HRAMN

Naturalness

The Naturalness categories of the High Resolution Aerial Monitoring Network


0 – Coated surfaces


1 – Completely degraded / early-regeneration state


Only “weeds” and uncharacteristic species predominate, no more natural type of vegetation can be recognized, i.e. there are none in the near-natural and semi-natural categories.


2 – Heavily degraded / poorly regenerated condition


The species set is uncharacteristic, disturbance tolerant, “weeds”, invasive weeds prevail, the structure of the vegetation is disintegrated or undeveloped (monodominant, contemporaneous patches, few species live together), the vegetation is often fragmented, the place of production is usually degraded, more natural habitat could not be named. If the original habitat is recognizable, its condition is still “very poor”, with the mostly large cover of adventitious species;


3 – Moderately degraded / moderately regenerated condition


Natural species predominate, but there are few coloring elements, other disturbance-rich species are often disturbed, and even “weeds” can be common, the production site is often moderately degraded, the vegetation structure is not good (homogeneous, contemporaneous, or unnaturally spotted) / other times the structure is better, but then the species stock is uncharacteristic; it is almost always possible to name a more natural habitat, but its condition is "not good".


4 – Close to nature / Well regenerated state


The structure of the vegetation is good and/or natural species predominate, there are many coloring elements, but mostly there are few species that are tolerant of disturbance; it is not uncommon for vegetation characteristics 3 and 5 to be combined: I. in species poorer, possibly weedy, but with a very well-structured patch, II. very rich in species but not in good structure, III. old forest stock, but species deficient or not well structured, IV. one vegetation level is in significantly better condition than the other level (this is the widest natural category).


5 – Natural state


In specialist, companion, and site-indicating species, the area is rich in structures, and has a sanctuary value, is one of the best (regionally) 10-50-100 stands in the given habitat, there are no or few weeds and invasive species, the site is in a natural condition (Takács and Molnár 2007).

References


Bölöni J., Molnár Zs., Horváth F. & Illyés E. (2008) Naturalness-based habitat quality of the Hungarian (semi-)natural habitats. Acta Botanica Hungarica 50(Suppl.), pp. 149-159.


Bölöni J., Molnár Zs., Kun A. (eds.) (2011): Magyarország élőhelyei. A hazai vegetációtípusok leírása és határozója. ÁNÉR 2011. MTA ÖBKI, Vácrátót, pp. 441.

Takács Gábor és Molnár Zsolt (Szerk.) 2007: Nemzeti biodiverzitas-monitorozó rendszer. XI. Élőhely-térképezés, Második átdolgozott kiadás, Sarród, Vácrátót pp. 23-24.