Project Report

Transportable Biodiversity Centers Creation in Zheltokamenka Quarry

Smetana S.M., Smetana O.M., Jaroshuk J.V., Mikhailenko I.L., Dolina A.A.

Abstract. The problem of biodiversity development in the quarry is connected

with permanent transition of mining front from one side to another in a curved shape.

Backfilling and agricultural rehabilitation go alongside in some distance. There are not

many places for biodiversity to exist. Therefore the main idea of our project is to create

biodiversity distribution centers, which could be transported to another place in case of

mining processes activation at current position.

The main focus of the project is the biodiversity development promotion through

transportable biodiversity centers creation, which could moved together with mining

front. Unlike other possibilities to plant steppe vegetation, we proposed to create single

communities as a variety of rare and endangered steppe plants in artificial sockets and

boxes with good permeability. Using the containers installed in the ground we created a

rare plant community within the territory of quarry, which in 2-3 years could be moved to

another location to start a new revival process of a biodiversity center. Installation of the

centers in the 'right' places promotes biodiversity development on the areas, which

would follow the mining front to its final position.

It is important that we created a community of strong steppe formation, which

could exist on the limestone and clay soils. It is planned not like a planting, but rather

like a creation of ecosystem (plants, supporting mezofauna and micro biota). This way

we organized specific cenosis environment, which supports the growth and distribution

of the plants to mined areas.

Introduction. It has already been proven in researches and revealed in literature

that “unfriendly”, dry, rugged mining environments often host endangered species and

could become refugees for species from other destructing modern landscapes

(Bradshaw, 1997; Schulz and Wiegleb, 2000; Benes et al., 2003; Krauss et al., 2009;

Lundholm and Richardson, 2010). There are two main opposite approaches used for

mining sites restoration: technical reclamation (surface flattering, topsoil creation and

vegetation planting) and spontaneous succession without any human intervention

(Tropek et al., 2012). First one is good for creation of productive agricultural areas,

second is very cheap at implementation. Neither of them oriented to create high

biodiversity ecosystems. We proposed and tested a technology, which uses and

imitates natural processes of species interactions and distribution with minimal influence

from human.

A lot of unsuccessful mining reclamation cases, when people try to increase

biodiversity through planting trees and herbs within restoration areas, show that it is

very hard to make such systems work. There should be ecosystem created with all the

adjusted connections between the components. But how can we possibly transfer

natural ecosystem enriched with endangered species to the quarry? More than that

there aren‟t many spare places in the quarry to create such communities because

mining front is followed by agriculture restoration lands. Therefore we need to create an

ecosystem with established connections, which we can transfer to another location

along with mining front. In this report we present innovative technology of transportable

biodiversity centers creation, which is suitable for basically any mining areas due to the

mobility, possible rearrangements and ecosystem connections in the center.

Objectives. The main objective of the proposed project is to test a new

technology of mobile biodiversity centers, which could be used at mining areas. The

technology consists of main elements: endangered plants collection on the human

destructed areas of a region, rare community compilation in the permeable containers

united in specific shape, containers installation in the selected quarry areas, plants

supporting actions (watering, containers changing), containers transfer to another place.

The proposed technology has never been used before, it is innovating and that‟s why

needs testing before using at a bigger industrial scale.

Secondary objective specific to the project connected with variations of

technology elements for different needs. The selections of plants should be determined

by their ecological and biological properties, abilities to coexist together (in the best way

to support each other), and abilities to spread to surrounding areas. The shape of the

created biodiversity center is determined by its initial position, water, particles and

chemical elements flows and desired distribution pattern. Species survival could be

affected by the number of causes and therefore should be identified accordingly to the

abilities to survive in harsh environment of the quarry.

Background information. The Zheltokamenka Quarry is located in Apostolovo

District in central part of Dnepropetrovsk Region (Ukraine). Its area is 417.8 ha, which is

surrounded by the farmlands. Part of the territory has been restored for agricultural use

(approx. 40 %), another part is being mined – 82 ha (approx. 40 %) and the third part is

to be opened for mining in the future. The new official restoration concept for the area is

based on a lower backfill level and combines agricultural use and biodiversity

promotion.

