Grasslands of Romania: Final Report On National Grassland Inventory 2000-2003

University of Bucharest Royal Dutch Society
for Nature Conservation
GRASSLANDS OF ROMANIA
Final report on National Grassland

Inventory 2000-2003
This project was funded by the

Programme International Nature Management/MATRA
of the Dutch Ministries of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
and Foreign Affairs
Project partners in the Netherlands Royal Dutch Society for Nature

Conservation
University of Bucharest Royal Dutch Society for
Project co-ordinator Nature Conservation
Anca Sarbu General Project co-ordinator
Romania Peter Veen
Netherlands
GRASSLANDS OF ROMANIA
Final report on National Grasslands Inventory 2000-2003
Prepared by
Sarbu Anca, Coldea Gheorghe, Negrean Gavril, Cristea

Vasile, Hanganu Jenica, Peter Veen
This project was funded by the Programme International Nature Management/MATRA

of the Dutch Ministries of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
and Foreign Affairs
Project Partner in the Netherlands Royal Dutch Society for Nature Conservation
Grasslands of Romania is the 7th report in the series of Publication National
Grasslands Inventory Projects in Central and Eastern Europe
National publication to support the project implementation in Romania:

Coldea Gh., Negrean G., Sarbu A., Sarbu I., 2001. Guide for identification and
inventory of semi-natural grasslands from Romania, alo, Bucuresti, pp:58
Published by:
University of Bucharest, 2004
Maps:
Constantinescu Adrian
Layout:
Mihai Daniela Clara
Issued: 100 copies
ISBN: 973-86364-7-7
CONTENT
GENERAL INTRODUCTION IN SEMI-NATURAL

GRASSLANDS MAPPING PROJECTS ............................................................................
1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................
1.1. CURRENT SITUATION ........................................................................................................................

1.2. CONSEQUENCES OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS................................................................
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially
as Waterflow Habitat
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora - CITES
Convention on the Protection of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
The Emerald Network
The European Union’s Habitats Directive
Convention on Biological Diversity
The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation
1.3. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR BIODIVERSITY

CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF ITS COMPONENTS
IN ROMANIA..........................................................................................................................................
International and national Agreements
Conservation, Administration and Policy
National legislation - selection
2. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT ..............................................................................
3. WORKING METHODS IN THE PROJECT...............................................................
3.1. LOGISTIC OF THE PROJECT ...............................................................................................................

3.2. REMOTE SENSING ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................
3.3. GIS DATA BASE DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................
3.4. METHODOLOGY OF MAPPING ..........................................................................................................
3.5. DATA EVALUATION ...........................................................................................................................
Grassland habitat types description
Evaluation of species diversity and nature conservation value
Methodology for creating the regional maps
4. RESULTS .......................................................................................................................
4.1. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTORY ......................................................................................................

4.2 DESCRIPTION OF GRASSLAND HABITAT TYPES ..........................................................................
4.2.1. DRY GRASSLAND ......................................................................................................................
Continental dune grasslands
North-western pontic dune grasslands
Pannonic and western pontic salin meadows
Pannonic western pontic salt steppes
Hill and plateau xero-mesophilous grasslands
Xerophilous feathergrass (Stipa) steppe grasslands
Hill and plateau xero-mesophilous grasslands
Hill limestone steppe grasslands from Dobrogea
Pale fescue grasslands on shinny limestone from hill-mountain belts
Dealpinae mountain calcareous Sesleria rigida grasslands
4.2.2. MESOPHILOUS GRASSLAND ..................................................................................................
Hill mountain mesophilous meadows
Hill mountain mesophilous manured meadows
Mountain mesophilous manured meadows
Mesophilous oligotrophic mountain pastures
Mountain mesophilous tall herb meadows
4.2.3. HIGH-MOUNTAIN GRASSLAND .............................................................................................
Subalpine mesotrophic pastures
Subalpine oligotrophic pastures
Basiphilous subalpine pastures
Subalpine acidophilous tall herb meadows
Subalpine calciphilous tall herb meadows
Acidophilous alpine pastures
Basiphilous alpine pastures
4.2.4. WET GRASSLAND .....................................................................................................................
Meso-hygrophilous flood plain meadows
Intramountain hygrophilous river meadows
Hygrophilous meadows in the intramountain low valley
Marsh-fens tall carex meadows
Water-fringe reed canary-grass meadows
Poor fen acid meadows
Continental base-rich fen meadows
4.3. EVALUATION OF SPECIES DIVERSITY AND NATURE

CONSERVATION VALUES ..................................................................................................................
4.3.1. SPECIES DIVERSITY OF GRASSLANDS ................................................................................
4.3.2. NATURE CONSERVATION VALUE OF GRASSLANDS .......................................................
5. GRASSLAND CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ........................................
5.1. THE EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK...............................................................

5.2. MANAGEMENT OF GRASSLANDS IN ROMANIA ..........................................................................
5.3. GRASSLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT IN
AGRO-ENVIRONMENT POLICY.........................................................................................................
5.4. OPORTUNITY FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT
IN ROMANIA..........................................................................................................................................
Agro-environmental programmes
Organing farming
Multifunctional farms
5.5. SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE: OBJECTIVES AND MEASURES.................................................
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................................
8. REFERENCES...............................................................................................................
ANNEX 1: METHODOLOGY OF MAPPING

ANNEX 2: THE LIST OF GRASSLAND MAPPING UNITS
ANNEX 3: REGIONAL GRASSLAND HABITAT MAPS
ANNEX 4: PROTECTED VASCULAR PLANTS FROM
ROMANIAN GRASSLANDS
ANNEX 5: MAPS OF DISTRIBUTION OF THREATENED SPECIES
ANNEX 6: THREATENED SPECIES FROM ROMANIAN GRASSLANDS
GENERAL INTRODUCTION IN SEMI-NATURAL GRASSLAND MAPPING
PROJECTS
In the framework of the Dutch Program International Nature Management (PIN-MATRA) semi-
natural grassland projects were established in EC pre-accession countries by the Royal Dutch
Society for Nature Conservation in close collaboration with local partners like ministries for
environment and agriculture, other governmental bodies, scientific institutes, directorates of
National Parks and non-governmental organisations. Main goal of these projects is to develop a
national Geographical Information System (GIS) database concerning biodiversity aspects for semi-
natural grassland ecosystems in Central - and Eastern European Countries in order to facilitate the
input of biodiversity data in policy making processes like the designation of the Natura 2000
network, the preparation of agri-environmental schemes and the assessment of environmental
impacts on project development in the rural areas. Also the database will be a flexible tool for a
selection of so-called Important Plant Areas.
Semi-natural grasslands belong to the most valuable ecosystems within the agricultural landscapes
and are a result of stable agricultural management over centuries by using the grasslands as
hayfields or as pasture fields. As a result of this stable management the grassland ecosystem is well
developed and characteristic for the bio-geographical region. Also typical for semi-natural
grasslands is the low input of nutrients in the grassland ecosystems which results in a rather low
annual biomass production. As a result of this, less competitive grassland species are able to survive
in these grasslands. Last but not least, semi-natural grasslands need management by continuation of
farming traditions like pasturing and/or cutting of grasslands. If the semi-natural grasslands are not
managed in the proper way, for instance by land abandonment or over-grazing, the biodiversity of
the grassland community will decrease by development of shrub encroachment or dominance of
some competitive grassland species.
The national semi-natural grassland mapping projects follow generally speaking a six step approach
as was defined during the technical workshop on national grassland inventory in Bratislava in 1999
(Veen en Seffer, 1999):
1. by satellite image processing the permanent grassland complexes will be identified as well as
the boundaries of the complexes;
2. in the screening phase all the potential sites are globally screened by grassland specialists on
actual agricultural use and other relevant issues like land abandonment. Also the field research
areas will be defined in this phase taking into account the position of the grasslands in the
national bio-geographical units and variation in abiotic conditions like climatic factors and soil
types.
3. preparation of national vegetation mapping units in order to reach comparative outputs in the
project by the different researchers. The vegetation units are described by selection of so called
indicating species which can give an indication of the development of the vegetation at a local
site. The selection of the indicating species is based on existing knowledge concerning
threatened and endangered species, endemic species and species which reflect the
environmental conditions of the grasslands, for instance for nutrient input, continuity in
management, water management and others. In some countries even all grassland species are
mapped within the designated sites.
4. During the mapping phase, the selected semi-natural grasslands are mapped in the field by
mapping the different vegetation units, listing the species and drawing the boundaries of
homogenic vegetation’s or mosaics of vegetation’s. For this purpose, the national project co-
ordinators develop a manual for field mapping activities in which is included the system of
identification of vegetation mapping units and of indicating species and other requirements like
information regarding management of the sites and soil type.
5. On the base of all the outputs of the previous phases, the GIS database can be build up,
including also information for land management, land use, history of land use, specific threats
like land abandonment. The boundaries of the mapped vegetation units are digitised and stored
also in the GIS. For reaching compatibility which other geographical information systems on the
national level, in most countries national digital maps/satellite images are used as a background
layer in the database.
6. Based on the information the project output exists of a flexible database which is available for
policy makers and other specialists. The results of the project are interpreted and
recommendations for protection and management are described. The results of the project will
be disseminated by organising workshops and other activities.
Semi-natural grasslands can also provide an important habitat for other groups of species. For
example, for butterflies 65% of the European Red List Butterfly species live in grassland habitats
which are used for traditional farming (Van Swaay and Warren, 1999). Semi-natural grasslands can
have also an important function for birds like the breeding birds Corn crake, Lesser Grey Shrike,
Lesser Spotted Eagle, Red Footed Falcon and White Stork which have strong populations in the
Central and Eastern European Countries compared with the Western European Countries (Tucker
and Evans, 1997).
This Estonian semi-natural grassland report is the first in a sere of reports which will be published
in the coming period. It is planned that these grassland inventory projects in Central and Eastern
European Countries will be finalised with a multi-country synthesis report in order to reach
sustainable conditions for protection and management over all the countries. A preliminary
assessment proved already that 12,3% of the total agricultural lands in Central - and Eastern
European Countries are identified to be important as for semi-natural grassland (Veen and others in
Brouwer, Baldock and la Chapelle, 2001).
Peter Veen
General Project co-ordinator Royal Dutch Society for Nature Conservation
The Netherlands
1. INTRODUCTION
Grasslands are an important part of our natural heritage. They form a significant group of habitat
types (European Habitats Classification System) with an inestimable value for the diversity of
plants and other organisms. In accordance with the differences in climate conditions they show a
great variety across Central and Eastern Europe.
The grasslands are still well represented in the vegetation of Romania: dry grasslands, mesophilous
grasslands, high-mountain grasslands and wet grasslands. Our country is characterized by a
temperate climate, a variety of relief forms and a remarkable diversity of vegetation. The main
zones of natural and semi-natural vegetation are correlated with latitude and altitude as follow: (1)
latitudinal units (steppe zone, forest-steppe zone and oak tree forests zone), (2) altitudinal units
(nemorose level, boreal level, sub-alpine and alpine levels).
The steppe zone is located in the South-East part of the country and includes two subunits: dry
steppe of graminaceous plants (reduced to a strip along the Danube) and semi-dry steppe of
graminaceous and dicotyledonous plants (the most abundant). The forest-steppe zone is still well
represented and covers the lowland of the west plain, the Danube plain and the Moldavian plain.
The oak tree forests are located on the highland in the southern and western parts of the country, the
central part of the Transylvanian plateau and on the Moldavian plateau. The nemorose zone is the
most significant and extends over the whole Carpathian mountain area. The boreal zone is located
especially in the Oriental Carpathian and the subalpine and alpine zones - covering less extended
areas in the upper part of the Carpathian mountains over 1600-1850 m high.
The alpine and subalpine flora includes many alpino-carpatho-balcanian species (30%) as well as
circumpolar ones (22%). The carpatho and carpatho-balcanian species (17% and respectively 10%)
are also well represented. The steppe flora is mainly composed of pontic species (32%), continental
eurasiatic species (27%) and some Mediterranean elements (15%). The hydrophilous flora is
dominated by eurasiatic species (36%), circumpolar-boreal species (18%) and a few (13%)
European cosmopolite and adventive elements.
The majority of the Romanian alpine grasslands remained very close to a natural state and exhibit a
high biodiversity that includes many endemic species. The upper parts of the Carpathian’s high
mountains are covered by short grass pastures dominated by cyperaceous (Carex curvula, Juncus
trifidus), graminaceous (Festuca airoides) and dicotyledonous (Silene acaulis, Minuartia sedoides
etc.) plants, in complex with short shrubs vegetation, composed by species of Salix, Loiseleuria etc.
From the phytocenologic point of view, these areas are populated by vegetative associations
belonging to Juncetea trifidi, Salicetea herbacea and Seslerietea albicantis classes.
The subalpine grasslands are often accompanied by shrub and open woodlands. Their structure
includes both phytoceonological units from the previous alpine classes and also many belonging to
Betulo-Adenostyletea and Molinio-Arrhenatheretea.
Grasslands are also found in the forest-steppe areas. They are continental grasslands dominated by
species of Stipa (S. tirsa, S. lessingiana, S. ucrainica), Carex humilis, Chrysopogon gryllus etc. The
Romanian forest-steppe vegetation was evidently changed by human activity. Some forests were cut
and some areas were used for agriculture purpose.
The steppe landscape is dominated by xerothermic grasslands with graminaceous species of

