Textbook Ecological Networks and Territorial Systems of Ecological Stability Laszlo Miklos Ebook All Chapter PDF

Ecological Networks and Territorial
Systems of Ecological Stability László

Miklós
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/ecological-networks-and-territorial-systems-of-ecologi
cal-stability-laszlo-miklos/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Neoextractivism and Territorial Disputes in Latin

America Social ecological Conflict and Resistance on
the Front Lines 1st Edition Penelope Anthias
https://textbookfull.com/product/neoextractivism-and-territorial-
disputes-in-latin-america-social-ecological-conflict-and-
resistance-on-the-front-lines-1st-edition-penelope-anthias/
Managing Biological and Ecological Systems 2nd Edition

Brian D. Fath (Editor)
https://textbookfull.com/product/managing-biological-and-
ecological-systems-2nd-edition-brian-d-fath-editor/
Ecological Political Economy and the Socio-Ecological

Crisis 1st Edition Martin P. A. Craig (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/ecological-political-economy-
and-the-socio-ecological-crisis-1st-edition-martin-p-a-craig-
auth/
Urban Ecology: Emerging Patterns and Social-Ecological

Systems 1st Edition Pramit Verma (Editor)
https://textbookfull.com/product/urban-ecology-emerging-patterns-
and-social-ecological-systems-1st-edition-pramit-verma-editor/
Ecological and environmental physiology of mammals 1st
Edition Bozinovic
https://textbookfull.com/product/ecological-and-environmental-
physiology-of-mammals-1st-edition-bozinovic/
An Ecological Theory of Free Expression Gary Chartier
https://textbookfull.com/product/an-ecological-theory-of-free-
expression-gary-chartier/
Landscape-ecological Planning LANDEP László Miklós
https://textbookfull.com/product/landscape-ecological-planning-
landep-laszlo-miklos/
Ecological Integrity and the Management of Ecosystems

First Edition Kay
https://textbookfull.com/product/ecological-integrity-and-the-
management-of-ecosystems-first-edition-kay/
Ecological informatics data management and knowledge

discovery Michener
https://textbookfull.com/product/ecological-informatics-data-
management-and-knowledge-discovery-michener/
László Miklós · Andrea Diviaková
Zita Izakovičová
Ecological
Networks and
Territorial Systems
of Ecological
Stability
Ecological Networks and Territorial Systems
of Ecological Stability
László Miklós Andrea Diviaková
•
Zita Izakovičová
Ecological Networks
and Territorial Systems
of Ecological Stability
123
László Miklós Zita Izakovičová
Institute of Landscape Ecology SAS Institute of Landscape Ecology SAS
Bratislava, Slovakia Bratislava, Slovakia
Andrea Diviaková
UNESCO-Chair for Sustainable
Development
Technical University in Zvolen
Zvolen, Slovakia
ISBN 978-3-319-94017-5 ISBN 978-3-319-94018-2 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94018-2
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018946669
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer International Publishing AG
part of Springer Nature
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgements
The publication is the result of the research supported by the grant agency KEGA
Project No. 013TU Z-4/2016 and by grant agency VEGA Project No. 1/0096/
1614-0735 and VEGA Project No. 2/0066/15.
v
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Principles for Creating Ecological Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 5
2.1 The Structure of the Landscape and Its Functions
for Ecological Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 6
2.2 Stability of Ecosystems and Spatial Ecological Stability
of the Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3 Spatial Configuration and Composition of the Landscape . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Ecological Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5 Potential Representative Geoecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.5.1 Geoecosystems—An Object of Geoecodiversity
Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 17
2.5.2 Identification and Characterisation of Potential
Representative Geoecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 18
2.6 Concept of the Territorial System of Ecological Stability
and Its Development in Slovakia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 19
2.6.1 Development Milestones of the Territorial System
of Ecological Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 19
2.6.2 Implementation of the Territorial System of Ecological
Stability into the Legal System of the Slovak Republic ... 22
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 24
3 Methodical Base of Development of the Territorial System
of Ecological Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.1 Elements of the Frame/Skeleton of Territorial System
of Ecological Stability and Their Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.2 Criteria for Determination of Territorial System of Ecological
Stability Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
vii
viii Contents
3.3 Hierarchical Structure of the Territorial System of Ecological

Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 35
3.4 Position of the Territorial System of Ecological Stability
in Territorial Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 38
3.5 Results of the Territorial System of Ecological Stability . . . .... 40
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 41
4 Procedures of Designing the Territorial System of Ecological
Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 43
4.1 Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 45
4.1.1 Transfer of the Results from a Higher to Lower
Hierarchical Level of the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 45
4.1.2 Analyses of the Primary Landscape Structure . . . . . . . ... 46
4.1.3 Analysis of the Current Landscape Structure/Land
Cover Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 48
4.1.4 Analysis of the Tertiary Landscape Structure—the
Socio-economic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 57
4.2 Syntheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 63
4.2.1 Potential Representative Geoecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . ... 63
4.2.2 Synthesis Indicators of the Properties of Abiotic
Landscape Elements—Creating of Abiocomplexes . . . ... 69
4.2.3 Synthesis of Socio-economic Factors Promoting
the Functioning of the Territorial System of Ecological
Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 71
4.2.4 Synthesis of Socio-economic Factors Threatening
Functionality of the Territorial System of Ecological
Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 71
4.3 Landscape-Ecological Interpretations—Special-Purpose
Classifications of Landscape-Ecological Complexes . . . . . . . . ... 75
4.3.1 Interpretation of Abiotic Complexes and Their
Subsequent Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 79
4.3.2 Interpretation of Biotic Complexes of the Current
Landscape Structure and Their Classification . . . . . . . ... 80
4.3.3 Interpretation of Socio-economic Factors
of the Character of Stress Factors and Their
Special-Purpose Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 96
4.3.4 Summary of the Special-Purpose Classification
of Landscape-Ecological Quality of Current
Landscape Structure Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 97
Contents ix
4.4 Landscape-Ecological Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 98

4.4.1 Evaluation of the Current Ecological Quality of Potential
Representative Geoecosystems and Selected Elements
from the Point of View of Their Functions Within
the Territorial System of Ecological Stability . . . . . . . . .. 99
4.4.2 Evaluation of a Degree of Protection of Selected
Elements of the Territorial System of Ecological
Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
4.4.3 Evaluation of a Degree of Threat to the Skeleton
of Territorial System of Ecological Stability by Stress
Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
4.5 Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.5.1 Proposals for the Creation of the Skeleton
of the Territorial System of Ecological Stability . . . . . . . . 106
4.5.2 Proposal for Ecostabilising Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
4.5.3 Proposals for Legal Protection of the Elements
of the Territorial System of Ecological Stability . . . . . . . . 110
4.5.4 Proposals to Eliminate Stress Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.5.5 Comprehensive Proposals for the Territorial System
of Ecological Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.6 Proposals for Passports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
4.7 Formation of Landscape-Ecological Regulations for Spatial
Planning Documentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Abbreviations
ABK Abiocomplex
BSEU Map of Bonited Soil-Ecological Unit
CLS Current Landscape Structure
EECONET European Ecological Network
ESLE Ecologically Significant Landscape Element
FAR Folk Architecture Reservation
FVZ Forest Vegetation Zone
GIS Geographical Information System
GTSES General Plan of Super-Regional TSES
HPZ Hygienic Protective Zones
ILE SAS Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak Academy of
Sciences
k.ú. Cadastral area
Kes Coefficient of ecological quality of the territory
kodi Runoff coefficient index (coefficient of runoff retention for
erosion models)
LANDEP Landscape-Ecological Planning, the Methodology of
Landscape-Ecological Planning
LTSES Local Territorial System of Ecological Stability
MAB UNESCO Biospheric reservation of the UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere
Programme
MCR Memorial City Reservation
MoE SR Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic
Natura 2000 The European network of protected sites of EU member states
NEAP National Environmental Action Plan
NECONET National Ecological Network
NFWV Non-forest Woody Vegetation
NM Nature Monument
NNM National Natural Monument
NNR National Nature Reserve
xi
xii Abbreviations
NP National Park
NR Nature Reservation
PA Protected Area
PBA Protected Bird Area
PEBLS Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diverity Strategy
PEEN Pan-European Ecological Network
PLA Protected Landscape Area
PP Natural Monument
PR Nature Reserve
PT Protected Tree
PZ NP NP Protection Zone
PZ PA PA Protection Zone
REPGES Potential Representative Geoecosystems
RTSES Regional Territorial System of Ecological Stability
SAC Special Areas of Conservation, special protected area
SAS Slovak Academy of Sciences
SEF Socio-Economic Factor
SKŽP Slovak Commission for the Environment
SNCSR State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic
SPA Special Protection Areas, area of special protection
TSES Territorial System of Ecological Stability
TSSF Territorial System of Stress Factor
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
List of Figures
Fig. 2.1 Definition of landscape as a geosystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6

