Dinaric Karst Poljes - Floods for Life by EuroNatur

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

EuroNatur, 2014 Konstanzer Str. 22, D-78315 Radolfzell, Germany http://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 from Euronatur Geschäftsstelle Radolfzell Konstanzerstr. 22, D-78315 Radolfzell, Germany phone +49(0)7732 - 92 72 - 0 or +49(0)7732 - 92 72 - 0 fax: +49(0)7732 - 92 72 -22 email: info@euronatur.org 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 Andric´ Language editor: Peter Sackl Typesetting by Camera d.o.o. (Slovenia) Printed and bound by Tiskarna Povše d.o.o. (Slovenia) Number of copies: 400

The project “Identification and Promotion of Karst Poljes in Bosnia-Herzegovina as Wetlands of National and International Importance” was financial supported by MAVA Foundation” In cooperation with Naše ptice, Sarajevo (BiH); Naša bastina Tomislavgrad (BiH) and Zagreb (HR); Universalmuseum Joanneum, Graz (AT)

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Contents

I. Preface Prof. dr. sc. Jaroslav Vego, NFP Ramsar Convention for Bosnia and Herzegovina Karst polje conservation – the legacy of Dr Martin Schneider-Jacoby Borut Stumberger, Romy Durst and Peter Sackl

5 7

II. Karst Poljes as Wetlands of National and International Importance, Workshop Proceedings and Project Results Wetlands in drylands: the global importance of Karst poljes Tobias Salathé

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

Ecohydrology of karst poljes and their vulnerability Ognjen Bonacci

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

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

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

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

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

Spring Migration 2013 of Eurasian Crane Grus grus of the Adriatic Flyway population in the Western Balkans and in the Eastern Adriatic Goran 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 Peter Sackl, Ilhan Dervović, Dražen Kotrošan, Goran Topić, Sumeja Drocić, Mirko Šarac, Nermina Sarajlić, Romy Durst & Borut Stumberger

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

105

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

115

Grabovica trail – rediscovering the natural heritage at the border of Duvanjsko polje Denis Radoš, Mirko Šarac-Mićo & Maja Perić

121

III. 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

129

Index

197

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Preface

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.

Duvanjsko polje, 27 June 2010 (Photo: Mirko Ĺ arac)

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Preface

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 During the 19th and early hinterlands of the Eastern Adriatic. Almost simultaneously to first inventories of their natural values, started by scientists like 20th centuries, Austrothe ornithologist Othmar Reiser (1861-1936), karst geographer Hungarian engineers Jovan Cvijić (1865-1927) and the paleontologist and zoologist Karel started to tame the Absolon (1877-1960) during the 19th and early 20th centuries, Austroseasonal floods in the Hungarian engineers started to tame the seasonal floods in the karst poljes. 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

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Preface

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, However, he found were not protected at all. Even worse, for practically that one of the most each of these poljes plans for technical alterations significant karst poljes existed or had already been implemented in the past. in the world, the ones As an advocate of international nature conservation located in Bosnia and standards, particularly referring to the Ramsar and Herzegovina, were not Bonn Conventions (AEWA) and the Biosphere Reserves protected at all. (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.

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

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: salathe@ramsar.org

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

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

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, managment, Karst, Ramsar

wetlands,

floods,

water

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

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

ecosystems related to the water flows, make up the essence of karst poljes. Therefore, wetland management is key to sustainable karst polje management.

issues, continue to provide the means to improve our methodologies, our regular data collection and its stateof-the art analysis.

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).

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.

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

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

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

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

Livanjsko polje, 13 Janaury 2010 (Photo: Mirko Ĺ arac)

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

Centrally planned constructions of large dams, tunnels and interbasin water transfers transform landscapes into unpleasant areas, shy away tourists and create lasting impacts on karst polje water cycles. in many rural and isolated areas and end up in the fragile karst hydrological systems. Occasionally this is worsened by industrial and military effluents.

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

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 largescale, 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-ofthe-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,

Workshop and project results

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

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.

CerkniĹĄko polje â&#x20AC;&#x201C; locus typicus of karst poljes - with the lake of the same name, Slovenia, 3 January 2010 (Photo: Dejan Bordjan)

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

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: ivolucic@gmail.com

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.

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.

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)

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.

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

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)

What is Karst?

The geography of karst poljes

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

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.

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

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.

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. 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)

Key features of karst poljes

Different types 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

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.

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

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

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)

never flooded. A typical example is Dugo polje in BosniaHerzegovina (Fig. 5).

Because of different size, shape and hydrology, karst poljes may be best described by their geological origin. There are three main types:

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.

•

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 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)

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 largescale 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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

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.

Workshop and project results

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 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.

Officials perceive the karst environment as useless wastelands. 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

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.

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

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: obonacci@gradst.hr

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,

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

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, anthropogenic influence

karst

ecohydrology,

flood,

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

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

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. 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

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

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)

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.

Workshop and project results

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 twocomponent 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 1Â 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 nonkarst 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

(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

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)

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.

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

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. 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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

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

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

Workshop and project results

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

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

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

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. 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

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

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) interstitialhyporheic 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

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

stresses. The survival of the vulnerable ecosystem of a broader poljesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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,

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. 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

Workshop and project results

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

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)

Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca (Photo: Andreas Hafen)

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

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. 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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Popovo Minnow Phoxinellus ghetaldii (Photo: Dušan Jelić)

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

Workshop and project results

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 obvious that presentday pressure on the karst ecosystems, especially in karst poljes, does not ensure sustainable development as well as biological diversity. 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

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 vegetation (Breg 2007). Waste materials (excavation material, municipal, construction, industrial waste etc.) deposited in nature represent the most irresponsible activity affecting the karst features and processes 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.

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. 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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

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

Workshop and project results

Olm Proteus anguinus (Photo: Slavko Polak)

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 manmade 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

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 manâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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): 3-14 Blondel 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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

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): 492502. 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.

Workshop and project results

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

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: Ulrich.Schwarz@fluvius.com

Summary

Introduction

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.

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.

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

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

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).

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

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

Workshop and project results

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

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. 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.

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.

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

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., SchneiderJacoby M., Stumberger B. (eds.), Adriatic Flyway - Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. Euronatur, Radolfzell; pp. 69 - 78.

Workshop and project results

Silene sendtneri Boiss (Photo: Dubravka Ĺ oljan)

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

Floristic values of the karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina Sabaheta Abadžić1 & Nermina Sarajlić2 1 2

National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Zmaja od Bosne 3, BA-71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina; E-mail: naseptice@hotmail.com Ornithological Society „Naše ptice“ Semira Frašte 6, BA-71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina; E-mail: nermina_sarajlic@yahoo.com

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

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 BosniaHerzegovina: Bjelajsko polje, Dabarsko polje, Dugo polje, Duvanjsko polje, Fatničko polje, Gatačko polje, Glamočko

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.

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

Family

Species

Common name

Equisetaceae Equisetaceae Equisetaceae Thelypteridaceae Polypodiaceae Cupressaceae Betulaceae Betulaceae Betulaceae Betulaceae Betulaceae Betulaceae Fagaceae Fagaceae Fagaceae Fagaceae Salicaceae Salicaceae Salicaceae Salicaceae Salicaceae Salicaceae Salicaceae Salicaceae Ulmaceae Ulmaceae Santalaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Chenopodiaceae Chenopodiaceae Chenopodiaceae Chenopodiaceae Chenopodiaceae Chenopodiaceae Euphorbiaceae Euphorbiaceae Euphorbiaceae Euphorbiaceae Euphorbiaceae Euphorbiaceae Euphorbiaceae Euphorbiaceae Euphorbiaceae Euphorbiaceae Celastraceae Caryophyllaceae

Equisetum hyemale L. Equisetum limosum L. Equisetum palustre L. Thelypteris palustris Schott Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn Juniperus communis L. Betula pendula Roth. Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. Corylus avellana L. Ostrya carpinifolia Scop. Carpinus betulus L. Carpinus orientalis Mill. Quercus conferta Kit. Quercus lanuginosa (Lam.) Thuill. Quercus robur L. Quercus trojana Webb. Populus tremula L. Populus nigra L. Salix alba L. Salix cinerea L. Salix incana Schrank Salix pentandra L. Salix purpurea L. Salix repens L. var. rosmarinifolia (L.) W.Gr. Ulmus campestris L. Ulmus laevis Pall. Thesium intermedium Schrad. Rumex acetosa L. Rumex acetosella L. Rumex conglomeratus Murray Rumex crispus L. Rumex hydrolapathum Huds. Rumex patientia L. Rumex pulcher L. Rumex sanguineus L. Polygonum amphibium L. f. natans Mch. Polygonum amphibium L. f. terrestris Leers Polygonum bellardi All. Polygonum hydropiper (L.) Delabre Polygonum aviculare L. Polygonum mite Schrank Reynoutria japonica Houtt Polygonum bistorta L. Polygonum persicaria L. Polygonum tomentosum Schrk Chenopodium album L. Chenopodium glaucum L. Chenopodium murale L. Chenopodium polyspermum L. Amaranthus retroflexus L. Atriplex latifolia Wahlenb Euphorbia chamaesyce L. var. massiliensis Thellg. Euphorbia cyparissias L. Euphorbia dulcis L. Euphorbia exigua L. Euphorbia falcata L. Euphorbia helioscopia L. Euphorbia lucida Waldst. & Kit. Euphorbia palustris L. Euphorbia spinosa L. Euphorbia villosa Waldst. & Kit. Euonymus europaeus L. Herniaria glabra L.

Rough Horsetail Water Horsetail Marsh Horsetail Marsh Fern Bracken Fern Common Juniper Silver Birch Common Alder Common Hazel Hop Hornbeam Common Hornbeam Oriental Hornbeam Hungarian Oak Pubescent Oak Pedunculate Oak Macedonian Oak Quaking Aspen Black Poplar White Willow Gray Willow Elaeagnus willow Laurel Willow Purple Willow Creeping Willow Field Elm White Elm Flaxleaf Common Sorrel Red Sorrel Clustered Dock Curled Sorrel Water Dock Patience Dock Fiddle Dock Red-veined Dock Water Knotweed Water Knotweed Narrowleaf Knotweed Water-pepper Common Knotgrass Tasteless Water-pepper Japanese Knotweed Meadow Bistort, Adderwort Spotted Ladysthumb Curlytop Knotweed White Goosefoot Oak-leaved Goosefoot Nettle-leaved Goosefoot Many-seeded Goosefoot Common Amaranth Wide-leaved Orache Prostrate Spurge Cypress Spurge Sweet Spurge Dwarf Spurge Sickle Spurge Sun Spurge Shining Spurge Marsh Spurge Spiny Spurge Hairy Spurge Common Spindle Smooth Rupturewort

Duvanjsko Gatačko polje polje

Glamočko polje

Hutovo blato

Kupreško Livanjsko Mostarsko polje polje blato

Nevesinjsko polje

X X

X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X X

X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

continuation of List from page 46 Family

Species

Common name

Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Aristolochiaceae Aristolochiaceae Hydrocharitaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Nymphaceae Nymphaceae Nymphaceae Papaveraceae Papaveraceae Papaveraceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Cucurbitaceae Cistaceae Violaceae Violaceae Violaceae Violaceae Droseraceae

Herniaria incana Lam. Corrigiola litoralis L. Spergularia rubra (L.) Presl. Scleranthus annuus L. Scleranthus uncinatus Schur. Moenchia mantica (L.) Bartl. Cerastium brachypetalum var. glandulosum Frenzl. Cerastium brachypetalum Desp. var. tauricum Cerastium caespitosum Gilib. Cerastium semidecandrum L. Cerastium sylvaticum Waldst. et Kit. Stellaria graminea L. Stellaria holostea L. Tunica saxifraga Scop. Dianthus armeria L. Dianthus cruentus Gris. f. baldacci (Degen) Beck Dianthus deltoides L. Dianthus sanguineus Vis. Dianthus superbus Vis. Saponaria officinalis L. Saponaria officinalis L. f. alluvionum Dum. Vaccaria grandiflora (Fisch) Janb. et Spach Silene otites (L.) Wibel Silene sendtneri Boiss. Silene vulgaris (Mch.) Garcke Silene vulgaris (Mch.) Garcke var. colorata Hampe Melandrium album (Mill.) Garcke Lychnis flos-cuculi L. Viscaria vulgaris Bernh. Aristolochia clematitis L. Aristolochia rotunda L. Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L. Anemone nemorosa L. Caltha palustris L. Caltha laeta Sch. Nigella damascena L. Delphinium consolida L. Clematis flammula L. Clematis recta L. Clematis vitalba L. Clematis viticella L. Thalictrum aquilegifolium L. Thalictrum flavum L. Thalictrum flexuosum Bernh. Thalictrum simplex L. Ranunculus acer L. Ranunculus arvensis L. Ranunculus auricomus L. Ranunculus circinatus Sibth. Ranunculus ficaria L. Ranunculus flammula L. Ranunculus flammula L. var. reptans Rchb. Ranunculus lanuginosus L. Ranunculus lingua L. Ranunculus neapolitanus Ten. Ranunculus ophioglossifolius Vill. Ranunculus paucistamineus Tsch. Ranunculus repens L. Ranunculus sardous Cr. Ranunculus velutinus Ten. Ranunculus sceleratus L. Trollius europaeus L. Helleborus multifidus Vis. Nuphar luteum (L.) Sm. Nymphaea alba L Nymphoides peltata (S.G. Gmel.) Kuntze Papaver rhoeas L. Fumaria rostellata Knaf. Fumaria vaillantii Lois. Lepidium graminifolium L. Sisymbrium officinale (L.) Scop. Aethionema saxatile (L.) Desv. Nasturtium officinale R. Br. Barbarea vulgaris R. Br. Rorippa amphibia (L.) Bess. Rorippa lippizensis (Wulfen) Rchb. Rorippa sylvestris (L.) Bess. Cardamine pratensis L. Arabis hirsuta (L.) Scop. Arabis glabra (L.) Bernh Berteroa mutabilis (Vent.) DC Sinapis arvensis L. Ecbalium elaterium (L.) A.Rich Helianthemum nummularium (L.) Mill. Viola canina Borb. Viola reichenbachiana Jord. ex Boreau Viola saxatilis F.W. Schmidt Viola stagnina Kit. Drosera rotundifolia L.

Gray Rupturewort Strapwort Purple Sandspurry Knawel, German Knotgrass Knawel Upright Chickweed Gray Chickweed Gray Chickweed Mouse-Ear Chickweed Five-stamened Chickweed Wood Chickweed Common Stitchwort Greater Stitchwort Tunic Flower Deptford Pink Feld Pink Maiden Pink Dark-Red Pink Large Pink, Fringed Pink Common Soapwort Common Soapwort Cow Soapwort Spanish Catchfly Sendtner's Campion Bladder Campion Bladder Campion White Campion Ragged Robin Sticky Catchfly European Birthwort Round-leaved Birthwort Frogbit Wood Anemone Marsh Marigold Marsh Marigold Love In A Mist Royal Knight's-Spur Fragrant Virgin's Bower Ground Virgin's Bower Traveller's Joy Virgin's Bower Greater Meadow Rue Yellow Meadow Rue Lesser Meadow Rue Small Meadow Rue Meadow Buttercup Corn Buttercup Goldilocks Buttercup Fan-leaved Water-crowfoot Lesser Celandine Lesser Spearwort Lesser Spearwort Wooly Buttercup Greater Spearwort Bulbous Buttercup Badgeworth Buttercup Thread-leaved Water Crowfoot Creeping Buttercup Hairy Buttercup Velvet Buttercup Celery-leaved Buttercup Globe Flower Early Green Hellebore Yellow Waterlily White Waterlily Fringed Waterlily Field Poppy Fumitory Few-flowered Fumitory Grassleaf Pepperweed Hedge Mustard Golden-tuft Madwort Watercress Bittercress Great Yellowcress Yellowcress Creeping Yellowcress Cuckoo Flower Hairy Rockcress Tower Mustard Roadside False Madwort Wild Mustard Exploding Cucumber Common Rockrose Dog Violet Early Dog-violet Mountain Violet Fen Violet Round-leaved Sundew

Duvanjsko Gatačko polje polje X X

Glamočko polje X

Hutovo blato

Kupreško Livanjsko Mostarsko polje polje blato X

Nevesinjsko polje X X

X X X

X X

X X X X X X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X X

X X X

X X

X X X

continuation of List from page 46 Family

Species

Common name

Hypericaceae Hypericaceae Hypericaceae Malvaceae Malvaceae Malvaceae Malvaceae Malvaceae Malvaceae Malvaceae Linaceae Linaceae Linaceae Linaceae Linaceae Linaceae Linaceae Geraniaceae Geraniaceae Geraniaceae Geraniaceae Rutaceae Polygalaceae Polygalaceae Polygalaceae Aceraceae Aceraceae Aceraceae Rhamnaceae Rhamnaceae Rhamnaceae Rhamnaceae Rhamnaceae Anacardiaceae Punicaceae Crassulaceae Crassulaceae Crassulaceae Saxifragaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Araliaceae Araliaceae Vitaceae Cannabaceae Cannabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae

Hypericum barbatum Jacq. Hypericum perforatum L. Hypericum quadrangulum L. Hibiscus trionum L. Abutilon theophrasti Med. Malva moschata L. Malva parviflora L. Malva sylvestris L. Althaea hirsuta L. Althaea officinalis L. Linum angustifolium Huds. Linum catharticum L. Linum flavum L. Linum hirsutum L. Linum montanum Schleich. ex DC Linum tenuifolium L. Radiola linoides Roth. Geranium dissectum L. Geranium molle L. Geranium robertianum L. Geranium sanguineum L. Ruta patavina L. Polygala oxyptera Rchb. var. variegata Frbg. & Sag. Polygala oxyptera Rchb. f. collina Rchb. Polygala comosa Schkuhr Acer campestre L. Acer monspessulanum L. Acer tataricum L. Frangula alnus Mill. Rhamnus cathartica L. Rhamnus intermedia Steud. et Hochst Frangula rupestris (Scop.) Schur. Paliurus spina-christi Mill. Pistacia terebinthus L. Punica granatum L. Sedum acre L. Sedum album L. Sedum boloniense Lois. Parnassia palustris L. Filipendula hexapetala Gilib. Filipendula ulmaria (L.) Maxim Fragaria moschata Duch. Fragaria vesca L. Potentilla anserina L. Potentilla argentea L. Potentilla erecta (L.) Rauschel Potentilla palustris (L.) Scop. Potentilla reptans L. Geum rivale L. Geum urbanum L. Agrimonia eupatoria L. Agrimonia odorata Mill. f. glandulosa Simonk Agrimonia procera Walhr. Sanguisorba minor Scop. Sanguisorba officinalis L. Rosa arvensis Huds. Rosa canina L. Rosa gallica L. Rosa spinosissima L. Pyrus amygdaliformis Vill. Pyrus communis L. Pyrus pyraster (L.) Borkh. Rubus caesius L. Rubus dalmaticus (Ser.) Guss. Crataegus monogyna Jacq. Prunus mahaleb L. Prunus spinosa L. Alchemilla xanthochlora Rothm. Hydrocotyle vulgaris L. Hedera helix L. Vitis vinifera L. ssp. sylvestris (Gmel.) Hegi Celtis australis L. Humulus lupulus L. Petteria ramentacea Webb & Berthel. Astragallus illyricus Bernh. Astragallus gremlii Burn. Glycyrrhiza echinata L. Vicia grandiflora Scop. Vicia grandiflora Scop. var. scopoliana Koch Vicia hirsuta (L.) Gray. Vicia onobrychoides L. Vicia sativa L. Vicia striata M.B. Vicia tenuifolia Roth. Vicia tetrasperma (L.) Schreb. Vicia cracca L. Lens culinaris Med. Lathyrus aphaca L. Lathyrus niger (L.) Bernh.