Agropyron. In the dry halophytic steppe the representative species belong to genus of Artemisia,
Puccinellia, Salicornia, Limonium etc. The majority syntaxonic units are included in the Festuco-
Brometea class and especially in Festucetea Brachypodio-Chrysopogonetalia, Brometalia erecti
and Stipo-pulcherrimae-Festucetalia pallentis orders.
The coastal and halophytic vegetation covers the sand dune systems and the sea side sandy areas.
Remarkable examples are the danubian-balcanic (Puccinellia sp.) halophityc grasslands in complex
with halophytic vegetation (Salicornia sp., Suaeda sp., Limonium sp.) and halophytic pontic
grasslands with Scirpus maritimus var. compactus, Juncus gerardi, J. maritimus, Limonium
gmelinii, Artemisia santonicum etc.
The Romanian potential grasslands (CLC 1990) represent about 11% from the whole country
territory. From the estimated number of Romanian flora (species and subspecies of higher plants,
more than 4000) a significant proportion (~60%) is growing on grassland: alpine and subalpine
grasslands, mountain pastures and meadows, psammophile, halophile and xerophile steppes, sandy
dry grasslands, continental halophilous swards and rush meadows. The majority of our endemic,
near endemic and threatened species (more as 90%) can be found on different types of our
grasslands. More than 66% of the globally threatened species (IUCN Red List, Habitats Directive -
Annex IIb, IVb and Bern Convention - App I) still present in Romania, are growing on grasslands.
The scientific research on Romanian flora and vegetation began in the 19th century. The Romanian
Flora was developed (1952-1976) and many vegetation maps with different degrees of resolution
were elaborated (the newest in 1985). The existing data concerning the description and distribution
of Romanian grasslands are 15-20 years old, fragmentary and mainly based on the Braun-Blanquet
approach. They need to be up-dated, in accordance with the European standards concerning the
vegetation unit classification system and species taxonomy (Flora Europaea). This aspects were also
considerate in the frame of this project.
1.1. CURENT SITUATION
The intensive development of agriculture, during the socialism period, from 1945 to 1989, based on
large state farms and cooperatives induced many chronic and cumulative effects, marked by the
structural changes concerning plant communities, species’ richness and original representatives
within the remnants of the ancient natural landscape. About 50% of the grasslands that cover the
territory of Romania were alterated for intensive purpose: conversion of meadows to arable fields,
use of hybrids seed mixtures, over-fertilization s.o.
The steppe grasslands from the South-Eastern part of the country have been destroyed by
conversion to arable land. The flood plain meadows located along the Romanian side of the Danube
river were strongly affected (1956-1987) by the hydrological changes of the Lower Danube River
System (drainages, damming sand canalization) and about 50% of them were also dedicated to
agriculture. Only the alpine grasslands remained very close to a natural state and still exhibit a
significant plant diversity.
After 1990, the socio-economic transition in Romania, like in other CEEC, became a complex and
fast process. In this process were involved many sectors which were affected by the political and
economical transition. The agricultural sector, which was highly dependent on financial support
from the state and the subsidies received, showed significant changes on its economic structures.
The privatization of the majority of state-owned enterprises and cooperative farms was
accompanied by the loss of the state subventions. The decrease of the state subsidies induced a
dramatic decline in the number of cattle and sheep associated with land abandonment. Many
grassland areas were seriously affected by extensive invasion of weed, very competitive invasive
species and shrubs. Large areas with high nature value, which are dependent on grazing, are
threatened. The nature conservation value of many natural grasslands was reduced by the
dominance of a few species associated with the shrub invasion, advantaged by the discontinuous
mowing and grazing. On another hand the intensive agriculture practiced by some of the new land
owners, in order to increase agricultural production, induced losses of areas with high nature value.
During a long period of time (including also the last 15 years) the traditional land use practices were
(from different purposes) almost destroyed. The causes were diverse but the result was only one: the
decrease of biodiversity. The sustainability of areas with high biological diversity as semi-natural
grasslands are, required on integrated approach and adequate managerial practices in order to meet
both agricultural and nature conservation objectives.
This is one of the reasons for which such a project was started in Romania (in the framework of the
EU enlargement process) supporting by scientific information, guidelines and recommendations the
development of a sustainable relationship between agriculture and environment.
1.2. CONSEQUENCES OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
It is recognized that in the ongoing “Environmental for Europe” process, plant conservation is a key
component of the biodiversity conservation strategy. A commune policy framework for protection
and adequate management of the natural heritage is an important tool in forming a common
European identity.
The international agreements represent a significant background for this policy framework. The
process of grasslands protection and conservation, as habitats rich in flora and fauna, with a high
biological value is supported by several international conventions. Some of them were signed and
ratified also by Romania.
The Ramsar Convention (1971)

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterflow Habitat
Ratified by Romania on 1991 (Low no. 5/1991)
The objectives of this convention is to protect wetlands of international importance. Each country
that has acceded to the Convention shall design at least one site to be included in the List of
Wetlands of International Importance. In 1995 was signed a wider protocol and the adjacent semi-
natural grasslands, the costal meadows and floodplain meadows were also protected under the
Ramsar Convention.
Two Ramsar sites from Romania have already been nominated: the Danube Delta and the Small
Island of Br ila (2000).
Washington Convention (1973)

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora - CITES
The Convention was opened for signature in 1973 in Washington and entered into force in January
1975.
It has become a major and complex instrument for controlling and monitoring wildlife trade.
The Convention regulates trade between countries based on a system of permis and certificates for a
given list of species.
The Convention has two Appendixes:
• Appendix I - includes species threatened by extinction which are banned from trade other
than in exceptional circumstance, e.g. for a reintroduction;
• Appendix II - includes species not yet threatened but that could become and need a control
in trade.
This Convention is very important for many medicinal plants leaving in grassland and especially for
some families like Orchidaceae, Campanulaceae, Asteraceae s.o. and for some species as Adonis
vernalis, Arnica montana, Paeonia tenuifolia, Gnetiana lutea s.o.
The Bern Convention (1979)

Convention on the Protection of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
The Bern Convention originated is a resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe
elaborated in 1976. After negociations, a treaty was opened for signature at the 3rd European
Ministerial Conference on the Environment, in Bern on 19 September 1979. The Convention came
into force on 1 June 1982.
The Convention has three aims:
- to ensure the conservation of wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats;
- to encourage cooperation between state;
- to pay particular attention to endangered and migratory species.
The annex of the Convention list species that require special protection measures. Many of them are
growing on the semi-natural grasslands. A number of 59 endangered vascular plants (rare, endemic
and near endemic species) leaving in the Romanian grassland are included in the Bern Convention -
Appendix I: strictly protected flora species.
The Emerald Network
In June 1989 the meeting of the Standing Committee made recommendations to develop a network
of conservation areas under the Bern Convention. The sites, called Areas of Special Conservation
Interest (ASCI’s), would collectively form the aptly named Emerald Network. This network it is for
the countries that have acceded to the Bern Convention and it is optional.
In Romania there are at this moment 16 declared ASCI. They include a significant diversity of
grassland types.
The European Union’s Habitats Directive (1992)
Directive 92/43/EEC on the Convention of Natural Habitats and of wild Fauna and Flora,
commonly known as the “Habitats Directive”, is the European Union’s principal legal instrument
and policy for nature conservation in the European Community. It was established in April 1992
and applies to all 15 Member States where it has the force of law.
The most important provision, not just for plants, is the obligation that Member States establish
Special Areas of Conservation (SAC’s) for the sites of a given list of habitats (Annex 1) and of
species (Annex II for animals and Annex IIb, IVb, Vb for plants). Collectively the SACs and the
Special Protection Areas (SPAs) created under the earlier Birds Directive will form the Natura 2000
network.
Romania as a EU accessing country is preparing for Natura 2000 Network site selection. In this
frame the scientific information, the data base and the GIS maps, which were developed under this
project, will represent a significant background.
The Rio de Janeiro Convention (1992)
Convention on Biological Diversity
The Convention on Biological Diversity, popularly known as the Biodiversity Convention, was
agreed and signed by 150 States at the Rio “Earth Summit” in 1992, and has since been ratified by
over 170 nations, a record for any environmental agreement.
The Convention objectives are:
- the conservation of biological diversity;
- the sustainable use for the components of biological diversity;
- the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.
In the 42 articles, the Biodiversity Convention says precisely what has to be done and how it should
be done, in order to maintain the balance between conservation, sustainable use and sharing of
benefits.
This is the core of the political bargain on which the Biodiversity Convention is founded. It is not
acceptable for a country to implement one part of the objectives but not the others. Every country
that joins the Biodiversity Convention has to prepare a national strategy or action plan for
implementing the measures it contains.
Romania has ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity and of major significance this is
legally binding within Romanian law. This not only underscores Romania’s commitment to the
principle of biodiversity conservation, but it also provides a legitimacy for incorporating
biodiversity protection into the Romanian regulatory framework. The difficult task has been to
incorporate biodiversity conservation principles effectively into coherent policies in all economic
sectors, to develop and implement clear management plans for protected areas, and to achieve
enforcement of laws.
The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (2002)

Part of the Convention on Biological Diversity
The CBD Global Strategy for Plant Conservation was adopted by the 183 Parties to the Convention
on Biological Diversity at the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties in The Hague, April
2002. The new Global Strategy for Plant Conservation marks a new beginning and focus for
safeguarding wild plants. The Strategy offers to the governments of the world a clear set of targets
for protecting their native flora.
The objectives of the Strategy are:
- understanding and documenting plant diversity;
- conserving plant diversity;
- using plant diversity sustainable;
- promoting education and awareness about plant diversity;
- building capacity for plant diversity.
In order to achieve Target 5 in the CBD Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) a special
programme with the aim is to identify and protect a network of the best sites for plant conservation
throughout Europe and the rest of the world was starting. IPA identification will provide essential
information for the Natura 2000 Network of the EU Habitats Directive, the Emerald Network of the
Bern Convention and the PEEN programme of PEBLDS.
At its seventh meeting from 2004, the CBD Conference of the Parties will consider progress made
in the implementation of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation.
1.3. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR BIODIVERSITY
CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF ITS COMPONENTS IN ROMANIA
International and national Agreements
Romania has played an active role in many international environmental issues and is a Contracting
Party to most international and regional environmental agreements and conventions.
Romania has demonstrated its interest in, and commitment to, the conservation of biodiversity and
natural areas through signing of international agreements, the passage of national regulations and
the designation of a large number of protected areas. Despite these efforts Romania has experienced
difficulties in implementing policies and strategies to achieve effective biodiversity conservation.
There is a lack of a comprehensive conservation management strategy as well as appropriate

institutional arrangements for biodiversity conservation. Coordination among the various
governmental organizations involved with nature protection activities is often inadequate and the
public participation into the decision-making process often occurs on an ad-hoc basis.
Within Romania there is an excellent foundation of scientific research and well trained scientists
and engineers. However scientific research is largely uncoordinated at the national level and data
and information that is collected is neither centralized nor easily accessible. A well defined and
coordinated institutional structure for evaluating, monitoring and managing protected areas in
Romania is needed.
Romania is also an active participant in regional environmental initiatives such as the Danube
Environmental Programme, the Black Sea Environment Programme, and the Environment for
Europe process. The Danube and Black Sea Programmes, which are largely focused on water
quality improvement, have recognized the important connection that exists between land-use
management and water quality. Through effective protected areas management and land use
policies - in particular protection and restoration of wetland areas - water quality improvements in
the Danube and Black Sea will be achieved. These improvements will not only benefit Romania but
other countries as well. Romania is also participating in several European Union programmes
including PHARE and activities working on improving environmental standards and conditions
within Romania (and harmonized to EU standards).
Conservation, Administration and Policy
A variety of Romanian governmental organizations have responsibilities for some aspects related to
biodiversity and it can be safely said that the institutional arrangements for biodiversity
conservation and the management of protected areas are not clearly defined.
The largest part of the responsibilities for nature protection and management belong to the Ministry
of Waters, Forests and Environmental Protection (MWFEP) and the branches or agencies affiliated
with the MWFEP. The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve, however, has its own management
structure (assisted with international support). The Commission for the Protection of Nature
Monuments of the Romanian Academy is the legal scientific authority for nature conservation and
protected areas. For the protected areas located on forest land the management is ensured by
foresters from the autonomous agency ROMSILVA.
Local authorities are responsible for land-use planning but with no capacity and qualified staff for
incorporating biodiversity/nature conservation into their policies. The 41 Environmental Protection
agencies (EPAs) offices (County MWFEP offices) have legal responsibility for environmental
monitoring and nature conservation. It is important that the new laws stipulate the separation of the
regulatory responsibilities, and the functions and management responsibilities for natural resources.
Although there is considerable interest and recognition of the values of biodiversity in Romania it is
clear that there are a number of institutional and regulatory weaknesses that hinder the protection
and sustainable management of these resources. The National Biodiversity Strategy should seek to
address these problems, which include:
• lack of a coherent policy and strategy for managing and conserving biodiversity in Romania;
• subordination of the demands for biodiversity conservation to activities which have major
ecological impacts;
• poor enforcement of existing laws;
• lack of clear organization responsibilities and institutional structure for biodiversity
conservation;
• incoherence of the legal and institutional framework for monitoring the exploitation of
natural resources;
• need for the implementation of the economical and financial instruments to stimulate the
measures for the biological diversity conservation and sustainable use of its components.
National Legislation - selection
• Law no. 137/1995 - Environmental Protection Law.

• Order no. 125/1996 released by the Ministry of Water, Forests and Environmental
Protection for approving the settlement of economic and social activities, which have an
impact on the environment.
• Law no. 82/1993 regarding the founding of the “Danube Delta” Biosphere’s Reservation.
• Decision of the Romanian Government no. 457/1994 regarding the organization and
function of the Ministry of Water, Forests and Environmental Protection.
• Decision of the Romanian Government no. 243/1995 regarding the founding, organization
and function on the National Comity for the Ozone Layer Protection.
• Law no. 97/1992 for the ratification of the Convention between the Romanian Government
and the Bulgarian Government regarding the collaboration on environmental protection.
• Law no. 98/1992 for the ratification of the Convention regarding the Black Sea protection
against pollution, signed in Bucharest on April the 21st 1992.
• Law no. 24/1994 for the ratification of the Convention - frame of the United Nations upon
climatic changes, signed in Rio de Janeiro on June the 5th 1992.
• Law no. 58/1994 for the ratification of the Convention regarding biological diversity, signed
in Rio de Janeiro on June the 5th 1992.
• Law no. 14/1995 for the ratification of the Convention regarding the cooperation for the
protection and lasting use of the Danube river, signed in Sofia on July the 29th 1994.
• Law no. 30/1995 for the ratification of the Convention regarding the protection and use of
transborder water courses and international lakes, concluded in Helsinki on March the 17th
1992.
• Law no. 462/2001 regarding the protected natural areas regime, conservation of the natural
habitats, the wild flora and fauna.
• Law no. 5/2000 regarding the approval of the Landscaping Plan of the national territory -
Third Section - protected areas.
• Decision of the Romanian Government no. 230/2003 regarding the limitation of the
biosphere’s reservations, national and natural parks and the establishment of administrations
for them.
2. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT
The wider project objective is to promote and scientifically support the management and protection
of the European grassland heritage. At the national level this project was focused on the
establishment of the Romanian semi-natural grasslands inventory, in order to promote their
conservation and management, in accordance with the European Strategy of sustainable use. The
project results will support the development and the implementation of national biodiversity
strategy and regional managerial plans, the programmes for protection and management of
ecological and landscape values in agricultural areas as well as other projects, which can contribute
to the establishment of a sustainable relation, between nature conservation and agriculture practices.
The short term objectives of this project were developed in accordance with this general framework:
• identification of the existing grassland diversity in Romania, which in fact involves also the
assessment of biological and landscape diversity;
• assessment of the extent of grasslands deterioration and vulnerability;
• establishment of the grasslands conservation values;
• development of the appropriate data base required by the future management programmes,
accessible for government conservation bodies and scientists as well.
This very brief description of the project background proves that it can be used as an important
source of data and scientific information, which are significant operational tools in order to achieve
the European requirements and standards for Romanian grasslands sustainable use, protection and
conservation.
Six outputs were identified for this project:

• development of a classification and identification system for Romanian grasslands, in
accordance with the European standards;
• identification of the Romanian areas with dominant semi-natural grasslands and selection of
the most representative zones for biodiversity conservation, to be included in the mapping
process;
• characterization and evaluation of Romanian selected grassland areas, for conservation
reasons and management needs (400.000 ha of grasslands);
• development of digitalized maps valuable grassland ecosystems in Romania;
• development of recommendation for management practices, in accordance with the Pan-
European Strategy of Natural Capital conservation and sustainable use.
To achieve the project objectives and the proposed outputs, a set of special activities was
developed: managerial activities, training for local experts in order to appropriate the project
methodology, selection of mapping areas using Corine Land Cover images, publication of a
working manual in Romanian language, gathering of existing data, field activity for mapping
grasslands at the alliance level, data and images processing, development of the geographical
information system, development and publication of the present report.
This project represents the first national grassland inventory. It will support the Agro-Environment
Programmes, SAPARD Programme, NATURA 2000 Network implementation and Important Plant
Areas selection, as a requirement of Global Strategy for Plant Conservation.
3. WORKING METHODS IN THE PROJECT
3.1. LOGISTIC OF THE PROJECT
Dr. Anca Sârbu from the University of Bucharest has acted as a project co-ordinator in Romania.
The management team consisted of dr. Hanganu Jenic (data base/GIS), dr. Coldea Gheorghe
(responsible for classification system development) and dr. Negrean Gavril (control of field data).
The field activity was co-ordinated, at the local level, by the leaders of the mapping teams (Cap. 7).
Eight field working team, from 5 Romanian universities and 3 research institutes, including 30 field
mapper specialists were involved in the field activity.
Four technical workshops (for the working teams) and a working meeting (for the final report) were
organized during the project period. They were good opportunities to evaluate our results, to
identify the gaps, to propose additional works to support the project methodology, to establish the
access to the data base, to discuss the administrative and financial aspects. The contribution of
Mr. Peter Veen, general project co-ordinator to our technical workshops was significant for the
implementation of this type of project in Romania.
3.2. REMOTE SENSING ANALYSIS
The remote sensing analysis was done by the GIS Department of the Danube Delta Research and
Design Institute from Tulcea.
Supervised classification of Landsat TM satellite images from the year 2000 using ER mapper
processing system was run in order to identify potential grassland over Romania. For the calibration
of the satellite images grassland polygons from Corine Land Cover data base were used. Location
of the grassland sites resulted from satellite image processing were checked against Land Cover
Data.
Potential grassland extracted from processing the satellite images is 49,900 Km2 and seems to be
over estimated. Short term abandoned agriculture land vineyards and abandoned fruit tree were
identified as grassland. Discriminations of CLC grassland polygons were made by photo interpreter
expertise and using additional information as two sets of satellites image (form 90,s and 2000)
topographical maps 1:50000 and available aerial photographs or SPOT satellite images.
Corine Land Cover data base seems to be more suitable for estimating the potential grassland types
in general and for identifying the grassland complexes to be included in the field work.
Potential semi-natural grassland area in Romania is estimated at 26,133 Km2.
To facilitate the selection of most representative grassland sites, a UTM grid which corresponds
with a 1/25.000 scale map sheet was overlapped on a geographic map of Romania. For each
selected map sheet, the grassland area percentage was calculated from Corine Land Cover data
base.
Further on selection of map sheets with most representative grassland sites was based on existing
botanical data and the expertise of botanical experts. The selection was thought to cover all
grassland types in the country. Eight Romanian institutions (universities and research bodies) were
involved in the mapping process in their own region.
Hard copy of the satellite image corresponding to UTM quadrates overlapped by grassland Corine
Land Cover polygons and localities were printed at 1:25.000 scale. For better orientation in the field
additional topographical maps have been provided. The scale of the hard copy satellite image (falls
colour) and topographical map was the same (1:25000). The working data set has also included
transparent paper for drawing the grassland polygons in the field.
Before starting the project, local experts were trained to identify grassland sites in the field form the
satellite images. For this purpose one representative area was selected. On the printed satellite
image of the site, the most common land cover classes has been pointed: broadleave forest,
coniferous forest, mixt (broadleaves and coniferous) forest, grassland, large size agriculture fields,
small size agriculture field, mixt area (grassland and agriculture), water body, roads, localities,
rocks.
The training work helped the mappers to learn how to discriminate between grassland areas and
other land cover classes.
3.3. GIS DATA BASE DEVELOPMENT
Grassland polygons drawn on transparent paper in the field were scanned and transferred in GIS
environment. Data collected in the field was filled in a required format and put in the data base.
After checking and corrected, the data has been processed using specialized software as ArcInfo
and ArcView. A total number of 3660 polygons were mapped which include 130.680 species
records.
Each polygon has attached field data and GIS ID data.
GIS processing scheme
Scanning the map sheet and

rectification of the images
(X,Y coordinates)
Digitizing the polygons
Assign spatial attribute for

each polygon, editing
ArcInfo & ArcView, build
spatial data base
GIS processing
The data base structure
Area of the polygon (m2)

Perimeter of the polygon (m)
Unique identification
Identification of the filled form (number & institution)
Name of the map sheet
Name of the alliance
Codification of the alliance
Codification for T,L,C…
Name of the specialist
Polygon number from the scanned map
Institution
Number of species for the polygon
Number of the protected species for the polygon
Information collected in the field provided data for characterization and classification of habitat and
vegetation types. Phytocoenological classification of semi-natural grassland communities is at
alliance level. A total number of 28 alliances was identified and mapped. The distribution of the
alliances over investigated area is shown in Annex 3. Red List species recorded is 293. Distribution
of each Red List species and its presence in different polygons has been mapped. All the
distribution maps are included in Annex 5.
A summary statistics of number of species within polygon (five classes) and of protected species
from Romanian Red List/polygon was also done.
3.4. METHODOLOGY OF MAPPING
In accordance with the project proposal, it was planned that 400.000 ha of semi-natural grasslands
should be included in the mapping process. The selection of the mapping areas was based both on
existing botanical data and the expertise of our botanists. In order to reach representatives of the
samples for the majority of geographical regions of Romania, the mapping areas were divided as
much as possible all over the country.
Grassland polygons from Corine Land Cover images and the polygons resulted from Landsat image
processing, were printed on the selected quadrates. For a better orientation on the field, additional
topographical maps were used.
The standard methodology of mapping was used. It is based on the criteria of homogeneity of
vegetation/polygon. The real layer of each potential polygon was determinated according this
principle. The details of the methodology are in Annex 1.
In the mapping process the classification system developed by Romanian grasslands experts was
used. In this respect 29 type of grassland were identified. They are listed in the Annex 2.
In order to detect compatibility between Braun-Blanquet system and the methodology used in this
project some additional relevees, after Braun-Blanquet method were sampled in the typical mapped
grasslands. The relevees were put together on the ground of characteristic and differential species of
grassland associations and then these associations were included in syntaxonomical units of higher
level as alliances, orders and classes (Annex 1). A number of 34 grassland associations were
identified and outlined. For all these 34 grassland associations, analytical tables consisting one or
more relevees were done. As a consequence, the grassland associations identified after Braun-
Blanque method were found as related to the grassland type to which they belong from a floristical
and ecological point of view.
3.5. DATA EVALUATION
Grassland habitat types description
The grassland habitat types are described based on geobotanical value, environmental parameters
and management. For each of them a set of diagnostic species and the belonging associations were
included. Each type is also compared from the syntaxonomical point of view, to existing units of
Braun-Blanque classification and to the habitat types from the EU Habitats Directive.
The data on average altitude, range of altitude, average slope, climate, geology, soil texture and soil
types were derived from the field data (during 40 years of work) offered by the botanists from the
Institute of Biological Research from Cluj-Napoca. The climate evaluation (temperature and
humidity) was done according also to the climatic regions of the country, where the different
grassland types typically occurs and the categories of soil texture and types according to the soil
classification system in Romania.
Average cover of woods and the management of the different grassland types resulted both from the
data collection and mappers estimation.
Evaluation of species diversity and nature conservation value
The floristic value of the grasslands was evaluated on the base of vascular plants diversity and
presence of protected plants (globally threatened - IUCN Red List, Habitats Directive & Bern
Convention; European threatened - Habitats Directive & Bern Convention; national protected -
Romanian Red List).
As reference, a special list of protected plants (1026 species & subspecies) growing on the
Romanian grasslands was prepared and used (Annex 4). Special maps showing the distribution of
the richest polygons on vascular plants and on protected species were also done. In addition, for
each protected specie identified during this inventory a map of distribution was also realized. A
number of 37 pictures of protected plants were also included in Annex 6.
Methodology for creating the regional maps
The information about the dominant grassland types (each polygon was classified to particular
grassland types according to the dominant habitat type) and alliances’ distribution, in the study
areas was processed and outlined on maps.
Two types of maps of distribution were realized:

• for each grassland habitat type was made a general map, showing its presence/distribution
on all the mapped grassland areas;
• for each region of the country, included in this inventory a map showing the alliances
presence/distribution was made.
4. RESULTS
4.1. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTORY
The mapped polygons included 390.012 ha of grasslands. This amount was higher as the potential
grasslands for mapped squares. From this amount, 371.894 ha were identified as permanent semi-
natural grassland of different types, 16.484 ha were evaluated as degradated grasslands, which have
not been recorded and 1.634 ha were represented by agricultural areas, built-up areas and water
bodies.
A number of 29 grassland habitat types were identified for Romania. From this amount 28 were
recorded during this inventory.
GRASSLAND HABITAT TYPES
DRY GRASSLAND Cod

1. Continental dune grasslands ........................................................................................FBC
2. North-western pontic dune grasslands ........................................................................ ELG
3. Pannonic and western pontic salin meadows ................................................................PBJ
4. Pannonic western pontic salt steppes ........................................................................... FEP
5. Hill and plateau xero-mesophilous grasslands .............................................................FDS
6. Xerophilous feathergrass (Stipa) steppe grasslands......................................................SCE
7. Hill and plateau xero-mesophilous grasslands ............................................................ CDB
8. Hill limestone steppe grasslands from Dobrogea .......................................................... PIT
9. Pale fescue grasslands on shinny limestone from hill-mountain belts........................... BFP
10. Dealpinae mountain calcareous Sesleria rigida grasslands.........................................SER
MESOPHILOUS GRASSLAND
11. Hill mountain mesophilous meadows .......................................................................CYN
12. Hill mountain mesophilous manured meadows......................................................... ARR
13. Mountain mesophilous manured meadows ................................................................POT
14. Mesophilous oligotrophic mountain pastures........................................................... VNG
15. Mountain mesophilous tall herb meadows. ...............................................................CAA
HIGH-MOUNTAIN GRASSLAND
16. Subalpine mesotrophic pastures................................................................................ POA
17. Subalpine oligotrophic pastures................................................................................ PON
18. Basiphilous subalpine pastures ..................................................................................SEB
19. Subalpine acidophilous tall herb meadows ...............................................................CAV
20. Subalpine calciphilous tall herb meadows..................................................................FCT
21. Acidophilous alpine pastures ..................................................................................... JUT
22. Basiphilous alpine pastures....................................................................................... OXE
WET GRASSLAND
23. Meso-hygrophilous flood plain meadows ................................................................. AAP
24. Intramountain hygrophilous river meadows.............................................................. CAL
25. Hygrophilous meadows in the intramountain low valley.......................................... MOL
26. Marsh-fens tall Carex meadows............................................................................... MAC
27. Water-fringe reed canary-grass meadows ..................................................................SGP
28. Poor fen acid meadows............................................................................................. CAF
29. Continental base-rich fen meadows ..........................................................................CAD
Grassland habitat types according to the study area
(total mapped area 390.012 ha)
4.2% 0.4%
12.7%
5.3% 38.2%
39.1%
dry grasslands mesophilous grasslands
high-mountain grasslands wet grasslands
degradated grasslands non-representative
The grassland habitat types were divided in four categories in accordance with the moisture and
altitude gradient: dry, mesophilous, high-mountain and wet grasslands. The best represented were
mesophilous (39,1%) and dry grasslands (38,2%), follow by high-mountain grasslands (12,7%).
The most commune habitat type from mesophilous grasslands group was Hill-mountain
mesophilous meadow (CYN), covering 36% of the study area. From the dry grasslands group two
habitat type were dominant: Hill and plateau xero-mesophilous grasslands (FDS - 16%) and
Xerophilous feathergrass steppe grasslands (SCE - 11%).
From the wet grassland group, a significant representation show only Meso-hydrophilous flood
plain meadows (AAP - 9%). The other grassland types were present on the study areas in a smaller
proportion: 8 of them between 4% - 1% and 16 under 1%.
The amount of identified degradated grasslands was low (under 5%). The process of degradation
was mostly induced by soil erosion and invasive of ruderal species, shrubs and threes.
Only 0,4% of non-representative areas were found. This situation was induced by the fact that in the
mapping process were included only very representative grasslands area which were results after a
preselection process.
Distribution of grasslands (28 types)
according to the study area
CYN 133838
FDS 58943
SCE 41131
AAP 35021
PBJ 16693
PON 15732
FBC 13766
MAC 13475
PIT 11022
VNG 9715
ARR 8125
JUT 3974
FEP 3154
CDB 2321
ELG 1424
POT 963
CAV 586
CAL 552
SEB 505
SER 379
CAD 335
BFP 124
MOL 45
FCT 30
OXE 24
CAF 10
CAA 7
SGP 3
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000
area (ha)
Distribution of grasslands (28 types)

according to the study area
2% 1% 3%
3% 3%
4%
4% 36%
4%
4%
9%
11% 16%
CYN FDS SCE
AAP PBJ PON
FBC MAC PIT
VNG ARR JUT
Other (16) each < 1%

4.2. DESCRIPTION OF GRASSLAND HABITAT TYPES
DRY GRASSLANDS
CONTINENTAL DUNE GRASSLANDS
Diagnostic species: Achillea ochroleuca, Alyssum montanum ssp. gmelinii, Alyssum desertorum,
Anthemis ruthenica, Bassia laniflora, Bromus tectorum, Centaurea diffusa, Carex
stenophylla, Chondrilla juncea, Dianthus diutinus, Festuca vaginata, F. beckeri, Erysimum
diffusum, Euphorbia seguieriana, Polygonum arenarium, Plantago arenaria, Koeleria
glauca, Helichrysum arenarium, Astragalus varius, Silene borysthenica, Gypsophila
paniculata, Corynephorus canescens, Bassia laniflora, Secale silvestre, Peucedanum
arenarium;
Syntaxonomical classification: Corynephorion canescentis Klika 1934, Bassio laniflorae -
Bromion tectorum (Soó 1957) Borhidi 1996, Festucion vaginatae Soó 1929;
Associations belonging: Festucetum vaginatae Rapaics ex Soó 1929, Brometum tectorum Bojko
1934, Festuco vaginati - Corynephoretum Soó in Aszód 1935;
NATURA 2000: 2340* - Pannonic continental dune;
Average altitude: 150 m;
Range of altitudes: 120-280 m;
Average slope: plain;
Geological substrate: 90% - sands, 10% - alluvial sands;
Climate: 84% - warm and very warm, 16% - cold, 84% - dry, 16% - moderately wet;
Soil texture: 90% - light soils, 10% - no data;
Soil types: 90% - sandy soil, 10% - sandy regosol;
Average cover of woods: 0%;
Management: 30% - grazing, 50% - no management, 20% - no data.
Continental dune grasslands (FBC)

DRY GRASSLANDS
NORTH-WESTERN PONTIC DUNE GRASSLANDS
Diagnostic species: Leymus racemosus ssp. sabulosus, Centaurea arenaria, Artemisia

tschernieviana, Eryngium maritimum, Convolvulus persicus, Scabiosa argentea, Silene
thymifolia, Alyssum borzeanum, Stipa borysthenica, Carex colchica;
Syntaxonomical classification: Elymion gigantei Morariu 1957, Scabiosion ucranicae Bo caiu
1975;
Associations belonging: Elymetum gigantei Morariu 1957, Secali - Alyssetum borzeani Morariu
1959; Xeranthemo - Scabiosetum argenteae Bo caiu 1975;
NATURA 2000: 2120 - Pontic white dunes;
Geological substrate: 100% - sands;
Climate: 88% - warm and very warm, 12% - cold, 88% - dry, 12% - moderately wet;
Soil texture: 100% - light soils;
Soil types: 100% - sandy soil;
Management: 100% - no management.
North-western pontic dune grasslands (ELG)