The selected site for the technology testing is situated in the south-west part of

the quarry on the border between unexcavated limestone rock layers and dumped clays

in the former quarry area. This way all the water and particle flows would cause

distribution of the seeds and plant material in the quarry and temporary areas. Ecotope

(habitat) characteristic of the quarry is performed according to the European

classification EUNIS (Habitat …, 2012), (Annexes: Table I).

Before March 2012 we completed the preparatory stage of the technology –

collected endangered plants on the human destructed areas of a region and stored in

proper for winter time conditions. For these purposes out team visited destructed by

human activities lands (mining as well) and collected 11 endangered plant species

together with soil monoliths.

Methods. Were investigated and mapped possible sites for the project at the first

visit. We performed the choice of sites at the stage of reconnaissance and territory

mapping according to the well-known guidelines (Vasilevich, 1969; Unnatov, 1964). We

studied the species composition of vegetation, fauna, soil sampled at the sites after the

previous selection.

We used semi-permanent methods to perform field studies of vegetation in the

quarry – description of plant communities within the proposed sites via conventional

methods (Unnatov, 1964) with the following parameters: the serial number, the date,

location, topography, exposure, economic use, vitality, full floristic list, common and

individual density of coverage.

We also determined mezofauna species composition with route observations via

common methods (Bey Bienko, 1965; Mamayev, 1972).

At the first stages of the project implementation we determined the most stressful

conditions for vegetation with the help of laboratory analysis of samples taken in the

quarry:

Identification plant species according to the "Key to the Higher Plants of

Ukraine" (Key…, 1987);

Determination of humus fractions in soils and rocks after I.V. Tyurin modified

by D.S. Orlov with spectrometric final stage (Tyurin, 1937; Orlov et al., 2004);

Determination of organic matter stocks according to the humus content in the

soil and soil bulk density;

Determination of soils aqueous extracts pH and salt ions content with

accordance to the chemical analysis manual instructions (Arinushkina, 1970).

According to the achieved data we selected the "donor" ecosystems with similar

environmental parameters on the territories destructed by mining activities, industrial

development, fertile soil temporary storages, landfills etc. Microecosystems (areas of

“donor” ecosystems with steppe vegetation resistant to the harsh regional climate and

specific soil conditions, soil, ground fauna and microbiota) were taken with equal

lithogeochemical and ecobiomorphic characteristics. Their abilities for their future

existence in extreme quarry conditions were also considered.

Selected microecosystems were put into containers (plastic boxes with holes for

better interaction with soil environment) for future transportation and onsite installation.

The overall more than 100 containers were installed at selected and prepared sites at

the quarry. They all contained microecosystems with steppe determination species in

various combinations. 11 of 17 plants species are endangered (Table 1; Annexes: Table

II).

Thus we created 4 biodiversity centers with total area of 60 m2, at

Zheltokamenka Quarry, Ukraine (GPS coordinates N47°47‟19,7” E33°49‟48,4”) which

are different due to planting technology, microecosystem composition, shapes and

substrate composition. In order to determine the development and distribution of the

plants we performed 3 observations during the spring-summer period. At the first

observation we determined the initial survival rate and marked species with colored

flags (white flag for survived plant, yellow for dead, blue for additional distribution on

surrounding areas). This way at second and third observations we were able to

determine which plants and species were able to survive in the quarry environment.