Bearded St. John's Wort Common St. John's Wort Square St. John's Wort Flower-of-an-Hour Velvetleaf Musk Mallow Small-flowered Mallow Common Mallow Rough Marsh Mallow Marsh Mallow Pale Flax Fairy Flax Golden Flax Hairy Flax Mountain Flax Slim-leaved Flax Allseed Cut-leaved Cranesbill Dove's-foot Cranesbill Herb Robert Bloody Cranesbill Rue of Padua Milkwort Milkwort Tufted Milkwort Field Maple Montpellier Maple Tatar Maple Glossy Buchthorn Common Buckthorn Medium Buchthorn Rock Buckthorn Christ's Thorn Turpentine Tree Pomegranate Goldmoss Stonecrop White Stonecrop Tasteless Stonecrop Grass of Parnassius Dropwort Meadowsweet Musk Strawberry Wild Strawberry Silverweed Cinquefoil Silvery Cinquefoi Common Tormentil Marsh Cinquefoil Creeping Cinquefoil Water Avens Wood Avens Common Agrimony Creeping Grovebur Fragrant Agrimony Salad Burnet Great Burnet Field Rose Dog Rose Gallic Rose Burnet Rose Almond-leaved Pear Common Pear Wild Pear Dewberry Dalmatian Raspberry Common Hawthorn Mahaleb Cherry Blackthorn Lady's Mantle Marsh Pennywort Ivy Wild Grape European Nettle Tree Hop Dalmatian Laburnum Illirian Milkvetch Gremli’s Milkvetch Wild Liquorice Large Yellow Vetch Large Yellow Vetch Hairy Vetch False Sainfoin Common Vetch Striped Vetch Fine-leaved Vetch Smooth Vetch Bird Vetch Lentil Yellow Vetchling Black Pea

Duvanjsko Gatačko polje polje X X

Glamočko polje

Hutovo blato

Kupreško Livanjsko Mostarsko polje polje blato

Nevesinjsko polje

X X X X

X X

X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X X

X X X X X

X X

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

continuation of List from page 46 Family

Species

Common name

Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Lemnaceae Lythraceae Lythraceae Lythraceae Oenotheraceae Oenotheraceae Oenotheraceae Oenotheraceae Halorrhagidaceae Halorrhagidaceae Hippuridaceae Callitrichaceae Callitrichaceae Cornaceae Cornaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae Apiaceae

Lathyrus palustris L. Lathyrus pannonicus (Jacq.) Garcke Lathyrus pratensis L. Lathyrus tuberosus L. Lathyrus latifolius L. Ononis antiquorum L. Ononis hircina Jacq. Ononis spinosa L. Trigonella corniculata L. Medicago arabica (L.) Huds. Medicago falcata L. Medicago hispida Gaertn. Medicago lupulina L. Medicago minima (L.) Bartl. Medicago orbicularis (L.) Bartl. Medicago prostrata Jacq. Melilotus officinalis (L.) Desrs. Trifolium alpestre L. Trifolium campestre Schreb. Trifolium dalmaticum Vis. Trifolium dubium Sibtth. Trifolium fragiferum L. Trifolium hybridum L. Trifolium incarnatum var. molinieri (Balb.) DC. Trifolium lappaceum L. Trifolium medium L. Trifolium montanum L. Trifolium ochroleucum Huds. Trifolium patens Schreb. Trifolium pratense L. Trifolium repens L. Trifolium resupinatum L. Trifolium strictum L. Trifolium strepens Cr. Dorycnium herbaceum Vill. Lotus anguistissimus L. Lotus corniculatus L. Lotus tenuifolius L. Lotus uliginosus Schk. Anthyllis vulneraria L. Anthyllis illyrica Beck. Genista ovata Waldst. & Kit. Genista sagittalis L. Genista tinctoria L. Coronilla scorpioides (L.) Koch Coronilla varia L. Hippocrepis comosa L. Onobrychis ocellata Beck Onobrychis viciifolia Scop. Lemna minor L. Lythrum hyssopifolia L. Lythrum salicaria L. Peplis portula L. Epilobium adnatum Gris. Epilobium hirsutum L. Epilobium palustre L. Epilobium parviflorum Schreb. Myriophyllum spicatum L. Myriophyllum verticillatum L. Hippuris vulgaris L. Callitriche palustris L. Callitriche stagnatilis Scop. Cornus sanguinea L. Cornus mas L. Foeniculum vulgare Mill. Eryngium amethystinum L. Eryngium campestre L. Bupleurum aristatum Bartl. Bupleurum lancifolium Hornem. Carum carvi L. Sium erectum Huds. Sium latifolium L. Oenanthe fistulosa L. Oenanthe silaifolia M.B. var. media Gris. Oenanthe aquatica (L.) Poir. Ferulago galbanifera Koch Peucedanum oreoselinum (L.) Mch. Peucedanum palustre Mnch. Peucedanum coriaceum Rchb. Laserpitium latifolium L. Laserpitium prutenicum L. Daucus carota L. Orlaya grandiflora (L.) Hoffm. Anthriscus nemorosus M.B. Scandix pecten-veneris L. Bifora radians M.B. Tordylium apulum L. Selinum carvifolia L. Pimpinella major (L.) Huds.

Marsh Vetchling Felted Vetchling Meadow Vetchling Tuberous Vetchling Everlasting Sweet Pea Rock Rest Harrow Common Rest Harrow Spiny Rest Harrow Cultivated Fenugreek Spotted Medick Yellow-flowered Alfalfa Toothed Medick Black Medick Small Medick Button Medick Prostrate Medick Yellow Sweet Clover Owl Head Clover Hop Trefoil Dalmatian Clover Lesser Hop Trefoil Strawberry Clover Alsike Clover Crimson Clover Burdock Clover Zigzag Clover Mountain Clover Sulphur Clover Hop Clover Red Clover, Purple Clover White Clover Reversed Clover Upright Clover Golden Clover Herbaceous Canary Clover Slender Bird's Foot Trefoil Common Bird's Foot Trefoil Narrow Bird's Foot Trefoil Marsh Bird's Foot Trefoil Kidney Vetch Illyrian Kidney Vetch Oval Broom Winged Broom Dyer's Broom Annual Scorpion Vetch Crown Vetch Horseshoe Vetch n/a Common Sainfoin Common Duckweed Hyssop Loosestrife Purple Loosestrife Spatulaleaf Loosestrife Square-stalked Willowherb Great Hairy Willowherb Marsh Willowherb Smallflower Hairy Willowherb Eurasian Water Milfoil Whorled Water Milfoil Common Mare's Tail Water Starwort Pond Water Starwort Common Dogwood Cornelian Cherry Fennel Amethyst Sea Holly Field Eryngo Thorow Wax Lanceleaf Thorow Wax Caraway Cut Leaf Water Parsnip Great Water Parsnip Tubular Water Dropwort Narrow-leaved Water Dropwort Fine-leaved Water Dropwort Giant Fennel Mountain Parsley Milk Parsley Leather Parsley Broad Leaved Sermountain Sermountain Wild Carrot White Lace Flower Hedge Parsley Venus' Comb Wild Bishop Mediterranean Hartwort Milk Parsley Burnet Saxifrage

Duvanjsko Gatačko polje polje X

Kupreško Livanjsko Mostarsko polje polje blato X X X X X X X X

X X

Glamočko polje

Hutovo blato

Nevesinjsko polje X X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X X

X X X

X X

X X X X

X X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X X X

X X

X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X X X

X X

X X X X X

X X

X X X X

X X X X X

X X X

X X X X

continuation of List from page 46 Family

Species

Common name

Apiaceae Plumbaginaceae Plumbaginaceae Primulaceae Primulaceae Primulaceae Primulaceae Primulaceae Convolvulaceae Convolvulaceae Convolvulaceae Cuscutaceae Solanaceae Boraginaceae Boraginaceae Boraginaceae Boraginaceae Boraginaceae Boraginaceae Boraginaceae Boraginaceae Boraginaceae Boraginaceae Samolaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Scrophulariaceae Lentibulariaceae Lentibulariaceae Orobanchaceae Orobanchaceae Orobanchaceae Verbenaceae Verbenaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae

Smyrnium perfoliatum L. Plumbago europaea L. Armeria canescens Host. Hottonia palustris L. Cyclamen repandum Sm. Primula vulgaris Huds. Lysimachia nummularia L. Lysimachia vulgaris L. Convolvulus arvensis L. Convolvulus cantabricus L. Calystegia sepium (L.) R. Br. Cuscuta epithymum (L.) Murr. Solanum dulcamara L. Symphytum tuberosum L. Heliotropium europaeum L. Cynoglossum officinale L. Lappula echinata Gilib. Anchusa barrelieri (All.) Vitm. Myosotis caespitosa Schultz. Myosotis caespitosa Schultz. f. glabriuscula Rouy. Myosotis scorpioides L. Echium altissimum Jacq. Echium vulgare L. Samolus valerandi L. Verbascum nigrum L. Verbascum pulverulentum Vill. Verbascum thapsus L. Gratiola officinalis L. Veronica anagallis-aquatica L. Veronica anagalloides Guss. Veronica beccabunga L. Veronica jacquinii Baumg. Veronica officinalis L. Veronica maritima L. Veronica orbiculata Kern. Veronica poljensis Murb. Veronica scutellata L. Veronica serpyllifolia L. Veronica spicata L. Veronica chamaedrys L. Euphrasia liburnica Wettst. Euphrasia rostkoviana Hayne Euphrasia stricta Wolff ex J. F. Lehm. Rhinanthus major (Ehrh.) Rchb. Rhinanthus minor L. Rhinanthus rumelicus Vel. Rhinanthus serotinus (Schonh) Obomy Pedicularis brachyodonta Schloss. et Vuk. Pedicularis palustris L. Melampyrum barbatum Waldst. & Kit. Melampyrum cristatum L. Melampyrum pratense L. ssp. vulgatum (Pers.) Ronn Pinguicula vulgaris L. Utricularia vulgaris L. Orobanche alba Steph. Orobanche caryophyllacea Sm. Orobanche reticulata Wallr. Verbena officinalis L. Vitex agnus-castus L. Ballota nigra L. Lamium maculatum L. Ajuga chamaepitys (L.) Schreb. Ajuga genevensis L. Teucrium chamaedrys L. Teucrium montanum L. Teucrium scordioides Schreb. Teucrium scordium L. Teucrium polium L. Scutellaria altissima L.. Scutellaria galericulata L. Scutellaria hastifolia L. Nepeta pannonica L. Prunella laciniata L. Prunella vulgaris L. Stachys annua L. Stachys germanica L. Stachys palustris L. Stachys serotina (Host.) Fritsch Salvia bertolonii Vis. Salvia verticillata L. Satureja montana L. Satureja subspicata Bartl. ex Vis Lycopus exaltatus L. Lycopus europaeus L. Thymus longicaulis Presl. Thymus striatus Vahl Mentha aquatica L. Mentha pulegium L. Marrubium incanum Desr.

Perfoliate Alexanders Common Leadwort Sea Pink Water Violet Wavy-edged Cyclamen Primrose Creeping Jenny Yellow Loosestrife Field Bindweed Cantabrican Morning Glory Larger Bindweed Dodder Bittersweet Nightshade Tuberous Comfrey European Heliotrope Dog's Tongue Flat Spine Sheepburr Barrelier's Bugloss Tufted Forget-Me-Not Tufted Forget-Me-Not Water Forget-Me-Not Pale Bugloss Viper's Bugloss Water Cabbage Dark Mullein Hoary Mullein Common Mullein Common Hedgehyssop Water Speedwell Marsh Speedwell Brooklime Jacquin's Speedwell Heath Speedwell Longleaf Speedwell n/a n/a Marsh Speedwell Thyme-leaved Speedwell Spiked Speedwell Germander Speedwell Liburnian Eyebright Red Eyebright Drug Eyebright Great Yellow Rattle Little Yellow Rattle Glandulous Yellow Rattle Late-flowering Yellow Rattle Short-toothed Lousewort Marsh Lousewort Bearded Cow Wheat Crested Cow Wheat Common Cow Wheat Common Butterwort Common Bladderwort White Broomrape Bedstraw Broomrape Thistle Broomrape Common Vervain Chaste Tree Black Horehound Spotted Dead-nettle Yellow Bugle Upright Bugle Common Germander Mountain Germander Water Germander Wall Germander Felty Germander Tall Skullcap Marsh Skullcap Spear-leaved Skullcap Catmint Cut-leaved Self-Heal Common Self-Heal Annual Yellow Woundwort Downy Woundwort Marsh Woundwort Bishopwort Meadow Sage Lilac Sage Winter Savory Creeping Winter Savory Tall Bugleweed European Bugleweed Creeping Thyme NeedleThyme Water Mint European Pennyroyal Silver Horehound

Duvanjsko Gatačko polje polje

Glamočko polje

Hutovo blato

Kupreško Livanjsko Mostarsko polje polje blato

Nevesinjsko polje

X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

continuation of List from page 46 Family

Species

Common name

Onagraceae Globulariaceae Plantaginaceae Plantaginaceae Plantaginaceae Plantaginaceae Plantaginaceae Plantaginaceae Plantaginaceae Gentianaceae Gentianaceae Gentianaceae Gentianaceae Gentianaceae Gentianaceae Gentianaceae Menyanthaceae Oleaceae Oleaceae Oleaceae Rubiaceae Rubiaceae Rubiaceae Rubiaceae Rubiaceae Rubiaceae Rubiaceae Rubiaceae Rubiaceae Rubiaceae Rubiaceae Sambucaceae Sambucaceae Caprifoliaceae Caprifoliaceae Valerianaceae Valerianaceae Dipsacaceae Dipsacaceae Dipsacaceae Dipsacaceae Dipsacaceae Dipsacaceae Dipsacaceae Dipsacaceae Campanulaceae Campanulaceae Campanulaceae Campanulaceae Campanulaceae Campanulaceae Campanulaceae Urticaceae Urticaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae

Ludwigia palustris (L.) Elliott Globularia willkommii Nym. Plantago altissima L. Plantago bellardii All. Plantago carinata Schrad. Plantago lanceolata L. Plantago major L. Plantago maritima L. Plantago media L. Centaurium pulchellum (Sw.) Druce Centaurium umbellatum Gilib. Blackstonia serotina (Koch.) Beck Gentiana crispata Vis. Gentiana crispata Vis. ssp. poljensis Rt. St. Gentiana pneumonanthe L. Gentiana utriculosa L. Menyanthes trifoliata L. Phillyrea latifolia L. Fraxinus angustifolia Vahl. Ligustrum vulgare L. Sherardia arvensis L. Asperula cynanchica L. Galium boreale L. Galium cruciata (L.) Scop. Galium divaricatum Lam. Galium palustre L. Galium purpureum L. Galium verum L. Galium mollugo L. Galium aparine L. Galium corrudaefolium Vill. Sambucus ebulus L. Sambucus nigra L. Viburnum lantana L. Viburnum opulus L. Valerianella dentata (L.) Poll. var. leiosperma Rchb. Valeriana officinalis L. Dipsacus laciniatus L. Succisella petteri (Kern. & Murb.) Beck Succisa pratensis Mch. Knautia arvensis (L.) Coult. Scabiosa canescens Waldst. & Kit. Scabiosa delminiana Abadžić Scabiosa gramuntia L. ssp. agrestis (W.K.) Sch. et Kell. Scabiosa leucophylla Borb. Campanula moesiaca Vel. Campanula patula L. Campanula pyramidalis L. Campanula rapunculus L. Campanula trachelium L. Campanula erinus L. Edraianthus dalmaticus A. DC. Urtica dioica L. Parietaria judaica L. Eupatorium cannabinum L. Scolymus hispanicus L. Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronquist Carlina corymbosa L. Lapsana communis L. Stenactis annua (L.) Nees Sonchus oleraceus L. Sonchus arvensis L. Sonchus asper (L.) Hill. Arctium lappa L. Bellis perennis L. Micropus erectus L. Filago minima (Sm.) Pers. Antennaria dioica (L.) Gaertn. Gnaphalium uliginosum L. Inula britannica L. Inula helenium L. Inula hirta L. Inula oculus-christi L. Inula salicina L. Pulicaria vulgaris Gaertn. Xanthium spinosum L. Xanthium strumarium L. Bidens cernuus L. Bidens tripartitus L. Anthemis arvensis L. Achillea collina Beck. ex Rchb. Achillea millefolium L. Achillea nobilis L. Achillea pannonica Scheele Achillea ptarmica L. Chrysanthemum tenuifolium Kit. Leucanthemum vulgare Lam. Artemisia abrotanum L. Artemisia absinthium L.

