be supported.

Conclusions

Feral and free-ranging livestock plays an important role

in biodiversity conservation. Many non-forested habitats

are created by different, often traditional, grazing

systems. According to the EU Habitat Directive different

habitat types can be grazed with different densities of

Livestock Units (LSU) to maintain the status quo or to

restore habitats. Especially in the karst regions of the

Balkans, which were traditionally grazed, the use of

locally adapted livestock can help to restore habitats

and to keep landscapes open. Because the impact on the

habitat depends on the density and the needs of a special

population, there is still more information needed about

the concrete impacts of feral and free-ranging populations

of livestock on the landscape.

To develop a management plan, the traditional use

of the area needs to be taken into consideration. The

effect of grazing depends on the species and on the

density of grazing animals. Adapted local breeds need

less care and attention than modern mainstream

breeds. Furthermore, the former are often much lighter

and cause less damage to the stony and shallow karst

soils. For the management of natural sites, the entire

system must be considered: Livestock grazing does

not simply mean keeping some kind of living grazing

machine, it means an influence on the entire system,

e. g. population increase/decrease of some insects,

birds, microclimates, plant species diversity and the

prevention of damages by wild fires, etc.

It is important that the use of livestock is properly

managed and regularly monitored in order to make sure

that both, livestock and the eco-system, is healthy and

not suffering. SAVE Foundation can provide numerous

resources, information and give advice about the use of

free-ranging livestock in sensitive ecological areas.

Acknowledgements

The project “The Ecological Value of Feral Populations

in Europe” was kindly supported by Margarethe and

Rudolph Gsell Foundation, Switzerland, and the Parrotia

Foundation, Switzerland.

References

Bühlmann T., Hiltbrunner E., Körner C. (2013): Die Verbuschung des Alpenraums durch die Grünerle. Faktenblatt der Akademien der Wissenschaften Schweiz.Bunzel-Düke M., Böhm C., Finck P., Kämmer G, Luick R., Reisinger E., Riecken U., Riedl J., Scharf M., Zimball O.(2008): Wilde Weiden. Praxisleitfaden für Ganzjahresbeweidung in Naturschutz und Landschaftsentwicklung. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Biologischer Umweltschutz im Kreis Soest e.V., Bad Sassendorf-Lohne.Prescott-Allen R., Prescott-Allen C. (eds.) (1996): Assessing the Sustainability of Uses of Wild Species. Case Studies and Initial Assessment Procedure; Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 12.Ruiz-Mirazo J., Robles A. B., González-Rebollar J. L. (2009): Pastoralism in Natural Parks of Andalusia (Spain): A tool for fire prevention and the naturalization of ecosystems. In: Options Méditerranéennes, Series A, No. 91, Changes in Sheep and Goat Farming Systems at the Beginning of the 21st Century. Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Zaragoza, Spain / CIHEAM; pp. 141 – 144.SAVE Database Feral Populations: http://www.agrobiodiversity.net/regional/index.htm èTopic Networks èFeral PopulationsSchwörer C., Kaltenrieder P., Glur l., Berlinger M., Elbert J., Frei S., Gilli A., Hafner A., Anselmetti F. S., Grosjean M., Tinner W. (2013): Holocene climate, fire and vegetation dynamics at the treeline in the Northwestern Swiss Alps. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, Springer Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg, pp. 1 – 18.Seligman N. G., Perevolotsky A. (1994): Has intensive grazing by domestic livestock degraded the Mediterranean Basin rangelands? In: Arianoutsou, Groves (eds.), Plant-animal Interactions in Mediterranean-type Ecosystems, Tasks for Vegetation Science 31, pp. 93 – 103.Whyte A. (2010): Establishment of a mobile sheep flock to maintain and improve mesotrophic species-rich grasslands in Fife and Falkirk, Scotland. Conservation Evidence 7: 44 – 51.Zehnder T. (2012): Consequences of abandoning Alpine meadows. Research today, Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).


113


Red strain of busha cattle, Scutari Lake, 22 June 2012 (Photo: Borut Stumberger)

Kupreško polje, 19 April 2012 (Photo: Borut Stumberger)

114

Sheeps grazing in Dabarsko polje, 8 April 2007 (Photo: Matjaž Kerček)


115


Summary

The Dinaric Karst area of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina

is a typical example of Mediterranean ecosystems, as

shown by its economy, culture and civilization. The

Mediterranean region covers more than a third of the entire

territory of Croatia (2,020,000 ha or 35.7%). Agricultural

areas within the Adriatic littoral represent more than

a third (34.3%) of the total agricultural lands in Croatia.

In contrast, arable lands in the Adriatic region represent

only 16.4% of the country’s total area used for agriculture.

In comparison to other areas in Croatia and Bosnia-

Herzegovina, rangelands account for a higher portion of

arable lands in the Dinaric region. Over 1.7 million hectares

are considered as rangelands, and these lands represent

a significant natural resource for livestock development.

Currently, much of these rangeland areas are, for a number

of social and political reasons, partly or completely

abandoned. The lack of grazing has allowed the growth of

bushes and small trees that form very dense and almost

impenetrable thickets. The fire-prone bushes and small

trees increase the risk and the volume of wild fires, prevent

livestock access to the existing range plants, and suppress

the growth of more desirable plants. Although livestock

production in the Dinaric area has a long tradition, up

to now extensive and systematic investigations on the

economic values and proper utilization, i.e. grazing systems,

of the Mediterranean rangelands have not been conducted.

Sažetak

Dinarsko krško područje Hrvatske i Bosne/Hercegovine je

dio prirodne, kulturne, gospodarske i civilizacijske sredine

Sredozemlja, te u ekološkom smislu predstavlja tipičan

primjer Sredozemnih ekosustava. To područje prekriva više

od jedne trećine cjelokupnog teritorija Hrvatske (2,020,000

An ecological approach to the management of the Dinaric Karst’s renewable natural resources

Jozo Rogošić & Branka Perinčić

Department of Ecology, Agronomy and Aquaculture, University of Zadar, Trg kneza Višeslava 9, HR - 23000 Zadar, Croatia; E-mail: [email protected]

ha ili 35.7%). Poljoprivredne površine jadranskog područja

Hrvatske zauzimaju više od jedne trećine (34.3%)

ukupnih poljoprivrednih površina Hrvatske. Nasuprot

toga, obradive površine jadranskog područja Hrvatske

predstavljaju svega 16.4% ukupnih obradivih površina

Hrvatske. Prirodni pašnjaci zauzimaju mnogo veći udio

u poljoprivrednom i šumskom zemljištu u Dinarskom

područjku, nego u drugim poljoprivrednim područjima

Hrvatske i Bosne/Hercegovine. Mediteranskim prirodnim

pašnjacima se smatra preko 1.7 milijuna hektara, tako

da ta zemljišta predstavljaju značajne prirodne resurse

za razvoj stočarstva. Danas su mnoga od tih prirodnih

pašnjačkim površina, zbog različitih socioloških i političkih

razloga, djelomično ili potpuno napuštena. Zbog nedostatka

ispaše omogućuje se rast mnogih grmova i manjih drveća,

koji stvaraju guste i teško prohodne šikare. Lako zapaljivi

grmovi i manja drveća povećavaju opasnost i rizik od požara,

sprečavaju pristup stoci, te onemogućuju rast vrjednijim

pašnjačkim vrstama. Iako, stočarstvo u Dinarskom području

ima dugu tradiciju, intenzivnija sustavna istraživanja

gospodarske vrijednosti i racionalniji pristup u iskorištavanju

tih pašnjačkih resursa (npr. primjena sustava ispaše) još nisu

opsežnije primjenjivana.

Keywords: Range sciences, grazing, livestock, Karst

ecosystems, range ecology

Introduction

Rangelands are vast tracts of native lands which are not used for

agriculture, that support populations of many native plants and

animals. Accordingly, rangelands are defined as uncultivated

lands which provide adequate habitats for grazing and browsing

animals (Holechek et. al. 1995). By some estimates, they occupy

as much as 54% of the earth’s land area.

116

Rangelands in the Dinaric region consist of dry Mediterranean

grasslands, spacious pastures above rocky soil, shrublands

(maquis and garrigue) and open to semi-open Mediterranean

forests. In the Mediterranean regions of Croatia and Bosnia-

Herzegovina all grassland habitats are traditionally used for

grazing cattle and other domestic animals.

In contrast to agricultural fields, rangelands are managed

and conserved on the basis of ecological principles.

The ecologically adequate management of rangelands

involves the directing and manipulating subtle and not-

so-subtle ecological forces to achieve the sustainable use

of grasslands and conservation objectives. Manipulating

plant succession through controlled grazing by livestock or

by controlled burning are examples for subtle and not-so-

subtle ecological applications.

Origin of range sciences

The origins of science based rangeland management are

insufficiently known. Smith (1899) was one of the first to

address the problem of uncontrolled livestock grazing of

rangelands in the western United States. He described

the destruction of rangelands by uncontrolled grazing

of livestock in west Texas which can be summarized as

follows: (1) reduction of grazing capacity, (2) replacement of

desirable forages by unpalatable plants, (3) compaction of

soil by livestock, (4) decreased soil fertility due to the loss of

plant cover, (5) decreased absorption of rainfall by soil, and

(6) high loss of soil during periods of torrential rains.

Although the science of range management has been

developed in the western parts of the United States1, it is

important to recognize that pastoral tribes in Asia, Africa

and in the Mediterranean region have grazed livestock on

rangelands, by maintaining a system of nomadic grazing

in which animals and the forage resources were in balance,

for thousands of years.

Rangeland defined

Rangeland is a type of land that supports different

vegetation types, including shrublands, like semi-deserts

and chaparral (garrigue), grasslands, steppes, woodlands,

and open Mediterranean forests wherever dry, sandy, rocky,

saline and wet soils or a rugged topography precludes the

growing of agricultural and timber crops. The vegetation

of rangelands may be naturally stable or may be after

disturbances, like wild fires, timber harvest, clearing or the

abandonment of human cultivation, temporarily derived

from other types of vegetation.

The Mediterranean climate and rangelands

In general, in southern Croatia a Mediterranean climate

which is characterized by moderate cool, wet winters and

hot, dry summers, prevails; with a gradient from a coastal

Mediterranean to a more continental inland climate. Near

the Adriatic Sea the climate is characterized by relatively

low humidity and long, dry summer months. In higher

altitudes further inland the dry summer period is less

pronounced, following, primarily, to higher air humidity.

The stress from dry summer periods, combined with a

long history of human impacts on the natural vegetation,

resulted in the formation of several contrasting rangeland

types. Main rangeland types are pastures, shrublands

(maquis and garrigue) and forested ranges (Rogošić 2000).

1 The Society for Range Management is the major professional organization representing rangelands of North America. It is headquartered in Denver, Colorado, and maintains an informative website on range-related matters.

In the Mediterranean regions of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina all grassland habitats are traditionally used for grazing cattle and other domestic animals.

The stress from dry summer periods, combined with a long history of human impacts on the natural vegetation, resulted in the formation of several contrasting rangeland types.


117


Rangeland types

Grasslands and rocky ground pastures

In the Croatian littoral pastures are found in all

environments from the islands of the Adriatic Sea to

mountains ranges which extent in a nort-west to south-

east direction parallel to the coast. Dry Mediterranean

grasslands as well as the herbaceous vegetation which

prevails in the interstices of the rocky ground and covers

extensive areas, are used as pastures. They represent

about 45% of the total area of rangelands in the region.

In the southern parts of the Croatian littoral, in particular

on the islands where the climate is warmer and drier, the

Mediterranean pastures are dominated by annual grasses

and legumes, interspersed by low garrigue shrubs. The

later are unpalatable for all kinds of herbivores.

In contrast, in the northern parts of the Adriatic region

and further inland where the climate is cooler and wetter,

pastures are dominated by perennial grasses. Some

shrubs, mainly oaks, which grow in pastures, are palatable

for livestock. On coastal mountain ranges some of the best

grasslands in the Adriatic part of Croatia exist.

Shrublands (maquis and garrigue)

In the Croatian littoral shrublands are found at low

elevations. They contribute 31% to the rangeland of the

region and include two types of vegetation. The first is

Mediterranean evergreen maquis and deciduous thickets

which grow in dense, almost impenetrable stands of up to

several meters in height. The other type is Mediterranean

evergreen garrigue (chaparral), a relatively low vegetation

of mostly thin, heliophytic thickets of heliophytes,

dominated by dwarf shrubs.

Open Mediterranean forests

Mediterranean forests and woodland ranges occupy about

24% of the total area of rangelands (Tab. 1). Throughout

the Croatian littoral a number of different types of

Mediterranean forests are found. In fact, they are grass-

or shrublands with a canopy which consists of a number

of different forest species, like pines Pinus halepensis,

oaks Quercus ilex, Q. pubescens, Q. cerris, white hornbeam

Carpinus orientalis, black hornbeam Ostrya carpinifolia and

flowering ash Fraxinus ornus.

Table 1: Different types of rangeland in the Mediterranean part of Croatia, according to the Croatian Stastistical Yearbook (2000).

Class of natural resources area (ha) % of total area

Pastures and grasslands 775,000 38.37

Maquis and garrigues 534,000 26.44

Mediterranean forest ranges 422,000 20.89

Arable lands 289,000 14.30

Total 2,020,000 100 %

Rangeland ecology

Ecology is the study of the relationships between organisms

and their environments. Range management is applied

ecology, based on the fundamental concept that plants

and animals depend on each other. Human interventions

in rangeland ecology mainly concern the regulation of

animals (population numbers and densities of herbivores,

timing of grazing, frequency of grazing, etc.) and, in

general, are lower in comparison to the regulation of crops

through fertilization, cultivation, seeding, and irrigation

by conventional agriculture. While the productivity of

rangeland vegetation is lower in comparison to farmland

crop, range management focuses on the manipulation of

vegetation and soil through controlling grazing by animals.

Biotic and abiotic elements of rangeland ecosystems are

controlled and manipulated by man for management

purposes.