Table 1. List of species selected for the project and their endangered status

# Species Protection Status

1 2 3 4

1 Achillea submillefolium L. – – – –

2 Adonis vernallis L. vulnerable – – –

3 Allium paczoskianum Tuzs. – – – –

4 Amygdalus nana L. rare – – –

5 Astragalus ponticus Pall. rare vulnerable – –

6 Caragana scyhtica (Kom.) Pojark vulnerable vulnerable R –

7 Chamaecytisus graniticus (Rehman) Rothm. endangered vulnerable R R

8 Crocus reticulates Syeven ex Adams. rare not estimated

– –

9 Galatella vilosa (L.) Rchb. f. – – – –

10 Festuca valesiaca Schleich. ex Gaudin. – – – –

11 Genista scythica Pacz. vulnerable not estimated

12 Koeleria cristata (L.) Pers. – – – –

13 Stipa capillata L. rare not estimated

– –

14 Stipa lessingiana Trin. Et Rupr. rare not estimated

– –

15 Thymus dimorphus Klokov et Des-Schost. rare – – –

16 Tulipa quercetorum Klokov et Zoz. – – – –

17 Vinca herbacea Waldst. ex Kit. rare vulnerable – –

Legend: 1 – Red Book of Dnipropetrovsk Region, 2010; 2 – Red Book of Ukraine, 2009; 3 – European Red List; 4 – World Red List; R – rare – species with small world populations, which are no considered to be endangered or vulnerable but are threatened due to fast population decrease.

First biodiversity center consists of Tulipa plants only (Tulipa quercetorum Klokov

et Zoz.) in plastic permeable boxes created in the shape of triangles pointed with one

corner up the hill. It was predicted that this way water flow and gravitational forces

would cause tulips distribution along the slope and away from it (Fig. 1; Annexes: Fig.

3).

Fig. 1. Scheme of installed biodiversity centers location and containers used

Second BC is composed with steppe herbs and bushes in permeable sockets

installed in diffuse shape situated by the slope of the second quarry berm. The position

of this BC is aimed to provide distribution of steppe plants along the slope mainly (Fig.

1; Annexes: Fig. 4). Third BC is separated from second with small (20 cm height) ridge.

We constructed it mainly with steppe cereal and herbal plants in plastic permeable

boxes in a linear-diffuse shape. It is installed at the border between limestone berm and

old quarry basin filled with clay material. It is aimed to distribute xerophytic plants along

the border into the main part of the quarry and apart from the boarder to the clay filled

area (Fig.1; Annexes: Fig. 4). We set the forth center in 25 m east from the second and

third centers. It is installed in the mixture of clays and limestones in the shape of stars.

We used permeable plastic boxes composed of steppe cereal and herbal plants for this

center as well. It is situated on the hills, which should increase the speed of the plants

distribution around the center (Fig. 1; Annexes: Fig. 4). The process of project

implementation is presented on the photographs (Annexes: Fig. 9-18)

Results. In April 9-12, 2012 we created 4 biodiversity centers (BC), which were

different due to conditions they were installed in, their shapes, container types and

species composition. After the installation all the plants were described as in a good

condition, ready to vegetate or blooming. Further observations shown that spring flower

species (Crocus reticulates Syeven ex Adams., Adonis vernallis L., Tulipa quercetorum

Klokov et Zoz.) vegetate and bloom mostly in April-May. After that term such plants

transfer to rest period, when no or fair evidence of their existence is observed.

Therefore BC #1 was installed and tulips were blooming by the end of May. After that

time observation didn‟t indicate any evidence of their life or distribution.

Plants survival or death in other centers was more evident to describe. Most of

the plants (survival rate by the beginning of the summer is 96 %) at BC#2 survived,

vegetated, bloomed and produced seeds. However bushes and bush-like plants with

long roots died almost totally (survival the rate 5 %), which dropped overall survival rate

to 75 % (Fig. 1). Plants at BC#3 and in BC#4 acted identically. Their survival rate by the

end of spring was 100%, by the end of summer 100 % for the BC#3 and 91 % for BC#4

(It is observed that one of the containers was used by the field mouse, which caused

the death of 1 microecosystem). The overall survival rate of all the BCs by the end of

the summer is 92 % (taking into account that all the containers of BC#1 contain alive

tulips).