Marsh Seedbox Globe Daisy Tall Ribwort Plantain Hairy Plantain Slim-leaved Plantain Ribwort Plantain Greater Plantain Sea Plantain Hoary Plantain Lesser Centaury Common Centaury Yellow Wort Curled Dwarf Gentian Curled Dwarf Gentian Marsh Gentian Bladder Gentian Buckbean Broad-leaved Phillyrea Narrow-leaved Ash Privet Blue Field Madder Squincywort Northern Bedstraw Crosswort Lamarck's Bedstraw Marsh Bedstraw Purple Bedstraw Yellow Bedstraw Upright Bedstraw Stickywilly Bald Bedstraw Dwarf Elder Elder Wayfaring Tree Snowball Tree Lamb's Lettuce Valerian Cutleaf Teasel n/a Devil's Bit Scabious Field Scabious Fragrant Scabious Delminian Scabious n/a White-leaved Scabious n/a Spreading Bellflower Chimney Bellflower Rampion Nettle-leaved Bellflower Small Bellflower Dalmatian Rockbell Stinging Nettle Spreading Pellitory Hemp-agrimony Common Golden Thistle Horseweed Clustered Carline Thistle Common Nipplewort Daisy Fleabane Common Sowthistle Corn Sow Thistle Prickly Sow Thistle Greater Burdock Common Daisy Upright Cudweed Small Cudweed Mountain Everlasting Marsh Cudweed British Yellowhead Elecampane Yellow Pheasant's Eye Hairy Fleabane Willowleaf Yellowhead Small Fleabane Spiny Cocklebur Common Cocklebur Nodding Beggarticks Three Lobe Beggarticks Corn Chamomile Yarrow Common Yarrow Noble Yarrow Pannonian Yarrow Sneezeweed n/a Ox Eye Daisy Southern Wormwood Absinthe Wormwood

Duvanjsko Gatačko polje polje

Glamočko polje

Hutovo blato X

X X

Kupreško Livanjsko Mostarsko polje polje blato X

X X

X X X X X

Nevesinjsko polje

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X

continuation of List from page 46 Family

Species

Common name

Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Alismataceae Alismataceae Alismataceae Alismataceae Alismataceae Butomaceae Scheuchzeriaceae Potamogetonaceae Potamogetonaceae Potamogetonaceae Potamogetonaceae Potamogetonaceae Potamogetonaceae Potamogetonaceae Ceratophyllaceae Najadaceae Araceae Ophioglossaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae Liliaceae

Artemisia lobelii All. Artemisia campestris L. Artemisia vulgaris L. Senecio barbareifolius Wimm. et Grab. Senecio jacobea L. Senecio paludosus L. Senecio vulgaris L. Carduus acanthoides L. Carduus candicans Waldst. & Kit. Carduus nutans L. Carduus pycnocephalus L. Cirsium acaule L. Cirsium arvense Scop. Cirsium palustre (L.) Scop. Cirsium rivulare (Jacq.) All. Cirsium oleraceum (L.) Scop. Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. Serratula lycopifolia (Vill.) Kern. Serratula tinctoria L. Centaurea cyanus L. Centaurea deusta Ten. Centaurea jacea L. Centaurea pannonica (Heuff.) Simonk. Centaurea weldeniana Rchb. Centaurea scabiosa L. Erigeron acer L. Cichorium intybus L. Hypochoeris radicata L. Leontodon hispidus L. Leontodon autumnalis L. Leontodon crispus Vill. Picris hieracioides L. Tragopogon dubius Scop. Tragopogon orientalis L. Tragopogon pratensis L. Scorzonera rosea Waldst. & Kit. Scorzonera villosa Scop. Chondrilla juncea L. Taraxacum officinale Webb. Taraxacum paludosum (Scop.) Crepin. Taraxacum palustre Lam. et DC. Crepis chondrilloides Jacq. Crepis biennis L. Crepis neglecta L. Crepis paludosa (L.) Mch. Crepis setosa Hall. Hieracium pilosella L. Hieracium bauhinii Schult. ssp. cattarense (NP)Z. Hieracium pavichii Heuff. Hieracium umbellatum L. Sagittaria sagittifolia L. Echinodorus ranunculoides (L.) Engelm. Alisma gramineum Lej. Alisma plantago-aquatica L. Baldellia ranunculoides (L.) Parl. Butomus umbellatus L. Triglochin palustre L. Zannichellia palustris L. Potamogeton crispus L. Potamogeton fluitans Roth. Potamogeton lucens L. Potamogeton natans L. Potamogeton perfoliatus L. Potamogeton pusillus L. Ceratophyllum demersum L. Najas minor All. Arum maculatum L. Ophioglossum vulgatum L. Polygonatum latifolium (Jacq.) Def. Polygonatum multiflorum (L.) All. Tofieldia calyculata (L.) Wahl. Veratrum album L. Colchicum autumnale L. Convallaria majalis L. Allium angulosum L. Allium carinatum L. Allium saxatile Bieb. Allium scordoprasum L. Allium vineale L. Lilium bosniacum G. Beck Scilla pratensis Waldst. & Kit. Ornithogalum comosum L. Ornithogalum pyrenaicum L. Ornithogalum umbellatum L. Ornithogalum tenuifolium Guss. Muscari comosum (L.) Mill. Muscari racemosum (L.) Lam. Asparagus acutifolius L. Asparagus tenuifolius Lam.

Camphor Wormwood Field Wormwood Mugwort Ragwort Tansy Ragwort Fen Ragwort Common Groundsel Spiny Plumeless Thistle Hoary Plumeless Thistle Nodding Plumeless Thistle Italian Thistle Dwarf Thistle Creeping Thistle Marsh Thistle Brook Thistle Cabbage Thistle Mediterranean Milk Thistle Saw Wort Dyer's Saw Wort Cornflower Cicada Star Thisle Brown Knapweed Pannonian Knapweed Brown Knapweed Greater Knapweed Bitter Fleabane Common Chicory Cat's Ear Rough Hawkbit Fall Dandelion Curled Hawkbit Hawkweed Oxtongue Western Goat's Beard Eastern Goat's Beard Meadow Goat's Beard Viper's Grass Villous Viper's Grass Rush Skeletonweed Common Dandelion n/a Marsh Dandelion Narrow-leaved Hawksbeard Rough Hawksbeard Longleaf Hawksbeard Marsh Hawksbeard Bristly Hawksbeard Mouse Ear Hawkweed Mouse Ear Hawkweed Slender Hawkweed Narrowleaf Hawkweed Arrowhead Lesser Water Plantain Narrowleaf Water Plantain Common Water Plantain Lesser Water-plantain Flowering Rush Marsh Arrowgrass Horned Pondweed Curly Leaf Pondweed Long-leaved Pondweed Shining Pondweed Broad-leaved Pondweed Clasping Leaf Pondweed Small Pondweed Rigid Hornwort Brittle Waternymph Lords-and-Ladies Adder's Tongue Broadleaf Solomon's Seal Common Solomon's Seal False Asphodel White Hellebore Meadow Saffron Lily-of-the-Valley Mouse Garlic Keeled Garlic Globe Garlic Sand Leek Wild Garlic Bosnian Lily Amethyst Meadow Squill Star-of-Betlehem Spiked Star-of-Bethlehem Common Star-of-Bethlehem Narrow-leaved Star-of-Betlehem Tassel Hyacinth Grape Hyacinth Wild Asparagus Slim-leaved Asparagus

Duvanjsko Gatačko polje polje

Glamočko polje

Hutovo blato

Kupreško Livanjsko Mostarsko polje polje blato X

X X X X X

Nevesinjsko polje X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X X X

X X X

X X

X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

continuation of List from page 46 Family

Species

Common name

Liliaceae Amaryllidaceae Amaryllidaceae Iridaceae Iridaceae Iridaceae Iridaceae Iridaceae Juncaceae Juncaceae Juncaceae Juncaceae Juncaceae Juncaceae Juncaceae Juncaceae Juncaceae Juncaceae Juncaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae

Ruscus aculeatus L. Leucojum aestivum L. Narcissus angustifolius Curtis Crocus vernus Wulf. Crocus albiflorus Kit. Iris pseudacorus L. Iris sibirica L. Gladiolus illyricus Koch. Luzula campestris (L.) DC. Juncus anceps Laharpe var. hercegovinus Sag. Juncus bufonius L. Juncus compressus Jacq. Juncus conglomeratus L. Juncus effusus L. Juncus glaucus Erh. Juncus atriculatus L. Juncus murbeckii Sag Juncus tenageja Ehrh. Juncus tenuis Willd. Cyperus longus L. Cyperus serotinus Rottb. Cyperus fuscus L. Cyperus flavescens L. Cyperus michelianus (L.) Delile Scirpus lacustris L. Schoenoplectus tabernemontani (Gmel.) Palla Schoenoplectus triqueter (L.) Palla Scirpus maritimus L. Blysmus compressus (L.) Panz. Holoschoenus vulgaris Link. Eleocharis acicularis (L.) R. S. Eleocharis carniolica Koch Eleocharis palustris (L.) R. S. Eleocharis quinqueflora (Hartm.) O. Schwarz Eriophorum angustifolium Honch. Eriophorum gracile Koch ex Roth Eriophorum latifolium Hoppe Schoenus nigricans L. Cladium mariscus (L.) Pohl. Carex acutiformis Ehrh. Carex appropinquata Sch. Carex caryophyllea Lattour Carex davalliana Sw. Carex digitata L. Carex disticha Huds. Carex distans L. Carex divisa Huds. Carex flava L. Carex goodenowii Gay. Carex glauca Murr. Carex gracilis Curt. Carex hirta L. Carex hostiana DC Carex humilis Leyss. Carex lasiocarpa Ehrh. Carex lepidocarpa Tsch. Carex leporina L. Carex oederi Retz. Carex pallescens L. Carex panicea L. Carex paniculata L. Carex pendula Huds. Carex pseudocyperus L. Carex remota L. Carex riparia Curb. Carex rostrata Stok. Carex stellulata Good. Carex stricta Lam. Carex sylvatica Huds. Carex tomentosa L. Carex vesicaria L. Carex vulpina L. var. nemorosa (Reb.) Koch Fimbristylis dichotoma (L.) Wahl. Crypsis alopecuroides (Piller & Mitterp.) Schrad. Avena fatua L. Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) P. Beauv. Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. Phalaris arundinacea L. Anthoxanthum odoratum L. Heleochloa alopecuroides (Pill. & Mitt.) Host Phleum pratense L. Phleum pratense L. var. bertolonii DC. Phleum pratense L. var. Nodosum L. Phleum subulatum (Savi) A. et G. Alopecurus aequalis Sch. Alopecurus geniculatus L. Alopecurus pratensis L. Alopecurus utriculatus (L.) Sol.

Butcher's Broom Summer Snowflake Sweet-scented Jonquil Spring Crocus White Crocus Yellow Iris Siberian Iris Illyrian Gladiolus Field Wood-rush Sand Rush Toad Rush Round-fruited Rush Compact Rush Common Rush Blue Rush Jointleaf Rush n/a Sand Rush Slender Rush Common Galingale Tidalmarsh Flatsedge Brown Flatsedge Yellow Flatsedge Pygmy Flatsedge Common Club-rush Softstem Bulrush Triangular Club-rush Sea Club-rush Flat-sedge Roundhead Bulrush Needle Spikerush Spikerush Common Spikerush Fewflower Spikerush Common Cottonsedge Slender Cottonsedge Broad-leaved Cottonsedge Black Bogrush Sawtooth Sedge Lesser Pond Sedge Fibrous Tussock-sedge Spring Sedge Bath Sedge Fingered Sedge Two-ranked Sedge Distant Sedge Divided Sedge Yellow Sedge Black Sedge Blue Sedge Gracile Sedge Hairy Sedge Tawny Sedge Dwarf Sedge Woollyfruit Sedge Slender Sedge Oval Sedge Small Fruited Yellow Sedge Pale Sedge Grass-like Sedge Greater Tussock Sedge Pendulous Sedge Sedge Hop Remote Sedge Greater Pond Sedge Bottle Sedge Star Sedge Tussock Sedge Wood Sedge Downy-fruited Sedge Blister Sedge Fox-sedge Two-rowed Rush Foxtail Pricklegrass Wild Oat Tor Grass Barnyard Grass Hairy Crabgrass Reed-canary Grass Sweet Vernal Grass Foxtail Pricklegrass Meadow Cat's-tail Meadow Cat's-tail Meadow Cat's-tail Italian Timothy Grass Orange Foxtail Marsh foxtail Meadow Foxtail Rendle's Meadow Foxtail

Duvanjsko Gatačko polje polje X

Glamočko polje

X X

Hutovo blato X X

Kupreško Livanjsko Mostarsko polje polje blato

Nevesinjsko polje

X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X

X X

continuation of List from page 46 Family

Species

Common name

Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Sparganiaceae Sparganiaceae Sparganiaceae Typhaceae Typhaceae Typhaceae

Agrostis alba L. Agrostis canina L. Agrostis olivetorum Gren. et Gord. Holcus lanatus L. Holcus mollis L. Aira capillaris Host. Deschampsia caespitosa (L.) Beauv. Deschampsia media R. Sch. Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv. Arrhenatherum elatius (L.) J. & K. Presl. Danthonia calycina (Vill.) Rchb. Sesleria uliginosa Opiz. Phragmites communis Trin. Sieglingia decumbens (L.) Bernh. Molinia arundinacea Schrank. Molinia caerulea (L.) Mnch. Koeleria gracilis Pers. Koeleria phleoides (Vill.) Pers. Koeleria splendens Presl. Briza media L. Dactylis glomerata L. Dactylis hispanica Roth. Cynosurus cristatus L. Sclerochloa dura (L.) P. B. Poa annua L. Poa bulbosa L. Poa compressa L. Poa sylvicola Guss. Glyceria fluitans (L.) R. Br. Glyceria plicata Fries Festuca elatior L. Festuca pseudovina Hack ssp. illyrica Mgf.- Dbg. Festuca pseudovina Hack Festuca valesiaca Schl. Festuca rubra L. Festuca arundinacea Schreb. Vulpia myuros (L.) Gmel. Bromus arvensis L. Bromus erectus Huds. Bromus mollis L. Bromus racemosus L. Bromus squarrosus L. Bromus sterilis L. Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf. Cynodon dactylon Pers. Nardus stricta L. Lolium perenne L. Lolium temulentum L. Agropyron intermedium (Host) Beauv. Haynaldia villosa Schur. Aegilops ovata L. Aegilops triuncialis L. Hordeum gussoneanum Parl. Hordeum marianum Huds. Hordeum secalinum Schreb. Leersia oryzoides (L.) Sw. Stipa pennata L. Listera ovata (L.) R. Br. Neottia nidus-avis (L.) C. Rich Orchis coriophora L. Orchis coriophora L. var. fragrans Orchis incarnata L. Orchis laxiflora Lam. Orchis mascula L. Orchis maculata L. var. ochrantha (Panč.) Fgleisch. Orchis militaris L. Orchis morio L. Orchis palustris Jacqu. Orchis simia Lam. Orchis tridentata Scop. Ophrys apifera Huds. Anacamptis pyramidalis (L.) Rich. Gymnadenia conopsea (L.) R. Br. Platanthera bifolia (L.) Rchb. Epipactis palustris (L.) Cr. Liparis loeselii (L.) Rich. Sparganium erectum L. Sparganium microcarpum Čelak. Sparganium simplex Huds. var. longissimum Fries Typha angustifolia L. Typha latifolia L. Typha shutllerworthi Koch et Sond.

Creeping Bent Grass Velvet Bent Grass Highland Bent Grass Soft Meadow Grass Creeping Soft Grass Annual Hair Grass Tufted Hairgrass Small Hairgrass Green Bristlegrass Tall Oatgrass Alpine Oatgrass Blue Moor Grass Common Reed Common Heath Grass Moor Grass Purple Moor Grass Hair Grass Annual Junegrass Shiny Hair Grass Common Quaking Grass Cocksfoot Spanish Cocksfoot Crested Dog's Tail Common Hardgrass Annual Meadow Grass Bulbous Meadow Grass Flattened Meadow Grass Rough Bluegrass Water Mannagrass Plicate Sweet Grass Meadow Fescue Illyrian False Striated Fescue False Striated Fescue Wallis fescue Red Fescue Tall Fescue Rat’s-tail Fescue Field Brome Upright Brome Soft Brome Bald Brome Rough Brome Barren Brome Annual Beard Grass Dog's Tooth Grass Matgrass Perennial Rye-grass Darnel Intermediate Wheatgrass Mosquito Grass Ovate Goatgrass Barbed Goatgrass Sea Barley Sea Barley Meadow Barley Rice Cutgrass Feather Grass Common Twayblade Bird's-nest Orchid Bug Orchid Fragrant Bug Orchid Early Marsh Orchid Loose-flowered Orchid Early Purple Orchid Spotted Orchid Military Orchid Green-winged Orchid Marsh Orchid Monkey Orchid Three-toothed Orchid Bee Orchid Pyramidal Orchid Fragrant Orchid Lesser Butterfly Orchid Marsh Helleborine Fen Orchid Branched Bur-reed Bur-reed n/a Narrowleaf Cattail Broadleaf Cattail Shuttleworth's Bulrush

Duvanjsko Gatačko polje polje

Glamočko polje X

Hutovo blato X

Kupreško Livanjsko Mostarsko polje polje blato X X X X

X X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X

Nevesinjsko polje X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X X

X X X X X

X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X X X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X

X X X

X X

X X X X X X X X X

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

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

Species Salix repens L. var. rosmarinifolia (L.) W. Gr. Dianthus sanguineus Vis.* Dianthus superbus Vis. Silene sendtneri Boiss.* Thalictrum flavum L. Nuphar luteum (L.) Sm. Nymphaea alba L. Drosera rotundifolia L. Astragallus illyricus Bernh.* Astragallus gremlii Burn.* Veronica anagalloides Guss. Veronica maritima L. Veronica poljensis Murb.* Euphrasia liburnica Wettst. Pedicularis brachyodonta Schloss. et Vuk. Pedicularis palustris L. Pinguicula vulgaris L. Utricularia vulgaris L. Satureja subspicata Bartl. ex Vis Menyanthes trifoliata L. Succisella petteri (Kern. & Murb.) Beck* Scabiosa delminiana Abadžić* Scabiosa leucophylla Borb. Edraianthus dalmaticus A. DC.* Serratula lycopifolia (Vill.) Kern. Echinodorus ranunculoides (L.) Engelm. Tofieldia calyculata (L.) Wahl. Lilium bosniacum G. Beck Scilla pratensis Waldst. & Kit.* Narcissus angustifolius Curtis Iris sibirica L. Gladiolus illyricus Koch. Eriophorum gracile Koch ex Roth Carex acutiformis Ehrh. Orchis maculata L. var. ochrantha (Panč.) Fgleisch. Orchis simia Lam. Liparis loeselii (L.) Rich. Anacamptis pyramidalis (L.) Rich. Platanthera bifolia (L.) Rchb. Typha shutllerworthi Koch et Sond.

