Invasive Alien Species In Hungary

N AT I O N A L E C O L O G I C A L N E T W O R K N O. 6

1

Foreword

The concept and definition of invasivespecies are known not only to biologists.But what exactly do we mean by this term?

Invasive alien species (IAS) are speciesintroduced deliberately or unintentionallyoutside their natural habitats where theyhave the ability to establish themselves,invade, outcompete natives and take overthe new environment. They are widespreadin the world and are found in all categoriesof living organisms and all types ofecosystems. They are known to affectbiological diversity whether within oroutside protected areas and influenceecosystems, natural habitats andsurrounding populations. They can causesignificant irreversible environmental andsocio-economic damages at the genetic,species and ecosystem levels.

Their spreading, multiplication andintegration into previously unaffectedhabitats are facilitated by internationaltrade and healthily developing tourismthrough relatively more open borders. To adegree varying species by species, thedistribution is probably also affected byglobal or local climate changes andintentional introductions have alsooccurred.

Nearly every geographical region fightsagainst its own invasive species, a numberof which are problematic to several regionsdue to their wider tolerance. Naturally,each country is affected or threatened in adifferent way. The level of activity, themagnitude of amount invested in researchon and measures against invasive species,the inclination of the government and the

sensibility of the society also vary countryby country.

European countries have noticed thedeficiencies and the threats. In certainEuropean countries, for example in theUnited Kingdom and in Hungary, projectshave been launched and the classificationand list of invasive species have beenprecisely determined. In numerouscountries, however, there is only scatteredresearch, and classification is often basedon subjective factors.

Hungary provides high priority tomeasures against the invasion of CommonRagweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), whichbecomes more and more threatening evento human health. The total area covered bythis weed is estimated around 360 000 ha, afigure increasing by about 6% every year.Approximately 2.5–3 million people are

Photo 2: Ambrosia artemisiifolia

2 3

particularly sensitive to the pollen of thisplant. Restricting and eradicating it is notjust a matter of financing: land protectionand plant protection regulations and theirenforcement involve the whole society inthe issue.

According to a 1998 survey, 20.6% of theprotected grasslands in Hungary, that isroughly 44 000 ha have been infected withinvasive plant species, such as the Giantand Canadian Golden Rod (Solidagogigantea and S. canadensis). Theestimated cost of their eradication exceedsone billion Hungarian Forints. A newassessment and eradication project is justabout to be launched.

There is great necessity to speak aboutinvasive alien species, their ever morevigorous expansion and about thenecessity of international co-operationunhindered by political boundaries.

It is highly necessary to speak about thissubject at the time of establishing the Pan-European Ecological Network and whenthe importance of transboundary protectedareas gains general recognition. Perhaps,while putting “open borders” and therenewal of Europe into the limelight, notenough attention is devoted to invasivealien species.

Photo 3: Mismanaged rural area overrun by invasive species

Present state

The invasion of mainly exotic plant andanimal species has become increasinglyimportant during the last decade and hasraised public attention. Damage to buildingproperty, damage to forestry, congestion ofnavigable waterways, allergenic effect andimpacts of certain species tend to highlightproblems of invasive alien species to thepublic.

However, invasion of alien speciesinvasion does not merely influence thesociety and economic sector but has majorimpacts on biological diversity and natureconservation. Invasive alien species arenow acknowledged as one of the majorthreats to biodiversity, together with habitatloss and fragmentation.

Different terms are used for alien speciesin general (non-indigenous, non-native,exotic, foreign, new) and for the subsetthat cause damage (pest, weed, harmful,injurious, invasive, environmentally

dangerous). There are marked differencesin the use of terms in different sectors.Sanitary and phytosanitary instruments usesuch terminology as “pest” and “weed”terminology, backed by clear definitions,and do not distinguish by source or origin:this means, that they also cover nativepests. The International Plant ProtectionConvention (IPPC) uses the term“quarantine pest” to distinguish by sourceand by level of damage. Multilateralenvironmental agreement requirementsusually refer to “alien” or “exotic” species(almost never defined) in combinationwith harm/invasiveness criteria to identifythose species that should be subject tocontrols. This generally excludes nativespecies that become invasive.

Updated definitions adopted by the sixthmeeting of the Conference of the Parties(COP) of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) (UNEP/CBD/COP/6/18/Add.1):

“Alien” or “alien species” refers to aspecies, subspecies or lower taxon,introduced outside its normal past orpresent normal distribution; includes anypart, gametes, seeds, eggs, or propagules ofsuch species that might survive andsubsequently reproduce.

