Introductory Chapter: Biodiversity Conservation Levels and Approaches in Today's Global Ecological Crisis

*Levente Hufnagel*

## **1. Introduction**

Human society is part of the biosphere, the human race is just one of the many millions of species in the biosphere. The existence of humanity, and the functionality and sustainability of its society and economy depend on the ecosystem services provided by the rest of the biosphere [1]. These services ensure breathable air, self-purification of waters and soils, a climate system suitable for life, and food, but a significant part of the energy carriers and building materials are also the product of the past operation of the biosphere.

The biosphere's state of health and its ability to provide services depend on the extent of the living communities of natural and near-natural habitats, their biomass, productivity, biological activity, and the high biodiversity that ensures their reliability and flexibility.

The global overpopulation of the human race has resulted in the shrinking of natural habitats, changes in land use and vegetation coverage, urbanization, and the growth of low-diversity agricultural areas, which on the one hand has led to a decrease in ecosystem services, a mass extinction wave of species, and on the other hand to additional problems resulting in a global ecological crisis, and climate change, which led to social and public health problems, socioeconomic dangers, and an increase in risks [2].

The transition to a sustainable society means the way out of the global ecological crisis [3, 4]. However, the sustainable society is currently not a real way of functioning, not an existing economic-social system, not a well-structured system of existing technologies and methods, but unfortunately only a slogan.

We know that in order to realize a sustainable global society, we need to achieve changes at several different organizational levels at the same time, and these are as follows:


• local-, regional-, continental-, and global-level legislation and law enforcement, concluding international conventions and establishing and strengthening international organizations that implement them, ensuring the legal and coordination conditions of a sustainable society.

We know that efforts to solve global problems during the transition to a sustainable information society must cover the following areas:


Global problems can only be tackled through globally coordinated efforts. The institutional system performing macro-level coordination tasks for the creation of a future sustainable society must fulfill the following (today not yet fulfilled worldwide) functions:


*Introductory Chapter: Biodiversity Conservation Levels and Approaches in Today's Global… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113079*


The common goals to be achieved are obvious:


## **2. The special tasks and response levels of biodiversity conservation**

The process of the historical unfolding of the global ecological crisis, at different stages, necessitated nature conservation activities of different levels and types. As the problems worsen, the protection activities must also develop and adapt to new challenges. In this historical adaptation process, seven levels or eras can be identified. However, the newer approaches can be successful not instead of the older ones, but only in addition to them and based on them.

#### **2.1 Passive** *in situ* **species protection**

The reduction of habitats and the increase of human endangering activities first manifested themselves in the conspicuous decline of large, mainly predatory animals and old large trees. It is clear that the first reactions of nature conservation also aim to protect these endangered and rare species, primarily by limiting and prohibiting their deliberate and direct destruction (hunting, cutting, collecting, trading) in their natural habitat. This level of protection is still important and essential in case of large marine and terrestrial mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and rare plants as well.

### **2.2 Active** *in situ* **species protection**

It soon became obvious that passive *in situ* species protection is not sufficient to deal with the problems in many cases, because the destruction of species and the reduction of their populations are not only caused by their direct destruction, but rather by the reduction of their life possibilities and their survival in critical periods. Their active protection in their own habitat can be served more efficiently by providing winter feeding places, summer watering holes, artificial nesting opportunities, and migration routes.

#### **2.3 Active** *ex situ* **species protection**

Unfortunately, it happened in more and more cases that both passive and active methods of *in situ* species protection failed, and the survival of some endangered species could no longer be ensured due to the disappearance or shrinking of their natural habitat. In such cases, as a last desperate attempt, the means of active *ex situ* species protection had to be and should be used, and the last specimens of endangered species had to be propagated under artificial conditions, in zoos, botanic gardens, preserved and maintained in special reserves, gene banks, and then reintroduced after the restoration of their habitat.

#### **2.4 Passive** *in situ* **habitat protection**

Already in the earliest times, it became obvious that the protection of species is most easily and effectively possible in their original natural habitat, together with their living community. This, in turn, means that the protection of non-endangered organisms and the protection of the association and ecosystem as a whole must be ensured in the habitat of protected organisms. The first national parks, nature reserves, biosphere reserves, and habitat protection programs were launched under this concept, but again, for the first time, only protection against direct human damage (logging, hunting) was implemented, and in many cases only partially.

### **2.5 Active** *in situ* **habitat protection**

In large areas, a diverse mosaic of ecosystems in their natural state is capable of self-sustaining operation if the harmful human activity is excluded. In many cases, however, there is only the possibility of preserving a small piece of nature in smaller patches of habitat surrounded by human settlements and agricultural areas, where the natural self-sustaining mechanisms have already been damaged. The active management of such nature conservation areas is essential, as invasive species must be

*Introductory Chapter: Biodiversity Conservation Levels and Approaches in Today's Global… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113079*

actively kept away, missing predators must be actively replaced by herbivore population control, the missed visits of grazing animals must be compensated for by mowing, forest fires must be curbed, or need to be maintained the dynamics of special communities by artificial controlled fires, water replacement may be necessary, etc.

#### **2.6 Extended biodiversity protection**

Nowadays, it has become clear that no matter how much we try to increase the number and extent of national parks, and to improve the quality of the professional work carried out in them, these efforts alone cannot effectively stop the decrease in biodiversity caused by human overpopulation and environmental pollution. Protection activities must also be extended to artificial ecosystems in the immediate vicinity of national parks and protected areas, by establishing buffer zones around protected areas, where agricultural activity should only be allowed in the form of chemical-free organic farming, the spread of urbanization must be stopped, and the establishment of mines and industrial areas must be limited, and the protection of biodiversity must also be ensured in settlement areas (by establishing parks, artificial lakes, green roofs, tree rows, lawn areas, and methods of active species protection). Extended biodiversity protection must cover the old varieties of cultivated plants and farm animals, traditional farming methods, and the traditional ecological knowledge of natural peoples, as well as the preservation of the spiritual and material memories of our cultural heritage. Efforts must be made to ensure that the culture and traditional lifestyle of natural peoples, which is in line with the approach of a sustainable society, can be preserved in its original form as our common treasure. All of these require a change of attitude in the field of tourism as well, and trophy hunting tourism can for example be replaced by ecotourism (as well as wildlife management for the purpose of nature conservation), which can be an important tool for spreading knowledge about nature and ethnography, and can be connected to nature photography, forest schools, etc. In the course of realizing a sustainable society, we must actually introduce the transition to environmentally friendly, sustainable farming not only in the buffer zones, but in the entire area of our planet, and the need for the general expansion of various methods of biodiversity protection.

#### **2.7 Active** *ex situ* **habitat protection**

The phenomenon of global climate change draws our attention to the fact that some long-term effects of human activity and natural processes make the work in national parks and their buffer zones and the general extension of biodiversity protection insufficient. Global climate change changes the boundaries of the climate zones suitable for individual ecosystems and communities [5, 6], shifts them in a polar or east-west direction, pushes the vertical zonation of mountains upwards, changes oceanic and continental effects, results in the transformation of local weather and groundwater conditions, the water flow of rivers, the water balance of lakes, the location and water level of seashores.

Instead of the currently prevailing "*in situ* conservation", that is, the preservation of existing ecological conditions in current habitats, the goal of nature conservation can only be to preserve the functionality, self-regulating capacity and biological diversity of the biosphere. This can be achieved by preventing harmful anthropogenic effects and actively helping the natural adaptation processes of ecological systems (migration, migration routes, area change). In order to solve this problem, active

nature conservation work in the nature of "eco-engineering" cannot be avoided. This work can basically be divided into two sub-tasks:


## **3. Financial issues**

The broadening and deepening of active nature conservation interventions and scientific research work also raise financial issues. In this connection, the apparent interests of different human activities and sectors may conflict, which make it necessary to express the effects and consequences in monetary terms. The tools of ecological economics provide an opportunity for this. The monetary value of biosphere services per unit of time and area can be estimated or approximated using several approaches. From this point of view, the article by Costanza et al. published in Nature in 1997 should be highlighted, and since then there have been many further developers and critics [7]. Opponents of monetary valuation of natural capital and biosphere services are mostly afraid that this method of valuation suggests that the biosphere can be bought or its functions can be replaced with money. Of course, it is not about that, it's just about using money as a general measure of value and "unit of measurement" to manage different habitat types and the importance and effects of their services in a way that is suitable for comparison.

Market-friendly solutions can be introduced based on the example of carbon dioxide emissions trading, which could play an important role in climate change mitigation and adaptation. Forest plantations for climate protection purposes, translocation projects for nature conservation purposes, the withdrawal of land from intensive cultivation, or the development of agriculture in accordance with ecological conditions, and the spread of ecotourism can be boosted with the help of these tools.

## **Author details**

Levente Hufnagel Research Institute of Multidisciplinary Ecotheology, John Wesley Theological College, Budapest, Hungary

\*Address all correspondence to: leventehufnagel@gmail.com

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Introductory Chapter: Biodiversity Conservation Levels and Approaches in Today's Global… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113079*

## **References**

[1] Palliwoda J, Fischer J, Felipe-Lucia MR, Palomo I, Neugarten R, Büermann A, et al. Ecosystem service coproduction across the zones of biosphere reserves in Europe. Ecosystems and People. 2021;**17**(1):491-506. DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2021.1968501

[2] Cafaro P, Hansson P, Götmark F. Overpopulation is a major cause of biodiversity loss and smaller human populations are necessary to preserve what is left. Biological Conservation. 2022;**272**:109646. ISSN 0006-3207. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109646

[3] Hufnagel L, Pálinkás M, Mics F, Homoródi R. Introductory chapter: The present global ecological crisis in the light of the mass extinctions of earth history. In: Hufnagel L, editor. Changing Ecosystems and Their Services. London, UK: IntechOpen; 2020. p. 141. Paper: Chapter 1

[4] Bastante-Ceca J, María Fuentes-Bargues L, José Florin-Constantin M, Latu C, et al. Introductory chapter: The need to change the paradigm - sustainability and development at the 21st century. In: María JB-C, Jose LF-B, Levente H, Florin-Constantin M, Corneliu L, editors. Sustainability Assessment at the 21st Century. London, UK: IntechOpen; 2020. p. 185. Paper: Chapter 1

[5] Garamvölgyi Á, Hufnagel L. Impacts of climate change on vegetation distribution no. 1 climate change induced vegetation shifts in the Palearctic region. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research. 2013;**11**(1):79-122

[6] Hufnagel L, Garamvölgyi Á. Impacts of climate change on vegetation distribution no. 2 - climate change

induced vegetation shifts in the new world. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research. 2014;**12**(2):355-422

[7] Costanza R, d'Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 1997;**387**:253-260

## **Chapter 2**

## Protecting Wetlands: Insights from the Northern Iberian Peninsula (Galicia, NW Spain)

*Javier Ferreiro da Costa and Pablo Ramil-Rego*

## **Abstract**

Wetlands are a key tool for environment conservation policy. They harbour important biodiversity values such as priority habitats and fragile species, reduce the impacts of floods, improve water quality, absorb pollutants, and protect shores from climate change effects, also acting as carbon reservoirs in the medium and long term. From an international point of view, those sites containing representative, rare or unique wetlands, are designated under Ramsar Convention, which was signed in 1971, being added to the Convention's List of Wetlands of International Importance and become known as Ramsar sites. More than 50 years after the signing of Ramsar Convention, its degree of application is very uneven across the different territories. This paper analyses the situation from the Atlantic area of the Iberian Peninsula, and specifically from Galicia, a territory that has a large number of wetlands, both terrestrial, marine, underground and artificial, with sites of high value for biodiversity and natural heritage conservation, but where there is no adequate protection over them, documented by the presence of a large number of anthropic impacts that is leading to biodiversity deterioration, habitat destruction and species decline.

**Keywords:** wetlands, conservation, management, protection, Ramsar, biodiversity

## **1. Introduction**

During the last decades of the 20th century, a paradigm shift in the social assessment of wetlands happened, as key components of biodiversity and donors of ecosystem services, leading to the implementation of various mechanisms, instruments and agreements for their conservation. The most relevant example was the signing of an International Convention in 1971 in the Iranian city of Ramsar, for the conservation of wetlands of international importance as waterfowl habitats (known as 'Ramsar Convention'), which made wetlands the only large ecosystem subject to an international agreement aimed at promoting its protection and rational use [1].

The signing of the Ramsar Convention would serve as an impulse for the development of new initiatives from an international perspective, as well as at a national, regional, or local level. In this way the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) applied, considering the conservation of wetlands

**Figure 1.** *Distribution of Ramsar sites within EU Member states [2].*

of vital importance, since they contribute to the conservation of biological diversity and cultural heritage, in addition to having an important role for human beings in terms of climate regulation, carbon sink, recharging aquifers, flood mitigation and other processes, as well as providing important provision services as they are an important source of directly exploitable resources. From the signing of the Ramsar Convention, wetlands would begin to be integrated into the legal framework of different countries. In 1990, after 15 years of the entry into force of the Ramsar Convention, the IV Conference of the Contracting Parties (COP4) of the Ramsar Convention was held in Montreux (Switzerland), bringing together 56 of the 59 signatory countries of the convention, approving the designation of 53 new wetlands of International Importance, which added to those declared since 1974, reached 533 designations (**Figure 1**).

In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the 'Earth Summit', was held in Rio de Janeiro. At the Earth Summit, 5 highly relevant documents were approved that marked environmental policy in the following decades: Rio Declaration on the environment and development (which established the concept of sustainable development), Agenda 21 (which listed 2,500 recommendations relating to the implementation of the declaration's principles), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (which led to the signing in 1997 of the Kyoto Protocol), the Declaration of Principles on Forests, and finally the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

#### *Protecting Wetlands: Insights from the Northern Iberian Peninsula (Galicia, NW Spain) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109060*

The European Union played a relevant role in the Rio Earth Summit, and at the same time promoted new environmental regulations. Thus, the Birds Directive (Directive 79/409/EEC), aimed at the conservation of wild birds, was complemented by the promulgation of the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC), relating to the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora, in which Natura 2000 was created. Subsequently, on 05/29/1995 the European Commission approved a communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament "Wise use and conservation of wetlands (COM(95) 189 final)", where it was assumed that wetlands represent one of the most important, most threatened and most common habitats in all the countries of the European Union. All this European legal framework granted the consideration of habitats of community interest to the natural and seminatural wetland habitats established in the Ramsar classification. The protection and conservation of wetlands within the framework of the European Union was completed through a third regulation, the Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC).