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, RitterStudnička 1954) which are listed in Tab. 2.

Red Book of B&H

IUCN Red List

R V R R R V V V R V V V V R V V V V V V V R R V V V V V V V V V V V V V RE V R V

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a LC n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a DD n/a n/a n/a DD n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a -

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

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

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:

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 •

•

resence of threatened plant species: the P 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

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

Acknowledgements We cordially thank Prof. dr Dubravka Šoljan for the photographs.

References

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

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 BosniaHerzegovina 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.

Abadžić S. (2007): Nova vrsta genusa Scabiosa L. (Dipscaceae). Hrvatska misao 1/07(42) Nova serija 30: 38-49 Anonymus (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, Sarajevo Šilić 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.

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

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: gerhard.bronner@lnv-bw.de

Summary In June 2012, the vegetation of 16 karst poljes in BosniaHercegovina 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, flatbottomed 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 warzones, 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.

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).

The plant communities of karst poljes in BosniaHerzegovina were comprehensively studied and classified by Hilda Ritter-Studnička during the early 1950s (RitterStudnička 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 BosniaHerzegovina, 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.

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.

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 BraunBlanquet 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.

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

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).

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).

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).

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.

Deschampsion caespitosae (Code 6540): This taxon which grows above mineral soil, is represented with the associations Centaureetum pannonicae, Plantaginetum altissimae, Trifolio-Hordeetum secalini and EdraianthoDeschampsietum 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, RitterStudnička (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

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

Altitude

Size sqkm

Vegetation value and habitats

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

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

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.

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

Lukavačko polje

870-890

3.39

S parts typical Scilla-meadows; otherewise dry meadows, arable fields and pastures

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 Scillameadows.

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

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).

Cernica (Cerniško polje)

816 - 848 m

2.95

between Cernica and Kljuc some meadows with Scilla, otherwise small-scale agriculture with dry meadows

Ravanjsko polje

1132 - 1148 m

19.27

grasslands, but no typical polje vegetation; frequently Taraxacum, Vicia, Veronica sp., Asteraceae, Viola cf. tricolor or elegantula

Livanjsko polje

702 m

408.03

Detailed description in Schwarz (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.

Vukovsko polje

1160 - 1204 m

28.14

mountain pasture, no typical polje vegetation

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

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

Utilization

Conservation

Natura 2000 habitats

Area meadows

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)

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

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)

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

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

1108 ha (wet)

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)

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)

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

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)

mixture of meadows, pastures, some arable fields and hedges

Code 6410 Molinietum coeruleae Illyricum Code 6210 Festuco-Brometea

no mowing, pastures, in the W some arable fields

no valuable habitats found

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)

meadows, grazing

along E side of channel a earth dam was built for some 100 m, its purpuse unknown

Code 6410 Molinietum coeruleae Illyricum Code 6210 Festuco-Brometea

161 ha (wet) 13 ha (dry)

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

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

Code 6410 Molinietum coeruleae Illyricum Code 6210 Festuco-Brometea

6177 ha (dry) 555 ha (wet)

agriculture and mowing near settlements, otherwise extensive pastures; some largescale 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

Code 6410 Molinietum coeruleae Illyricum Code 6210 Festuco-Brometea

594 ha (wet)

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

Vegetation Classification and characteristic species Taxum

Magnocaricion

Deschampsion

Classification

Carex-stands

wet meadow, partly pasture

Found in

Dabarsko polje

Mostarsko blato, Duvanjsko polje, Dabarsko 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 floscuculi; 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 in blue show groups of species which are characteristic of the respective vegetation types

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

adriatic flyway conference poster session

Molinion

Phragmition /Scirpteum

Phragmition / Typhetum

Festuco-Brometea

unknown

Scilla-meadow, wet meadow

Scirpus-stands

reed swamp

meadow, partly dry, some pastures

meadows and pasture

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

* * * * *

* 65

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

Fig. 5: Vegetation map of Šuičko polje. 0

2 km

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 Molinionassociations 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 RitterStudnička 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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

Fig. 6: Vegetation map of Dabarsko (left), Fatničko (right) and Lukovačko polje. 0

•

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 BosniaHerzegovina 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

10 km

•

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. 7: Vegetation map of the southern parts of Glamočko polje. 0

10km

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, BosniaHerzegovina 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.

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

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

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

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.

Olm Proteus anguinus (Photo: Gregor Aljančič)

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

Endangered Proteus: combining DNA and GIS analyses for its conservation Gregor Aljančič1, Špela Gorički1, Magdalena Năpăruş1, 2, David Stanković3 & Matjaž Kuntner4 Society for Cave Biology, Tular Cave Laboratory, Oldhamska c. 8a, SI-4000 Kranj, Slovenia, E-mail: gregor.aljancic@guest.arnes.si, goricki.spela@gmail.com LASIG, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Station 18, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland, E-mail: magda.naparus@gmail.com 3 University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Zootechnical Department, Groblje 3, SI-1230 Domžale, Slovenia, E-mail: david.l.stankovic@biologija.org 4 Institute of Biology, Scientific Research Centre, Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Novi trg 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, E-mail: kuntner@gmail.com 1

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 washedout 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 washedout individuals are to be returned to nature, their source population must be accurately identified. Screening for DNA markers powerful enough to detect ongoing geneflow, 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 waterextraction 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,

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

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

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

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

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.

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, noninvasive, 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-

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.

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

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).

Workshop and project results

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., ScheneiderJacoby 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.

KupreĹĄko polje, May 2009 (Photo: AlimanoviÄ&#x2021; Behudin)

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

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: ena_simic@yahoo.co.uk

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

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.

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).

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

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

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:

Glamočko polje

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

Duvanjsko polje

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

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

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.

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus (Photo: Heinz Kolland)

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

2012

2011

Period/karst polje

Glamočko polje

Duvanjsko polje

Kupreško polje

Seasonal movement

November

autumn migration

December

wintering

January

wintering

February

wintering

March

spring migration

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.

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

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-newsarchives-2008-ramsar-bulletin-22665/main/ramsar/1-26-4585%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.

Workshop and project results

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

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 Ornithological Society „Naše ptice“, Semira Frašte 6, BA-71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina; E-mail: goran.topic84@yahoo.com Biology Department, Faculty of Sciences, University of Montenegro, Džordža Vašingtona bb, MNE-81000 Podgorica, Montenegro; E-mail: hermanna85@gmail.com 3 Croatian Ornithological Society, Draškovićeva 54, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia; E-mail: bare_vid@net.hr 4 Natural History Museum, Njegoševa 51, SR-11000 Belgrade, Serbia ; E-mail: 1

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

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

Common Crane Grus grus, migrating , resting 1-50 51-100 101-300

MN 301-500

501-1000

AL 1001-2000

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, BosniaHerzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro in spring 2013.

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.

Materials and methods Results 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

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.

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

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

HR HR BA HR CG CG CG BA CG HR BA HR HR HR

Jezero Njivice, Krk Rijeka Omarska (Prijedor) Križevci Ulcinj Ada Bojana (Ulcinj) Krnovo (Nikšić) Veliko Blaško (Laktaši) Podgorica Metković Ljubuški (Vitina) Jezero, Njivice, Krk Žrnovo, Korčula Metković

22.02.2013 24.02.2013 25.02.2013 28.02.2013 28.02.2013 04.03.2013 05.03.2013 05.03.2013 07.03.2013 08.03.2013 08.03.2013 09.03.2013 09.03.2013 09.03.2013

CG BA BA BA HR

Danilovgrad Donji Radišići (Ljubuški) Ljubuški (Vitina) Šipovo Metković

09.03.2013 09.03.2013 09.03.2013 09.03.2013 10.03.2013

HR HR CG BA BA HR HR HR

Sinj Grobničko polje Danilovgrad Mandin (Duvanjsko polje) Potkraj (Sanski most) Metković Grobničko polje Metković

10.03.2013 10.03.2013 10.03.2013 10.03.2013 10.03.2013 11.03.2013 11.03.2013 12.03.2013

BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA HR CG BA BA HR CG HR CG BA CG BA BA BA BA BA BA CG CG CG BA BA HR BA CG BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA

Gatačko polje Livanjsko polje Ljubuški (Vitina) Donji Radišići (Ljubuški) Duvanjsko polje Dabarsko polje Gatačko polje Nevesinjsko polje Metković Danilovgrad Hutovo blato Mostarsko blato Metković Danilovgrad Borak, Omiš Martinići (Danilovgrad) Livanjsko polje Podgorica Livanjsko polje Livanjsko polje Visoko Haljinići Lisovo (Visoko) Mostarsko blato Ada Bojana (Ulcinj) Brezovik (Nikšić) Budoš (Nikšić) Dabarsko polje Nevesinjsko polje Koljane, Perućko lake Livanjsko polje Budoš (Nikšić) Ljubuško polje Duvanjsko polje Pašića polje Ždralovac (Livanjsko polje) Haljinići Haljinići Mostarsko blato Hutovo blato Mostarsko blato

12.03.2013 12.03.2013 12.03.2013 12.03.2013 12.03.2013 12.03.2013 12.03.2013 12.03.2013 13.03.2013 13.03.2013 13.03.2013 13.03.2013 15.03.2013 15.03.2013 17.03.2013 17.03.2013 17.03.2013 18.03.2013 18.03.2013 19.03.2013 19.03.2013 19.03.2013 19.03.2013 20.03.2013 21.03.2013 21.03.2013 22.03.2013 23.03.2013 23.03.2013 25.03.2013 29.03.2013 03.04.2013 04.04.2013 04.04.2013 06.04.2013 06.04.2013 08.04.2013 09.04.2013 14.04.2013 19.04.2013 19.04.2013

9 6 45 4 16 37 34 30 16 270 66 126 100+ 177 24 120 52 60 90 71 35 100 59 100+ 60 79 110 54 158 5 88 8 30 7 45 1500 10 168 93 286 54 14 1400 203 250 100+ 70+ 25 300+ 30 30 260 1 34 473 32 53 38 86 107 3 120 50 X 115 1 5 5 9 48 X 39

SRB BA BA BA

Vidlič (Stara planina) Duvanjsko polje Duvanjsko polje Duvanjsko polje

21.04.2013 06.05.2013 10.07.2013 March 2013

47 251 1 100

Migration direction N NE N N N N N N N NE NW NW N N NE NW NE N NW NE NW NW N NE N N

NE NW

NE NW N N N NE

N,NE

Behaviour

Habitat

Observer(s)

resting flying x flying circling migrating migrating migrating migrating circling circling resting flying migrating

lake x mine X town x karst plateau x town delta x lake X delta

Andrej Radalj Kristijan Mandić Dario Duvnjak Smiljka Selanec Stefan Heitmann & Katarina Denac Jakob Smole, Luka Božič Darko Saveljić Dragan Praštalo Darko Saveljić Bariša Ilić Dario Vukojević Andrej Radalj Ursula Loos Bariša Ilić

migrating migrating circling migrating migrating

town x x town delta

Ana Vujović Ranko Medić Dario Vukojević Goran Topić, Mladen Topić Bariša Ilić

flying resting migrating migrating migrating migrating resting migrating

town x x delta

Ivan Budinski Andrej Radalj Ana Vujović Miro Šumanović Dragan Praštalo Bariša Ilić Andrej Radalj Bariša Ilić

flying migrating circling migrating resting resting resting resting migrating migrating resting resting migrating migrating flying migrating migrating migrating migrating migrating migrating resting resting resting migrating resting resting resting resting circling migrating resting resting resting resting resting resting resting resting resting

karst polje karst polje x x Karst polje karst polje karst polje karst polje delta town x karst polje delta town x x karst polje town karst polje karst polje x x karst polje x x x karst polje karst polje x karst polje x karst polje karst polje karst polje karst polje x x karst polje x karst polje

migrating resting resting resting

mountain

delta

Karst polje karst polje

Dražen Kotrošan, Ilhan Dervović Jelena Gotovac, Mato Gotovac Dario Vukojević Ranko Medić Mirko Šarac Dražen Kotrošan, Ilhan Dervović Dražen kotrošan, Ilhan Dervović Dražen Kotrošan Bariša Ilić Ana Vujović Dražen Kotrošan, Ilhan Dervović Dražen Kotrošan, Ilhan Dervović Bariša Ilić Ana Vujović Andrej Radalj Darko Saveljić Jelena Gotovac, Mato Gotovac Darko Saveljić Jelena Gotovac, Mato Gotovac Jelena Gotovac, Mato Gotovac Ilhan Dervović Ilhan Dervović Ilhan Dervović Ilhan Dervović Dejan Bordjan, Tilen Basle Darko Saveljić Darko Saveljić Ilhan Dervović Ilhan Dervović Ivan Budinski Jelena Gotovac, Mato Gotovac Duško Mrdak NN Dražen Kotrošan Dražen Kotrošan Dražen Kotrošan Ilhan Dervović Ilhan Dervović Erik Boven Erik Boven Dražen Kotrošan, Ilhan Dervović, Sanja Radulović, Nermina Sarajlić Ivan Medenica Mirko Šarac Mirko Šarac Miro Šumanović

Fig. 2: Eurasian Cranes Grus grus feeding during stopping-over in Duvanjsko polje, Bosnia-Herzegovina, 5 April 2013 (Photo: Mirko Šarac)

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

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 a maximum of 1,400 and 1,500 birds, respectively, which were counted during a single visit, Mostarsko blato and

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

2500

number

2000

1500

1000

05.07.2013

28.06.2013

21.06.2013

14.06.2013

07.06.2013

31.05.2013

24.05.2013

17.05.2013

10.05.2013

03.05.2013

26.04.2013

19.04.2013

12.04.2013

05.04.2013

29.03.2013

22.03.2013

15.03.2013

08.03.2013

01.03.2013

22.02.2013

500

date Fig. 3: Phenology of Eurasian Crane Grus grus migration in the Western Balkans and in the eastern Adriatic region in spring 2013.

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 stoppingover 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).

Because the karst plains of the Dinaric Alps constitute main stopover sites for migrating Eurasian Cranes, after the crossing of the Adriatic Sea, the karst poljes deserve immediate international protection. 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,

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 stopover 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, Barcelona Knežev 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., SchneiderJacoby 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.

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Duvanjsko polje, 12 March 2010 (Photo: Mirko Šarac)

Duvanjsko polje, March 2004 (Photo: Mirko Šarac)

Workshop and project results

Corncrake Crex crex (Photo: Peter Hochleitner)

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

The distribution and population numbers of Corncrakes Crex crex in the karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina – results of a largescale survey in 2012 and 2013 Peter Sackl1, Ilhan Dervović2, Dražen Kotrošan2, Goran Topić2, Sumeja Drocić2, Mirko Šarac3, Nermina Sarajlić2, Romy Durst4 & Borut Stumberger4 Universalmuseum Joanneum, Biowissenschaften, Weinzöttlstraße 16, A - 8045 Graz, Austria; E-mail: peter.sackl@museum-joanneum.at Naše ptice, Semira Frašte 6, BA - 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina; E-mail: naseptice@hotmail.com 3 Naša baština, Mandino Selo bb, BA - 80240 Tomislavgrad, Bosnia-Herzegovina; E-mail: sarac.mirko@tel.net.ba 4 EuroNatur, Konstanzer Straße 22, D - 78315 Radolfzell, Germany; E-mail: stumberger@siol.net 1

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 largescale 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 smallscale 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

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

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, BosniaHerzegovina, 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 (19911995) 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 (SchneiderJacoby 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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

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,

Workshop and project results

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)

2012

Coverage 2013 total

Kruško polje

Livno, FBH

1186

3.6

Vukovsko polje

Kupres, FBH

1160

28.1

0.4

total

Ravna Mliništa

Glamoč, FBH

1157

4.4

0.2

total

Ravanjsko polje

Kupres, FBH

1131

19.2

total

Kupreško polje

Kupres, FBH

1115

81.2

36.2

43.8

< 90%

Borovo polje

Livno, FBH

1102

4.0

total

Slato polje

Nevesinje, RS

1012

4.1

0.7

total

Vučipolje

Posušje, FBH

977

1.1

total

Gatačko polje

Gacko, RS

936

60.1

38.2

42.9

total

< 90% total

Šuičko polje

Tomislavgrad, FBH

914

2.7

1.5

total

Roško polje

Tomislavgrad, FBH

894

3.9

0.1

< 90%

Rakitno

Posušje, FBH

890

14.1

5.1

total

Glamočko polje

Glamoč, FBH

883

62.4

47.2

< 90%

Carevo polje

Trebinje, RS

875

0.3

total

Duvanjsko polje

Tomislavgrad, FBH

865

125.0

53.1

78.5

total

< 90%

Lukavačko polje

Nevesinje, RS

865

3.3

0.6

total

Konjsko polje

Trebinje, RS

829

1.4

total

Nevesinjsko polje

Nevesinje, RS

829

77.5

16.6

< 90%

Cernica

Gacko, RS

816

5.5

1.9

total

Pašića polje

Bosansko Grahovo, FBH

792

13.6

5.8

total

Marinkovci

Bosansko Grahovo, FBH

788

10.1

total

Grahovsko polje

Bosansko Grahovo, FBH

782

23.0

1.7

4.1

< 90%

total

Dugo polje

Bosanski Petrovac, FBH

776

2.5

0.4

total

Podrašničko polje

Mrkonjić Grad, RS

729

34.2

12.7

total

Livanjsko polje

Livno, Tomislavgrad & Bosansko Grahovo, FBH

702

408.0

274.5

307.3

total

Petrovačko polje

Bosanski Petrovac, FBH

637

22.4

3.5

total

total total

Medeno polje

Bosanski Petrovac, FBH

602

5.7

1.7

Bjelajsko polje

Bosanski Petrovac, FBH

578

9.4

3.6

total

Posušje

Posušje, FBH

578

21.7

5.1

< 90%

Ljubomir polje

Trebinje, RS

506

12.7

1.3

total

Dabarsko polje

Berkovići, RS

472

28.9

16.7

22.3

total

Fatničko polje

Bileća, RS

452

7.7

7.3

total

Ljubinjsko polje

Ljubinje, RS

396

6.9

0.9

total

Palanka (Lušci polje)

Sanski Most, FBH

380

22.7

7.4

total

Kočerinsko polje

Grude & Široki Brijeg, FBH

302

4.9

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

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

1.2

total

Gradac

Neum, FBH

2.2

0.1

total

Rastoka i Ljubuško polje

Ljubuški, FBH

74.5

12.7

total

Hutovo blato1

Čapljina, FBH

32.7

total

According to Schwarz (2014), surface area, maximum and potential flooded surface 39.7 km2, respectively

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).

