Database release:
SDF
NATURA 2000 - STANDARD DATA FORM

For Special Protection Areas (SPA),
Proposed Sites for Community Importance (pSCI),
Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and
for Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SITE IDENTIFICATION

Back to top

1.1 Type

B

1.2 Site code

HUKN20031

1.3 Site name

Alsó-Tisza hullámtér

1.4 First Compilation date

2003-08

1.5 Update date

2012-10

1.6 Respondent:

Name/Organisation:Kiskunsgi National Park Directorate
Address:               
Email:

1.7 Site indication and designation / classification dates

Date site proposed as SCI:2004-05
Date site confirmed as SCI: No information provided
Date site designated as SAC:2010-02
National legal reference of SAC designation:275/2004. (X. 8.) Kormnyrendelet

2. SITE LOCATION

Back to top

2.1 Site-centre location [decimal degrees]:

Longitude:20.161389
Latitude:46.534722

2.2 Area [ha]

7929.6000

2.3 Marine area [%]

0.0000

2.4 Sitelength [km]:

0.00

2.5 Administrative region code and name

NUTS level 2 code Region Name
HU33Dél-Alföld

2.6 Biogeographical Region(s)

Pannonian (0.00 %) Pannonian (0.00 %) Pannonian (100.00 %)
Pannonian (100.00 %) Pannonian (100.00 %) Pannonian (100.00 %)
Pannonian (100.00 %) Pannonian (0.00 %) Pannonian (0.00 %)
Pannonian (0.00 %) Pannonian (0.00 %) Pannonian (0.00 %)

3. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION

Back to top

3.1 Habitat types present on the site and assessment for them

Annex I Habitat types Site assessment
Code PF NP Cover [ha] Cave [number] Data quality A|B|C|D A|B|C
      RepresentativityRelative SurfaceConservationGlobal
3130  info      1.5  0.00 
3150  info      396  0.00 
3270  info      79  0.00 
6440  info      238  0.00 
91E0  info      952  0.00 
  • PF: for the habitat types that can have a non-priority as well as a priority form (6210, 7130, 9430) enter "X" in the column PF to indicate the priority form.
  • NP: in case that a habitat type no longer exists in the site enter: x (optional)
  • Cover: decimal values can be entered
  • Caves: for habitat types 8310, 8330 (caves) enter the number of caves if estimated surface is not available.
  • Data quality: G = 'Good' (e.g. based on surveys); M = 'Moderate' (e.g. based on partial data with some extrapolation); P = 'Poor' (e.g. rough estimation)

3.2 Species referred to in Article 4 of Directive 2009/147/EC and listed in Annex II of Directive 92/43/EEC and site evaluation for them

Species Population in the site Site assessment
G Code Scientific Name S NP T Size Unit Cat. D.qual. A|B|C|D A|B|C
      MinMax  Pop.Con.Iso.Glo.
F1130Aspius aspius         
A1188Bombina bombina         
F1149Cobitis taenia    100  1000   
I1086Cucujus cinnaberinus    2000  10000   
R1220Emys orbicularis    250  500   
F2555Gymnocephalus baloni         
F1157Gymnocephalus schraetzer         
M1355Lutra lutra    30  50   
I1060Lycaena dispar         
F1145Misgurnus fossilis    2000  5000   
M1318Myotis dasycneme    101  250   
I1037Ophiogomphus cecilia          DD 
F2522Pelecus cultratus         
F1134Rhodeus sericeus amarus         
A1993Triturus dobrogicus         
F1159Zingel zingel         
  • Group: A = Amphibians, B = Birds, F = Fish, I = Invertebrates, M = Mammals, P = Plants, R = Reptiles
  • S: in case that the data on species are sensitive and therefore have to be blocked for any public access enter: yes
  • NP: in case that a species is no longer present in the site enter: x (optional)
  • Type: p = permanent, r = reproducing, c = concentration, w = wintering (for plant and non-migratory species use permanent)
  • Unit: i = individuals, p = pairs or other units according to the Standard list of population units and codes in accordance with Article 12 and 17 reporting (see reference portal)
  • Abundance categories (Cat.): C = common, R = rare, V = very rare, P = present - to fill if data are deficient (DD) or in addition to population size information
  • Data quality: G = 'Good' (e.g. based on surveys); M = 'Moderate' (e.g. based on partial data with some extrapolation); P = 'Poor' (e.g. rough estimation); VP = 'Very poor' (use this category only, if not even a rough estimation of the population size can be made, in this case the fields for population size can remain empty, but the field "Abundance categories" has to be filled in)