Fig. 2.2 Geosystem biased model of the ecosystem
(Miklós et al. 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
Fig. 2.3 Primary, secondary and tertiary landscape structures.
Note: The element a1 - air belongs to primary landscape
structure. Since physically it lies above the seondary landscape
structure, it is drawn graphically on the figure in the section of
secondary landscape structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
Fig. 3.1 General Plan of the territorial system of ecological stability
of SR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37
Fig. 4.1 Coefficient of ecological quality in the microcatchment
area of the Ilijsky stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 92
Fig. 4.2 Environmental quality area per capita in the territories
of municipalities (Ipel’ River catchment area). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 93
Fig. 4.3 Environmental quality area per capita in the natural-settlement
subregions and microregions of Slovakia (Miklós 2002a, b).
The legend of maps in Slovak and English. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 94
Fig. 4.4 Flow chart of development of TSES projects
(Miklós et al. 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
xiii
List of Tables
Table 4.1 Example of the key for mapping units of the current
landscape structure for the local TSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52
Table 4.2 Example of mapping groups of animal species for selected
habitat types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58
Table 4.3 Mapping units of positive socio-economic factors of local
TSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72
Table 4.4 Mapping units of the selected socio-economic factors of
residential, production, transport-technical and communal
activities and other planning and development documents
of local TSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76
Table 4.5 Expert evaluation of the degree of ecological stability
of the current landscape structure elements of TSES . . . . . . .. 87
Table 4.6 Coefficient of ecological quality and run-off coefficient
of the current landscape structure (CLS) elements
in a model territory in the catchment area of the Ilijsky
stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91
Table 4.7 Example of a classification matrix I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 98
Table 4.8 Example of a classification matrix II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 98
Table 4.9 Degree of suitability of land ecosystems for regional
(and higher) biocentres based on the naturalness
of vegetation (Míchal et al. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Table 4.10 Territorial demands of different types of organisms
(Míchal et al. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Table 4.11 Minimum required parameters of biocentres
and biocorridors (Löw et al. 1984, 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
xv
Chapter 1
Introduction
Territorial system of ecological stability (TSES) represents the most significant

integration of landscape ecology principles into real environment policies and spatial
planning practice. It has become a part of the legislation, general ecological regulation
of various plans and projects, and it has become a common part of decision-making
processes, as well as town-planning procedures at all hierarchical levels.
Establishing ecological networks is currently one of the main objectives of
landscape ecology and nature and landscape protection (Jongman 2004). It is based
on important international documents such as Agenda 21, the Convention on Bio-
logical Diversity, the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy,
EECONET under the European programme of IUCN, the European Landscape
Convention. After all, the principles of NATURA 2000 also articulate the need to pre-
serve the network of significant ecosystems. International policies and programmes
constitute a foundation for developing national programmes of ecological networks.
However, ecological networks have several different interpretations. Since it is
an attractive and seemingly easy-to-understand subject, even unqualified people
without scientific education are becoming involved in it. The scientific basis for
creating ecological networks is exceptionally complex and requires clarification
of the functioning of the ecological stability of landscape and its significance for
nature as well as man (Opdam et al. 2006). Therefore, it is vital also to explain the
rudimentary theoretical and methodological principles of ecological networks.
The territorial system of ecological stability (TSES) was developed from the
original type of an ecological network based on the principles elaborated by the
landscape-ecological school in Brno and Bratislava, back then as a part of the complex
rationalised brigade (Buček et al. 1984, 1996; Jurko 1986; Miklós 1986; Miklós et al.
1986) and other institutes. The concept of TSES was incorporated in the policy of
environmental protection following the legislative changes instigated by the Slovak
Commission for the Environment immediately after its founding (Miklós 1991).
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 1

L. Miklós et al., Ecological Networks and Territorial Systems of Ecological
Stability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94018-2_1
2 1 Introduction
From the theoretical and methodological perspective, TSES is a modern concept

of nature conservation and biodiversity standing on the principles of the protection
of the conditions and life forms, i.e. protection of geobiodiversity.
From the nature conservation and biodiversity point of view, the fundamental
objectives of TSES include
• Maintaining a network of ecologically important segments of landscape,
not only for their intrinsic ecological value, but because of their beneficial
ecostabilising effect in the surrounding landscape, even ecologically dis-
rupted,
• Protection of such landscape elements which, according to the traditional
criteria of nature conservation, are not included in a protective category,
but their maintenance is essential to ensure the ecological stability of the
territory.
The concept of TSES can be considered a notable success aimed at incorporating

the landscape-ecological principles into the legislation of crucial planning processes.
Currently, the TSES is integrated into binding regulations on landscape planning, it
is a mandatory part of land consolidation projects, and it has to be taken into account
in water plans, flood protection documentation and the materials of environmental
impact assessments. TSES is a principal knowledge concept of the current laws
on nature and landscape protection. Thus, it has become a very powerful tool for
ecologisation of spatial arrangement as well as functional utilisation of territory
(Drdoš et al. 1995, Miklós and Špinerová 2011, Miklós et al. 2011).
Full implementation of the concept requires adopting the following measures con-
cerning methodology, planning and projection, but also the legislation and adminis-
tration of environmental protection.
As for a foreword:
The theoretical–methodical base of the TSES, as well as the procedure of
TSES, has been elaborated and presented by authors of this publication in
different forms in numerous theoretical publications, in methodical works as
well as in projects, e.g. (Miklós 1986, 1996; Miklós et al. 1988; Miklós and
Izakovičová 1997; Izakovičová et al. 2000, 2001, 2011; Diviaková 2010a, b;
Diviaková and Kočická 2008; Miklós et al. 2011, most recently Miklós et al.
2018). However, we consider the presented publication a complex summarising
work that aggregates the theoretical knowledge, methodical competences and
practical experiences gained during last decades during elaboration of numer-
ous methodics and projects. Therefore, we deem as inevitable to present also in
this publication most of the theoretical and methodical principles which built
the basement of the TSES, as well as the explanation of the methodical steps of
TSES, even though we repeat them good many times. Anyway we accentuate that
1 Introduction 3
– The presented publication is the more comprehensive one comprising all the theo-
retical–methodical and practical side the methodics of TSES competed with exten-
sive annex of map of real TSES projects.
– All textual, graphical and map works presented in the book were produced by the
authors of this publication.
References
Buček A, Lacina J, Löw J (1984) Teoretické východiská a typológia ÚSES. Pracovné materiály
KRB, Agroprojekt Brno, p 12
Buček A, Lacina J, Michal I (1996) An ecological network in the Czech Republik. Veronica, Special
11th issue
Convention On Biological Diversity (1992) United Nations Conference on Environment and Devel-
opment, Earth Summit, Rio De Janeiro
Diviaková A (2010a) Hodnotenie líniových formácií nelesnej drevinovej vegetácie pre potreby
územných systémov ekologickej stability. VKÚ, a.s, Harmanec, p 120
Diviaková A (2010b) Nelesná drevinová vegetácia a hodnotenie jej prírodoochrannej, biotickej a
krajinnoekologickej významnosti. Geographia Cassoviensis IV(1):48–53
Diviaková A, Kočická E (2008) Účinok líniových vegetačných formácií na priebeh plošnej vodnej
erózie v okolí obce Žibritov. In: Izakovičová Z. (ed) Smolenická výzva IV - Kultúrna krajina ako
objekt výskumu v oblasti TUR. Zborník príspevkov z konferencie, Ústav krajinnej ekológie SAV,
Bratislava, pp 118–124
Drdoš J, Miklós L, Kozová M, Urbánek J (1995) Základy krajinného plánovania. Učebné texty.
Technická univerzita vo Zvolene
Izakovičová Z, Miklós L, Moyzeová M et al (2011) Model reprezentatívnych geoekosystémov na
regionálnej úrovni. Ústav krajinnej ekológie SAV, Bratislava, p 88
Izakovičová Z et al (2001) Regionálny územný systém ekologickej stability okresu Trnava, Ústav
krajinnej ekológie SAV, 127p
Izakovičová Z, Hrnčiarová T, Králik J, Liška M, Miklós L, Moyzeová M, Pauditšová E, Ružičková H,
Šíbl J, Tremboš P (2000) Metodické pokyny na vypracovanie projektov regionálnych územných
systémov ekologickej stability a miestnych územných systémov ekologickej stability. MŽP SR,
Združenie KRAJINA 21, Bratislava, 155p
Jongman RHG (ed) (2004) The new dimensions of the European landscapes. Springer Science &
Business Media, Berlin, 258p
Jurko A (1986) Krajinnoekologická významnosť rastlinných spoločenstiev. In: Ekologická optimal-
izácia využívania Východoslovenskej nížiny III., ÚEBE SAV-Slovosivo Michalovce, pp 214–218
Miklós L (1986) Stabilita krajiny v ekologickom genereli SSR. Bratislava, Životné prostredie
20(2):87–93
Miklós L (1991) Zásady slovenskej ekologickej politiky. Životné prostredie 25(4):174–178
Miklós L (1996) The concept of the territorial system of ecological stability in Slovakia. In: Jong-
mann, RHG (ed) Ecological and landscape consequences of land-use change in Europe. ECNC
publication series on Man and Nature 2, Tilburg
Miklós L, Diviaková A, Izakovičová Z (2011) Ekologické siete a územný systém ekologickej
stability. Vydavatel’stvo TÚ vo Zvolene
Miklós L, Izakovičová Z (1997) Krajina ako geosystém. VEDA, SAV, Bratislava, p 152
Miklós L, Lisický M, Kozová M (1988) Hrušovská zdrž a budúce ekologické podmienky okolitej
krajiny. Bratislava, Životné prostredie 22(2):83–89
Miklós L et al (1986) Ekologický plán VSN. Súbor grafických výstupov. Ekologická optimalizácia
využívania VSN. IV, ÚEBE SAV Bratislava - Slovosivo, p 122
Miklós L, Špinerová A (2011) Krajinno-ekologické plánovanie LANDEP. VKÚ, Harmanec
4 1 Introduction
Miklós L, Špinerová A, Belčáková I, Diviaková A (2018) Instruments and tools for sustainable land
use and spatial development processes. In: Belčáková I, Miklós L (eds) Landscape considerations
in spatial planning processes. Peter Lang: Frankfurt a.M. et al., ISBN 978-3-631-74971-5
Opdam P, Steingröver E, van Rooij S (2006) Ecological networks: a spatial concept for multi-actor
planning of sustainable landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan Elsevier 75(3–4):322 333
Chapter 2
Principles for Creating Ecological
Networks
Abstract Establishing ecological networks is currently one of the main objectives

of landscape ecology, nature and landscape protection. In Slovak Republic, the con-
cept of “ecological networks” was institutionally adopted as the territorial system of
ecological stability (TSES) by Decision of the Government of the SR in July 1991.
TSES represents the most significant integration of landscape ecology principles
into real environment policies and spatial planning practice. It has become a part
of the legislation, common part of decision making, general ecological regulation
of various plannings. The TSES concept is based on a geosystem approach to the
landscape. This necessitates viewing the landscape space as an integrated complex
of given area. The chapter characterises the functions of the primary, secondary and
tertiary landscape structures for the TSES. Basic spatial units for creation of TSES
considered the potential representative geoecosystems (REPGES) which are bearers
of geoecodiversity, i.e. the diversity of both the conditions and forms of the life. The
list of types of representative geoecosystems should serve as an ecologically based
systematic framework for proposals of biocentres, as well as for other types of areas
to be protected. The chapter deals also with most frequent theoretical landscape-
ecological questions related to creation of ecological networks, as the stability of
ecosystems and spatial ecological stability of the landscape, spatial configuration
and composition of landscape. Specific attention is given to the relation of TSES to
traditional nature conservation and to other types of the networks of protected areas.
Concept of TSES changes the “classic” idea of the nature conservation based on
the division of the landscape to protected and non-protected areas towards a system
which maintains the ecological stability of the whole territory by an ecologically
suitable spatial structure of the landscape even in the case that it is exploited in a
different way. The TSES in Slovakia is legally defined in the act on nature con-
servation, and it is incorporated to the acts on territorial planning, agricultural land
arrangement, watershed management, flood protection, environment impact assess-
ment, integrated prevention and pollution control. The final part of the chapter deals
with the development of the TSES and its place in the mentioned acts.
Keywords Landscape structures · Ecological stability · Geoecosystems