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

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 Fojnica, C Bosnia Sarajevsko polje, C Bosnia Hutovo blato, Herzegovina Sarajevsko polje, C Bosnia Trebević, C Bosnia Čengiv Vila, Novo Sarajevo, C Bosnia Reljevo, C Bosnia Vrngorač, W Bosnia Blažaj, Sarajevsko polje, C Bosnia Matrag, Glamoč; W Bosnia Bosanska Gradiška, Posavina Bosanska Gradiška, Posavina Ključ, W Bosnia Ključ, W Bosnia Sarajevo, C Bosnia Sarajevsko polje, C Bosnia Sarajevsko polje, C Bosnia Koševo, Sarajevo, C Bosnia Doboja - Usore, C Bosnia Sarajevsko polje, C Bosnia Orahovo na Savi, Posavina Vozuča na Krivaji, C Bosnia Orašje, Posavina Jablanica, Maglaj na Bosni, C Bosnia Donja Paklenica, Maglaj na Bosni, C Bosnia Bardača, Posavina Bardača, Posavina Bardača, Posavina Bardača, Posavina Svilaj - Bosanski Šamac, S Bosnia Tjentište, SE Bosnia Gatačko polje, SE Herzegovina Japra posle Hašana, S Bosnia Livanjsko polje, S Bosnia Nević polje, Novi Travnik, C Bosnia Gojevići - Fojnica, C Bosnia Bistrica polje, Žepče, C Bosnia Ždralovac, Livanjsko polje, S Bosnia Gojevići - Fojnica, C Bosnia Zenica, Raspotočju, C Bosnia Bistrica polje, Žepče, C Bosnia Sitnica, Ključ, C Bosnia Livanjsko polje, S Bosnia Livanjsko polje, S Bosnia Glamočko polje, S Bosnia Šuičko polje, S Bosnia Duvanjsko polje, S Bosnia Livanjsko polje, S Bosnia Livanjsko polje, S Bosnia Haljinići, C Bosnia Haljinići, C Bosnia Gojevići - Fojnica, C Bosnia Planina Vitreusa, Požetva, C Bosnia Gojevići - Fojnica, C Bosnia Gojevići - Fojnica, C Bosnia Močvara Bistrik - Haljinići, C Bosnia Haljinići, C Bosnia Seoca, C Bosnia Uloško jezero, Ulog, Herzegovina Tjentište, SE Bosnia Dabarsko polje, Herzegovina Kraljeva Sutjeska, C Bosnia Bištrani, C Bosnia Gaja - Haljinići, C Bosnia Bulčići - Visoko, C Bosnia Seoca, C Bosnia Bućovaća, Vukovsko polje, S Bosnia Gojevići - Fojnica, C Bosnia Uloško jezero, Ulog, Herzegovina Nević polje, Novi Travnik, C Bosnia Masna bara - Planina Zelengora, SE Bosnia Carica - Visoko, C Bosnia Hifa, Tešanj; C Bosnia Bogdase, Livanjsko polje, S Bosnia Golješnica - Žepče, C Bosnia Šemenovci, Kupreško polje, S Bosnia Vitez, Počulice, C Bosnia Hifa, Tešanj, C Bosnia Kraljeva Sutjeska - Haljinići, C Bosnia Lukovo brdo - Kakanj, C Bosnia Lužnica - Visoko, C Bosnia Vrela - Visoko, C Bosnia Nišićka visoravan, Ilijaš, C Bosnia Žepačko polje, Žepče, C Bosnia

Altitude (m) 762 505 2 504 1300 596 485 162 495 1277 95 95 260 260 537 504 505 560 165 489 82 275 83 186 159 88 88 88 88 86 560 947 263 702 459 618 219 700 613 383 218 502 702 702 883 914 865 702 702 490 507 684 1224 618 775 519 461 493 1081 575 476 478 603 457 614 493 1212 624 1081 450 1468 538 187 707 342 1121 520 229 459 565 530 516 975 225

Date 1847 Sept. 1888 9.10.1888 27.9.1890 29.9.1890 1.12.1890 8.12.1890 8.7.1891 8.11.1891 25.8.1897 12.10.1897 26.10.1897 1.11.1897 15.12.1897 16.9.1897 25.8.1899 19.9.1899 15.10.1900 14.5.1904 19.8.1906 30.8.1906 21.10.1906 28.6.1911 26.6.1918 26.6.1918 June 1970 June 1971 June 1972 June 1973 1970s/80s (unknown date) 1970s/80s (unknown date) 1970s/80s (unknown date) 31.7.1990 1980s/90s 1.6.2000 May 2002 24.6.2002 5. - 7.7.2002 11.5.2003 4.7.2003 27.5.2004 20.7.2004 1. - 3.6.2007 1. - 3.6.2007 8.6.2007 9.6.2007 9.6.2007 27. - 30.5.2009 27. - 30.5.2009 11.5.2008 2008 (breeding season) 13.5.2008 8.6.2008 13.5. - 14.7.2008 21.8.2008 2008 - 2012 21.5.2009 21.5.2009 26.5.2009 28.5.2009 19.7.2009 7.6.2010 7.6.2010 7.6.2010 7.6.2010 7.6.2010 8.6.2010 3.7.2010 12.7.2010 7.6.2011 23.6.2011 12.5.2011 23.5.2012 23.5.2012 11.6.2012 18.6.2012 27.6.2012 6.6.2013 15.6.2013 18.6.2013 18.6.2013 19.6.2013 20.6.2013 26.6.2013

Numbers calling (spring) 1 , leg. O. Reiser 2 ind. (migration), leg. O. Reiser 7 ind. migration (1 ind., leg. O. Reiser) 1 ind., leg. O. Reiser 1 , leg. O. Reiser 1 ind. 1 calling 1 , leg. J. Knotek 1 calling ‘first migrating birds’ ‘last migrating birds’ 2  (migrantion) 1  (migration) several migrating ind. unusually strong migration 1 ind. (migration), leg. O. Reiser 1 ind. (migration) 1 calling 1 juv. , leg. J. Baier several ind. (possibly migrants) 1 , leg. O. Reiser here and there calling many calling many calling species present species present species present species present species present species present species present 1 ind. c.1000 calling  7 calling  1 calling  (first date) 1 calling  45 calling  (early morning counts) 3 calling  2 calling  3 calling  1 calling  6 calling  (daytime count) 314 calling  (night count) 3 calling  (night count) 10 calling  (night count) 31 calling  (night count) 23 calling  (daytime count) 315 calling  (night count) 1 calling  (first date) max. 6 calling  1 calling  (first date) 2 calling  (daytime) max. 5 calling  1 juv. (corpse) 2 - 5 breeding pairs 1 calling  5 calling  1 calling  1 calling  4 calling  (20 - 21 h CET) 1 calling  2 calling  8 calling  1 calling  1 calling  25 calling  (night count) 3 calling  (night count) 1 calling  (during day) 1 calling  (during day) 1 calling  (during day) 1 calling  (night count) 2 calling  (daytime) 1 calling  (during day) 4 calling  (night count) 1 ind. 4 calling  (night count) 1 calling  (during day) 8 calling  (night count) 1 calling  (night count) 2 calling  (night count) 1 calling  (during day) 3 calling  (night count) 2 calling 

References/sources Reiser (1939) Ornitologica balcanica Ornitologica balcanica, Reiser (1939) Reiser (1939) Reiser (1939) Ornitologia balcanica, Obratil (1975) Reiser (1939) Reiser (1939), Obratil (1975) Reiser (1939) Reiser (1939) Reiser & Knotek (1901), Obratil (1975) Reiser & Knotek (1901), Obratil (1975) Reiser & Knotek (1901), Obratil (1975) Reiser & Knotek (1901), Obratil (1975) Reiser & Knotek (1901) Reiser (1939), Obratil (1975) Ornitologica balcanica Reiser & Knotek (1901) Reiser (1939) Ornitologica balcanica Reiser (1939), Obratil (1975) Ornitologica balcanica, Reiser (1939) Reiser (1939), Obratil (1975) Reiser (1939) Reiser (1939) Obratil (1983) Obratil (1983) Obratil (1983) Obratil (1983) Obratil (1999) Rucner & Obratil (1973), Obratil (1999) Obratil (1999) Karanović (1990) Radović & Dumbović (2001) N. Drocić in lit. Iviš D. (2008/09) N. Drocić in lit. Schneider-Jacoby et al. (2006) Iviš (2008/09) N. Drocić in lit. N. Drocić in lit. S. Polak & P. Trontelj in lit. Stumberger & Sackl (2008/09) Stumberger et al. (2010) L. Božič & J. Smole in lit. L. Božič & J. Smole in lit. L. Božič & J. Smole in lit., Ozimec et al. (2013) Stumberger & Sackl (2008/09) Stumberger et al. (2010) Dervović (2008/09) Dervović (2008/09) Iviš (2008/09) I. Dervović unpubl. data Iviš (2008/09) Iviš (2008/09) Kotrošan & Hatibović (2012) D. Kotrošan unpubl. data D. Kotrošan unpubl. data D. Kotrošan unpubl. data D. Kotrošan unpubl. data Schneider-Jacoby (2010) D. Kotrošan unpubl. data D. Kotrošan unpubl. data D. Kotrošan unpubl. data D. Kotrošan unpubl. data D. Kotrošan unpubl. data D. Kotrošan unpubl. data I. Dervović unpubl. data I. Dervović unpubl. data N. Drocić in lit. I. Dervović unpubl. data I. Dervović unpubl. data N. Drocić in lit. S. Ernst in lit. N. Drocić in lit. Topić et al. (2011/12) N. Drocić in lit. N. Drocić in lit. I. Dervović unpubl. data I. Dervović unpubl. data I. Dervović unpubl. data I. Dervović unpubl. data I. Dervović unpubl. data N. Drocić in lit.

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

Fig. 1: Seasonal and altitudinal distribution of Corncrakes in BosniaHerzegovina according to collected specimens and occasional reports, 1847 – 2013.

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

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 BosniaHerzegovina. 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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

Fig. 2a-b: Distribution of Corncrake in the karst poljes of Bosnia-Herzegovina, 2012 and 2013.

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).

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).

For testing the effect of flood conditions on the presence and population numbers of Corncrakes we defined karst

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. 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.

4.4 Population density and flood type

Tab. 3: Population numbers and breeding densities (calling males) of Corncrakes in karst poljes in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 2012 and 2013 (45 counts). Karst polje

Flood type

Kruško polje Vukovsko polje Ravna Mliništa Ravanjsko polje Kupreško polje Borovo polje Slato polje Vučipolje Gatačko polje Šuičko polje Roško polje Rakitno Glamočko polje Duvanjsko polje Lukavačko polje Konjsko polje Nevesinjsko polje Cernica Pašića polje Marinkovci Grahovsko polje Dugo polje Podrašničko polje Livanjsko polje Petrovačko polje Medeno polje Bjelajsko polje Posušje Ljubomir polje Carevo polje Dabarsko polje Fatničko polje Ljubinjsko polje Palanka (Lušci polje) Kočerinsko polje Mokro polje (Trebinje) Mokro polje (Široki Brijeg) Imotsko (Bekijsko) polje Popovo polje Mostarsko blato Crničko polje Gradac Rastoka/Ljubuško polje Hutovo blato Total

dry flooded flooded dry flooded dry flooded dry flooded flooded flooded flooded flooded flooded flooded dry flooded flooded flooded dry flooded dry flooded flooded flooded dry dry flooded flooded dry flooded flooded flooded flooded flooded flooded flooded flooded flooded flooded dry dry flooded flooded

Survey area (km2) 2012 2013 3.6 28.1 28.1 4.4 19.2 56.8 65.0 4.0 4.1 4.1 1.1 60.1 48.1 2.7 2.7 3.1 14.1 49.9 49.9 125.0 100.0 3.3 3.3 1.4 54.3 5.5 5.5 13.6 13.6 10.1 13.8 23.0 2.5 30.8 34.2 408.0 367.2 22.4 22.4 5.7 9.4 13.0 12.7 0.3 28.9 26.0 7.7 7.7 6.9 22.7 22.7 4.9 6.2 2.8 43.7 83.2 118.9 33.1 2.9 2.2 74.5 32.7 969.7 1308.1

Number calling  2012 2013 0 0 0 3 0 8 26 0 9 7 0 10 18 9 9 2 0 51 19 52 46 20 15 2 22 0 6 13 31 3 6 12 0 18 44 141 192 2 7 0 3 0 18 0 22 26 3 3 4 40 55 0 8 0 0 7 42 0 6 2 15 0 413 644

Calling /km2 2012 2013 0 0 0 0.7 0 0.1 0.4 0 2.2 1.7 0 0.2 0.4 3.3 3.3 0.7 0 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.5 6.1 4.5 1.4 0.4 0 1.1 1.0 2.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.6 1.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3 0 0.3 0 1.4 0 0.8 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.8 2.4 0 1.3 0 0 0.1 0.4 0 2.1 0.9 0.2 0 0.4 0.5

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

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).

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,

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. SchneiderJacoby 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),

100

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

In comparison to dry (fossil) poljes and poljes with proportionally small flood surfaces, the karst poljes with largescale periodical flooding harboured 97% - 99% of the overall Corncrake population. 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).

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

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

101

Workshop and project results

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

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.

102

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.pdf Ozimec R., Šarac M. M. & Stumberger B. (2013): Fauna područja Tomislavgrada. In: Radoš M. M. & Šumanović M. (eds.), Prirodoslovnopovijesna 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.pdf Reiser 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., SchneiderJacoby 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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

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.

103

Workshop and project results

KupreĹĄko polje, 13 November 2010 (Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby)

104

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

The ecological value of free-ranging livestock Waltraud Kugler & Elli Broxham SAVE-Foundation Project Office, Schneebergstrasse 17, CH-9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland; E-mail: office@save-foundation.net

Summary

Sažetak

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 semiferal 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

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,

105

Fig. 1: Livno feral horses, Bosnia-Herzegovina (Photo: Elli Broxham)

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

106

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

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 semiferal livestock, such as horses or cattle. Furthermore, free-ranging populations of livestock can be a model for extensive conservation of important genetic resources.

In Europe large herbivores, important for the conservation of the natural environment, are no longer present as wild animals. 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.

Workshop and project results

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.

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

107

Fig. 2: The database of varieties and occurrences of “feral populations” in Europe, found on www.agrobiodiversity.net

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-

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.

Nature protection bodies view feral and freeranging populations ambivalently 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

108

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

Dabarsko polje, 1 September 2010 (Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby)

Livanjsko polje, 17 April 2011 (Photo: Dejan Kulijer)

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.

109

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

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

110

√

Dunes

√

Heathland

√

Oligophilic grassland

√

Wetlands

√

√ √√

Mesophilic grassland

√√

Dry grasland

√√

√

Scrubland Stony land

Buffalo

Cattle

√

Sheep

Goat

√

Pig

Salty grasland

Donkey

Habitat

Horse

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.

√√

√

√√ √

√

√√

√

√√

√

√√

√

√√

√

Sandy soils

√

√√

√

Shrubland

√

√√

√

Leafy mixed forest

√

√√

Deep leafy forest Pinus forests

√

√√

√ √

√

Tab. 1: Livestock suitable for habitats. Table amended to “Wilde Weiden”, NABU, Bad Sassendorf, 2008/2009

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

A lot of legally protected habitat types, listed in the Habitat Directive (EC Directive 92/43/EEC), are suitably for grazing. 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,

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

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

111

Workshop and project results

Fig. 3: Decision making process for a management plan with freely grazing livestock

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.

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. 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.

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.

112

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 Populations Schwörer 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 Mediterraneantype 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).

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

Red strain of busha cattle, Scutari Lake, 22 June 2012 (Photo: Borut Stumberger)

KupreĹĄko polje, 19 April 2012 (Photo: Borut Stumberger)

113

Workshop and project results

Sheeps grazing in Dabarsko polje, 8 April 2007 (Photo: MatjaĹž KerÄ?ek)

114

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

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: jrogosic@unizd.hr

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 BosniaHerzegovina, 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.

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 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

115

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.

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 BosniaHerzegovina 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

In the Mediterranean regions of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina all grassland habitats are traditionally used for grazing cattle and other domestic animals. involves the directing and manipulating subtle and notso-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-sosubtle 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

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. types. Main rangeland types are pastures, shrublands (maquis and garrigue) and forested ranges (RogoĹĄiÄ&#x2021; 2000).

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.

116

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

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 southeast 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 grassor 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.

117

Workshop and project results

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

2,020,000

100 %

Total

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 earthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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.

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

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Processes important for range management

118

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

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

119

Workshop and project results

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.

Grazing with livestock in southern Croatia will be essential to reduce the occurrence and volume of wild fires. 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.

Troop of Eurasian Spoonbills Platalea leucorodia resting along RiÄ?ina 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)

120

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Workshop and project results

Grabovica trail – rediscovering the natural heritage at the border of Duvanjsko polje Denis Radoš1, Mirko Šarac-Mićo2 & Maja Perić3 University of Zadar, Department of Geography, Center for Karst and Coastal Research & Naša Baština, Tomislavgrad; Domovinskog rata 8, HR-23000, Zadar, Croatia; E-mail: denisrados@gmail.com 2 Naša Baština, Donji Brišnik, bb, BA-80240, Tomislavgrad, Bosnia and Hrzegovina; E-mail: sarac.mirko@tel.net.ba 3 University of Zadar, Department of Ecology, Agriculture and Aquaculture & Naša Baština, Tomislavgrad; Matije Vlačića 16, HR-23000, Zadar, Croatia; E-mail: majapericc@gmail.com 1

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),

121

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

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

Establishing a recreational trail should promote education about natural and historical values and help to preserve the original landscape 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

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)

122

Fig. 1 Map of Grabovica trail

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

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

(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.

Workshop and project results

Fig. 3 View out of Kovači Ponor (Photo: M. Šumanović)

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.