3.3 Other important species of flora and fauna (optional)

Species

Population in the site

Motivation

Group CODE Scientific Name S NP Size Unit Cat. Species Annex Other categories
     MinMax C|R|V|PIVVABCD
Acipenser gueldenstaedti                   
Acipenser nudiventris                   
Astragalus contortuplicatus                   
Bufo bufo                   
Bufo viridis                   
Carabus cancellatus                   
Carabus clathratus                   
Carabus granulatus                   
Chamaesphecia palustris                   
Crocidura suaveolens mimula                   
Dorcus parallelipipedus                   
Felis silvestris                   
Hyla arborea                   
Leucanthemum serotinum                   
Leucaspius delineatus                   
Leucojum aestivum                   
Mustela erminea                   
Neomys fodiens                   
Oryctes nasicornis                   
Palingenia longicauda                   
Pelobates fuscus                   
Peucedanum officinale                   
Proterorhinus marmoratus                   
Rana arvalis                   
Rana dalmatina                   
Rana esculenta                   
Rana ridibunda                   
Salvinia natans                   
Sciurus vulgaris                   
Senecio paludosus                   
Sorex araneus                   
Sorex minutus                   
Talpa europaea                   
Trapa natans                   
Triturus vulgaris                   
Zerynthia polyxena                   
  • Group: A = Amphibians, B = Birds, F = Fish, Fu = Fungi, I = Invertebrates, L = Lichens, M = Mammals, P = Plants, R = Reptiles
  • CODE: for Birds, Annex IV and V species the code as provided in the reference portal should be used in addition to the scientific name
  • S: in case that the data on species are sensitive and therefore have to be blocked for any public access enter: yes
  • NP: in case that a species is no longer present in the site enter: x (optional)
  • Unit: i = individuals, p = pairs or other units according to the standard list of population units and codes in accordance with Article 12 and 17 reporting, (see reference portal)
  • Cat.: Abundance categories: C = common, R = rare, V = very rare, P = present
  • Motivation categories: IV, V: Annex Species (Habitats Directive), A: National Red List data; B: Endemics; C: International Conventions; D: other reasons

4. SITE DESCRIPTION

Back to top

4.1 General site character

Habitat class % Cover
N0619.00
N072.00
N103.00
N159.00
N1635.00
N2022.00
N2310.00