Except for survival of the species we observed that some species acted

aggressively in terms of distribution to surrounding areas. There is Vinca (Vinca

herbacea Waldst. ex Kit.), which used its barbs to root outside the container. There

were 3 containers with Vinca and they all started distribution to the areas outside the

containers. Another type of distributer is Stipa (Stipa capillata L.), which grew seeds and

spread them around the area. There were 9 spots of Stipa distribution observed around

the BC with Stipa plants, however we understand that they might not the sights of our

direct influence. Other survived species (Amygdalus nana L., Astragalus ponticus Pall.,

Festuca valesiaca Schleich. ex Gaudin., Stipa capillata L., Stipa lessingiana Trin. Et

Rupr., Vinca herbacea Waldst. ex Kit., Allium paczoskianum Tuzs., Galatella vilosa (L.)

Rchb. f.) were observed to bloom and produce seeds within usual for these species

terms (Annexes: Fig. 5-8).

As it has previously been stated we placed centers in the suitable for the plants

living conditions, which were as close as possible to the natural. First center assembled

of Tulips (Tulipa quercetorum Klokov et Zoz.) was placed in accumulative places on the

salt neutral loess substrates. The place is covered with limestone gravel and rock

pieces. It was determined that this position accumulates organic particles, moisture,

clay particles, which form specific soil absorption complex appropriate for the needs of

the species. Besides tree crowns up the hill do not prevent the sunlight penetration to

the ground early spring and create shadows in summer. It creates all the necessary

conditions for ephemeroids (spring flowers) blooming in spring and biodiversity center

protection in dry summer time.

In order to promote biodiversity in dry quarry areas we placed centers with

steppe microecosystems in arid environment with maximum sunlight intensity. They

were berm ecotopes composed of saline and non-saline loess and limestone chips

soils. We also selected non-saline and saline substrates to locate biodiversity centers

with steppe herbs. Precipitation causes gradual saline substrates washing and salt

particles distribution to surrounding areas. It is followed with plants distribution as well.

Non-saline loess and limestone chips substrates are identical to the original areas soils,

where steppe bushes were withdrawn. That‟s why we used such areas for

microecosystems with relevant steppe dominant bushes.

Discussion. Taking into account that the project had to be completed in a few

months of one year only we had to estimate certain criteria of it successful or

unsuccessful implementation. For this stage of the project we consider species survival

rate, seeds production and vegetation distribution as the main criteria of our project

success. Of course the long lasting results for BC creation should be counted in 2-3

years, but previous results are well observed now.

First of all spring plants might be one the best decisions to plant in the quarry.

They vegetate and bloom in spring, when there is enough moisture in the ground and

they transfer to the rest period by the most severe period. More than that they are

beautiful, attract insects and animals, which also speeds up the development of

biodiversity and ecosystems in the quarry.

We should mention that bushes and bush-like species (Caragana scyhtica

(Kom.) Pojark, Chamaecytisus graniticus (Rehman) Rothm., Genista scythica Pacz.)

haven‟t survived and obviously were not the best choice for our purposes. There could

be a few reasons for that. They were all planted in permeable sockets, which might

have negatively affected plants needs to grow deep. They were mature plants with up to

3 m long roots and required a lot of space. Their placement in the socket in a spinning

position might decrease their survival rate. With any stated statement true we wouldn‟t

recommend using such plants for biodiversity centers creation.

Other BC were installed in a shape of diffusion and stars and proved to be the

most effective for plants survival. They all have survival rate more than 90%, which is

difficult to achieve on mining areas (Smetana et al. 2011; Smetana, Smetana 2012). BC

within a year create specific conditions which promote steppe plants distribution within a

quarry. The survival rate and species distribution prove it. It is necessary to mention that

Stipa plants distribution has been affected by the specific environmental conditions

created via BC. The further we examined the areas from the BC, the fewer Stipa plants

we met up to their total disappearance. We believe it was caused by our BC influence

on environment.