123

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

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 4 Collapsed dolines: Veliki Samograd (a), Mali Samograd (b) and Surdup (c) (Photos: M. Šumanović)

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

124

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.

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

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.), Prirodoslovnopovijesna 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 - 154 Radoš, 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, Wien Stipić L. (1938): Dahna. Hrvatski planinar, Hrvatski planinarski savez.

125

Workshop and project results

126

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

adriatic flyway conference poster session

Dossiers

of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

127

128

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

129

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

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/minskapolja-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.

130

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

2 1

3 5

9 11

8 10

Bosnia and Herzegovina

16 18

19 20

Croatia

14 15

23 17

25 26

35 36

29 38

27 34

37 40

39 44

51 52

43 45

49 50

Montenegro

47 48 57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Dugo polje Rudno polje Bjelajsko polje Medeno polje Petrovačko polje Palanka (Lušci polje) Podrašničko polje Marinkovci Grahovsko polje Pašića polje Ravna Mliništa Glamočko polje Kupreško polje Šuićko polje Duvanjsko polje

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Livanjsko polje Viničko polje Dobranjsko polje (Livno) Kruško polje Borovo polje Vukovsko polje Ravanjsko polje Roško polje Dugo polje (Dugorudo) Rakitno Kočerinsko polje Rašanjsko polje (Rasno) Mokro polje (Široki Brijeg) Mostarsko blato Vučipolje

31 Posušje 32 Imotsko (Bekijsko polje) 33 Rastoka i Ljubuško polje 34 Studeničko polje 35 Hansko polje (Gornje Zijemlje) 36 Donje Zijemlje 37 Slato polje 38 Nevesinjsko polje 39 Lukavačko polje 40 Trusinsko polje 41 Dabarsko polje 42 Crničko polje 43 Gatačko polje 44 Cernica 45 Fatničko polje

Map of the karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina (after Stumberger 2010, map credit Fluvius, Ulrich Schwarz).

55 53

56 54

46 Plana 47 Ljubomir polje 48 Jasenpolje 49 Ljubinjsko polje 50 Popovo polje 51 Hutovo blato (DeranskoSvitavsko polje) 52 Gradac 53 Grab polje 54 Carevo polje 55 Konjsko polje 56 Orahovac polje 57 Mokro polje (Trebinje)

1 Dugo polje Surface: 2.5 km2 Altitude: 776 m Catchment: Una River Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 11 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: 48 species (3 endemic) Land use: mainly livestock grazing with a smaller portion of agricultural lands (cereals, vegetables) Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Bosanski Petrovac municipality, Una-Sana Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 12 June 2013, Photos: DraĹžen KotroĹĄan

132

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

2 Rudno polje Surface: 8.8 km2 Altitude: 578 m Catchment: Una River Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 14 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly livestock grazing with a smaller portion of agricultural lands (cereals, vegetables) Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Bosanski Petrovac municipality, UnaSana Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 12 June 2013, Photos: Dražen Kotrošan

3 Bjelajsko polje Surface: 9.4 km2 Altitude: 578 m Catchment: Una River Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: potentially flooded on 1/3 of the total surface Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 26 species (NR) Dragonflies: 8 species Plants: 44 species Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing and a smaller portion of the polje for crop and fruit growing Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: medieval necropolises Conservation status: not protected Administration: Bosanski Petrovac municipality, UnaSana Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

133

30 June 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

14 June 2011, Photo: Borut Stumberger

4 Medeno polje Surface: 5.7 km2 Altitude: 602 m Catchment: Una River Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: very small area in the central depression of the polje irregularly flooded Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 16 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: 34 species (1 endemic) Land use: mainly agricultural lands (cereals), partially used for livestock grazing Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Bosanski Petrovac municipality, Una, Sana Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 14 June 2011, Photo: Borut Stumberger

134

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

5 Petrovačko polje Surface: 22.4 km2 Altitude: 637 m Catchment: Una River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 3.54 km2 Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 30 species (NR) Dragonflies: 13 species Plants: 59 species (1 endemic) Land use: mainly agricultural lands (cereals), partially used for livestock grazing Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: medievial necropolises (stećak) Conservation status: not protected Administration: Bosanski Petrovac municipality, UnaSana Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 3 June 2012, Photos: Borut Stumberger

6 Palanka (Lušci polje) Surface: 22.7 km2 Altitude: 380 m Catchment: Una River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 7.40 km2 Olm: present Fish: no data Birds: 36 species (NR) Dragonflies: 3 species Plants: 56 species (1 endemic) Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing, a smaller portion of agricultural lands (cereals, vegetables) Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: Suvaja cave, spring-cave Oko Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteria Administration: Sanski Most municipality, Una-Sana Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 27 June 2012, Photos: Dejan Kulijer

135

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

7 Podrašničko polje Surface: 34.2 km2 Altitude: 729 m Catchment: Una River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 12.69 km2 Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 45 species (NR) Dragonflies: 4 species Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing and a small portion of agricultural lands Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: ponor Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteria Administration: Mrkonjić Grad municipality, Republika Srpska

16 January 2011, Photo: Dragan Gajić

136

2 June 2013, Photo: Miroslav Radulović

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

8 Marinkovci Surface: 10.1 km2 Altitude: 788 m Catchment: Cetina River Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 20 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing, small portion of agricultural lands Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Bosansko Grahovo municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 6 April 2013, Photos: Ilhan DervoviÄ&#x2021;

137

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

9 Grahovsko polje Surface: 23 km2 Altitude: 782 m Catchment: Cetina River Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: 1.69 km2 (exceptional floods) Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 25 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: exploitation of clay; mainly used for livestock grazing and partially for agricultural production Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: SabljiÄ&#x2021;a caves, large ponors (Veliki ponori) Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Bosansko Grahovo municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 3 June 2012, Photo: Borut Stumberger

138

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

16 Janaury 2010, Photo: Borut Stumberger

3 June 2012, Photo: Borut Stumberger

139

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

10 PaĹĄiÄ&#x2021;a polje

14 March 2010, Photo: Borut Stumberger

Surface: 13.6 km2 Altitude: 792 m Catchment: Cetina River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 5.78 km2 Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 37 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing and partially for agricultural production Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: prehistoric hillforts, late antique refuge, medieval church Conservation status: not protected, but according to current field surveys fulfils IBA criteria for Corncrake Crex crex and Lesser Grey Shrike Lanius minor Administration: Bosansko Grahovo municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

3 June 2012, Photo: Borut Stumberger

140

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

11 Ravna Mliništa Surface: 4.4 km2 Altitude: 1,157 m Catchment: Pliva River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 0.21 km2 Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 11 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing and hay production Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: ponors Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Glamoč municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 11 October 2012, Photos: Jasminko Mulaomerović

141

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

12 Glamočko polje Surface: 62.4 km2 Altitude: 883 m Catchment: Cetina and Pliva River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 47.16 km2 Olm: no data Fish: 6 species (4 endemic) Birds: 90 species (PR) Dragonflies: 29 species Plants: 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 polje Karst 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 Podkraj Conservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteria Administration: Glamoč municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

5 October 2011, Photo: Ena Hatibović

142

27 June 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

28 August 2011, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

9 January 2010, Photo: Behudin Alimanović

11 October 2012, Photo: Jasminko Mulaomerović

143

28 June 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

13 Kupreško polje Surface: 81.2 km2 Altitude: 1,115 m Catchment: Cetina and Pliva Rivers Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 36.22 km2 Olm: no data Fish: 1 endemic Birds: 134 species (PR) Dragonflies: 13 species Plants: 146 species (7 endemic) Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing and, partially for agricultural production Vulnerability: burning and excavation of peat, garbage dumping Karst phenomenon: Japage collapse dolina, meanders of the Milač River Cultural heritage: prehistoric settlement, tumuli, stećak necropolises Conservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteria Administration: Kupres municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

9 May 2009, Photo: Behudin Alimanović

144

17 June 2011, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

19 April 2012, Photo: Borut Stumberger

16 January 2010, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

145

14 Šuićko polje Surface: 2.7 km2 Altitude: 914 m Catchment: Cetina River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 1.50 km2 Olm: no data Fish: 11 species (6 endemic) Birds: 8 species (NR) Dragonflies: 4 species Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing, a minor portion is used for agricultural production Vulnerability: (illegal) construction of housing estates at the periphery Karst phenomenon: meanders of the Šuica River, Lovarac, Jaruga and Peca karst springs on the western edge Cultural heritage: medieval necropolises, Ottoman period bridge Conservation status: not protected; following to it’s dense Corncrake Crex crex population the polje should be incorporated into the proposed IBA Duvanjsko polje Administration: Tomislavgrad municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 12 February 2010, Photo: Mirko Šarac

146

15 March 2011, Photo: Mirko Šarac

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

13 June 2010, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

16 January 2010, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

147

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

15 Duvanjsko polje Surface: 125 km2 Altitude: 865 m Catchment: Cetina River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 53.07 km2 Olm: no data Fish: 11 species (6 endemic) Birds: 151 species (PR) Dragonflies: 10 species Plants: 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 plants Karst 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 Rivers Cultural heritage: prehistoric hillforts, Roman tombstones, Late Antique fortress, medieval necropolises Conservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteria Administration: Tomislavgrad municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 18 January 2010, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby

148

18 January 2010, Photo: Borut Stumberger

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

8 June 2010; Photo: Mirko Ĺ arac

18 January 2010, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby

149

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

16 Livanjsko polje Surface: 408.0 km2 Altitude: 701 m Catchment: Cetina River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 274.49 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 species Plants: 444 species (7 endemic) Land use: livestock grazing, peat extraction and agricultural production Vulnerability: Hydropower plant project “CHE Vrilo”, plans for a thermal power plant, peat extraction, water regulation in the Ždralovac area Karst phenomenon: Duman and Sturba spring, Kameniti, Opaki and Veliki ponors, ponor next to Donji Kazanci, Bastašica spring, estavellas, permanent karst rivers Sturba, Žabljak and Bistrica Cultural heritage: prehistoric hillforts, stećak necropolises Conservation status: Ramsar site, IBA Administration: 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

150

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

27 October 2009, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

16 January 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

1 May 2010 (Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby)

151

12 June 2008, Photo: Ulrich Schwarz

17 Viničko polje Surface: 2.2 km2 Altitude: 606 m Catchment: Cetina River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 0.78 km2 Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: no data Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing and for agricultural production (cereals) Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: Bilobrkova cave with estavella Cultural heritage: Dalmatian fort Conservation status: not protected Administration: Tomislavgrad municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 9 January 2014, Photo: Mirko Šarac

18 Dobranjsko polje (Livno) Surface: 1.4 km2 Altitude: 818 m Catchment: Cetina River Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: indication of potential flooding Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: no data Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Livno municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 11 October 2012, Photo: Jasminko Mulaomerović

152

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

19 Kruško polje Surface: 3.6 km2 Altitude: 1,186 m Catchment: Cetina River Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 13 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing, a small part is used for agriculture Vulnerability: no current pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Livno municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 11 October 2012, Photo: Jasminko Mulaomarović

20 Borovo polje Surface: 4 km2 Altitude: 1,102 m Catchment: Cetina River Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 9 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing, with a small part used for agriculture Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Livno municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 11 October 2012, Photos: Jasminko Mulaomarović

153

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

21 Vukovsko polje Surface: 28.1 km2 Altitude: 1160 m Catchment: Rama and Neretva Rivers Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: 0.44 km2 (exceptional flooding) Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 69 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: ploughed up in 2010 the polje is currently mainly used for agricultural production, partially for livestock grazing Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: prehistoric settlement, tumuli, steÄ&#x2021;ak necropolises Conservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteria Administration: Kupres municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

16 June 2011, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

154

28 June 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

11 October 2012, Photo: Jasminko MulaomeroviÄ&#x2021;

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

22 Ravanjsko polje Surface: 19.2 km2 Altitude: 1131 m Catchment: Neretva and Rama Rivers Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 41 species (NR) Dragonflies: 1 species Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing Vulnerability: no current pressures known Karst phenomenon: cultivation of polje surface not possible Cultural heritage: prehistoric tumuli, Roman settlement, late antique churches, steÄ&#x2021;ak necropolises Conservation status: not protected Administration: Kupres municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

18 June 2011, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

155

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

18 June 2011, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

24 April 2011, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

23 Roško polje Surface: 3.9 km2 Altitude: 894 m Catchment: Neretva River, Adriatic Sea Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 0.13 km2 Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 72 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing and, partially, for vegetable production Vulnerability: no current pressures known Karst 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 protected Administration: Tomislavgrad municipality, West Bosnia Canton (Canton 10), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

3 January 2014, Photo: Mirko Šarac

156

13 September 2011, Photo: Narcis Drocić

13 September 2012, Photo: Narcis Drocić

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

24 Dugo polje (Dugorudo) Surface: 19.1 km2 Altitude: 1,206 m Catchment: Neretva River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 1.31 km2 (apart Blindije Lake) Olm: no data Fish: 4 endemic Birds: 89 species (PR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: 8 species Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing and, partially, for agricultural production Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: permanent lake, Brčanj and Jasle ponors Cultural heritage: prehistoric tumuli, stećak necropolises Conservation status: protected, Nature Park Blindije, will fulfil IBA criteria Administration: Jablanica, Posušje and Tomislavgrad municipalities, Herzegovina-Neretva and West Bosnia (Canton 10) Cantons, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

16 January 2010, Photo: Borut Stumberger

157

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

23 August 2008, Photo: Mirko Šarac

4 December 2007, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

25 Rakitno Surface: 14.1 km2 Altitude: 890 m Catchment: Neretva River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 5.08 km2 Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 22 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: 5 species (1 endemic) Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing and, partially, for agricultural production Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: permanent Jelica River and temporally Zminac stream Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Posušje municipality, West Herzegovina Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

16 September 2012, Photo: Ena Mulaomerović

158

5 March 2006, Photo: Dražen Kotrošan

16 September 2012, Photo: Jasminko Mulaomerović

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

26 Kočerinsko polje Surface: 4.9 km2 Altitude: 302 m Catchment: Neretva River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 2.53 km2 Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 12 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for agriculture (cereals) and, partially, for livestock grazing Vulnerability: no current pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Grude and Široki Brijeg municipalities, West Herzegovina Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

18 January 2010, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby

159

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

18 January 2010, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby

15 March 2010, Photo: Borut Stumberger

27 Rašanjsko polje (Rasno) Surface: 0.5 km2 Altitude: 344 m Catchment: Neretva River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 0.23 km2 Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 3 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing, small portion used for tobacco growing, cereals and grapes Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: cave, Studenac spring, Krgača pool Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Široki Brijeg municipality, West Herzegovina Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 22 November 2012, Photo: Dražen Kotrošan

160

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

28 Mokro polje (Široki Brijeg) Surface: 2.8 km2 Altitude: 260 m Catchment: Neretva River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 0.66 km2 Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 13 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly livestock grazing Vulnerability: no current pressures known Karst phenomenon: one of Herzegovina’s poljes which are mainly influenced by surface water during winter (Mokro polje = wet polje) Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Široki Brijeg municipality, West Herzegovina Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 8 January 2010, Photos: Martin Schneider-Jacoby

161

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

29 Mostarsko blato Surface: 33.1 km2 Altitude: 223 m Catchment: Neretva River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 32.79 km2 (exceptional flooding) Olm: no data Fish: 13 species (6 endemic) Birds: 185 species (PR) Dragonflies: 21 species Plants: 147 species (2 endemic) Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing, partially for agricultural production Vulnerability: construction of the hydropower plant Mostarsko blato in 2010 has destroyed the hydrological regime of the polje Karst phenomenon: Borak spring, source of the meandering Lištica River, and ponors Cultural heritage: medieval town with relicts of cobblestone pavement Conservation 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, HerzegovinaNeretva Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

17 March 2012, Photo: Ilhan Dervović

18 january 2010, Martin Schneider-Jacoby

16 April 2007, Photo: Luka Božič

162

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

12 April 2010, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby

16 April 2007, Photo: Luka Božič

1 March 2009, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

6 April 2007, Photo: Matjaž Kerček

163

30 Vučipolje Surface: 1.1 km2 Altitude: 977 m Catchment: Neretva River Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 9 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing and a smaller portion for agricultural production Vulnerability: no current pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Posušje municipality, West Herzegovina Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 11 October 2012, Photos: Jasminko Mulaomerović

164

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

31 Posušje Surface: 21.7 km2 Altitude: 578 m Catchment: Neretva River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 5.13 km2 Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 20 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing and, partially, for agricultural production Vulnerability: no current pressures known Karst phenomenon: rather short flood duration of 3 - 5 days Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Posušje municipality, West Herzegovina Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

18 January 2010, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby

165

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

15 March 2010, Photo: Borut Stumberger

11 October 2012, Photo: Jasminko Mulaomerović

32 Imotsko (Bekijsko polje) Surface: 87.4 km2 Altitude: 251 m Catchment: Neretva River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 39.30 km2 Olm: no data Fish: 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 tobacco Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: permanent Vrlika River Cultural heritage: no data Conservation 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

15 March 2010, Photo: Borut Stumberger

166

23 February 2013, Photo: Ilhan DervoviÄ&#x2021;

15 March 2010, Photo: Borut Stumberger

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

33 Rastoka i Ljubuško polje Surface: 74.5 km2 Altitude: 58 m Catchment: Neretva River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 12.70 km2 Olm: present Fish: no data Birds: 30 species (NR) Dragonflies: 2 species Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for growing potatoes, grapes and cotton Vulnerability: no current pressures known Karst phenomenon: permanent Mlade River (collects discharge from Vrlika River) which changes its name to Trebižat River in Ljubuško polje Cultural heritage: no data Conservatio status: not protected Administration: Ljubuški municipality, West Herzegovina Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 11 October 2012, Photos: Jasminko Mulaomerović

34 Studeničko polje Surface: 1.8 km2 Altitude: 25 m Catchment: Neretva and Trebišnjica Rivers Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 0.36 km2 Olm: present Fish: no data Birds: 19 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for growing grapes and other agricultural products (greenhouses), partially livestock grazing Vulnerability: no current pressures used Karst phenomenon: Studenac and Vakuf cave springs Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Ljubuški municipality, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 11 October 2012, Photos: Jasminko Mulaomerović

167

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

35 Hansko polje (Gornje Zijemlje) Surface: 1.4 km2 Altitude: 835 m Catchment: Neretva River Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: southern parts potentially flooded Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 29 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing and, partially, for vegetable production Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: steÄ&#x2021;ak necropolis Conservation 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, HerzegovinaNeretva Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