Total Habitat Cover

100

Other Site Characteristics

"Other land" categories are: 100 % coverage of non-native species (Amopha fruticosa) 44 %, canals 6 %, weekend cottage 11 %, minor roads, common land 31 % and embankment 8 %. Three big rivers (Danube, Tisza, Maros) played a key role in the formation of the present landscape of this area. From the rivers silting up the one-time Lake Pannon, approximately 2.5-3 million years ago the ancient Danube appeared in the area, and running through the present Danube-Tisza Mid-Region, at first it flowed into the Tisza valley at Szolnok, later at Csongrd. The ancient Tisza and its tributaries arrived from the direction of the Krs basin at that time. The ancient Danube left the Danube-Tisza Mid-Region and took up its north to south direction of flow. The huge ridges of alluvial Danube sediments (which are of sandy origin in this reach) became independent of the river and were gradually covered partly by wind-blown loessy sediments and partly by 'drifting sand'. These wind-blown sediments (moving sand and loess) are characteristic near the surface up to the present day. About 18-20 thousand years ago the ancient Tisza took up its present direction of flow as well. It was then that the bends of Tisza developed (which can still be traced on the surface) mainly as a result of 4-6 times bigger water output 12-16 thousand years ago. This surface continued to change due to the floods and unique lower and higher (flood-safe) inundation area levels developed along the River Tisza. River control and surface drainage from the middle of the nineteenth century radically changed the water conditions of the region. The comprehensive control of the River Tisza began in 1846 and started at Csongrd in 1856. The biggest bends were cut through (the 11 cuts shortened the river by 58 km) and the river was forced between dykes. As a result, half of the county was saved from recurrent floods. On the vegetation map, the so-called 'gallery forests and swamps' vegetation covers an extensive area in the site. According to a map from the eighteenth century, this area was mainly a large swamp with little forest vegetation indeed. Gallery forests were typical of earlier times. River control in the nineteenth century divided this wide inundation area into two parts: the active flood plain inside the dyke, and the protected (inactive) flood plain. The major part of the protected flood plain is now cultivated but fragments of the natural vegetation can be found in the active flood plain. The river bed is lined by (Polygono hydropipero-Salicetum triandrae) community. The extremely resistant willow species: (Salix alba, S.triandra, S. purpurea, S. viminalis) tolerate flooding, drought and icy floods and grow bush-sized on the deposit laid down by the river. In the northern part of the Boszorkny island in Szeged we can observe the 'birth' and the 'death' of willow groves. Sailing on the River Tisza, we can see that this community along the banks of the river is almost unbroken. Forests in the bank zone consisting of autochthonous willow and poplar groves (soft-wood groves, Salicetum albae-fragilis) are of great environmental value. Three tree species can be found in soft-wood gallery forests: White willow (Salix alba), White poplar (Populus alba) and Black poplar (Populus nigra). During natural renewal, one of these trees has bigger patches and becomes dominant in the tree canopy. Unfortunately the number of those stands are very low where we can admire huge, old White or Black poplars-it is more often that we meet a lonely tree in planted forests. The shrub layer of soft-wood galleries along the Tisza have only allochthonous species. The Box elder (Acer negundo) and the American ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) spread by foresters find their optimal conditions in the flood plain, their seedlings may become dominant in the herb layer, they are common in the shrub layer and sometimes form the lower tree layer. The herb layer of poplar communities in the flood plain resembles that of (Polygono hydropipero-Salicetum triandrae) communities. The following boggy species are common: (Carex gracilis), Yellow iris (Iris pseudachorus), Gipsywart (Lycopus europaeus), Yellow loosestrife (Lysimachia vulgaris), Bittersweet (Solanum dulcamara) and Comfrey (Symphytum officinale). Dykes are lined by so-called 'navvy forests'. In this zone we find the ditches and navvy pits of which the dykes were built. These ditches have boggy vegetation, their flora is of great value. The most characteristic tree species is the White willow (Salix alba) of which the lower branches and twigs are regularly pollarded, so their trunks are bare and the trees have a big 'head' and are locally called 'headed willows'. The wickers of these willows were used to reinforce the dykes. One reason to preserve these willow communities is that old willows become hollow thus providing a habitat for hole-nesting birds, the other is their cultural significance - their scenic value is significant. Their herb and shrub layers are similar to that of soft-wood galleries. The beautiful Leucanthemelle serotina and the Summer snowflake (Leucojum aestivum), both protected, are common in the fringe of the forests of the River Tisza. As the most important role of these forests is to preserve dykes, their management involves longer shifts of cutting, so there is more chance to create near-natural communities than in case of hybrid poplar forests treated with shorter shifts of cutting. If the flood plain is narrow, the gallery woods at the banks and the 'navvy forests' may overlap but the middle part of the flood plain is usually occupied by hybrid poplar plantations whose territorial proportion is the highest in Csongrd county's flood plains. Plantations, consisting of allochthonous species planted in checkrow, managed with intense short period cutting after a thorough preparation of the soil, cannot be considered real forests. A high proportion of invasive and weed species are typical here. Forests with significant numbers of allochthonous species but the same structure as autochthonous forests can be of great natural value as their avian fauna is rich, with heron colonies, and other protected and strictly protected birds also nesting. Natural renewal of soft-wood galleries is common, still, the largest part of the flood plain forests are planted and their structure and species composition are far from natural. Natural forests of the higher inundation area are oak-ash-elm (Fraxino pannonicae-Ulmetum) groves. Genuine, natural hardwood groves do not occur along the River Tisza in Csongrd county but some planted Pedunculate oak communities of different age are to be found in the flood plain and the protected (inactive) flood plain too. Their herb layer is poor in the active flood plain, and due to the floods, species of natural hardwood forests cannot survive here. Grasslands in the site are usually hayfields with Meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis), Phalaroides arundinacea and Reed sweet-grass (Glyceria maxima) stands. Those along the flood plain form transitions with bog communities creating a mosaic pattern. Their extension is very small. In order to maintain flood plain hayfields, management is needed (without management, the area is invaded by Amorpha fruticosa, an invasive acacia species, or later soft-wood groves may evolve during a longer period of time) but then we lose grassland species, biocoenoses and scenic values. The planted grass of dykes also has natural significance because it can provide a habitat adequate for wild plant and animal species and can become near-natural. The most important protected species of the Tisza flood plain are: Leucanthemelle serotina, the Summer snowflake (Leucojum aestivum) and the Meadow clematis (Clematis integrifolia) which are most common between the forest and the dyke. The last natural habitat along the River Tisza to be presented, the bog, was the most characteristic habitat in the end of the eighteenth century. This is the typical habitat of boggy bottom-lands, shallower ditches beside the dyke and silt-up backwaters. Their extension is not significant and they are strongly fragmented. Zones dominated by Schoenoplectus lacustris, Branched bur-reed (Sparganium erectum),the Flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus), sedges (Carex spp.), (Phalaroides arundinacea), Purple loosestrife (Lythrum virgatum, L. salicaria), Common reed (Phragmites australis) and Bulrush (Typha latifolia, T. angustifolia) form zonation complexes depending on water depth. If there are shallow, open water surfaces in the bog, they offer particularly valuable feeding places for birds, however, their amphibian fauna is rich also. Fortunately this habitat is able to regenerate quite easily. It quickly develops in ditches (even in artificial ones) with adequate depth and water supply.