In Spain, the new orientations of environmental policy regarding wetlands were embodied by the very first time in Law 4/1989, which in its article 25 it contemplated the creation of the Spanish Wetland Inventory (SWI), whose preparation corresponded to the Spanish regions. This new framework was continued by the Spanish Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity [3], which established at the end of the 20th century the general framework of Spanish conservation policy, as an application of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 1992). The application of this Strategy was proposed through the development of Sectoral Action Plans, which in the framework of aquatic ecosystems led to the preparation of the Spanish Strategic Plan for the Conservation and Rational Use of Wetlands [4]. This plan was inspired by the First Strategic Plan of the Ramsar Convention 1997–2002 [5], as well as the postulates of the IUCN, thus contributing to compliance with the international commitments acquired by the Spanish government. However, the progress of the SWI set out in Law 4/1989 followed a slow development, as its regulation was not established until 15 years later, through Royal Decree 435/2004. Finally, Law 42/2007 came to recognize the Wetlands of the Ramsar Convention within the Spanish legislative framework as Areas Protected by International Instruments (APII), establishing additional protection measures for Spanish wetlands, mainly those included within one of the European or Spanish protection categories that were also established in the Law.

In application of Law 4/1989, the different Spanish regions started to take their first steps in terms of wetland protection. In Galicia, the regional legal framework in terms of protecting wetlands would take an important step with the promulgation of Law 9/2001, since it included a total of 9 categories of Protected Natural Areas (PNA), among which was the specific category of Protected Wetlands, setting an unparalleled example in Spain at that time. All these regulatory changes carried out in Galicia since the end of the 1980s were accompanied by different actions regarding the characterization and monitoring of waterfowl and the ecological restoration of wetlands [6], which showed a remarkable change of direction compared to the destructive policies on wetlands, developed under Franco's dictatorship and continued during the first stages of Spanish democracy.

In this paper, as one of the first planning and dissemination tasks developed by LIFE INSULAR project (LIFE20 NAT/ES/001007), we analyse the management, methods and processes on Protected Wetlands biodiversity in Galicia, assessing the future challenges and perspectives that arise for this protected area category.

The document assesses the progress in biodiversity conservation and management that has been made on Protected Wetlands over time, including the inventorying of wetlands, as well as their legal provisions and designations, the trends and changes of their limits because of several reasons, their improper use and management measures, as well as the consequences of all of these aspects which results in a loss of quality in the legal framework of Protected Wetlands.

## **2. Study area**

Galicia is a Spanish region that occupies an area of 3 million hectares and is located at the NW end of the Iberian Peninsula (**Figure 2**). Its Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics code is ES11. It is a territory of strong biogeographical and landscape contrasts [7–10], mostly included in the Atlantic biogeographical region, but with a significant part of its territory in the Mediterranean region. It is bounded by the Cantabrian Sea on the North, by the Atlantic Ocean on the West, by the Spanish regions of Asturias and Castilla y León on the East, and by the Portuguese region of Regiao Norte on the South. The marine waters surround Galician extensive northern and western coastline, while eastern edge encompasses the western end of the Cantabrian Mountains, which are diluted across the different Galician mountain ranges that separate the Littoral Galicia from the Interior Galicia. The first one is configured by a succession of short river valleys separated from each other by small reliefs. The second one is represented by large sedimentary basins, which mean a landscape with large horizontal extensions, drained by the tributaries of Miño, Sil and Limia rivers. In some sections these pass throughout canyons, especially the main streams of Miño and Sil rivers.

This huge heterogeneity has determined a high level of biodiversity in the Galician territory [11–21], both from the point of view of the diversity of wild species present (an especially the protected and catalogued species), as well as from the wide range of habitat and ecosystem types.

#### **Figure 2.** *Geographic framework of Galicia in NW Iberian Peninsula. Created by the authors.*

*Protecting Wetlands: Insights from the Northern Iberian Peninsula (Galicia, NW Spain) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109060*

## **3. The importance of wetland inventories**

The Ramsar Convention recognized from the beginning the importance of national wetland inventories as essential instruments for shaping policies and other measures aimed at achieving the conservation and wise use of wetlands. Already at the first meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties (COP1, Cagliari, 1980), the Parties were convinced that national wetland policies should be based on a nation-wide inventory of wetlands and their resources (Recommendation 1.5). This recognition of the value of national wetland inventories has been periodically reiterated at subsequent COPs, inter alia in the Annex to Recommendation 2.3 (COP2, Groningen, 1984), Recommendation 4.6 (COP4, Montreux, 1990), Resolution 5.3 (COP5, Kushiro, 1993) and Resolution VI.12 (COP6, Brisbane, 1996). So national wetland inventories, in addition to being an essential basis for the formulation of national wetland policies, are also considered important, among other things, to detect sites that can be included in the List of Wetlands of International Importance (the Ramsar List); to quantify the world's wetland resources, in order to assess their status and patterns; to determine which wetlands need to be restored and to carry out risk and vulnerability assessments [22].

The first studies for the cataloguing of the Iberian wetlands were developed in the mid-20th century [23]. After the signing of the Ramsar Convention, the drafting of different studies was promoted, resulting in the first different provincial inventories of wetlands and some synthesis works [24–28]. Finally, the importance of carrying out an inventory of wetlands was included in the Spanish Strategic Plan for the Conservation and Rational Use of Wetlands [4], developing its technical aspects through Royal Decree 435/2004, regulating the SWI, which is based on the regional inventories and consequently on the regional lists of wetlands that are prepared from the available data. The number of Spanish regions that have carried out a proper inventory of their wetlands is very small, and in most cases these inventories have not been updated and published. So, the wetlands included in the SWI are limited, in most of the regions, to the Ramsar list, a fact that limits the effectiveness of the inventory to comply with the aspects set out in the Spanish regulations and in the agreements derived from the Ramsar Convention.

Although there is not a periodically updated list of wetlands in Spain, compilations made in 2003 [29] indicate that Spanish wetlands should exceed 5,000 sites, of which more than 2,027 sites would be located in the 7 regions of Northern Spain (**Figure 3**), which are Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, Castilla y León, Euskadi, Navarra and La Rioja. No further works have been made estimating the Spanish wetlands, so nowadays there is no updated information about this. Moreover, the number of wetlands in Spain has not been adequately collected in the official inventories managed by the Spanish and regional governments. Thus, the SWI shows a very small number of wetlands in the Northern Iberian regions, as in many cases only includes wetlands that are part of the Spanish Ramsar List.

Both in the SWI and in the List of Ramsar Wetlands of Spain, the mountains of the Atlantic-Cantabrian area show a meagre representation, which in no case reflects the high diversity and richness that these territories possess [15–17, 20, 21, 30–35], where important representations of wetland types of high environmental singularity at an international level, such as peatlands that include different types of ecosystems (blanket bogs, raised bogs, fens, floating mires, bog woodlands, etc.), as well as

**Figure 3.**

*Number of wetlands identified in each Spanish region during the period 2001–2003, coinciding with the carrying out of GWI [29].*

different types of scrublands, wet heaths and hygrophilous forests. The deficient content of the SWI reflects the inefficient inventorying and management of the biodiversity components which also has a negative impact on its conservation, even more so when these territories can be immersed in the evaluation of the effects that could derive from the implementation of new projects for power generation or from the promotion of intensive forestry and livestock farms [36, 37].

During the two last decades of the 20th century, an important work aimed at the legal protection and rational use of wetlands began in Northern Spain. A large number of wetlands were included in the first Natura 2000 proposals, which between 1997 and 2004 formed almost the entirety of its current delimitation. This contrasted with those designed within the framework of the SWI, where the number of wetlands registered to date is very small, leaving out wetlands that have environmental protection status derived from their inclusion in different figures of PNA or Natura 2000 areas, as well as wetlands that lack such protection. In this scenario, only Galicia would take a step towards the protection of wetlands through a new conservation and management regime for wetlands that was established by Law 9/2001, introducing the category of "Protected Wetlands" within the different types of PNA. This new category was reserved for those wetlands that fulfilled a function of international, national, or regional importance in the conservation of natural resources, and that were declared as such.

Derived from these previous developments in terms of the regional legal framework and protection of wetlands, and in application of Law 4/1989, it was considered necessary to carry out an inventory of them at Galician level, which would allow identifying their territorial representativeness, their conservation status, as well as the role they played in conservation of biodiversity and the functionality of ecosystems. In this way, the scope of action of the first Galician Wetlands Inventory (GWI) was established [29], which was carried out under a collaboration agreement signed

between the Galician government and the University of Santiago de Compostela over the years 2001 and 2003. The GWI scientific-technical aspects were later included in Decree 127/2008, whereby developed the legal regime of protected wetlands and created the Galician Wetlands Inventory (GWI).

## **4. The Galician Wetlands Inventory (GWI)**

Galician Wetlands Inventory (GWI) included those natural, semi-natural or artificial systems that could be attributed to one of the types established in the classification of Ramsar wetlands and whose environmental interest could be corroborated with any of the internationally approved systems (Ramsar Convention, Birds Directive, Habitat Directive, IUCN) for the characterization of biodiversity at the level of its biotic components and the eco-functions they perform in the system.

The typology of the GWI integrated the criteria of the Ramsar Wetlands Classification established in Recommendation IV.7 approved by COP4 Montreux-1990 and modified by Resolution VI.5 approved by COP6 Brisbane-1996 [1], and the criteria of the Eunis-Habitat classification [38, 39], as well as the categories of the Spanish Strategic Plan for the Conservation and Rational Use of Wetlands [4]. For some categories (lagoon environments), standardized delimitations for the characterization of the different units (lakes, lagoons, ponds, puddles) were fixed. The typology of wetlands thus showed an easy correspondence with the one used by the European Commission for the designation of the types of habitats of community interest present in Annex I of DC 92/43/EEC.

As a result of the inventory and identification work, the GWI included a total of 1,131 wetlands distributed mostly between the coastal sectors, the interior sedimentary depressions and the sub-littoral and central mountain areas. The rest of the Galician territory and specifically the eastern and southern mountainous areas present a smaller proportion of humid ecosystems, which are usually confined to areas with morphological characteristics favourable to the maintenance of seasonal water contributions (**Figure 4**). In total they cover more than 70,600 ha (**Table 1**), which represents 2.4% of the Galician continental territory [29].

Comparing the data obtained in the GWI [29], with the information available in the rest of Spanish regions for the same inventory period (2001–2003), Galicia would be the region with the largest number (**Figure 3**), and probably the largest area of wetlands, having more than 26% of the Spanish wetlands. According to the major types of wetlands established in the Inventory of Wetlands of Galicia (**Table 1**), the majority of the inventoried means correspond to the group of "continental wetlands" with a total of 659 wetlands (54.4% of the total) followed by the "artificial wetlands" with 312 wetlands (27.6%) and "marine-coastal" with 153 wetlands (13.3%), while the number of "subterranean wetlands" would be represented by 7 wetlands.

The littoral Galicia includes the largest average size wetlands, as they usually appear forming important coastal and marine complexes, including shallow marine waters, humid dune slacks, estuarine systems, coastal lagoons, humid meadows, and alluvial forests [15–17]. In the interior of Galicia, the sedimentary basins and the bottoms of the great Atlantic valleys host an important representation of peaty, hygrophilic, fluvial and lacustrine wetlands [6, 30]. Among the large sedimentary basins, upper Miño basin stands out for the biodiversity, natural heritage, and naturalness of its ecosystems, as the floodplain configured around the main channels of the upper Miño river and tributaries includes one of the best representations of the

#### **Figure 4.**

*Geographical distribution and typology of wetlands included in the GWI [29]. The symbols represent the centroid of the wetlands.*


#### **Table 1.**

*Major types of wetlands according to the classification established in the GWI [29].*

Atlantic biogeographical region of alluvial forests, mixed with ponds, grasslands and wet scrub [34, 40].

The Galician mountains also include a significant number of wetlands. Their largest area is concentrated in bogs and wet heaths, standing out Serra do Xistral, where the most important blanket bog complex of Southern Europe is located [33]. On the contrary, the lakes located in the mountainous areas are very small, although numerous, and mostly originated in basins of glacial origin.

*Protecting Wetlands: Insights from the Northern Iberian Peninsula (Galicia, NW Spain) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109060*

## **5. Known vs. protected wetlands**

As the Ramsar Convention establishes, wetland inventorying is the basic tool for planning and carrying out wetland management, protection and conservation activities. In Spain, the SWI would hypothetically take the data collected in regional lists or inventories, which should be carried out and updated by regional governments, with the participation of different specialists and research centres. The inclusion of a wetland in the SWI (Royal Decree 435/2004) does not give it a protection status, as the inventory contributes to knowing the evolution of wetlands and, where appropriate, indicating the protection measures that must be included in the basin hydrological plans. It is only possible to entering the inventory those natural, semi-natural or anthropic environments that meet morphological and/or ecological characteristics defined in accordance with those set by Ramsar, or those that have expressly attributed the status of wetland by virtue of a specific protection regulation. These same criteria are followed by the Spanish regions in their own legal framework. Thus, in Galicia (Decree 127/2008), the inclusion of a wetland in the inventory must meet a series of scientific-technical criteria, which apply both to those designed under a specific protection category and to those not. In the Galician regulations, the inclusion of a wetland in the inventory is carried out for statistical and research purposes and does not automatically imply the application of a protection status.

Regarding the wetland protection in Spain, this is established through its recognition under different categories linked to land or water planning and management, or through its designation under one of the different categories of PNA, which may be common to the used ones for other ecosystem types (National Parks, Natural Monuments, Protected Landscapes), or more rarely one of those specific to wetlands, as occurs in Galician regulations with the creation of the figure of "Protected wetland", established by Law 9/2001.