“Invasive alien species” refers to alienspecies whose introduction and spreadthreaten ecosystems, habitats witheconomic or environmental harm.

In addition to the threats to biodiversity,the direct costs of IAS are immense. It isdifficult to estimate precisely the economiclosses caused by biological invasions. Theyinclude the impact of weeds on cropproduction, the increased costs of control,Photo 4: Impatiens grandulifera

54

the decreased water supply, themanagement costs of reducing thealterations of protected areas, the impact ofintroduced pathogens affecting wildlifeand public health, and the impact ofmarine organisms transported by ships(mainly ballast water and hull-fouling).

The need to prevent unwantedintroductions of alien species and tomitigate the impacts of biological invasions,has been repeatedly addressed atinternational and regional levels. However,widespread concern about the threatsposed by biological invasions, and generalrecognition of the urgent need to defineand implement actions to reduce thesethreats, are faced with several obstacles.

The complex scientific, technical andpolitical aspects pose main difficulties.These include the very diverse sources ofinvasions, pathways and modes of entry,the economic importance of manyintentional introductions, the human

dimension of alien species introductions,the inadequate methods to detect andcontrol new invasions, and their publicacceptability.

In order to deal with biologicalinvasions, it is fundamental to address verydifferent aspects, including internationaltrade regulations, control during transport,border controls and quarantine, detectionof new propagules and public perceptionof control methods. A holistic approach isthis needed, based on greater awareness ofthe public and decision-makers, preventionof unwanted introductions and, whereprevention fails, eradication when feasibleand desirable or containment and effectivecontrol of new IAS.

This approach requires a framework ofbiosecurity policies, actions and clearallocation of roles and responsibilities. Theproblem of IAS is a cross-cutting issue,which requires co-ordination andcommitment of several different sectors,

close co-operationbetween ministrieswith different man-dates and internati-onal co-ordinationof relevant effortsand strategies. Inpractice, however,the generally limi-ted public and poli-tical awareness ofthe IAS threat oftenleads to inadequateparticipation andpolitical commit-ment.

International Actions:Global level

Recognising the problem, severalinternational conventions, governmentaland non-governmental organisations dealin some sort with the biodiversity losscaused by alien species.

At the 7th meeting of the Conference ofthe Contracting Parties to the Conventionon Wetlands (Ramsar Convention) invasivespecies and their impacts on wetlands wereamong the most important questions.

At the 17th meeting of the AnimalsCommittee of the Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Speciesof Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 2001, itwas noted that few CITES listed specieswere actually invasive, but there remainedgeneral support for maintaining contactwith the IUCN/SSC Invasive SpeciesSpecialist Group (ISSG) and the CBD onthis issue. ISSG agreed to collaborate in theproduction of a list of potentially invasiveCITES species.

According to Article 8 (h) of theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD)“Each Contracting Party shall, as far aspossible and as appropriate prevent theintroduction of, control or eradicate thosealien species, which threaten ecosystems,habitats or species”.

The Day for Biological Diversity (22nd of May) was devoted to the issue ofIAS in 2001. It shows the importance of theissue, expressed in Article 8.

Answers to the pre-formulated questions86-102 of the Second National Reports onthe implementation of the CBD focus on

To manage the biological invasion, somecountries and some regions have begun toimplement comprehensive bio-securitypolicies, managing in some cases markedlyto reduce threats posed by IAS. In contrast,Europe lacks a regional strategy andcommon policy on IAS. European Statesare required to address the invasive alienspecies issue under several internationalinstruments. The main aim is to prevent orminimise biological diversity loss caused byinvasive alien species in Europe throughthe development and implementation of aco-ordinated European strategy.

Photo 6: Ailanthus altissimaPhoto 5: Aster species are also listed at Annex I.

6 7

or species”. The COP recognised thatinvasive alien species represent one of theprimary threats to biodiversity, especially ingeographically and evolutionary isolatedecosystems, such as small islanddeveloping States, and that risk may beincreasing due to increased global trade,transport, tourism and climate change.

It called on Parties, other governmentsand relevant bodies to prioritise thedevelopment and implementation of IASstrategies and action plans at national andregional level.

The IUCN Species Survival Commission(SSC) – ISSG has developed a GlobalInvasive Species Database (and EarlyWarning System). Key features of thisdatabase include its accessibility (it isavailable on Internet) and ease of use.