Ecosystem functions

Ecosystem functions depend on the structure, biological

diversity and integrity of the ecosystem. The maintenance

of biological diversity is an integral component of ecosystem

management. Biological diversity is the variety of life and

its processes, including the variety of living organisms and

the genetic differences among them as well as the variety

of habitats, communities, ecosystems and landscapes in

which they occur. Biological diversity is central for to the

productivity and sustainability of the earth’s ecosystems.

Plants, animals and microbes, biological structures and

processes are the means by which the physical elements

of ecosystems are transformed into goods and services

upon which humankind depends.

118

Biological diversity provides both, stability (resistance

to) and recovery (resilience) from disturbances that may

disrupt important ecosystem processes. Resistance to

disturbances often results from complex linkages between

organisms, such as food webs which provide alternate

pathways for the flow of energy and nutrients. Long-term

adaptation of ecosystems to climate changes and other

environmental variables are strongly dependent upon

available biological diversity. Ecosystem management that

is focused on the maintenance of biological diversity and

ecosystem complexity may have short-term “economic

costs” in relation to resources which are not immediately

exploited or will require compromises for commodity

production. History demonstrated that the overexploitation

of resources, resulting in diminished biodiversity, often

has long-term ecological and economical costs which will

by far exceed sort-term benefits. Therefore, ecosystem

management has to be focused on sustainability.

Processes important for range management

Many biological processes are involved in rangeland

ecology and management. The following are some of the

more important processes that should be understood for a

wise and sustainable rangeland management.

Succession and climax

Rangelands constitute dynamic, i. e. continuously changing

ecosystems. Succession means the replacement of one

plant community by another until, in stable environments,

the final community is reached. The final, most stable

community, which is in a “dynamic equilibrium” with

the environment, is often called the climax. In plant

succession processes primary and secondary successions

can be distinguished: primary successions start from bare

ground, while secondary successions follow disturbances

of already vegetated habitats, like fire or destructive

grazing. Generally, rangeland management is mainly

concerned with secondary successions and how these

changes influence the habitat for other organisms.

Under heavy, unsustainable grazing more palatable plants,

i. e. high quality forage, are successively replaced by plants

of lower palatability, lower productivity and which are

more poisonous for herbivores. This process is referred to

as retrogression. Usually, under heavy grazing pressure,

retrogression will occur within a few years, while recovery

is a slow process which often requires 20 or more years.

Plant autecology

By studying single organisms or species environmental

conditions and characteristics that enable plants to

tolerate or avoid disturbances, like grazing, cutting or

fire, can be identified. Range scientists investigate how

plant species respond to environmental factors, like the

intensity and frequency of grazing as well as how and why

plants tolerate or avoid disturbances. A comprehensive

understanding of the mechanisms which are responsible

for the tolerance or avoidance of abiotic and biotic factors,

enables us to improve range management by genetic and

environmental manipulations.

Plant synecology

The study of interactions between different plant species

within plant communities, predicts how management

practices will change the relative abundances of different

plant species. The description of existing vegetation and

changes of the vegetation by range scientists are helpful

for evaluating range conditions and trends. Future research

should provide a conceptual basis for understanding the

dynamics of plant populations and plant communities

in relation to spatial and temporal scales which are

appropriate for management.

Diet selection

Diet selection by herbivores affects both, the production

of herbivores and relative abundances of plant species

on rangelands. So far studies on diet selection have

investigated which plant species are selected by herbivores

Ecosystem management that is focused on the maintenance of biological diversity and ecosystem complexity may have short-term “economic costs” in relation to resources which are not immediately exploited or will require compromises for commodity production.


119


and their physical and chemical characteristics, but till now

were not able to explain why herbivores select some plant

species, while others are avoided. Apparently, learning

plays a major role for the diet selection by herbivores. If

this is the case, discovering how herbivores learn to eat

or to avoid particular plants, will help range managers to

manipulate diet selection by increasíng the use of palatable

plant species or by decreasing the use of poisonous plants.

Habitat selection

Like diet selection, habitat selection by herbivores affects

both, the production of herbivores and range conditions.

Herbivore production is affected by habitat selection of

the animals, because the carrying capacities of rangelands

depend on animal density and dispersion. Grazing habits

may be malleable enough that livestock can be conditioned

to graze almost everywhere. Individuals and groups of

herbivores largely differ in the use of the same range.

Thus, habitat use and preferences are, apparently, learnt

and transferred from generation to generation. Currently,

we do not understand why herbivores use different parts

of a particular range differentially. Hopefully, further

investigations will show how environmental factors such

as temperature, relative humidity, forage availability,

water location, and topography affect the distribution of

herbivores.

Conclusions

Rangelands are the largest natural land resources which

occupy as much as 54% of the earth`s land area. Rangeland

ecology and management focuses on the ecology of

rangeland grazing, the management of animals, and

vegetation manipulation by recognizing that plant and

animal communities are interdependent and interact with

their physical environment (soil, water, and air) to form

distinct ecological units which we call ecosystems.

Rangelands dominate also the landscape of the

Mediterranean region in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina

along the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea. In the Dinaric

Karst rangelands occupy 83% of the total agricultural

land or 1.7 million ha and represent a significant natural

resource for livestock development, primarily for sheep

and goat production.

Currently, uncontrolled wild fires are one of the biggest

problems in Mediterranean rangelands. Grazing with

livestock in southern Croatia will be essential to reduce the

occurrence and volume of wild fires. However, development

of livestock production should not be based on traditional

systems of uncontrolled grazing.

For establishing rangeland management according to

ecological principles, the balance between the plant and

animal components of the ecosystem is very important. In

this way it will be possible to utilize the forage potential of

the Mediterranean rangelands from one side, and conserve

and improve their management from the other side.

References

Clements F. E. (1936): Nature and structure of the climax. J. Ecology 24: 252 - 284. Holechek J. L., Pieper R. D., Gerbe C. H. (1995): Range Management Principles and Practices. Pretince Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New York, USA.Rogošić J. (2000): Management of the Mediterranean Natural Resources. Skolska naklada, Mostar. 352 pp. (in Croatian).Smith J. G. (1899): Grazing problems in the southwest and how to meet them. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Division of Agrostology Bulletin 16: 1 - 47.

Grazing with livestock in southern Croatia will be essential to reduce the occurrence and volume of wild fires.

120

Troop of Eurasian Spoonbills Platalea leucorodia resting along Ričina River during their post-nuptial migrations across the Dinaric Karst; in the background western edge of Grabovica Plateau with Vrilo karst spring, 25 August 2009 (Photo: Borut Stumberger)


121


Summary

Grabovica, i. e. in local language Grabovica Mountain, is

a karst plateau which is situated between Buško blato

(nowadays also known as Buško Lake), Duvanjsko polje and

Roško polje in the Outer Dinarides of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Except the Midena anticline, the area shows low hypsometric

energy. Surely, the most significant features of the relief are

sinkholes or dolines. In the area more then 8,500 of it exist.

The most interesting of the area’s sinkholes are the collapsed

dolines in the northern part of Grabovica. Gradual changes of

the socio-economic situation of the area during the last 50

years resulted in the final abandonment of traditional cattle

grazing which was practized in Grabovica since pre-Roman

times. With cattle grazing the stockman’s houses in the

mountains – locally called stanovi – have been abandoned,

too, and human life retreated from the mountainsback to

lower areas at the bottom of the surrounding karst poljes.

After the disappearance of people from Grabovica plateau

former infrastructure, like houses, trails and puddles, which

have been used until recently were overgrown by vegetation.

For the Project “Grabovica trail“ which was implemented

by the local NGO “Naša baština”, some of the old trails on

Grabovica plateau, in particular those of the northern part, wil

be reused. By the renovation of old trails the project intends

to make the karst phenomena of Grabovica plateau, like

the collapsed dolines Veliki Samograd, Mali Samograd and

Surdup, accesssible for the public. There are also plans for

information tables and trail marks which will transform the

old trails into a new recreation and education trail which will

be suitable for people of all ages.

Sažetak

Grabovica (lokalno Grabovička planina) krška je zaravan

smještena između Buškog blata (danas jezera),

Grabovica trail – rediscovering the natural heritage at the border of Duvanjsko polje

Denis Radoš1, Mirko Šarac-Mićo2 & Maja Perić3

1 University of Zadar, Department of Geography, Center for Karst and Coastal Research & Naša Baština, Tomislavgrad; Domovinskog rata 8, HR-23000, Zadar, Croatia; E-mail: [email protected]ša Baština, Donji Brišnik, bb, BA-80240, Tomislavgrad, Bosnia and Hrzegovina; E-mail: [email protected] of Zadar, Department of Ecology, Agriculture and Aquaculture & Naša Baština, Tomislavgrad; Matije Vlačića 16, HR-23000, Zadar, Croatia; E-mail: [email protected]

Duvanjskog polja i Roškog polja u Vanjskim Dinaridima

Bosne i Hercegovine. Karakterizira je blaga hipsometrijska

energija, od kojih najviše odstupa antiklinala Midene

planine. Najznačajnija pojava na Grabovici svakako su

ponikve, kojih ima preko 8,500, no najzanimljivije među

njima su urušne ponikve na sjevernom dijelu Grabovice.

Postupne promjene socijalno-gospodarske situacije u ovom

kraju u posljednjih 50-ak godina dovele su do konačnog

napuštanja tradicionalnog točarstva prisutnog na ovim

prostorima od predrimskih vremena. Samim time, nestale

su i stočarske nastambe na planinama, zvane stanovi, te

se život premjestio u niže predjele, na razine okolnih krških

polja. Nestankom ljudi na Grabovici dolazi do sukcesije

vegetacije i zarastanja infrastrukture korištene do nedavno

– stanova, putova, lokava i sl. Projekt Staza Grabovica kojeg

provodi udruga Naša baština, predviđa ponovno vraćanje u

uporabu pojedinih staza na Grabovici, osobito na njezinom

sjevernom dijelu. Obnovom starih putova planira se javnosti

predstaviti krške fenomene ovog dijela Grabovice, urušne

ponikve Veliki i Mali Samograd, te Surdup. Postavljanjem

info ploča i putokaza staza će istovremeno biti rekreativnog,

ali i edukativnog karaktera za ljude svih naraštaja.

Keywords: Grabovica plateau, karst, nature management,

educational trail, Grabovica Trail

Introduction

Grabovica Trail is situated near Tomislavgrad in the

northern part of the Grabovica karst plateau between

Buško blato and Duvanjsko polje in the High Dinarides of

Bosnia and Herzegovina. Grabovica karst plateau is mostly

made up of Cretaceous limestone. Structurally, it is highly

distorted and features many pit caves and dolines.

Cattle grazing and animal husbandry are thought to have

122

been present in the area since the beginning of human

settlement. Until World War II there were little changes in

the way the land was used. Human life was characterized

by seasonal migrations between the polje and nearby

mountains. Many of the secondary habitations in the

mountains gradually became real settlements and turned

into human oasis in the karst landscape. After World War II

the number of livestock decreased and people abandoned

traditional agricultural practices. As a result people

were leaving the mountains and abandoning ancient

infrastructure – houses, wells, pathways, etc. – and what

used to be pastures became areas covered with high plants

and forests. Today, agriculture plays no important role in

the life of local people and regularly used paths and tracks

do not go beyond Grabovica. Because of that, human

presence has been reduced to a minimum on Grabovica

karst plateau.

The idea to build an educational trail on Grabovica is based

on the concept of interesting people for nature, although

in a different way as in former days. Establishing a

recreational trail should promote education about natural

and historical values and help to preserve the original

landscape – all of it by walking and trekking as a healthy

lifestyle. The northern part of Grabovica, from Kovači to

Drmića staja, was chosen as the main part of the route due

to its many natural and historical resources. Later, more

parts will be added, most notably towards the eco-village

of Grabovica. Most of the main route has been already built

and marked. Information tables will be set up along the

way with maps, information on wild animals, educational

panels and similar contents.

Heritage sites

Grabovica trail connects local sites of interest in Duvanjsko

polje, on Grabovica plateau and at Buško blato. One of

its paths goes along the western edge of Duvanjsko

polje, connecting the site where the prehistoric elephant

Gomphotherium was found with Dahna cave and Kovači

swallow hole. The second path is running from Kovači

village to Drmića staje village with collapsed dolines on its

way. A third path is separating from the second path and

goes towards Grabovica village.

Prehistoric elephant discovery site

In August 2011 local archaeologist Vinko Ljubas found

the teeth of an unknown animal in the quarry of Cebara.

Later scientific analyses showed that they belong to the

prehistoric species of elephant Anancus arvernensis,

which lived in the Miocene some 8 million years ago

Establishing a recreational trail should promote education about natural and historical values and help to preserve the original landscape

Fig. 1 Map of Grabovica trail

Fig. 2 (a) Reconstruction of the ancient elephant Gomphotherium (Source: http://i1608.photobucket.com/albums/u454/linnaeus1758) and (b) fossilized teeth found in Cebara quarry (Photo: M. Šumanović)


123


(Mandić et al. 2013). The exact site is located in the

quarry which was partly destroyed by digging machines.

Sediments found in the pit date from the Miocene, while

the surrounding limestone is from the Cretaceous period.

So far, only preliminary results of the excavation , mainly

based on tusks and teeth are available, but the material

was sent to the Natural History Museum in Vienna (Austria)

for further analyses. A Board on Research on the Historical

Elephant Gomphotherium was formed in Tomislavgrad which

coordinates all relevant activities concerning the research

and protection of the locality. A detailed research project and

the conservation of the locality is expected soon, in order to

establish a museum with various information for tourists.

Dahna cave

A few hundred meters away from the site where the

elephant teeth were found, in the village of Omerovići, at

the slope of Grabovica plateu, the 750 meter long Dahna

Cave is situated. The cave is important as an attractive

display of underground geomorphology in the karst

terrain, but also as an archaeological and palaeontological

site. A tooth of the cave bear Ursus spelaeus was found

in the cave a few years ago as well as some valuable

archaeological artifacts. Due to such findings, the cave

is disturbed by thieves who misuse and may steal many

artifacts. Because of that the cave should be immediately

physically and legal protected. Dahna Cave was first

mentioned in the magazine Hrvatski planinar, in an article

written by Ljubomir Stipić in 1938. In this paper L. Stipić

presents information on the ritual importance of the cave

for local Muslim people which is especially interesting

from an ethnological point of view.

