Doğa koruma ve restorasyon öncelikli alanların belirlenmesinde ekolojik değer analizinin kullanımı

Abstract

Özet: Son yıllarda yapılan birçok çalışma, üç fitocoğrafik rejyonda bulunup yüksek derecede biyolojik çeşitlilğe ev sahipliği yapan ancak doğal yapısı antropojenik müdahalelerle bozulmuş veya tahrip olmuş orman peyzajlarında doğa koruma ve restorasyon çalışmalarına gerek duyulduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Özellikle Avrupa ve Kuzey Amerika’da son yıllarda bu konulardaki son gelişmeler göz önünde bulundurulduğunda, çeşitli peyzaj tipleri için farklı planlama yöntemlerinin uygulandığı doğa koruma ve restorasyon çalışmalarının yapılmasının önemli olduğu görülmektedir. Bu çalışmada, doğa koruma ve restorasyon öncelikli alanların belirlenmesine yönelik olarak günümüzde birçok gelişmiş ülkede yaygın olarak kullanılan “ekolojik değer analizi”nin temel prensiplerine dayanan bir planlama konsepti geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma alanı olarak Yedigöller Milli Parkı (Bolu) seçilmiştir. Ekolojik değer analizi 80 örnek alandan toplanan bitki toplumlarının enderliği ve bunların mekansal dağılımı, hemerobi dereceleri, bitki taksonlarının çeşitliliği ve enderliği, endemik bitki taksonları, orman strüktürünün bazı bileşenleri (katlılık, meşcere yaşı, karışım biçimi, karışım oranı, meşcere kapalılığı) ve ölü ağaç miktarına ilişkin 16 parametrenin değerlendirilmesiyle ilişki matrisleri ve doğrudan puanlama kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre; (1) doğallık, yaşam alanı çeşitliliği, tür çeşitliliği, enderlik ve endemikliğe bağlı olarak oldukça değişken bir peyzaj yapısı vardır, (2) araştırma alanının %90’ı “orta” ekolojişk değere sahiptir, (3) ayrıntılı ekolojik değer skalası puanları 15-30 arasında değişmektedir, (4) antropojenik etki büyük oranda göllere yakın olan alanda belirlenmiştir, (5) peyzaj yapısına bağlı olarak mümkün olduğunca fazla parametrenin kullanılması alanın çok yönlü olarak analiz edilmesini sağladığı gibi analizin hassasiyetini de arttırmıştır.              

Anahtar Kelimeler: Peyzaj planlama, doğa koruma, restorasyon, ekolojik değer, arazi kullanımı

Received (Geliş): 02.06.2017 - Revised (Düzeltme): 16.07.2017 -   Accepted (Kabul): 17.10.2017

Keywords

• Peyzaj planlama,doğa koruma,restorasyon,ekolojik değer,arazi kullanımı

Use of ecological value analysis for prioritizing areas for nature conservation and restoration

Abstract

Abstract: Many studies made in recent years revealed the fact that nature conservation and restoration practises have been required in our forests, whose natural structure has been degraded or destroyed by anthropogenic interference, containing a high level of biodiversity and situated in three different phyto-geographical regions. Considering the recent developments on these subjects mainly in Europe and North America, it is necessary to carry on nature conservation and restoration studies by applying different planning methodology for various landscape types. It was aimed with this study to develop a new planning concept for determining nature conservation and restoration priority areas based on the basic principles of “ecological value analysis”, which is widely used today in many developed countries. Yedigöller National Park (Bolu) was selected as study area. Ecological value analysis was performed with the assessment of data collected from 80 sample plots related to 16 parameters, which are the rarity of plant communities and their spatial distribution, hemeroby degrees, diversity and rarity of plant taxa, endemic plant taxa, some components of forest structure (layerness, stand age, mixture type, mixture rate, canopy closure) and deadwood amount by using relation matrices and direct scoring. The results revealed that; (1) there is a rather variable landscape structure depending on naturalness, diversity of habitats, species diversity, rarity and endemism, (2) 90% of the study area has “medium” ecological value, (3) detailed ecological value scale scores ranges between 15-30, (4) anthropogenic disturbance is mainly determined in the area close to the lakes, (5) use of many parameters as possible considering the landscape structure improved the sensitivity of the analysis as well as providing the sophisticated analysis of the study area.