Legislation
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 5

L. Miklós et al., Ecological Networks and Territorial Systems of Ecological
Stability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94018-2_2
6 2 Principles for Creating Ecological Networks
2.1 The Structure of the Landscape and Its Functions

for Ecological Networks
The territorial system of ecological stability TSES is based on the principles of

landscape ecology and represents its most successful application and implementation
to the practice (Kozová et al. 2007; Barančoková et al. 2010), TSES is a spatial system,
and therefore the underlying principles concerning territory, space and location must
be clearly specified. Territory and space are terms which describe spatial projection
and provide a spatial framework for the tangible entities of the material reality of
ach spot on the Earth—the landscape as a geosystem.
The core aspect of the landscape as a geosystem according to the general system
theory (von Bertalanffy 1968)—irrespective of numerous attempts to produce more
or less accurate, more or less embellished verbal presentations—is defined by key
authors as a
set of components elements of a geographical sphere

and their mutual relations with each other
(e.g. Neef 1967; Chorley and Kennedy 1971; Sochava 1977; Isachenko 1981; Krcho
1991; Grodzinski 2005 and others). It should be noted that such a system, from the
spatial, material and time point of view, overlaps with the content of other frequently
used terms such as landscape, geoecosystems, geographical complex, but also other
relational concepts such as environment, territory. Of course, the material physical
section of geographical sphere is not “aware” of the name it has been assigned.
According to this approach, landscape is defined as a geosystem, also in the method-
ology of landscape-ecological planning LANDEP (Ružička and Miklós 1982, 1990),
which also includes TSES, and this definition is also adopted in the relevant laws.
The geosystem definition of landscape is as follows:
“Landscape is a complex system of space, location, georelief and other mutually,
functionally interconnected material natural elements and elements modified and
created by a man, in particular the geological base and soil creating substratum, soil,
water bodies, air, flora and fauna, artificial structures and the elements of land use, as
well as their connections, which determine also the socio-economic factors related
to landscape. Landscape is the environment of man and other living organisms.”
(Miklós and Izakovičová 1997). This definition is confirmed by legislation, and this
reading is word for word accepted in Act 50/1976 Coll. on Territorial planning and
Building Code, as amended by the Act 237/2000 Coll., in §139 terms and definitions
of spatial planning. The graphical presentation of this definition is shown in Fig. 2.1.
The authors dealing with the geosystem theory emphasise that all relations in the
geosystems are equally important, and accordingly, the geosystem approach should
not prioritise any elements. The geosystem biased studies should take into account
relations of all elements with each other.
However, if considering the geosystem as the environment for living organisms
(including humans) it is obvious that the geosystem is understood as a system of
2.1 The Structure of the Landscape and Its Functions for Ecological Networks 7
Landscape =
geosystem
Integrated system of
material elements
natural man-changed man-made
socio-economic
space, posiƟon factors
relief
a1 - air
a2 – land-use
a3 – biota
a4 - relief
a5 - soils a8 – society
a6 - waters
where the organizms and human live =
Environment
a7 - geosubstrat
Fig. 2.1 Definition of landscape as a geosystem
conditions and forms
of the life. In this case, we centralise the living organisms—the forms of life—against
all other elements of the system—the conditions of the life. The relations of living
organisms to others are prioritised, they are studied in more detail. Actually, the whole
environmental science in broadest sense of the word is based on this approach: if
one cogitates about the “environment”, there must exist something/somebody whose
environment is evaluated—immediately or in further perspective.
Fig. 2.2 Geosystem biased model of the ecosystem (Miklós et al. 2015)
This approach can be marked as ecological/environmental approach to the defini-

tion of the same material physical entity presented in model in Fig. 2.1a. However,
centralisation of one element of this model represents actually the
model of ecosystem
on the basis of geosystem theory (Fig. 2.2).

Of course, there are many other “classic” definitions of an ecosystem in biological
disciplines, e.g. based on the definition of functional compartments (Ellenberg 1973a,
b; Odum 1975), but the material essence of the systems is still the same; Fig. 2.1
has the same elements as Fig. 2.2. It is to emphasise again that in reality each spot
of the Earth surface is at the same time bearer of both, the geosystem as well as
an ecosystem (Preobrazhensky and Minc 1973). In practical landscape-ecological
studies, there is no sharp boundary between definitions of a geosystem and ecosystem
approach.
The methodics of the territorial systems of ecological stability TSES concentrate
on both, the conditions and the forms of the life, whereby accepts one of the basic
features of the nature which reminds that if we succeed to protect the conditions
we have chance to keep also the forms of life. This feature is not valid in opposite
direction. This basic natural rule, i.e. the geosystem biased ecosystem approach, is
the base of the development of territorial systems of ecological stability TSES.
2.1 The Structure of the Landscape and Its Functions for Ecological Networks 9
Landscape
as a
Geosystem
Tertiary
landscape structure z 1 -socio - economic factors
Secondary
a1 - air
landscape structure
a 2 - land-cover
a3 - vegetation
Primary a4 - georelief
landscape
structure
a 5 - soils
a 6 - waters
a7 - geological substratum
Fig. 2.3 Primary, secondary and tertiary landscape structures. Note: The element a1 - air belongs
to primary landscape structure. Since physically it lies above the seondary landscape structure, it is
drawn graphically on the figure in the section of secondary landscape structure
The key aspect of the geosystem approach to the landscape in its application
in practical activities—herewith also in the process of designing of TSES—is the
disquisitional definition of the character of its elements in terms of their functions
in the construction of the whole system. Accordingly, we distinguish three partial
structures—the primary, secondary and tertiary landscape structures with dif-
ferent physical material character and different functions for the spatial planning
process (Drdoš et al. 1995; Miklós and Izakovičová 1997; Hreško et al. 2003; Renet-
zeder et al. 2010a, b; Špinerová 2015). Ecologically optimum spatial organisation
and use of the landscape—which is also one of the main goals and principles of the
TSES—must accept and harmonise the decisions with the features of all three partial
structures (Fig. 2.3). The brief characteristic of these structures is as follows:
• Primary landscape structure (particularly its abiotic elements)—these condi-

tions are physically more volatile, material and structural basis is very hard or
impossible to change (e.g. limestone is not granite, where mountain ranges are,
there are not lowlands, cold climate is not warm climate), the principles of their
behaviour are unchangeable or partially changeable, and their reaction to distur-
bance is difficult to control. These elements have in practice been least changed by
mankind in comparison with the secondary and tertiary structures of the landscape,
which mankind has directly created.
• Secondary landscape structure—human-made or altered landscape elements
(mainly current vegetation and animal communities, anthropogenic structures and
materials, elements of land use)—these conditions are physically bound to certain
locations, and changing them requires exerting a considerable amount of energy.
Nowadays, the secondary landscape structure is also defined as the current land-
scape structure as its elements are identical with the land-use elements.
• Tertiary landscape structure (mainly socio-economic factors and pro-
cesses)—these do not physically exist, and they manifest in various regulations,
laws, standards and legal constraints including plans, strategies, agreements, con-
ventions, legally declared zones, categories of protected areas.
2.2 Stability of Ecosystems and Spatial Ecological Stability

of the Landscape
As already mentioned, the theoretical–methodical base of the TSES, as well as the

procedure of TSES, has been elaborated and presented by authors of this publica-
tion in different forms in numerous theoretical publications. However, we deem as
inevitable to present also in this publication most of the theoretical principles which
built the basement of the TSES.
The main theoretical cornerstones for the development of the TSES methodics
were the followings:
Landscape ecology is nowadays a broadly developed scientific branch with many
traditional and new mainstream concepts (Forman and Godron 1986; Richling and
Solon 1993; Cook and van Lier 1994; de Groot et al. 2010, Antrop 2013, Kiss and
Szabó 2016). However, the concept of ecological stability because of its intangibility
remained a core question probably also for next generations of scientists. Of course,
there is a mass of studies approaching the concept but outcomes from whatever
research evokes always newer questions.
What is important from the perspective of applied researches, herewith also for
the concept of the territorial system of ecological stability TSES? Since we started
with the idea that TSES should help to keep both the conditions and forms of the life,
including the maintaining the diversity of conditions and forms, let us start with the
generally accepted ecological principle that the species or communities are consid-
ered threatened and their stable functioning can be impaired or rendered impossible,
i.e. the organisms, populations, communities, as well as their development and diver-
sity are endangered if
2.2 Stability of Ecosystems and Spatial Ecological Stability of the Landscape 11
• Their living conditions are unfavourable.