A simple habitat-matching model is usedto predict which other global regions arepotentially at risk of invasion. Thesedevelopments are carried out as part of theGlobal Invasive Species Programme (GISP),co-ordinated by the Scientific Committeeon Problems of the Environment (SCOPE).IUCN, CAB International and UNEP arepartners in GISP. The IUCN Species SurvivalCommission (SSC) – ISSG published the“IUCN Guidelines for the Prevention ofBiodiversity Loss Caused by Alien InvasiveSpecies” in 2000.

The 100 of the World's Worst InvasiveAlien Species list and database are anintegrated subset of the Global InvasiveSpecies Database. This list focuses mainlyon American and Australian circumstances,so a European regional list is needed.

A Nordic/Baltic regional workshop washeld in Estonia to develop a network ofinteroperable databases on invasive orinvasive alien species of the Nordic/Balticregion. During this workshop participantsworked on the development of a regionaldatabase network to facilitate informationexchange on invasive alien species bothwithin the region and globally.

International Actions:European Level

Several international, regional and sub-regional instruments ratified or adopted bya large number of European countriesaddress various aspects of the IAS issue.The earliest instruments aim to control theintroduction and spread of pests anddiseases to protect human, animal andplant health. Conservation treatiesreference alien species for their possibleimpacts on native species and ecosystems.Technical guidelines have been developedfor some transport and production sectorsthat present risks of unintentionalintroductions or escapes fromcontainment. These instruments indicate

the impacts of biological invasion and alienspecies. Decisions of the COP andrecommendations of the Subsidiary Bodyon Scientific, Technical and TechnologicalAdvice (SBSTTA) call on Parties to takeaction to monitor and prevent invasions,and to rehabilitate ecosystems that havebeen invaded.

The 5th meeting of the COP of the CBDurged Parties, other governments, andother relevant bodies to give priority to thedevelopment and implementation ofinvasive alien species strategies and actionplans.

In 2002, COP-6 of the CBD drew uprecommendations and Guiding Principlesto assist in the implementation of Article8(h). Decision VI/23 deals with “Alienspecies that threaten ecosystems, habitats

Photo 7: Impatiens parviflora Photo 8: Phytolacca americana with fruits

8 9

actions that States need to take: severalgenerally urge States to improve workingprogrammes, avoid duplication of efforts,promote co-operative actions and exploresynergies among actors. In addition,because alien species use transport andtrade pathways, regional and nationalmeasures to prevent or minimiseunwanted introductions have implicationsfor the multilateral trading system. TheWorld Trade Organisation (WTO), mainlythrough the Agreement on the Applicationof Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures,sets out binding principles and rules andrecognises sources of internationalstandards that should, where available, befollowed in national measures.

In Europe, at the political level, twomain institutions are responsible for

regional conservation policies: the Councilof Europe, which with 42 member Statesrepresents a large proportion of the entireEuropean region, and the European Union(EU), which currently has 15 memberStates and the accession of further states ison the agenda.

Council of Europe

Within the Council of Europe, theConvention on the Conservation ofEuropean Wildlife and Natural Habitats(Bern Convention, 1979) is the main legalinstrument for the development andimplementation of conservation policies.In Article 11 paragraph 2.b, the Conventionspecifically requires “each ContractingParty to undertake to strictly control theintroduction of non-native species”.

The Bern Convention is one of the veryfew international instruments that hasdeveloped specific technical references foraddressing IAS. These include the adoptionof recommendations on general IAS issuesand specific problems, production oftechnical reports, organisation ofworkshops and establishment of an IASexperts' group in collaboration with theEuropean Section of the IUCN ISSG. In 2000, this group began work ondeveloping elements for a draft EuropeanStrategy on Invasive Alien Species to promoteimplementation of Article 8(h) of the CBD.

The 6th meeting of SBSTTA of the CBD(Montreal, 12–16 March 2001) was mainlydevoted to discussion of Invasive AlienSpecies. A “side-event” was organised topresent in more details the actions of the

Bern Convention on IAS. At SBSTTA-6, adraft recommendation was adopted that“welcome(d) the initiative of Council ofEurope (Bern Convention) to help theimplementation of Article 8(h), includingthe development of a European Strategy onInvasive Alien Species”.

In 2002, this regional approach wasendorsed at the Second IntergovernmentalConference on Biodiversity in Europe in Bu-dapest and welcomed by the CBD at COP6.