Kovači ponor

Kovači Ponor is one of the largest of its kind in the

Dinarides. It drains the water from Duvanjsko polje and

the surrounding mountains as well as waters from Šujičko

polje and a part of Kupreško polje. It is impressive in its

appearance, featuring a dome formed in Cretaceous

limestone. Although the ponor is large in size, it is

not possible to enter the hole without proper diving

equipment, because of the water that stays in its siphons.

Investigations by using the colouring method have proved

a direct or indirect connection between the waters that

drain into Kovači ponor and the numerous springs in the

Cetina river catchment area, all the way to the Adriatic Sea.

Initial researches of Kovači Ponor were performed in 1961

(Ozimec et al. 2013). In the last few years the ponor was

extensively investigated, especially during speleological

camps in 2012 and 2013. For the first time during these

researches the swallow hole was explored in its depths as

well as from its other side near the Ričina spring at the

level of Buško blato.

Roman pathway Klanac and Gradina Kovači

In the same village not far from Kovači Ponor a path is

running which steeply climbs up the slope of Grabovica

Mountain. Until recently, the pathway connected people

from Duvanjsko and Roško polje, and was used for the

transport of livestock. The path is wide and bordered by dry

stone walls. Near the path the hill of Gradina Kovači can be

found which was first inhabited by domicile Illyrians, and

later by their Roman conquerors (Benac 1985). Gradina hill

dominates over the north-western part of Duvanjsko polje

and was probably used by local people to control the entry

to the polje. According to Radimsky (1894) two Roman

buildings exist at the bottom of the hill, but they are not

visible today, although it is proofed that the hill was even

later, after the Roman conquest of the Illyrians, used for

the surveillance of the area.

From Gradina hill, through the Grabovica karst, the path

continues in several directions – to Vrilo, Grabovica and

to Gornji Brišnik. Some of these paths follow the ancient

Roman network which led through Dalmatia, across

Duvanjsko polje, and further into Bosnia. This is proven

by numerous visible marks of carriage wheels etched into

the karst’s bedrock which resemble railway tracks. These

Fig. 3 View out of Kovači Ponor (Photo: M. Šumanović)

124

Roman tracks are particularly interesting; although they

show a small number of turns, they mostly stretch linearly

across the limestone bedrock regardless of any obstacles.

Collapse dolines

Due to tectonic cracks in the terrain as well as ancient

and recent hydrological activity in the underground,

in the northern part of Grabovica numerous collapsed

dolines with impressive dimensions exist. The most

important are Mali and Veliki Samograd, and Surdup.

They are, approximately, located above the underground

section of the Šujica river which is running towards Buško

blato. Most probably the underground river affected the

corrosion of the ceilings of caverns which caused their

collapse. The collapsed dolines are characterized by special

micro-climates which differ from the climate features of

its surroundings. This, and the fact that they are largely

isolated, resulted in specific biogeographical features. A

very interesting example is Mali Samograd, which harbours

a cave with unique life forms. The remains of a forest lodge

can be seen near Surdup sinkhole, which was used for a

house some 40 years ago, and which has been restored for

touristic purposes.

Vrilo

On the western side of Grabovica plateau, on the level

of Buško blato, the spring-caves of the Ričina river are

found, which are in fact continuations of the Šujica

river. Three spring-caves, which are generating water for

Duvanjsko polje, have been tectonically shaped and are

mutually connected by a strong underground waterflow

(Ozimec, 2012). These springs as well as the canal that

is leading inside Grabovica plateau were investigated

during speleological camps in 2012 and 2013. Of this canal

1.5 km are already mapped. Further investigations of the

system of the swallow holes Kovači Ponor and Vrilo are

expected in the next years, which may eventually result in

the discovery of a connection between both underground

canals.

Conclusions

The area of the Grabovica karst plateau, especially its

northern part, harbors a number of natural and cultural

values which are very characteristic for the Dinaric Karst.

Consequently, the local non-governmental organization

Naša baština (“Our Heritage”) started a project for the

preservation and evaluation of all natural and cultural

objects in the area, in order to keep them intact in their

original surroundings. Their preservation will enable the

development of cultural and nature tourism which, so

far, has not been established in the area. Further steps in

the implementation of the project in the local community

should be the education of local people through activity

groups and seminars, and the inclusion of young people

into the promotion and management of the area’s natural

values.

References

Benac A. (1985): Utvrđena ilirska naselja I – utvrđenegradine na Duvanjskom polju, Buškom blatu, Livanjskom i Glamočkom polju. ANUBIH, Sarajevo.

Fig. 4 Collapsed dolines: Veliki Samograd (a), Mali Samograd (b) and Surdup (c) (Photos: M. Šumanović)

(b)(a) (c)


125


Mandić O., Göhlich U., Hrvatović H., Mauch Lenardić J., Čvorović B., Glamuzina G., Radoš, D., (2013): New Proboscidean Site from the High Karst Dinarides in Southern Bosnia and Hercegovina. In: Cagatay N., Zabci C. (eds.)., Book of Abstracts 14th RCMNS Congress: Neogene to Quaternary Geological Evolution of Mediterranean, Paratethys and Black sea. Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, pp. 189-189.Ozimec R. (2012): Senzacionalno otkriće u podzemlju između Duvanjskog i Livanjskog polja. Hrvatska vodoprivreda, No. 201.Ozimec R., Kovačević A., Kovačević T. (2013): Možemo li podzemno povezati Duvanjsko i Livanjsko polje. Hrvatska vodoprivreda, No. 203.Radimsky V. (1894): Starine kotara Županjačkog u Bosni. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Sarajevo, 283-319.Radoš D., Magaš D. (2012): Morfometrijska analiza prostornog rasporeda i gustoće ponikava Grabovičke zaravni. Međunarodni znanstveno-stručni skup “Čovjek i krš”, Knjiga sažetaka.Radoš D. (2013): Paleontologija, Prirodoslovno-povijesna baština općine Tomislavgrad. In: Ozimec R., Radoš M. M. (eds.), Prirodoslovno-povijesna baština općine Tomislavgrad. Udruga Naša baština, Zagreb &Tomislavgrad, pp. 155 – 174.Radoš, D., Perica, D., Krklec, K. (2013): Geologija, geomorfologija i pedologija područja Tomislavgrada. . In: Ozimec R., Radoš M. M. (eds.), Prirodoslovno-povijesna baština općine Tomislavgrad. Udruga Naša baština, Zagreb &Tomislavgrad, pp. 127 - 154Radoš, Denis, Radoš, Jozo (2013): Geografija. In: Ozimec R., Radoš M. M. (eds.), Prirodoslovno-povijesna baština općine Tomislavgrad. Udruga Naša baština, Zagreb &Tomislavgrad, pp. 73 – 126.Roglić J. (1940): Geomorphologische Studie über das Duvanjsko polje (polje von Duvno) in Bosnien. Mitteilungen der Geographischen Gesellschaft, WienStipić L. (1938): Dahna. Hrvatski planinar, Hrvatski planinarski savez.


127

adriatic flyway conference poster session

Dossiersof The Karst poljes

of Bosnia and Herzegovina

129

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

List of karst poljes in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Borut Stumberger, Romy Durst, Dražen Kotrošan & Jasminko Mulaomerović

With support from (abc) Sabaheta Abadžić, Behudin Alimanović, Ilhan Dervović, Narcis Drocić, Ena Hatibović, Dejan Kulijer, Dario Marić, Kenan Pašić, Nermina Sarajlić, Mirko Šarac, Dušan Toholj, Goran Topić, general Lasić (BA), Ulrich Schwarz, Peter Sackl (AT), Martin Schneider-Jacoby (D), Matjaž Kerček, Luka Božič (SI) and Peter Knaus (CH)

Executive summary

Recent field surveys show that some of the most remote

and best preserved karst polje landscapes along the

Dinarides are located in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However,

the majority of the 57 identified Bosnian-Herzegovinian

poljes, covering a total surface of 1,551 km², is not well

known, their biodiversity and ecological values are still

undiscovered and scientifically undescribed. In order to

provide scientific evidence of the conservation value of

these impressive landscapes the MAVA funded project

“Identification of Karst Poljes as Wetlands of National and

International Importance” was developed by EuroNatur

together with the national NGO Naše ptice in 2010. The

project kick-off took place in June 2011 with the ambitious

aim to establish a biodiversity data base for birds and

plants for the Bosnian-Herzegovinian poljes within two

years. Until summer 2013 exstensiv field surveys, remote

sensing and GIS-based simulations were conducted

to finally compile a karst data base for Bosnia and

Herzegovina in late 2013.

Having classified all poljes of the country according to

their total coverage and periodical flooding, the maximum

potential flooding area of the poljes was calculated via

remote sensing (satellite pictures, historical maps) and

GIS analyses. Waterbird and further target breeding bird

species, like Corncrake Crex crex and Lesser Grey Shrike

Lanius minor, as well as vegetation data were collected

in the field in 2012 and 2013. In addition, a dragonfly

inventory was established for a selection of poljes and

data about fish species were collected from literature

surveys. Aside from biodiversity data, information on

karst phenomena, archaeological relicts and the cultural

meaning of the different poljes, as well as current land

use practices were collected. It is known that, despite their

remoteness, many poljes have been facing severe threats

and pressures in recent years. In 2013 the hydrological

regime of 17 of the 57 poljes had already been severely

altered or been involved in concrete planning for regulation

of their natural hydrological regimes. The total coverage of

these impacted karst poljes is 1,082.8 km², corresponding

to 66.3 % of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian karst poljes.

Even more alarming, this impacted area represents 74.7

% of the former periodically flooded karst poljes of the

country - those which have been proven to be of highest

conservation value.

In the following list an impressive photo selection of the

Bosnian-Herzegovinian karst poljes is presented together

with site-specific dossiers which provide geographical,

ecological and information on cultural heritage of each

polje. The sequence of this presentation was arranged

according to the sequence of major river basins of

Bosnia and Herzegovina, starting in the North with the

Una River basin, followed by the Cetina, Pliva, Rama,

Neretva and Trebišnjica River catchments to the South.

The dossiers reveal huge gaps of knowledge regarding

basic information about many poljes. So far, not even

biodiversity surveys have been completed for all of these

vulnerable ecosystems. Ecological studies are completely

missing. Even if the degree of scientific description of

surface habitats of bigger poljes, such as Livanjsko and

Duvanjsko polje, covers basic information on some taxa

relevant for the EU Habitats and Birds Directives, as well

as international conventions on biodiversity conservation,

the far larger part of the country’s karst poljes has not

been described at all. The data base which was established

in the framework of the project helped significantly to

close some of these gaps, especially regarding birds (Aves),

dragonflies (Odonata) and the floristic diversity of the

poljes (for details visit: http://kraskapolja.ptice.ba/index.

php/bs/). The present list of karst poljes should strongly

encourage researchers and nature conservationists to

130

commit their work to a better description of the most

unknown poljes and to start investigations on their

surface and underground ecosystems, particularly, the

hydrological connections between the poljes which remain

a mystery till the present day*. There is indication that

the karst flora and fauna hosts a large portion of endemic

species. Thinking about the pressures that natural and

cultural karst landscapes are facing today, we could easily

lose a significant part of the Dinaric Karst‘s biodiversity of

Bosnia and Herzegovina without even knowing about their

existence.

The presented photo selection will give a deep impression

of the continuous annual cycles between the drying up

of the karst polje surface and the sudden inundation by

karst groundwater quickly accumulating during extreme

rainfalls and snow melt. This hydrological dynamic is what

makes the Dinaric Karst a distinctive habitat for countless

animal and plant species and a centre of European culture,

as well.

Legend

Surface: GIS-based calculation of the surface area of the

poljes according to Stumberger (2010)

Altitude: the lowest geographical elevation of the karst

polje is given in meters a.s.l.

Catchment: the name of the major river(s) draining the

catchment is named

Type: distinction between periodically flooded and dry

karst poljes

Maximal recorded flood: calculation of the flooding

potential based on a GIS analysis by Schwarz (2013)

Olm: Proven presence of the Olm Proteus anguinus in the

underground system of the polje (present, no data)

Fish: number of species according to literature, number of

endemic Dinaric Karst fish species is given in brackets

Birds: number of species according to literature and

unpublished field surveys, current state of knowledge

of the avifauna is arbitrarily given in brackets: not (NR),

partially (PR) and well researched (WR)

Dragonflies: number of species according to literature and

unpublished field surveys

Plants: number of species according to literature and

unpublished field surveys, number of endemic Dinaric

Karst plant species is given in brackets

Land use: dominant land use on the basis of field surveys

Vulnerability: main threats for the hydrology, flora and/

or fauna (in general, all flooded poljes are impacted by

changes of their natural hydrological regime. following to

drainage, canalisation etc.)

Karst phenomenon: characteristic karst phenomena like

sinkholes, springs, estavellas, caves, meandering rivers

etc.

Cultural heritage: basic information on the cultural

features of the poljes

Conservation status: unprotected or protected

polje according to national and/or international law,

international importance (e.g., Important Bird Area - IBA)

Administration: public administration (municipality,

canton, entity)

Important information: When travelling to Bosnia and

Herzegovina, visitors are urgently advised to stay on

paved roads because of ongoing danger caused by land

mines. Information about areas which are affected by land

mines is accessible on http://www.bhmac.org/en/. Up to

500.000 land mines and other explosives are assumed

to be exposed in the country until today. To get a general

overview on the distribution of land mines in the country

please visit http://www.bhmac.org/images/minska-

polja-2004-big.jpg (more recent updates an detailed maps

are not available at the moment). More precise information

may be provided by respective administrations. Keeping to

paved roads by foot as well as by car is strictly recomended.

*An important reference for the upper karst poljes of the Cetina River catchment, including Šuićko, Duvanjsko, Livanjsko, Roško, Viničko and Dugo polje (Dugo rudo), is the recently published Natural-history monograph of Tomislavgrad (Ozimec & Radoš 2013). This monograph was used as a source for information only on bird species included in the present list.