Despite successful results achieved during project completion there were certain

aspects we didn‟t consider prior project completion. Important aspects are the species

reproductive potential and vegetation expansion ability. They are the main forces of

biodiversity distribution to surrounding areas. It is necessary to pay special attention to

anemochorous (Galatella vilosa, Stipa capillata, Stipa lessingiana, Vinca herbacea) and

hydrochorous dominant plants, which are distributed via wind of water accordingly.

Zoochorous and ballistic plants are usually less „aggressive‟ in area expansion.

Therefore, the place selection for mobile biodiversity centers should encounter plants

expansion ability and the means of its realization (water, wind, gravitation).

We created centers of biodiversity distribution and received some results of

plants distribution to the quarry areas; however the rate of plants expansion could be

increased with additional actions. Analyzed results showed that the speed of the plants

distribution could be increased with planting small containers filled with soil-seeds

mixture to surrounding areas of the center. We propose to use the action for

endangered bushes and long-root plants, which is hard to plant (e.g. Caragana

scyhtica). Annual plants could be planted directly in the substrate during the process of

biodiversity center containers installation. This way we create additional conditions for

faster plants grow, because it takes 2-3 years for the seeds distribution to the

surrounding areas. We try to overcome this stage.

The composition and the shape of the biodiversity center are also of a great

importance. It was pointed out during the observations that solid missives and tight

compositions of containers create a biodiversity center with minimal contact line with

surrounding areas. Such shape makes the center stable and resistant to influences, but

at the same time its biodiversity distribution is moderate. Diffuse containers composition

in the centers favors a uniform dispersal of species in the center. Star-like composition

causes active expansion with somewhat low resilience of the center to unfavorable

environmental conditions. Linear composition is not suitable for specific ecotope

formation and could be used only in favorable soil and climate conditions for fast plants

distribution.

There were concrete positive results achieved for biodiversity and environment of

local communities in accordance with the priorities of HeidelbergCement Company. The

preference in plant species and communities selection was given to natural and typical

types for the area. The project proposed methods for biodiversity increasing which can

be integrated into the existing systems of minerals exploration at all the operation

stages – from planning, exploration of quarry to the mining restoration. Project

implementation allowed environment optimization for rare and endangered species in

the active and mined quarries. The main result of our project implementation we

consider the development of technology aimed to integrate biodiversity aspects in the

daily management of mining operations (Fig. 2).

I II III

IV V VI

Fig. 2. Stages of proposed biodiversity development technology: I – installation place

preparation; II – transportation of biodiversity container; III – plants distribution (2-3

years); IV – biodiversity container excavation and transportation to another location;

V – refilling the installation place with fertile soil; VI – continuous biodiversity center

development.

The completion of the project increased the amount of biodiversity with 17 steppe

species, 11 of which are endangered and protected by the law in Dnepropetrovsk

region, Ukraine and Europe. Our successful project realization gives us and the

company first feedback on the potential of the used methods for their future use as a

new biodiversity rehabilitation technology via mobile biodiversity centers creation. We

now can assure the possibility of the technology usage on mining areas. It definitely

requires adaptation to other substrate and climate conditions, but core elements and

process remains the same.

Our successful creation of biodiversity development centers in the quarry lies a

good foundation for future final quarry location proclamation as a steppe biodiversity

preservation area. More than that, it could be united via close by river with remains of

old quarries situated south-east from the Zheltokamenka Quarry and other nature

preserving sites. It is important, because there is a severe lack of nature preservation

areas in the region. It could be easily united with other nature preservation areas into

the regional econetwork, which also increase the flow of biota through the quarry. The

amount of natural areas increase due to company efforts and its image as a community

and nature friendly company will improve.

Final quarry leftovers (huge hole in the ground) will gradually be filled with water

due to the natural processes, attracting even more organisms and people from local

communities seeking for recreational advantages. No secret there are no recreational

sites in the villages situated within 2 km from the quarry. Postmining territories could

become a unique place for tourist activities and biodiversity promotion with minor efforts

from the mining company.