DRY GRASSLANDS
PANNONIC AND WESTERN PONTIC SALIN MEADOWS
Diagnostic species: Puccinellia peisonis, P. limosa, Hordenm hystrix, Pholiurus pannonicus,

Camphorosma annua, Lepidium cartilagineum ssp. crassifolium, Plantago maritima, P.
tenuiflora, Triglochin maritimum, Bassia sedoides, Scorzonera parviflora, Beckmannia
eruciformis, Ranunculus lateriflorus, R. pedatus, Rorippa sylvestris, Carex distans, Juncus
gerardi, Aster tripolium ssp. pannonicus, Taraxacum bessarabicum;
Syntaxonomical classification: Puccinellion peisonis Wendelb. 1943, Puccinellion limosae Klika
et Vlach 1937, Beckmannion eruciformis Soó 1933, Juncion gerardi Wendelb. 1943;
Associations belonging: Puccinellietum peisonis Franz et al. 1937, Puccinellietum limosae Soó
1936, Plantagini - Pholiuretum pannonici (Soó 1933) Wendelb. 1943, Hordetum hystricis
Wendelb. 1943, Taraxaco bessarabici - Juncetum gerardi ( erb. 1965) Coldea 2000;
NATURA 2000: 1340* - Continental salin meadows;
Geological substrate: 90% - alluvial deposit, 10% - no data;
Climate: 88 % - warm and very warm, 12% - cold, 88% - dry, 12% - wet;
Soil texture: 75% - heavy soil, 25% - moderately heavy soils;
Soil types: 75% - solonetz, 25% - gley-solonchak;
Management: 60% - mowing, 30% - grazing, 10% - no data.
Pannonic and western pontic salin meadows (PBJ)

DRY GRASSLANDS
PANNONIC AND WESTERN PONTIC SALT STEPPES
Diagnostic species: Festuca pseudovina, Limonium gmelinii, Lotus angustissimus, Plantago

schwarzenbergiana, Polygonum patulum, Lotus tenuis, Trifolium parviflorum, T.
micranthum, Ornithogalum orthophyllum ssp. kochii, Cerastium pumilum, C. anomalum,
Achillea setacea, A. collina, Scorzonera cana, Poa bulbosa, Trifolium parviflorum,
Polycnemum arvense, Artemisia santonicum ssp. santonicum, Trifolium angulatum,
Trifolium subterraneum;
Syntaxonomical classification: Festucion pseudovinae Soó 1933;
Associations belonging: Achilleo setaceae - Festucetum pseudovinae Soó 1947, Artemisio
santonici - Festucetum pseudovinae Soó in Mathé 1933 corr. Borhidi 1996, Artemisietum
santonici Soó 1947;
NATURA 2000: 1530 - Pannonic salt steppe meadows;
Geological substrate: 100% - alluvial deposits;
Climate: 85 % - warm and very warm, 15 % - moderately cold, 85% - dry, 15% - moderately wet;
Soil texture: 85% - heavy soil, 15% - moderately heavy soil;
Soil types: 90% - soloth, 10% - solonetz;
Pannonic western pontic salt steppes (FEP)

DRY GRASSLANDS
HILL AND PLATEAU XERO-MESOPHILOUS GRASSLANDS
Diagnostic species: Astragalus austriacus, A. exscapus, Dichanthium ischaemum, Carex humilis,

Cleistogenes serotina, Dorycnium herbaceum, Festuca valesiaca, F. rupicola, Oxytropis
pilosa, Stipa capillata, S. tirsa, S. joannis, Allium albidum, Cephalaria uralensis ssp.
uralensis, Centaurea trinervia, Salvia nutans, S. transsilvanica, Adonis vernalis, Phlomis
tuberosa, Eryngium planum, Goniolimon tataricum;
Syntaxonomical classification: Festucion valesiacae Klika 1931, Danthonio - Stipion tirsae 1947;
Associations belonging: Medicagini - Festucetum valesiacae Wagner 1941, Salvio nemorosae -
Festucetum rupicolae Zólyomi ex Soó 1964, Danthonio - Stipetum tirsae Ghi a 1941;
NATURA 2000: 4030 - Dry grasslands;
Average slope: 25o;
Geological substrate: 45% - marl deposits, 15% - calcareous rocks, 10% - flysh, 30% - no data;
Climate: 80% - warm and very warm, 20% - moderately cold, 80% - dry, 20% - moderately wet;
Soil types: 25% - degraded chernoyem, 45% - humic-gley soil, 30% - brown acid;
Management: 60% - mowing, 40% - grazing;
Hill and plateau xero-mesophilous grasslands (FDS)

DRY GRASSLANDS
XEROPHILOUS FEATHERGRASS (STIPA) STEPPE GRASSLANDS
Diagnostic species: Stipa lessingiana, S. ucrainica, S. dasyphylla, Festuca valesiaca, Agropyron

cristatum ssp. pectinatum, Cleistogenes bulgarica, Jurinea arachnoidea, J. mollis ssp.
Transsilvanica, Nepeta ucranica, Cephalaria uralensis ssp. uralensis, Centaurea trinervia,
Phlomis pungens, Ceratocarpus arenarius, Taraxacum serotinum, Galium octonarium,
Bombycilaena erecta, Centaurea marschalliana, Adonis volgensis, Dianthus capitatus,
Euphorbia nicaeensis, Bupleurum affine, Vinca herbacea;
Syntaxonomical classification: Stipion lessingianae Soó 1947, Ceratocarpo - Euphorbion
stepposae Mititelu 1970;
Associations belonging: Stipetum lessingianae Soó (1927) 1947, Stipetum pulcherrimae Soó 1959,
Festuco sulcatae - Caricetum humilis Soó 1945, Bombycilaeno - Botriochloetum Dihoru et
Doni 1970, Ceratocarpetum arenarii Mititelu 1970;
NATURA 2000: 6240 - Subpannonic steppe grasslands;
Average slope: 20o;
Geological substrate: 65% - marl-clay deposits, 20% - grit-stone, 15% - sands;
Climate: 85% - warm and very warm, 15% - weak cold, 85% - dry, 15% - few wet;
Soil texture: 35% - heavy soil, 65% - light soil;
Soil types: 35% - degraded chernozem, 65% - podzolic soil of depression;
Xerophilous feathergrass (Stipa) steppe grasslands (SCE)

DRY GRASSLANDS
HILL AND PLATEAU XERO-MESOPHILOUS GRASSLANDS
Diagnostic species: Brachypodium pinnatum, Bromus erectus, Cirsium pannonicum,

Chamaecytisus austriacus, Danthonia alpina, Filipendula vulgaris, Inula salicina, Linum
flavum, L. perenne, Carex flacca, C. montana, Hypochoeris maculata, Polygala major,
Chrysopogon gryllus, Peucedanum cervaria, Ranunculus polyanthemos, Senecio
integrifolius, Stipa tirsa, S. pulcherrima, Thesium linophyllon, Veronica austriaca, V.
prostrata, Viola hirta;
Syntaxonomical classification: Cirsio-Brachypodion Klika et Hada 1944, Festucion rupicolae
Cs rös et al. 1961;
Associations belonging: Carici humilis - Brachypodietum pinnati Soó 1942, Seslerietum
heuflerianae Soó 1949, Danthonio - Brachypodietum Soó 1947, Danthonio - Festucetum
rupicolae Cs rös et al. 1961;
NATURA 2000: 6210 - Semi-natural dry grasslands;
Average slope: 15o;
Geological substrate: 60% - marl deposite, 25% - calcareous deposite, 15% - plaster stone;
Climate: 75% - warm, 25% - moderately cold, 75% - dry, 25% - moderately wet;
Soil texture: 60% - moderately heavy soil, 40% - light soil;
Soil types: 60 % - podzolic brown soil, 25% - brown rendzina, 15% - rendzinic soil;
Hill and plateau xero-mesophilous grasslands (CDB)

DRY GRASSLANDS
HILL LIMESTONE STEPPE GRASSLANDS FROM DOBROGEA
Diagnostic species: Agropyron cristatum ssp. brandzae, Koeleria lobata, Festuca callieri, Thymus
zygioides, Pimpinella tragium ssp. lithophila, Euphorbia nicaeensis, Dianthus nardiformis,
Artemisia pedemontana, Goniolimon besserianum, Allium saxatile, Scorzonera mollis,
Potentilla bornmuelleri, Satureja caerulea, Teucrium polium ssp. capitatum, Carex
liparocarpos, Valeriana officinalis, Seseli pallasii, Centaurea jankae, Moehringia
grisebachii;
Syntaxonomical classification: Pimpinello - Thymion Dihoru 1970;
Associations belonging: Agropyro - Thymetum zygioidis Dihoru 1970, Koelerio - Artemisietum
lerchianae Dihoru 1970, Festucetum callierii, erb nescu 1965;
NATURA 2000: 6110 - Limestone few fallow steppe grassland from Dobrogea;
Average slope: 15o;
Geological substrate: 55% - limestone rocks, 30% - conglomerate rocks, 15% - gritstone;
Climate: 85% - warm and very warm, 15% - moderately cold, 85% - dry, 15% - moderately wet;
Soil texture: 70% - moderately heavy soil, 15% - light soil, 15% - heavy soil;
Soil types: 70% - leached chernoyem, 15% - calcareos chernozem, 15% - chestnut steppe soil;
Management: 40% - grazing, 60% - no management;
Hill limestone steppe grasslands from Dobrogea (PIT)

DRY GRASSLANDS
PALE FESCUE GRASSLANDS ON SHINNY LIMESTONE FROM HILL-MOUNTAIN BELTS
Diagnostic species: Festuca pallens, Phleum montanum, Thymus comosus, Melica ciliata ssp.
ciliata, Allium flavum ssp. flavum, Genista januensis, Cnidium silaifolium, Sedum
hispanicum, Sempervivum marmoreum, Carduus candicans, Thalictrum foetidum, Seseli
gracile, Helictotrichon decorum, Carex humilis, Poa badensis, Stipa eriocaulis, Seseli
osseum;
Syntaxonomical classification: Bromo - Festucion pallentis Zólyomi 1936 corr. 1966;
Associations belonging: Seseli gracile - Festucetum pallentis (Soó 1959) Coldea 1991, Melico -
Phleetum montani Bo caiu et al. 1966, Thymo comosi - Festucetum rupicolae (Cs rös 1959)
Pop et Hodi an 1985;
NATURA 2000: 6110* - Limestone saxicolous grasslands;
Average slope: 20o;
Geological substrate: 100% - limestone rocks;
Climate: 65% - warm, 35% - moderately cold, 75% - dry, 25% - moderately wet;
Soil texture: 100% - light soil;
Soil types: 90% - black rendzina, 10% - red rendzina;
Pale fescue grasslands on shinny limestone from hill-mountain belts (BFP)

DRY GRASSLANDS
DEALPINAE MOUNTAIN CALCAREOUS SESLERIA RIGIDA GRASSLANDS
Diagnostic species: Sesleria rigida, Seseli rigidum, Viola jooi, Saxifraga marginata, Primula veris
ssp. columnae, Dianthus petraeus ssp. petraeus, Centaurea atropurpurea ssp. atropurpurea,
Edraianthus graminifolius, Asperula capitata, Dianthus spiculifolius, Alyssum repens,
Aconitum anthora, Erysimum witmanni ssp. witmannii, Athamanta turbith ssp. hungarica,
Draba lasiocarpa, Centaurea triumfetti;
Syntaxonomical classification: Seslerion rigidae Zólyomi 1936;
Associations belonging: Asperulo capitatae - Seslerietum rigidae (Zólyomi 1939) Coldea 1991,
Helictotrichetum decori Domin 1932, Festucetum xanthinae Bo caiu 1971;
NATURA 2000: 8210 - Chasmophytic vegetation on the limestone rock;
Average slope: 45o;
Geological substrate: 90% - limestone rocks, 10% - conglomerate rocks;
Climate: 60% - moderately warm, 40% - moderately cold, 60% - moderately dry, 40% -
moderately wet;
Soil types: 85% - black rendzima; 15% - lithosol;
Dealpine mountain calcareous Sesleria rigida grasslands (SER)

HILL MOUNTAIN MESOPHILOUS MEADOWS
Diagnostic species: Agrostis capillaris, Bellis perennis, Cynosurus cristatus, Festuca pratensis, F.
rubra, Lolium perenne, Leontodon autumnalis, Phleum pratense, Trifolium repens ssp.
repens, Gladiolus imbricatus, Linum catharcticum, Prunella vulgaris,
Hypochoeris radicata, Potentilla reptans, Primula veris, Thymus pannonicus, T.
pulegioides, Rhinanthus minor;
Syntaxonomical classification: Cynosurion R. Tx. 1947;
Associations belonging: Festuco rubrae - Agrostetum capillaris Horv. 1951, Lolio - Cynosuretum
TX 1937, Trifolio repens - Lolietum Krippelová 1967;
NATURA 2000: 6520 - Hill-mountain meadows;
Average slope: 10o;
Geological substrate: 70% - sedimentary rocks, 30% - sandy clay;
moderately wet;
Soil types: 70% - sandy soil, 30% - grey brown podzolic soil;
Hill mountain mesophilous meadows (CYN)

HILL MONTAIN MESOPHILOUS MANURED MEADOWS
Diagnostic species: Arrhenatherum elatius, Achillea millefolium ssp. millefolium, Avenula

pubescens, Campanula patula, Carum carvi, Daucus corota ssp. carota, Bromus hordeaceus
ssp. hordeaceus, Crepis biennis, Cerastium fontanum ssp. vulgare, Dactylis glomerata,
Heracleum sphondylium, Knautia arvensis, Lotus corniculatus, Pastinaca sativa ssp. sativa,
Plantago lanceolala, Tragopogon orientalis, Geranium pratense, Pimpinella major,
Trifolium dubium, Leucanthemum vulgare, Colchicum autumnale, Euphrasia stricta,
Trifolium hybridum;
Syntaxonomical classification: Arrhenatherion W. Koch 1926;
Associations belonging: Arrhenatheretum elatioris W. Koch, Poo - Trisetetum (Knapp 1951)
Oberd. 1957;
NATURA 2000: 6520 - Hill-mountain meadows;
Average slope: 5o;
Geological substrate: 60% - sedimentary rocks, 20% - sandy clay, 20% - schale;
moderately wet;
Soil texture: 60% - moderately heavy soil, 20% - heavy soil, 20% - light soil;
Soil types: 60% - sandy soil, 20% - humic gley soil, 20% - gray brown podzolic soil;
Hill mountain mesophilous manured meadows (ARR)