Keywords: Landscape planning, nature conservation, restoration, ecological value, land use

Received (Geliş): 02.06.2017 - Revised (Düzeltme): 16.07.2017 -   Accepted (Kabul): 17.10.2017

Keywords

• Landscape planning,nature conservation,restoration,ecological value,land use

References

1. Ammer, U., Utschick, H., 1982. Methodische Überlegungen für eine Biotopkartierung im Wald, Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt 101 (1): 60-68.
2. Ammer, U., Utschick, H., 1984. Gutachten zur Waldpflegeplanung im Nationalpark Bayerischer Wald auf der Grundlage einer ökologischen Wertanalyse, Schriftenreihe des Bayerischen Staatsministeriums für Ernährung. Landwirtschaft und Forsten, Heft 10, 95 p.
3. Anderson, S., 2002. Identifying important plant areas: a site selection manual for europe, and a basis for developing guidelines for other regions of the world, Plantlife International, London, http://www.plantlife.org.uk/downloads/ipa/ Identifying_IPAs_in_Europe_Site_Selection_Manual.pdf (10 Nowember 2013). Andren, H., 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71: 355-366.
4. Anonymous, 2002-2013. Status Report on Nature Conservation 2002-2013, Republic of Turkey Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs, General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks, 40 p. http://www.milliparklar.gov.tr/kitap/100/mobile/index.html (Accessed: 16 March 2017).
5. Anonymous, 2013. Yedigöller-Yeşilöz yaban hayatı geliştirme sahası yönetim ve gelişme planı. Doğa Koruma ve Milli Parklar Genel Müdürlüğü, Bolu-Zonguldak İl Çevre ve Orman Müdürlüğü, 89 p.
6. Barsch, H., Bastian, O., Beierkuhnlein, C., Bosshard, A., Breuste, J., Klötli, F., Ott, K., Tress, B., Tress, G., Weiland, U., 2002. Application of landscape ecology. In: Bastian, O., Steinhardt, U. (Eds.), Development and perspectives in landscape ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, pp. 307-432. Bastian, O., 1999. Landschaftsbewertung und Leitbildentwicklung auf der Basis von Mikrogeochoren. In: Steinhardt, U., Volk, M. (Eds.), Regionalisierung in der Landschaftsökologie, Umweltforschungszentrum Leipzig-Halle GmbH, pp. 287-298.
7. Bastian, O., Meyer, B.C., Panse, E., Röder, M., Syrbe, R.-U., 2002. Landscape assessment. In: Bastian, O., Steinhardt, U. (Eds.), Development and perspectives in landscape ecology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, pp. 205-257.
8. Berg, C., Bilz, M., Ristow, M., Raab, B., 2008. Important Plant Areas (IPA)-Ein internationales Konzept zum Schutz der Wildpflanzen der Erde. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 40 (4): 101-105.

