194
3.3 Persistence of Natural/Near Natural Habitats
In addition to the comparison of habitat areas in these 2 years of mapping, a persistence analysis was conducted to determine if habitats remained in place. The results
show that, for most habitats, less than half of the original area in 2004 remained in
place (Fig. 6). The high proportion of this phenomenon could be caused by natural
succession. The least persistent are wetlands, because they represent a young successional state prone to natural change. However, a large proportion of habitats
disappeared due to degradation processes caused by human pressure, exploitation or
climate change. This is the case mainly for natural forests, with some natural beech
forests having the largest degree of disappearance. Another reason is a lack of traditional management, which is the main cause of degradation of near natural
grasslands.
4 Discussion
We obtained completely different trends using Corine LC data covering the whole
Czech Republic, which represent changes in land cover, versus when focusing only
on natural and near natural habitats as mapped by the Habitat Mapping of NCA CR
(habitat representation reflecting biodiversity changes).
With the first, there is a positive trend caused by the large increase of areas with
relatively low biodiversity quality, while with the other, there is a rapid decrease of
natural and near natural habitats.
According to the Habitat Valuation Method, the bigger area of habitats with relatively low biodiversity quality can be equal to a smaller area of habitat with high
quality. But is it correct to make such comparisons? A large area of average or even
low biodiversity value can support ecosystem functions, but on the other hand, a
Table 2 Point values according to HVM for individual formations between 2004 and 2014
Formation
Point value in
2004 (billions
of points)
Point value in
2014 (billions
of points)
Increase (+)/
decrease (−) of point
value (billions of
points)
Increase (+)/decrease
(−) of point value (%
from point value in
2004)
Alpine
1.972
1.782
−0.189
−9.6
Bushes
7.442
6.694
−0.749
−10.1
Forests
216.132
204.658
−11.474
−5.3
Wetlands
9.397
7.835
−1.562
−16.6
Rock habitats
1.241
1.060
−0.181
−14.6
Grasslands
80.107
65.107
−15.000
−18.7
Water
habitats
3.722
5.407
1.685
45.3
Total natural
habitats
320.013
292.544
−27.469
−8.584
P. Cudlín et al.
3.3 Persistence of Natural/Near Natural Habitats
In addition to the comparison of habitat areas in these 2 years of mapping, a persistence analysis was conducted to determine if habitats remained in place. The results
show that, for most habitats, less than half of the original area in 2004 remained in
place (Fig. 6). The high proportion of this phenomenon could be caused by natural
succession. The least persistent are wetlands, because they represent a young successional state prone to natural change. However, a large proportion of habitats
disappeared due to degradation processes caused by human pressure, exploitation or
climate change. This is the case mainly for natural forests, with some natural beech
forests having the largest degree of disappearance. Another reason is a lack of traditional management, which is the main cause of degradation of near natural
grasslands.
4 Discussion
We obtained completely different trends using Corine LC data covering the whole
Czech Republic, which represent changes in land cover, versus when focusing only
on natural and near natural habitats as mapped by the Habitat Mapping of NCA CR
(habitat representation reflecting biodiversity changes).
With the first, there is a positive trend caused by the large increase of areas with
relatively low biodiversity quality, while with the other, there is a rapid decrease of
natural and near natural habitats.
According to the Habitat Valuation Method, the bigger area of habitats with relatively low biodiversity quality can be equal to a smaller area of habitat with high
quality. But is it correct to make such comparisons? A large area of average or even
low biodiversity value can support ecosystem functions, but on the other hand, a
Table 2 Point values according to HVM for individual formations between 2004 and 2014
Formation
Point value in
2004 (billions
of points)
Point value in
2014 (billions
of points)
Increase (+)/
decrease (−) of point
value (billions of
points)
Increase (+)/decrease
(−) of point value (%
from point value in
2004)
Alpine
1.972
1.782
−0.189
−9.6
Bushes
7.442
6.694
−0.749
−10.1
Forests
216.132
204.658
−11.474
−5.3
Wetlands
9.397
7.835
−1.562
−16.6
Rock habitats
1.241
1.060
−0.181
−14.6
Grasslands
80.107
65.107
−15.000
−18.7
Water
habitats
3.722
5.407
1.685
45.3
Total natural
habitats
320.013
292.544
−27.469
−8.584
P. Cudlín et al.