• They are spatially isolated (e.g. Odum 1975, Szabó 2008).
It follows that if we wish to maintain the stable existence and functioning of diverse
living systems in the landscape, we have to ensure both suitable living conditions
and spatial interconnectivity of these systems.
What is the implication of this principle in concern with TSES? In the real world
with current stage of the society, the humans need a variety of ecosystems—environ-
mentally stable, insufficiently stable and unstable man-made, modified agroecosys-
tems—as well as newly created systems with settlements, transport and industry.
These are present in specific areas of the landscape, in the form of the elements of
the current landscape structure as a result of the exploitation of territory (hereinafter
“the elements of CLS”) (Ružičková and Ružička 1973; Miklós and Izakovičová 1997;
Szabó 2007, 2008). In terms of the aforementioned theories, man seeks to maintain
the ecological stability of the landscape, as a whole, on a certain conventional mod-
elling level even with the existing mosaic of various ecologically stable as well as
unstable elements of CLS (Ahern 2002). The prerequisite for maintaining such “sta-
bility” in addition to the internal ecological quality (internal stability) of the most
stable elements of the CLS is their interconnectivity across the territories made up
of different elements with different, even lower internal stability (Grodzinsky 1987).
Naveh and Lieberman (1993) argue that we should achieve a landscape which might
be locally unstable, but globally stable, and it is clear that such a landscape model
cannot be attained simply by protecting only isolated—even stable—ecosystems,
but primarily by instituting a spatial system of interconnected, ecologically stable
elements of the CLS in the frame of real, man influenced and man-created elements
of the landscape. This principle is elaborated in a mass of scientific studies (Forman
and Godron 1981; Mander et al. 1987, Agger and Brandt 1988; Csorba 1989; Forman
1990; Míchal 1992, Grodzinski 2005). Recently, the ability of the ecological stable
elements to provide ecological stability for the whole landscape is defined in the
mainstream landscape-ecological concept as the ecosystem service (de Groot et al.
2010, Bastian et al. 2015)
The stability of ecosystems depends on its intrinsic ecological quality, and conse-
quently, the spatial stability of the landscape depends on the amount and structure of
ecosystems with different intrinsic stabilities (Ružička et al. 1982a, b; Csorba 1989;
Míchal 1992, Miklós et al. 2018). Albeit the differences in wording of the defini-
tions of ecological stability, a commonly acceptable characteristic of the ecological
stability is “the ability of ecological systems to withstand a period of disturbance
and reproduce their essential characteristics in conditions of external disturbance”
(Míchal 1992). This includes many other aspects as resistance (minimal change dur-
ing disturbance) or resilience (spontaneous recovery to its initial condition). Also,
Buček and Lacina (1995)—the pioneers of the TSES method—when developing the
methodics of TSES defined the issue in a purpose-oriented way with outlook to use
these principles in TSES projecting, as:
• The internal (endogenic) ecological stability of the ecological system is its ability
to subsist under normal influence of environmental factors, including those to
which the ecosystems have adapted. It is determined by the strength and quantity
of the internal connections in the ecosystem. High internal ecological stability is
found mainly in successional mature ecosystems (naturally occurring).
• External (exogenic) ecological stability is the ability of the ecosystem to resist
effects of extraordinary factors, to which the ecosystem has not adapted through its
natural evolution (extreme temperatures, widespread fires, earthquakes, volcanic
eruptions, air pollution, water regime changes, chemicalisation of agriculture, etc.)
(Buček and Lacina (1995).
According to all theoretical knowledge and purpose orientation to TSES, we can
define the spatial ecological stability of the landscape as an extent of dynamic
landscape ability to maintain its vertical and horizontal relations at an acceptable
conventional (modelling) level, providing the landscape is composed of ecosystems
with various, even low level of ecological stability (Miklós et al. 2011, 2018). Based
on all above said, we can state the main purpose of TSES as a specific concept of
ecological networks as:
The main purpose of the establishment of ecological networks is

preserving the
spatial ecological stability of the landscape
2.3 Spatial Configuration and Composition

of the Landscape
The original core issue of landscape ecology is its spatial ecological structure (Tans-
ley 1935; Forman and Godron 1986; Richling and Solon 1993; Grodzinski 2005).
The authors have conducted research into spatial relations of ecosystems, spatial
arrangement and spatial impact of ecosystems on their surroundings. Such scientific
investigation strives to demonstrate the significance of ecologically stable landscape
elements due to their spatial influence. Spatially interconnected, ecologically stable
landscape elements are generally referred to as ecological networks. Methodolo-
gies and approaches to their study are flourishing throughout the world (Jongman
1995, 2008; Wrbka et al. 2005; Fabos 1996; Sepp and Kaasik 2002; Jongman et al.
2004; Brandt 1995; Cook and van Lier 1994; Miklós et al. 2018) and also include
the methodology of TSES.
There are developed several theories—e.g. chorologic approach to the landscape,
island biogeography, fragmentation theory, definition of metapopulation (Neef 1963;
Macarthur and Wilson 1967; Buček and Lacina 1984; Brandt 1985; Opdam et al.
2.3 Spatial Configuration and Composition of the Landscape 13
1995; Hanski 1998; Csorba 2008; Špulerová et al. 2013; Hellmund and Smith
2013)—which created a cornerstone for development of ecological networks, here-
with also for TSES.
One of the best developed is the theory of island biogeography. Fragments of dif-
ferent greenery—shrubs, woods, wetlands—in agricultural land serve as “islands”
for maintaining the stable ecosystems. But what is inevitable for ecological stability
is to ensure the interconnections between those islands. The existence of correla-
tion between the size of a natural element, shape and distance between islands is
proved by many studies (Forman and Godron 1981; Agger and Brandt 1988; Solon
1988; Moyzeová and Grotkowská 2006). The surrounding landscape also plays an
important role as it is prone to change induced by anthropogenic activities. Major
factors affecting species diversity of these “islands” are the size of the habitat frag-
ment (direct correlation) and the degree of isolation (negative correlation). Ecological
networks are designed to preserve the minimum area required for survival of natu-
ral communities or target vulnerable populations and mitigate the isolation effects
resulting from the isolation of landscape elements in the anthropogenic landscape,
for example, by means of designating biocorridors, and, in extreme cases, by tech-
nical solutions, such as ecoducts (Schreiber 1988; Míchal et al. 1991; Konkolyné
Gyuró 2005; Kuttner et al. 2013; Miklós et al. 2018).
The metapopulation theory stated that fragmented habitats inhabited by smaller
subpopulations are threatened by the same phenomena as human populations—-
natality, mortality, migrality, etc. The communication between subpopulations is
of utmost importance. The results address the necessity of preserving or restoring
interconnectivity of landscape elements in the current landscape and a possibility of
replacing locally extinct sub-population (Tillmann 2005; Miklós et al. 2018).
Fragmentation of habitats affects various types of organisms differently. The
metapopulation theory explains the impact of fragmentation on different popula-
tions (Csorba 2008). Increasing anthropogenic pressure in fragmented agricultural
landscapes results in reduced size and quality of patches and increased resistance
(eliminating of hedgerows), which consequently upsets the balance between the rate
of extinction and recolonisation, to the extent where, on average, fewer patches are
colonised (Špulerová et al. 2011, 2013; Jongman 2002). As the proportion of empty
patches grows, the probability of species subsistence decreases. Current trends and
research confirm the relevance of the theoretical basis for the concept of ecological
networks in the landscape (Bennett and Mulongoy 2006; Štefunková 2011, Schilleci
et al. 2017, Miklós et al. 2018).
A coherent spatial structure builds on the approach of Forman and Godron (1986,
1993), who promote the evolutionary theory of patches and the landscape matrix
which can be subsequently employed in planning and designing of corridors.
Corridors and patches are important and ubiquitous landscape features (Brandt
1985; Kubeš 1996; Moyzeová 2010). Their origin and character are affected by dis-
ruption, heterogeneity of landscape resources and anthropic impacts. Finally, the pro-
cess results in exceptionally diverse species dynamics, stability and change (Csorba
1996; Hilty et al. 2006). The key aspect of corridors is their interconnectivity or the
presence of gaps. The patch-corridor-matrix paradigm introduced by Forman and
Godron (1986, 1993) enhanced understanding and analysis of the landscape as a

whole in terms of the developmental dynamics of its individual components. The
theory allows the analysis of landscape components as well as the relations existing
between them (Štefunková and Hanušin 2015; Miklós et al. 2018).
2.4 Ecological Networks
The concept of TSES is closely related to the theories and practices on building
ecological networks. It develops and applies to the practice of such concepts as the
Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLS), which paved
the way for the Pan-European Ecological Network (PEEN), as well as the con-
cepts and strategies of the National Ecological Network, NATURA 2000—the Birds
Directive, the Habitats Directive (EEC Directive No. 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC),
agroenvironmental programmes and specific methodologies such as concept of rep-
resentative geoecosytems, mapping of grasslands, green infrastructure (Miklós et al.
2006).
The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy constituted the
first comprehensive coordinating framework for all nature conservation activities in
Europe. “The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy is a Euro-
pean response to support implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Strategy introduces a coordinating and unifying framework for strengthening
and building on existing initiatives. It does not aim to introduce new legislation or
programmes, but to fill gaps where initiatives are not implemented to their full poten-
tial or fail to achieve desired objectives” (Pan-European Biological and Landscape
Diversity Strategy 1996). It motivated a number of concepts and projects, e.g. the
concept of maintaining “green infrastructure” in Europe. The principles of PEEN
were implemented at a regional and local level in most of the European countries
(Mabder et al. 1987; Rientjes and Drucker 1996; Tardy and Végh 2006).
However, the understanding of ecological “networks” is very different. Are all
“networks” really networks? The phenomenon referred to as ecological networks
can be grouped into three major categories (Miklós et al. 2011, 2018):
(a) An ensemble of nature conservation areas of “natural heritage” character.
This is a set of traditionally protected areas, typically the most natural and best-
preserved areas, rare habitats, curiosities, national natural peculiarities, endemic
factors. It is a cultural, natural, historical approach to ecological networks of the
character of the natural heritage. Such areas form a significant experimental basis
for ecological research. They are not interconnected, and the spatial relationships
of these areas are irrelevant; therefore—in the strict sense—they are not really net-
works. Such a “network” is built up by the oldest national conservation areas, which
include the network of European Diploma Sites (1965) and the ensemble Biosphere
Reserves of UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme dating from 1976. These are
the initial activities of the Council of Europe in the field of ecological networks.
2.4 Ecological Networks 15
All these initiatives substantially contribute to the maintenance of the ecological