9. Berg, M., 2001, Das Artenhilfsprogramm für endemische und stark bedrohte Pflanzenarten Bayerns, Artenhilfsprogramme - Schriftenreihe LfU, Heft 156, 19-88.
10. Beşkardeş, V., 2010. Bolu-Yedigöller Yaban Hayatı Koruma ve Geliştirme Sahasında Yaban Hayatı Yönetimi, Doktora Tezi, İ.Ü. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
11. Bradtka, J., Bässler, C., Müller, J., 2010. Baumbewohnende Flechten als Zeiger für Prozessschutz und ökologische Kontinuität im Nationalpark Bayerischer Wald. Waldökologie, Landschaftsforschung und Naturschutz 9: 49-63.
12. Brändli, U-B., 2001. Nature Protection Function. In: Brassel, P., Lischke, H. (Eds.), Swiss National Forest Inventory: Methods and Models of the Second Assessment, WSL Swiss Federal Research Institute, pp. 265-282.
13. Braun-Blanquet, J., 1964. Pflanzensoziologie. Wien-New York.
14. Brigham, C.A., Schwartz, M.W., 2003. Population Viability in Plants-Conservation, Management and Modeling of Rare Plants. Springer, Ecological Studies 165, 384 p.
15. Carr, E., 1999. Wilderness by design: Landscape architecture and the national park service, University of Nebraska Press, USA, 378 p.
16. Çolak A.H., Tokcan M., Kırca S., 2011. Ölü ağaç-Yaşayan ölüler. Batı Karadeniz Ormancılık Araştırma Müdürlüğü-Bolu. Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı, Çeşitli Yayınlar Serisi No.6, Bakanlık Yayın No. 427, Müdürlük Yayın No. 22, 147 p. Çolak, A.H., Kırca, S., Rotherham, I.D., İnce, A., 2010. Restoration and rehabilitation of deforested and degraded forest landscapes in Turkey. Ministry of Environment and Forestry-General Directorate of Afforestation and Erosion Control, İstanbul, 566 p.
17. Czeranka, M., Peithmann, O., 1997. Kompensation in der Raumplanung mit GIS-Unterstützung. In: Schrenk, M. (Ed.), Computergestützte Raumplanung, Beiträge zum Symposion CORP´97, Wien, pp. 303-308. Davis, P.H., 1979. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands-Volume I, Edinburgh University Press, 568 p.
18. Dzwonko, Z., Loster, S., 1989. Distribution of vascular plant species in small woodlands on the Western Carpathian foothills. Oikos 56: 77-86.
19. Enoksson, B., Angelstam, P., Larsson, K., 1995. Deciduous forest and resident birds: the problem of fragmentation within a coniferous forest landscape. Landscape Ecology 10 (5): 267-275.
20. Fahrig, L., 2003. Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34: 487-515.
21. Forman R.T.T., 1995. Land Mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, New York.
22. Gamfeldt, L., Snäll, T., Bagchi, R., Jonsson, M., Gustafsson, L., Kjellander, P., Ruiz-Jaen, M.C., Fröberg, M., Stendahl, J., Philipson, C.D., Mikusiński, G., Andersson, E., Westerlund, B., Andrén, H., Moberg, F., Moen, J., Bengtsson, J., 2013. Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nature Communications 4 (1340): 1-8, doi: 10.1038/ncomms2328.
23. Gaston, K.J., 1994. Rarity, population and community. Biology series 13, Chapman & Hall, London, 220 p.
24. Geyler, S., 2008. Ökonomisch-ökologische Bewertung von regionalen Trinkwasserschutzoptionen. Peter Lang-Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main, 304 p.
25. Grabherr, G., Koch, G. Kirchmeir, H., Reiter, K., 1998. Hemerobie Österreichischer Waldöko-Systeme. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Band 17, Innsbruck, Wagner, 493 p.
26. Gürlich, S., 2009. Die Bedeutung alter Bäume für den Naturschutz – Alt- und Totholz als Lebensraum für bedrohte Artengemeinschaften. Jahrbuch der Baumpflege 189-198.
27. Gyllenberg, M., Hanski, I., 1997. Habitat deterioration, habitat destruction, and metapopulation persistence in a heterogenous landscape. Theoretical Population Biology 52 (3): 198-215.
28. Hahn, K., Christensen, M., 2005. Dead wood in European forest reserves - A reference for forest management. In: Marchetti M. (Ed.), Monitoring and ındicators of forest biodiversity in Europe - from ideas to operationality, European Forest Institute Proceedings, Florence, 51, pp. 181-191.