27 June 2007, Photo: Behudin AlimanoviÄ&#x2021;

168

15 June 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

36 Donje Zijemlje Surface: 4.5 km2 Altitude: 807 m Catchment: Neretva River Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: some flooding potential in central lower part Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 31 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing and a minor portion for agricultural production Vulnerability: no current pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data, Cultural heritage: prehistoric hillforts, stećak necropolises Conservation status: not protected, but together with nearby “twin polje” Gornje Zijemlje polje may fulfil IBA criteria for raptors and Lesser Grey Shrike Lanius minor Administration: Istočni Mostar municipality, Republika Srpska

27 June 2007, Photo: Behudin Alimanović

169

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

16 May 2009, Photo: Behudin Alimanović

15 June 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

37 Slato polje Surface: 4.1 km2 Altitude: 1,012 m Catchment: Neretva and Trebišnjica rivers Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 0.73 km2 Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 33 species (NR) Dragonflies: 2 species Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing and a smaller portion for agricultural production Vulnerability: “Upper Horizons” hydropower project (for which 7 hydropower plants in the Neretva river basin are planned) Karst phenomenon: ponor Cultural heritage: prehistoric hillfort, stećak necropolis Conservation status: not protected Administration: Nevesinje municipality, Republika Srpska

26 November 2011, Photo: Kenan Pašić

170

16 January 2010, Photo: Borut Stumberger

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

15 June 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

26 november 2011, Photo: Kenan Pašić

26 November 2011, Photo: Kenan Pašić

171

5 April 2012, Photo: Dražen Kotrošan

38 Nevesinjsko polje Surface: 77.5 km2 Altitude: 817 m Catchment: Neretva and Trebišnjica Rivers Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 16.64 km2 Olm: no data Fish: 4 species (3 endemic) Birds: 99 species (PR) Dragonflies: 18 species Plants: 270 species (3 endemic) Land use: mainly used for agricultural production (potatoes, cabbage and cereals), partly for livestock grazing Vulnerability: “Upper Horizons” project by closing the Biograd ponor and dam construction for artificial lake Karst phenomenon: Biogradski ponor Cultural heritrage: Stećak necropolises, prehistoric Illyrian hillforts, prehistoric tumuli Conservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteria Administration: Nevesinje municipality, Republika Srpska

17 April 2006, Photo: Dražen Kotrošan

172

16 April 2007, Photo: Luka Božič

16 January 2010, Photo: Borut Stumberger

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

15 June 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

27 June 2007, Photo: Behudin AlimanoviÄ&#x2021;

173

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

39 Lukavačko polje Surface: 3.3 km2 Altitude: 859 m Catchment: Neretva and Trebišnjica Rivers Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 0.57 km2 Olm: no data Fish: 1 endemic Birds: 37 species (NR) Dragonflies: 8 species Plants: 14 species (1 endemic) Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing and a smaller portion for agricultural production Vulnerability: “Upper Horizons” hydropower project (for which 7 hydropower plants in the Neretva river basin are planned) Karst phenomenon: ponor Cultural heritage: prehistoric hillfort, stećak necropolis Conservation status: not protected Administration: Nevesinje municipality, Republika Srpska

15 June 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

174

5 April 2012, Photo: Dražen Kotrošan

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

26 November 2011, Photo: Kenan Pašić

15 June 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

175

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

40 Trusinsko polje Surface: 1.5 km2 Altitude: 866 m Catchment: Neretva River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 0.30 km2 Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 16 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for agriculture (cereals) and, partially, for livestock grazing Vulnerability: “Upper Horizons” hydropower project (for which 7 hydropower plants in the Neretva river basin are planned) Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: stećak necropolis Conservation status: not protected Administration: Berkovići municipality, Republika Srpska 23 March 2013, Photos: Jasminko Mulaomerović

176

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

41 Dabarsko polje Surface: 28.9 km2 Altitude: 472 m Catchment: Neretva and Trebišnjica Rivers Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 16.69 km2 (flooding potential 22.32 km2) Olm: present Fish: 5 species (4 endemic) Birds: 100 species (PR) Dragonflies: 27 species Plants: 114 species (1 endemic) Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing, partially for agriculture (cereals, peppers, tomatoes, lettuce) and fruit growing Vulnerability: “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-cave Cultural heritage: stećak necropolis Conservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteria Administration: Berkovići municipality, Republika Srpska

26 November 2011, Photo: Kenan Pašić

177

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

9 June 2010, Photo: Dražen Kotrošan

1 September 2010, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby

18 July 2009, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby

4 May 2010, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby

20 January 2010, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

178

20 January 2010, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

42 Crničko polje Surface: 2.9 km2 Altitude: 212 m Catchment: Neretva River Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: vegetation and remnants of fluvial activity indicate flooding potential Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 20 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for agricultural production, a small part for livestock grazing Vulnerability: no current pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Stolac municipality, HerzegovinaNeretva Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 23 March 2013, Photos: Jasminko Mulaomerović

179

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

43 Gatačko polje Surface: 60.1 km2 Altitude: 936 m Catchment: Trebišnjica River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 38.17 km2 (flooding potential 42.91 km2) Olm: present Fish: 2 species (1 endemic) Birds: 129 species (PR) Dragonflies: 20 species Plants: 274 species (3 endemic) Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing Vulnerability: pollution caused by Gacko thermal power plant Karst phenomenon: Gareva cave, meanders of temporary karst rivers Cultural heritage: stećak necropolis Conservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteria Administration: Gacko municipality, Republika Srpska

16 April 2007, Photo: Luka Božič

180

15 June 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

16 April 2007, Photo: Luka Božič

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

16 January 2010, Photo: Borut Stumberger

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

23 May 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

15 June 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

23 May 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

181

44 Cernica

11 October 2012, Photo: Jasminko Mulaomerović

Surface: 5.5 km2 Altitude: 816 m Catchment: Trebišnjica River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 1.86 km2 Olm: no data Fish: 1 endemic Birds: 23 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing, a smaller portion for agricultural production Vulnerability: “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-cave Cultural heritage: prehistoric hillfort, stećak necropolises, medieval town Conservation status: not protected Administration: Gacko municipality, Republika Srpska

45 Fatničko polje Surface: 7.7 km2 Altitude: 452 m Catchment: Neretva and Trebišnjica Rivers Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 7.27 km2 Olm: no data Fish: 2 endemic Birds: 88 species (PR) Dragonflies: 15 species Plants: 5 species Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing Vulnerability: “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-caves Cultural heritage: Mandina hillfort Conservation status: not protected, but fulfils IBA criteria Administration: Bileća municipality, Republika Srpska

182

11 June 2011, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

4 May 2010, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby

11 June 2011, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

4 May 2010, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby

11 June 2011, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

20 January 2010, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

183

46 Plana Surface: 0.6 km2 Altitude: 609 m Catchment: Trebišnjica River Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 5 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: stećak necropolis Conservation status: not protected Administration: Trebinje municipality, Republika Srpska 12 January 2012, Photos: Dražen Kotrošan

184

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

47 Ljubomir polje Surface: 12.7 km2 Altitude: 506 m Catchment: Trebišnjica River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 1.33 km2 Olm: no data Fish: 1 endemic Birds: 7 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing Vulnerability: no current pressures known Karst phenomenon: Grabova sinkhole/cave Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Trebinje municipality, Republika Srpska

28 September 2008, Photo: Behudin Alimanović

185

12 January 2013, Photo: Dražen Kotrošan

48 Jasenpolje Surface: 1.1 km2 Altitude: 556 m Catchment: Trebišnjica River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 0.50 km2 Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 2 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing, a smaller portion for agricultural production Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Trebinje municipality, Republika Srpska 12 Janaury 2013, Photos: Dražen Kotrošan

186

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

49 Ljubinjsko polje Surface: 6.9 km2 Altitude: 396 m Catchment: Neretva and Trebišnjica Rivers Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 0.90 km2 Olm: no data Birds: 7 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: agriculture (tobacco) and livestock grazing Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: stećak necropolises Conservation status: not protected Administration: Ljubinje municipality, Republika Srpska 10 July 2007, Photos: Dejan Kulijer

187

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

50 Popovo polje Surface: 118.9 km2 Altitude: 227 m Catchment: Neretva and Trebišnjica Rivers Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 42.06 km2 Olm: know from some 30 localities Fish: 7 species (3 endemic) Birds: 175 species (WR) Dragonflies: 20 species Plants: 6 species Land use: agricultural production (potatoes, watermelons, tobacco, grapes, fruits) and livestock grazing Vulnerability: 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 biodiversity Karst phenomenon: Vjetrenica cave, Lukavac spring, Baba cave, Crnulja and Doljašnica ponor-cave, Ponikva ponor, Baba cave, extensive natural water oscillations up to 40 m Cultural heritage: prehistoric hillfort, stećak necropolises, medieval town Conservation status: not protected, but fulfil IBA criteria Administration: Trebinje municipality, Republika Srpska; Ravno municipality, Herzegovina-Neretva Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

188

10 July 2007, Photo: Dražen Kotrošan

30 September 2007, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

13 January 2012, Photo: Dušan Toholj

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

8 July 2007, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

20 Ocbober 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

20 January 2010, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

4 August 2011, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby

189

51 Hutovo blato (Deransko-Svitavsko polje) Surface: 32.7 km2 Altitude: 2 m Catchment: Neretva and Trebišnjica rivers Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 39.71 km2 Olm: present Fish: 43 species (17 endemic) Birds: 249 species (WR) Dragonflies: 38 species Plants: 218 species Land 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 wetland Karst phenomenon: karst springs, called “okas” (eyes), located in the unique karst delta of the Neretva River Cultural heritage: prehistoric tumuli, remains of Illyrian ships Conservation status: Nature park Hutovo blato, Ramsar site, IBA Administration: Čapljina municipality, HerzegovinaNeretva Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

190

11 Jul 2007, Photo: DejanKulijer

16 January 2010, Photo: Borut Stumberger

8 April 2010, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

22 July 2010, Photo: Martin Schneider-Jacoby

6 April 2010, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

191

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

52 Gradac Surface: 2.2 km2 Altitude: 88 m Catchment: Neretva River Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 2 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Neum municipality, HerzegovinaNeretva Canton, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 11 October 2011, Photo: Dražen Kotrošan

53 Grab polje Surface: 9.6 km2 Altitude: 672 m Catchment: via the Konavosko polje drained into the Adriatic Sea and with a connection to Mokro polje into the Trebišnjica River Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: southern parts of the polje potentially flooded Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: no data Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing Vulnerability: no actual pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Trebinje municipality, Republika Srpska 22 January 2012, Photo: Borut Stumberger

192

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

54 Carevo polje Surface: 0.3 km2 Altitude: 875 m Catchment: Trebišnjica River Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 7 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing Vulnerability: no current pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Trebinje municipality, Republika Srpska 20 October 2012, Photos: Dejan Kulijer

55 Konjsko polje Surface: 1.4 km2 Altitude: 829 m Catchment: Trebišnjica River Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 10 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing, a smaller portion for agricultural production Vulnerability: no current pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Trebinje municipality, Republika Srpska 20 October 2012, Photos: Dejan Kulijer

193

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

56 Orahovac polje Surface: 1.0 km2 Altitude: 664 m Catchment: Tebišnjica River Type: dry polje Maximal recorded flood: no potential flooding Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 5 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for livestock grazing, a smaller portion for agricultural production Vulnerability: no current pressures known Karst phenomenon: no data Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Trebinje municipality, Republika Srpska 20 October 2012, Photo: Dejan Kulijer

57 Mokro polje (Trebinje) Surface: 6.2 km2 Altitude: 269 m Catchment: Trebišnjica River Type: flooded polje Maximal recorded flood: 3.00 km2 Olm: no data Fish: no data Birds: 1 species (NR) Dragonflies: no data Plants: no data Land use: mainly used for agricultural production (vegetables), partially for livestock grazing Vulnerability: 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 data Cultural heritage: no data Conservation status: not protected Administration: Trebinje municipality, Republika Srpska 26 January 2014, Photos: Borut Stumberger

194

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

References General references Stumberger B. (2010): A classification of karst poljes in the Dinarides and their significance for waterbird conservation. In: Denac D., SchneiderJacoby M. & Stumberger B. (eds.). Adriatic Flyway - Closing the Gap in Birds Conservation. Euronatur, Radolfzell, Germany; pp. 69-77. http://w w w.euronatur.org /fileadmin/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/Karstworkshop_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. Sarajevo Jasprica 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. Livno Milanović 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: 25-101 Ritter-Studnicka H. & Grgić P. (1971): Die Reste der Stileichenwälder in Livanjsko polje (Bosnien). Bot. Jh. 91 (2/3): 330-347 Ritter-Studnicka H. (1972): Neue Pflanzengesellschaften aus den Karstfeldern Bosniens und Hercegovina. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 92 (1): 108-154 Ritter-Studnicka H. (1973): Reliktgesellschaften des Caricion davallianae aus den Karstfeldern Bosniens. Berichte des Geobot. Inst. ETH Zürich 51: 179-182 Ritter-Studnicka H. (1974): Die Karstpoljen Bosniens und der Hercegovina als Reliktstandorte und die Eigentümlichkeit ihrer Vegetation. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 94 (2): 139-189 Gerhard Bronner, unpubl. data from field survey 2012 Sabaheta Abadžić, unpubl. data from field survey 2009 Nermina 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:

195

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

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): 7-27 Klapalek 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. 78 Mikavica 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): 129-142 Kotrošan 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-covjecjaribica-duga-21-cm-na-kocusi

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

196

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. 415 Sackl 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., SchneiderJacoby 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.

Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life

Index of Karst poljes Dugo polje 132 Rudno polje 133 Bjelajsko polje 133 Medeno polje 134 Petrovačko polje 135 Palanka (Lušci polje) 135 Podrašničko polje 136 Marinkovci 137 Grahovsko polje 138 Pašića polje 140 Ravna Mliništa 141 Glamočko polje 142 Kupreško polje 144 Šuićko polje 146 Duvanjsko polje 148 Livanjsko polje 150 Viničko polje 152 Dobranjsko polje (Livno) 152 Kruško polje 153 Borovo polje 153 Vukovsko polje 154 Ravanjsko polje 155 Roško polje 156 Dugo polje (Dugorudo) 157 Rakitno 158 Kočerinsko polje 159 Rašanjsko polje (Rasno) 160 Mokro polje (Široki Brijeg) 161 Mostarsko blato 162 Vučipolje 164 Posušje 165 Imotsko (Bekijsko polje) 166 Rastoka i Ljubuško polje 167 Studeničko polje 167 Hansko polje (Gornje Zijemlje) 168 Donje Zijemlje 169 Slato polje 170 Nevesinjsko polje 172 Lukavačko polje 174 Trusinsko polje 176 Dabarsko polje 177 Crničko polje 179 Gatačko polje 180 Cernica 182 Fatničko polje 182 Plana 184 Ljubomir polje 185 Jasenpolje 186 Ljubinjsko polje 187 Popovo polje 188 Hutovo blato (Deransko-Svitavsko polje) 190 Gradac 192 Grab polje 192 Carevo polje 193 Konjsko polje 193 Orahovac polje 194 Mokro polje (Trebinje) 194

Organism Index Abutilon theophrasti Acer campestre Acer monspessulanum Acer tataricum Achillea collina Achillea millefolium Achillea nobilis Achillea pannonica Achillea ptarmica

197

48 48 48 48 51 51 51 51 51

Dossiers of The Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Aegilops ovata Aegilops triuncialis Aethionema saxatile Agrimonia eupatoria Agrimonia odorata Agrimonia procera Agropyron intermedium Agrostis alba Agrostis canina Agrostis olivetorum Aira capillaris Ajuga chamaepitys Ajuga genevensis Alchemilla xanthochlora Alisma gramineum Alisma plantago-aquatica Allium angulosum Allium carinatum Allium saxatile Allium scordoprasum Allium vineale Alnus glutinosa Alopecurus aequalis Alopecurus geniculatus Alopecurus pratensis Alopecurus utriculatus Althaea hirsuta Althaea officinalis Amaranthus retroflexus Anacamptis pyramidalis Anchusa barrelieri Anemone nemorosa Antennaria dioica Anthemis arvensis Anthoxanthum odoratum Anthriscus nemorosus Anthyllis illyrica Anthyllis vulneraria Aquila pomarina Arabis glabra Arabis hirsuta Arctium lappa Aristolochia clematitis Aristolochia rotunda Armeria canescens Arrhenatherum elatius Artemisia abrotanum Artemisia campestris Artemisia lobelii Artemisia vulgaris Arum maculatum Asparagus acutifolius Asparagus tenuifolius Asperula cynanchica Astragallus gremlii Astragallus illyricus Atriplex latifolia Avena fatua Baldellia ranunculoides Ballota nigra Barbarea vulgaris Bellis perennis Berteroa mutabilis Betula pendula Bidens cernuus Bidens tripartitus Bifora radians Blackstonia serotina Blysmus compressus Botaurus stellaris Brachypodium pinnatum Briza media Bromus arvensis Bromus erectus Bromus mollis

54 54 47 48 48 48 54 54 54 54 54 50 50 48 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 46 53 53 53 53 48 48 46 54, 55 50 47 51 51 53 49 49 49 32 47 47 51 47 47 50 54 51 52 52 52 52 52 52 51 48, 55 48, 55 46 53 52 50 47 51 47 46 51 51 49 51 53 32 53 54 54 54 54

Bromus racemosus Bromus squarrosus Bromus sterilis Bupleurum aristatum Bupleurum lancifolium Butomus umbellatus Callitriche palustris Callitriche stagnatilis Caltha laeta Caltha palustris Calystegia sepium Campanula erinus Campanula moesiaca Campanula patula Campanula pyramidalis Campanula rapunculus Campanula trachelium Cardamine pratensis Carduus acanthoides Carduus candicans Carduus nutans Carduus pycnocephalus Carex acutiformis Carex appropinquata Carex caryophyllea Carex davalliana Carex digitata Carex distans Carex disticha Carex divisa Carex flava Carex glauca Carex goodenowii Carex gracilis Carex hirta Carex hostiana Carex humilis Carex lasiocarpa Carex lepidocarpa Carex leporina Carex oederi Carex pallescens Carex panicea Carex paniculata Carex pendula Carex pseudocyperus Carex remota Carex riparia Carex rostrata Carex stellulata Carex stricta Carex sylvatica Carex tomentosa Carex vesicaria Carex vulpina Carlina corymbosa Carpinus betulus Carpinus orientalis Carum carvi Celtis australis Centaurea cyanus Centaurea deusta Centaurea jacea Centaurea pannonica Centaurea scabiosa Centaurea weldeniana Centaurium pulchellum Centaurium umbellatum Cerastium brachypetalum Cerastium brachypetalum Cerastium caespitosum Cerastium semidecandrum Cerastium sylvaticum Ceratophyllum demersum Chenopodium album

