Metsade looduslikkusega seotud struktuurielementide esinemine kaitsealadel Haanja looduspargi ja Karula rahvuspargi näitel
Laen...
Kuupäev
2015
Kättesaadav alates
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Abstrakt
Käesoleva töö eesmärgiks oli uurida surnud puiduga seonduvate metsa struktuurielementide
esinemise sõltuvust kaitseala tüübist, kaitsekorrast, loodusdirektiivi elupaigatüübist ning metsade
kujunemise ajaloost. Töö on teostatud Karula rahvuspargi ja Haanja looduspargi näitel ja tugineb
autori poole teostatud välitöödel. Analüüsitavateks struktuurielementideks olid kuivanud
jalalseisvad puud, tüükad, erinevates lagunemisastmes ja jämedusklassis lamapuit ning häilud.
Kogutud andmeid analüüsiti neljast vaatenurgast: uuriti erinevusi Karula rahvuspargi ja Haanja
looduspargi vahel, n-ö „looduslike“ ja „hooldatavate“ vööndite vahel, põliste metsamaade ja
endiste tuleviljeluseks kasutatud alade – võsamaade – ning eri loodusdirektiivi elupaigatüüpide
vahel. Lisaks sellele uuriti ka, kas Natura 2000 võrgustiku alad erinevad sealt välja jäävatest
aladest. Kõige suuremad olid erinevused Haanja ja Karula kaitsealade vahel, mis oli põhjustatud
erinevast kaitsealade majandamise intensiivsusest. Karula rahvuspargis oli kõiki vaadeldavaid
struktuurielemente rohkem, välja arvatud häilude kategoorias, kus erinevus puudus. Erinevus oli
ka põliste metsamaade ja endiste võsamaade vahel, kus metsamaadel oli võsamaadest oluliselt
rohkem hästi lagunenud lamapuitu. Kaitseala vööndite, erinevate elupaigatüüpide ja Natura alade
ning Natura aladelt välja jäävate alade vahel statistiliselt olulised erinevused puudusid. See on
põhjustatud asjaolust, et kaitsealused alad pole olnud majandamise eest kaitse all piisavalt kaua, et
märkimisväärset muutust tekitada.
The aim of this study was to investigate the connection between forest’s dead wood related structural elements and protection regime, Habitats Directive habitat type and historical land use. The structural elements analyzed were dead standing trees, snags, lying dead wood in different composition stages and diameter classes and gaps. Data was collected in the summer of 2014 during field works. The collected data was analyzed from four angles: the differences between National Park and Nature Park, between, unmanaged and managed zones, between ancient woodlands and areas that were once used for fire cultivation – buschlands – and distinctions between different habitat types of the Habitats Directive. Moreover, distinctions between Natura 2000 areas and areas left out the network were also examined. The greatest differences were between a National Park and Nature Park protection areas which was due to differences in the intensity of management in both areas. Karula Natural Park was richer in all structural elements that in all categories with the exception of gaps where there was no difference. There also was a difference between ancient forest and former buschlands where forest lands had more well-decayed lying dead wood than buschlands. Differences between protection zones, habitat types and Natura habitats and areas not designated as Natura habitats were statistically non-significant. This was due to the fact that protected areas have not been under protection for long enough to cause any significant change to structural elements related to dead wood.
The aim of this study was to investigate the connection between forest’s dead wood related structural elements and protection regime, Habitats Directive habitat type and historical land use. The structural elements analyzed were dead standing trees, snags, lying dead wood in different composition stages and diameter classes and gaps. Data was collected in the summer of 2014 during field works. The collected data was analyzed from four angles: the differences between National Park and Nature Park, between, unmanaged and managed zones, between ancient woodlands and areas that were once used for fire cultivation – buschlands – and distinctions between different habitat types of the Habitats Directive. Moreover, distinctions between Natura 2000 areas and areas left out the network were also examined. The greatest differences were between a National Park and Nature Park protection areas which was due to differences in the intensity of management in both areas. Karula Natural Park was richer in all structural elements that in all categories with the exception of gaps where there was no difference. There also was a difference between ancient forest and former buschlands where forest lands had more well-decayed lying dead wood than buschlands. Differences between protection zones, habitat types and Natura habitats and areas not designated as Natura habitats were statistically non-significant. This was due to the fact that protected areas have not been under protection for long enough to cause any significant change to structural elements related to dead wood.
Kirjeldus
Märksõnad
metsad, kaitsealad, Haanja looduspark, Karula rahvuspark, bakalaureusetööd