MOUNTAIN MESOPHILOUS MANURED MEADOWS
Diagnostic species: Trisetum flavescens, Astrantia major ssp. major, Alchemilla monticola,
Anthoxanthum odoratum, Centaurea phrygia ssp. pseudophrygia, Heracleum sphondylium,
Lychnis flos-cuculi ssp. flos-cuculi, Dactylis glomerata, Geranium phaeum, Primula elatior,
Phyteuma spicatum, Anthriscus nitidus, Hypericum maculatum ssp. maculatum, Gentianella
austriaca, Narcissus poeticus ssp. radiiflorus, Rhinanthus rumelicus, Trollius europaeus
ssp. europaeus, Trifolium pratense, Polygonum bistorta;
Syntaxonomical classification: Polygono - Trisetion Br. - Bl. et R. Tx. ex Marshall 1947;
Associations belonging: Geranio - Trisetum Knapp 1951, Astrantio - Trisetetum Knapp 1952;
NATURA 2000: 6520 - Mountain meadows;
Average slope: 10o;
Geological substrate: 75% - crystalline schists, 25% - calcareous rocks;
Climate: 75% - moderately cold, 25% - moderately warm, 75% - moderately wet, 25% -
moderately dry;
Soil types: 75% - acid brown soil, 25% - rendzine soil;
Mountain mesophilous manured meadows (POT)

MESOPHILOUS OLIGOTROPHIC MOUNTAIN PASTURES
Diagnostic species: Agrostis capillaris, Arnica montana, Deschampsia flexuosa, Antennari dioica,
Alchemilla xanthochlora, Botrychium lunaria, Carex pallescens, Calluna vulgaris,
Coeloglossum viride, Dianthus armeria, D. deltoides, Festuca ovina, F. rubra, F. tenuifolia,
Nardus stricta, Omalotheca sylvatica, Hieracium pilosella, Potentilla erecta, Polygala
vulgaris, Scorzonera humilis, Hypochoeris maculata, Viola canina, V. lutea, Vaccinium
myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea;
Syntaxonomical classification: Violion caninae Schwickerath 1944, Nardo - Agrostion tenuis
Sillinger 1933, Genistion Böch. 1943;
Associations belonging: Polygalo - Nardetum Oberd. 1957, Vaccinio - Callunetum Buk 1942;
NATURA 2000: 6230* - Acidophilous mountain Nardus pastures;
Average slope: 10o;
Geological substrate: 50% - cristalline schists, 50% - sedimentary rocks;
Climate: 60% - moderately warm, 40% - moderately cold, 60% - moderately dry, 40% moderately
wet;
Soil texture: 90% - medium texture soil, 10% - light texture soil;
Soil types: 80% - podzolised soil, 20% - grey brown podzolic soil;
Management: 60% - grazing, 20% - mowing, 20% - no data.
Mesophilous oligotrophic mountain pastures (VNG)

MOUNTAIN MESOPHILOUS TALL HERB MEADOWS
Diagnostic species: Calamgrostis arundinacea, Deschampsia caespitosa, Festuca gigantea, F.

drymeia, Clinopodium vulgare, Centaurea mollis, Digitalis grandiflora, Laserpitium
latifolium, Lilium martagon, Origanum vulgare, Poa chaixii, Potentilla thuringiaca, Juncus
effusus, Epilobium angustifolium, Vicia sepium, V. sylvatica;
Syntaxonomical classification: Calamagrostion arundinaceae (Luquet 1926) Jenik 1961;
Associations belonging: Calamagrostio arundinaceae - Digitalietum Oberd. 1957, Senecio sylvatici
- Epilobietum augustifolii R. Tx. 1950;
NATURA 2000: 6430 - Mountain mesophilous tall herb meadows;
Average slope: 20o;
Geological substrate: 85% - cristalline schists, 15% - volcanic rocks;
Climate: 60% - moderately warm, 40 - moderately cold, 60% - moderately dry, 40% - moderately
wet;
Soil types: 90% - grey brown podzolic soil, 10% - podzolic brown soil;
Mountain mesophilous tall herb meadows (CAA)

HIGH MOUNTAIN GRASSLAND
SUBALPINE MESOTROPHIC PASTURES
Diagnostic species: Poa alpina, Poa media, Geum montanum, Ligusticum mutellina, Potentilla
aurea ssp. chrysocraspeda, Phleum alpinum, Avenula versicolor, Anthoxanthum odoratum,
Pedicularis verticillata, Deschampsia caespitosa, Festuca nigrescens, Senecio subalpinus,
Campanula serrata, Prunella vulgaris, Veronica serpyllifolia;
Syntaxonomical classification: Poion alpinae Oberd. 1950;
Associations belonging: Alchemillo - Poetum alpinae Beldie 1967;
NATURA 2000: 4060 - Alpine grasslands;
Average slope: 5o;
Geological substrate: 90% - crystalline schists, 10% - volcanic rocks;
Climate: 75% - cold, 25% - moderately warm, 70% - wet, 30% - moderately dry;
Soil texture: 100 - light soil;
Soil types: 100% - alpine meadow soil;
Management: 100% - grazing (information from the scientific literature).
This type of grassland was not overhear during the mapping field work.
The information on altitude, slope, geological substrate, climate, soil texture and types, average
cover of woods and management were obtained from the existing literature combined with the data
offered by our experts.
SUBALPINE OLIGOTROPHIC PASTURES
Diagnostic species: Festuca nigrescens, F. airoides, Poa media, Potentilla aurea ssp.
chrysocraspeda (P. ternata), Campanula abietina, C. serrata, C. polymorpha, Scorzonera
purpurea ssp. rosea, Geum montanum, Ligusticum mutellina, Leucorchis albida, Gentiana
kochiana, Hieracium aurantiacum, Hypochoeris uniflora, Thymus balcanus, Deschampsia
flexuosa, Avenula versicolor, Veronica officinalis, Viola declinata;
Syntaxonomical classification: Potentillo ternatae - Nardion Simon 1957;
Associations belonging: Violo declinatae - Nardetum Simon 1966, Poetum mediae Cs rös et al.
1956, Scorzonero - Festucetum nigricantis Coldea 1987;
NATURA 2000: 6230* - Acidophilous subalpine Nardus pastures;
Average slope: 10o;
Climate: 70% - cold, 30% - moderately warm, 70% - moderately wet, 30% - moderately dry;
Soil texture: 90% - moderately heavy soil, 10% - heavy soil;
Soil types: 40% - podzolic brown soil, 60% - alpine meadow soil;
Management: 85% - grazing, 15% - mowing.
Subalpine oligotrophic pasture (PON)

BASIPHILOUS SUBALPINE PASTURES
Diagnostic species: Agrostis alpina, Festuca amethystina, F. rupicola ssp. saxatilis, F. versicolor,
F. nitida ssp. flaccida, F. xanthina, Cerastium transsilvanicum, Alyssum repens ssp. repens,
Linum perenne ssp. extraaxillare, Poa rehmannii, Carduus kerneri ssp. kerneri, Primula
elatior, Dianthus spiculifolius, Potentilla thuringiaca, Thymus pulcherrimus, Sesleria bielzii,
S. rigida ssp. haynaldiana, Carex sempervirens, Aster alpinus, Bupleurum diversifolium;
Syntaxonomical classification: Seslerion bielzii Pawłowski 1935, Festuco - Seslerii bielzii Coldea
1984;
Associations belonging: Diantho - Festucetum amethystinae Coldea 1984, Seslerio - Festucetum
versicoloris Beldie 1967, Seslerio bielzii - Caricetum sempervirentis Pu caru et al. 1956;
NATURA 2000: 6170 - Basiphilous subalpine pastures;
Average slope: 15o;
moderately wet;
Soil types: 100% - rendzine subalpine;
Management: 80% - grazing, 20% - no data.
Basiphilous subalpine pastures (SEB)

SUBALPINE ACIDOPHILOUS TALL HERB MEADOWS
Diagnostic species: Calamagrostis villosa, Campanula abietina, Crepis conyzifolia, Deschampsia

caespitosa ssp. alpicola, Festuca picturata, Hypericum richeri ssp. grisebachii, Gentiana
asclepiadea, Omalotheca norvegica, Poa chaixii, Rhodiola rosea, Sempervivum montanum,
Solidago virgaurea, Dianthus barbatus ssp. compactus, Festuca porcii, Heracleum
carpaticum, Doronicum austriacum, Rumex alpestris, Adenostyles alliariae;
Syntaxonomical classification: Calamagrostion villosae Pawł. et al. 1928;
Associations belonging: Hyperico alpigeni - Calamagrostetum villosae Pawł. et Wal. 1949, Phleo
alpini - Deschampsietum Coldea 1983;
NATURA 2000: 6430 - Subalpine acidophilous tall herb meadows;
Average slope: 30o;
Geological substrate: 90% - cristalline schist, 10% - volcanic rocks;
Climate: 80% - cold, 20% - moderately warm, 80% - moderately wet, 20% - moderately dry,
Soil types: 85% - alpine meadows, 20% - lithosol;
Management: 70% - grazing, 10% - mowing, 20% - no data.
Subalpine acidophilous tall herb meadows (CAV)

SUBALPINE CALCIPHILOUS TALL HERB MEADOWS
Diagnostic species: Festuca carpatica, Trisetum fuscum, Achillea distans, Astrantia major, Bartsia
alpina, Carex sempervirens, Cortusa matthiolii, Helianthemum nummularium, Luzula
sylvatica, Parnassia palustris, Tanacetum corymbosum, Knautia longifolia, Phyteuma
orbiculare, Scabiosa lucida, Doronicum carpaticum, Geranium sylvaticum, Festuca
pratensis ssp. apennina, Laserpitium krapfii, Carduus kerneri ssp. kerneri, Luzula
luzuloides, Rumex alpestris, Lilium jankae, Valeriana tripteris;
Syntaxonomical classification: Festucion carpaticae Belohlavkova et Fiserova 1989, Trisetion
fusci Krajina 1933;
Associations belonging: Carduo kerneri - Festucetum carpaticae Coldea 1990, Diantho compacti -
Festucetum porcii A. Nyár. 1966;
NATURA 2000: 6430 - Subalpine basiphilous tall herb meadows;
Average slope: 20o;
Geological substrate: 45% - limestone rocks, 45% - cristalline schists, 10% - no data;
Soil types: 90% - rendzine alpine, 10% - lithosol;
Subalpine calciphilous tall herb meadows (FCT)

ACIDOPHILOUS ALPINE PASTURES
Diagnostic species: Juncus trifidus, Orechloa disticha, Carex curvula, Festuca airoides, Phyteuma
confusum, Sesleria coerulans, Potentilla aurea ssp. chrysocraspeda, Senecio carpaticus, S.
incanus ssp. carniolicus, Hieracium alpinum, Campanula alpina, Primula minima, Agrostis
rupestris, Avenula versicolor, Pulsatilla alba, Minuartia sedoides, Vaccinium
gaultherioides, Armeria alpina, Omalotheca supine;
Syntaxonomical classification: Juncion trifidi Krajna 1933, Caricion curvulae Br. - Bl. 1925;
Associations belonging: Primulo - Caricetum curvulae Oberd. 1957, Oreochloo - Juncetum trifidi
Szafer et al. 1927, Potentillo ternatae - Festucetum airoidis, Bo caiu 1971;
NATURA 2000: 6150 - Acid alpine pastures;
Average slope: 8o;
Climate: 80% - cold, 20% - moderatley warm, 70% - wet, 30% - moderately dry;
Soil types: 100% - alpine meadow soil;
Acidophilous alpine pastures (JUT)

BASIPHILOUS ALPINE PASTURES
Diagnostic species: Elyna myosuroides, Oxytropis carpatica, O. halleri, Erigeron uniflorus,

Dianthus glacialis, Lloydia serotina, Saussurea alpina, Cerastium lanigerum, Arenaria
ciliata, Carex atrata, Luzula spicata, Pinguicula alpina, Pedicularis verticillata, Salix
alpina, S. retusa, S. reticulata, Silene acaulis, Dryas octopetala, Polygonum viviparum,
Festuca bucegiensis, Gentiana nivalis;
Syntaxonomical classification: Oxytropido - Elymion Br. - Bl. 1949;
Associations belonging: Oxytropido carpaticae - Elymetum (Pu caru et al. 1956) Coldea 1991;
NATURA 2000: 6170 - Basiphilous alpine pastures;
Average slope: 5o;
Soil types: 100% - rendzine alpine;
Basiphilous alpine pastures (OXE)

WET GRASSLAND
MESO-HYGROPHILOUS FLOOD PLAIN MEADOWS
Diagnostic species: Agrostis stolonifera, Alopecurus pratensis, Crepis biennis, Deschampsia

caespitosa, Festuca arundinacea, F. pratensis, Fritillaria meleagris, Galium rubioides,
Glechoma hederacea, Gratiola officinalis, Plantago altissima, Rumex confertus, Senecio
erucifolius, Stellaria palustris, Allium angulosum, Lythrum virgatum, Clematis integrifolia,
Oenanthe silaifolia, Scutellaria hastifolia, Viola elatior, V. stagnina, Carex vulpine;
Syntaxonomical classification: Agrostion albae Soó 1943, Alopecurion pratensis Passarge 1964,
Potentillion anserinae R. Tx. 1937.
Associations belonging: Agrostetum albae Ujvárosi 1941, Carici vulpinae - Alopecuretum
pratensis Soó 1971, Agrostio - Deschampsietum caespitosae Ujvárosi 1947;
NATURA 2000: 6440 - Alluvial flood plain meadows - Cnidion dubii;
Average slope: more plain;
Geological substrate: 75% - clayey marl, 20% - clay, 5% - sand;
Climate: 75% - moderately warm, 25% - moderately cold, 75% - dry, 25% - moderately wet;
Soil texture: 70% - moderately heavy soil, 20% - heavy soil, 10% - light soil;
Soil types: 90% - alluvial soil, 10% - colluvial-alluvial soil;
Meso-hygrophilous flood plain meadows (AAP)

WET GRASSLAND
INTRAMOUNTAIN HYGROPHILOUS RIVER MEADOWS
Diagnostic species: Angelica sylvestris, Caltha palustris, Cirsium canum, C. oleraceum, C.

rivulare, Crepis paludosa, Equisetum palustre, Holcus lanatus, Myosotis scorpioides, Carex
caespitosa, C. panicea, Chaerophyllum hirsutum, Filipendula ulmaria, Geranium palustre,
Mentha longifolia, Scirpus sylvaticus, Valeriana officinalis, Senecio rivularis, Carex
remota;
Syntaxonomical classification: Calthion R. Tx. 1937;
Associations belonging: Scirpetum sylvatici Schwich 1941, Cirsietum rivularis Nowinski 1926,
Angelico - Cirsietum oleracei R. Tx. 1937;
NATURA 2000: 6450 - Alluvial hill-mountain meadows - Calthion;
Average slope: more plain;
Geological substrate: 65% - clay alluvium, 25% - snad alluvium, 10% - marl;
moderately wet;
Soil types: 80% - alluvial soil, 20% - colluvial-aluvila soil;
Management: 40% -mowing, 40% - grazing, 20% - no data.
Intramountain hygrophilous river meadows (CAL)