29. Hahn, P., Heynen, D., Indermühle, M., Mollet, P., Birrer, S., 2005. Holznutzung und Naturschutz. Praxishilfe mit waldbaulichen Merkblättern. Bundesamt Umwelt Wald Landschaft, Vollzug Umwelt, 113 p.
30. Haila, Y., 2002. A Conceptual genealogy of fragmentation research: From island biogeography to landscape ecology. Ecological Applications 12 (2): 321-334.
31. Hampicke, U., 2013. Kulturlandschaft und Naturschutz, Probleme-Konzepte-Ökonomie. Springer Verlag, 337 p.
32. Hanski, I., 1999, Metapopulation ecology, Oxford University Press, 328 p.
33. Hanski, I.A., Gilpin, M.E., 1997. Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, California.
34. Harrison S., Bruna E., 1999. Habitat fragmentation and large-scale conservation: What do we know for sure? Ecography 22: 225-232.
35. Hockings, M., Stolton. S., Dudley N., 2000. Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing the Management of Protected Areas. lUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, Gland, Switzerland.
36. Idle, E.T., 1994. Erfassen und Bewerten auf lokaler Ebene: Eine Region in Schottland. In: Usher, M.B., Erz, W. (Eds.), Erfassen und Bewerten im Naturschutz, Quelle und Meyer Verlag, Heidelberg, Wiesbaden, pp. 117-130.
37. Jedicke, E., 1997. Die Roten Listen, Gefährdete Pflanzen, Tiere, Pflanzengesellschaften und Biotoptypen in Bund und Ländern, Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart, 581 p.
38. Jefferson, R.G., Usher, M.B., 1986. Ecological succession and the evaluation of non-climax communities. In: Usher, M.B. (Ed.), Wildlife conservation evaluation, Chapman & Hall, London, 69-91.
39. Kareiva, P.,1990. Population dynamics in spatially complex environments: theory and data. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London Biological Sciences 330: 175–190.
40. Kehl, H., 1995. Vegetation dynamics of maquis and their derivatives under the influence of a small settlement near Antalya (SW-Turkey). In: Sukopp, H., Numata, M. Huber, A. (Eds.), Urban ecology as the basis of urban planning, SPB Academic Publishing bv, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 85-150.
41. Kerr, G., Stokes, V., Peace, A., Jinks, R., 2014. The Role of Uneven-Aged Silviculture in Diversifying Forests in Britain to Adapt Forests to Climate Change and Increase Resilience to Pests and Disease. The 9th IUFRO International Conference on Uneven-Aged Silviculture Future Concepts in Uneven-Aged Silviculture for a Changing World, June 16–19, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, WSL Birmensdorf, 26.
42. Kerr, J.T., 1997. Species richness, endemism, and the choice of areas for conservation. Conservation Biology 11: 1094-1100.
43. Kırca, S., 2015. Peyzaj Planlamada Doğa Koruma ve Restorasyon Öncelikli Alanların Belirlenmesi: Yedigöller Milli Parkı (Bolu) Örneği. Doktora Tezi, İ.Ü. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Kirby, K., 2004. Die Bewertung von Wäldern und Gehölzbeständen. In: Usher, M.B., Erz, W. (Eds.), Erfassen und Bewerten im Naturschutz, Quelle und Meyer Verlag, Heidelberg, Wiesbaden, pp. 167-186.
44. Kurdoğlu, O., Çokçalışkan Avcıoğlu, B. 2011. Assessing the effectiveness of protected area management in the Turkish Caucasus. African Journal of Biotechnology 10 (75): 17208-17222.
45. Leverington, F., Kettner, A., Nolte, C., Marr, M., Stolton, S., Pavese, H., Stoll-Kleemann, S., Hockings, M., 2010. Protected area management effectiveness assessments in Europe. BfN-Skripten 271b, 152 p.
46. Levins, R., 1969. Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bulletin of the entomological society of America 15: 237-240.
47. Lindenmayer D.B., Possingham H.P., Lacy R.C., McCarthy M.A., Pope M.L., 2003. How accurate are population models? Lessons from landscape-scale tests in a fragmented system. Ecology letters 6: 41-47.