stability of the landscape. Nevertheless if analysing the criteria, e.g. for European
Diploma programme, they prioritise cultural-natural heritage aspects, as represen-
tativeness, historic, aesthetic, scientific or recreational value determined by the par-
ticular characteristics of fauna, flora, geology, climate and geographical situation,
and also protection status (Jongman 1995). Similarly, the European network of Bio-
sphere Reserves is the basis for the cooperation of the Member States of the Council
of Europe in the field of nature protection. The selection is also based on the criteria
of: the value for nature conservation (unique, typical and endangered) and current
protection status.
(b) Network of various protected “landscape types”. It is a physical
(bio)geographical approach to the establishment of ecological networks. The aim is
to preserve as many representative landscape types as possible. However, the focus
remains on the natural or endangered landscape types, the spatial interconnectivity
is not a criterion, and in reality, they are not always in the form of spatially intercon-
nected systems. Anyway, this kind of “networks” is the most commonly employed
and widespread worldwide and also includes the policy NATURA 2000.
(c) Spatial ecological systems are in reality spatial networks aimed at preserving
both the inner functions and spatial relationships in the whole range of ecosystems
(not only the natural ones); i.e. the emphasis is put on maintaining spatial relations and
not on the quality of selected ecosystems or territories. It is a landscape-ecological
approach to the creation of ecological networks. This approach forms the basis for
modern concepts of territorial systems of ecological stability.
Any set of valuable nature reserves does not automatically constitute an eco-
logical network, and it becomes one only after interconnectivity of the reserves
has been established.
Ecological networks and nature conservation
It should be noted that the landscape-ecological approach does not contradict the
two “classic” approaches. On the contrary, nature reserves are the pillars of the
territorial system of ecological stability. The new approach ensures that the principles
concerning the persistence of the conditions and life form apply across the whole
territory and in all types of ecosystems. Furthermore, the classical approaches may
lack the desired complexity and full-territory aspect simply because they do not
promote integrated networks, but only a set of territories instead.
This generated a lot of controversy among experts regarding the new way of
nature conservation. The basic aspect of the debate can be delineated by the following
questions:
(a) What is “nature”? only a landscape segment in a model state, which is con-
ventionally referred to as “natural state”, or a natural part of the landscape, or the
landscape as a whole, as a geosystem or the geosphere?
Admittedly, the landscape-ecological approach defines nature, for conversation

purposes, as a whole territory, a wide array of landscape components which also
make up nature and foster diversity of conditions and various life forms.
(b) What is the objective of “nature protection?” protection of only a selected
landscape segment, or the protection of the whole landscape? The landscape-
ecological approach adheres to the whole-territory landscape principle and highlights
maintaining the functions within various ecosystems (not only in their natural state)
and spatial relations, exchange of matter, energy and genetic information between
ecosystems in the landscape.
Therefore, the new concept of nature and landscape protection in the Slovak
Republic concentrates on a gradual transition from “black-and-white” division of
the landscape, which recognises only protected and unprotected landscape areas,
to a whole-space covering system of maintaining ecologically sustainable landscape
structure and spatial ecological stability of the landscape with a differentiated way of
use (or non-use) of the territory. This is the central purpose of systems of ecological
stability (Jongman and Pungetti 2004; Fabos 1996).
The above-mentioned theoretical–methodological and practical principles lead to
the development of TSES as a practical and legally binding tool of a modern whole-
territory landscape management in compliance with the provisions of the Convention
on Biological Diversity AGENDA 21 from the UN Conference on Environment and
Development in Rio Summit in 1992.
2.5 Potential Representative Geoecosystems
Identification and characterisation of individual types of potential representative

geoecosystems (REPGES) are of strategic importance for nature conservation as
well as the development of TSES (Miklós et al. 2006). It should serve as a framework
scheme for a systematically structured plan to determine:
– What representative conditions and forms of geoecosystems are present in a given
territory.
– And thus what needs to be protected and preserved.
– Which are actually preserved and protected, and the resulting findings.
– Which are preserved without being protected.
– Which are and which are not physically preserved in a given territory.
It is also necessary to devise a strategy for establishing and protection of bio-
centres in each territory.
This approach is of higher quality than the conventional practice based on search-
ing for the best-preserved habitats according to their current structure and bolsters the
arguments in favour of preserving certain landscape segments more than the “clas-
sic” conservationist argumentation does. From the professional point of view, this
concept encourages the preservation of geoecodiversity, which is a vital prerequisite
for biodiversity conservation.
2.5 Potential Representative Geoecosystems 17
It should also be noted, however, that so far, for a variety of reasons, the mentioned
“classic” approach is more widespread, primarily because of misinterpretation of this
concept, incompetency of some members of TSES project teams, but also various
subjective reasons.
The following are the methodological notes concerning this concept.
2.5.1 Geoecosystems—An Object of Geoecodiversity

Conservation
Geoecosystems are particular objects and bearers of geoecodiversity.

The majority of geographers and geosystemologists define the term “geosystem”
as a sufficiently comprehensive representation of the landscape sphere. On the con-
trary, numerous natural science disciplines and the general public may associate the
prefix “geo-” entirely with inanimate elements of landscape sphere, or even with the
geological substrate. Therefore, in order to eliminate the ambiguity a prefix “geoeco-”
can be used to denote the terms which stress both aspects of the indivisible landscape
sphere—the abiotic and biotic systems.
The starting point of the protection strategy of diversity of conditions and life
forms is the identification of the geoecosystems that need to be preserved (Bailey
1995; Bunce et al. 1996). If we are to tackle the issue in depth, we would observe that
virtually every inch of the landscape sphere provides certain living conditions for
organisms living there, and humans have no right to impose inferiority on any species
(e.g. wild solanaceous weeds, pioneer species on tailing piles or rodent populations
in towns and cities) and ultimately deny their protection or even destroy them.
In practical terms, such in-depth ecological approach may seem inapplicable,
and therefore, these efforts stem from certain geoecosystem models, which—under-
pinned by a general scientific consensus influenced by cultural, historical, ecologi-
cal, biogeographical and regional aspect—identify the worth-preserving geosystems,
geosystems which deserve preservation or geosystems which, from the anthropocen-
tric point of view, do not deserve protection (or are even considered harmful).
Therefore, to preserve geoecodiversity, we develop the models of potential rep-
resentative geoecosystems.
A potential representative geoecosystem (REPGES) is defined as a frame-