It is assumed that the number of known wetlands that appear compiled in the scientific-technical inventory documents that have been carried out in the different Spanish regions should be equal to or slightly less than the registered wetlands in the regional official catalogues as well as than the registered wetlands in the SWI. Currently, the SWI includes 715 wetlands, a value that represents 14.3% of Spanish known wetlands. This meagre representation is even more worrying when their territorial distribution is analysed, since 583 (11.66%) correspond to wetlands distributed in the Spanish southern regions which receive less rainfall, like Madrid (23 wetlands), Castilla - La Mancha (312 wetlands), Andalusia (147 wetlands), Murcia (53 wetlands), or Comunitat Valenciana (48 wetlands). While in the Spanish northern regions, that receive a higher rainfall which usually offers better conditions for the configuration and persistence of wetlands, only 132 wetlands (2.64%) have been recorded in the SWI with a very unequal distribution across the northern regions, like Galicia (0 wetlands), Asturias (53 wetlands), Cantabria (0 wetlands), Euskadi (30 wetlands), Navarra (0 wetlands), La Rioja (49 wetlands), or Castilla y León (0 wetlands). Consequently, the SWI has excluded 1,895 known wetlands in Northern Spain, which means 93% of them, and 38% of all the Spanish known wetlands [29].

Regarding the protection status, in recent years there has been a significant adaptation and improvement of both Spanish and regional environmental regulations, improving their convergence with the criteria established in other different countries. The application of regulations and monitoring mechanisms for their compliance continue to be a pending issue that has a significant impact on the conservation status of wetlands and on the authorization and sanction regime for different activities and

uses. In the application of some sectoral regulations, such as those referring to water, the vision of wetlands continues to focus on reservoirs and lotic and lentic ecosystems, while hygrophilous or turfophilic wetlands are marginalized [37]. This unequal treatment is clearly seen in the basin plans, where the inventory, characterization, and proposal for the wetlands and specifically the hygrophilous and turfophilic ones is very deficient.

The environmental regulations in Spain establish three large groups of protected areas since Law 42/2007 [41, 42]: PNA (Reserves, Parks, Natural Monuments, Protected Landscapes, Marine Protected Areas), Natura 2000 protected areas (SCI, SAC, SPA), and APII (Ramsar Wetlands, Global Geoparks, World Heritage, Biosphere Reserves, etc.). Natura 2000 are the protected areas that include more sites and occupy the greater surface of wetlands, usually overlapping SAC and SPA and thus strengthening the level of protection on the same wetland, as well as establishing important synergies with other categories of protected areas. As an example, Natura 2000 areas support the core zones of the 20 Biosphere Reserves that have been designed in Northern Iberian Peninsula, which sum to a maritime-terrestrial area of 1.6 million hectares, including a notable representation of marine, coastal, interior and mountain wetlands [43]. However, during the creation process of Natura 2000,


#### **Table 2.**

*The Ramsar Sites criteria for identifying Wetlands of International Importance [44].*

*Protecting Wetlands: Insights from the Northern Iberian Peninsula (Galicia, NW Spain) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109060*

the European Commission considered in 2004 that the network was incomplete in the Spanish Atlantic Region, as several wetland habitat types of community interest were covered insufficiently, such as wet heaths (Nat-2000 4040\*) raised bogs (Nat-2000 7110\*), and transition mires (Nat-2000 7140), so it would be necessary to revise the network, proposing new sites or enlarging some of the proposed at that time.

The rest of PNA like the Parks (National Parks, Natural Parks) and other categories (Reserves, Natural Monuments, etc.) occupy a lesser extent than Natura 2000. Regarding APII, their protection regime is determined by the corresponding international conventions and agreements, without prejudice to the validity of specific protection, planning and management regimes whose territorial scope coincides totally or partially with these protected areas, if they comply with the provisions of such international instruments.

As for the APII category directly related to wetland protection, the Ramsar sites, there are currently in Spain 76 wetlands (more than 316,000 ha) included in the Ramsar list, that accomplish different Ramsar criteria (**Table 2**): 31.70% wetlands meet criterion 2 (they support vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered species, or threatened ecological communities), while 26.8% meet criterion 3 (they support populations of plant and/or animal species important to maintain the biological diversity of a biogeographical region), 14.6% meet criterion 1 (they contain a representative, rare or unique example of a natural or near-natural wetland type within a biogeographical region), and 11.6% meet criterion 6 (they regularly support 1% of the individuals of a population of a species or subspecies of waterfowl). Compliance with the rest of the criteria is below 10% (**Figure 5**).

Among the Spanish Ramsar sites, 19 of them are spread across the Spanish northern regions (**Table 3**): Galicia (5 wetlands +1 shared one), Asturias (1 wetland +1


#### **Table 3.**

*Ramsar sites in the Spanish northern regions. Created by the authors from official Ramsar information.*

shared one), Cantabria (1 wetland), Euskadi (6 wetlands), Navarra (2 wetlands), La Rioja (1 wetland) and Castilla León (2 wetlands). The only shared Ramsar wetland in this group, which is located between Galicia and Asturias regions, has been erroneously named as 'Ría del Eo' in the Ramsar list, but its right name should be 'Ría de Ribadeo', according to the most recent reports carried out by the Spanish Specialized Commission of Geographic Names (dependant from the Spanish Superior Geographical Council) and the Spanish Royal Geographic Society, following historical criteria. The rest of Ramsar wetlands in Northern Spain are framed in a single region each one. Ten of these Ramsar sites are located in the littoral area, with an unequal representation of littoral marine habitats and coastal habitats. The remaining 9 are in inland areas, 2 of them correspond to reservoirs, 6 to lacustrine environments and only 1 correspond to mountain wetlands (Sierra del Urbión Wetlands).

The Spanish environmental regulations allow the different Spanish regions to establish their own categories of PNA. In Galicia, the Protected Wetlands have been established as a proper regional PNA category since Law 9/2001 (setting an unparalleled example in Spain at that time), which was supposedly created to provide a specific regional protection regime for wetlands, promoting a better conservation of

#### *Protecting Wetlands: Insights from the Northern Iberian Peninsula (Galicia, NW Spain) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109060*

these ecosystems, taking into account their special fragility and value from an environmental point of view, and specifically dedicated for those declared as International Importance according to the Ramsar Convention. This regional category has been maintained by Law 5/2019, which in addition has incorporated the Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance into the Galician legal framework, within the group category of APII, inheriting the model previously established for the Spanish territory by Law 42/2007. However, nowadays this regional category of PNA has only been applied to the first 5 Ramsar sites designed in Galicia (**Table 3**), as the last one designed (Galician Atlantic Islands) in 2021 [45] does not have received yet the designation as a Protected Wetland, nor has the procedure for such designation been initiated, nor has a preventive protection regime for the site been established.

## **6. Conservation status of Spanish wetlands**

The Iberian Peninsula is frequently considered as a territory of high biodiversity with a great diversity of habitats and species, considered endemic, rare or threatened with disappearance [35, 43, 46]. The Iberian high value of biodiversity contrasts with the unfavourable conservation status of many of the biodiversity components, which is caused by human action. In this scenario, wetlands are not an exception. Already in 1990, the Ramsar Convention established the "Montreux Registry", to include those Ramsar wetlands in which "modifications in ecological conditions have occurred, are occurring or may occur", so it should be necessary to carry out priority conservation actions. Among the worldwide 872 Ramsar sites, 62 are currently included in the Montreux Registry, and two of them are Spanish, having been included in this registry since 07/04/1990: Doñana (Andalucia) and Las Tablas de Daimiel (Castilla-La Mancha). Both wetlands are National Parks and have also been designed under other different categories of PNA, but they have registered numerous complaints filed in courts about their poor situation, as well as to the different international organizations that manage the different programs and categories of protected areas. Doñana was added to the Montreux Registry due to a situation generated by tourist pressure and intensive irrigation agriculture that are present in and around the wetland. Intensive irrigation agriculture is also the determining cause Las Tablas de Daimiel deterioration, as the groundwater intakes have caused a progressive drop in the water table, modifying the hydrological cycle that fed Guadiana River and Las Tablas de Daimiel wetland. Despite attempts to reverse the situation in both wetlands, their unfavourable situation determines that they continue to be included in the Montreux Registry.

The situation of other Spanish wetlands is equally worrying, despite not having been included in the Montreux Registry. Among them, Lagoa e Areal de Valdoviño (Galicia) Ramsar site accumulates many complaints [47] due to the change of its limits (**Figure 6**), to the alteration of the hydro-ecological cycle with rupture of the coastal barrier and alteration of the flooding regime, loss of area occupied by naturalsemi-natural habitats, expansion of invasive alien species, irrational and unsustainable public use, etc. In other cases, human activities have led to the total destruction of the wetland, transforming the area into intensive agricultural crops or Eucalyptus plantations [37].

In recent works [37, 46, 48], the situation of Galician wetlands has been analysed for the last 20 years, comparing the situation at the starting of the works leading to the GWI (2001–2003), with the current situation. From them, it can be deduced that human action continues to have a very negative effect on the conservation of wetlands,

#### **Figure 6.**

*Change of limits in Lagoa e Areal de Valdoviño Ramsar site, from its initial designation in 1992 and the subsequent modification of its boundaries in 2006, that has caused numerous complaints [47].*

both in those cases in which they are protected under any category of protection, and more dramatically, in those wetlands that have not been designed as protected areas. Conservation status of Galician wetlands can be evaluated by applying the same methodology used for the Directive 92/43/EEC Article 17 reporting every six years for conservation status of habitats and species of community interest [49], focusing on the habitat types that are characteristic of the natural wetlands in Galicia [18, 20, 21, 29]. In each type of wetland were valued 4 factors: occupancy area, habitat structure, alterations on the hydrology, and conservation status of wetland characteristic species. For each one of them, different parameters were recorded (**Figure 7**).

The different impacts that negatively affect the conservation status of Galician wetlands were assessed following the systematization established in Spain [50], which follows the previous standardized list of the European Commission. Impacts are grouped in 4 classes (A.- Activities of the primary sector. B.- Construction activities. C.- Pollution. D.- Activities of public use), in which 4 types of actions are included. Among the 29 wetland types of the GWI that were evaluated (**Figure 7**), only 3 (10.35%) have a "Favourable" conservation status, which are underground habitats (3.1.1 and 3.2.1) and shallow marine waters (1.2.1). With a "Moderate" conservation status there is only one habitat (3.45%), that corresponds to estuaries (1.3.1). The wetlands in an "Inadequate" conservation status are 8 types (27.58%), including sandy coastal systems (1.2.3, 1.4.2), intertidal flats (1.2.4, 1.3.2), intertidal marshes (1.3.3),

*Protecting Wetlands: Insights from the Northern Iberian Peninsula (Galicia, NW Spain) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109060*


#### **Figure 7.**

*Conservation status of Galician wetlands, comparing between 2001 and 2022. Created by the authors from recent works assessing the situation of Galician wetlands [37, 46, 48].*

waterfalls (2.1.4), humid shrubland (2.4.2), and permanent freshwater swamps/ fens (2.6.2.3). In a "Bad" conservation status there are 11 types of humidais (37.93%): Intertidal marshes (1.2.5), Coastal freshwater lagoons, (1.4.4), riverine tree and terrigenous islands (2.1.1, 2.1.2), temporarily disconnected meanders (2.1.3), permanent freshwater lakes (2.2.1), shrub-dominated and seasonal freshwater swamps/fens (2.6.2.2, 2.6.2.4), blanket and raised bogs (2.3.1, 2.3.2), and wet heaths (2.4.1). And

finally, in a "Critical" conservation status, 6 types of wetlands are included (20.69%): coastal brackish/saline lagoons (1.4.3), permanent, temporary, and seasonal continental lagoons and ponds (2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5), and freshwater tree-dominated wetlands (2.6.2.1).

Anthropogenic actions that have a very negative effect on the conservation status of wetlands are mostly linked to actions derived from construction activities, as well as those linked to the primary sector. Their execution usually leads to the partial loss of habitats that are characteristic of wetlands, but even sometimes they also generate the complete destruction of the wetland [37]. Thus, permanent ponds within Parga-Ladra-Támoga SAC (ES1120003) have been lost because of their transformation into intensive farmland, a situation that similarly happened in the coastal lagoon of Praia da Ermida (Costa da Morte SAC, ES1110005), where the wetland disappeared during the execution of supposedly environmental restoration works. In other cases, it is possible to identify large areas of wetlands that have been transformed by the afforestation with exotic species (*Eucalyptus, Pinus*) or by the creation of artificial pasturelands, as it can be documented in different areas of Serra do Xistral SAC (ES1120015), causing a high impact on peaty habitats like blanket bogs, raised bogs and wet heaths [33].

The installation of wind farms also had a very negative effect on mountain wetlands, causing significant losses [36] in wet heaths, peaty ecosystems (blanket bogs, raised bogs), as well as on lacustrine environments. Serra do Xistral SAC (ES1120015) also stands out regarding the impact of wind farms on natural ecosystems [51], but this can also be detected in other areas of Galician Natura 2000 network. The negative effects of the installation of wind farms on the mountain wetlands of Galicia were pointed out when this activity erupted with force during the late 1990s in the region [33, 52]. Years later, there is no doubt about the high impact that windfarm developments generate on mountain areas, especially considering that they are established on the areas of most fragility and highest ecological value of the territory, as different authors have highlighted both for Galicia and for other territories in Europe [53–60]. Other reasons of wetland loss join to the previous ones, caused by the exploitation of subterranean resources, highlighting the extraction of fine and coarse aggregates on different Galician wetlands, as well as the peat extraction in Montes do Buio (again in Serra do Xistral SAC, ES1120015), to be used as a substrate for gardening.