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

12

3

4 5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1213

14

15

16

18

17

19

20

21

22

24

25

26

27

2829

30

23

3233

34

35

36

37

38

3940

41

42 43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

5354

5556

57

31

1 Dugo polje2 Rudno polje3 Bjelajsko polje4 Medeno polje5 Petrovačko polje6 Palanka (Lušci polje)7 Podrašničko polje8 Marinkovci9 Grahovsko polje10 Pašića polje11 Ravna Mliništa12 Glamočko polje13 Kupreško polje14 Šuićko polje15 Duvanjsko polje

16 Livanjsko polje17 Viničko polje18 Dobranjsko polje (Livno)19 Kruško polje20 Borovo polje21 Vukovsko polje22 Ravanjsko polje23 Roško polje24 Dugo polje (Dugorudo)25 Rakitno26 Kočerinsko polje27 Rašanjsko polje (Rasno)28 Mokro polje (Široki Brijeg)29 Mostarsko blato30 Vučipolje

31 Posušje32 Imotsko (Bekijsko polje)33 Rastoka i Ljubuško polje34 Studeničko polje35 Hansko polje (Gornje Zijemlje)36 Donje Zijemlje37 Slato polje38 Nevesinjsko polje39 Lukavačko polje40 Trusinsko polje41 Dabarsko polje42 Crničko polje43 Gatačko polje44 Cernica45 Fatničko polje

46 Plana47 Ljubomir polje48 Jasenpolje49 Ljubinjsko polje50 Popovo polje51 Hutovo blato (Deransko-

Svitavsko polje)52 Gradac53 Grab polje54 Carevo polje55 Konjsko polje56 Orahovac polje57 Mokro polje (Trebinje)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Croatia

Montenegro

Map of the karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina (after Stumberger 2010, map credit Fluvius, Ulrich Schwarz).

132

1Dugo polje

Surface: 2.5 km2

Altitude: 776 mCatchment: Una RiverType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 11 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: 48 species (3 endemic)Land use: mainly livestock grazing with a smaller portion of agricultural lands (cereals, vegetables)Vulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Bosanski Petrovac municipality, Una-Sana Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

12 June 2013, Photos: Dražen Kotrošan


133

2Rudno polje

Surface: 8.8 km2

Altitude: 578 mCatchment: Una RiverType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 14 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly livestock grazing with a smaller portion of agricultural lands (cereals, vegetables)Vulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Bosanski Petrovac municipality, Una-Sana Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

12 June 2013, Photos: Dražen Kotrošan

3Bjelajsko polje

Surface: 9.4 km2

Altitude: 578 mCatchment: Una RiverType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: potentially flooded on 1/3 of the total surfaceOlm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 26 species (NR)Dragonflies: 8 speciesPlants: 44 speciesLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing and a smaller portion of the polje for crop and fruit growingVulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: medieval necropolisesConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Bosanski Petrovac municipality, Una-Sana Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

14 June 2011, Photo: Borut Stumberger

30 June 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

134

4Medeno polje

Surface: 5.7 km2

Altitude: 602 mCatchment: Una RiverType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: very small area in the central depression of the polje irregularly floodedOlm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 16 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: 34 species (1 endemic)Land use: mainly agricultural lands (cereals), partially used for livestock grazingVulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protectedAdministration: Bosanski Petrovac municipality, Una, Sana Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina



135

5Petrovačko polje

Surface: 22.4 km2

Altitude: 637 mCatchment: Una RiverType: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 3.54 km2

Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 30 species (NR)Dragonflies: 13 speciesPlants: 59 species (1 endemic)Land use: mainly agricultural lands (cereals), partially used for livestock grazingVulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: medievial necropolises (stećak)Conservation status: not protectedAdministration: Bosanski Petrovac municipality, Una-Sana Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

3 June 2012, Photos: Borut Stumberger

6Palanka (Lušci polje)

Surface: 22.7 km2


Olm: present Fish: no dataBirds: 36 species (NR)Dragonflies: 3 speciesPlants: 56 species (1 endemic)Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing, a smaller portion of agricultural lands (cereals, vegetables)Vulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: Suvaja cave, spring-cave OkoCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteriaAdministration: Sanski Most municipality, Una-Sana Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

27 June 2012, Photos: Dejan Kulijer


136

7Podrašničko polje

Surface: 34.2 km2


Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 45 species (NR)Dragonflies: 4 speciesPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing and a small portion of agricultural landsVulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: ponorCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteriaAdministration: Mrkonjić Grad municipality, Republika Srpska

2 June 2013, Photo: Miroslav Radulović

16 January 2011, Photo: Dragan Gajić


137

8Marinkovci

Surface: 10.1 km2

Altitude: 788 mCatchment: Cetina RiverType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 20 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing, small portion of agricultural landsVulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Bosansko Grahovo municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

6 April 2013, Photos: Ilhan Dervović


138

9Grahovsko polje

Surface: 23 km2

Altitude: 782 mCatchment: Cetina RiverType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: 1.69 km2 (exceptional floods)Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 25 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: exploitation of clay; mainly used for livestock grazing and partially for agricultural productionVulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: Sabljića caves, large ponors (Veliki ponori)Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protectedAdministration: Bosansko Grahovo municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina



139

16 Janaury 2010, Photo: Borut Stumberger



140

10Pašića polje

Surface: 13.6 km2

Altitude: 792 mCatchment: Cetina RiverType: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 5.78 km2

Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 37 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing and partially for agricultural productionVulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: prehistoric hillforts, late antique refuge, medieval churchConservation status: not protected, but according to current field surveys fulfils IBA criteria for Corncrake Crex crex and Lesser Grey Shrike Lanius minorAdministration: Bosansko Grahovo municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

14 March 2010, Photo: Borut Stumberger






141

11Ravna Mliništa

Surface: 4.4 km2

Altitude: 1,157 mCatchment: Pliva RiverType: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 0.21 km2

Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 11 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing and hay productionVulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: ponorsCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Glamoč municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

11 October 2012, Photos: Jasminko Mulaomerović


142

12Glamočko polje

Surface: 62.4 km2

Altitude: 883 mCatchment: Cetina and Pliva RiverType: flooded poljeMaximal recorded flood: 47.16 km2

Olm: no dataFish: 6 species (4 endemic)Birds: 90 species (PR)Dragonflies: 29 speciesPlants: 194 species (7 endemic)Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing and for agriculture (potatoes)Vulnerability: construction of the hydropower plant Kablić which would use water from the poljeKarst phenomenon: spring-sinkhole and cave Badanj, the great ponor of Kriva Jaruga, Bukvensko Lake Cultural heritage: late antique basilica Vrba, 30 prehistoric Illyrian hillforts, 27 medieval stećak necropolises, ponors with the relicts of mills in Isakovci and PodkrajConservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteriaAdministration: Glamoč municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina


28 August 2011, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

5 October 2011, Photo: Ena Hatibović


143

9 January 2010, Photo: Behudin Alimanović

28 June 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer11 October 2012, Photo: Jasminko Mulaomerović


144

13Kupreško polje

Surface: 81.2 km2

Altitude: 1,115 mCatchment: Cetina and Pliva RiversType: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 36.22 km2

Olm: no dataFish: 1 endemic Birds: 134 species (PR)Dragonflies: 13 speciesPlants: 146 species (7 endemic)Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing and, partially for agricultural productionVulnerability: burning and excavation of peat, garbage dumpingKarst phenomenon: Japage collapse dolina, meanders of the Milač RiverCultural heritage: prehistoric settlement, tumuli, stećak necropolisesConservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteriaAdministration: Kupres municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina


9 May 2009, Photo: Behudin Alimanović


145

19 April 2012, Photo: Borut Stumberger

19 April 2012, Photo: Borut Stumberger

16 January 2010, Photo: Dejan Kulijer


146

14Šuićko polje

Surface: 2.7 km2


Olm: no dataFish: 11 species (6 endemic)Birds: 8 species (NR)Dragonflies: 4 speciesPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing, a minor portion is used for agricultural productionVulnerability: (illegal) construction of housing estates at the peripheryKarst phenomenon: meanders of the Šuica River, Lovarac, Jaruga and Peca karst springs on the western edgeCultural heritage: medieval necropolises, Ottoman period bridgeConservation status: not protected; following to it’s dense Corncrake Crex crex population the polje should be incorporated into the proposed IBA Duvanjsko poljeAdministration: Tomislavgrad municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

15 March 2011, Photo: Mirko Šarac

12 February 2010, Photo: Mirko Šarac


147




148

15Duvanjsko polje

Surface: 125 km2

Altitude: 865 mCatchment: Cetina RiverType: flooded poljeMaximal recorded flood: 53.07 km2

Olm: no dataFish: 11 species (6 endemic)Birds: 151 species (PR)Dragonflies: 10 speciesPlants: 148 species (3 endemic)Land use: livestock grazing, agriculture (potatoes, cereals) and fruit growing (blackberries) Vulnerability: proposed construction of the “Kongora” thermal power plant, “Vrilo” hydropower plant and the construction of wind energy plantsKarst phenomenon: large ponor close to Kovači village, Dahna cave in Omerovići (316 remains of the cave bear Ursus spelaeus have been found in the cave), “The Cathedral” cave next to Anići, meanders of the Šuica and Drina RiversCultural heritage: prehistoric hillforts, Roman tombstones, Late Antique fortress, medieval necropolisesConservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteriaAdministration: Tomislavgrad municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

18 January 2010, Photo: Borut Stumberger

18 January 2010, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby


149

8 June 2010; Photo: Mirko Šarac



150

16Livanjsko polje

Surface: 408.0 km2


Olm: present in Ruda and Grab springs, both left tributaries of the Cetina River in Croatia (Dušan Jelić in lit.). Because both springs are fed by waters from Livanjsko polje, the western edge of Livanjsko polje may be inhabited by the Olm. But, so far, this has not been investigated Fish: 16 species (9 endemic)Birds: 235 species (WR)Dragonflies: 42 speciesPlants: 444 species (7 endemic)Land use: livestock grazing, peat extraction and agricultural productionVulnerability: Hydropower plant project “CHE Vrilo”, plans for a thermal power plant, peat extraction, water regulation in the Ždralovac areaKarst phenomenon: Duman and Sturba spring, Kameniti, Opaki and Veliki ponors, ponor next to Donji Kazanci, Bastašica spring, estavellas, permanent karst rivers Sturba, Žabljak and BistricaCultural heritage: prehistoric hillforts, stećak necropolisesConservation status: Ramsar site, IBAAdministration: Livno, Tomislavgrad and Bosansko Grahovo municipalities, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

4 May 2010, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby

4 May 2010, Photo: Martin Scheider Jacoby

4 November 2010, Photo: Borut Stumberger


151

27 October 2009, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

12 June 2008, Photo: Ulrich Schwarz16 January 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

1 May 2010 (Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby)


152

17Viničko polje

Surface: 2.2 km2


Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: no dataDragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing and for agricultural production (cereals)Vulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: Bilobrkova cave with estavellaCultural heritage: Dalmatian fort Conservation status: not protectedAdministration: Tomislavgrad municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

9 January 2014, Photo: Mirko Šarac

18Dobranjsko polje (Livno)

Surface: 1.4 km2

Altitude: 818 mCatchment: Cetina RiverType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: indication of potential flooding Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: no dataDragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazingVulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Livno municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

11 October 2012, Photo: Jasminko Mulaomerović


153

19Kruško polje

Surface: 3.6 km2

Altitude: 1,186 mCatchment: Cetina RiverType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 13 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing, a small part is used for agricultureVulnerability: no current pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Livno municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

11 October 2012, Photo: Jasminko Mulaomarović

20Borovo polje

Surface: 4 km2

Altitude: 1,102 mCatchment: Cetina RiverType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 9 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing, with a small part used for agricultureVulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Livno municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

11 October 2012, Photos: Jasminko Mulaomarović


154

21Vukovsko polje

Surface: 28.1 km2

Altitude: 1160 mCatchment: Rama and Neretva RiversType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: 0.44 km2 (exceptional flooding)Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 69 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: ploughed up in 2010 the polje is currently mainly used for agricultural production, partially for livestock grazing Vulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: prehistoric settlement, tumuli, stećak necropolisesConservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteriaAdministration: Kupres municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina





155

22Ravanjsko polje

Surface: 19.2 km2

Altitude: 1131 mCatchment: Neretva and Rama RiversType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential floodingOlm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 41 species (NR)Dragonflies: 1 speciesPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing Vulnerability: no current pressures knownKarst phenomenon: cultivation of polje surface not possibleCultural heritage: prehistoric tumuli, Roman settlement, late antique churches, stećak necropolisesConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Kupres municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina


24 April 2011, Photo: Dejan Kulijer



156

23Roško polje

Surface: 3.9 km2

Altitude: 894 mCatchment: Neretva River, Adriatic SeaType: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 0.13 km2

Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 72 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing and, partially, for vegetable productionVulnerability: no current pressures knownKarst phenomenon: two ponors, located only a few dozen meters apart, one discharging water to Imotski (Neretva River) and the other one to Omiš (Adriatic Sea) Cultural heritage: Greek coins found in the hinterlands Conservation status: not protectedAdministration: Tomislavgrad municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

13 September 2011, Photo: Narcis Drocić

13 September 2012, Photo: Narcis Drocić

3 January 2014, Photo: Mirko Šarac


157

24Dugo polje (Dugorudo)

Surface: 19.1 km2

Altitude: 1,206 mCatchment: Neretva RiverType: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 1.31 km2 (apart Blindije Lake)Olm: no dataFish: 4 endemicBirds: 89 species (PR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: 8 speciesLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing and, partially, for agricultural productionVulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: permanent lake, Brčanj and Jasle ponorsCultural heritage: prehistoric tumuli, stećak necropolisesConservation status: protected, Nature Park Blindije, will fulfil IBA criteriaAdministration: Jablanica, Posušje and Tomislavgrad municipalities, Herzegovina-Neretva and West Bosnia (Canton 10) Cantons, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