work, hierarchically higher geoecosystem, which provides the most represen-
tative characterisation of the landscape as a geoecosystem in a given territory
and hierarchical level.
Such identification and definition of REPGES should serve as the basic strategic
framework for the selection of worth-preserving and needful-to-preserve landscape
segments.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
“Sure, people buying things for school. Grouchy Greenway was in,
he bought a lot of homework paper—pity the fellers in the third
grade. Ruth Binney’s scared of that ladder that rolls along—oh
bimbo, that’s my middle name. I can take a running jump and ride it
all the way to the back of the store.” He did not mention that he
played the harmonica for the girls to dance; he was a good sport and
did not tell tales out of school.
“I think Ruth and Annie Terris will miss you when you go to
Montana,” said Mr. Walton playfully.
“Such nonsense,” said Mrs. Walton. “Don’t put those ideas back
into his head.”
“I may go sooner than you think,” said Hervey.
He stood in the doorway to the dining room, pausing before
making his late evening attack on the apple barrel. A blithe, carefree
figure he seemed, his eyes full of a kind of gay madness. One
rebellious lock of hair sprawled over his forehead as he suddenly
pulled off his outlandish hat in deference to his stepmother. He never
remembered to do this as a regular duty; he remembered each time
separately, and then with lightning inspiration. He could not for the
life of him adapt his manners or phraseology to his elders.
“You know me, Al,” he said.
“Are you going to wash your face when you go in the kitchen?”
Mrs. Walton inquired.
“Sure, is there any pie?” he asked.
They heard him fumbling in the kitchen, then trudging up the
stairs.
“I think it would be just as well not to harp on Montana,” said Mrs.
Walton. “It’s odd how he hit on Montana.”
“One place is as good as another,” said Mr. Walton. “I’m glad it’s
Montana, it costs so much to get there. If he had Harlem in mind, or
Coney Island, I might worry.”
“He talks of them both,” said Mrs. Walton. “Yes, but I think his
heart is in the big open spaces, where the fare is about a hundred
dollars. If it were the Fiji Islands I’d be content.”
“Do you think he’d like to go to Europe with us next summer?”
Mrs. Walton asked. “I can’t bear to leave him alone.”
“No, I’m afraid he’d want to dive from the Rock of Gibraltar,” said
Mr. Walton. “He’ll be safe at Temple Camp.”
“He seems to have just no balance-wheel,” Mrs. Walton mused.
“When I look in his eyes it seems to me as if they saw joys, but never
consequences.”
“Sort of near-sighted in a way, eh?”
“I do wish he had stayed in the Scouts, don’t you?”
“No, I don’t,” said Mr. Walton in a matter-of-fact way. “He didn’t
see it. Some day he’ll see it, but it won’t be because anybody tells
him. The only way Hervey can learn that a tree is high is for him to
fall out of it. That’s what I mean by his being near-sighted in a way.”
“Do you think those railroad workers are a good set?”
“Oh, they’re a good lot; good, strong men.”
“Well, I don’t care for that Hinkey, do you?”
Mr. Walton did not go into raptures over anybody from New York.
He was a good New Englander. Nor had he been carried off his feet
by the “million dollar theatre.” But being a true New Englander he
was fair in judgment and of few words, especially in the field of
criticism. His answer to this last question was to resume reading his
book.
CHAPTER XXIV
IN THE SILENT NIGHT
In his own room Hervey opened the satchel which circumstances
had caused him to carry home. He thought that since kind fate had
brought the opportunity, he would like to give one exceedingly low
blast on a real musical instrument. He was astonished to find that
there was no musical instrument in the satchel, but a tin box
containing a small account book, a number of bills with a rubber
band around them, and an envelope containing some loose change.
He contemplated this treasure aghast. Counting the bills he found
them to be in amount a trifle over a hundred dollars. Never before
had he handled so much money. He was a little afraid of it. He shook
the sealed envelope which was fat with coins; that alone seemed to
contain a fortune. He glanced at the book and found it to full of
figures, entries of receipts and expenditures. On the flyleaf was
written:
Farrelton Merry Medley Serenaders,
Horton Manners, Treasurer.
He was greatly excited by this revelation. Here was a serious
business, a very grave consequence of a mischievous act. To be
sure, the bringing home of the satchel that did not belong to him
would have been the same in any case regardless of its contents.
But just the same the sight of so much money come into his
possession in such a way, frightened him. He had not thought of
such a thing as this. You see Hervey never thought at all—ever.
But he thought now. He had “colloped” (whatever that meant) the
treasury funds of this musical organization and he felt uneasy that he
should have to be the custodian of such a princely sum over night.
Money that did not belong to him! Would his wanton act be
construed as just harmless mischief? He had always wanted to have
a hundred dollars, but now he was almost afraid to touch it. He
replaced the box in the satchel and put the satchel under his bed.
Then he pulled it out again and put it in his dresser. Then he closed
and locked the window. When he was half undressed, he took the
satchel out of his dresser and stood holding it not knowing where to
put it. Then he put it back in the dresser.
He thought of going downstairs and telling his stepfather and
getting this awful fortune off his hands. But then he would have to tell
how he had come by it. Well, was that so very bad? Tripping a fellow
up? But would any one understand? He was very angry at the
deserter Hinkey. And he was equally angry that this dextrous little
tripping stunt should bear such consequences. It seemed to him that
even poor Horton Manners had taken a mean advantage.
He resolved that he would hunt up the musical treasurer in the
morning and return the satchel to him. He would hang on to it pretty
carefully going down the street, too. He did not know Horton
Manners, but he could find him. Of course, he would have to tell the
man that he was sorry he had tripped him up. And his explanation of
why he had carried the satchel home might sound rather queer. He
was not too considerate of the tripping treasurer. He was doomed to
a sleepless night on account of that “bimbo.” It was odd, more than it
was significant, that Hervey, who was afraid of no peril, was in panic
fear of this hundred and some odd dollars. He was just afraid of it.
Several times during that long night, he arose and groped his way
to the dresser to make sure that the satchel was safe. In the wee
hours of the night he was sorry that he had not hunted up Horton
Manners immediately after his escapade. But then he might have got
home too late. On every hand he seemed confronted with the high
cost of mischief.
He wondered if the tripping treasurer was searching for the culprit
with the aid of the police. He felt sure that no one dreamed he was
the culprit. Would they, might they not already, have traced Hinkey?
And what would Hinkey say? He had a reassuring feeling that
Hinkey could not be identified as one of the culprits. He certainly
would not tell on Hinkey. And he hoped that Hinkey would not be
incriminated and tell on him before he had a chance to return the
satchel. But surely Mr. Horton Manners had not gone home and to
bed, doing nothing about the theft of more than a hundred dollars. To
the young treasurer the affair was a plain robbery. Of course, Hervey
could not sleep when his imagination pictured the whole police and
detective force of the town aroused by a bold hold-up.
In the hour just before dawn Hervey, in his troubled half-sleep,
heard a knocking sound. Trembling all over, he pulled on his shirt
and trousers, crept stealthily downstairs and with a shaking hand
and pounding heart opened the front door.
CHAPTER XXV
LIFE, LIBERTY⸺
No one was there. Hervey looked out upon the dissolving night;
already the familiar scene was emerging in the gray drawn—the
white rail fence, the gravel walk with its bordering whitewashed
stones, the big whitewashed tub that caught the rain-water from the
roof trough. He smelled the mist. There was no one anywhere about;
no sound but the slow dripping into the tub. Drop, drop, drop; it was
from the rain of two or three days ago. How audible it was in the
stillness! He crept upstairs again and went to bed. But he did not
sleep. He wished that dreadful satchel were off his hands. Over a
hundred dollars!
He arose in the morning before the household was astir and stole
out with his guilty burden. He knew that Kipp’s Railroad Lunch was
open all night and that it had a telephone. He would look in the
telephone book for Manners. That way he would find the address.
He thought of leaving the satchel at the Manners’ door, ringing the
bell, and running away. The recovery of the money would end the
trouble. But suppose the satchel should be stolen again—not again;
but suppose it should be stolen? Of course, it had not been stolen
before.... Just the same he was desperate to get it off his hands.
Things looked strange about the station so early in the morning;
there were so few people to be seen, and no shops open. Somehow
the very atmosphere imparted a guilty feeling to Hervey. He felt a
little like a fugitive.
He could not find the name of Manners in the ’phone book and
thus baffled, he felt nervous. For while he was losing time, the victim
and the authorities were probably not wasting any time. He thought
he would wait in the station a little while and try to decide what to do.
He knew that the family of Denny Crothers, a scout, was identified
with the big white church. There was an idea! Denny would know
where Horton Manners lived, or could soon find out. Perhaps he
might even take Denny into his confidence. It is worth considering
that in his extremity he was willing not only to use, but to trust, this
scout whose troop he had repudiated.
Well, he would sit in the station a little while (it was still very early)
and if he could not think of any other plan, he would go to Denny’s
house. It would seem strange to the Crothers, seeing him there so
early. And it would seem stranger still to Denny to be approached by
an arch enemy. But Hervey’s troubled thoughts could not formulate
any better plan.
The station was not yet open and he strolled back and forth on the
platform where a very few people were waiting for the early train—a
workman wearing a reefer jacket and carrying a dinner-pail, a little
group of girls who worked in the paper mill at Brierly, and a couple of
youngish men near the end of the platform. These two were chatting
and one of them gave a quick glance at Hervey. It seemed to him
that the talk which followed had reference to himself. He wished that
the station would open, for it was a raw fall morning; there was a
penetrating chill in the air. He wanted to sit down; he was tired of
holding that dreadful satchel, yet he would not set it down for so
much as a moment.
Suddenly, a rattling old car drove up and a brisk young man in an
overcoat got out and dragged two huge oilcloth grips to the platform.
He looked as if he might be a salesman who had completed his
assault on Farrelton. He stopped and lighted a cigarette, and while
he was doing this the two men strolled over and spoke to him. He
seemed annoyed, then laughed as he took out some papers which
the two men examined. Hervey overheard the word hardware. And
he overheard one of the men say, “K.O., Buddy.” They handed back
the papers, nodded sociably, and moved away. It seemed by the
most casual impulse that they approached Hervey. But he trembled
all over.
“You’re out early, kiddo,” said one of them. “Waiting for the train?”
Why, oh why, did he flush and stammer and answer without
thinking? “No—y-yes—I guess it’s late, hey?”
“Guess not,” said the man with a kind of leisurely pleasantry.
“What you got in the bag, kiddo?”
“Bimbo, do I have to tell you?” Hervey demanded with the air of
one whose rights are outraged.
“Might be just as well,” said the man. “What’s your name
anyway?”
“My name is Hervey Willetts and you let go of that!” Hervey
shouted, tugging at the satchel. “You let go of that, do you hear!” He
not only pulled, but he kicked. “You let go of that or you’ll get in
trouble, you big⸺”
He was the center of a little group now; it was astonishing what a
number of persons were presently on the scene considering the few
early morning stragglers. The men put a quick end to Hervey’s ill-
considered struggle by taking the satchel while one held him firmly
by the collar. There is not a decent person in the world but rebels
against this collar grip which seems the very essence of effrontery.
Few boys so held will fail to use that potent weapon, the foot, and
Hervey, squirming, administered a kick upon his captor’s shin which
made the burly fellow wince and swear.
But it was all to no avail. They opened the satchel and noted its
contents. Hervey’s sense of indignity now quite obliterated every
other feeling. His struggles subsided into a wrathful sullenness; he
could not, or he would not, explain. He knew only that he was being
held and that fact alone aroused the demon in him. Of course, if
Walton could not manage him, and the Scouts could not win and
hold him, it was hardly to be expected that these low-bred detectives
could get closer to him than to hold him by the collar. A dog would
have understood him better. He was not the kind of boy to grab by
the collar.
These two detectives, apprised of the “robbery,” had taken their
stand at the station to note if any suspicious looking strangers were
leaving town on the first train. The boy had almost escaped, because
of his youth.
And escape was the one thought in his mind now. Twice he might
have explained; first to his good stepfather, and again to these
minions of the law. But they had the grabbing instinct and (oh, the
pity of it) had diverted his thoughts from honest restitution to a
maniac desire to beat them and baffle them, to steal indeed his
liberty if nothing else, and let the satchel with its fortune go hang! He
would steal; yes, he would forget all else now in this crazy mixup! He
would steal what was the very breath of life to him—his freedom. He
forgot the whole sorry business in this dominant thought—Horton
Manners, the satchel, everything. They had grabbed him by the
collar and he could feel the tightness in his neck.
As long as the squirrel has teeth to bite, he will bite. You cannot
tame a squirrel. The fact that he is caught stealing in your tree is
quite a secondary matter. Hervey Willetts never thought of stealing
anything in his life—but just the one thing.
Freedom!
So he did a stunt. With both hands he tore open his shirt in front,
and as he felt the loosening grip in back he sprang forward only to
feel a vice-like hand catch hold of his arm. And that hand he bit with
all his vicious might and main. Like lightning he dodged both men
and was off like a deer while the circle of onlookers stood aghast.
Around the end of the freight platform he sped and those who
hurried there beheld no sign of him—only a milk-can lying on its side
which he had probably knocked over.
Off bounded one of the detectives; the other lingered, sucking the
cut in his hand. He didn’t know much about wild life, poor man. This
was a kind of stealing he had never seen before—the only kind that
interested Hervey Willetts. The only thing that interested him—
freedom. As long as the squirrel has teeth to bite, he will bite.
You cannot tame a squirrel.
CHAPTER XXVI
OUT OF THE FRYING PAN
But they caught him, and caged him. They found him in the camp
of railroad workers near Clover Valley where he had spent a week or
so of happy days. And they left nothing undone. They investigated
the histories of that rough and ready crew, for they were after the
man higher up, the “master mind” in back of the robbery.
They unearthed the fact that one of them, Nebraska Ned, had
been a sailor and had deserted his ship to assist in a revolution in
South America. It was then that Hervey made a most momentous
decision. He abandoned Montana quite suddenly and chose South
America as the future theatre of his adventurous career.
No master mind was discovered, not even the true master mind,
Harlem Hinkey. He was not implicated and he neglected to uphold
the chivalrous honor of Harlem by coming forward as the originator
of the prank which had such a grave sequel. In the hearing in court,
Hervey never mentioned his name. And there you have Hervey
Willetts. You may take your choice between the “million dollar
theatre” and South America.
There was a pathos about the quiet resignation, the poise and
fairness in face of all, which Mr. Walton presented in that memorable
scene at the hearing. I like Mr. Walton, good man that he was. He
sat, a tall, gaunt figure, one lanky limb across the other, and listened
without any outward show of humiliation. His tired gray eyes, edged
by crow’s-foot wrinkles singularly deep, rested tolerantly on the prim
young man, Horton Manners, who was having his day in court with a
vengeance.
And Hervey, too, looked upon the young treasurer musician with
interest, with dismay indeed, for he recognized in him the very same
young man into whose lap he had stumbled on the train coming
home after his triumphal season at helpless Temple Camp. Horton
Manners looked down from his throne on the witness box, gazing
through Hervey rather than at him, and adjusted his horn spectacles