The physic-chemical and microbiological analysis carried out in numerous wetlands in Galicia highlight the treatment problems of both urban-industrial waste water and that derived from livestock farms [37, 46]. The recurring presence of *Escherichia coli* and other pathogens of stool origin in coastal and inland wetlands can hardly be assimilated to a favourable ecological status. Regarding other chemical pollutants (antibiotics, phytocides), there is no detailed information that allows us to assess their impact on Galician wetlands, but in any case, their impact on the biodiversity components, especially amphibian populations, should not be minimized. The presence of lead ammunition in the Galician wetlands is more frequent than expected, despite its possession and use in wetlands it is considered illegal by Spanish law, but it has been diluted in Galician regulations, avoiding spreading among hunters the ban that affects this ammunition made with a toxic element [37].

Finally, it is necessary to comment on the impacts derived from actions of public use and leisure activities developed with disrespectful behaviour towards the values of natural heritage and biodiversity, derived from the banalization of natural areas as a mere tourist attraction or as an amusement park. This conceptualization is often favoured by tourism campaigns promoted from public bodies (mostly regional and local governments). Irrational public use is the cause of the deterioration of habitats

*Protecting Wetlands: Insights from the Northern Iberian Peninsula (Galicia, NW Spain) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109060*

and protected species populations, especially in the coastal wetlands, among which the most frequent actions are the usual presence of pets without leash and muzzle that freely roam into wildlife breeding or refuge areas of wetlands, the circulation and parking of vehicles on natural and semi-natural habitats, the collection of key components of the natural heritage and biodiversity, or the accidental spread of invasive alien species [37].

## **7. Future challenges of protected wetlands**

Safeguarding of wetlands in Northern Iberian Peninsula requires a change of attitude towards natural heritage and biodiversity, abandoning the usual reactive policies and actions inherited from the old pre-democratic regimes, and start to develop proactive actions, facing the future challenges that arise over their protection. The current worldwide and European framework on biodiversity constitutes an effective action framework to reformulate and ensure the conservation of natural heritage and biodiversity of wetlands, as well as to improve the benefits they provide for people. According to Aichi Biodiversity Targets [61], at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water, and 10% of marine areas, should be protected. The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 [62] increases this percentage to 30%, both in the marine and terrestrial areas. Northern Iberian Peninsula is very far from the reference values contemplated at international and European level, and it is aggravated considering several regions such as Galicia, where the terrestrial PNA do not even reach 13% [41, 42].

So, it is appropriate to raise the urgent need to increase the representation of wetlands in the different categories of protected areas (PNA, Natura 2000, APII), proposing new sites or enlarging some of the existing ones that should ensure adequate representation and protection of those wetlands that have habitats and/or endemic, rare or threatened species, and that play a significant role as a medium or long-term carbon reservoir. These usually correspond in Northern Iberian Peninsula to the different types of peat bogs, wet heaths, lagoons, and marshes. Similarly, it is equally necessary to add certain wetlands to the Ramsar List, trying to cover the current existing huge gap in relation to this category in the Cantabrian-Atlantic mountainous areas, as well as in the wetlands located in inland areas, both in Galicia (Terra Chá) and in the Iberian Plateau. Anyway, all the proposals for enlargement or new designation of wetlands protection in Galicia should obviously be complemented with measures for their mandatory monitoring, restoration and surveillance, as well as with the effective application of the sanctioning and criminal regime for every activity, plan or project that could carry out actions on wetlands that negatively affect their ecological integrity, or the conservation status of habitats and species held in them, and therefore contradict the laws and other general provisions on nature or environment. This approach assumes:

1.Eliminate or reduce close to zero the negative effects that are currently occurring in protected areas on the conservation status of habitats and species that are characteristic of wetlands. This would force to increase surveillance with rangers and complement it with remote sensing monitoring. Changes in use, waste disposal, mechanical shredding vegetation, the use of lead ammunition, or even the use of fire and biocides, which occurs in many wetlands, are incompatible with the objective of ensuring a favourable ecological status of these ecosystems.


## **Acknowledgements**

This study was supported by the LIFE Programme (which is managed by the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency, CINEA) of the European Commission, with a EU funding contribution of 75% (project reference: LIFE20 NAT/ES/001007). This work only reflects the authors' view, exempting CINEA and European Commission for any use that may be made of the information it contains. The authors thank Galician Atlantic Islands National Park for providing the data regarding the declaration of the Ramsar site.

*Protecting Wetlands: Insights from the Northern Iberian Peninsula (Galicia, NW Spain) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109060*

## **Author details**

Javier Ferreiro da Costa\* and Pablo Ramil-Rego GI-1934-TB, Institute of Agricultural Biodiversity and Rural Development (IBADER), University of Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain

\*Address all correspondence to: javier.ferreiro.dacosta@gmail.com

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

## **References**

[1] Ramsar Convention Secretariat 1971. The Ramsar Convention Manual: A Guide to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971). 4th ed. Gland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat; 2006. p. 114

[2] European Environment Agency (EEA). Progress towards Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2006

[3] Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Estrategia Española para la Conservación y el uso Sostenible de la Diversidad Biológica. Madrid: Secretaría General de Medio Ambiente. Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente (MMA); 1998

[4] Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Plan Estratégico Español para la Conservación y el Uso Racional de los Humedales, en el marco de los ecosistemas acuáticos de que dependen. Madrid: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente (MMA); 1999. p. 95

[5] Ramsar Convention Secretariat. Ramsar Convention's first Strategic Plan 1997-2002. In: Resolution VI.14. 6th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties (COP6). Brisbane: Ramsar Convention Secretariat; 1996

[6] Ramil-Rego P, Domínguez Conde J. A Lagoa de Cospeito. Historia e vida dun humidal chairego. Santiago de Compostela: Xunta de Galicia; 2006

[7] Rodríguez Guitián MA, Ramil-Rego P. Fitogeografía de Galicia (NW Ibérico): análisis histórico y nueva propuesta corológica. Recursos Rurais. 2008;**4**:19-50

[8] Mata Olmo R, Sanz HC. Atlas de los paisajes de España. Madrid: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente; 2004

[9] Pérez Alberti A, Borobio Sanchis M, Castillo-Rodríguez F, Payan-Pérz M. Metodología y clasificación de tipos de paisaje en Galicia. Revista de Geografia e Ordenamento do Território (GOT). 2014;**6**:259-282

[10] Ramil-Rego P, Rodríguez Guitián MA, Rubinos Roman MA, et al. La expresión territorial de la biodiversidad. Paisajes y Hábitats. Recursos Rurais, Serie Cursos. 2005;**2**:109-128

[11] Cobo Gradín F. Proyecto Galicia. Natureza. Zooloxía Tomos 38-40. A Coruña: Hércules Edicións; 2002

[12] Diaz-Fierros F. Proyecto Galicia. Natureza. Xeoloxía Tomos 36-37. A Coruña: Hércules Edicións; 2002

[13] Rigueiro Rodríguez A. Proyecto Galicia. Natureza: Botánica Tomos 41-43. A Coruña: Hércules Edicións; 2002

[14] Vieitez Cortizo E, Rey Salgado JM. A natureza ameazada 2004. Santiago de Compostela: Consello da Cultura Galega; 2005

[15] Ramil-Rego P, Rodríguez Guitián MA et al. Reseña del Patrimonio Natural y la Biodiversidad de Galicia: año 2005. Monografías do IBADER - Serie Biodiversidade. Lugo: IBADER, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela; 2005. p. 1070

[16] Ramil-Rego P, Rodríguez Guitián MA et al. Reseña do Patrimonio Natural e a Biodiversidade de Galicia: año 2008. Monografías do IBADER - Serie Biodiversidade. Lugo: IBADER, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela; 2008. p. 740

[17] Ramil-Rego P, Rodríguez Guitián MA et al. Reseña do Patrimonio

*Protecting Wetlands: Insights from the Northern Iberian Peninsula (Galicia, NW Spain) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109060*

Natural e a Biodiversidade de Galicia: año 2012. Monografías do IBADER - Serie Biodiversidade. Lugo: IBADER, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela; 2012. p. 661

[18] Ramil-Rego P, Crecente MR. Plan Director da Rede Natura 2000 de Galicia. Documento Técnico. Santiago de Compostela: Dirección Xeral de Conservación da Natureza, Conselleria do Medio Rural (Xunta de Galicia) & Instituto de Biodiversidade Agraria e Desenvolvemento Rural, IBADER (USC); vol. 8. 2012

[19] Bañón Díaz R. Inventario de la biodiversidad marina de Galicia. Proyecto Lemgal. Santiago de Compostela; Xunta de Galicia. Consellería do Mar; 2017

[20] Ramil-Rego P, Rodríguez Guitián MA, Hinojo Sánchez BA, Rodríguez González PM, et al. Os Hábitats de Interese Comunitario en Galicia. Descrición e Valoración Territorial. Monografías do Ibader. Lugo: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela; 2008

[21] Ramil-Rego P, Rodríguez Guitián MA, Ferreiro da Costa J, Rubinos Román M, Gómez-Orellana L, de Nóvoa FB, et al. Os Hábitats de Interese Comunitario en Galicia. Fichas descritivas. Monografías do Ibader. Lugo: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela; 2008

[22] Ramsar Convention Secretariat. Wetland Inventory: A Ramsar Framework for Wetland Inventory and Ecological Character Description. 4th ed. Gland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat; 2010

[23] Pardo L. Catálogo de los lagos de España. Instituto Forestal de Investigaciones y Experiencias. Madrid: Ministerio de Agricultura; 1948

[24] Cirujano BS. Criterios botánicos para la valoración de las lagunas y humedales

españoles (Península Ibérica y las Islas Baleaeres). Madrid: Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación; 1992

[25] Troya Panduro A, Bermues SM. Humedales españoles en la lista del Convenio Ramsar. Madrid: Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. ICONA; 1990

[26] Bermues SM. Humedales Españoles inscritos en la Lista del Convenio de Ramsar. Madrid: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente; 1998

[27] Cirujano Bracamonte S, Velayos Rodríguez M, Castilla Lattke F, Gil PM. Flora y vegetación de las lagunas y humedales de la provincia de Cuenca. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas; 1995

[28] Casado de Otaola S, Montes del Olmo C. Guía de los lagos y humedales de España. Madrid: Editorial Reyero, J.M; 1995

[29] Ramil-Rego P, Izco J. Inventario dos Humidais de Galicia. Memoria Técnica. Santiago de Compostela: Dirección Xeral de Conservación da Natureza, Conselleria de Medio Ambiente (Xunta de Galicia) & Laboratorio de Botánica e Bioxeografía (Universidade de Santiago); 2003

[30] Ramil-Rego P, Rodriguez Guitian M, Gomez-Orellana L, Munoz Sobrino C, et al. Biogeografia Pleistocena-Holocena de la Peninsula Iberica. Santiago de Compostela: Xunta de Galicia; 1996. pp. 227-246

[31] Ramil-Rego P, Rodríguez Guitián MA, Rodríguez-Oubiña J. Valoración de los humedales continentales del NW Ibérico: caracterización hidrológica, geomorfológica y vegetacional de las turberas de las Sierras Septentrionales de Galicia. In: Pérez Alberti A, Martínez Cortizas A, coordinators. Avances en la

reconstrucción paleoambiental de las áreas de montaña lucenses. Monografías G.E.P. n°1. Lugo: Diputación Provincial de Lugo; 1996. pp. 166-187

[32] Ramil-Rego P, Rodríguez Guitián MA, Muñoz Sobrino C. Distribución, génesis y caracterización botánica de las turberas ombrotróficas de Galicia. XII Bienal de la Real Sociedad Española de Historia Natural. 1996; Tomo extraordinario: 253-256

[33] Izco J, Ramil-Rego P. Análisis y valoración de la Sierra de O Xistral: un modelo de aplicación de la Directiva Hábitat en Galicia. Santiago de Compostela: Consellería de Medio Ambiente, Xunta de Galicia;2001; 162

[34] Ramil-Rego P, Ferreiro da Costa J. Biodiversidad del corredor fluvial del río Miño: tramo Ponte Ombreiro- Caneiro do Anguieiro (Lugo). En: Crecente Maseda M, González Soutelo S, editors. Dos mil años del balneario de Lugo. Un modelo de activación del patrimonio termal. Lugo: Crecente Asociados; 2016. pp. 65-97

[35] Ferreiro da Costa J, Ramil-Rego P. Biological Conservation and Nature Protection Strategies in Spanish Atlantic Region. In: Şen B, editor. Selected Studies in Biodiversity. Rijeka: InTech; 2018. p. 44

[36] Ferreiro da Costa J, Ramil-Rego P, Hinojo Sánchez B, Cillero Castro C, Rubinos Román M, Gómez-Orellana L, Diaz Varela RA. Diagnóstico y Caracterización de los Brezales Húmedos (Nat-2000 4020\*) de las Sierras Septentrionales de Galicia a partir de Criterios Científicos: Importancia para su Conservación. Recursos Rurais. 2013;9:65-77

[37] Ramil-Rego P, Ferreiro da Costa J, Rodríguez Guitián MA, López Castro H, Gómez-Orellana L. Perdas e alteración da biodiversidade nos humidais de Galicia.