The first wide-range discussion on thedraft European Strategy on Invasive AlienSpecies was held in Horta, Azores, Portugal(Workshop on Invasive Alien Species onEuropean Island and Evolutionary IsolatedEcosystems and Group of Expert onInvasive Alien Species; 10–12 October2002). The draft Strategy provides a tool tohelp States to implement internationalcommitments and best practice and todevelop practical policies, measures andpriorities for action.

European Union

Within the EU, conservation policies aredefined through the EU Biodiversity Stra-tegy and implemented through regulationsor directives that are binding instrumentsfor member States. With regards to IAS,member States must take measures to en-sure that any introduction of an alien birdspecies does not prejudice the native faunaand flora (Council Directive 79/409/EEC onthe Conservation of Wild Birds).

They must also regulate the deliberateintroduction in the wild of any alienspecies so as not to prejudice naturalhabitats and wild native fauna and flora(Council Directive 92/43/EEC on theConservation of Natural habitats and ofWild Fauna and Flora).

The EC regulation for the implemen-tation of CITES within the EU provides abasis for controlling imports of certainspecies that may become invasive(Regulation 338/97, Article 4.6(d)). More recently, the EC Biodiversity Strategystates that: “The presence or introductionof alien species or sub-species canpotentially cause imbalances and changesto ecosystems. It can have potentiallyirreversible impacts, by hybridisation orcompetition, on native components ofbiodiversity. Applying the precautionaryprinciple, the Community should takemeasures to prevent that alien speciescause detrimental effects on ecosystems,priority species or the habitats they dependon and establish measures to control,manage and wherever possible remove therisks that they pose” (COM (1998)42).Photo 9: Echinocystis lobata

Photo 10: Humid grassland overrun by Giant Goldenrod

1110

National actions in Hungary

Biological invasion in Hungary deservesthe attention of researchers, decision-makers and the public as well. Publicinterest focuses mainly on human healthimpacts of some allergenic species, but thesociety is also sensitive to the degradationof natural values of protected and urbanareas. However, the degree of personalresponsibility for controlling invaders andits relation to land use practice is very low.

Two main laws consider the problem ofbiological invasion in Hungary, one is thePromulgation of the Convention onBiological Diversity (Act No. LXXXI of1995), and the other is Act No. LIII of 1996on the Conservation of Nature (hereinafter:

Nature Conservation Act). Article 8 (3) and(4) of the latter deal with “introducedorganism” (meaning any organism whichhas become part of Hungary's flora andfauna due to man’s intentional orunintentional introduction) and “harmfulintroduced species” (meaning any livingorganisms which does not qualify as nativefrom the phytogeographical orzoogeographical point of view, and in caseit establishes and adapts itself, it may becapable of modifying the natural processesof the Hungarian wildlife communitiesunfavourably for the native species).According to the Act:

• The introduction of any new organism(new to Hungary from phytogeographicalor zoogeographical aspect) may only be

• It shall be prohibited to introduce non-native fish species into natural or semi-natural waters, or to transfer such speciesfrom fish farms into any other wetland(Article 14).

• Wherever the habitat conditions makeit possible, afforestation shall be exercisedprimarily with native tree species, in anatural species composition and usingnature-friendly techniques (Article 16 (3)).

• In forests situated in protected naturalareas, reforestation shall be carried outonly with indigenous tree species thatoccur naturally in the given site and - withthe exception provided under paragraph(5) section a) below – only by naturalregeneration methods (progressiveregeneration or shelterwood felling andselective felling systems (Article 33 (3) b)).

Photo 12: Acer negundo fruits

authorised if this colonisation does notharm natural processes within Hungary'scommunities for the disadvantage of nativespecies (Article 9 (4)).

• Wild organisms shall be exported,imported, transported through the country,propagated within artificial conditions,kept, bred routinely, hybridised, releasedinto nature or marketed by the conditionsand methods laid down in GovernmentDecree (Article 10 (1)).

• In the event of the over-population ofgame animal or course fish species, or inorder to liquidate non-native or non-naturalised species (which are alien to theHungarian fauna) the Directorate mayinitiate, at the authorities responsible forhunting (fishing), an order of populationcontrol or liquidation (Article 12 (2)).

• In order to introduce a non-native wildanimal species which is not by declarationa game species or to reintroduce a wildanimal species it is necessary to hold anauthorisation of the Minister (which isgranted with the approval of the Minister ofAgriculture) (Article 13 (2)).