WET GRASSLAND
HYGROPHILOUS MEADOWS IN THE INTRAMOUNTAIN LOW VALLEY
Diagnostic species: Molinia coerulea, Achillea ptarmica, Stachys officinalis, Carex tomentosa, C.
panicea, Dianthus superbus, Orchis militaris, Ophioglossum vulgatum, Potentilla alba,
Serratula tinctoria, Juncus conglomeratus, Selinum carvifolia, Succisa pratensis, Succisella
inflexa, Valeriana officinalis, Gentiana pneumonanthe, Gladiolus imbricatus, Sanguisorba
officinalis, Galium boreale;
Syntaxonomical classification: Molinion Koch 1926;
Associations belonging: Junco - Molinietum Preising 1951, Peucedano - Molinietum Bo caiu
1965;
NATURA 2000: 6410 - Hygrophilous meadows on the swampy soil (Molinion);
Average slope: more plane;
Geological substrate: 65% - clayey marl, 35% - clay alluvium;
Climate: 50% - moderately warm, 50% - moderately cold, 60% - moderately wet, 40% moderately
dry;
Soil types: 60% - argilic brown forest soil, 40% - gray brown podzolic soil;
Hydrophilous meadows in the intramountain depressions (MOL)

WET GRASSLAND
MARSH-FENS TALL CAREX MEADOWS
Diagnostic species: Carex rostrata, C. acuta, C. acutiformis, C. paniculata, C. gracilis, C. elata, C.

pseudocyperus, C. riparia, C. vesicaria, C. vulpina, Equisetum fluviatile, Galium palustre,
Glyceria maxima, Iris pseudacorus, Myosoton aquaticum, Peucedanum palustre, Phalaris
arundinacea, Poa palustris, P. trivialis, Rorippa amphibia, Stachys palustris, Phragmites
australis;
Syntaxonomical classification: Magnocaricion elatae Koch 1926, Caricion gracilis Neuhäusl 1959;
Associations belonging: Caricetum acutformis Eggler 1933, Caricetum ripariae Knapp ex Stoffer
1962, Caricetum paniculatae Wangerin 1916, Caricetum gracilis Almquist 1929;
NATURA 2000: 7160 - Marsh-fens rich in mineral salt;
Geological substrate: 70% - clayey marl, 30% - peat sediments;
Climate: 50% - moderately warm, 50% - cold, 70% - wet, 30% - moderately dry;
Soil texture: 60% - heavy soil, 40% - light soil;
Soil types: 60% - low-humic gley soil, 40% - peat;
Marsh-fens tall Carex meadows (MAC)

WET GRASSLAND
WATER-FRINGE REED CANARY-GRASS MEADOWS
Diagnostic species: Catabrosa aquatica, Glyceria fluitans, G. nemoralis, G. plicata, Leersia

oryzoides, Phalaris arundinacea, Agrostis gigantea, Calamagrostis pseudophragmites,
Lycopus europaeus, Sparganium erectum, Myosotis scorpioides, Epilobium hirsutum,
Veronica anagallis-aquatica, V. beccabunga, Galium palustre, Mentha longifolia,
Phragmites australis, Nasturtium officinale, Stellaria uliginosa;
Syntaxonomical classification: Sparganio - Glycerion fluitantis Br. - Bl. et Sissingh 1942,
Phalaridion arundinaceae Kopecky 1961;
Associations belonging: Phalaridetum arundinaceae Kopecky 1961, Catabrosetum aquaticae Rubel
1912;
NATURA 2000: 6420 - Higrophilous tall meadows;
Geological substrate: 75% - clayey marl, 25% - clay;
Climate: 65% - moderately warm, 35% - moderately cold, 60% - moderately dry, 40% - wet;
Soil texture: 60% - heavy soil, 40% - moderatley heavely;
Soil types: 60% - low-humic gley soil, 40% - grey brown podzolic soil;
Water-fringe reed canary-grass meadows (SGP)

WET GRASSLAND
POOR FEN ACID MEADOWS
Diagnostic species: Carex nigra, C. canescens, C. echinata, C. rostrata, C. lasiocarpa, C. diandra,

Epilobium palustre, Eriophorum angustifolium, Agrostis canina, Potentilla palustris,
Rhynchospora alba, Carex limosa, Juncus filiformis, J. alpino-articulatus, Ranunculus
flammula, Stellaria palustris, Cardamine pratensis, Pedicularis limnogena, Aulacomnium
palustre, Calliergon stramineum, C. cuspidatum, Bryum pseudotriquetrum, Sphagnum
cuspidatum, S. flexuosum;
Syntaxonomical classification: Caricion fuscae Koch 1926 em. Klika 1934, Caricion lasiocarpae
Van den Berghen ap. Lebrun et al. 1949;
Associations belonging: Junco - Caricetum fuscae Tx. (1937) 1952, Sphagno - Caricetum rostratae
Steffen 1931, Sphagno - Caricetum echinatae Soó 1955;
NATURA 2000: 7110* - Acidophilous active peats;
Average slope: palin;
Geological substrate: 70% - sedimentary rocks, 30% - volcanic rocks;
Climate: 75% - moderatley, 25% - cold, 75% - wet, 25% - moderately dry;
Soil texture: 80% - light soil, 20% - moderately heavy soil;
Soil types: 100% - intermediate peat moss;
Poor fen acid meadows (CAF)

WET GRASSLAND
CONTINENTAL BASE-RICH FEN MEADOWS
Diagnostic species: Carex davalliana, C. dioica, C. flava, C. lepidocarpa, C. panicea, C. hostiana,

C. paniculata, Dactylorhiza maculata, Epipactis palustris, Eriophorum lalifolium, Liparis
loeselii, Parnassia palustris, Pinguicula vulgaris, Polemonium caeruleum, Primula
farinosa, Schoenus nigricans, Sesleria caerulea, Tofieldia calyculata, Triglochin palustre,
Valeriana dioica ssp. simplicifolia, Blysmus compressus, Campylium stellatum, Calliergon
cuspidatum, Climacium dendroides, Cratoneurum filicinum;
Syntaxonomical classification: Caricion davallianae Klika 1934;
Associations belonging: Orchido - Schoenetum nigricantis Oberd. 1957, Caricetum davallianae
Dutoit 1924, Carici flavae - Eriophoretum Soó 1944;
NATURA 2000: 7230 - Basiphilous active peats;
Geological substrate: 70% - sedimentary rocks, 30% - argillaceous marl;
moderately wet;
Soil texture: 65% - moderately warm heavy soil, 35% - heavy soil;
Soil types: 80% - peaty soil, 20% - base-saturated soil;
Continental base-rich fen meadows (CAD)

4.3. EVALUATION OF SPECIES DIVERSITY AND NATURE CONSERVATION VALUE
4.3.1. SPECIES DIVERSITY OF GRASSLANDS
A total number of 2518 taxa (species and subspecies) were recorded during this inventory. They
were distributed in 3660 polygons. In accordance with the species richness the polygons were
grouped into five classes of nature conservation value:
• 1-40 taxa/polygon (1664 recorded polygons)

As we can see from the graphs a significant proportion of polygons (~90%) contain 1-80 taxa of
vascular plants and represent about 86% from the whole mapped area. Only ~10% of the polygons,
depasse 80 taxa/polygon and they represent only 14% of the assessed grasslands. The reachest
polygons are only 13 and they are located in the dry grasslands from Dobrogea and in the
mesophilous grasslands from the Carpathian mountain.
Species diversity value
0.9%
9.0% 0.4%
1 -- 40
45.5% 41 -- 80
81 -- 120
121 -- 160
161 -- 200
44.3%
161 -- 200
121 -- 160
No. of species
81 -- 120
41 -- 80
1 -- 40
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000

Area of polygons (ha)
Distribution maps -
4.3.2. NATURE CONSERVATION VALUE OF GRASSLANDS
The Red List of vascular plants from Romanian grasslands was established in the framework of this
project. The list include 1036 taxa (25% of the whole Romanian flora) and is included in Annex 4.
From this amount of Romanian Red List taxa, 293 taxa (28%) were recorded during this inventory.
Their distribution maps are included in Annex 5. More as 40% (124 taxa) of this protected plants
needs a special attentions and special measures of protection and conservation, because they are
globally threatened, European threatened, Endemic or Nearendemic and rare or threatened at
national level:
• 23 taxa - globally threatened (IUCN Red List, Habitats Directive, Bern Convention);
• 35 taxa - European threatened (Habitats Directive, Bern Convention);
• 66 taxa - national high importance (Romanian Red List - endemic or nearendemic and rare
or threatened).
For all this 124 taxa, Important Plant Areas for protection and conservation will be established in
the Romanian grasslands, as a requirement of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (part of
the CBD) implementation in our country. The results of this project will support the grasslands IPA
identification.
From the total mapped polygons 55% (2023) contain protected species.
They were grouped into five classes of nature conservation:
• 1-5 protected species/polygon
Polygons without protected species were evaluated as polygons with no special nature conservation
value.
47.24%
1 -- 5 species/polygon
44.73%
no protected species/polygon
0.03%
6.97%
0.41% 0.63%
Distribution maps -
5. GRASSLAND CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT
5.1. THE EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK
The relationship between agriculture and biodiversity conservation is of particular significance in

Europe, because of the limited remaining area of natural habitats of high nature value and the
permanent decline of grasslands type diversity associated with the strong pressure on species of
plants and animals leaving there. Many semi-natural grasslands are now threatened both by further
intensification of agriculture and abandonment. The agricultural intensive practises have proved
harmful to nature in general and plant diversity in particular, it has almost eradicated wild plants
and numerous rare habitats have been destroyed. The need to reduce the impact of agriculture on
the environment is a requirement for its conservation and sustainable use.
The sustainable development is a concept, which brings together concerns for social and economic
development along side protection of the environment. Those policies that result in environmental
degradation of the natural resources are unlikely to be a sound basis for sustainable economic
development. In the agricultural areas it is a clear interdependence between economic activities
such as farming and the conservation of the environment qualities.
In this frame the reform of the agricultural policy is considered a key element for the sustainable
socio-economic development in Europe and the entire world. Sustainable development has been
made an explicit objective of the European Union, which required to integrate the environment into
EU policy sectors. In addition, rural areas are vital reservoirs of Europe’s wildlife and genetic
diversity, which in many cases has been formed by generations of agricultural traditional activity,
and were strongly affected in the last century by intensive and extensive agricultural practices.
In the documents of the European Union as well as in those of different international conventions
(to which Romania is part), there is a general recognition concerning the development of the
ecologic methods in agriculture as well as the reorganization of the rural land use, in accordance
with the multifunctional farms principles, which could be real solutions for overcoming the
problems generated by the intensive agriculture.
The EU enlargement process includes the adoption by the candidate countries of the EU regulations
in sectors such agriculture and the environment. The EU agricultural legislation is designed to
support a range of specific objectives including maintaining biodiversity on farmland and the
promotion of organic farming, in order to ensure the conservation of biological and landscape
diversity through the application of sustainable agricultural policy instruments.
In Romania the process of the agricultural policy’s reform is still at the beginning. Although the
direction of our country’s commitment is clear, considering it signed most of the international
engagements and that it has clearly expressed its option for integration in the European Community.
Although it is recognized as a priority in the national policies, elaborated after the Conference in
Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the development of a sustainable agricultural management faces major
difficulties due to a limited scientific base as well as to the lack of efficient transfer means of
knowledge towards users.
5.2. MANAGEMENT OF GRASSLANDS IN ROMANIA
In accordance with the results of this grassland inventory, the most frequent management practices
grazing and mowing. We can see on the graph 77% of mapped grasslands are managed, 8% are not
managed and there are no data about the management for another 15%.
The dry grasslands are 60% managed, especially by grazing (35%) but also by mowing (25%) and
30% are not managed. The mesophilous grasslands are 85% managed, especially by mowing (48%)
but also by grazing (37%). The high mountain grasslands are 85% managed by grazing. The wet
grasslands are 80% managed, 60% by grazing and 20% by mowing. The lack of management data
for this four groups of grasslands was variated between 8% (dry grasslands) to 20% (wet
grasslands).
Mapped grasslands according used management measures
15%
8% grazing
mowing
no management
54%
no data
23%
This evaluation can be not generalized all over the country because of the limited areas of
grassland, which was assessed in the frame of this project.
5.3. GRASSLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT IN

AGRO-ENVIRONMENT POLICY
Current situation
The agricultural development up to the beginning of the XX century, had an extensive character and
it was accompanied by usage of traditional land use means.
The trends in the second half of the XX century concerning the intensive and extensive
development of the agriculture, which had the purpose to increase productivity, associated with
mechanic agricultural technology, intensive use of chemicals, generalization of the irrigation, usage
of performant species and races, had as a result the modification of the structure of the ecosystem
complexes, a decrease of the biodiversity and negative effects upon the neighboring ecologic
systems. Due to local deterioration of valuable soils, these were abandoned and people extended
towards natural systems in areas more and more vulnerable. This type of intensive development
proved to be unviable and incompatible with the requests for a sustainable socio-economic
development.
To all these we have to add, after 1990 the disorganization of the cooperative system, decrease of
agricultural subventions, privatization, decrease of live stock (sheep, cows), land abandonment etc.
Thus, the deterioration of the agro-systems and rural areas has become a complex and extended
process.
Almost 62% of Romania’s surface is used know for agricultural production. Almost 33% out of
these are semi-natural systems (pasture, hayfield).
5.4. OPORTUNITIES FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT

IN ROMANIA
Agro-environmental programmes
Romania has already signed some special agreements and some programmes are already applied
(PHARE, SAPARD) to support the land reforms and to promote the modernization of the
agricultural sector.
PHARE was originally the main financial instrument for pre-accession, but other types of
assistance, including technical assistance for the approximation of laws and standards and the
provision of financial assistance for infrastructure have gradually been added.
In the framework of Agenda 2000, two new pre-accession instruments were developed named ISPA
and SAPARD. Both contain measures, which concern the environment, but only SAPARD is
strongly related to the agro-environmental measures, intended to support biodiversity conservation.
The SAPARD Programme is focused on agriculture and rural development and was established for
the CEECs countries, in order to support them to better implement the European agro-
environmental policy.
The national SAPARD Agency is in charge with implementing the SAPARD programme measures
in Romania. Up to 10 known pilot areas have already been organized.
Organing farming
The development of the organic farming system represents an important way to support sustainable
agriculture. The organic farms as a part of the sustainable farming system are focused on organic
production. The higher standards demanded for the EU market often cannot be met without this new
instrument. The current situation shows that significant financial resources and a special assistance
for farmers to become more market oriented are needed to develop such a production system.
Several sources of finance are available, including SAPARD, multilateral assistance and foreign
direct investment. This process has just begun in Romania.
Multifunctional farms
The multifunctional farms are created as structures capable to make use of the potential of the damp
areas, for which the conservation and rehabilitation of the biodiversity as well as the control of the
diffuse pollution become basic components of the activity. The conservation of the agro-diversity as
important component of the multifunctional farms’ activity will be focused on the report and
interactions between the transformed components and the natural and semi-natural ones of the rural
space, referring to:
- the recuperation of the traditional agricultural practises and of the local varieties/races;
- the rehabilitation, conservation and use of the natural capital’s components, including
the wild species and the semi-natural ecological structures;
- the re-dimensioning of the semi-intensive agricultural practises reported to the
productive capacity and to the support of the natural capital;
- the administration of the functional relations between the organizational components of
the farm which has a double purpose: (i) to increase the local activities’ efficiency,
emphasizing the satisfaction of the needs and the implication of the local community, as
well as (ii) the instrumentation of the functions at a macro-regional level.
The research programmes which regard the development and application of some pilot
multifunctional farm types will have to guide the farmers, the production associations, individual
users, administrators and planers of the territorial landscaping in planning, organizing and
exploiting some new agricultural production forms which will satisfy the complexity of these
criteria for the rehabilitation and use of the local productive potential, which consists in the
heterogeneity and the characteristics of the considered rural space.
The main problems and obstacles in developing the multifunctional farms in Romania regard the
present situation - disorganization, leeway and crumble of the agricultural exploitations, lack of
logistical, technical and financial means, but mostly the absence of a clear vision upon the frame,
objectives and means to apply the sustainable agriculture, meaning the model of the multifunctional
farms, also the pour knowledge of the productive and support capacities of the agro-systems and the
associated semi-natural systems, the deficiency of the human resources skills, the lack of change in
mentalities and the interests of main actors as well as the limits of the institutional and legal frame.
It is very important to develop a proper and efficient frame to transfer the scientific knowledge
towards users and decision people through decision assistance support systems (SSAD) for the
management of the main ecological system types, including the administration of the National
Ecologic Network (REN).
Nowadays, Romania has some advantages and opportunities, which facilitate such a transition
process in socio-economic development in general and for the agricultural development in special,
some of these must be mentioned:
- the natural valuable and relatively well preserved base, which insure for the agro-
systems and associated semi-natural ecosystems from the rural space, an appreciable
productive and support capacity (ex. the percentage of the good and very good soil
quality, the conservation of some important ecological structures from the perspective of
using the multifunctional potential of the farms: damp areas, flower beds, forests etc);
- the ethnic culture diversity and the value of the human capital (the conservation of some
agricultural practises, traditional customs and representations, the existence of a well
prepared group of agricultural engineers and technicians etc.);
- Romania’s medium and long term strategy for sustainable development which expresses,
as an official document to access the EC, the will of the political class and the civil
society (Romanian Government, 1999);
- the support given through some international programmes for starting such a direction of
the transition process (the SAPARD programme is the most current and representative
for the development of the agriculture).
5.5. SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE: OBJECTIVES AND MEASURES
By observing the main accumulations and experiences on a conceptual, scientific and managerial
level, regarding the agricultural development and the current situation of this sector in Romania we
can see the general recognition of the necessity for re-organization of this important sector of the
socio-economic activity.
The general objective of the agro-environment strategy is to harmonize relations between the
agriculture production and the conservation of the environment for the benefit of booth nature and
humane society.
A significant importance had the establishment of the SAPARD Agency, as a public institution with
juridical personality being subordinated to the Ministry of Agriculture and Alimentation
(Emergency Order no. 142 from the 21st September 2000). The purpose of the SAPARD Agency is
the technical and financial implementation of the Special Instrument for pre-accession for
agriculture and rural development, named The SAPARD Programme.
The national Plan for agriculture and rural development (PNADR), which was approved by the
European Commission as basis for implementing the SAPARD Programme in Romania contains
the following measures:
• The development and the improvement of the rural infrastructure

General objectives
- The improvement of the current situation of the infrastructure in the rural area, the
improvement of the life conditions as well as the work standards and keeping the
population in the rural space.
- This measure allows the development of some integrated and sustainable measures and
actions, which create real premises for realizing the other directions of the SAPARD
Programme (the diversification of the agricultural exploitations), because most of the
time the existence of a minimal infrastructure is a pre-condition of the projects’ success
within the other measures.
• Investments in the agricultural exploitations

General objectives
- Based on measures, it will be possible to insure the financial support for investments in
private agricultural exploitations, vegetal and life stock, insuring the reasoning and
reorientation of the production to increase the quality of the products obtained by
applying competitive technology and which could limit the pollution of the surrounding
environment.
- This measure will contribute to the improvement of the income for the agricultural
producers, to attract young people towards agricultural activities by improving their life
and work conditions, as well as to the insurance of hygienic conditions and well fair for
animals.
- The implementation of the measure will be done according to the 2nd Article from the
Commission’s Settlement (EC) 2759/1999 and will insure the conditions for introducing
the Acquis Communautaire in the agricultural exploitations.
• The development and diversification of the economic activities which will generate
multiple activities and alternative income
General Objectives
- The introduction of economic integrated systems and their implementation in the rural
areas.
- The diversification of the agricultural and forest activities and those strongly connected
to the agriculture, which will insure multiple activities.
- Making use of the traditional practises associated to the agro-diversity conservation.
• The improvement of the professional skills

General objective
- The assistance is given for the professional skills development in order to contribute to
the improvement of the knowledge and professional competence of the farmers and
other people involved in agricultural, fish and forest activities, processing of the
agricultural, fish and aqua-crop activities, as well as their conversion to non-agricultural
activities. This objective is in accordance with the 2nd article from the Council’s
Settlement (EC) 1268/1999, with the 5th article from the Commission’s Settlement (EC)
no. 2759/1999 and with the stipulations of the III chapter, title II from the Council’s
Settlement (EC) no. 1257/1999.
• The improvement of the processing and the marketing of agricultural and fish products
General objective
- The general objective of this measure is the improvement of the efficiency for
processing and marketing of agricultural and fish products, which will lead to high
quality products which will contribute to the implementation of the community acquis,
increase of the competitiveness and in the same time to the promotion of some
production methods which are friendly to the environment.
• Technical assistance
General objective
- To insure technical assistance especially for implementing and supervising the PNADR
programme and possible future changes.
The national legislation sustains the realization of all these measures associated to the sustainable
development process of the agriculture and rural areas in accordance with the Community Acquis.
Emergency Order no. 142 from the 21st September 2000 - Released by - The Romanian Government
regarding the founding, organization and function of the SAPARD Agency for the
technical and financial implementation of the special pre-accession Instrument for
agriculture and rural development
Decision no. 339 from the 22nd March 2001 - Released by - The Romanian Government
regarding the establishment, within the European Integration Ministry, of the
Management Authority for the SAPARD Programme
Law no 157 from 22nd September 2000 - Released by - The Romanian Parliament
regarding the national Plan for agriculture and rural development from the SAPARD
Programme for co-financing by the state budget
Decision no. 859 from the 30th August 2001 - Released by - The Romanian Government
regarding the use of the National Fund for SAPARD Programme and the establishment
of the National Accreditation Comity for SAPARD
Law no. 411 from the 18th July 2001 - Released by - The Romanian Parliament
for introducing the Law no. 157/2000 regarding the national Plan for agriculture and
rural development from the SAPARD Programme for co-financing by the state budget
Annex from 17th January 2002 - Released by - The Romanian Government

to the Government’s decision no. 32/2002 regarding the approval of the actions Plan for
the years 2002 and 2003 of the governing Plan
Law no. 552 from the 14th September 2002 - Released by - The Romanian Parliament
regarding the approval of the emergency Order no. 73/2002 to insure the necessary funds
for elaborating the projects afferent to the SAPARD Programme, Measure 2.1 “The
development and improvement of the rural infrastructure”
Memoranda from the 11th December 2002 - Released by - The European Commission
Finance Memoranda between the Romanian Government and the European Commission
regarding the national PHARE Programme for 2002 (2002/000-586.01 - 2002/000-
586.06)*)
Decision no. 535 from the 8th May 2003 - Released by - The Romanian Government
to approve the technical folders of the following measures 1.1 “Improvement of the
processing and marketing of the agricultural and fish products”, 2.1 “Development and
improvement of the rural infrastructure”, 4.1 “Improvement of the professional skills”
and 4.2 “Technical Assistance” from the national Programme for agriculture and rural
development financed by SAPARD
Decision no. 916 from the 14th August 2003 - Released by - The Romanian Government
regarding the financial assignments for realizing the primary measures approved through
the National Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development, financed by the
SAPARD Programme, and the financing sources within this one
Decision no. 717 from the 25th June 2003 - Released by – The Romanian Government
to increase the funds necessary to deduct the expenditures done with elaborating the
feasibility studies afferent with the SAPARD Programme, Measure 2.1 “The
development and improvement of the rural infrastructure”
Decision no. 153 from the 12th February 2004 - Released by - The Romanian Government
regarding the approval of the technical Folder of the 3.4 Measure “Development and
diversification of the economic activities which can generate multiple activities and
alternative incomes” from the National Programme for Agriculture and Rural
Development financed by SAPARD funds
Annex from the 15th January 2004 - Released by - The Romanian Government
regarding the Actions Plan for 2004 of the governing Plan
The transition from the Integrated Rural Development (IRD 1970) to the sustainable development
strategy of agriculture and rural areas is based also on the correct understanding of the agricultural
biodiversity notion, which includes:
- The species used directly or indirectly as food resources and for agricultural production,
by the human population as well as food for domestic animals, or as raw material (ex.
fiber, combustibles, pharmaceutical products etc.);
- The habitats and species from outside the agricultural production system, but which
contribute to the agriculture (the ecoton areas, the soil organisms, pollination species and
wild species);
- The integrated ecological systems complexes in which we can find the services
generated by the agro-systems: conservation of habitats and wild species, the process of
the circuit and the maintenance of water and air quality, the sequestration of CO2 etc.
In the general frame of this approach is also located this project NATIONAL GRASSLANDS
INVENTORY which support from the scientific point of view (through the information which it
supplies) the current process of reorganization of the agriculture in Romania.
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Grasslands are a very important feature of the Romanian vegetation. Our country is still reach, with
various types of grasslands, not only due to its biogeographical position, but also to its geological,
geomorphological and climate conditions.
According to the existing data, 11% of the Romanian’s total area is covered with grasslands, with a
significant floristic diversity and value. Some of them are less disturbed semi-natural habitats and
exchibit a high diversity of vascular plants, but many were affected by the human impact.
The Red List of vascular plants from Romanian grasslands includes 25% of the national flora,
species which are under protection at national, European and global levels.
The scientific research on Romanian grasslands is about 20 years old, fragmentary, mainly based on
the Braun-Blanquet approach and needs to be up-date according to the European vegetation units
classification and taxonomical system.
Unfortunatelly the intensive development of agriculture in the last 50 years induced different
damages to our natural environment. About 50% of the Romanian grasslands were affected by
economic activities. Some of them are under threat, but many have been destroyed by conversion to
arable land, over-fertilization and irrigation, deterioration of valuable soils, intensive grazing, use of
hybrid seed mixture s.o. Landscape and biotopes have been considerably changed, the traditional
land use practises were replace by large state farms and cooperatives and their natural value was
strongly diminished.
After 1990 the fast socio-economic transition, associated with the privatization of the state - owned
farms, the loss of the state subventions, the fact that land has been given back to the original owners
associated with the lack of financial means for the private owners lead to land abandonment,
invasion of shrubs and weed, associated continuously with the grasslands degradation.
Due to their extreme vulnerability, semi-natural grasslands can be considered at this moment,
among the most vulnerable ecosystems.
In the last period the agricultural policy has been changed from an intensive and extensive
development to the sustainable agriculture, associated with the conservation of the environment.
To implement this strategy more information about the current situation of grasslands diversity,
natural value, distribution, conservation and management is required.
In this general frame, started in 2000 the National Grassland Inventory project, which main
objectives are to develop a classification and evaluation system for Romanian grasslands (according
with the international standards) to identify and map the most representative semi-natural
grasslands, to evaluate their conservation value, deterioration and vulnerability, to develop the
appropriate data base accessible for government conservation bodies and scientists as well.
The classification system which was developed by the Romanian experts includes 29 types of
grassland, which were identified and evaluated on a syntaxonomical level (alliance in Braun-
Blanquet’s phytosociological system) and are also in accordance with the habitat types from the EU
Habitats Directive.
To store the information gathered in the course of fieldwork a data base structure based on the
geographic information system (GIS) was developed.
A total area of 390.012 ha of grasslands located in different region of Romania was mapped. From
this amount 371.894 ha were recorded as permanent semi-natural grasslands.
A total number of 3660 polygons were mapped and evaluated, 2518 taxa (species and subspecies)
representing 60% of the Romanian flora, were identified in 130.680 species records.
The standard methodology of mapping was applied. In addition, for the typical mapped grasslands
Braun-Blanquet relevees were done, in order to detect compatibility between the phytosociological
system and the method used in this project.
Special maps of distribution were realized for each type of identified grassland, for each alliance
and for each protected specie recorded during this inventory.
The assessed grassland habitat types belong to four categories: dry, mesophilous, high-mountain
and wet.
According to the study area, the mesophilous grasslands and the dry grasslands were better
represented. They were also recorded as grasslands with high diversity and nature conservation
value. From the distribution point of view, the dry grasslands are mostly located in the Dobrogea
region of Romania and the mesophilous grasslands on the Carpathian mountains.
According to the existing data and to the study areas, which were considered in the frame of this
project, only 8% of the mapped grasslands are not managed and there is no data about the
management of another 15% of them.
The dry grasslands are less managed as the mesophilous, high-mountain and wet grasslands. In
general, the grasslands are managed by alternation (in different proportion) of mowing and grazing
or only by grazing.
Grazing is more frequent for dry, high-mountain and wet grasslands and mowing for mesophilous
grasslands. Dry grasslands are low productive and there is no economic reason to mow them
comparing with the mesophilous ones where the mow is required to be done two or three times a
years.
To conserve the grasslands as important biodiversity reservoirs and to use them in a sustainable way
it is necessary to develop special management plans, in order to meet the desiderate of the
sustainable socio-economic development.
The grassland ecosystems offer goods and services, which represent their economical value.
Many of the Romanian grassland areas, richest in biodiversity have declined and they require
special management measures for rehabilitation and restoration. Some of them are still in good
conditions and they need to be maintained.
The research and monitoring activities are the background for the development of scientific data
base which is necessary to predict (modeling) the relationships between drive variables and
grassland ecosystem organization.
Solid scientific information and justification for the conservation and sustainable management of
our grasslands as very valuable ecological, environmental and economic resources are needed. By
analyzing the different models of ecosystem organization according to the purpose, the adequate
management practices can be selected.
In this general frame, the present project, NATIONAL GRASSLANDS INVENTORY, which
provides information about the semi-natural grasslands from Romania offers the scientific support
for the implementation of international conventions (focused on biodiversity conservation) signed
by our country and especially for agro-environment strategy applied in high nature value areas as
the grasslands are.
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the following mappers, for their significant scientific and technical
contribution to the Grassland data base and GIS approach development.
Eight working team, distributed allover the country and belonging to representative universities and
research institutes from Romania were involved in this project.
University “Al. I. Cuza”, Ia i University “Vasile Goldi ” Arad