In: Ramil-Rego P, Gómez-Orellana L, Ferreiro da Costa J, editors. Conservación e xestión de humidais en Galicia. Lugo: Horreum-Ibader; 2017. p. 127-167

[38] Davies CE, Moss D. EUNIS Habitat Classification. 2001 Work Programme. Final Report. Huntingdon: European Environment Agency; 2002; 108

[39] Davies CE, Moss D. EUNIS Habitat Classification. Marine Habitat Types: Proposals for Revised Criteria, July 2004. Report to the European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity. Huntingdon: European Environment Agency; 2004

[40] Ramil Rego P, Crecente Maseda R, Rodríguez Guitián MA, Rubinos Román M, de Nóvoa Fernández B, Hinojo Sánchez B, Ferreiro da Costa J, Cillero Castro C, Díaz Varela R, Martínez Sánchez S, Gómez-Orellana Rodríguez L, García Abad F. Alto Miño, Terra Chá. Santiago de Compostela: Fundación Comarcal Terra Chá. Agader. Xunta de Galicia; 2000. p. 157

[41] Ramil-Rego P, Ferreiro da Costa J, Gómez-Orellana L, López Castro H, Oreiro Rey C, Rodríguez Guitián MA. Áreas Naturales Protegidas, de las propuestas pioneras a los nuevos paradigmas en pro de la salvaguarda de la Naturaleza. Monografías do IBADER. Serie Biodiversidade. Lugo: Ibader. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela; 2021. p. 918

[42] Ferreiro da Costa. Las áreas protegidas de Galicia: análisis histórico y perspectivas de gestion [thesis]. Lugo: IBADER. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela; 2022

[43] Ferreiro da Costa J, Ramil Rego P. Biosphere Reserves of the Spanish Atlantic region: protected areas for the conservation of biodiversity and

*Protecting Wetlands: Insights from the Northern Iberian Peninsula (Galicia, NW Spain) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109060*

sustainable development. In: Miranda Barrós D, editor. LAND MATTERS. Taking Stock and Looking Ahead. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela; 2021. pp. 173-210

[44] Ramsar Secretariat. Ramsar Sites Information Service [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://rsis.ramsar.org/ ris-search [Accessed: October 1, 2022]

[45] Ferreiro da Costa J, Ramil-Rego P, Rodríguez Guitián MA, López Castro H, Oreiro Rey C, Gómez-Orellana L, et al. Galician Atlantic Islands National Park: Challenges for the Conservation and Management of a Maritime-Terrestrial Protected Area. In: Suratman MN, editor. Protected Area Management - Recent Advances. London: IntechOpen; 2022. p. 23

[46] Ramil-Rego P, Ferreiro da Costa J, Gómez-Orellana L, Rodríguez Guitián MA. Humidais de Galicia: Inventario e valoración ambiental no período 2001-2016. In: Ramil-Rego P, Gómez-Orellana L, Ferreiro da Costa J, editors. Conservación e xestión de humidais en Galicia. Lugo: Horreum-Ibader; 2017. pp. 1-29

[47] Muñiz A. A Lagoa da Frouxeira, en destrución. CERNA. 2016;**76**:14-17

[48] Ramil-Rego P, Rodríguez Guitián MA. Hábitats de turbera en la Red Natura 2000. Diagnosis y criterios para su conservación y gestión en la Región Biogeográfica Atlántica. LIFE Tremedal. LIFE11 NAT/ES/000707. Lugo: Horreum-Ibader; 2017. p. 427

[49] European Commission. The State of Nature in the EU. Conservation status and trends of species and habitats protected by the EU Nature Directives 2013- 2018. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union; 2021

[50] Comisión Estatal del Patrimonio Natural y la Biodiversidad. Directrices para la vigilancia y evaluación del estado de conservación de las especies amenazadas y de protección especial. Comité de Flora y Fauna Silvestres de la Comisión Estatal para el Patrimonio Natural y la Biodiversidad (CEPNB). Aprobadas por la Comisión Estatal para el Patrimonio Natural y la Biodiversidad Madrid, 18/12/2012. Madrid: Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente; 2012

[51] Gómez-Orellana L, Hinojo Sánchez B, Rubinos Román M, Ramil-Rego P, et al. El sistema de turberas de la sierra de O Xistral como reservorio de carbono, valoración, estado de conservación y amenazas. Bol. R. Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat. Sec Geol. 2014;**108**:5-17

[52] Ramil-Rego P, Ramil-Rego E. Valoración del patrimonio natural e histórico de las sierras septentrionales de Galicia. Vilalba: Grupo de Estudios Paleoambientales (G.E.P.) & Museo de Prehistoria y Arqueología de Villalba; 1995. p. 214

[53] Gómez-Orellana L, Rubinos Román M, Cillero Castro C, Hinojo Sánchez B, Ramil-Rego P. Ferreiro da Costa J. Los humedales de Galicia como sumidero de carbono: evaluación, distribución y estado de conservación. Bol. R. Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat. Sec. Geol. 2014;**108**:19-26

[54] Atienza JC, Martín Fierro I, Infante O, Valls J, Domínguez J. Directrices para la evaluación del impacto de los parques eólicos en aves y murciélagos (versión 3.0). Madrid: SEO/BirdLife; 2011. p. 115

[55] Bright JA, Langston RW, Bullman R, Evans RJ, Gardner S, Pearce-Higgins J, et al. Bird Sensitivity Map to Provide Locational Guidance for Onshore Wind Farms in Scotland. Sandy: The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; 2006. p. 136

[56] Lindsay R, Bragg O. Wind Farms and Blanket Mires: The Bog Slide of 16th October 2003 at Derrybrien, Co. Galway, Ireland. Gort: School of Health and Biosciences, University of East London; 2004. p. 135

[57] Pearce-Higgins JW, Stephen L, Langston RHW, Baibridge IP, Bullman R. The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2009;**46**:1323-1331

[58] Wawrzyczek J, Lindsay R, Metzger MJ, Quétier F. The ecosystem approach in ecological impact assessment: Lessons learned from windfarm developments on peatlands in Scotland. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2018;**72**:157-165

[59] Armstrong A, Burton RR, Lee SE, Mobbs S, Ostle N, Smith V, et al. Groundlevel climate at a peatland wind farm in Scotland is affected by wind turbine operation. Environmental Research Letters. 2016;**11**(4):044024

[60] Chico G, Clutterbuck B, Clough J, Lindsay R, Midgley NG, Labadz JC. Geohydromorphological assessment of Europe's southernmost blanket bogs. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 2020;**45**:2747-2760

[61] CBD. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: Living in Harmony with Nature. UNEP/CBD/ COP/DEC/X/2. Decision Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at Its Tenth Meeting. Nagoya: Convention on Biological Diversity; 2010

[62] European Commission (EC). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the

Regions. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing nature back into our lives. COM (2020) 380 final. Brussels: European Commission; 2020

## **Chapter 3**

## Impacts of Stone Quarrying on Local Vegetation in Mount Korok Area, Juba, Central Equatoria State, South Sudan

*Pasquale Tiberio Moilinga and Makuac Robert Athian*

## **Abstract**

This study was carried out in three quarry sites at Mount Korok, also known as Jebel Kujur area, which is located within Juba Town Council in Central Equatoria State, South Sudan. The main aim was to assess the impact of quarrying activities on the local ground cover vegetation, mainly grasses and low-lying non-woody herbaceous plants. The methods used included, besides direct observations, iron frame quadrats of 1 1 m<sup>2</sup> in size, for random sampling of attributes and community characteristics of the plants in three different sites. The first site was an old, abandoned stone-quarrying site; the second was where quarrying work was actively going on at the time of the study; and the third was an area never before exposed to stone quarrying (hence, acting as a control). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as frequency distribution, density measures, diversity indices, and correlations. The research was carried out during the wet season when most plants were green and at different stages of flowering and/or fruiting from July through September, 2020. The results revealed that over 44 species of ground cover plants were identified, some of which were more abundant and had the widest distribution and frequency in the three study sites, including *Cynodon lemfuensis, Cyperus rotundus, Bracharia ramose, Merremia pinata, Cyanodon dactylon*, *and Digitaria fernatad*, whereas others were limited to one site or the other. Results also indicated that though stone-quarrying activities have impacts on ground cover plants, however, they are not the only factor affecting ground cover plants. More than 80% of the impacts on ground cover plants are caused by factors other than stone quarrying but were not identified during this study. It was therefore recommended that future studies in the area on the same theme should isolate the effects of stone quarrying on ground cover plants from these other operating factors through discriminant functional analysis.

**Keywords:** quarrying activities, ground cover plants, environment, discriminant analysis, game reserve

## **1. Introduction**

A quarry is a surface mining-operated area, which produces enormous quantities of gravel, limestone, and other materials for industrial and construction applications [1]. It is a form of land use and part of the local heritage where non-metallic rocks and aggregates are extracted from land [2–4]. Generally, the effects of dust emission from quarries have both micro-spatial and regional dimensions. Air pollution and ground vibration arising from blasting, crushing, and emission of noxious gases have negative impacts on human health and well-being [3]. Several studies have been conducted on the negative impact associated with the environmental effects of quarry activities. One of the biggest negative impacts of quarrying on the environment is the damage to biodiversity, especially the damage caused to plants by pollution resulting from quarrying activities that include necrosis (dead areas on leaf structure), chlorosis (loss or reduction of chlorophyll leading to yellowing of leaf), epinasty (downward curvature of the leaf due to higher rate of growth on the upper surface), and abscission of leaves, that is, premature fall [5–9].

The main focus of this study is to assess the extent of impact of stone-quarrying activities on the ground vegetation, specifically grasses and low-lying herbaceous plants in the Mt. Korok area and its environs within Juba County, Central Equatoria State, South Sudan. The study area constituted a core area of the now-defunct Juba Forest and Game Reserve. The investigation was carried out with the view to provide baseline information on the subject. Moreover, it was hoped that the information obtained would be used to guide policy and management, decision making, and development of mitigation strategies. In addition, the information generated by this study would contribute to the pool of information that many future researchers will use to develop further research concepts and projects.

#### **1.1 Specific objectives were**


#### **1.2 Quarrying as a human activity**

For thousands of years, man has used stone for building, whether it was for monuments, religious buildings, or houses. Early on, man's use of stone and his primitive quarrying would have had little lasting impact on the environment. It was a good material with which to build castles, walls, churches, and important buildings since it was strong and weather resistant [9]. Over the past century, quarrying of building stones and other building material has been on the rise due to increased demand for building material [10]. This has been enhanced by the increased and expansion rate of urbanization locally and internationally [10, 11]*.* Quarrying is

#### *Impacts of Stone Quarrying on Local Vegetation in Mount Korok Area, Juba, Central… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109707*

undertaken in different parts of the world, and it impacts the environment and the socio-economic status of the people [12].

The impact on the social economy can be either positive or negative [12–14]. However, the environment is negatively impacted through loss of biodiversity, dust pollution, water pollution, lowering of the water table, soil erosion, and noise pollution [10, 13, 15, 16]. The Victorians, for example, used stone for all their major buildings, and with better transport and new technology, they were able to meet the increasing demands, probably with little thought to their impact on the environment [17, 18]. Today, it is estimated that over 13 million people in about 30 countries across the world are engaged in quarrying, with about 80 million to 100 million people depending on the extractive activities for their livelihood [19].

Quarrying, like many other man's activities, is a process that undergoes different steps, and it involves physically going out into the field and searching for stone; this is then followed by the actual excavation of stone/minerals from the ground [20]*.* This is achieved in many different ways, depending on what type of stone it is and what you want to take out of the ground. This activity degrades the land after it is quarried, so it is important to study it in order to asses it and to avoid great damage to the environment [18, 20].

As reported in [18, 20, 21], these activities, unfortunately, cause significant impact on the surrounding environment. The extraction process in advanced situations normally depends on heavy machines and explosives, where both processes are normally associated with air pollution, noise pollution, damage to biodiversity, and habitat destruction [14, 22–24]. In addition to water [25], fertile soil is dislocated and interrupted, leaving a big, gaping landscape [26, 27]. The impact can range from scarcely perceptible to highly obtrusive, and the impact can similarly vary widely depending on how quarrying stone was done, the method of quarrying, and the characteristics of the quarry site and its surroundings [28].

One of the biggest negative impacts of quarrying on the environment is the damage to biodiversity, which, essentially, refers to the range of living species, including fish, insects, invertebrates, reptiles, birds, mammals, plants, fungi, and even microorganisms, and quarrying activity has the potential of destroying the habitats and species it supports [7, 23, 24, 29]. Even noise pollution can have a significant impact on some species and affect their successful reproduction, though with careful planning and management, it is possible to minimize the effect on biodiversity, and in fact, quarries can also provide a good opportunity to create new habitats or to restore the existing ones [2, 30].

Dust pollution from quarrying operations both on site and on roads affects the local air quality as well as may lead to serious health. The main potential impacts of dust are visual impacts, coating/soiling of property (including houses, washing bays, and cars), coating of vegetation, contamination of soils, water pollution, change in plant species' composition, loss of sensitive plant species, increased inputs of mineral nutrients, and altered pH balances [24, 28, 31] .

Development requires the utilization of available resources, but very often, it does not check the effects of resource utilization on the environment, [24, 32]. However, quarrying in most developing countries suffers from a number of constraints including a lack of basic knowledge and safety precautions, poor working conditions, low socioeconomic status, lack of clear quarrying legislation, and environmental degradation that call for special attention [4, 5, 33]. On the other hand, quarrying has played a critical role in improving the livelihood of people living in rural areas and town suburbs by creating additional job opportunities and helping to generate additional

income [4, 34]. In Africa, East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, accessibility to natural resources plays a critical role in the livelihood conditions of people; since the formal sectors in developing countries have very little potential in terms of job creation, the informal sector has become an attractive alternative for achieving livelihood needs [4, 35, 36].

#### **1.3 Quarrying activity in South Sudan: past and present**

Stones have been quarried in Sudan and South Sudan since the ancient times, at least the beginning of the 14th century and probably long before that. There are multiple records of stone uses in those times; in the middle of the 15th century and after that, stones or quarried stones were used as tools in daily life, for instance, in putting up shelters and many other things, and it was also as much a matter of prestige as of the availability of materials [37]. Most of the stone quarrying was on a small scale and took place close to where the stone was wanted. However, from the recent times, some stone quarries were established due to great demand both locally and further afield in South Sudan for roads and building constructions, especially during the autonomous government in the then Southern Sudan and after the independence of South Sudan in 2011 [38, 39].

## **2. Materials and methods**

#### **2.1 Description of the study area**

The area is characterized by a crystalline basement (age: Precambrian) and a hilly and more or less dissected country with well-defined drainage and occasional development of rapid erosion at headwaters [40]. The major physical feature of the reserve is the hilly and rocky outcrops of Mt. Korok itself (also known locally as *Jebel Kujur*, meaning the witch's mountain), which in other parts form very steep and nonnegotiable cliffs with trees growing out of their cracks.

