3130 Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or Isoeto-Nanojuncetea
Both vegetation units occur either in close spatial neighbourhood or isolated
3131 (with Littorelletalia vegetation):
Conservation status
|
A – excellent
|
B – good
|
C – average or reduced
|
Completeness of the typical habitat structures
(the potential of habitat structures can be smaller depending on the morphology of the water body)
Silting vegetation
Hydrophyten or Littorella vegetation of high value
|
Oligo- bis mesotrophic standing water with amphibious Littorella vegetation (Littorelletea)
|
Sedge beds and reed beds
Specific completion/deletion by federal states(Länder)
|
2 typical vegetation elements
|
1 typical vegetation element
|
|
Submerse Nittella-swards, floating vegetation, free-floating surface communities, shoreweed lawns, dwarfrush communities
Specific completion/deletion by federal states
|
min. 3 typical vegetation elements
|
2 typical vegetation elements
|
1 typical vegetation element
|
Cover of the area that can be colonized
|
mass occurrences
> 50 %
|
widely distributed
10-50 %
|
fragmented, min. some individuals, < 10 % coverage
|
Completeness of the typical species of the habitat
|
Typical species
Nitella flexilis, Nitella gracilis, Nitella opaca, Nitella syncarpa,
Littorella uniflora, Myriophyllum alterniflorum, Potamogeton polygonifolius, Sparganium angustifolium, Sparganium minimum, Eleocharis multicaulis, Hydrocotyle vulgaris, Pilularia globulifera, Deschampsia setacea, Ranunculus flammula var. gracilis, Eleocharis acicularis, Drosera intermedia, Lycopodiella inundata,
Specific completion/deletion by federal states
|
> 6 typical species present
|
3-6 typical species present
|
< 3 typical species
|
Negative impacts
|
Eutrophication, anthropogenic shoreline modification, disturbance due to leisure activities
Specific completion/deletion by federal states
|
no or a few species indicating very local eutrophication or disturbance
|
moderate impact present or detected, merely small extent of the vegetation is concerned by disturbance
e.g. leisure activities,
10-50 % of the shoreline is modified as a result of anthropogenic use
(exception: extensive, unfertilized pasture),
species indicating eutrophication are present in 10-50 % of hydrophytic- or Littorella vegetation
|
strong impacts detected, partly with obvious effects
e.g. large part (>50%) of the shoreline is transformed due to anthropogenic use
(exception: extensive, unfertilized pasture) or species indicating eutrophication are present in >50% of hydrophytic- or Littorella vegetation
|
Remark: Numbers in red are indicative thresholds, that may be adapted at regional level (Länder).
Monitoring: (federal states may modify the federal scheme)
Frequency: 2x in 6 years
Acidification: measuring pH-value, the possible seasonal fluctuation of the pH-value must be taken into consideration, indicators of acidification (Sphagnum spp.) are recorded
Eutrophication (conductivity as indicator), depth boundary of macrophytes /visibility depth – in the vegetation period – yearly
Vegetation (extent, composition, succession)
Flora (population dynamic of the habitat specific species, indicators of disturbance)
Typical, easily-recordable species (dragonflies, water beetles, water bugs, molluscs)
3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation
|
A – excellent
|
B – good
|
C – average or reduced
|
Completeness of the typical habitat structures
|
Structural quality class of the water course
1 (according to on-site method)
|
Structural quality class of the water course
2 (according to on-site method)
|
Structural quality class of the water course
3 and 4 (51)
(according to on-site method)
|
If the relevant sections are assigned to different water structure quality classes, the weighted average of the classes will be formed.
|
Completeness of the typical species of the habitat
|
the list of typical plant, fish and macrozoobenthos species
almost corresponds to the reference status of the water courses
|
the list of typical plant, fish and macrozoobenthos species
differs slightly from
the reference status of water courses
|
the list of typical plant, fish and macrozoobenthos species
differs moderately from
the reference status of water courses
|
Negative impacts
|
biological water quality class is oligosaprob /oligo- to beta-mesosaprob, in potamal also beta-mesosaprob,
no species indicating disturbance
|
biological water quality class beta-mesosaprob,
the percentage of species indicating disturbance is maximum 10%
|
biological water quality class is beta-mesosaprob to alpha-mesosaprob,
the percentage of species indicating disturbance is over 10%
|
water sport, pollutants such as chemical, hormonal load, competition with invasive non-typical organisms, water engineering and maintenance works such as e.g. straightening the water course, barrages, prevention of flooding, construction works and management on river banks, etc.
|
no adverse effects can be observed
|
slight adverse effects
|
strong adverse effects
|
Monitoring: (federal states may modify the national scheme)
Frequency: 1x in 6 years
Vegetation (extent, composition, succession): suggested mapping period for makrophytes: June-September
Flora (population dynamics of typical species, indicator species of disturbance)
Macrozoobenthos, specific fish coenosis typical for each section of the water course
Calculation from sub-parameters to total value of a parameter
Negative impacts
The worst parameter determines the evaluation
Further remarks
-
The assessment of water courses is to be done according to the reference status of the different biocoenosis in compliance with the water course types of LAWA (die Bund/Länder Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser = Water Working Group of the Federal States). The federal states compile themselves species lists for the different habitat types. The minimal section for assessing water structure quality and flora is a 100 m long section of the water course.
-
Sampling and assessment of makrozoobenthos and fish coenosis are carried out in compliance with the LAWA-method according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). We suggest the AQEM sampling method (The Development and Testing of an Integrated Assessment System for the Ecological Quality of Streams and Rivers throughout Europe using Benthic Macroinvertebrates) (Haase und Sundermann 2004) for the sampling of macrozoobenthos with modification of 4 censuses.