• The authority responsible for huntingmay obligate game-licence holders toreduce or liquidate the populations ofharmful introduced wild animals byhunting techniques (Article 13 (3)).

• With the exception specified underparagraph (Article 13(2)) above, in order tointroduce any non-native living organismor to reintroduce any living organism it isnecessary to hold an authorisation of theMinister (which is granted with theapproval of the Minister of Agriculture)(Article 13 (4)).

Photo 13: Goldenrod in the sunset

Photo 11: Blooming Acer negundo

1312

• In forests situated in protected areas,clear-cutting may only be authorised inforest stands unable to regeneratenaturally, or consisting of non-nativespecies and being of a maximum block sizeof 3 ha (Article 33 (5) a)).

• In forests situated in protected naturalareas, consisting of non-native tree species,efforts shall be made to establish close-to-natural conditions by replacing,complementing, restructuring such foreststands, by changing the tree species and byregulating the species composition, thuseliminating monocultures (Article 33 (7)).Government Decree No. 67/1998. (IV. 3.)on the Restrictions and ProhibitionsPertaining to the Protected and StrictlyProtected Wildlife Communities also dealswith non-native living organisms or locallyinvasive plant and animal species.

The agricultural administration also haslong developed legal measures againstpests, diseases and weeds. There is a strictneed for integrated controlling methodsagainst weeds with unfavourable effects tohuman health (like Ambrosiaartemisiifolia). Act No. XXXV of 2000 onPlant Protection attends to pesticideproducts containing non-native livingorganisms (natural enemies, biopesticidesetc.). The Ministry of Environment andWater plays a special role in the pesticideregulation process in this case (Article 19.(3)). There are data requirements on theorigin and other ecological properties ofliving organisms in the registration dossiers(Ministerial Decree No. 6/2001 FVM onrelease of pesticides Annex 1 and 2.).Quarantine actions are also mentioned(Ministerial Decree No. 7/2001 FVM on theobjectives of plant protection quarantine),

but IAS are not specially targeted in theselegal instruments.

Invasive plant species

The most dangerous invasive plantspecies of Hungarian habitats were listedby a scientific symposium in 1998.Researchers and nature conservationexperts selected 35 invasive plant species(Annex I.). The most susceptible habitats inHungary are mismanaged agricultural andrural areas and water-determinedecosystems.

Dry grasslands and semi-natural forestscan better resist plant invasions, butdisturbance can greatly increase theprobability of their mass occurrence. In several cases, invading species not onlydegrade the habitat but also outcompete certain valuable, protected species

occupying similar ecological niches in thecommunity.

According to the latest informationabout 45 000 ha of grassland are affectedwith invasive plants (like Solidago species,Ailanthus altissima, Elaeagnusangustifolia and Asclepias syriaca) innationally designated sites.

The state nature conservationorganisation has initiated severalprogrammes for the mechanical control ofinvasive plant species in protected areas,with only locally apparent results so far.Plans for mechanical and nature-friendlychemical control are under development,but recent calculations indicate that theseprojects would cost more than 4.2 millioneuros.

Photo 14: Elaeagnus angustifolia

Photo 15: Fallopia spp.

Photo 17: Asclepias syriaca

Waiting for the wind (Asclepias syriaca)

15

WCR spread in Europe has continued inall directions from the original infestationpoint. It has become an economic pest ofcorn in Yugoslavia (yield losses up to 70%).Several research projects focus on thepotential of biological control of these pests.

Invasive animal species

One can immediately understand why itis important to pay more attention thanever to “undesired invaders” even here, onthe ‘Old Continent’, by looking at thedistribution (Figure 1) of an incidentallyintroduced American pest, the Western Corn Rootworm (WCR, Diabroticavirgifera virgifera), first found in Europenear the International Airport of Belgradein 1992. It took only ten years for thespecies from the Novi Sad area to reacheven the Po Valley in Italy. By the end of2001 it had spread over 182,000 km2 inEurope (Bulgaria, Bosnia-Herzegovina,Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia andYugoslavia). WCR beetles were trapped in1998 and 1999 in Italy, near Venice airportand in 2000 in Switzerland, near Lugano.