23 August 2008, Photo: Mirko Šarac

4 December 2007, Photo: Dejan Kulijer



158

25Rakitno

Surface: 14.1 km2

Altitude: 890 mCatchment: Neretva RiverType: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 5.08 km2

Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 22 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: 5 species (1 endemic)Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing and, partially, for agricultural productionVulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: permanent Jelica River and temporally Zminac stream Cultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Posušje municipality, West Herzegovina Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

5 March 2006, Photo: Dražen Kotrošan

16 September 2012, Photo: Jasminko Mulaomerović

16 September 2012, Photo: Ena Mulaomerović


159

26Kočerinsko polje

Surface: 4.9 km2


Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 12 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for agriculture (cereals) and, partially, for livestock grazingVulnerability: no current pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Grude and Široki Brijeg municipalities, West Herzegovina Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina





160

27Rašanjsko polje (Rasno)

Surface: 0.5 km2

Altitude: 344 mCatchment: Neretva RiverType: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 0.23 km2 Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 3 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing, small portion used for tobacco growing, cereals and grapesVulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: cave, Studenac spring, Krgača poolCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Široki Brijeg municipality, West Herzegovina Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

22 November 2012, Photo: Dražen Kotrošan


161

28Mokro polje (Široki Brijeg)

Surface: 2.8 km2


Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 13 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly livestock grazingVulnerability: no current pressures knownKarst phenomenon: one of Herzegovina’s poljes which are mainly influenced by surface water during winter (Mokro polje = wet polje)Cultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Široki Brijeg municipality, West Herzegovina Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

8 January 2010, Photos: Martin Schneider-Jacoby


162

29Mostarsko blato

Surface: 33.1 km2

Altitude: 223 mCatchment: Neretva RiverType: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 32.79 km2 (exceptional flooding)Olm: no dataFish: 13 species (6 endemic)Birds: 185 species (PR)Dragonflies: 21 speciesPlants: 147 species (2 endemic)Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing, partially for agricultural productionVulnerability: construction of the hydropower plant Mostarsko blato in 2010 has destroyed the hydrological regime of the poljeKarst phenomenon: Borak spring, source of the meandering Lištica River, and ponorsCultural heritage: medieval town with relicts of cobble-stone pavementConservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA as well Ramsar criteria (20,000 waterbirds during spring migration, including several thousands Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola, up to 200 Eurasian Spoonbills Platalea leucorodia and 10,000 Eurasian Cranes Grus grus before the construction hydropower plant; data on current waterbird numbers missing)Administration: Mostar municipality, Herzegovina-Neretva Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

17 March 2012, Photo: Ilhan Dervović

18 january 2010, Martin Schneider-Jacoby

16 April 2007, Photo: Luka Božič


163

12 April 2010, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby


6 April 2007, Photo: Matjaž Kerček


1 March 2009, Photo: Dejan Kulijer


164

30Vučipolje

Surface: 1.1 km2

Altitude: 977 mCatchment: Neretva RiverType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 9 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing and a smaller portion for agricultural productionVulnerability: no current pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Posušje municipality, West Herzegovina Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina



165

31Posušje

Surface: 21.7 km2


Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 20 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing and, partially, for agricultural productionVulnerability: no current pressures knownKarst phenomenon: rather short flood duration of 3 - 5 daysCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Posušje municipality, West Herzegovina Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina





166

32Imotsko (Bekijsko polje)

Surface: 87.4 km2


Olm: no dataFish: 6 species (3 endemic)Birds: 31 species (NR)Dragonflies: 7 species Plants: 62 species (1 endemic)Land use: mainly used for growing corn, grapes and tobaccoVulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: permanent Vrlika River Cultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protected, but will together with the Croatian part of polje fulfil IBA criteria Administration: Grude municipality, West Herzegovina Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

23 February 2013, Photo: Ilhan Dervović




167

33Rastoka i Ljubuško polje

Surface: 74.5 km2


Olm: present Fish: no dataBirds: 30 species (NR)Dragonflies: 2 speciesPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for growing potatoes, grapes and cottonVulnerability: no current pressures knownKarst phenomenon: permanent Mlade River (collects discharge from Vrlika River) which changes its name to Trebižat River in Ljubuško polje Cultural heritage: no dataConservatio status: not protectedAdministration: Ljubuški municipality, West Herzegovina Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina


34Studeničko polje

Surface: 1.8 km2

Altitude: 25 mCatchment: Neretva and Trebišnjica RiversType: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 0.36 km2

Olm: present Fish: no dataBirds: 19 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for growing grapes and other agricultural products (greenhouses), partially livestock grazingVulnerability: no current pressures usedKarst phenomenon: Studenac and Vakuf cave springsCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Ljubuški municipality, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina



168

35Hansko polje (Gornje Zijemlje)

Surface: 1.4 km2

Altitude: 835 mCatchment: Neretva RiverType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: southern parts potentially flooded

Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 29 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing and, partially, for vegetable productionVulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: stećak necropolisConservation status: not protected, like nearby Donje Zijemlje karst polje Hansko polje fulfils IBA criteria for raptors and Lesser Grey Shrike Lanius minor; both poljes are the only dry poljes in Bosnia and Herzegovina which meet IBA criteria. Administration: Mostar municipality, Herzegovina-Neretva Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina


27 June 2007, Photo: Behudin Alimanović


169

36Donje Zijemlje

Surface: 4.5 km2

Altitude: 807 mCatchment: Neretva RiverType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: some flooding potential in central lower partOlm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 31 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing and a minor portion for agricultural productionVulnerability: no current pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no data, Cultural heritage: prehistoric hillforts, stećak necropolisesConservation status: not protected, but together with nearby “twin polje” Gornje Zijemlje polje may fulfil IBA criteria for raptors and Lesser Grey Shrike Lanius minorAdministration: Istočni Mostar municipality, Republika Srpska


16 May 2009, Photo: Behudin Alimanović



170

37Slato polje

Surface: 4.1 km2

Altitude: 1,012 mCatchment: Neretva and Trebišnjica riversType: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 0.73 km2

Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 33 species (NR)Dragonflies: 2 speciesPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing and a smaller portion for agricultural productionVulnerability: “Upper Horizons” hydropower project (for which 7 hydropower plants in the Neretva river basin are planned)Karst phenomenon: ponorCultural heritage: prehistoric hillfort, stećak necropolisConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Nevesinje municipality, Republika Srpska


26 November 2011, Photo: Kenan Pašić


171


26 november 2011, Photo: Kenan Pašić 5 April 2012, Photo: Dražen Kotrošan



172

38Nevesinjsko polje

Surface: 77.5 km2

Altitude: 817 mCatchment: Neretva and Trebišnjica RiversType: flooded poljeMaximal recorded flood: 16.64 km2

Olm: no dataFish: 4 species (3 endemic)Birds: 99 species (PR)Dragonflies: 18 speciesPlants: 270 species (3 endemic)Land use: mainly used for agricultural production (potatoes, cabbage and cereals), partly for livestock grazingVulnerability: “Upper Horizons” project by closing the Biograd ponor and dam construction for artificial lakeKarst phenomenon: Biogradski ponorCultural heritrage: Stećak necropolises, prehistoric Illyrian hillforts, prehistoric tumuliConservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteriaAdministration: Nevesinje municipality, Republika Srpska



17 April 2006, Photo: Dražen Kotrošan


173




174

39Lukavačko polje

Surface: 3.3 km2


Olm: no dataFish: 1 endemicBirds: 37 species (NR)Dragonflies: 8 speciesPlants: 14 species (1 endemic)Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing and a smaller portion for agricultural productionVulnerability: “Upper Horizons” hydropower project (for which 7 hydropower plants in the Neretva river basin are planned)Karst phenomenon: ponorCultural heritage: prehistoric hillfort, stećak necropolis Conservation status: not protectedAdministration: Nevesinje municipality, Republika Srpska

5 April 2012, Photo: Dražen Kotrošan



175




176

40Trusinsko polje

Surface: 1.5 km2

Altitude: 866 mCatchment: Neretva RiverType: flooded poljeMaximal recorded flood: 0.30 km2

Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 16 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for agriculture (cereals) and, partially, for livestock grazingVulnerability: “Upper Horizons” hydropower project (for which 7 hydropower plants in the Neretva river basin are planned)Karst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: stećak necropolisConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Berkovići municipality, Republika Srpska

23 March 2013, Photos: Jasminko Mulaomerović


177

41Dabarsko polje

Surface: 28.9 km2

Altitude: 472 mCatchment: Neretva and Trebišnjica RiversType: flooded poljeMaximal recorded flood: 16.69 km2 (flooding potential 22.32 km2)Olm: present Fish: 5 species (4 endemic)Birds: 100 species (PR)Dragonflies: 27 speciesPlants: 114 species (1 endemic)Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing, partially for agriculture (cereals, peppers, tomatoes, lettuce) and fruit growingVulnerability: “Upper Horizons” hydropower project (for which 7 hydropower plants in the Neretva river basin are planned)Karst phenomenon: Visibaba and Obodina cave, Ljelješnica spring-cave, Vrijeka great spring-cave, Danajlova cave, Sušica cave, Ponikva ponor-caveCultural heritage: stećak necropolisConservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteriaAdministration: Berkovići municipality, Republika Srpska

9 June 2010, Photo: Dražen Kotrošan

1 September 2010, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby



178

18 July 2009, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby

20 January 2010, Photo: Dejan Kulijer4 May 2010, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby



179

42Crničko polje

Surface: 2.9 km2

Altitude: 212 mCatchment: Neretva RiverType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: vegetation and remnants of fluvial activity indicate flooding potential

Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 20 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for agricultural production, a small part for livestock grazingVulnerability: no current pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Stolac municipality, Herzegovina-Neretva Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

23 March 2013, Photos: Jasminko Mulaomerović


180

43Gatačko polje

Surface: 60.1 km2

Altitude: 936 mCatchment: Trebišnjica RiverType: flooded poljeMaximal recorded flood: 38.17 km2 (flooding potential 42.91 km2)Olm: present Fish: 2 species (1 endemic)Birds: 129 species (PR)Dragonflies: 20 speciesPlants: 274 species (3 endemic)Land use: mainly used for livestock grazingVulnerability: pollution caused by Gacko thermal power plantKarst phenomenon: Gareva cave, meanders of temporary karst riversCultural heritage: stećak necropolisConservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteriaAdministration: Gacko municipality, Republika Srpska





181

23 May 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer16 January 2010, Photo: Borut Stumberger


23 May 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer


182

44Cernica

Surface: 5.5 km2

Altitude: 816 mCatchment: Trebišnjica RiverType: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 1.86 km2

Olm: no dataFish: 1 endemicBirds: 23 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing, a smaller portion for agricultural productionVulnerability: “Upper Horizons” hydropower project (for which 7 hydropower plants in the Neretva river basin are planned)Karst phenomenon: ponor of the Klučka River, Vilina and Jasovica ponor-caveCultural heritage: prehistoric hillfort, stećak necropolises, medieval townConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Gacko municipality, Republika Srpska

45Fatničko polje

Surface: 7.7 km2


Olm: no dataFish: 2 endemicBirds: 88 species (PR)Dragonflies: 15 species Plants: 5 speciesLand use: mainly used for livestock grazingVulnerability: “Upper Horizons” hydropower project (for which 7 hydropower plants in the Neretva river basin are planned)Karst phenomenon: Velika pećina ponor-cave, Obod spring-cave, Lepirnica and Pasmica ponor-cavesCultural heritage: Mandina hillfortConservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteriaAdministration: Bileća municipality, Republika Srpska




183

11 June 2011, Photo: Dejan Kulijer4 May 2010, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby

4 May 2010, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby 11 June 2011, Photo: Dejan Kulijer



184

46Plana

Surface: 0.6 km2

Altitude: 609 mCatchment: Trebišnjica RiverType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential floodingOlm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 5 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazingVulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: stećak necropolisConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Trebinje municipality, Republika Srpska

12 January 2012, Photos: Dražen Kotrošan


185

47Ljubomir polje

Surface: 12.7 km2

Altitude: 506 mCatchment: Trebišnjica RiverType: flooded poljeMaximal recorded flood: 1.33 km2 Olm: no dataFish: 1 endemicBirds: 7 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazingVulnerability: no current pressures knownKarst phenomenon: Grabova sinkhole/caveCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Trebinje municipality, Republika Srpska

12 January 2013, Photo: Dražen Kotrošan

28 September 2008, Photo: Behudin Alimanović


186

48Jasenpolje

Surface: 1.1 km2


Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 2 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing, a smaller portion for agricultural productionVulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Trebinje municipality, Republika Srpska

12 Janaury 2013, Photos: Dražen Kotrošan


187

49Ljubinjsko polje

Surface: 6.9 km2


Olm: no data Birds: 7 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: agriculture (tobacco) and livestock grazingVulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: stećak necropolisesConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Ljubinje municipality, Republika Srpska

10 July 2007, Photos: Dejan Kulijer


188

10 July 2007, Photo: Dražen Kotrošan

13 January 2012, Photo: Dušan Toholj

30 September 2007, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

50Popovo polje

Surface: 118.9 km2


Olm: know from some 30 localitiesFish: 7 species (3 endemic)Birds: 175 species (WR)Dragonflies: 20 speciesPlants: 6 speciesLand use: agricultural production (potatoes, watermelons, tobacco, grapes, fruits) and livestock grazingVulnerability: hydrological regime heavily impacted by canalisation of the Trebišnjica River, the “Upper Horizons” hydropower project (for which 7 hydropower plants in the Neretva river basin are planned) will further impact the polje´s water balance and biodiversityKarst phenomenon: Vjetrenica cave, Lukavac spring, Baba cave, Crnulja and Doljašnica ponor-cave, Ponikva ponor, Baba cave, extensive natural water oscillations up to 40 mCultural heritage: prehistoric hillfort, stećak necropolises, medieval town Conservation status: not protected, but fulfil IBA criteriaAdministration: Trebinje municipality, Republika Srpska; Ravno municipality, Herzegovina-Neretva Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina


189

4 August 2011, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby

8 July 2007, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby 20 Ocbober 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer



190

51Hutovo blato (Deransko-Svitavsko polje)