-
The assessment scales LAWA/WFD – Habitats Directive are basically related to each other as referred to under „Completeness of the typical habitat structures“.
-
As the on-site method of assessing water structure quality and the sampling of “typical species“ costs a lot, we suggest for the first recording of watercourses to assess the conservation status based on the following parameters: „Completeness of the typical habitat structures“ (Structural quality class of the water course, quick method)“, „Flora“ and „Negative Impacts“. For subsequent future monitoring the net of sampling points must be complemented by sampling points required for Natura 2000. The LAWA method will have to be used for the WFD.
-
The monitoring of fish coenosis can complement the monitoring of fish species of the Habitats Directive.
LRT 7110 „Active raised bogs“
Conservation status
|
A – excellent
| B – good |
C – average or reduced
|
Completeness of the typical habitat structures
| -
undisturbed, almost treeless hummock-hollow complex rich in peat moss
-
no anthropogenic modification of the peat body
-
shrubs in the centre (typical bog species) just sparsely scattered and extremely bad growing (if applicable: specific regional threshold for raised bog shrubs, as Bog-Pine (Pinus rotundata))
| -
high percentage of hummock-hollow complex rich in peat moss
-
slight anthropogenic modification of the peatbody or the former peat-cutting completely regenerated
-
shrubs in the centre (typical species of bogs) <10 % cover, weak growing
| -
high percentage of hummock-hollow complex rich in peat moss
-
obvious anthropogenic modification of the peat body or the former peat-cutting regenerated to a great extent
-
shrubs in the centre (typical species of bogs) >10 % cover, weak growing
|
Completeness of the typical species of the habitat
|
Ferns and flowering plants: Betula nana, Carex limosa, Carex pauciflora, Drosera anglica, Drosera intermedia, Drosera rotundifolia, Eriophorum vaginatum, Eriophorum angustifolium, Narthecium ossifragum, Vaccinium oxycoccos, Andromeda polifolia, Erica tetralix, Trichophorum cespitosum (in hollows complemented by species of 7150 habitat type)
Mosses: Calypogeia sphagnicola, Mylia anomala, Odontoschisma sphagni, Polytrichum strictum, Sphagnum imbricatum, Sphagnum fuscum, Sphagnum magellanicum, Sphagnum papillosum, Sphagnum rubellum, Sphagnum fallax, Sphagnum cuspidatum
Fauna: typical raised bog species of the natural region. Recommended to record: day-flying butterflies, dragonflies, reptiles, breeding birds (just in large areas).
Specific completion/deletion by federal states and according to natural region
|
typical species of the natural region almost completely present, additional occurrence of rare species at Länder level
(e.g. > 10 typical bog species of ferns and flowering plants)
|
typical species of the natural region almost completely present, but rare species at Länder level partly missing
(e.g. 8-10 typical bog species of ferns and flowering plants)
|
typical species of the natural region largely present, obvious deficit of rare species (e.g. 6-7 typical bog species of ferns and flowering plants)
|
Negative impacts
| -
Peat extraction (e.g. on adjacent areas)
-
Destruction of the vegetation and the upper peat layer (e.g. due to military or leisure activities)
-
Drainage (as a consequence: spread of drainage indicators; A: almost missing, B: on small area, C: on larger area)
-
Waste deposition
-
Nutrient input (as a consequence: spread of nitrophytes)
-
Spread of neophytes (A: almost missing, B: on small area, C: on larger area)
-
Spread of shrubs, appearance of non-typical shrub species
-
Afforestation
-
Fragmentation effects etc.
|
No adverse effects can be observed
|
Slight adverse effects/adverse effects on small areas
|
Strong adverse/adverse effects effects on larger areas
|
Remark: The occurrence of areas of dry, non-drained complexes without active peat growth within intact raised bogs does not reduce the assessment value of the conservation status
Assessment matrix for 9110 habitat of the Habitats Directive
Luzulo-Fagetum beech forests
Criteria / Parameter
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
Habitat structures
|
Excellent i.e.:
|
Good i.e.:
|
Average or reduced i.e.:
| -
Stages of forest development /
Spatial structure
(See under „Definitions“)
|
Many stages of forest development (> 3), the maturity stage is present on a minimum percentage of the area of the assessment unit. This minimum percentage is fixed at regional level2 (federal states)
|
Minimum 2 stages of forest development, the maturity stage is present on a minimum percentage of the area of the assessment unit. This minimum percentage is fixed at regional level1 (federal states)
|
If A or B does not apply
| |
> 6 pieces / ha
|
> 3 pieces / ha
|
< 3 pieces / ha
|
(See under „Definitions“)
|
> 3 pieces / ha, lying and standing dead wood
|
> 1 piece / ha, lying or standing dead wood
|
< 1 piece / ha, lying or standing dead wood
|
Characteristic species inventory
|
present, i.e.:
|
present to a great extent, i.e.:
|
partly present, i.e.:
| |
Percent of the typical trees and bushes
> 90 %
|
Percent of the typical trees and bushes
> 80 %
|
Percent of the typical trees and bushes
> 70 %
|
(incl. cryptogamic species)
|
species combination in the herb layer is characteristic for the habitat
|
typical species combination in the herb layer is slightly modified
|
typical species combination in the herb layer is highly modified
| |
The occurrence of value-giving species can upgrade the result of the assessment
|
Negative impacts
|
little, i.e.:
|
medium, i.e.:
|
strong, i.e.:
| -
Damage to soil and water resources
-
Damage to forest vegetation and structure
-
Occurrence of characteristic indicator species
-
Fragmentation and disturbance
|
No observable alteration of the typical abiotic conditions, structures and species composition of the habitat
|
No significant alteration of the typical abiotic conditions, structures and species composition of the habitat
|
Significant alteration of the typical abiotic conditions, structures and species composition of the habitat
|
10> |