Map of the area (see **Figure 1**) encompasses the former Juba Forest and Game Reserve (JFGR). This reserve was established during the British colonial rule in 1939 for the protection of both the unique fauna and flora of the area. It is located to the west of Juba (the capital city of South Sudan) not more than 10 km away from the original Juba town center. The northern boundary of the reserve extends from the mouth of river Lurit to a point on it due north of the summit of Korok Mountain and, from the east, the west bank of *Bahr el Jebel* (The River Nile); the southern boundary is river Dorodo (*Khor Ramla*) from its source to its mouth, and finally, the western boundary is represented by the straight line joining the western limits of the northern and southern boundaries, that is, the town of Juba with its extensions inside the original protected area [41].

The abrupt increase in the population of Juba town as a result of the influx of people from rural areas and the returnees from neighboring countries, following the Peace Agreement of 2005 and the subsequent independence of South Sudan in 2011, has caused a total destruction of JFGR as people scrambled for land to build houses and grow crops. With the subsistent mode of living and their direct dependence on the traditional resources, tree felling, quarrying, charcoal mongering, cultivation, and hunting became rampant and have seriously denuded and deteriorated the area. In the absence of functional laws for protected areas at the time of independence, coupled

*Impacts of Stone Quarrying on Local Vegetation in Mount Korok Area, Juba, Central… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109707*

**Figure 1.** *Map of the study area.*

with the ecstasy and euphoria of independence, the Mt. Korok area was gazetted for human habitation the Juba Forest, and Game Reserve was abolished. The degree of environmental degradation that ensued and the disappearance of flora and fauna of the area resulting from human influences have not been properly described or quantified. So, this study is an attempt to describe an aspect of such degradation based on stone-quarrying activities.

The climate is tropical with two distinct wet and dry seasons in a year. The wet season is from April to October and the dry one from November to March. The temperatures are hot all the year round. The minimum temperature ranges from 17 to 25°C during the rainy seasons and the maximum from 25 to 40°C during the dry seasons, with February being the hottest, reaching the maximum of (40°C). Rainfall during the year can reach a total of 1000 mm. Precipitation of more than 1739 mm has been recorded. Rainfall from April to October can reach 99.09 mm per month. Therefore, the climate is characterized as being tropical due to proximity to the equatorial zone within the Central Equatoria state and has savannah vegetation (Directorate of Metrology, South Sudan, 2020).

When the reserve was first established, many different animal species existed therein, including mammals, for example, lion, hyena, leopard, elephant, giraffe, and many kinds of antelopes as well as primates, notably baboon, colabus monkey, vervet monkey, and others. There was also a huge assortment of birds, reptiles, and amphibians. On the other hand, the area was thickly vegetated with woodland savannah species, for example, trees and shrubs such as *Acacia hookii, A. mellifera, A. seiberiana, A*. *gerrardi, A. senegal*, *Zizphus spina christi, Z. abyssinica, Piliostigma thoingii, Harisonia abyssinica, Grewia mollis. Tamarindus indica, Celtis integrifolia, Kaya senegalensis, Euhporbia candelabra, Boswelia spp, Xemania Americana Acacia hookii, A. mellifera, A. seiberiana, A*. *gerrardi, A. Senegal*, *Zizphus spina christi, Z. abyssinica, Piliostigma thoingii, Harisonia abyssinica, Grewia mollis,T. indica, Celtis integrifolia, Kaya senegalensis, Euhporbia candelabra, Boswelia spp,* and *Xemania Americana* and many grass and herbaceous plant species such as *Hyperrhenia spp, Sprobalus spp,Themeda trianda, Chrysopogon aucheri, Piracharia ruziziensis, Andropogan spp, Cenchrus cililris, Cynodon dactylon, Entropogon macrostachyus, Solanum incanum, Impomea cordofana, Trifolium semifilosum*, *Cyanthla orthacantha*, *Dosmodium uncinatum*, and *Indigofera scliperi* to name but a few [41, 42].

## **2.2 Research design**

This study was carried out during the rainy season in the period from June 11 to September 27, 2020. In this study, following initial visits to the area and conducting a pilot survey, three sites were identified and selected to suit the purpose of this study. The first was Site 1, an area that was formerly subjected to stone-quarrying activities but was now abandoned for over seven years (see **Figure 2**).

The second was Site 2, an area where active stone quarrying work was going on at the time of this study (see **Figure 3**) and where it was visibly badly trampled by trucks and pedestrians working on the site and was therefore affected by road pollution including dust, oil spills, and leftover garbage.

The third was Site 3, an area where there had never been any form of stone quarrying activity before and or during the time of this study (see **Figure 4**).

The underlying idea was to sample grass and indeed all low-lying herbaceous plants covering the ground in these selected sites within Korok area by the use of a 1

**Figure 2.** *Site 1, formerly quarried site now abandoned. Source:* field survey, 2020. *Impacts of Stone Quarrying on Local Vegetation in Mount Korok Area, Juba, Central… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109707*

#### **Figure 3.**

*Site 2, actively quarried. Source:* field survey, 2020.

**Figure 4.** *Site 3, an area never subjected to quarrying before. Source:* field survey, 2020.

1 m iron frame quadrat, so as to assess the impacts of stone quarrying on the aspects of biodiversity, specifically grass and low-lying plants within those delineated areas.

#### **2.3 Data collection techniques**

Impacts of stone quarrying on ground cover vegetation in Korok area were described through the collection of data on abundance, frequency distribution, diversity, and ground cover of grass and herbaceous plants. The objective was to determine how density varied between sites as a consequence of stone-quarrying activities or the absence thereof. A 1 m<sup>2</sup> quadrat was used to estimate the density of grasses and lowlying herbaceous plants in these sites. 100 m<sup>2</sup> of Korok area was delimited, and the number of grass species and other low-lying plant cover within 10 randomly placed

quadrats was then counted. The random placing of the quadrats within the area was achieved by the use of a random number table to define the upper left-hand corner of each quadrat. This sampling protocol was repeated at the three chosen sites, and it followed that:


## **2.4 Data analysis**

#### *2.4.1 Analyzing community diversity*

To determine three important community characteristics:


Species richness is simply the tally of different grass species that were identified in a site. Species diversity is a more complex concept. In this work, a standard index called Simpson's Reciprocal was used:

$$\mathbf{D} = \sum p\_i^2 \tag{1}$$

Where *p*<sup>i</sup> = the fractional abundance of the *i*th species on a site.

Thus, the higher the value, the greater is the diversity. The maximum value is the number of species in the sample, which occurs when all species contain an equal number of individuals. Because this index reflects not only the number of species present but also the relative distribution of individuals among species within a community, it can reflect how "balanced" communities are in terms of how individuals are distributed across species, sometimes referred to as "evenness" [45, 46]. As a result,

*Impacts of Stone Quarrying on Local Vegetation in Mount Korok Area, Juba, Central… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109707*

two communities may have an identical complement of species, and hence species richness, but substantially different diversity measure if individuals in one community are skewed toward a few of the species, whereas individuals are distributed more evenly in the other community.

#### *2.4.2 Analyzing community distinctiveness*

Another important perspective in ranking sites is how different the communities are from one another. The simplest available measure of community similarity used here was the Jaccard Coefficient of Community Similarity (CCJ), to contrast community distinctiveness between all the possible pairs of site [27]:

$$\mathbf{C} \mathbf{C}\_{\text{J}} = \mathbf{c} / \mathbf{S} \tag{2}$$

Where *c* is the number of species common to both communities and *S* is the total number of species present in the two communities.

This distinctiveness or similarity index measures the degree to which the species and relative abundance are shared between different grass communities. And the index ranges from 0 (when no species is found in common between communities) to 1 (when all species are found in both communities). In other words, completely similar communities have an index of 1, while completely dissimilar communities have an index of 0. This index was calculated to compare each pair of sites separately, that is, compare Site 1 with Site 2, Site 1 with Site 3, and Site 2 with Site 3 for a total of three comparisons.

#### *2.4.3 Testing for difference of observed median densities*

To test if the medians of the observed densities at the three sites were significantly different, a Kruskal-Wallies test was run to compare the medians. And the null hypothesis in this case was that there was no significant difference in the median densities of grass and herbaceous plants species at the three chosen sites.

#### *2.4.4 Calculation of prominence value (PV)*

This is a measure of distribution and abundance for each species. This value weighs species abundance by its frequency of occurrence at sample points within each study site [47]. The formula involved is:

$$\mathbf{PV} = \mathbf{D} \times \sqrt{\mathbf{F}} \tag{3}$$

Where PV = number of individuals (D) of each species from all counts in each site multiplied by the square root of frequency of occurrence (F).

Cover is a measure of the area covered by the above-ground parts of plants of a species when viewed directly from above [44]. Because the vegetation may be layered, the cover of all species often sums to more than 100%. In this study, cover was assessed and analyzed according to Domin and Braun-Blanquet scales for visual estimates [43].

## *2.4.5 Ground cover estimation*

Although density and frequency indicate numbers and distribution, they do not indicate size, volume of space occupied, or amount of ground covered or shaded. These characteristics are desirable additional values that contribute materially to an understanding of the importance of a species in a stand, since they are closely related to dominance [48]. Cover can be estimated with some success or may be accurately determined by various devices for measurement and recording. When vegetation is stratified, the cover must be considered in terms of the stratum, zone, or site to which the species belongs. For rapid estimation as well as for analysis of results, there is a distinct advantage at times in using cover classes rather than the specific values; classes of the following number and magnitude are commonly used, covering: (a) less than 5%, (b) 5–25%, (c) 25–50%, (d). 50–75%, and (e) 75–100% [48].

## **3. Results and discussion**

## **3.1 Plant cover species identified**

Principally, the grass family is undoubtedly the most important plant family, and the fifth largest plant family on earth [49]. The largest plant families (in decreasing order) are the Asteraceae (sunflower family), Fabaceae (legumes), Orchidaceae (orchids), and Rubiaceae (gardenia family). **Table 1** shows the grass and other



*Impacts of Stone Quarrying on Local Vegetation in Mount Korok Area, Juba, Central… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109707*

*\* Species not positively identified.<sup>α</sup> Old, abandoned quarrying site.\*\*Site where species existed is marked (+).<sup>β</sup> Site with active quarrying operations.††Species not identified but noted.<sup>θ</sup> Site not quarried before (control).*

#### **Table 1.**

*A checklist of grass and non-woody herbaceous plants identified at three stone quarrying sites in Korok area.*

herbaceous plant species identified during field observations in three locations at Korok area.

In **Table 1**, a total of 44 species of grasses and low-lying non-woody herbaceous plants were identified at three study sites within Korok area. In this study, a list-count quadrat was used as mentioned earlier, that is, a simple tabulation of the species present, where the species were identified and their numbers counted. The species identified were then grouped into 16 families, though the number of families could be more since there were certain species that were not positively identified. The family

Poaceae contained the majority of the species identified:18 (41%). Members of other families were not so common in the area. Notably, some species were conspicuously common and occurred in all the three sites; these included two grass species, namely, *Cynodon lemfuensis* and *Cynodon dactylon* (family Graminae); three of the non-woody herbaceous plant species: *Achyranthes aspera* (family Amaranthaceae) and *Euphorbia hirta* (family Euphorbiaceae); and a third species that was not identified properly and is referred to as *Spp2* (see **Table 1**). Others were observed in any two sites only, whereas there were those that occurred only in Site 1, Site 2, or Site 3.

It is worth noting that of all the species identified in the three study sites altogether, herbaceous plants constituted about 30% and grasses 70%. Site 1 (which was an old abandoned quarrying area) contained 25% of all the plant species (both grasses and herbaceous plants). Usually, herbaceous plants are invaders that tend to recolonize an area that was formally disturbed but now left to rest [50]. Site 2 contained about 14% only of all the grass and herbaceous plant species identified; and these belonged to three families (two grasses: families Poaceae and Graminae and one herbaceous plant: family Mollugnaceae). And the species that were found only in this site included: *Brachiaria ramose*, *Digitaria fernosa*, *Chloris pychothrix*, *Chloris virgate*, and *Limeum pterocarpum*, and they are disturbance tolerant [51]. Site 3 (an area not subjected to stone quarrying before) contained about 23% of all the grass and non-woody herbaceous plant species belonging to four families, three of which were non-woody herbaceous plants (family Convolvulaceae, family Capparceae, and family Salvadoraceae) and one grass family with seven species (family Graminae). Characteristically, the two sites where no stone-quarrying activities existed (Site 1 and Site 3) had a strong presence of and higher densities of non-woody herbaceous plant species.

#### **3.2 Community structure: diversity, species richness, and similarity**

In analyzing and discussing the community structure of the local vegetation ground cover, the focus is on three community characteristics, namely:


Species richness is simply the tally of different plant species that are observed in a site. Species diversity is a more complex concept. In this study, it was obtained using a standard index, the Simpson Reciprocal Index (see **Table 2**); the higher the value, the greater is the diversity. So, the results showed that Site 1 (an old, abandoned quarry area) had the greatest diversity followed by Site 3 (a non-quarry area), whereas Site 2 (an actively quarried area) had the least diversity. Because this index reflects not only the number of species present but also the relative distribution of individuals among species within a community, it can reflect how 'balanced' communities are in terms of how individuals are distributed across species [27]. As a consequence, two communities may have a more or less identical complement of species, and hence species richness (just as in the case of Site 2 and Site 3) but substantially different diversity measures if individuals in one community are skewed *Impacts of Stone Quarrying on Local Vegetation in Mount Korok Area, Juba, Central… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109707*



*\* Species not positively identified.<sup>α</sup> Old, abandoned quarrying site.<sup>β</sup> Site with active quarrying work.<sup>θ</sup> Site not quarried before (control).††Species not identified but noted.*

#### **Table 2.**

*Comparing grass and other herbaceous plant species diversity, species richness, and community similarity indices among the three stone-quarrying sites in Korok area.*

toward a few of the species, whereas individuals are distributed more evenly in the other community.

Diversity is one thing, but distinctiveness is quite another. Thus, another important perspective in ranking sites is how different the communities are from one another [27]. The simplest available measure of community similarity is calculated as shown in **Table 3**; this index ranges from 0 (when no species is found in common between communities) to 1 (when all species are found in both communities). So, as shown in **Table 3**, this index was calculated to compare each pair of sites separately, that is, compare Site 1 with Site 2, Site 1 with Site 3, and Site 2 with Site 3, a total of three comparisons.