54 54 54 49 49 52 49 49 47 47 50 51 51 51 51 51 51 47 52 52 52 52 53, 55 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 51 46 46, 117 49 48 52 52 52 52 52 52 51 51 47 47 47 47 47 52 46

Chenopodium glaucum 46 Chenopodium murale 46 Chenopodium polyspermum 46 Chondrilla juncea 52 Chrysanthemum tenuifolium 51 Cichorium intybus 52 Circus pygargus 32 Cirsium acaule 52 Cirsium arvense 52 Cirsium oleraceum 52 Cirsium palustre 52 Cirsium rivulare 52 Cladium mariscus 53 Clematis flammula 47 Clematis recta 47 Clematis vitalba 47 Clematis viticella 47 Colchicum autumnale 52 Convallaria majalis 52 Convolvulus arvensis 50 Convolvulus cantabricus 50 Conyza canadensis 51 Cornus mas 49 Cornus sanguinea 49 Coronilla scorpioides 49 Coronilla varia 49 Corrigiola litoralis 47 Corylus avellana 46 Crataegus monogyna 48 Crepis biennis 52 Crepis chondrilloides 52 Crepis neglecta 52 Crepis paludosa 52 Crepis setosa 52 Crex crex 3, 32, 90, 91, 92, 102, 103, 127, 138, 144, 193 Crocus albiflorus 53 Crocus vernus 53 Crypsis alopecuroides 53 Cuscuta epithymum 50 Cyclamen repandum 50 Cynodon dactylon 54 Cynoglossum officinale 50 Cynosurus cristatus 54 Cyperus flavescens 53 Cyperus fuscus 53 Cyperus longus 53 Cyperus michelianus 53 Cyperus serotinus 53 Dactylis glomerata 54 Dactylis hispanica 54 Danthonia calycina 54 Daucus carota 49 Delminichthys 37, 72, 75 Delphinium consolida 47 Deschampsia caespitosa 54 Deschampsia media 54 Dianthus armeria 47 Dianthus cruentus 47 Dianthus deltoides 47 Dianthus sanguineus 47, 55 Dianthus superbus 47, 55 Digitaria sanguinalis 53 Dipsacus laciniatus 51 Dorycnium herbaceum 49 Drosera rotundifolia 47, 55 Ecbalium elaterium 47 Echinochloa crus-galli 53 Echinodorus ranunculoides 52, 55 Echium altissimum 50 Echium vulgare 50 Edraianthus dalmaticus 51, 55 Eleocharis acicularis 53 Eleocharis carniolica 53 Eleocharis palustris 53

Eleocharis quinqueflora Epilobium adnatum Epilobium hirsutum Epilobium palustre Epilobium parviflorum Epipactis palustris Equisetum hyemale Equisetum limosum Equisetum palustre Erigeron acer Eriophorum angustifolium Eriophorum gracile Eriophorum latifolium Eryngium amethystinum Eryngium campestre Euonymus europaeus Eupatorium cannabinum Euphorbia chamaesyce Euphorbia cyparissias Euphorbia dulcis Euphorbia exigua Euphorbia falcata Euphorbia helioscopia Euphorbia lucida Euphorbia palustris Euphorbia spinosa Euphorbia villosa Euphrasia liburnica Euphrasia rostkoviana Euphrasia stricta Ferulago galbanifera Festuca arundinacea Festuca elatior Festuca pseudovina Festuca rubra Festuca valesiaca Filago minima Filipendula hexapetala Filipendula ulmaria Fimbristylis dichotoma Foeniculum vulgare Fragaria moschata Fragaria vesca Frangula alnus Frangula rupestris Fraxinus angustifolia Fraxinus ornus Fumaria rostellata Fumaria vaillantii Galium aparine Galium boreale Galium corrudaefolium Galium cruciata Galium divaricatum Galium mollugo Galium palustre Galium purpureum Galium verum Gallinago gallinago Genista ovata Genista sagittalis Genista tinctoria Gentiana crispata Gentiana pneumonanthe Gentiana utriculosa Geranium dissectum Geranium molle Geranium robertianum Geum rivale Geum urbanum Gladiolus illyricus Globularia willkommii Glyceria fluitans Glyceria plicata Glycyrrhiza echinata

53 49 49 49 49 54 46 46 46 52 53 53,55 53 49 49 46 51 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 50, 55 50 50 49 54 54 54 54 54 51 48 48 53 49 48 48, 56 48 48 51 117 47 47 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 32 49 49 49 51 51 51 48 48 48 48 48 53, 55 51 54 54 48

Gnaphalium uliginosum 51 Gratiola officinalis 50 Grus grus 3, 32, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 103, 160 Gymnadenia conopsea 54 Haynaldia villosa 54 Hedera helix 48 Heleochloa alopecuroides 53 Helianthemum nummularium 47 Heliotropium europaeum 50 Helleborus multifidus 47 Herniaria glabra 46 Herniaria incana 47 Hibiscus trionum 48 Hieracium bauhinii 52 Hieracium pavichii 52 Hieracium pilosella 52 Hieracium umbellatum 52 Hippocrepis comosa 49 Hippuris vulgaris 49 Holcus lanatus 54 Holcus mollis 54 Holoschoenus vulgaris 53 Hordeum gussoneanum 54 Hordeum marianum 54 Hordeum secalinum 54 Hottonia palustris 50 Humulus lupulus 48 Hydrocharis morsus-ranae 47 Hydrocotyle vulgaris 48 Hypericum barbatum 48 Hypericum perforatum 48 Hypericum perforatum 48, 56 Hypericum quadrangulum 48 Hypochoeris radicata 52 Inula britannica 51 Inula helenium 51 Inula hirta 51 Inula oculus-christi 51 Inula salicina 51 Iris pseudacorus 53 Iris sibirica 53 Iris sibirica 55 Juncus anceps 53 Juncus atriculatus 53 Juncus bufonius 53 Juncus compressus 53 Juncus conglomeratus 53 Juncus effusus 53 Juncus glaucus 53 Juncus murbeckii 53 Juncus tenageja 53 Juncus tenuis 53 Juniperus communis 46 Knautia arvensis 51 Koeleria gracilis 54 Koeleria phleoides 54 Koeleria splendens 54 Lamium maculatum 50 Lappula echinata 50 Lapsana communis 51 Laserpitium latifolium 49 Laserpitium prutenicum 49 Lathyrus aphaca 48 Lathyrus latifolius 49 Lathyrus niger 48 Lathyrus palustris 49 Lathyrus pannonicus 49 Lathyrus pratensis 49 Lathyrus tuberosus 49 Leersia oryzoides 54 Lemna minor 49 Lens culinaris 48 Leontodon autumnalis 52 Leontodon crispus 52

Leontodon hispidus 52 Lepidium graminifolium 47 Leucanthemum vulgare 51 Leucojum aestivum 53 Ligustrum vulgare 51 Lilium bosniacum 52 Lilium bosniacum 55 Linum angustifolium 48 Linum catharticum 48 Linum flavum 48 Linum hirsutum 48 Linum montanum 48 Linum tenuifolium 48 Liparis loeselii 54, 55, 56, 57, 194 Liparis loeselii 55 Listera ovata 54 Lolium perenne 54 Lolium temulentum 54 Lotus anguistissimus 49 Lotus corniculatus 49 Lotus tenuifolius 49 Lotus uliginosus 49 Ludwigia palustris 51 Luzula campestris 53 Lychnis flos-cuculi 47 Lycopus europaeus 50 Lycopus exaltatus 50 Lysimachia nummularia 50 Lysimachia vulgaris 50 Lythrum hyssopifolia 49 Lythrum salicaria 49 Malva moschata 48 Malva parviflora 48 Malva sylvestris 48 Marrubium incanum 50 Medicago arabica 49 Medicago falcata 49 Medicago hispida 49 Medicago lupulina 49 Medicago minima 49 Medicago orbicularis 49 Medicago prostrata 49 Melampyrum barbatum 50 Melampyrum cristatum 50 Melampyrum pratense 50 Melandrium album 47 Melilotus officinalis 49 Mentha aquatica 50 Mentha pulegium 50 Menyanthes trifoliata 51 Menyanthes trifoliata 55 Micropus erectus 51 Moenchia mantica 47 Molinia arundinacea 54 Molinia caerulea 54 Muscari comosum 52 Muscari racemosum 52 Myosotis caespitosa 50 Myosotis caespitosa 50 Myosotis scorpioides 50 Myriophyllum spicatum 49 Myriophyllum verticillatum 49 Najas minor 52 Narcissus angustifolius 53, 55 Nardus stricta 54 Nasturtium officinale 47 Neottia nidus-avis 54 Nepeta pannonica 50 Nigella damascena 47 Nuphar luteum 47 Nuphar luteum 55 Nymphaea alba 47, 55 Nymphoides peltata 47 Oenanthe aquatica 49 Oenanthe fistulosa 49

Oenanthe silaifolia 49 Onobrychis ocellata 49 Onobrychis viciifolia 49 Ononis antiquorum 49 Ononis hircina 49 Ononis spinosa 49 Ophioglossum vulgatum 52 Ophrys apifera 54 Orchis coriophora 54 Orchis incarnata 54 Orchis laxiflora 54 Orchis maculata 54, 55 Orchis mascula 54 Orchis militaris 54 Orchis morio 54 Orchis palustris 54 Orchis simia 54, 55 Orchis tridentata 54 Orlaya grandiflora 49 Ornithogalum comosum 52 Ornithogalum pyrenaicum 52 Ornithogalum tenuifolium 52 Ornithogalum umbellatum 52 Orobanche alba 50 Orobanche caryophyllacea 50 Orobanche reticulata 50 Ostrya carpinifolia 46, 117 Paliurus spina-christi 48 Papaver rhoeas 47 Parietaria judaica 51 Parnassia palustris 48 Pedicularis brachyodonta 50, 55 Pedicularis palustris 50, 55 Peplis portula 49 Petteria ramentacea 48 Peucedanum coriaceum 49 Peucedanum oreoselinum 49 Peucedanum palustre 49 Phalaris arundinacea 53 Phillyrea latifolia 51 Phleum pratense 53 Phleum pratense 53 Phleum subulatum 53 Phoxinellus 32, 33, 72 Phoxinellus ghetaldii 32, 33 Phragmites communis 54 Picris hieracioides 52 Pimpinella major 49 Pinguicula vulgaris 50, 55 Pinus halepensis 117 Pistacia terebinthus 48 Plantago altissima 51 Plantago bellardii 51 Plantago carinata 51 Plantago lanceolata 51 Plantago major 51 Plantago maritima 51 Plantago media 51 Platanthera bifolia 54, 55 Plumbago europaea 50 Poa annua 54 Poa bulbosa 54 Poa compressa 54 Poa sylvicola 54 Polygala comosa 48 Polygala oxyptera 48 Polygonatum latifolium 52 Polygonatum multiflorum 52 Polygonum amphibium 46 Polygonum aviculare 46 Polygonum bellardi 46 Polygonum bistorta 46 Polygonum hydropiper 46 Polygonum mite 46 Polygonum persicaria 46

Polygonum tomentosum 46 Polypogon monspeliensis 54 Populus nigra 46 Populus tremula 46 Potamogeton crispus 52 Potamogeton fluitans 52 Potamogeton lucens 52 Potamogeton natans 52 Potamogeton perfoliatus 52 Potamogeton pusillus 52 Potentilla anserina 48 Potentilla argentea 48 Potentilla erecta 48 Potentilla palustris 48 Potentilla reptans 48 Primula vulgaris 50 Proteus anguinus 35, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 128, 194 Prunella laciniata 50 Prunella vulgaris 50 Prunus mahaleb 48 Prunus spinosa 48 Pteridium aquilinum 46 Pulicaria vulgaris 51 Punica granatum 48 Pyrus amygdaliformis 48 Pyrus communis 48 Pyrus pyraster 48 Quercus cerris 117 Quercus conferta 46 Quercus ilex 117 Quercus lanuginosa 46 Quercus pubescens 117 Quercus robur 46 Quercus trojana 46 Radiola linoides 48 Ranunculus acer 47 Ranunculus arvensis 47 Ranunculus auricomus 47 Ranunculus circinatus 47 Ranunculus ficaria 47 Ranunculus flammula 47 Ranunculus lanuginosus 47 Ranunculus lingua 47 Ranunculus neapolitanus 47 Ranunculus ophioglossifolius 47 Ranunculus paucistamineus 47 Ranunculus repens 47 Ranunculus sardous 47 Ranunculus sceleratus 47 Ranunculus velutinus 47 Reynoutria japonica 46 Rhamnus cathartica 48 Rhamnus intermedia 48 Rhinanthus major 50 Rhinanthus minor 50 Rhinanthus rumelicus 50 Rhinanthus serotinus 50 Rorippa amphibia 47 Rorippa lippizensis 47 Rorippa sylvestris 47 Rosa arvensis 48 Rosa canina 48, 56 Rosa gallica 48 Rosa spinosissima 48 Rubus caesius 48 Rubus dalmaticus 48 Rumex acetosa 46 Rumex acetosella 46 Rumex conglomeratus 46 Rumex crispus 46 Rumex hydrolapathum 46 Rumex patientia 46 Rumex pulcher 46 Rumex sanguineus 46

Ruscus aculeatus 53 Ruta patavina 48 Sagittaria sagittifolia 52 Salix alba 46 Salix cinerea 46 Salix incana 46 Salix pentandra 46 Salix purpurea 46 Salix repens 46, 55 Salvia bertolonii 50 Salvia verticillata 50 Sambucus ebulus 51 Sambucus nigra 51 Samolus valerandi 50 Sanguisorba minor 48 Sanguisorba officinalis 48 Saponaria officinalis 47 Satureja montana 50 Satureja subspicata 50, 55 Scabiosa canescens 51 Scabiosa delminiana 51, 55 Scabiosa gramuntia 51 Scabiosa leucophylla 51, 55 Scandix pecten-veneris 49 Schoenoplectus tabernemontani 53 Schoenoplectus triqueter 53 Schoenus nigricans 53 Scilla pratensis 52, 55 Scirpus lacustris 53 Scirpus maritimus 53 Scleranthus annuus 47 Scleranthus uncinatus 47 Sclerochloa dura 54 Scolymus hispanicus 51 Scorzonera rosea 52 Scorzonera villosa 52 Scutellaria altissima 50 Scutellaria galericulata 50 Scutellaria hastifolia 50 Sedum acre 48 Sedum album 48 Sedum boloniense 48 Selinum carvifolia 49 Senecio barbareifolius 52 Senecio jacobea 52 Senecio paludosus 52 Senecio vulgaris 52 Serratula lycopifolia 52, 55 Serratula tinctoria 52 Sesleria uliginosa 54 Setaria viridis 54 Sherardia arvensis 51 Sieglingia decumbens 54 Silene otites 47 Silene sendtneri 47, 55 Silene vulgaris 47 Silybum marianum 52 Sinapis arvensis 47 Sisymbrium officinale 47 Sium erectum 49 Sium latifolium 49 Smyrnium perfoliatum 50 Solanum dulcamara 50 Sonchus arvensis 51 Sonchus asper 51 Sonchus oleraceus 51 Sparganium erectum 54 Sparganium microcarpum 54 Sparganium simplex 54 Spergularia rubra 47 Stachys annua 50 Stachys germanica 50 Stachys palustris 50 Stachys serotina 50 Stellaria graminea 47

Stellaria holostea Stenactis annua Stipa pennata Succisa pratensis Succisella petteri Symphytum tuberosum Symphytum tuberosum Taraxacum officinale Taraxacum paludosum Taraxacum palustre Telestes Teucrium chamaedrys Teucrium montanum Teucrium montanum Teucrium polium Teucrium scordioides Teucrium scordium Thalictrum aquilegifolium Thalictrum flavum Thalictrum flexuosum Thalictrum simplex Thelypteris palustris Thesium intermedium Thymus longicaulis Thymus striatus Tofieldia calyculata Tordylium apulum Tragopogon dubius Tragopogon orientalis Tragopogon pratensis Trifolium alpestre Trifolium campestre Trifolium dalmaticum Trifolium dubium Trifolium fragiferum Trifolium hybridum Trifolium incarnatum Trifolium lappaceum Trifolium medium Trifolium montanum Trifolium ochroleucum Trifolium patens Trifolium pratense Trifolium repens Trifolium resupinatum Trifolium strepens Trifolium strictum Triglochin palustre Trigonella corniculata Tringa totanus Trollius europaeus Tunica saxifraga Typha angustifolia Typha latifolia Typha shutllerworthi Ulmus campestris Ulmus laevis Urtica dioica Utricularia vulgaris Vaccaria grandiflora Valeriana officinalis Valerianella dentata Veratrum album Verbascum nigrum Verbascum pulverulentum Verbascum thapsus Verbena officinalis Veronica anagallis-aquatica Veronica anagalloides Veronica anagalloides Veronica beccabunga Veronica chamaedrys Veronica jacquinii Veronica maritima Veronica officinalis

47 51 54 51 51, 55 50 50, 56 52 52 52 72 50 50 50, 56 50 50 50 47 47, 55 47 47 46 46 50 50 52, 55 49 52 52 52 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 52 49 32 47 47 54 54 54, 55 46 46 51 50, 55 47 51 51 52 50 50 50 50 50 50 55 50 50 50 50, 55 50

Veronica orbiculata Veronica poljensis Veronica poljensis Veronica scutellata Veronica serpyllifolia Veronica spicata Viburnum lantana Viburnum opulus Vicia cracca Vicia grandiflora Vicia hirsuta Vicia onobrychoides Vicia sativa Vicia striata Vicia tenuifolia Vicia tetrasperma Viola canina Viola reichenbachiana Viola saxatilis Viola stagnina Viscaria vulgaris Vitex agnus-castus Vitis vinifera Vulpia myuros Xanthium spinosum Xanthium strumarium Zannichellia palustris

50 50 55 50 50 50 51 51 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 47 47 47 47 47 50 48 54 51 51 52

200

Dinaric Karst Poljes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Floods for Life

201

organism index

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.

202