Conclusions: Innovation technology, presented in the project, allows stepping

aside from standard for Ukraine system of mining lands rehabilitation. It is important

because standard system couldn‟t always be used at postmining areas and on non-

active slopes of the quarries. The technology is perspective because it allows speeding

up vegetation cover redevelopment on any mining destructed lands via plant

communities‟ succession stages reduction.

The mobility of created biodiversity development centers allows community

transportation to any part of the industrial area. This way we are able to manage the

process of the species distribution around mining area. The basis of the biodiversity

centers creation is not just species re-plantation, but more a microecosystem creation. It

includes the transfer of associated fauna and microorganisms and increases the

likelihood of a positive outcome. The realization of the project on mining destructed

lands of the quarry resulted into the creation of new habitats for animals and insects,

which would increase the biodiversity and conservation potential of flora and fauna

alongside the production of raw materials.

Implementation of the project on the active quarry of HeidelbergCement

Company involves dissemination of the results in a modern and accessible way to a

wide range of people, increasing their environmental awareness and knowledge on the

sustainable functioning of industrial enterprise and environmental protection. The future

implementation of the project results is foreseen in the creation of environmental and

recreational area at the final quarry location. Our project has laid some successful

foundation for such future of the quarry.

Literature Cited

Arinushkina A., 1970. Chemical analysis of soils (in Russian. Руководство по

химическому анализу почв). Moscow, MSU.

Benes, J., Kepka, P., Konvicka, M., 2003. Limestone quarries as refuges for European

xerophilous butterflies. Conserv. Biol. 17, 1058–1069.

Bey Bienko G.J. (editor) 1956. Key to the insects of European part of USSR in 5

volumes (In Russian. Определитель насекомых Европейской части СССР: в 5 т.) –

Vol. 2, 3, 4.

Bradshaw, A., 1997. Restoration of mined lands – using natural processes. Ecol. Eng.

8, 255–269.

Habitat types search – European Environment Agency. – At 23.08.2012. -

http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats.jsp

Key to the Higher Plants of Ukraine, 1987. (In Russian. Определитель высших

растений Украины) Dobrochaeva D.N., Kotov. M.I., Prokudin J.N.et al. Kiev, Naukova

Dumka.

Krauss, J., Alfert, T., Steffan-Dewenter, I., 2009. Habitat area but not habitat age

determines wild bee richness in limestone quarries. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 194–202.

Lundholm, J.T., Richardson, P.J., 2010. Habitat analogues for reconciliation ecology in

urban and industrial environments. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 966–975.

Schulz, F., Wiegleb, G., 2000. Development options of natural habitats in a postmining

landscape. Land Degrad. Dev. 11, 99–110.

Mamaev B.M., 1972. Key to the insects and their larvae (In Russian. Определитель

насекомых по личинкам) Moscow.

Orlov D.S., Birukova O.N., Rozanova M.S., 2004. Additional parameters of soil humus

condition (in Russian. Дополниельные показатели гумусного состояния почв). Soil

Science. 8, 921-923.

Smetana S.M., Shapar A.G., Yemets M.A., Skripnik O.O., 2011. Innovative

Technologies of Postoperational Mining Landscapes Management as a Key For

Sustainable Development Achievement. 73 rd EAGE Conference & Exhibition

incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2011 Vienna, Austria, 23-26 May 2011.

Smetana S.M., Smetana О.M., 2012. Environmentally Safe and Economically Friendly

Multidisciplinary Industrial Technologies as Innovative Approach towards Sustainable

Development. Technologies for Sustainable Development: A Way to Reduce Poverty?

Technologies for Development International Conference 29-31 May, 2012 EPFL,

Lausanne, Switzerland.

Tyurin I.V., 1937. Organic substances of soils (In Russian. Органическое вещество

почв). Moscow.