4.2 Quality and importance

Kiemelt fontossg cl a kvetkezo lohelyek/fajok kedvezo termszetvdelmi helyzetnek fenntartsa: 3150 (termszetes eutrf tavak), Gymnocephalus baloni (szles durbincs), Gymnocephalus schraetzer (selymes durbincs), Pelecus cultratus (garda), Misgurnus fossilis (rti csk), Zingel zingel (magyar buc). Kiemelt fontossg cl a kvetkezo fajok/lohelyek kedvezo termszetvdelmi helyzetnek helyrelltsa: 6440 (mocsrrtek), 91E0 (lperdok s puhafs ligeterdok), Myotis dasycneme (tavi denevr). It has high importance because it is part of an important ecological corridor consisting of forests, meadows, riverbed and wetlands passing from north to south. The Tisza River is one of the less regulated rivers in Hungary. Natural (not planted) willow-poplar alluvial forests are quite rare in these regions, and it is true all the more for native poplar woods with Populus alba and Populus nigra. Nevertheless, the site contains valuable stands of both. It has mostly medium quality. Most of the oxbow lakes and marshes are in a good natural state but spreading of adventive invasive Amorpha fruticosa can pose a threat even to them. It has a lot of plant and animal species protected by national law.

4.3 Threats, pressures and activities with impacts on the site

The most important impacts and activities with high effect on the site

Negative Impacts
RankThreats and pressures [code]Pollution (optional) [code]inside/outside [i|o|b]
MA02i
MA03.03i
HA04.03i
HA06i
MA07i
MA08i
MB01i
HB02i
MD01i
ME01b
MF01i
MF02i
MG01i
MH01b
HI01b
HJ02b
MJ03i
MK01i
MK02i
MK03i
Positive Impacts
RankActivities, management [code]Pollution (optional) [code]inside/outside [i|o|b]

Rank: H = high, M = medium, L = low
Pollution: N = Nitrogen input, P = Phosphor/Phosphate input, A = Acid input/acidification,
T = toxic inorganic chemicals, O = toxic organic chemicals, X = Mixed pollutions
i = inside, o = outside, b = both