Surface: 32.7 km2

Altitude: 2 mCatchment: Neretva and Trebišnjica riversType: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 39.71 km2

Olm: present Fish: 43 species (17 endemic)Birds: 249 species (WR)Dragonflies: 38 speciesPlants: 218 speciesLand use: mainly used for agricultural production (greenhouses) and, partially, for livestock grazing; the artificial reservoir Svitava Lake was created during the construction of the hydro power plant Čapljina.Vulnerability: The “Upper Horizons” hydropower project for which a cascade of 7 hydropower plants in the Neretva river basin are planned, will impact natural Deransko Lake who represents a relic of the former Hutovo blato wetlandKarst phenomenon: karst springs, called “okas” (eyes), located in the unique karst delta of the Neretva RiverCultural heritage: prehistoric tumuli, remains of Illyrian shipsConservation status: Nature park Hutovo blato, Ramsar site, IBAAdministration: Čapljina municipality, Herzegovina-Neretva Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina


11 Jul 2007, Photo: DejanKulijer



191


22 July 2010, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby


192

52Gradac

Surface: 2.2 km2

Altitude: 88 mCatchment: Neretva RiverType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 2 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazingVulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Neum municipality, Herzegovina-Neretva Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

11 October 2011, Photo: Dražen Kotrošan

53Grab polje

Surface: 9.6 km2

Altitude: 672 mCatchment: via the Konavosko polje drained into the Adriatic Sea and with a connection to Mokro polje into the Trebišnjica RiverType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: southern parts of the polje potentially flooded

Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: no dataDragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazingVulnerability: no actual pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Trebinje municipality, Republika Srpska



193

54Carevo polje

Surface: 0.3 km2

Altitude: 875 mCatchment: Trebišnjica RiverType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no dataFish: no data Birds: 7 species (NR)Dragonflies: no data Plants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazingVulnerability: no current pressures known Karst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protectedAdministration: Trebinje municipality, Republika Srpska

20 October 2012, Photos: Dejan Kulijer

55Konjsko polje

Surface: 1.4 km2

Altitude: 829 mCatchment: Trebišnjica RiverType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential floodingOlm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 10 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing, a smaller portion for agricultural productionVulnerability: no current pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Trebinje municipality, Republika Srpska

20 October 2012, Photos: Dejan Kulijer


194

56Orahovac polje

Surface: 1.0 km2

Altitude: 664 mCatchment: Tebišnjica RiverType: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential floodingOlm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 5 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for livestock grazing, a smaller portion for agricultural productionVulnerability: no current pressures knownKarst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Trebinje municipality, Republika Srpska

20 October 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

57Mokro polje (Trebinje)

Surface: 6.2 km2


Olm: no dataFish: no dataBirds: 1 species (NR)Dragonflies: no dataPlants: no dataLand use: mainly used for agricultural production (vegetables), partially for livestock grazingVulnerability: already drained polje which will be further impacted by the “Upper Horizons” hydropower project (for which 7 hydropower plants in the Neretva river basin are planned)Karst phenomenon: no dataCultural heritage: no dataConservation status: not protectedAdministration: Trebinje municipality, Republika Srpska

26 January 2014, Photos: Borut Stumberger


195

References

General references

Stumberger B. (2010): A classification of karst poljes in the Dinarides and their significance for waterbird conservation. In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Stumberger B. (eds.). Adriatic Flyway - Closing the Gap in Birds Conservation. Euronatur, Radolfzell, Germany; pp. 69-77.http://w w w.euronatur.org /f i leadmin/docs/jagd/ADRIATIC_FLYWAY_2009_Conference_Proceedings.pdf Kotrošan D., Drocić N., Trbojević S., Šimić E. & Dervović I. (2012): Program IBA - međunarodno značajna područja za ptice u Bosni i Hercegovini. Ornitološko društvo “Naše ptice”, Sarajevo. Ozimec R., Radoš M. & Radoš M. (eds.) (2013): Prirodoslovno-povijesna baština Općine Tomislavgrad. Naša baština, Tomislavgrad-Zagreb. pp 615. Schwarz U. (2013): Flooding analysis of Karst Poljes of Bosnia & Herzegovina. EuroNatur & Fluvius, Vienna; pp 127.http://www.euronatur.org/fileadmin/docs/docs_english/Karst-workshop_October2013/Flooding_analysis_of_Karst_Poljes_in_Bosnia_

and_Herzegovina_3152013.pdf

Plants

Abadžić S. (2007): Nova vrsta genusa Scabiosa L. (Dipscaceae). Hrvatska misao, poseban otisak. Godina XI. broj 1/07(42). Nova serija sv. 30. SarajevoJasprica N., Carić M., Batistić M. (2003): The Marshland Vegetation (Phragmito-Magnocaricetea, Isoeto-Nanojuncetea) and Hydrology in the Hutovo Blato Natural Park (Neretve River Delta, Bosnia and Herzegovina). Phyton 43 (2): 281-294.Jasprica N., Carić M. (2002): Vegetation of the natural park of Hutovo Blato. Biologia 57(3): 505-516.Milanović Đ., Kotrošan D. (2012): Ptice i šaševi Livanjskog polja: Priručnik za praćenje stanja šaševa (Carex sp.) i indikatorskih vrsta ptica na širom području Ždralovca. LivnoMilanović Đ. (2012): Liparis loeselii (L.) Rich. – a plant rediscovered in the Balkan peninsula. Botanica Serbica 36 (2): 85-89.Ritter-Studnička H. (1954): Flora i vegetacija kraških polja Bosne i Hercegovine. Godišnjak Biološkog instituta u Sarajevu. Sveska 1-2. Narodna štamparija - Sarajevo: 25-101Ritter-Studnicka H. & Grgić P. (1971): Die Reste der Stileichenwälder in Livanjsko polje (Bosnien). Bot. Jh. 91 (2/3): 330-347Ritter-Studnicka H. (1972): Neue Pflanzengesellschaften aus den Karstfeldern Bosniens und Hercegovina. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 92 (1): 108-154Ritter-Studnicka H. (1973): Reliktgesellschaften des Caricion davallianae aus den Karstfeldern Bosniens. Berichte des Geobot. Inst. ETH Zürich 51: 179-182Ritter-Studnicka H. (1974): Die Karstpoljen Bosniens und der Hercegovina als Reliktstandorte und die Eigentümlichkeit ihrer Vegetation. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 94 (2): 139-189Gerhard Bronner, unpubl. data from field survey 2012Sabaheta Abadžić, unpubl. data from field survey 2009Nermina Sarajlić, unpubl. data from field surveys, 2010 - 2013

Dragonflies

Adamović Ž. R. (1948): La liste de la collection des Odonates du Musée d’Etat à Sarajevo. Godišnjak Biološkog instituta u Sarajevu 1: 7984.Adamović Ž. R. (1949): La liste des Odonates du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle du Pays Serbe. Glasnik Prirodnjačkog muzeja Srpske zemlje, B 12: 275293.Adamović Ž. R. (1967): Odonata collected in Dubrovnik district, Jugoslavia. Dt.Ent. Z.(N.F.) 14(3/4): 285-302.Bedjanić M. (2011): Coenagrion hastulatum (Charpentier, 1825), new for the dragonfly fauna of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Odonata:

Coenagrionidae). Natura Sloveniae 1(2): 31-36.Bogdanović T., Merdić E. & Mikuska J. (2008): Data to the dragonfly fauna of Lower Neretva river. Entomologica Croatica 12(2): 51-65.Fudakowski J. (1930): Über die Formen von Calopteryx splendens Harr. aus Dalmatien und Herzegovina (Odonata). Annals Mus. Zool. Pol. 9(6): 5763.Georgijević E. (ed.) ( 1976): Prilog poznavanju entomofaune Šuma Bosne i Hercegovine. Šumarski fakultet i Institut za sumarstvo u Sarajevu, posebno izdanje br. 10: 51-53.Jović M., Gligorović B. & Stanković M. (2010): Review of faunistical data on Odonata in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Acta entomologica serbica 15(1): 7-27Klapalek F. (1898): Zprava o Neuropterach a Pseudoneuropterach sbiranih v Bosne a Hercegovine. Vest. Čzeske Akad. 7(2): 126-134.Kulijer D. (2012): Odonata species and habitats at Livanjsko polje karst wetland area. IDF-Report. Newsletter of the International Dragonfly Fund 48: 1-38.Kulijer D., Baker R. A. & Zawal A. (2012): A preliminary report on parasitism of Odonata by water mites from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Journal of the British Dragonfly Society 28(2): 92-101.Kulijer D., de Knijf G. & Franković M. (2013): Review of the Odonata of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Odonatologica 42(2): 109-123.Kiauta B. & Kotarac M. (1995): Two dragonfly records from karst caves in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Slovenia (Anisoptera: Aeshnidae, Corduliidae). Notul. odonatol. 4(6): 106-107.

Dejan Kulijer, unpubl. data from field surveys, 2011 - 2013

Fishes

Čurčić V. (1915): Narodno ribarstvo u Bosni i Hercegovini II, Hercegovina. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja 28 (1-2): 37-107.Glamuzina B., Tutman P., Pavličević J., Bogut I. & Dulčić J. (2010): Bioraznolikost riba. Hercegovine. Međunarodni kolokvij “2010. godina bioraznolikosti”, Livno; p 1-11.Freyhof J. (2012): Threatened freshwater fisches and mollusces of the Balkan. Potential impact on hydropower projects. Unpublished report. ECA Watch Austria & EuroNatur; pp 81.Jelić D., Duplić A., Ćaleta M. & Žutinić P. (2008): Endemske vrste riba Jadranskog sliva. Agencija za zaštitu okoliša, Zagreb; pp. 78Mikavica D. (1988): Karakteristike populacija turskog klena (Leuciscus turskyi Heckel, 1843) iz Buškog jezera. Ribarstvo Jugoslavije 43: 2-7.Šanda R., Bogut I. & Vukić J. (2009): Novi podaci o ihtiofauni slijeva Donje Neretve i okolnih kraških polja u Bosni I Hercegovini. Uzgoj slatkovodne ribe stanje i perspektive, zbornik radova, Hrvatska gospodarska komora, Sektor za poljoprivredu, prehrambenu industriju i šumarstvo Udruženje ribarstva i prerade ribe; p 119-127.Tutman P., Glamuzina B., Dulčić J. & Zovko N. (2012): Ihtiofauna močvare Hutovo blato (Dinji tok rijeke Neretve); stanje i ugroženost. Croatian Journal of Fisheries 70: 169-185.Tutman P., Šanda, R., Glamuzina & B., Dulčić, J. (2013): First confirmed record of Pomatoschistus canestrinii (Ninni, 1883) (Gobiidae) from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 29: 937-939.

Olm

Čučković S. (1967): Nova nalazišta čovjčije ribice (Proteus anguinus Laur.) na području Trebinja u Hercegovini. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovini, Prirodne nauke, Nova serija 6: 223-225.Čučković S. (1983): Uticaj promjene režima vodotoka Hidrosistema Trebišnjice nŕ faunu kraškog podzemlja. Naš krš 9(14-15): 129-142Kotrošan D. (2002): Razprostranjenje čovječije ribice (Proteus anguinus Laurenti, 1768) na području Bosne i Hercegovine. Naš krš 22(35): 57-64.Sket B. (1997): Distribution of Proteus (Amphibia: Urodela: Proteidea) and its possible explanation. Journal of Biogeography 24: 263-280.http://www.ljportal.com/ljubuski-6/6-zanimljivosti/9498-covjecja-ribica-duga-21-cm-na-kocusi


196

Birds

Dender D. (2007): Šivalica (Cisticola juncidis) u Neumu i Popovom polju. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 3(3): 56.Dervović I. & Kotrošan D. (2011/12): Rezultati zimskog brojanja ptica močvarica u Bosni i Hercegovini u 2011. godini. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 7/8: 44-56.Dervović I., Kotrošan D., Šarac M., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Stumberger B. (2013): Livanjsko Polje – Future at the Edge of Swamp. In: Nowald G., Weber A., Franke J., Weinhardt E. & Donner N. (eds.): Proceedings of the VIIth European Crane Conference. Crane Conservation Germany. Groß Mohrdorf; pp. 84-87.Kitonić D. & Sackl P. (2008/09): Prebrojavanje i proljetna seoba ptica vodenih staništa u Mostarskom blatu u aprilu 2008. godine. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 90-93.Kotrošan D. (2005): Izvještaj o radu „Mreže posmatrača ptica“ u periodu 2003-2005. godina. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 1: 40-42.Kotrošan D. & Dervović I. (2007): Gniježđenje sive čaplje u Visokom i na Livanjskom polju. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 3: 56.Kotrošan D. (2008/09): Dopune i korekcije popisu ptica zabilježenih u Bosni i Hercegovini od 1888. do 2006. godine. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 72-86.Kotrošan D. & Dervović I. (2008/09): Blistavi ibisi (Plegadis falcinellus) u Mostarskom Blatu. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 117.Kotrošan D. & Dervović I. (2008/09): Prstenovana žličarka (Platalea leucorodia) na Buškom jezeru. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 116.Kotrošan D., Stumberger B. & Sackl P. (2008/09): Prva registracija šarenog kulika (Charadrius morinellus) na Livanjskom polju. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 117-118.Kotrošan D. & Dervović I. (2010): Rezultati zimskog brojanja ptica močvarica u Bosni i Hercegovini za period od 2008. do 2010. godine. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 6: 23-45.Kotrošan D., Lelo S. & Vesnić, A. (2011): Biodiverzitet ptica (Vertebrata, Aves) Popovog polja. Međunarodni naučni skup „Struktura i dinamika ekosistema Dinarida (stanje, mogućnosti i perspektive)“, knjiga sažetaka. p 28.Kulijer D. (2007): Nalaz crne rode (Ciconia nigra) na Livanjskom polju. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 3: 54.Lister S. & Hall M. (2001): Bird observations in Hutovo blato on April 13th 2001. http.//www.ptice.net.Marcouse T. & Kotrošan D.(2006): Izvještaj sa ornitoloških posmatranja u Bosni i Hercegovini u septembru 2006. godine. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 2: 24-27.Mulaomerović J. (2012): Zlatovrana modrulja u Bosni i Hercegovini ponovo nakon 100 godina. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 7/8: 95.Obratil S. (1967): Pregled istraživanja ornitofaune Bosne i Hercegovine I (Passeriformes). GZM BiH (PN) NS 5: 191-268.Obratil S. (1968): Pregled istraživanja ornitofaune Bosne i Hercegovine II (Gaviiformes, Podicipediformes, Pelacaniformes, Ciconiiformes, Anseriformes). GZM BiH (PN) NS 6: 227-254.Obratil S. (1971): Ptice Hutova blata. GZM BiH (PN) NS 8: 87-143.Obratil S. (1972): Pregled istraživanja ornitofaune Bosne i Hercegovine III (Falconiformes). GZM BiH (PN) NS 10: 139-155.Obratil S. (1975): Pregled istraživanja ornitofaune Bosne i Hercegovine IV (Galliformes, Gruiformes). GZM BiH (PN) NS 13: 153-161.Obratil S. (1976): Pregled istraživanja ornitofaune Bosne i Hercegovine V (Charadriiformes). GZM BiH (PN) NS 15: 221-241.Obratil S. (1977): Pregled istraživanja ornitofaune Bosne i Hercegovine VI (Columbiformes, Cuculiformes, Strigiformes, Caprimulgiformes, Apodiformes, Coraciformes, Piciformes). GZM BiH (PN) NS 16: 203-223.Obratil S. (1984): Naselja ptica (Aves) u kopnenim biocenozama kraških polja Hercegovine. GZM BiH (PN) NS 23: 147-184.Obratil S. (1985): Ornitofauna Hutovog blata do izgradnje akumulacionog