48. Lindenmayer, D.B., Franklin, J.F., Fischer, J., 2006. General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 131 (3): 433-445.
49. Margules, C.R., Pressey, R.L., Nicholls, A.O., 1991. Selecting Nature Reserves. In: Margules, C.R., Austin, M.P. (Eds.), Nature Conservation: Cost Effective Biological Surveys and Data Analysis, 220 p.
50. Marks, R., 1979. Ökologische Landschaftsanalyse und Landschaftsbewertung als Aufgaben der Angewandten Physischen Geographie dargestellt am Beispiel der Raume Zwiesel/Falkenstein (Bayerischer Wald) und Nettetal (Niederrhein). Geographisches Institut Bochum Forschungsabteilung für Raumordnung, 134 p.
51. McGarigal, K., 2002. Landscape pattern metrics. In: El-Shaarawi, A.H., Piegorsch, W.W. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England. Volume 2, pp. 1135-1142. Médail, F., Verlaque, R., 1997. Ecological characteristics and rarity of endemic plants from Southeast France and Corsica: Implications for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 80: 269-281.
52. Montag, 1976. Erfassung schutzwürdiger Gebiete in Niedersachsen. In: 30 Jahre Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege in Niedersachsen, Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten, Hannover, pp. 42-47.
53. Mulongoy, K.J., Chape, S.P., 2004. Protected Areas and Biodiversity: An overview of key issues. CBD Secretariat, Montreal, Canada and UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, 52 p.
54. Nolte, C., Leverington, F., Kettner, A., Marr, M., Nielsen, G., Bomhard, B., Stolton, S., Stoll-Kleemann, S., Hockings, M., 2010. Protected Area Management Effectiveness Assessments in Europe – A review of application, methods and results. Bundesamt für Naturschutz-Skripten 271a, Bonn, 69 p.
55. O’Hara, K.L., 1998. Silviculture for structural diversity: A new look at multiaged systems. Journal of forestry 96 (7): 4-10.
56. Oakley, K.L., Thomas, L.P., Fancy, S.G., 2003. Guidelines for long-term monitoring protocols. Wildlife society bulletin 31 (4): 1000-1003.
57. Opdam, P., Foppen, R., Reijnen, R., Schotman, A., 1995. The landscape ecological approach in bird conservation: integrating the metapopulation concept into spatial planning, IBIS 137 (1): 139-146.
58. Perlin, J., 1989. A forest journey: The story of wood and civilization, W. W. Norton & Co., New York, 445 p.
59. Petermann, R., Seibert, P, 1979. Die Pflanzengesellschaften des Nationalparks Bayerischer Wald mit einer farbigen Vegetationskarte. Schriftenreihe Nationalpark Bayerischer Wald, Heft 4, Bayerische Staatsministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten.
60. Preston, F.W., 1962. The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity: Part I and II, Ecology 43: 185-215; 410-432.
61. Rackham, O., Moody, J., 1996. The making of the Cretan landscape. Manchester, Manchester University Press.
62. Riedel, W., Lange, H., 2002. Landschaftsplanung. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag; 2. Aufl., Heidelberg, Berlin, 396 p.
63. Robinson, G.R., Holt, R.D., Gaines, M.S., Hamburg, S.P., Johnson, M.L., Fitch, H.S., Martinko, E.A., 1992. Diverse and contrasting effects of habitat fragmentation. Science 257 (5069): 524-526.
64. Rodrigues, A.S.L., Gaston, K.J., 2002. Rarity and Conservation planning across geopolitical units. Conservation Biology 16 (3): 674-682.
65. Scherzinger, W., 1996. Naturschutz im Wald: Qualitätsziele einer dynamischer Waldentwicklung. Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart.
66. Schwartz, M.W., Simberloff, D., 2001. Taxon size predicts rates of rarity in vascular plants. Ecology letters 4: 464-469.
67. Stewart, B., Neily, P., 2008. A Procedural Guide for Ecological Landscape Analysis- An Ecosystem Based Approach to Landscape Level Planning in Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, 45 p.