It is useful to determine the average similarity of one community within a site to all the others, by averaging the (CCj ) values across each comparison in which a particular site is included. Once the calculations of diversity (species richness and Simpson's Reciprocal Index) as in **Table 2** and distinctiveness (CCj ) as in **Table 3** are made, the primary question of how the three selected sites should be ranked in terms of the extent of stone-quarrying impacts on the local vegetation cover, making an informed decision that requires reconciling the analysis of community structure with concepts of biological diversity as it pertains to diversity and distinctiveness, could be answered.

*Impacts of Stone Quarrying on Local Vegetation in Mount Korok Area, Juba, Central… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109707*


*\* For detailed calculation of JCC = c/S, see (Appendix A).\*\*c = number of species common to both communities (being compared) and S = total number of species present in the two communities.*

#### **Table 3.**

*Using the Jaccard Coefficient of Community Similarity, JCC = c/S [27], the contrast community distinctiveness between all the possible pairs of sites.*

The decisions can be based principally on the estimates of species richness, diversity, endemicity (species found at only one site), and community similarity. However, once those decisions are made, it might also be good to look at the spatial arrangement of the selected sites and compare that to the species distributions. This might help in the interpretation of the species distributions and might give useful additional information for ranking the sites according to the damage caused by stone-quarrying operations.

#### **3.3 Frequency distribution**

As referenced in [43], under some circumstances, it may not be practicable to make actual counts, but plentifulness may be rapidly estimated according to some scale of abundance such as very rare, rare, infrequent, abundant, and very abundant. Such estimates are particularly useful when several similar stands of uniform composition are to be surveyed within a limited time, as was the case in this study. When there is time for adequate sampling, the determination of actual numbers by counting is of greater value, because it permits the expression of density, which is the abundance by number on a unit-area basis. During the field observations in this study, deliberate efforts were dedicated in order to identify and count plant species so that their density could be determined numerically. Of course, not all species with equal densities are of equal importance in a community, or need to be similarly distributed. It therefore becomes necessary to interpret density values or to specify other characters that, combined with density, serve to complete the picture. One such value is frequency. This value is an expression of the percentage of sample plots in which a species occurs [43]. Thus, frequency becomes a very useful value, when used in combination with density, for then not only the number of individuals but also how widely they are distributed in the site under study is known. Knowledge of these two quantitative characteristics, in combination, is fundamental to an understanding of the community structure.

It should be emphasized that frequency values cannot be compared unless determined with plots of equal size. The larger the plots, the higher is the frequency. In this study the frame quadrat used was of fixed size 1 1 m<sup>2</sup> . In [44], it is asserted that frequency may conveniently be grouped into classes, for example, A (1–20%), B (21– 40%), C (41–60%), D (61–80%), and E (81–100%). The results of this study showed that the total frequency for each individual species identified and counted was very low, and if the above frequency classes were to be used, then almost all species would have their frequency in the first class, that is, A (1–20%). And this does not tell much and is therefore meaningless. So, instead of expressing frequencies in terms of

percentages, it was thought better to express them in terms of prominence values (see **Table 4**), which is a measure of both abundance and distribution [47]. And in **Table 4**, six species stand out very clearly as being the most abundant and widely distributed all over the three study sites and/or at least in two sites; they are in order of magnitude from the highest to the lowest: *Cynodon lemfuensis*, *Cyperus rotundance*, *Brachiaria ramosa*, *Merremia piñata*, *C. dactylon*, and *Digitaria fernata*. Two other species, namely, *Euphorbia herta* and another that was not positively identified but



*Impacts of Stone Quarrying on Local Vegetation in Mount Korok Area, Juba, Central… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109707*

*\* Species not positively identified.<sup>α</sup> Old, abandoned quarrying site.<sup>β</sup> Site with active quarrying work.<sup>θ</sup> Site not quarried before (control).††Species not identified but noted.*

#### **Table 4.**

*Determination of prominence value (PV) for all plant species identified in the three selected study sites within Korok area.*

referred to as *Spp 2*, were observably and moderately common in abundance and frequency within the study sites.

## **3.4 Comparing median densities of grasses and non-Woody herbaceous plants**

A non-parametric test, the Kruskal-Wallies test, was used to calculate the statistic (*K*) of the median densities of grasses and non-woody herbaceous plant species in the three selected sites. The null hypothesis was that there is no significant difference in the median densities of grasses and herbaceous plant species in the three sites. But it was found that *K* = 21.76. Comparing this calculated statistic with the tabulated distribution of χ<sup>2</sup> (Appendix C) in [52] at 2 degrees of freedom (df), the calculated value of *K* far exceeds the tabulated critical values of 5.99 and 9.21 at both *p* = 0.05 and *p* = 0.01, respectively. We therefore reject the null Hypothesis and conclude that there is a highly significant difference between the median densities of the grasses and the non-woody herbaceous plant species in the three sites (*K* = 21.76, p < 0.01, Kruskal-Wallies test) (**Table 5**).

### **3.5 Ground cover estimation**

Using the approach mentioned in Section 2.4.5 above, results of this study revealed that Site 3 (a no-quarry area) had the highest cover followed by Site 1 (a formerly quarried area but now abandoned), whereas Site 2 (an area with intense quarrying


#### **Table 5.**

*Median densities of grass and herbaceous plant species and ranked scores (in brackets) at three study sites in Korok area.*

activities at the time of this study) had the least cover (**Figure 5**). It can therefore be concluded that quarrying operations in Site 2 to a great extent are responsible for the removal of the low-lying vegetation cover in the area.

## **3.6 Effects of stone quarrying on relative density and abundance of grass and non-Woody plants in these three sites**

By comparing plant relative density at Site 1 and Site 2 (**Figure 5**), it is clear that plants at Site 1 (which is an old abandoned quarrying area) have a higher relative

#### **Figure 5.** *Proportion of ground covered with grass and herbal plant species in each of the three study sites.*

*Impacts of Stone Quarrying on Local Vegetation in Mount Korok Area, Juba, Central… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109707*

#### **Figure 6.**

*Relative density and abundance of grass and herbaceous plant species in two study sites: Site 1 (abandoned quarrying area) and Site 2 (area under quarrying activities) within Korok area. (NB. Observation points are the ten sampling points in each site).*

density than those at Site 2 (an area with stone-quarrying activities still going on), suggesting that stone-quarrying operations have an impact on the local ground cover (**Figure 6**).

Similarly, upon contrasting relative density of plants at Site 2 with that of Site 3 (an area with no stone-quarrying activities), the results showed that plants at Site 3 had a higher relative density than those at Site 2 (**Figure 7**). In both of these comparisons, results are consistent with the findings of previous researchers. For example, it was well documented how stone-quarrying can affect vegetation cover, which represents the main component of the ecosystem, hence the absence of balance in the volume of oxygen and carbon dioxide through photosynthetic activities [7, 25]. Likewise, it was noted that stone quarrying can indirectly affect local vegetation cover through its negative impact on the soil and pollute both surface and ground water [24, 53, 54]. In the same vein, [26] reported that stone quarrying has resulted in changes in soil properties such that soil in and around the quarrying area (0–1 km) was found to be alkaline (pH 11.2–11.7), and this was attributed to the high concentrations of hydroxyl, carbonate, and bicarbonate present in the minerals of mined materials. In addition to the physical removal of ground cover by tools used in mining and stonecutting industries, the physiological mechanisms behind plant damage could be attributed to one or a combination of the following factors: dusts might cover the leaves with a white layer, thereby decreasing the total chlorophyll cells exposed to light and thus reducing the total photosynthetic activity [53].

In **Figure** 8, the two sites with apparently no stone-quarrying activities, the relative density of plants therein are both high. This suggests that when an area is not disturbed through human activities such as stone quarrying, the grasses and other non-woody herbaceous plants have the potential to reclaim the area and to establish themselves. And their presence also prevents soil erosion that results from the removal of ground cover by stone-quarrying operations. Plants are exceptionally

#### **Figure 7.**

*Relative density and abundance of grass and forb-like plant species in two study sites: Site 2 (area under quarrying) and Site 3 (area with no quarrying activity) within Korok area.*

#### **Figure 8.**

*Relative density and abundance of grass and herbaceous plant species in two study sites: Site 1 (abandoned quarrying area) and Site 3 (area with no quarrying activities) within Korok area.*

effective in protecting the soil against the agents of erosion like water, wind, and sun. Grasses are known for being particularly effective in combating soil erosion [49]. Their growth points are very close to the ground level, and they often form stolons and/or rhizomes, which are good at stabilizing the soil [55]. If not disturbed by human activities, plant communities in the area will undergo the natural process of plant succession, which is the progressive succession of plant communities. When a disturbance like stone quarrying and the accompanying excavations takes place in an area, the area is recolonized by new, better-adapted plant communities [49]. The two sites

*Impacts of Stone Quarrying on Local Vegetation in Mount Korok Area, Juba, Central… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109707*

(1 and 3) share many species between them that are not found in the disturbed Site 2, which also suggests that the plant communities in them might be at a different level of plant succession, hence proving that stone-quarrying work is impacting the local vegetation cover negatively.

The relative densities of plants in the three sites are compared in **Figure 9**, and the difference is glaringly clear. Plants in the area with no stone-quarrying operations (Site 3) have the highest relative density, followed by those in the formerly disturbed but now abandoned area (Site 1), and, lastly, Site 2 (quarried area) plants with the least relative density.

However, despite this apparent difference in the densities of grass cover, the result of a Pearson's Moment Correlation Coefficient test (r) run to test the null Hypothesis that there was no significant difference in impacts due to quarrying activities *per se* in respect to relative plant densitie*s* between Site 2 and Site 3, a weak correlation of (r) equals 0.392 was obtained. The (r) value is far lower than the tabulated critical value of 0.632 for degrees of freedom 8 at p = 0.05. Therefore, the H0 is accepted, and it was concluded that the positive correlation was statistically not significant. This suggested that although there was a positive weak correlation between the extent of stonequarrying activities and relative density of plant constituting the local ground cover in Site 2 vs. Site 3, stone quarrying might not be the only factor affecting the densities of ground cover vegetation, notably grasses and low-lying herbaceous plants; hence, the impact is not significant. To establish this assumption, a coefficient of determination (r2 ) was calculated to indicate how much other factors, besides stone-quarrying activities, influenced plant densities, distribution, frequencies, and cover. The coefficient of determination was found to be r<sup>2</sup> = 0.154; in other words, only about 15% of the impacts resulted from stone-quarrying activities in the selected study sides, meaning over 85% of variation in ground cover vegetation density was not accounted for by stone quarrying alone. It is probable that other factors such as bush burning, small-scale farming in the area, and construction work like building houses, roads, and so on could be major contributors impacting plant cover and density in the area. This must be investigated in future studies along this same theme. Unfortunately,

given the short study period and limited finance and logistics, the kind of data collected could not be subjected to discriminant analysis technique so as to effectively isolate the negative effects of stone quarrying from other likely factors. Discriminant analysis is a powerful classification technique to discriminate the assigned observations to predefined groups [56].

Quarrying is a sensitive and a complex issue. On the one hand, quarrying supplies raw materials to meet many of the societies 'needs, creates employment, and contributes to the local economy [12, 57]. This part of South Sudan, that is, the Korok area, has always experienced and is still experiencing extensive quarrying activities. The residents of the area living adjacent to quarrying sites are exposed to disturbances and environmental impacts of stone quarrying: the constant traffic of heavy dumpers and the movements of lorries to and from the sites cause noise and the result of rock blasting generate dust, smoke, and fumes as well as suspended particles, all of which pollute the area. As a consequence, people who live near the quarrying areas are likely to develop respiratory diseases. Observably, in the area, quarrying activities also produce a growing number of abandoned quarry pits that are quickly filled-up with water in the rainy season and become suitable habitats for swarms of mosquitoes and freshwater snails that in turn act as intermediate hosts for *Schistosoma* and *Haematobium* that may eventually contribute to the prevalence of bilharzia, urinary problems, and malaria in people. Apart from these, land degradation and other negative impacts of stone quarrying include swamp creation, deterioration of underground water, and erosion of soil; moreover, quarrying activities such as excavation, digging, blasting, and clearing the land have direct effects on biodiversity.

## **4. Conclusion and recommendations**

#### **4.1 Conclusion**

Quarrying and stone-cutting activities affect the general environment including destruction and removal of local vegetation cover, particularly grass and the low-lying non-woody herbaceous plants. The physical crushing, excavation, and removal of rocks produce high concentrations of particulate matter (dust), fumes, smoke, and other gaseous substances, which negatively affect vegetation in the vicinity of quarrying areas. Also, the stone-quarrying activities affect ground cover plants indirectly by affecting soil and water, which are vital resources for vegetation cover, thus exacerbating the problem. However, in the Mt. Korok area, stone-quarrying activities are not the only cause of ground cover vegetation destruction; there are other factors that equally affect the local vegetation cover, but they are yet to be determined.

### **4.2 Recommendations**

	- a. Biodiversity in general
	- b. Land environment (landscape forms, land use types)

*Impacts of Stone Quarrying on Local Vegetation in Mount Korok Area, Juba, Central… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109707*


## **Acknowledgements**

We are grateful to the School of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, University of Juba, for supporting this study by allowing us to use the school's field tools and laboratory facility. We also thank the local government authority and the community leaders in the Mt. Korok area for granting us the permission to carry out the study in their area. Many other people also assisted us in the course of this study; to all of them, we say thank you for the support they gave us.

## **A. Appendix**

Calculating community similarity by using the simplest measure, which is the Jaccard coefficient of community similarity to contrast community distinctiveness between all possible pairs of sites.

Jaccard Coefficient of Community Similarity, CCJ ¼ c*=*S*:*

Where c = is the number of species common to both communities (being compared) and S = is the total number of species present in the two communities.