4.5 Documentation

And,M. (1971) Tp termszeti fldrajza. In: Tp trtnete s nprajza.pp.11-18. Tp. And,M. (1971) A tiszai vzrendszer rvzi helyzetnek fobb termszeti fldrajzi sszetevoi. In:Az Als Tisza vidki nagy rvzvdekezs, 1970.pp.130-139. Budapest And, M.: Mikroklimavverhaltnisse der sodahaltigen Teiche im sdlichen Teil der Grossen Tiefebane. Acta Geographica. Szeged. 1966. 6, kt, 23-53 p. And,M. (1959) Mikroklimatikus sajtsgok a Tisza-rtr dli szakaszn. Fldr.rt.8:309-336. And, M.: -Bodrogkzy Gy. - Marin M.: A Mrtly-Sasr Tjvdelmi Krzet trsadalmi hasznostsnak biolgiai s termszet-fldrajzi alapjai. (Tervtanulmny. ) 1974. 106 p. Kzirat a Szegedi Akadmiai Bizottsg knyvtrban. Bba,K. Tth,T. Sri,D. (1999) Kagylhjak nehzfm tartalma az Als-Tiszn. Proc. 5th Symp. Analytical & Environmental Problems, SZAB, Szeged, May 20, 1999 pp.69-77. Bba,K. And,M. (1964) Mikroklma vizsglatokkal egybekttt malakocnolgiai vizsglatok rtri kubikokban. Szegedi Tanrkpzo Foiskola Tudomnyos Kzlemnyeipp. 97-110 Bankovics A.: Spreading and habits of Hippolais pallida elaeica (LINDL.) along the Tisza. Tiscia, 1974. 9. kt. 105-113. p. Bankovics A.: Data on the comparative ecology of the scrub Warbler Hippolais pallida elaeica (LINDL. ) and its spreading along the Tisza is the Tears 1973 to 1974. Tiscia, 1974. 10. kt. 81-83. p. Bankovics A. - MOLNR Gy.: Haznk j fszkelo madrfaja:a halvny geze (Hippolais pallida elaeica). Bvr, 1970. 25. vf. 413-445, p. Belnyesy M. (1953) A halszat a XIV. szzadban. Ethnographia pp.149-149. Bl Mtys: Csongrd s Csand megye trtnete. [Pozsony] 1732. A Mra Ferenc Mzeum kiadsa. (Elokszletben ) Bodrogkzy GY.: Termszetvdelem Csongrd megyben. Szeged. 1974, 47 p. /A Csongrd megyei. Tancs Termszetvdelmi Bizottsga kiadvnyai 1./ Botos M. Szit A. Olh J.: (1990) Macrozoobenthos communities in Hungarian lowland rivers. Aquacultura Hungarica (Szarvas) VI.:133-152. Csecserits,A. (1999) A Felgyo melletti mintaterlet lohelytrkpezse s lersa. A Duna-Tisza kze aktulis lohelytrkpezse program 42. szm terlete.. pp.354-356. Csizmazia,G. Homonnay,S. Kolosvry,G. Ngrdi,S. (1966) Neuere Daten zur Fauna des Tisza-tales. Tiscia 2:83-88. Csongor Gy.: Szeged s a krnyezo terletek vzi hemiptera fajainak kolgija s elterjedse. A Mra Ferenc Mzeum vknyve. 1956. 121-145. p. Csrgey T.: Madrtani tredkek Petnyi J. Salamon irataibl. Budapest, MOK. 1904. 398. p. Farkas A.: (1989)Changes in the fish population of the intermittently closed Tisza-dead-arm.Tiscia24:69-77. Farkas A.: (1982)Ichthyological relations of Krtvlyes dead channel in Mrtly landscape protection area.Tiscia 17:191-197. Farkas A.: (1977)Pisces fauna of the Tisza dead-arm at Krtvlyes.Tiscia 12:101-108. F. Kemenes K., M. Horvth. M.: (1979) Investigation into the water quality of the Tisza from Csongrd till Tiszasziget.Tiscia 14:7-17. Forg,L. (1946) Csongrd megye felszabadtsa a vizek uralma all. A vzszablyozs s az rmentests elso vszzada, 1845-1945. pp.318-318. Fgedi K., M. Horvth. M.: (1982)Water quality in Krtvlyes backwater.Tiscia 17:15-27. Gall,L. (1996) Jelents a Mrtlyi Tjvdelmi Krzet termszeti llapotfelmrsrol..pp.61-66. Gall,L. Kelemen,J. Tajti,L. (1994) A Pusztaszeri Tjvdelmi Krzet llapotfelmrse s kezelsi terve. Rszjelents.. pp.155-162. Gyre,K. Vry,Z. (1993) A tiszai kecsege (Acipenser ruthenus L.) nvekedse, mortalitsa, hozama, populcinagysga a foly Csongrd-Szeged kztti szakaszn. XVII. Halszati Tudomnyos Tancskozs, Szarvas pp. 81-101. Gyori J Schmidt E.: A balkni halvny geze terjeszkedse s megjelense Magyarorszgon. Aquila, 1962, 67-68. vf. 27-26. p. Hamar,J. Bancsi,I. B.Tth,M. Vgvri,P. (1976) Data to the hydrobiology of the middle and lower Tiszari verregion. Tiscia 11:67-75. Havranek,L. Molnr,H. (1965) Preliminary report on the Arachnoidea-fauna of the Tisza-Valley Tiscia1:93-107. Havranek,L. (1961) Das Leben der Tisza XVI. Mammological investigations in the Tisza basin. Acta Biol. Szeged. VII(3-4):139-142 Hegedus,M. Fodr,Z. Dobler,E. (1990) Bacteriological quality of the fresh waters in the region of the lower Tisza in the period 1977-1986. Tiscia 25:21-29. Hegedus,M. Fodr,Z. Zsig,M. (1980)Hygienic bacteriological investigations in the Tisza reaches between Csongrd and Szeged (1975-1978). Tiscia 15:35-44. Hegedus,M. Lvai I. Fodr, Z. Zsig, M.(1983)Communal hygienic and bacteriological conditions of the river-bank baths along surface waters in Csongrd county.Tiscia 18:13-21. Hegedus,M. . Zsig,M. (1982)Hygienic bacteriological investigations of the backwaters at Mrtly and Krtvlyes.Tiscia 17:29-49. Horvth,A. (1966)About the mollusks of Tisza before the river control. Tiscia 2:99-102. Ihrig D.: A magyar vzszablyozstrtnete. sszell. s szerk.:--. Budapest. 1973. 398 p.