jezera PHE “Čapljina”. GZM BiH (PN) NS 24: 175-209.Obratil S. (1987): Naselja ptica (Aves) u ekosistemima Gatačkog polja i okoline prije izgradnje TE Gacko. GZM BiH (PN) NS 25/26: 211-237.Obratil S. (1988): Fauna ptica (Aves) Vran planine i međugorske depresije Dugo polje. GZM BiH (PN) NS 27: 161-188.Obratil S. (2000): Istraživanja faune ptica na Hutovu blatu u period siječanj – prosinac 2000 god. Nepublikovan izvještaj za projekat “Nova politika gospodarenja močvarom Hutovo blato” Obratil S. (2005): Ptice parka Blidinje i bližeg okruženja. Prvi međunarodni znanstveni simpozij Blidinje 2005. Zbornik radova. pp: 271-292.Reiser O. (1939): Materialien zu einer Ornis balcanica. Bd. I, Bosnien und Herzegowina nebst Teilen von Serbien und Dalmatien (Im Anhang eine Liste der Vögel Dalmatiens). Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien; pp. 415Sackl P., Kotrošan D. & Stumberger B. (2008/09): Procjena veličine populacija i navike gniježđenja španskog vrapca (Passer hispaniolensis, Temminck) u Livanjskom polju, Bosna i Hercegovina – novo gnjezdilište na visoravnima dinarskog krša. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 16-30.Sackl P. & KIitonić D. (2008/2009): Pupavac (Upupa epops) kod sela Svitava u januaru 2008. - prvi podatak za Bosnu i Hercegovinu u zimskom periodu. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 122.Sackl P. & Haar H. (2010): Veliki plijenor (Gavia immer) na Buškom jezeru, Livanjsko polje, u januaru 2010. godine. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 6: 64.Schneider-Jacoby M., Rubinić B., Sackl P. & Stumberger, B. (2006): A preliminary assessment of the ornithological importance of Livanjsko Polje (Cetina River Basin, Bosnia and Herzegovina). Acrocephalus 27 (128/129): 45−57.Schneider-Jacoby M. (2010): Dabarsko Polje, an Important Bird Area for the Corncrake (Crex crex) in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 6: 61-62.Stumberger B., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Gotovac M. (2007): Livanjsko polje. Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS). Euronatur & Centar Mladih Livno.Stumberger B. & Schneider M. (2010): International importance of three Adriatic Flyway priority sites: Livanjsko Polje, the Neretva Delta and Lake Skadar-Shkoder with the Bojana-Buna Delta. In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Stumberger B. (eds.): Adriatic Flyway – Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. Euronatur, Radolfzell; pp. 53-58.Stumberger B., Schneider-Jacoby M., Schwarz U. & Sackl P. (2010): Zonation concept for the Livanjsko polje Ramsar Site. In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Stumberger B. (eds.): Adriatic Flyway – Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. Euronatur, Radolfzell; pp. 125-132.Stumberger B. & Šarac M. (2010): Kudravi pelikan (Pelecanus crispus) na Buškom Blatu kod Tomislavgrada (Livanjsko polje). Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 6: 60.Šarac M. & Stumberger B. (2008/09): Bijela roda (Ciconia ciconia) na Duvanjskom polju i Livanjskom polju. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 10-16.Topić G. & Kotrošan D. (2011/12): Rezultati Međunarodnog cenzusa ptica vodenih staništa u Bosni i Hercegovini 2012. godine. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 7/8: 56-74.Topić G., Janković M. & Zubić G. (2012): Prilog poznavanju ornitofaune Šipova i Novog Sela. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 7/8: 5-31.


197


Index of Karst poljes

Dugo polje 132Rudno polje 133Bjelajsko polje 133Medeno polje 134Petrovačko polje 135Palanka (Lušci polje) 135Podrašničko polje 136Marinkovci 137Grahovsko polje 138Pašića polje 140Ravna Mliništa 141Glamočko polje 142Kupreško polje 144Šuićko polje 146Duvanjsko polje 148Livanjsko polje 150Viničko polje 152Dobranjsko polje (Livno) 152Kruško polje 153Borovo polje 153Vukovsko polje 154Ravanjsko polje 155Roško polje 156Dugo polje (Dugorudo) 157Rakitno 158Kočerinsko polje 159Rašanjsko polje (Rasno) 160Mokro polje (Široki Brijeg) 161Mostarsko blato 162Vučipolje 164Posušje 165Imotsko (Bekijsko polje) 166Rastoka i Ljubuško polje 167Studeničko polje 167Hansko polje (Gornje Zijemlje) 168Donje Zijemlje 169Slato polje 170Nevesinjsko polje 172Lukavačko polje 174Trusinsko polje 176Dabarsko polje 177Crničko polje 179Gatačko polje 180Cernica 182Fatničko polje 182Plana 184Ljubomir polje 185Jasenpolje 186Ljubinjsko polje 187Popovo polje 188Hutovo blato (Deransko-Svitavsko polje) 190Gradac 192Grab polje 192Carevo polje 193Konjsko polje 193Orahovac polje 194Mokro polje (Trebinje) 194

Organism IndexAbutilon theophrasti 48Acer campestre 48Acer monspessulanum 48Acer tataricum 48Achillea collina 51Achillea millefolium 51Achillea nobilis 51Achillea pannonica 51Achillea ptarmica 51

Aegilops ovata 54Aegilops triuncialis 54Aethionema saxatile 47Agrimonia eupatoria 48Agrimonia odorata 48Agrimonia procera 48Agropyron intermedium 54Agrostis alba 54Agrostis canina 54Agrostis olivetorum 54Aira capillaris 54Ajuga chamaepitys 50Ajuga genevensis 50Alchemilla xanthochlora 48Alisma gramineum 52Alisma plantago-aquatica 52Allium angulosum 52Allium carinatum 52Allium saxatile 52Allium scordoprasum 52Allium vineale 52Alnus glutinosa 46Alopecurus aequalis 53Alopecurus geniculatus 53Alopecurus pratensis 53Alopecurus utriculatus 53Althaea hirsuta 48Althaea officinalis 48Amaranthus retroflexus 46Anacamptis pyramidalis 54, 55Anchusa barrelieri 50Anemone nemorosa 47Antennaria dioica 51Anthemis arvensis 51Anthoxanthum odoratum 53Anthriscus nemorosus 49Anthyllis illyrica 49Anthyllis vulneraria 49Aquila pomarina 32Arabis glabra 47Arabis hirsuta 47Arctium lappa 51Aristolochia clematitis 47Aristolochia rotunda 47Armeria canescens 50Arrhenatherum elatius 54Artemisia abrotanum 51Artemisia campestris 52Artemisia lobelii 52Artemisia vulgaris 52Arum maculatum 52Asparagus acutifolius 52Asparagus tenuifolius 52Asperula cynanchica 51Astragallus gremlii 48, 55Astragallus illyricus 48, 55Atriplex latifolia 46Avena fatua 53Baldellia ranunculoides 52Ballota nigra 50Barbarea vulgaris 47Bellis perennis 51Berteroa mutabilis 47Betula pendula 46Bidens cernuus 51Bidens tripartitus 51Bifora radians 49Blackstonia serotina 51Blysmus compressus 53Botaurus stellaris 32Brachypodium pinnatum 53Briza media 54Bromus arvensis 54Bromus erectus 54Bromus mollis 54

Bromus racemosus 54Bromus squarrosus 54Bromus sterilis 54Bupleurum aristatum 49Bupleurum lancifolium 49Butomus umbellatus 52Callitriche palustris 49Callitriche stagnatilis 49Caltha laeta 47Caltha palustris 47Calystegia sepium 50Campanula erinus 51Campanula moesiaca 51Campanula patula 51Campanula pyramidalis 51Campanula rapunculus 51Campanula trachelium 51Cardamine pratensis 47Carduus acanthoides 52Carduus candicans 52Carduus nutans 52Carduus pycnocephalus 52Carex acutiformis 53, 55Carex appropinquata 53Carex caryophyllea 53Carex davalliana 53Carex digitata 53Carex distans 53Carex disticha 53Carex divisa 53Carex flava 53Carex glauca 53Carex goodenowii 53Carex gracilis 53Carex hirta 53Carex hostiana 53Carex humilis 53Carex lasiocarpa 53Carex lepidocarpa 53Carex leporina 53Carex oederi 53Carex pallescens 53Carex panicea 53Carex paniculata 53Carex pendula 53Carex pseudocyperus 53Carex remota 53Carex riparia 53Carex rostrata 53Carex stellulata 53Carex stricta 53Carex sylvatica 53Carex tomentosa 53Carex vesicaria 53Carex vulpina 53Carlina corymbosa 51Carpinus betulus 46Carpinus orientalis 46, 117Carum carvi 49Celtis australis 48Centaurea cyanus 52Centaurea deusta 52Centaurea jacea 52Centaurea pannonica 52Centaurea scabiosa 52Centaurea weldeniana 52Centaurium pulchellum 51Centaurium umbellatum 51Cerastium brachypetalum 47Cerastium brachypetalum 47Cerastium caespitosum 47Cerastium semidecandrum 47Cerastium sylvaticum 47Ceratophyllum demersum 52Chenopodium album 46

Chenopodium glaucum 46Chenopodium murale 46Chenopodium polyspermum 46Chondrilla juncea 52Chrysanthemum tenuifolium 51Cichorium intybus 52Circus pygargus 32Cirsium acaule 52Cirsium arvense 52Cirsium oleraceum 52Cirsium palustre 52Cirsium rivulare 52Cladium mariscus 53Clematis flammula 47Clematis recta 47Clematis vitalba 47Clematis viticella 47Colchicum autumnale 52Convallaria majalis 52Convolvulus arvensis 50Convolvulus cantabricus 50Conyza canadensis 51Cornus mas 49Cornus sanguinea 49Coronilla scorpioides 49Coronilla varia 49Corrigiola litoralis 47Corylus avellana 46Crataegus monogyna 48Crepis biennis 52Crepis chondrilloides 52Crepis neglecta 52Crepis paludosa 52Crepis setosa 52Crex crex 3, 32, 90, 91, 92, 102, 103, 127, 138, 144, 193Crocus albiflorus 53Crocus vernus 53Crypsis alopecuroides 53Cuscuta epithymum 50Cyclamen repandum 50Cynodon dactylon 54Cynoglossum officinale 50Cynosurus cristatus 54Cyperus flavescens 53Cyperus fuscus 53Cyperus longus 53Cyperus michelianus 53Cyperus serotinus 53Dactylis glomerata 54Dactylis hispanica 54Danthonia calycina 54Daucus carota 49Delminichthys 37, 72, 75Delphinium consolida 47Deschampsia caespitosa 54Deschampsia media 54Dianthus armeria 47Dianthus cruentus 47Dianthus deltoides 47Dianthus sanguineus 47, 55Dianthus superbus 47, 55Digitaria sanguinalis 53Dipsacus laciniatus 51Dorycnium herbaceum 49Drosera rotundifolia 47, 55Ecbalium elaterium 47Echinochloa crus-galli 53Echinodorus ranunculoides 52, 55Echium altissimum 50Echium vulgare 50Edraianthus dalmaticus 51, 55Eleocharis acicularis 53Eleocharis carniolica 53Eleocharis palustris 53

Eleocharis quinqueflora 53Epilobium adnatum 49Epilobium hirsutum 49Epilobium palustre 49Epilobium parviflorum 49Epipactis palustris 54Equisetum hyemale 46Equisetum limosum 46Equisetum palustre 46Erigeron acer 52Eriophorum angustifolium 53Eriophorum gracile 53,55Eriophorum latifolium 53Eryngium amethystinum 49Eryngium campestre 49Euonymus europaeus 46Eupatorium cannabinum 51Euphorbia chamaesyce 46Euphorbia cyparissias 46Euphorbia dulcis 46Euphorbia exigua 46Euphorbia falcata 46Euphorbia helioscopia 46Euphorbia lucida 46Euphorbia palustris 46Euphorbia spinosa 46Euphorbia villosa 46Euphrasia liburnica 50, 55Euphrasia rostkoviana 50Euphrasia stricta 50Ferulago galbanifera 49Festuca arundinacea 54Festuca elatior 54Festuca pseudovina 54Festuca rubra 54Festuca valesiaca 54Filago minima 51Filipendula hexapetala 48Filipendula ulmaria 48Fimbristylis dichotoma 53Foeniculum vulgare 49Fragaria moschata 48Fragaria vesca 48, 56Frangula alnus 48Frangula rupestris 48Fraxinus angustifolia 51Fraxinus ornus 117Fumaria rostellata 47Fumaria vaillantii 47Galium aparine 51Galium boreale 51Galium corrudaefolium 51Galium cruciata 51Galium divaricatum 51Galium mollugo 51Galium palustre 51Galium purpureum 51Galium verum 51Gallinago gallinago 32Genista ovata 49Genista sagittalis 49Genista tinctoria 49Gentiana crispata 51Gentiana pneumonanthe 51Gentiana utriculosa 51Geranium dissectum 48Geranium molle 48Geranium robertianum 48Geum rivale 48Geum urbanum 48Gladiolus illyricus 53, 55Globularia willkommii 51Glyceria fluitans 54Glyceria plicata 54Glycyrrhiza echinata 48