in a way that no one should do who is under fifty years old. He held
one lapel of his coat and this simple posture, so common with his
elders, gave him somehow the absurd look of an experienced
business man of about twenty-two years.
He was not in the least embarrassed. He testified that he was
treasurer of the Farrelton Band and confessed that he played a small
harp. If he had said that he played a drum nobody would have
believed him. He said that he had lived in Farrelton but a short while
and made his home with his married sister. Then, on invitation of the
likely looking young man representing the prosecutor, he told how
Hervey had mentioned on the train that he was going to Montana
and that he was going to “collop” the money to get there.
“And when did you next see him?”
“Not till this very day; in fact—here in court.”
“When he spoke of Montana, did he ask you how much it would
cost to get there?”
“He did, and I informed him that it would cost at least a hundred
dollars. I advised him against going.” There was a slight titter of the
spectators at this.
“I think that’s all, your Honor,” said the interrogator. “Since the boy
admits he took the satchel, we need not prove that.”
“Just one moment,” drawled Mr. Walton, drawing himself slowly to
his feet. He had employed no lawyer, and would not, unless his
stepson were held for trial on the serious charge of robbery.
“You say you live with your married sister?” he drawled
ruminatively.
“Mrs. Winton C. DeGraw, yes.”
“Then your name would not be in the ’phone book?”
“Presumably not.”
“Hmph.”
“I don’t see any significance in that,” said the young prosecutor.
“I simply want to find out if my boy has told me the truth,” said Mr.
Walton. “This isn’t a trial, of course. When I have satisfied myself
about certain matters I will ask the court to hear me. One more
question, Mr. Horton—I mean Mr. Manners. Do you know the
meaning of the word collop?”
“I never investigated it.”
“Well, I have investigated it,” said Mr. Walton, with the faintest
twinkle in his eye. Hervey looked rather surprisedly at his stepfather.
“It does not mean to steal. It means to earn or to get by the
performance of a foolhardy act—what boys call a stunt. Do you know
what a stunt is?”
“I suppose when I was knocked down⸺”
“You mean tripped.”
“Well, tripped. I suppose that was a stunt.”
“Exactly,” said Mr. Walton. “That’s all it was and nothing more. I
have talked with boys and I find that if a boy jumps from a high fence
to get another boy’s jack-knife, he collops it. It’s a long time since
you and I were boys, Mr. Horton Manners,” Mr. Walton added with a
smile. “Do you really want to charge this youngster with a felony?” he
continued in a tone of quiet kindness. “Isn’t the case hard enough
without that? Did you never perform a stunt?”
Oh, Hervey Willetts, if you had no thrill in that moment for the
patient, kindly, harassed man—your friend and counselor; then
indeed was there no hope for you! But he had a thrill. For the first
time in all his life his eyes filled and brimmed over as he looked at
the man who wanted only to make sure of him, to know that he was
not dishonest; who could stand for anything save that.
“I think, your Honor,” said Mr. Walton quietly, “that this affair
simmers down to a piece of mischief with an unintendedly serious
consequence. I know, of course, about the recent affair of the fire.
My boy gave himself up because he would not be despicable. He
does not lie, much less steal. I believe the story he told me; that he
thought the satchel contained a musical instrument and that he
intended to blow it and cause panic to those gathered in the church.
He saw the police officer, thought he was watched, and carried out
the part of innocence by bringing the satchel home. It proved an
elephant on his hands, a guilty burden to one really innocent. He told
me he could not find this young man’s name in the ’phone book and
it develops that the name is not there. I have here two men who saw
him looking in the ’phone book in a lunch room near the station⸺”
The judge interrupted and surprised him. “I think we need not
prolong this,” said he. “I think the boy had no intention of committing
a serious crime, or any crime at all. I believe the story he told when
arrested. I’d like to think the consequence will prove a lesson to him.
But do you think it will?”
“I’m afraid it will not,” said Mr. Walton. “And I may say now that it is
my intention to send him somewhere where he will be under rigid
discipline. I think I may be left to deal with him.”
“Well, the charge of robbery is dismissed,” said the judge. Then he
appeared to ruminate. “But the boy is still with us and there’s the
problem. This is the second time he has been brought into court. He
kicked up quite a rumpus and bit an officer. Where is this kind of
thing going to end?” He seemed kindly and spoke rather sociably
and not as an official. “Why don’t you put him in the Boy Scouts?” he
added.
“The Boy Scouts haven’t given him a knockout blow yet,” smiled
Mr. Walton. “I’m always hoping they’ll reach him. But I suppose
they’ll have to do a stunt that pleases him. Meanwhile, I’m going to
send him to a military school. It seems like a confession of defeat,
but I’m afraid it’s the only thing to do.”
The judge turned to Hervey. “You’d better go home with your
father,” said he. “And you take my advice and get into the Boy
Scouts while there is time, or the first thing you know you’ll land in a
reformatory. So you want to go to Montana, eh?”
“Sure, they have train robbers out there?” said Hervey.
“And how do you like having a hundred dollars that doesn’t belong
to you?”
“Nix on that stuff,” Hervey said gayly.
“Yet you like train robbers.”
“Bimbo, that’s different.”
Mr. Horton Manners, still sitting like an owl on the witness stand,
gazed at Hervey with a look of utter bewilderment.
“But in South America they have rebellions,” said Hervey.
“Well, let us have no more rebellion here,” smiled the judge.
And he winked at Mr. Walton.
CHAPTER XXVII
AT LAST
Of course, Hervey was never in any danger of being sent to prison
for robbery. As soon as he was arrested and made to tell his story,
Mr. Walton annoyed, but unruffled, saw the thing in its true light. He
went to the all night lunch room near the station and made sure that
Hervey had gone there; then he verified the boy’s statement that the
name of Manners was not in the ’phone book.
Quietly he even inquired among boys the meaning of collop. And
he learned on the highest juvenile authority that it did not signify
stealing nor an intent to steal. But Horton Manners had made the
charge of robbery and so the whole business had to be aired in
court. Mr. Walton was a man of few words; it would be interesting to
know what he really thought of Horton Manners.
As for Hervey, he quite forgot the affair within an hour of the time it
was over. He had been appalled to find himself the custodian of a
hundred and more dollars, but now that he had got it off his hands,
he went upon his way rejoicing. He never looked either backward or
forward; the present was good enough for him. It is significant that
he bore no malice toward Horton Manners. Once or twice he referred
to him as Arabella; then he forgot all about him. He could not be
bothered hating anybody; nor caring a great deal about anybody
either.
A few prominent townspeople financed the Firemen’s Carnival
and it was held after all. Shows and acts were engaged, the merry-
go-round revolved to the accompaniment of its outlandish music, the
peanut and lemonade men held form; you could see the five-legged
calf for “a dime ten cents,” and Biddle’s field presented a gala scene.
The boys of Farrelton went round and round trying to stab the brass
ring, they drank red lemonade and time after time gazed spellbound
at the five-legged calf.
Hervey did not care about seeing the five-legged calf unless he
could sneak in under the canvas fence, and he could not manage
that because of the man who kept shouting and slapping the canvas
with his stick. In common with all the other boys he was thrilled at the
sight of Diving Denniver who ascended a ladder to a dizzy height
and dived from it into a small tank directly below. Diving Denniver did
this thing twice a day, and his night performance was the more
thrilling because it was in the glare of a searchlight whose long beam
followed him in his slow ascent of the frail looking ladder and showed
him in a circle of light when he paused for one thrilling moment at the
top. He earned his living in this way, going around exhibiting at
carnivals and amusement parks, and he was the big feature of the
Farrelton carnival.
Hervey was not content simply to behold this daredevil exploit. He
saw it twice in the daytime and once at night, and he could not stand
the strain of being restricted to the enjoyment afforded a gaping
audience. That is where he differed from other boys. It was this
something in his nature that prevented him from reading boys’
books; he could not intrude into the hair-raising adventures and so
he had no use for them. The most thrilling stories were utterly dead
stuff to Hervey.
But here he could intrude. It was after he saw the night
performance that he felt the urge to penetrate to the hallowed spot
whence that enchanted daredevil emerged in his theatrically
cautious ascent of the ladder. The nature of the spectacular feat
required that it be performed at a distance from the body of the
carnival. As soon as the band started playing Up in the air mid the
stars, the long column of light was directed on the ladder which
appeared as if by magic a hundred yards or so from the thronged
area of the carnival. Every eye was then fixed with expectancy as a
white figure arose into view, moving up, up, up, to a little
surmounting platform. Then the sensational dive, after which the
pleasure seekers ate, drank and were merry again.
But Hervey could not go back to any merry-go-round after that,
and red lemonade had no solace for him. He wandered off from
those festoons of electric lights, away from the festive groups, into
the darkness. Before him, down near the edge of Biddle’s field, was
a tiny light. Soon he came to a rope fence which cut off the end of
the field from the public. Beyond this were wagons and huge cases
standing in the darkness, the packing and transporting paraphernalia
of the motley shows. In a monstrous truck that stood there the multi-
colored prancing horses of the merry-go-round would be loaded and
have a ride themselves.
On an upright of this rope fence was a sign which read
POSITIVELY NO ADMITTANCE. Hervey entered just where the sign
was placed. A hundred or so paces brought him to the holy of holies,
a little tent at the foot of the towering, slender ladder. In the darkness
its wire braces, extending away on each side to their anchorages in
the earth, could not be seen. Almost at the foot of the ladder was a
tank perhaps fifteen or eighteen feet square. Close by the tent was a
Ford sedan, and Hervey crept reverently up to it and read the words
on the spare tire cover DIVING DENNIVER. On the lower part of the
circumference was printed THREE HUNDRED FOOT DIVE. Diving
Denniver believed in advertising. In that tent lived the enchanted
mortal.
Hervey lingered in awe as a pilgrim might linger at a shrine before
entering. Then he walked rather hesitatingly to the open flap of the
tent. On a mattress which lay atop a huge red chest reclined Diving
Denniver in a bath robe. The chest had DIVING DENNIVER printed
on it, as also did a large leather grip, which bore the additional
information WONDER OF TWO CONTINENTS. If the world could
not see Diving Denniver on his dizzy perch, it at least could read
about him. Besides the makeshift divan the tent contained a rough
table formed by a red board laid on two saw horses.
On this was a greasy oil-stove and one or two plates and cups. In
his illicit wanderings, Hervey had at last trespassed through the
golden gates into heaven.
“I was walking around,” said he, rather unconvincingly.
Diving Denniver, a slim young man of about thirty, was smoking a
cigarette and looking over a magazine. It seemed incredible that he
should be thus engaged so soon after his spectacular descent.
“Bimbo, that was some pippin of a dive,” said Hervey. Then, as
Diving Denniver made no attempt to kill him, he ventured to add, “Oh
bambino, that’s one thing I’m crazy about—diving.”
“Didn’t the cop see you?” the marvel asked.
“Leave it to me,” said Hervey. “There isn’t any cop there anyway.
Cops, that’s one thing I have no use for—nix.”
“Yere?” queried Diving Denniver, aroused to slight amusement.
“Do you—do you feel funny?” Hervey ventured as he gazed upon
the wonder of two continents.
“Where did yer git that hat?” asked the god of the temple. “What’s
all them buttons you got on it?”
“I climbed way down a cellar shaft to get one of those buttons,”
said Hervey, anxious to establish a common ground of professional
sympathy with this celebrity. “That’s the one,” he indicated, as he
handed Denniver his hat; “the one that says VOTE FOR TINNEY. He
didn’t get elected and I’m glad, because his chauffeur’s a big fool; he
chased me, but he couldn’t catch me. Some of those holes I cut out
with a real cartridge shell, like you cut cookies. I bet you feel funny,
hey?”
“Yere?” said Diving Denniver, examining the hat. “Well, do you
think yer could go back up there where the big noise is and then
come back here again—without gettin’ stopped?”
“You mean you dare me to?”
Diving Denniver roused himself sufficiently to reach over to a box
and grope in the pocket of a pair of ordinary trousers, the kind that
mortals wear. Then he tossed a quarter to Hervey. “Chase yourself
back there and get a frankfurter,” he said; “get a couple of ’em. And
don’t leave the cop see yer.”
So the wonder of two continents ate frankfurters—and scorned
cops. More than that, he and Hervey were going to eat a couple of
frankfurters together. At last Hervey felt that he had not lived in vain.
CHAPTER XXVIII
THE LAW AGAIN
Hervey felt that he and Diving Denniver were pretty much alike
after all. The wonder of two continents beat all the boy scouts put
together. And he had now a fine precedent for his repudiation of
authority. Diving Denniver cared naught for cops and signs. Hervey
would have been glad to go into any court and cite this high
authority, confounding the powers with this frankfurter episode. He
was sorry he had not told Diving Denniver of his swimming across
the lake at Temple Camp (during rest period which was against the
rules). Instead of an honor he had received a reprimand for that. He
was a little afraid that some of the other boys would visit the wonder
in his tent, but in fact there wasn’t much danger of that. The wonder
was too much off the beaten track for most boys. Their thoughts did
not carry behind the scenes.
Hervey was now in much perplexity whether to witness the thrilling
exploit from the audience the next night or to view it from the
sanctum of the hero. In either case he intended to visit the remote
scene of enchantment with two frankfurters. He decided that he
would not demean himself by gazing at his hero with the idle throng.
He even negotiated an extra hour out from Mr. Walton in anticipation
of his second visit to the hermit of the ladder.
He could not possibly reach the place in the daytime, and besides,
he had to take up some bulbs for his stepmother the next day. For
this and other services he was to receive fifty cents. Twenty-five of
this would pay his admission to the carnival. With the other twenty-
five he intended to furnish forth a banquet of frankfurters for his hero
and brother daredevil. He could not afford to go twice in the day. He
had some thought of effecting an entrance over the high fence into
the field and having his entire fifty cents for the post-exploit feast. But
reckless as he was, he was cautious in this matter of reaching the
tent—there was so much at stake! So he decided to go respectably
in through the entrance and then cross the rope fence where the
“Positively No Admittance” sign was placed. It was not often that he
showed such a conservative spirit.
At half past eight, he found Diving Denniver strolling around in his
bathrobe outside the tent. Within, the odor of fried bacon and coffee
still lingered.
“You back again?”
“Sure, I want to see you from right here, and afterward I’m going
to go and get some more frankfurters. After you’re finished will you
let me go about ten or fifteen steps up the ladder and try it?”
Diving Denniver did not trouble himself to answer, but he ruffled
Hervey’s hair good-humoredly as he ambled about smoking his
cigarette. “Much of a crowd over there?” he asked.
“Oh bimbo, they’re all waiting. They stop dancing even when you
go up,” Hervey said.
“You’re a pretty slippery kid, all right, ain’t yer?” Denniver said.
“Ain’t there no guy up there at the rope?”
The words were scarcely out of his mouth when both he and
Hervey became aware of a policeman who had just come around the
side of the tent. But Hervey, though astonished, was not perturbed,
for he believed that the wonder of two continents would protect him.
One word from Diving Denniver and he would be safe. He even
ventured a defense himself.
“I’m going to do an errand for him,” he said.
“You can ask him yourself. So I’ve got a right to be here.”
But it appeared that it was Diving Denniver with whom the officer
had business. “Are you Charles McDennison?” he asked.
“Yere, what’s the dope?” the wonder asked, with a kind of
weariness in his voice.
Hervey was astonished, not to say shocked, that Diving Denniver
acknowledged the name of Charles McDennison.
“Let’s look at your permit,” said the officer.
Mr. McDennison entered the tent, presently emerging with a
paper.