68. Stoffel, A., 1992. GIS als Instrument zur ökologischen Wertanalyse, Geoprocessing Reihe. Geographisches Institut der Universität Zürich, 95 p. Sukopp, H., 1970. Charakteristik und Bewertung der Naturschutzgebiete in Berlin (West). Natur und Landschaft 45: 133-139.
69. Sukopp, H., 1971. Bewertung und Auswahl von Naturschutzgebieten. Schriftenreihe für Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz 6: 183-194.
70. Sukopp, H., 2004. Human-caused impact on preserved vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning 68: 347-355.
71. Symstad, A.J., Tilman, D., Willson, J., Knops, J.M.H., 1998. Species loss and ecosystem functioning: effects of species identity and community composition. Oikos 81 (2): 389-397.
72. Tokcan, M., 2015. Yedigöller Milli Parkı ile Sarımustan Bölgesi’nin Hemerobi Dereceleri ve Bitki Toplumlarının Belirlenmesi, Doktota Tezi, İ.Ü. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Orman Botaniği Anabilim Dalı.
73. Usher, M.B., 1986. Wildlife conservation evaluation: attributes, criteria and values. In: Usher, M.B. (Ed.), Wildlife conservation evaluation, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 3-44.
74. Usher, M.B., 1994. Erfassen und Bewerten von Lebensräumen: Merkmale, Kriterien, Werte. In: Usher, M.B., Erz, W. (Eds.), Erfassen und Bewerten im Naturschutz, Quelle und Meyer Verlag, Heidelberg, Wiesbaden, pp. 17-47.
75. Vallauri, D., Andre, J., Blondel, J., 2003. Dead wood - a typical shortcoming of managed forests. Revue forestiere francaise 55 (2): 99-112.
76. Verkaar, H.J., 1990. Corridors as a tool for plant species conservation. In: Bunce, R.G.H. & Howard, D.C. (Eds.), Species dispersal in agricultural habitats, Belhaven Press, London, pp. 82-97.
77. Villard M.-A., Trzcinski M. K., Merriam, G., 1999. Fragmentation effects on forest birds: relative influence ofwoodland cover and configuration of landscape occupancy. Conservation Biology 13: 774-783.
78. Von Haaren, C., 2004. Landschaftsplanung. Ulmer Verlag, UTB, Stuttgart, 528 p.
79. Watt, A.S., 1947. Pattern and process in the plant community. Journal of ecology 35 (1/2): 1-22.
80. Wilmanns, O., Kratochwil, A., Kammer, F., 1978. Biotop-Kartierung in Baden-Württemberg. Beihefte Veröff. Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege Baden-Württemberg Heft 11: 191- 205.
81. Winter, S, Schumacher, H, Flade, M, Möller, G, 2003. Naturschutzstandards für die Bewirtschaftung von Buchenwäldern im nordostdeutschen Tiefland. Eberswalde: Landesanstalt für Grossschutzgebiete, Sachbericht über das F&E­Vorhaben, Biologische Vielfalt und Forstwirtschaft, 445 p.
82. Wittig, R., Niekisch, M., 2014. Schwerpunkte der Biodiversität. In: Wittig, R., Niekisch, M. (Eds.), Biodiversität: Grundlagen, Gefährdung, Schutz, Springer Spektrum, Berlin-Heidelberg, pp. 191-218.
83. Wrbka T., Reiter K., Paar M., Szerencsits E., Stocker-Kiss A., Fussenegger K., 2005. Die Landschaften Österreichs und Ihre Bedeutung für die Biologische Vielfalt. Umweltbundesamt Gmbh., Wien. Wrbka, T., Reiter, K., Prinz, M., 2007. SISTEMaPARC - Landscape Change in the Seewinkel. INTERREGIIIB-Report. 17p.
84. Wulf, M., 1997. Plant species as indicators of ancient woodlands in northwestern Germany. Journal of vegetation science 8: 635-642.
85. Wulf, M., 2001. Kulturlandschaftsforschung in Brandenburg. Beispiel Wölbäcker in der Prignitz. - In: Harteisen, U., Schidt, A., Wulf, M. (Eds.), Kulturlandschaftsforschung und Umweltplanung. Reihe Forschen und Wissen, Landschaftsgestaltung, Herdecke (GCA-Verlag), pp. 87-100. Yücel, M., 2005. Doğa koruma. Çukurova Üniversitesi Genel Yayın No: 265, Ders Kitapları Yayın No: A-85, 430 p.
86. Yücel, M., Babuş, D., 2005. Doğa Korumanın Tarihçesi ve Türkiye’deki Gelişmeler. Doğu Akdeniz Ormancılık Araştırma Müdürlüğü, Doğa Dergisi 11: 151-175.