14

Figure 1: Spread of Western Corn Rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera

Photo 20: WRC on corn

Photo 18: Elaeagnus forest before control in Kiskunság National Park

Photo 19: Elaeagnus forest after mechanical control at the same place

GERMANY

Vienna Bratislava

Budapest

MilanVenice

Zagreb

Sarajevo

Sofia

Nis

Belgrade

Novi Sad

Szeged

Timisoara

ClujAUSTRIA

SWITZERLAND

ITALY SLOVENIA

CROATIA

HUNGARY

SLOVAK REP.UKRAINE

ROMANIA

BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA

F. R. YUGOSLAVIA

BULGARIA

MKA

GREECE

2001200019991998199719961995199419931992

Spread of Western Corn Rootworm in Europe 1992-2001 (by FAO/J. KISS and C.R. EDWARDS; based on data fromBertossa, Boriani, Festic, Furlan, Gogu, Igrc-Barcic, Ivanova, Omelyuta, Princzinger, Rosca, Sivcev and Sivicek)WCR NET http://www.gau.hu/nvtt/home.htm

1716

Long-standing forestry and agriculturallight-trap or other forecasting networksplay a potentially important role in theearly detection of invasive species (e.g.Helicoverpa armigera and Colias eratewhich are migrating moth speciesoccasionally invasive in agriculturalcultures).

The horse-chestnut leaf-miner(Cameraria ohridella) was recorded for thefirst time in Macedonia in 1985 attackinghorse-chestnut. This moth was described asa new species of the genus Cameraria in1986. There has been some discussion thatthis species might have been carried toMacedonia from America, and then itspread. However, nowadays it is quit certainthat the origin is not American. There hasbeen discussion fora long time aboutthe possibility ofconveyance byhuman beings. Theeffects of globalclimate changehave been mentio-ned. First sightingin Hungary was inmade in 1993, andserious damagecaused by it hasbeen detectablethroughout thecountry since 1994.

The invasiveLasius neglectus isthe most recentlyintroduced antspecies in Europe.

Only ten years after its first observation inHungary in 1987, numerous infestationshave been identified across Europe. Theexceptional speading ability of this ant isdue to its transportation via potted plants,which explains that new infestations areoften found in public parks.

In the last few years a locally problematicmollusc species with invasive tendencycalled Spanish slug (Arion lusitanicus) hasbeen noted. This species causesremarkable damage in gardens in thesouth-western part of Hungary, just as insome other parts of Europe.

Some fish species have been introducedfor consumption and to limit algalproduction during the 1960s, like the grasscarp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) and the

silver carp (Hypophtalmichthys molitrix)that became abundant and threaten thenative fish fauna despite intensive fishing. Arecent invador of watercourses is thebighead goby (Neogobius kessleri) that hasarrived form the brackish waters of theDanube Delta and feeds on fish fry.

The situation of mammals is similar tothat of fishes, as the population of gameanimals and non-protected carnivores isregulated. Two introduced species seem tohave the potential of becoming invasive,the racoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonides)and the racoon (Procyon lotor).

Photo 21: Damage on chesnut caused by Cameraria Figure 2: Shot specimen of racoon and racoon dog in Hungary

Photo 22: Nyctereutes procionides

Photo 23: Procyon lotor

1918

Monitoring

Recognising the importance of invasionin the survival of the native biota, theHungarian Biodiversity Monitoring System(HBMS) hasincluded therepeated sur-vey of invadersin its prog-ramme.Invasive plantspecies aremonitored in124 selected plots (see below) of 5x5 km aspart of habitat mapping. The HungarianNational Habitat Classification Systemprovides the basic units for habitatmapping.The HBMS monitors 5 invasive plant

species (Ailanthus altissima, Amorphafruticosa, Asclepias syriaca, Solidagogigantea, Solidago canadensis) at thelandscape, community and populationlevels since 1998. The first results havedescribed the present conditions and serveas baseline data.

Plans for the future

The Authority for Nature Conservationof Ministry of Environment and Water hascommissioned a basic study for aHungarian invasive alien plant speciesstrategy. Several scientists are currentlyworking on this programme and the firstresults of this analysis will be published inthe winter of 2002. Based on this study, aNational Invasive Plant Species Strategy willbe prepared, as well as scientific andeducational publications will produced.

The Authority plans to fund a similarstudy and strategy on animal species, butcurrent information and knowledge onthese species is scarcer.

Further nature conservation programmesfor monitoring invasive terrestrial andaquatic snails and insect species areabsolutely necessary and scheduled for thenear future.

