A geoökológia és a geoökológiai térképezés néhány elvi és gyakorlati kérdése

The geographical environment can be investigated from several aspects: - in the biological (ecological) approach emphasis is put on the biotic factors of the environment or on the structure itself; - in the geographical approach research concentrates on the abiotic factors and functions; and - the technological or planning trend focuses the analysis on the economical-technical background of impacts. To distinguish between the first two trends and the related disciplines, the terms (bio) ecology and geoecology are in use. The two concepts differ in handling the role of abiogenic and biogenic factors. In the past decade there was an intension to define geoecology as the study of abiotic factors and of issues concerning the functioning of the physical environment, while landscape ecology investigates the biogenic factors and problems of spatial organisation, structure. Several authors, however, use these concepts interchangeably. The problem is more complicated than that. On the other hand, the concept landscape is narrower or different from that covered by landscape ecology. The latter studies the arrangement of the ecosystem and the flows of matter and energy between its componensts. Here the question is not simply whether or to what extent man-made elements are included in landscape functioning. On the other hand, there is a significant difference between the landscape and the (physical) geographical environment – the true carrier of system properties. This difference of contents was clarified by S. Marosi (1981). In his opinion, the landscape consists of geotopes (naturally including biotopes), while the (geographical) environment is built up of ecotopes and – as a spatial unit – from ecochores. It is the activity of the society related to the socio- or econotopes that makes the geotopes exotopes. In the Marosi model the relationship between landscape and environment is clearly defined. No similar is applied in either the German or in the English-language literature. At the same time, the often used term landscape ecology is difficult to interpret from this standpoint, since they are almost mutually exclusive categories. Spatial pattern is often emphasised in the investigation of the landscape, of the concrete environment and the implications for functioning are neglected, the various ’topes’ are not regarded as aspects of functioning. In the same manner it would be a mistake to restrict the study only to the biogenic or to the abiogenic factors or to disregard functional or system properties. In our opinion – after the scheme by H. Leser (1984) – the German and English schools and the Hungarian views can be reconciled as shown in Fig. l. The size of the landscape ecology frame in the figure may change with various approaches and even it location may vary with the emphasis being on spatiality (like in the Russian literature) or on systems approach (like in the concept of English speaking researchers). Although it contradicts rigid delimitations, geoecology – among others for the above reasons – should cover the analysis of biotic factors too (hence is the uncertainty of delimitation), since they reflect the joint impact of abiotic factors and also point to human influences. Hopefully, the series of examples in the paper call attention to the flexibility of categories. There is communication between them, e.g. geoecology may also reveal structural properties and landscape ecology may answer functional questions of the physical environment. In this respect, the distinction between the two concepts may seem groundless. In our opinion, the in dependent treatment of geoecology separate from landscape ecology, a discipline with more traditions and broader contents, can be justified by the increasing importance of issues of environmental functioning, assessment of the partial potentials of the physical environment (i.e. landscape capacity controlled by landscape budget), data aquisition from field measurements and other practical requirements. The principles of geoecological mapping outlined here (Figure 2) reach beyond the 1:25,000 scale geoecological mapping in Germany, both in methodology and in objective4s. It seemed necessary to apply – in addition to the conventional field surveys, mapping and laboratory techniques – GIS for data storage and processing and for the regional extension of results automated aerial photo interpretation (with scanner) and other remote sensing methods. Although complex systems (such as the landscape) can only be fragmented in a holistic approach, efficiency required the application of a GIS. In the paper three examples are used to illustrate the opportunities to geoecological mapping. The first of them concerns the reclamation or optimal utilisation of surfaces partially used for agricultural purposes, while the second identifies areas affected by hazards, soil erosion, and the third deals with physical loadability through recreation

Ecological conditions, flora and vegetation of a large doline in the Mecsek Mountains (South Hungary)

Vegetation-environment relationships were investigated in a large doline of the Mecsek Mts (South Hungary). To reveal the vegetation pattern, we collected vegetation data and environmental variables along a 243 m long transect. Atotal of 144 vascular plant species and 4 vegetation types were identified in the doline.We found that both the species composition and the vegetation pattern are significantly influenced by air temperature, air humidity, soil moisture and altitude. Our results confirm the putative temperature and vegetation inversion in the doline

Urban temperature excess as a function of urban parameters in Szeged, Part 2: Statistical model equations

IgenNe

Retreat and extinction of the Late Pleistocene cave bear (Ursus spelaeus sensu lato)

The cave bear (Ursus spelaeus sensu lato) is a typical representative of Pleistocene megafauna which became extinct at the end of the Last Glacial. Detailed knowledge of cave bear extinction could explain this spectacular ecological transformation. The paper provides a report on the youngest remains of the cave bear dated to 20,930 ± 140 14C years before present (BP). Ancient DNA analyses proved its affiliation to the Ursus ingressus haplotype. Using this record and 205 other dates, we determined, following eight approaches, the extinction time of this mammal at 26,100–24,300 cal. years BP. The time is only slightly earlier, i.e. 27,000–26,100 cal. years BP, when young dates without associated collagen data are excluded. The demise of cave bear falls within the coldest phase of the last glacial period, Greenland Stadial 3. This finding and the significant decrease in the cave bear records with cooling indicate that the drastic climatic changes were responsible for its extinction. Climate deterioration lowered vegetation productivity, on which the cave bear strongly depended as a strict herbivore. The distribution of the last cave bear records in Europe suggests that this animal was vanishing by fragmentation into subpopulations occupying small habitats. One of them was the Kraków-Częstochowa Upland in Poland, where we discovered the latest record of the cave bear and also two other, younger than 25,000 14C years BP. The relatively long survival of this bear in karst regions may result from suitable microclimate and continuous access to water provided by deep aquifers, indicating a refugial role of such regions in the Pleistocene for many species