Tropek, R., Kadlec, T., Hejda, M., Kocarek, P., Skuhrovec, J., Malenovsky, I., Vodka,

S., Spitzer, L., Banar, P., Konvicka, M., 2012. Technical reclamations are wasting the

conservation potential of post-mining sites. A case study of black coal spoil dumps.

Ecol. Eng. 43, 13–18.

Vasilevich V.M. 1969. Statistical methods in heobotaby. (In Russian. Статистические

методы в геоботанике). Leningrad. Science.

Unnatov A.A., 1964. Types and contains of heobotanical research. Sample sites

selection and ecological profiles establishment. (In Russian. Типы и содержание

геоботанических исследований. Выбор пробных площадей и заложение

экологических профилей) Field Heobotany. Vol. 3. 9 – 36.

ANNEXES

Table I. – Ecotopes Classification of Zheltokamenka Quarry

Ecosystems of Anthropogenic Origin

Industrial Ecosystems

Technogenic Ecosystems

Strip-mining limestone quarry ecotopes, temporarily non-active

Ecotopes semi-natural alluvial-autonomic positions

Non-saline loess substrates

Turf-steppe soils Steppe vegetation

Ecotopes of eluvia-denudation autonomic-transitive positions

Non-saline loess substrates

Primitive soils Plant communities with domination of: Grindelia squarrosa (Pursh) Dunal, Festuca valesiaca Schleich. ex Gaudin, Melilotus albus Medik., Elytrigia repens (L.) Desv. ex Nevski, Artemisia vulgaris L.; Wooden species diffuse distribution (Elaeagnus angustifolia L., Robinia pseudoacacia L.)

Saline loess substrates (red-brown clays)

Sparse plant communities with Calamagrostis epigeios (L.) Roth, Elytrigia repens (L.) Desv. ex Nevski, Diplotaxis muralis (L.) DС, Convolvulus arvensis L., Festuca valesiaca Schleich. ex Gaudin

Limestone marl Substrates with signs of soil creation, primitive and fragmentary soils

Moss cover. Sparse plant communities with: Grindelia squarrosa (Pursh) Dunal, Festuca valesiaca Schleich.

ex Gaudin, Potentilla obscura Willd

Boulder-plate dense limestones

Substrates without signs of soil creation, fragmentary soils

Moss cover. Sporadic species of Grindelia squarrosa (Pursh) Dunal

Ecotopes of denudation positions

Non-saline loess substrates

Primitive soils Diffuse location of trees (Robinia pseudoacacia L., Elaeagnus angustifolia L., Pyrus domestica Medic., Acer negundo L.) Individual representatives of Melilotus albus Medik., Elytrigia repens (L.) Desv. ex Nevski, Poa angustifolia L., Artemisia vulgaris L.

Limestone marl Substrates with signs of soil creation, primitive and fragmentary soils

Individual representatives of Grindelia squarrosa (Pursh) Dunal

Boulder-plate dense limestones

Substrates without signs of soil creation

Moss-lichen cover

Ecotopes of accumulative positions

Non-saline loess substrates

Primitive accumulative soils Trees communities of Robinia pseudoacacia L., Elaeagnus angustifolia L., Pyrus domestica Medic., Acer negundo L. with Elytrigia repens (L.) Desv. ex Nevski in herbal cover

Limestone marl Substrates with signs of soil creation, primitive and fragmentary soils

Herbal communities with dominance of Elytrigia repens (L.) Desv. ex Nevski,

Grindelia squarrosa (Pursh) Dunal, Potentilla obscura Willd, Artemisia vulgaris L.

Boulder-plate dense limestones

Substrates without signs of soil creation

Moss-lichen cover. Individual representatives of Grindelia squarrosa (Pursh) Dunal, Artemisia vulgaris L.