5. SITE PROTECTION STATUS

Back to top

5.1 Designation types at national and regional level:

Code Cover [%]
HU9995.00

5.3 Site designation (optional)

95 % of the area has been a Landscape Protection Area since 1971. A large part of the area falls under the Ramsar Convention since 1982.

6. SITE MANAGEMENT

Back to top

6.1 Body(ies) responsible for the site management:

Organisation:Directorate of Kiskunsgi National Park Kecskemt 6000, Liszt Ferenc u. 19.; mail@knp.hu; +36-76-482-611 is responsible for the site.
Address:
Email:

6.2 Management Plan(s):

An actual management plan does exist:

Yes
No, but in preparation
X
No

6.3 Conservation measures (optional)

ltalnos clkituzsek: A Natura 2000 terlet termszetvdelmi clkituzse az azon tallhat, a kijells alapjul szolgl fajok s lohelytpusok kedvezo termszetvdelmi helyzetnek megorzse, fenntartsa, helyrelltsa, valamint a Natura 2000 terletek lehatrolsnak alapjul szolgl termszeti llapot s a kedvezo termszetvdelmi llapottal sszhangban lvo gazdlkods feltteleinek biztostsa. Rszletes clkituzsek: A jello lohelyek kiterjedse ne cskkenjen. A jello lohelyek termszetessge ne cskkenjen, kivve ha ez kzvetlenl elhrthatatlan klso ok (pldul idojrsi szlsosg, fogyasztszervezet gradcija), vagy erdei lohely esetn a fallomny engedlyezett vghasznlata, illetve a feljts rdekben szksgszeruen vgzett talajmunka miatt kvetkezik be. Erdei lohelyek megvand termszetes tulajdonsgai kz tartozik egyebek kztt a heterogn tr- s korszerkezet, a legyenglt egszsgu fk jelenlte, az ll s fekvo holtfk jelenlte, a fajgazdag cserje- s gyepszint. A tjidegen fafajok elegyarnya ne nvekedjen a 91E0 (lperdok s puhafs ligeterdok) jello lohely egyik llomnyban sem. A 91E0 (lperdok s puhafs ligeterdok) jello lohely llomnyainak sszessgn a tjidegen fafajok elegyarnya felmrsi idoszakonknt (hat venknt) legalbb 5%-al cskkenjen. A jello lohelyek invzis veszlyeztetsnek mrtke ne nvekedjen. Ennek rdekben a jello lohelyekkel kzvetlenl vagy az rvzi elntsek rvn kzvetetten rintkezo, az adott helyen tnyleges invzis fenyegetst jelento tjidegen fsszr llomnyok teleptse kerlendo. A 91E0 (lperdok s puhafs ligeterdok) jello lohely llomnyainak tz ves felbonts korosztlyszerkezetben ne cskkenjen a trsgben szoksos erdogazdlkodsi gyakorlat szerint mr vghasznlatra elorhat korosztlyok, tovbb az oket eggyel megelozo korosztly sszestett terleti kiterjedse. Ne kerljn teht vghasznlatra tbb idos erdollomny, mint amennyi korosodsval belp a hasonl kolgiai funkcit elltni kpes korosztlyokba. A clkituzs megvalsulsa tz ves erdotervezsi ciklusonknt vizsgland. Erdotervezsi ciklusonknt vghasznlat rvn a 91E0 (lperdok) egyetlen korosztlynak terleti rszarnya se cskkenjen 50%-os arnynl jobban. Azokon a jello erdei lohelyeken, amelyeken az erdollomny kpes feljulni a maga termszetes kolgiai folyamataira jellemzo mdon (termszetes sebessggel, llomnysurusggel, llomnyszerkezettel), ott biztostani szksges a termszetszeru