Textbook Ecological Networks and Territorial Systems of Ecological Stability Laszlo Miklos Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Textbook Ecological Networks and Territorial Systems of Ecological Stability Laszlo Miklos Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecological Networks and Territorial

Systems of Ecological Stability László

Neoextractivism and Territorial Disputes in Latin

Managing Biological and Ecological Systems 2nd Edition

Ecological Political Economy and the Socio-Ecological

Urban Ecology: Emerging Patterns and Social-Ecological

An Ecological Theory of Free Expression Gary Chartier

Landscape-ecological Planning LANDEP László Miklós

Ecological Integrity and the Management of Ecosystems

Ecological informatics data management and knowledge

ISBN 978-3-319-94017-5 ISBN 978-3-319-94018-2 (eBook)

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Printed on acid-free paper

3.3 Hierarchical Structure of the Territorial System of Ecological

4.4 Landscape-Ecological Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 98

Fig. 2.1 Deﬁnition of landscape as a geosystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6

Territorial system of ecological stability (TSES) represents the most significant

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 1

From the theoretical and methodological perspective, TSES is a modern concept

The concept of TSES can be considered a notable success aimed at incorporating

Abstract Establishing ecological networks is currently one of the main objectives

Keywords Landscape structures · Ecological stability · Geoecosystems

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 5

2.1 The Structure of the Landscape and Its Functions

The territorial system of ecological stability TSES is based on the principles of

set of components elements of a geographical sphere

where the organizms and human live =

Fig. 2.1 Definition of landscape as a geosystem

conditions and forms

This approach can be marked as ecological/environmental approach to the defini-

on the basis of geosystem theory (Fig. 2.2).

• Primary landscape structure (particularly its abiotic elements)—these condi-

2.2 Stability of Ecosystems and Spatial Ecological Stability

As already mentioned, the theoretical–methodical base of the TSES, as well as the

• Their living conditions are unfavourable.

The main purpose of the establishment of ecological networks is

2.3 Spatial Configuration and Composition

Godron (1986, 1993) enhanced understanding and analysis of the landscape as a

2.4 Ecological Networks

All these initiatives substantially contribute to the maintenance of the ecological

Ecological networks and nature conservation

Admittedly, the landscape-ecological approach defines nature, for conversation

2.5 Potential Representative Geoecosystems

Identification and characterisation of individual types of potential representative

2.5.1 Geoecosystems—An Object of Geoecodiversity

Geoecosystems are particular objects and bearers of geoecodiversity.

A potential representative geoecosystem (REPGES) is defined as a frame-

You might also like