Ecotopes of accumulative non-drainage positions

Saline and non-saline loess substrates

Primitive accumulative soils Formation Phragmiteta australis Communities with unstable structure Phragmites australis and Elytrigia repens

Limestone weathering products (quartz, calcite)

Table II. – Ecological characteristics of species used in the project

# Species Living form Vegetation activity1 Trophomorphs

2 Hygromorphs

3

Root systems type

4

Vegetation type

1 Achillea submillefolium L. Perennial Vegetation active Megatroph Xeromezophytes Fibrous Steppe-meadow

2 Adonis vernallis L. Perennial Vegetation low active Megatroph Mezoxerophytes Fibrous Steppe

3 Allium paczoskianum Tuzs. Perennial Vegetation low active Mezotroph Xerophytes Fibrous Steppe

4 Amygdalus nana L. Bush Vegetation active Megatroph Mezoxerophytes Tap Steppe

5 Astragalus ponticus Pall. Perennial Vegetation low active Mezotroph Xerophytes Tap Petrophilic

6 Caragana scyhtica (Kom.) Pojark Bush Vegetation active Mezotroph Xerophytes Tap Steppe

7 Chamaecytisus graniticus

(Rehman) Rothm. Bush Vegetation non active Mezotroph Mezoxerophytes Tap Petrophilic

8 Crocus reticulates Syeven ex

Adams. Perennial Vegetation non active Megatroph Xeromezophytes Fibrous Steppe

9 Festuca valesiaca Schleich. ex

Gaudin. Perennial Vegetation low active Megatroph Mezoxerophytes Fibrous Steppe

10 Galatella vilosa (L.) Rchb. f. Perennial Vegetation low active Mezotroph Xeromezophytes Fibrous Steppe

11 Genista scythica Pacz. Bush Vegetation non active Mezotroph Xerophytes Tap Petrophilic

12 Koeleria cristata (L.) Pers. Perennial Vegetation non active Mezotroph Xeromezophytes Fibrous Steppe

13 Stipa capillata L. Perennial Vegetation low active Mezotroph Xerophytes Fibrous Steppe

14 Stipa lessingiana Trin. Et Rupr. Perennial Vegetation low active Mezotroph Xerophytes Fibrous Steppe

15 Thymus dimorphus Klokov et

Des-Schost. Bush Vegetation active Mezotroph Xeromezophytes Tap Steppe-petrophilic

16 Tulipa quercetorum Klokov et

Zoz. Perennial Vegetation non active Megatroph Mezophytes Fibrous Steppe

17 Vinca herbacea Waldst. ex Kit. Perennial Vegetation low active Mezotroph Xeromezophytes Fibrous Forest

1 Ramenskiy L.G. 1971. Problems and Methods of Plant Cover Study (In Russian. Проблемы и методы изучения растительного покрова) Leningrad: Nauka.

2 Belgard A.L. 1980. To the Question of Phytocenosis Analysis and Structure in Steppe (In Russian. К вопросу об экологическом анализе и структуре

фитоценозов в степи). Issues of Bioecological Diagnostics of Forest Ecosystems of Prisamarie – Dnipropetrovsk: DSU. 11-42. 3 Belgard A.L. 1980. To the Question of Phytocenosis Analysis and Structure in Steppe (In Russian. К вопросу об экологическом анализе и структуре

фитоценозов в степи). Issues of Bioecological Diagnostics of Forest Ecosystems of Prisamarie – Dnipropetrovsk: DSU. 11-42. 4 Golubev V.N. 1981. Methodical Recommendations to the Systems of Life Forms Compilations of Regional Biological Floras (In Russian. Методические

рекомендации к составлению системы жизненных форм региональных биологических флор). Yalta.

Mining Front Approaching on Zheltokamenka Quarry

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Biodiversity Centers Placement

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Rare Plants of Ukraine Steppes – Elements of Biodiversity Distribution Centers

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 8.

Project Implementation

Fig. 9.

Fig. 10.

Fig. 11.

Fig. 12.

Fig. 13.

Fig. 14.

Fig. 15.

Fig. 16.

Our Team and Our Results

Fig. 17.

Fig. 18.