Members of the working team Members of the working team
Prof. dr. tefan Nicolae Prof. dr. Ardelean Aurel (local leader)
Prof. dr. Chifu Toader
CP I dr. Sârbu Ion (team leader) Institute of Biological Research, Cluj-
Dr. Oprea Adrian Napoca
Dr. Zamfirescu Oana Members of the working team
Dr. Mânzu Ciprian CP I dr. Coldea Gheorghe (team leader)
CP II dr. Pop Adriana
University “Babe -Bolyai”, Cluj-Napoca
Members of the working team Danube Delta and Design Institute, Tulcea
Prof. dr. Cristea Vasile (team leader) Members of the working team
Biologist dr. Pu ca Mihai Dr. Hanganu Jenic (team leader)
Drd. Ba nou Corina Dr. Grigora Ion
Drd. Pal Frink Jozsef Dr. Constantinescu Adrian
Drd. B rbos Marius Ioan
Institute of Grassland Cultivation and
University of Bucharest Production, Bra ov
Members of the working team Members of the working team
Conf. dr. Sârbu Anca (team leader) Prof. dr. Maru ca Teodor (team leader)
Prof. dr. Cristurean Ioan Prof. dr. Danciu Marius
CP I dr. Negrean Gavril Prof. dr. Ularu Pantelimon
Asist. dr. Anastasiu Paulina Biolog dr. Pop Oliviu Grigore
Asist. drd. Pascale Gabriela Lector univ. dr. Gurean Dan Marian
Tehnician Mihai Daniela Clara
University of Craiova
Members of the working team
Prof. dr. Popescu Gheorghe (team leader)
Dr. Boruz Violeta Ia i
Dr. R du oiu Daniel

Cluj-
Dr. Costache Iulian Napoca
Arad
Bra ov
Tulcea
Bucure ti
Craiova
Distribution of the working teams

8. REFERENCES
1. ANONYM. 1994. World Reference Base for Soil Resource. Draft, ISSS-ISRIC-FAO,
Wageningen/Rome.
2. ter BRAAK C.J.F. & ŠMILAUER P. 2002. CANOCO Reference Manual and CanoDraw for
Windows, User’s Guide, Biometris, Wageningen & eské Bud jovice.
3. COLDEA Gheorghe (éditeur), SANDA Vasile, POPESCU Aurel & TEFAN Nicolae. 1997.
Les associations végétales de Roumanie. Tome 1. Les associations herbacées naturelles. Cluj-
Napoca: Presses Universitaires de Cluj, 261 pp.
4. DŽATKO M. & al. 1989. Agroklimatické regióny SR. Závere ná správa, VCPÚ-ÚPVR,
Bratislava.
5. GHI A E. 1941. Cercet ri asupra As. Stipetum stenophyllae cu Danthonia calycina în
Transilvania central . Bul. Gr d. Bot. Cluj, 1941, 21(1-2): 56-67.
6. HILL M. O. 1979. DECORANA, A FORTRAN program for detrended correspondence analysis
and reciprocal averaging. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
7. KARÁCSONYI C. 1979. Asocia ia Festuco vaginatae-Corynephoretum în România. Stud.
Cercet. Biol., Ser. Bot. 31(1): 3-12.
8. MARHOLD Karol & HINDÁK František. (eds). Zoznam nižších a vyšších rastlin Slovenska •
Checklist of of Non-Vascular and Vascular Plants of Slovakia. Bratislava: VEDA,
vydavate stvo Slovenskej akadémie vied, 687 pp. ISBN 80-224-0526-4.
9. MITITELU D., MO IU Tamara & BARABA N. 1973. Vegeta ia Rezerva iei de nisipuri de la
Hanul-Conachi (jud. Gala i). • Végetation de la Réserve Botanique de Hanul-Conachi. Stud.
Comun., Muz. ti. Nat. Bac u, 6: 395-375.
10. MORARIU I. 1957. Contribu ii la cunoa terea vegeta iei litoralului M rii Negre. Bul. ti., Biol.
ti. Agric. (Bot.), Acad. Român 9(4): 361-390.
11. MORARIU I. 1959. Contribu ii la studiul vegeta iei litoralului M rii Negre. Stud. Cercet. Biol.,
Ser. Biol. Veg. 11(4): 355-378.
12. NEGREAN G. 2001. Lista ro ie a plantelor din România existente în paji ti (inclusiv endemite
i subendemite). Pp. 30-58. In: Gheorghe COLDEA, Gavril NEGREAN, Ion SÂRBU & Anca
SÂRBU. 2001. Ghid pentru identificarea i inventarierea paji tilor seminaturale din România.
Bucure ti Edit. alo. 58 pp.
13. OLTEAN M., NEGREAN G., POPESCU A., ROMAN N., DIHORU G., SANDA V. &
MIH ILESCU S. 1994. Lista ro ie a plantelor superioare din România. In: M. OLTEAN
(coord.), Studii, sinteze, documenta ii de ecologie, Acad. Român , Institutul de Biologie, Nr. 1:
1-52.
14. POP I. 1969. Contribu ii la cunoa terea vegeta iei litoralului M rii Negre din împrejurimile
localit ii Vama Veche (Dobrogea). Studia Univ. Babe -Bolyai, Ser. Biol. /1969/(1): 9-19.
15. POP I. 1968. Flora i vegeta ia Cîmpiei Cri urilor - Interfluviul Cri ul Negru-Cri ul Repede .
Bucure ti: Edit. Academiei Române, 280 pp. + /8/ tab. & h r i + /1/ erata.
16. POP I. 1969. Contribu ii la cunoa terea vegeta iei litoralului M rii Negre din împrejurimile
localit ii Vama Veche (Dobrogea) • Contribution à la connaissance de la végétation du littoral
de la Mer Noire aux environs de la localité de Vama Veche (Dobroudja). Studia Univ. Babe -
Bolyai, Ser. Biol. /1969/(1): 9-19.
17. POP I. 1991. Considera ii generale asupra ordinului Stipo eriocaulis-Festucetalia pallentis Pop
1968 emend. 1989. Studia Univ. Babe -Bolyai, Ser. Biol. 36(2): 3-33.
18. SANDA V., POPESCU A. & NEDELCU G. A. 1997. Structura fitocenozelor halofile ale clasei
Puccinellio-Salicornietea opa 1939 din România. Acta Bot. Horti bucurest. /1995-1996/: 153-
204.
19. SÂRBU Anca. 1999. Survey of Romanian grasslands. Pp. 60-61. In: ANONYM, Proceedings of
the technical workshop on National Grassland Inventory, Bratislava, 31 January - 2 February
1999. Slovacia.
20. SÂRBU Anca. (coord.) 2001. Ghid pentru identificarea i inventarierea paji tilor seminaturale
din România. Bucure ti Edit. alo. 58 pp. ISBN 973 - 99666 - 8 - 3.
21. SÂRBU Anca. (coord.) 2003. Ghid pentru identificarea importantelor arii de protec ie i
conservare a plantelor din România. Bucure ti: Edit. Alo, 113 pp. ISBN 973-86.364-0-x.
22. S VULESCU T. (ed.). 1952-1976. Flora României. Bucure ti: Edit. Academiei Române. Vol.
1-13.
23. SCHNEIDER-BINDER Erika. 1977. Considerra ii asupra asocia iilor din alian a Stipion
lessingianae Soó 1947 în România • Über die Pflanzengesellschaften des Stipion lessingianae
Soó 1947 in Rumänien. Stud. Comun., ti. Nat., Muz. Brukenthal 20: 91-113.
24. Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute. 2000. Soil Classification system of Slovakia.
Bretislava: VEDA.
25. SOÓ R. 1947. Revue systematique des associations végétales des environs de Kolozsvár. Acta
Geobot. Hung., Ser. Nov. I, 6(1): 3-50.
26. TUCKER G. M. & EVANS M. I. 1997. Habitats for Birds in Europe. A conservation Strategy
for wider Environment. Birdlife, UK. Birdlife Conservation Series No. 6.
27. UCRA I. 1963. Îmbun t irea paji tilor naturale din Dobrogea. Pp. 447-450. In: P.
TOMOROGA, M. O LOBEANU, S. TIMARIU & Alice S VULESCU (red. princip.), Metode
agrozootehnice pentru sporirea produc iei vegetale i animale în Dobrogea. Bucure ti: Edit.
Academiei Române.
28. UCRA I. & CHIFU T. 1989. Forma ia i seria de vegeta ie folosite în clasificarea tipologic a
paji tilor permanente. Mem. Sec . ti., Acad. Român , Ser. IV, 1987, 10(1) : 273-279.
29. UCRA I., KOVÁCS A.J., RO U C., CIUBOTARU C., CHIFU T., NEAC U Marcela,
B RBULESCU C., CARDA OL V., POPOVICI D., SIMTEA D., MOTC N., DRAGU I. &
SPIRESCU M. 1987. Principalele tipuri de paji ti din R. S. România. CMDPA Bucure ti, 115
PP. + 1 hart .
30. UCRA I. & NEAC U Marcela. 1983. Criteria of elaborating permanent meadow types in
Romania. Rev. Roumaine Biol., Biol. Végét.29(1): 13-16.
31. UCRA I. & NEAC U Marcela. 1984. Conspectul tipurilor de paji ti din Dobrogea. Lucr. ti.,
Inst. Cercet. Cult. Paji tilor M gurele-Bra ov 9: 45-51.
32. UCRA I. & NEAC U Marcela. 1986. Aspecte privind caracterizarea, cartarea i bonitarea
paji tilor permanente (naturale). Lucr. ti., Inst. Cercet. Cult. Paji tilor M gurele-Bra ov, 1985,
10: 483-491.
33. UCRA I., NEAC U Marcela & TUDOR Ana. 1984. Aspecte ale tipiz rii paji tilor din R. S.
România. Lucr. ti., Inst. Cercet. Cult. Paji tilor M gurele-Bra ov 9: 31-43.
34. UCRA I. & PU CARU-SOROCEANU Evdochia. 1963. A. Baza furajer . Cap. I. P unile
naturale din Dobrogea. Pp. 441-447. In: P. TOMOROGA, M. O LOBEANU, S. TIMARIU &
Alice S VULESCU (red. princip.), Metode agrozootehnice pentru sporirea produc iei vegetale
i animale în Dobrogea. Bucure ti: Edit. Academiei Române.
35. UCRA I., T R U Viorica, Erdélyi t., SAVATTI M. & ILIE Gh. 1971. Refacerea paji tilor
de Nardus stricta prin metoda radical . Pp. 111-127. In: ANONIM, Cercet ri experimentale pe
nardete de joas altitudine ( esul M gurii-Budac-Bistri a). Bucure ti.
36. TUTIN T. G., BURGES N. A., CHATER A. O., EDMONSON J. R., HEYWOOD V. H.,
MOORE D. M., VALENTINE D. H., WALTERS S. M. & WEBB D. A. (eds, assist. by J. R.
AKEROYD & M.E. NEWTON; appendices ed. by R.R. MILL). 1993. Flora Europaea. 2nd ed.
Vol. 1. Psilotaceae to Platanaceae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press xlvi, 581 pp., illus.
ISBN 0-521-41007-X (HB).
37. TUTIN T.G., HEYWOOD V.H., BURGES N.A., MOORE D.M., VALENTINE D.H.,
WALTERS S.M. & WEBB D.A. (eds). 1964-1980. Flora Europaea. Vols. 1-5. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
38. TUTIN T. G., HEYWOOD V.H., BURGES N.A., VALENTINE D.H., WALTERS S.M. &
WEBB D.A. (eds, assist. by P.W. BALL & A.O. CHATER). 1964. Flora Europaea. Vol. 1,
Lycopodiaceae to Platanaceae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, i-xxxiv, 1-464 pp. + 5
maps.
39. TUTIN T. G., HEYWOOD V. H., BURGES N. A., MOORE D. M., VALENTINE D. H.,
WALTERS S. M. & WEBB D. A. (eds, assist. by P.W. BALL, A.O. CHATER & I.K.
FERGUSSON). 1968. Flora Europaea. Vol. 2, Rosaceae to Umbelliferae. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, i-xxx, 1-455 pp. + 5 maps.
40. TUTIN T. G., HEYWOOD V.H., BURGES N.A., MOORE D.M., VALENTINE D.H.,
WALTERS S.M. & WEBB D.A. (eds, assist. by P.W. BALL, A.O. CHATER & I.K.
FERGUSSON). 1972. Flora Europaea. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, i-
xxxvi, 1-439 pp. + 5 maps.
FERGUSSON). 1976. Flora Europaea. Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, i-xxx,
1-455 pp. + 5 maps.
FERGUSSON). 1980. Flora Europaea. Vol. 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, i-xxx,
1-439 pp. + 5 maps.
43. Van SWAAY C. & WARREN M. 1999. Red Data Book of European Butterflies (Rhopalocera),
Strasbourg, Council of Europe, Nature and Environment, vol. 99.
44. VEEN P. H. & SEFFER J. 1999. Proceedings of the Workshop National Grassland Inventory.
Bratislava: KNNV/Daphne.
45. VEEN P. H. & al. 2002. In: BROUWER F., BALDOCK D. & la CHAPELLE C. 2001. The
Relation between Agriculture and Nature Management, Conference, Wassenaar (NL), 22/24
January 2001.

Grasslands of Romania: Final Report On National Grassland Inventory 2000-2003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grasslands of Romania: Final Report On National Grassland Inventory 2000-2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Bucharest Royal Dutch Society

for Nature Conservation

Final report on National Grassland

This project was funded by the

Project partners in the Netherlands Royal Dutch Society for Nature

Final report on National Grasslands Inventory 2000-2003

Sarbu Anca, Coldea Gheorghe, Negrean Gavril, Cristea

This project was funded by the Programme International Nature Management/MATRA

National publication to support the project implementation in Romania:

Issued: 100 copies

GENERAL INTRODUCTION IN SEMI-NATURAL

1.1. CURRENT SITUATION ........................................................................................................................

1.3. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR BIODIVERSITY

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT ..............................................................................

3. WORKING METHODS IN THE PROJECT...............................................................

3.1. LOGISTIC OF THE PROJECT ...............................................................................................................

4.1. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTORY ......................................................................................................

4.3. EVALUATION OF SPECIES DIVERSITY AND NATURE

5. GRASSLAND CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ........................................

5.1. THE EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK...............................................................

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................

ANNEX 1: METHODOLOGY OF MAPPING

The steppe landscape is dominated by xerothermic grasslands with graminaceous species of

1.1. CURENT SITUATION

1.2. CONSEQUENCES OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

The Ramsar Convention (1971)

Washington Convention (1973)

The Bern Convention (1979)

The Emerald Network

The European Union’s Habitats Directive (1992)

The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (2002)

International and national Agreements

There is a lack of a comprehensive conservation management strategy as well as appropriate

Conservation, Administration and Policy

National Legislation - selection

• Law no. 137/1995 - Environmental Protection Law.

Six outputs were identified for this project:

3.1. LOGISTIC OF THE PROJECT

3.2. REMOTE SENSING ANALYSIS

3.3. GIS DATA BASE DEVELOPMENT

GIS processing scheme

Scanning the map sheet and

Digitizing the polygons

Assign spatial attribute for

Area of the polygon (m2)

3.4. METHODOLOGY OF MAPPING

3.5. DATA EVALUATION

Grassland habitat types description

Evaluation of species diversity and nature conservation value

Methodology for creating the regional maps

Two types of maps of distribution were realized:

4.1. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTORY

GRASSLAND HABITAT TYPES

DRY GRASSLAND Cod

dry grasslands mesophilous grasslands

high-mountain grasslands wet grasslands

degradated grasslands non-representative

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000

Distribution of grasslands (28 types)

CYN FDS SCE

AAP PBJ PON

FBC MAC PIT