Gnaphalium uliginosum 51Gratiola officinalis 50Grus grus 3, 32, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 103, 160Gymnadenia conopsea 54Haynaldia villosa 54Hedera helix 48Heleochloa alopecuroides 53Helianthemum nummularium 47Heliotropium europaeum 50Helleborus multifidus 47Herniaria glabra 46Herniaria incana 47Hibiscus trionum 48Hieracium bauhinii 52Hieracium pavichii 52Hieracium pilosella 52Hieracium umbellatum 52Hippocrepis comosa 49Hippuris vulgaris 49Holcus lanatus 54Holcus mollis 54Holoschoenus vulgaris 53Hordeum gussoneanum 54Hordeum marianum 54Hordeum secalinum 54Hottonia palustris 50Humulus lupulus 48Hydrocharis morsus-ranae 47Hydrocotyle vulgaris 48Hypericum barbatum 48Hypericum perforatum 48Hypericum perforatum 48, 56Hypericum quadrangulum 48Hypochoeris radicata 52Inula britannica 51Inula helenium 51Inula hirta 51Inula oculus-christi 51Inula salicina 51Iris pseudacorus 53Iris sibirica 53Iris sibirica 55Juncus anceps 53Juncus atriculatus 53Juncus bufonius 53Juncus compressus 53Juncus conglomeratus 53Juncus effusus 53Juncus glaucus 53Juncus murbeckii 53Juncus tenageja 53Juncus tenuis 53Juniperus communis 46Knautia arvensis 51Koeleria gracilis 54Koeleria phleoides 54Koeleria splendens 54Lamium maculatum 50Lappula echinata 50Lapsana communis 51Laserpitium latifolium 49Laserpitium prutenicum 49Lathyrus aphaca 48Lathyrus latifolius 49Lathyrus niger 48Lathyrus palustris 49Lathyrus pannonicus 49Lathyrus pratensis 49Lathyrus tuberosus 49Leersia oryzoides 54Lemna minor 49Lens culinaris 48Leontodon autumnalis 52Leontodon crispus 52

Leontodon hispidus 52Lepidium graminifolium 47Leucanthemum vulgare 51Leucojum aestivum 53Ligustrum vulgare 51Lilium bosniacum 52Lilium bosniacum 55Linum angustifolium 48Linum catharticum 48Linum flavum 48Linum hirsutum 48Linum montanum 48Linum tenuifolium 48Liparis loeselii 54, 55, 56, 57, 194Liparis loeselii 55Listera ovata 54Lolium perenne 54Lolium temulentum 54Lotus anguistissimus 49Lotus corniculatus 49Lotus tenuifolius 49Lotus uliginosus 49Ludwigia palustris 51Luzula campestris 53Lychnis flos-cuculi 47Lycopus europaeus 50Lycopus exaltatus 50Lysimachia nummularia 50Lysimachia vulgaris 50Lythrum hyssopifolia 49Lythrum salicaria 49Malva moschata 48Malva parviflora 48Malva sylvestris 48Marrubium incanum 50Medicago arabica 49Medicago falcata 49Medicago hispida 49Medicago lupulina 49Medicago minima 49Medicago orbicularis 49Medicago prostrata 49Melampyrum barbatum 50Melampyrum cristatum 50Melampyrum pratense 50Melandrium album 47Melilotus officinalis 49Mentha aquatica 50Mentha pulegium 50Menyanthes trifoliata 51Menyanthes trifoliata 55Micropus erectus 51Moenchia mantica 47Molinia arundinacea 54Molinia caerulea 54Muscari comosum 52Muscari racemosum 52Myosotis caespitosa 50Myosotis caespitosa 50Myosotis scorpioides 50Myriophyllum spicatum 49Myriophyllum verticillatum 49Najas minor 52Narcissus angustifolius 53, 55Nardus stricta 54Nasturtium officinale 47Neottia nidus-avis 54Nepeta pannonica 50Nigella damascena 47Nuphar luteum 47Nuphar luteum 55Nymphaea alba 47, 55Nymphoides peltata 47Oenanthe aquatica 49Oenanthe fistulosa 49

Oenanthe silaifolia 49Onobrychis ocellata 49Onobrychis viciifolia 49Ononis antiquorum 49Ononis hircina 49Ononis spinosa 49Ophioglossum vulgatum 52Ophrys apifera 54Orchis coriophora 54Orchis incarnata 54Orchis laxiflora 54Orchis maculata 54, 55Orchis mascula 54Orchis militaris 54Orchis morio 54Orchis palustris 54Orchis simia 54, 55Orchis tridentata 54Orlaya grandiflora 49Ornithogalum comosum 52Ornithogalum pyrenaicum 52Ornithogalum tenuifolium 52Ornithogalum umbellatum 52Orobanche alba 50Orobanche caryophyllacea 50Orobanche reticulata 50Ostrya carpinifolia 46, 117Paliurus spina-christi 48Papaver rhoeas 47Parietaria judaica 51Parnassia palustris 48Pedicularis brachyodonta 50, 55Pedicularis palustris 50, 55Peplis portula 49Petteria ramentacea 48Peucedanum coriaceum 49Peucedanum oreoselinum 49Peucedanum palustre 49Phalaris arundinacea 53Phillyrea latifolia 51Phleum pratense 53Phleum pratense 53Phleum subulatum 53Phoxinellus 32, 33, 72Phoxinellus ghetaldii 32, 33Phragmites communis 54Picris hieracioides 52Pimpinella major 49Pinguicula vulgaris 50, 55Pinus halepensis 117Pistacia terebinthus 48Plantago altissima 51Plantago bellardii 51Plantago carinata 51Plantago lanceolata 51Plantago major 51Plantago maritima 51Plantago media 51Platanthera bifolia 54, 55Plumbago europaea 50Poa annua 54Poa bulbosa 54Poa compressa 54Poa sylvicola 54Polygala comosa 48Polygala oxyptera 48Polygonatum latifolium 52Polygonatum multiflorum 52Polygonum amphibium 46Polygonum aviculare 46Polygonum bellardi 46Polygonum bistorta 46Polygonum hydropiper 46Polygonum mite 46Polygonum persicaria 46

Polygonum tomentosum 46Polypogon monspeliensis 54Populus nigra 46Populus tremula 46Potamogeton crispus 52Potamogeton fluitans 52Potamogeton lucens 52Potamogeton natans 52Potamogeton perfoliatus 52Potamogeton pusillus 52Potentilla anserina 48Potentilla argentea 48Potentilla erecta 48Potentilla palustris 48Potentilla reptans 48Primula vulgaris 50Proteus anguinus 35, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 128, 194Prunella laciniata 50Prunella vulgaris 50Prunus mahaleb 48Prunus spinosa 48Pteridium aquilinum 46Pulicaria vulgaris 51Punica granatum 48Pyrus amygdaliformis 48Pyrus communis 48Pyrus pyraster 48Quercus cerris 117Quercus conferta 46Quercus ilex 117Quercus lanuginosa 46Quercus pubescens 117Quercus robur 46Quercus trojana 46Radiola linoides 48Ranunculus acer 47Ranunculus arvensis 47Ranunculus auricomus 47Ranunculus circinatus 47Ranunculus ficaria 47Ranunculus flammula 47Ranunculus lanuginosus 47Ranunculus lingua 47Ranunculus neapolitanus 47Ranunculus ophioglossifolius 47Ranunculus paucistamineus 47Ranunculus repens 47Ranunculus sardous 47Ranunculus sceleratus 47Ranunculus velutinus 47Reynoutria japonica 46Rhamnus cathartica 48Rhamnus intermedia 48Rhinanthus major 50Rhinanthus minor 50Rhinanthus rumelicus 50Rhinanthus serotinus 50Rorippa amphibia 47Rorippa lippizensis 47Rorippa sylvestris 47Rosa arvensis 48Rosa canina 48, 56Rosa gallica 48Rosa spinosissima 48Rubus caesius 48Rubus dalmaticus 48Rumex acetosa 46Rumex acetosella 46Rumex conglomeratus 46Rumex crispus 46Rumex hydrolapathum 46Rumex patientia 46Rumex pulcher 46Rumex sanguineus 46

Ruscus aculeatus 53Ruta patavina 48Sagittaria sagittifolia 52Salix alba 46Salix cinerea 46Salix incana 46Salix pentandra 46Salix purpurea 46Salix repens 46, 55Salvia bertolonii 50Salvia verticillata 50Sambucus ebulus 51Sambucus nigra 51Samolus valerandi 50Sanguisorba minor 48Sanguisorba officinalis 48Saponaria officinalis 47Satureja montana 50Satureja subspicata 50, 55Scabiosa canescens 51Scabiosa delminiana 51, 55Scabiosa gramuntia 51Scabiosa leucophylla 51, 55Scandix pecten-veneris 49Schoenoplectus tabernemontani 53Schoenoplectus triqueter 53Schoenus nigricans 53Scilla pratensis 52, 55Scirpus lacustris 53Scirpus maritimus 53Scleranthus annuus 47Scleranthus uncinatus 47Sclerochloa dura 54Scolymus hispanicus 51Scorzonera rosea 52Scorzonera villosa 52Scutellaria altissima 50Scutellaria galericulata 50Scutellaria hastifolia 50Sedum acre 48Sedum album 48Sedum boloniense 48Selinum carvifolia 49Senecio barbareifolius 52Senecio jacobea 52Senecio paludosus 52Senecio vulgaris 52Serratula lycopifolia 52, 55Serratula tinctoria 52Sesleria uliginosa 54Setaria viridis 54Sherardia arvensis 51Sieglingia decumbens 54Silene otites 47Silene sendtneri 47, 55Silene vulgaris 47Silybum marianum 52Sinapis arvensis 47Sisymbrium officinale 47Sium erectum 49Sium latifolium 49Smyrnium perfoliatum 50Solanum dulcamara 50Sonchus arvensis 51Sonchus asper 51Sonchus oleraceus 51Sparganium erectum 54Sparganium microcarpum 54Sparganium simplex 54Spergularia rubra 47Stachys annua 50Stachys germanica 50Stachys palustris 50Stachys serotina 50Stellaria graminea 47

Stellaria holostea 47Stenactis annua 51Stipa pennata 54Succisa pratensis 51Succisella petteri 51, 55Symphytum tuberosum 50Symphytum tuberosum 50, 56Taraxacum officinale 52Taraxacum paludosum 52Taraxacum palustre 52Telestes 72Teucrium chamaedrys 50Teucrium montanum 50Teucrium montanum 50, 56Teucrium polium 50Teucrium scordioides 50Teucrium scordium 50Thalictrum aquilegifolium 47Thalictrum flavum 47, 55Thalictrum flexuosum 47Thalictrum simplex 47Thelypteris palustris 46Thesium intermedium 46Thymus longicaulis 50Thymus striatus 50Tofieldia calyculata 52, 55Tordylium apulum 49Tragopogon dubius 52Tragopogon orientalis 52Tragopogon pratensis 52Trifolium alpestre 49Trifolium campestre 49Trifolium dalmaticum 49Trifolium dubium 49Trifolium fragiferum 49Trifolium hybridum 49Trifolium incarnatum 49Trifolium lappaceum 49Trifolium medium 49Trifolium montanum 49Trifolium ochroleucum 49Trifolium patens 49Trifolium pratense 49Trifolium repens 49Trifolium resupinatum 49Trifolium strepens 49Trifolium strictum 49Triglochin palustre 52Trigonella corniculata 49Tringa totanus 32Trollius europaeus 47Tunica saxifraga 47Typha angustifolia 54Typha latifolia 54Typha shutllerworthi 54, 55Ulmus campestris 46Ulmus laevis 46Urtica dioica 51Utricularia vulgaris 50, 55Vaccaria grandiflora 47Valeriana officinalis 51Valerianella dentata 51Veratrum album 52Verbascum nigrum 50Verbascum pulverulentum 50Verbascum thapsus 50Verbena officinalis 50Veronica anagallis-aquatica 50Veronica anagalloides 50Veronica anagalloides 55Veronica beccabunga 50Veronica chamaedrys 50Veronica jacquinii 50Veronica maritima 50, 55Veronica officinalis 50

Veronica orbiculata 50Veronica poljensis 50Veronica poljensis 55Veronica scutellata 50Veronica serpyllifolia 50Veronica spicata 50Viburnum lantana 51Viburnum opulus 51Vicia cracca 48Vicia grandiflora 48Vicia hirsuta 48Vicia onobrychoides 48Vicia sativa 48Vicia striata 48Vicia tenuifolia 48Vicia tetrasperma 48Viola canina 47Viola reichenbachiana 47Viola saxatilis 47Viola stagnina 47Viscaria vulgaris 47Vitex agnus-castus 50Vitis vinifera 48Vulpia myuros 54Xanthium spinosum 51Xanthium strumarium 51Zannichellia palustris 52


201

organism index

202

Karst poljes represent small but fertile and for human beings and biota hospitable geomorphological forms in generally inhospitable large surrounding karst areas. Because of this they represent crucial social and ecological systems. The problem is that this fact is not enough scientifically and especially politically recognized. If this dangerous trend will continue it is obvious that values and functions of karst poljes will be very soon irreparably destroyed.

dinaric karst poljes — floods for life · 2017. 8. 1. · dinaric karst poljes – floods for...

Documents