feljtsok lehetosgt. Legyenek elhrtva az olyan, termszetszeru feljtsokat akadlyoz hatsokat, amelyek gyengtsnek s megszntetsnek technolgija ismert, s relisan kivitelezheto. A 91E0 (lperdok) jello lohely termszetessge felmrsi idoszakonknt (hat venknt), legalbb sszestett terletnek 4%-n nvekedjen, elsosorban az elegyedo tjidegen nvnyfajok irtsa s a termszetes vzhztartsi viszonyok helyrelltsa rvn. A 6440 (mocsrrtek) jello lohely kolgiai llapota, termszetessge felmrsi idoszakonknt (hat venknt), legalbb sszestett terletnek 10%-n javuljon, elsosorban a termszetes vzhztartsi viszonyok helyrelltsa, a tjidegen invzis nvnyfajok irtsa, a szntterletekrol eredo zavar hatsok mrsklse s a gyepkezelsi gyakorlat javtsa gy a legeltetett llatok mennyisgnek, fajnak s fajtjnak optimalizlsa, a szksgtelen tiszttkaszlsok visszaszortsa, a mozaikos, hagysterletes kaszlsi gyakorlat s az lovilgot kmlo kaszlgptpusok terjesztse, a kaszlsi mdok diverzifiklsa rvn. A meglvo mocsrrtek kolgiai llapotnak, termszetessgnek javtsa kivlthat ugyanezen tpus lohelyek jonnan trtno kialaktsval, rekonstrukcijval is (a termszetessgnvelsi clkituzs teljes egszben a meglvo mocsrrtek kiterjedsnek 10%-t kitevo rekonstrukcival helyettestheto). A mocsrrtek kiterjedst nvelni, trbeli kapcsolatait javtani szksges. Ennek rdekben kiterjedsk felmrsi idoszakonknt legalbb 4%-al nvekedjen. A 3150 (termszetes eutrf tavak) jello lohely termszetvdelmi helyzetnek fenntartsa rdekben trekedni kell a tl intenzv eutrofizci, a gyors feltltods megelozsre, s gondoskodni szksges a termszetes vzhztartsi viszonyok, a nylt vzfelsznek, s a termszeti rtkek fennmaradshoz szksges, j vzminosg megorzsrol. A jello fajok llomnynagysga s llomnyainak terleti kiterjedse ne cskkenjen. A vonalas vziltestmnyek karbantartsa sorn pldul flszelvnyu kotrsok, vagy kotrs helyett hnrkaszls alkalmazsval, vagy kiszlestett s karbantarts nlkl marad refgium-blk kialaktsval, illetve a karbantarts idopontjnak megfelelo kivlasztsval - biztostani szksges a bennk elofordul jello fajok, gy a Bombina bombina (vrshas unka), Triturus dobrogicus (dunai gote), Emys orbicularis (mocsri teknos) llomnyainak rdemi mrtku tllst. A Myotis dasycneme (tavi denevr) termszetvdelmi helyzett javtani szksges, elsosorban az alkalmas pihenohelyek (idos erdok, facsoportok s mestersges denevrszllsok) szmnak, illetve kiterjedsnek nvelsvel. A Gymnocephalus baloni (szles durbincs), Gymnocephalus schraetzer (selymes durbincs), Pelecus cultratus (garda), Misgurnus fossilis (rti csk) s Zingel zingel (magyar buc) kedvezo termszetvdelmi helyzetnek megorzse rdekben gondoskodni szksges a fennmaradsukhoz szksges vzminosg, tovbb a rendelkezsre ll tpllkoz- s szaporodhelyek megorzsrol. Folyvzi letterk konnektivitsa, llomnyaik trbeli kapcsolata ne gyengljn. There is a management plan of the site from 1997; its contents are incomplete.

 

7. MAP OF THE SITE

Back to top No information provided

SITE DISPLAY