So, Site 1 vs. Site 2: is c/S = 0.1875, i.e., 18. 8%. 6 species are common, and total of both sites (22 + 16) � 6 = 32.

Site 1 vs. Site 3: is c/S = 0.184210526, i.e., 18. 4%. 7 species are common, and total of both sites is (22 + 23)�7 = 38. Site 2 vs. Site 3: is c/S = 0.3, i.e., 30%. 9 species are common, and total of both sites is (16 + 23) � 9 = 30.

## **B. Appendix**

Calculating median densities of grass and forb-like plant species at the three sites in Korok area number of individual species observed (rank scores in brackets).



25 (7.5) 39 (17) 29 (13)

$$\begin{aligned} K &= \left[ \sum (\mathbf{R}^2/\mathbf{n}) \times \mathbf{12}/\mathbf{N}/\mathbf{N} + \mathbf{1} \right] - \mathbf{3}(\mathbf{N} + \mathbf{1}) \\ &= [\mathbf{8702.6} \times \mathbf{12}/\mathbf{30}/(\mathbf{31}) - \mathbf{3}(\mathbf{31}) \\ K &= \mathbf{21.76} \end{aligned}$$

We compare *K* with the tabulated distribution of χ<sup>2</sup> (Appendix C) [52]. The degree of freedom is the number of samples less one (in this case 3–1 = 2). At 2 df, our calculated value far exceeds the tabulated critical values of 5.99 and 9.21 at both *p* = 0.05 and *p* = 0.01, respectively. We therefore reject the null Hypothesis and conclude that there is a highly significant difference between the median densities of the grass and herbaceous plant species in the three sites (*K* = 21.76, p < 0.01, Kruskal-Wallies test).

## **C. Appendix**

Calculating the Product Moment Correlation Coefficient, r, for Study Site 2 vs. Study Site 3 at Korok area.


*Impacts of Stone Quarrying on Local Vegetation in Mount Korok Area, Juba, Central… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109707*


The Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) is calculated as follows:

$$\begin{aligned} \mathbf{r} &= \frac{\mathbf{n}\sum\mathbf{x}\mathbf{y} - \sum\mathbf{x}\sum\mathbf{y}}{\sqrt{\left[\mathbf{n}\sum\mathbf{x}^2 - \left(\sum\mathbf{x}\right)^2\right] \left[\mathbf{n}\sum\mathbf{y}^2 - \left(\sum\mathbf{y}\right)^2\right]}} \\ &= \frac{10 \times 40084 - 738 \times 518}{\sqrt{\left[10 \times 58793 - 5446444\right] \left[10 \times 31994 - 268324\right]}} \\ &= \frac{400840 - 382284}{\sqrt{\left(43286\right) \left(51616\right)}} \\ &= \frac{18556}{\sqrt{2234250176}} \\ &= \frac{18556}{47267.8} \\ &= 0.392 \end{aligned}$$

The correlation coefficient appears weak and positive. Checking the significance of this positive correlation from appendix 5 in [52], we find that the value 0.392 far below the tabulated critical value of 0.632 for degree of freedom (n – 2), i.e., 10–2=8 at p = 0.05. We accept the H0 and conclude that the weak positive correlation is statistically not significant.

## **D. Appendix**

Calculation of Coefficient of Determination (r2 ).

This is done by squaring the Product Moment Correlation Coefficient, r, [52], i.e., 0.392.

Thus, r2 = 0.392<sup>2</sup> = 0.153667.

## **Author details**

Pasquale Tiberio Moilinga<sup>1</sup> \* and Makuac Robert Athian<sup>2</sup>

1 Department of Wildlife Science, School of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, University of Juba, Juba, South Sudan

2 Department of Geography, School of Arts and Humanities, University of Juba, Juba, South Sudan

\*Address all correspondence to: worimoilinga@gmail.com

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Impacts of Stone Quarrying on Local Vegetation in Mount Korok Area, Juba, Central… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109707*

## **References**

[1] Duan W, HaiRen H, Fu S, Wang J, Yang L, Zhang J. Natural recovery of different areas of a deserted quarry in South China. Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2008;**20**(4):476-481

[2] Ukpong EC. Environmental impact of aggregate mining by crush rock Industries in Akamkpa Local Government Area of Cross River state. Nigerian Journal of Technology. 2014;**31**: 116-127

[3] Nartey VK, Nanor JN, Klake RK. Effects of quarry activities on some selected communities in the lower Manyakrobo District of the Eastern Region of Ghana. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences. 2012;**2**:362-372

[4] Nyapala OA, Kamwele H. Socio economic impact assessment of stone quarrying in Thika municipality: A case study of Nanasi Area Block 14 (2010-2011). In: 4th World Conference on Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology. 24–26 October. Japan: Kumamoto University; 2015

[5] Wang Q, Shi J, Chen G, Xue L. Environmental effects induced by human activities in arid Shiyang River basisn, Gansu Province, Northwest China. Environmental Geology. 2002;**43** (1–2):219-227

[6] Khater C, Martin A, Maillet J. Spontaneous vegetation dynamics and restoration prospects for limestone quarries in Lebanon. Applied Vegetation Science. 2003;**2**:199-204

[7] Anand PB. Waste management in Madras revisited. Environmental Urbanization. 2006;**11**(20):161-176

[8] Jomaa I, Auda Y, Abi Saleh B, Hamze M, Safi S. Landscape spatial dynamics over 38 years under natural and anthropogenic pressures in Mount Lebanon. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2008;**87**:67-75

[9] Xue YG, Teng DB, Li SC, Su MX. Study on Environmental-Geological Problem and Ecosystem Re-Establishment Countermeasures about Quarry and Damaged Mountain in Peri-Urban. In: 4th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering (i CBBE 2010). China; 2010, 2010. pp. 3717-3721

[10] Dong-dong Z, Yu-shan S, Le L. Study on sustainable landscape design of abandoned quarries. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science. 2009;**1**(1):1107-1113

[11] Afeni TB. Assessment of the Socio-Economic Impacts of Quarrying and Processing of Limestone at Obajana, Nigeria. School of Mining Engineering, University of The Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. European Journal for Social Sciences. 2008

[12] Lad RJ, Samant JS. Environmental and socil impacts of stone quarrying: A case study of Kolhapur district. International Journal of Current Research. 2014;**6**(3):5664-5669

[13] Chatterjee N. The basalt stone quarries of eastern India; the basalt stone quarries of eastern India. International Journal of Environmental Studies. 2010; **67**(3):439-457

[14] Sati VP. Socio-economic and environmental impacts of stone Mining in Shivpuri District, Madhya Predesh, India. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2015;**4**:47-54

[15] Edit A, Nganje AJ, Ekwere AS, Ukpong AJ. Groundwater chemistry and quality of Nigeria: A status review. African Journal of Environmental Sciences and Technology. 2011;**5**(13): 1152-1169

[16] Kaliampakos DC, Mavrikos AA. Introducing a new aspect in marble quarry rehabilitation in Greece. Environmental Geology. 2006;**50**: 353-359

[17] Bloodworth A, Scott J, Mcevoyc FM. A British Geological Survey. Keyworth: Kingsley Dunham Centre; 2009

[18] USMI. Stone and Marble in Palestine, Developing a Strategy for the Future. Union of Stone and Marble Industry; 2011

[19] Asante F, Abass K, Afriyie K. Stone quarrying and livelihood transformation in Peri-urban Kumasi. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences. 2014; **4**(13):93-108

[20] Gamal El-Dine HM, Sadek RR, Zayet HH, Refaat TM. Respiratory problems among workers exposed to quarries dusts in El-Mina governorate. El Mina Medical Bulletin. 2009;**20**(2):360

[21] Okafor FC. Rural Development and the Environmental Degradation versus Protection. In: Sada PO, Odemerho T, editors. Environmental Issues and Management in Nigerian Development. 2006. pp. 150-163

[22] Abate Z. Impacts of Stone Quarrying on Environment and Livelihood of Local Community in Addis Ababa Peri-Urban Areas: The Case of Hana Mariam Cobble Stone Quarry Site. MSc Thesis. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University; 2016

[23] Maboguine AL. The Challenges of Mobility within Nigeria's Energing Megacities. In: Keynote Address

Delivered at the Maiden Annual National Conference on Public Transport. Ikeja; 2008. pp. 6-8

[24] Lameed GA, Ayodele AE. Effects of quarrying activity on biodiversity: Case Study of Ogbere site, Ogun State, Nigeria. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 2010;**4**(11):740-750

[25] Osha OL. Information Booklet on Industrial Hygiene. Revised ed. Washington, USA: U.S. Department of Labor OSHA/OICA Publications, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; 2006. pp. 23-35

[26] Haritash AK, Baskar R, Shama N, Paliwal S. Impact of slate quarrying on soil properties in semi-arid Mahendragarh in India. Environmental Geology. 2007;**51**:1439-1445

[27] Gibbs JP, Hunter ML, Jr; and Sterling, E. J. Problem-Solving in Conservation Biology and Wildlife Management: Exercise for Class, Field, and Laboratory. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2008

[28] Angela AO, Mba C, Uloma JU. Effects of quarrying activities on local vegetation cover in Ebonyi State, Nigeria. International Journal of Science and Research Methodology. 2017;**6**(2): 35-50

[29] Nyakeniga CA. An Assessment of Environmental Impacts of Stone Quarrying Activities in Nyambera location, Kisii County. Kenyatta University; 2009

[30] Endalew A, Tasew E, Tolahun S. Environment and social impacts of stone quarrying: South Western Ethiopia, in case of Bahir Dar Zuria Wereda Zenzelma Kebele. International Journal

*Impacts of Stone Quarrying on Local Vegetation in Mount Korok Area, Juba, Central… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109707*

of Research in Environmental Science (IJRES). 2019;**5**(2):29-38

[31] Tanko A. Environmental Concerns, Assessment and Protection Procedures for Nigeria's Oil Industry. Nigeria: Center for Development Studies and the School of Geography; 2007. p. 1

[32] Oke SO, Ibanesebhur G. Impact of limestone quarrying on vegetation and landform of Ewekoro Cement, Ewekoro Local Government Area, Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of Botany. 2010;**23**(2): 301-368

[33] Foddy G, Wallen E, Agarwall D. Resolving Social Dilemma. Philadelphia, P A: Psychology Press; 1999

[34] Mouflis GD, Gitas LZ, Lliadou S, Mitri GH. Assessment of the visual impact of marble quarry expansion (1984–2000) on the landscape of Thasos Island, NE Greece. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2008;**86**:92-102

[35] Aigbedion IN. Environmental pollution in the Niger-Delta, Nigeria. Inter Disciplinary Journal of Environment. 2005;**3**(4):205-211

[36] Adekoya JA. Environmental effect of solid minerals mining. Journal of Physical Science. 2003;**4**(2):625-640

[37] Bloxam E, Helda T. The industrial landscape of the northern Faiyum Desert as a world heritage site: Modelling the outstanding universal value of third millennium BC stone quarrying in Egypt' in world archaeology 393. The Archaeology of World Heritage. 2007; **2007**:305-323

[38] Dirks PH, Blenkisop TG, Jelsma HA. The Geological Evolution of Africa. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); 2002

[39] Cordaid. Mining in South Sudan Opportunities and Risks for Local Communities. Baseline Assessment of Small-Scale and Artisanal Gold Mining in Central and Eastern States, South Sudan. Juba: Catholic Organisation for Relief and Development Aid (cordaid); 2016

[40] Mefit SPA. Regional Development Plan, First Phase B. Rome: Mefit SPA; 1977

[41] Hillman JG. Wildlife Information Booklet, Department of Wildlife Management. USA: N.Y.Z.S; 1982

[42] Noordjwik M. Ecology Text Book for the Sudan. Sudan: Khartoum University Press; 1984

[43] Sutherland WJ. Ecological Census Techniques: A Handbook. United Kingdom: Cobridge University Press; 1996

[44] Grieg-Smith P. Quantitative Plant Ecology. 3rd ed. UK: Blackwell Scientific Publications. Oxford; 1983

[45] Begon M, Herper JL, Townsend CR. Ecology: Individuals, Populations and Communities. 2nd ed. UK: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1990. p. 945

[46] Gibbs JP, Harrison IJ, Griffiths J. What is biology? Spiders as examples of the biodiversity concept. In: Gibbs JP, Harrison IJ, Jennifer G, editors. Problem-Solving in Conservation Biology and Wildlife Management. 2nd ed. UK, Australia: Blackwell Publishers; 2008

[47] Steel RGD, Torrie JH. Principles and Procedures of Statistics, with Special Reference to the Biological Science. NY. Toronto, London: McGrow-Will Book Company, Inc; 1960

[48] Wheater CP, Bell JR, Cook PA. Practical Field Ecology: A Project Guide. 1st ed. UK: JohnWiley & Sons, Publications; 2011

[49] Van Oudtshoorn F. Guide to Grasses of South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: Briza Publications; 1992

[50] Smith RL. Ecology and Field Biology. 4th ed. New York, USA: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.; 1990

[51] Begon M, Mortimer M, Thompson DJ. Population Ecology a Unified Study of Animals and Plants. 3rd ed. UK: Blackwell Science Ltd; 1996

[52] Fowler J, Cohen L, Jarvis P. Practical Statistics for Field Biology. 2nd ed. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 1998

[53] Missanjo E, Kamanga-Thole G, Mtambo C, Chisinga O. Evaluation of natural regeneration and tree species diversity in Miombo woodlands in Malawi. Journal of Biodiversity Management and Forestry. 2014;**3**(3):4

[54] Prajapati SK, Tripathi BD. Anticipated performance index of some tree species considered f1349.or green belt development in and around an urban area: A case study of Varanasi city; Indian. Journal of Environmental Management. 2008;**88**:1343-1349

[55] Henderson PA. Practical Methods in Ecology. Cornwall, UK: MPC Books Ltd, Bodmin; 2003

[56] George CJF. Discriminant Analysis. A Powerful Classification Technique in Data Mining. Reno: University of Nevada; 2014

[57] Hardin G. The tragedy of the common. Science. 1968;**162**:1243-1248

## **Chapter 4**
