Results
Experience and results to date
The ecologically sustainable high level of grazing modifies the pattern of the area as it is shown in the aerial photographs taken in 2004 and 2005. The breeding shorebirds such as Lapwing, Redshank and Black-tailed Godwit prefer wetlands with bare patches and open water. The most appropriate habitat for breeding shorebirds is one with a proportion approximating the 30: 30: 40% of bare patches, short grass and water cover respectively.2. In this aerial photograph taken in spring 2005 the difference between grazed (right-hand side) and ungrazed (left-hand side) wetland parts is even more visible
The pictures below show the changes of vegetation cover in the grazed sample area and the adjoining ungrazed control area between 2002 and 2005. In the pictures taken in 2002 it can be seen that works were not initiated and the unwanted channels were still present. In the 2003 picture the grazed and ungrazed areas are separated but alien woody growth species are still visible in the background. In 2004 the difference between grazed and ungrazed areas were obvious, the photo shows that open water and bare ground is present in the grazed part while dry, high vegetation covers the ungrazed units without open water. The most noticable difference between 2004 and 2005 is that Typha vegetation appeared in the ungrazed parts.
4. The difference between grazed and ungrazed areas were obvious in 2003. The channels had been eliminated, but invasive woody growth can still be seen in the background
5. In 2004 the area was flooded and while open water and bare patches can be seen on the grazed part, the ungrazed parts are covered with grass
6. In 2005 height and pattern of the vegetation in the grazed parts is similar to that in 2004 as opposed to the high, rank vegetation cover in the non-grazed parts, with the unwanted appearance of bullrush (Typha) species.
The flooded part of the project site is less saline, it is rather marsh and meadow-like. In the draining muddy areas the protected and rare Nanocyperion associations appeared, the saline parts are patterned by bare patches and covered by extensive stands of Limonium gmelini and sporadic Camphorosma annua species.
8. Well grazed saline puszta with patterned bare patches
9. Well grazed saline puszta with patterned bare patches
10. The protected Elatini-Lindernenion association appeared on the muddy parts of the grazed wetland
11. The protected and endemic Elatine hungarica
12. Camphorosma annua
13. Lindernia procumbens (upper) and Elatine alsinastrum (lower) species of the Nanocyperion association
14. Flooded area with Ranunculus sp.
One of the great achievements of the project is that shorebirds like Lapwing, Redshank and Black-tailed Godwit endangered both in Hungary and in Europe now breed in the area. The created wetland grazed at an ecologically sustainable high level had 49 Annex I. migratory species, out of which 10 bred in the area. This wetland was one of the most important foraging habitat for Spoonbills (Platalea leucorodia) and Glossy Ibises (Plegadis falcinellus) in the summer 2004 and 2005, when masses of shorebirds (up to 16,700 individuals in the same period) used the wetland as a foraging area.
16. The Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) breeds in large numbers at the project site
17. The Redshank (Tringa totanus) breeds in large numbers at the project site
18. Spoonbills (Platalea leucorodia)
19. The rare Black-winged Pratincole (Glareola nordmanni) at the project site
20. Collared Pratincole (Glareola pratincola) at the project site
21. White-winged Terns (Chlidonias leucopterus) bred at the project site in 2004 and 2005 22. Migrating Black-tailed Godwits (Limosa limosa) at the project site
Assigned indicator | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | ||||||||
Species | Breeding | Migrating | Feeding | Breeding | Migrating | Feeding | Breeding | Migrating | Feeding | Annex | Spec |
Podiceps griseigena: | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | - | - |
Platalea leucorodia: | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 148 | 0 | 0 | 230 | I. | 2 |
Anser erythropus: | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 32 | 0 | 16 | 16 | I. | 1 |
Aythya niroca: | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 29 | 29 | 10+ | 48 | 48 | I. | 1 |
Aquila heliaca: | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | I. | 1 |
Falco vespertinus: | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | - | - |
Grus grus: | 0 | 1400 | 1400 | 0 | 2000 | 800 | 0 | 21150 | 21150 | I. | 3 |
Otis tarda: | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | I. | 1 |
Himantopus himantopus: | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 16 | 16 | 0 | 16 | 16 | I. | - |
Recurvirostra avosetta: | 0 | 1 | 0 | 36 | 96 | 96 | 16 | 54 | 54 | I. | - |
Glareola pratincola: | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 | I. | 3 |
Vanellus vanellus: | 16 | 630 | 630 | 47 | 2550 | 2550 | 55 | 1500 | 1500 | - | - |
Tringa totanus: | 3 | 17 | 17 | 19 | 80 | 80 | 29 | 90 | 90 | - | 2 |
Tringa stagnatilis: | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 8 | - | - |
Tringa glareola | 0 | 480 | 480 | 0 | 700 | 700 | 0 | 450 | 450 | I. | 3 |
Limosa limosa: | 0 | 35 | 35 | 11 | 6500 | 6500 | 10 | 970 | 970 | - | 2 |
Porzana porzana: | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | I. | 4 |
Chlidonias hybrida: | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 80 | 80 | 0 | 110 | 110 | I. | 3 |
Chlidonias leucopterus: | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 50 | 50 | 210 | 1180 | 1180 | - | - |
Saxicola torquata: | 31 | 42 | 42 | 3 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 12 | 12 | - | - |
Emebriza calandra: | 4 | 58 | 58 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 9 | - | - |
The migrating and feeding figures indicate the highest daily count of the year, not the estimated total number of migrants