The National Invasive Plant Survey andControl Programme is under developmentby the Ministry of Environment and Water.The first task is to provide a nationalassessment of occurrence of the selected35 invasive species (Annex I.). Theobjective of this programme is to develop anation-wide survey and environmentallyfriendly control strategy of invasive plantsthat can be applied in protected areas.

Photo 24: A native species with invasive tendencies (Calamagrostis epigeios)Figure 3: Distribution and abundance of Solidago gigantea and S. canadensis in O5x5_003 plot

(darker markings indicate heavier infection)

20

Annex I.

Invasive plant species in Hungarian protected areas

Adventive species:1. Acer negundo 17. Helianthus decapetalus2. Ailanthus altissima 18. Helianthus tuberosus3. Ambrosia artemisiifolia 19. Heracleum mantegazzianum4. Amorpha fruticosa 20. Humulus scandens5. Asclepias syriaca 21. Impatiens grandulifera6. Aster spp. 22. Impatiens parviflora7. Celtis occidentalis 23. Padus serotina8. Cenchrus incertus 24. Parthenocissus spp.9. Conysa canadensis 25. Phytolacca americana10. Echinocystis lobata 26. Robinia pseudoacacia11. Elaeagnus angustifolia 27. Rudbeckia hirta12. Erechtites hieraciifolia 28. Rudbeckia laciniata13. Erigeron annuus 29. Solidago canadensis14. Fallopia japonica 30. Solidago gigantea15. Fallopia sachalinensis 31. Vitis rupestris16. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 32. Vitis vulpina

Dangerous native species that occur in selected areas of Hungary, but show tendencies tobecome invasive:1. Calamagrostis epigeios2. Phragmites australis3. Rubus fruticosus agg.

Publisher: Authority for Nature Conservation, Ministry of Environment and Water, Budapest, 2003

Compiled and edited by: Botond Mihály, András Demeter

Consultant: Gábor Nechay, Zsolt Kalotás

Project manager: Rozália Érdi

Project assistant: Krisztina Koczka

Figures:

Front cover: Zsolt Kalotás, Botond Mihály

Inside cover: Botond Mihály

Back cover: Zsolt Kalotás

In the text: Zsolt Kalotás, Botond Mihály, József Kiss, Gábor Nechay, Zita Zsembery,

Bükk National Park Directorate

Design and Typhography: Radex Communications

This paper based on the Hungarian presentation on invasive alien species in the Second

Intergovernmental Conference ‘Biodiversity in Europe’, 24–28 February 2002. Budapest

ISBN 963 204 691 9ISSN 1587-8856

INFORMATION:

Authority for Nature Conservation Ministry of Environment and Water1121 Budapest, Költô u. 21.Phone: (+36) 1-395-2605Fax: (+36) 1-295-7458

National Park Directorates:

Aggtelek National Park Directorate3758 Jósvafô, Tengerszem oldal 1.Phone/Fax: (+36) 48-350-006

Balaton Uplands National Park Directorate8200 Veszprém, Vár u. 31.Phone: (+36) 88-577-730Fax: (+36) 88-577-731

Bükk National Park Directorate3304 Eger, Sánc u. 6.Phone: (+36) 36-411-581Fax: (+36) 36-412-791

Danube-Dráva National Park Directorate7625 Pécs, Tettye tér 9.Phone: (+36) 72-517-200Fax: (+36) 72-517-229

Danube-Ipoly National Park Directorate1021 Budapest, Hûvösvölgyi út 52.Phone: (+36) 1-200-4066Fax: (+36) 1-200-1168

Fertô-Hanság National Park Directorate9435 Sarród, Pf. 4. KócsagvárPhone: (+36) 99-537-620Fax: (+36) 99-537-621

Hortobágy National Park Directorate4024 Debrecen, Sumen u. 2.Phone: (+36) 52-529-920Fax: (+36) 52-529-940

Kiskunság National Park Directorate6001 Kecskemét, Liszt Ferenc u. 19.Phone: (+36) 76-482-611Fax: (+36) 76-482-074

Körös-Maros National Park Directorate5541 Szarvas, Pf. 72.Phone: (+36) 66-313-855Fax: (+36) 66-311-658

Ôrség National Park Directorate9942 Ôriszentpéter, Siskaszer 26/APhone: (+36) 94-548-033Fax: (+36) 94-428-791

Edited by the Authority for Nature Conservation, Ministry of Environment and Water, 2003.