## THE FACULTY OF NATURAL SCIENCES OF COMENIUS UNIVERSITY AND THE MONITORING OF THE IMPACT OF THE GABCIKOVO HYDROPOWER STRUCTURES ON INDIVIDUAL LANDSCAPE COMPONENTS

#### Jozef KRCHO

Dean of the Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Mlynska dolina, 84215 Bratislava, SLOVAKIA

CONCLUSIONS The project "Monitoring of biota of territory influenced by the construction and operation of the Gabcikovo project" is such a serious project that the co-ordinator role is deservidly prestigious. There is high responsibility from both the scientific and also the non-scientific points of view. Therefore, results have to be thoroughly elaborated and correctly documented. Our faculty carries the whole responsibility for it. Thoroughness of documentation and final conclusions must be elaborated to the highest level, because the Gaciˇkovo project, its impact on landscape and the evaluation of this impact, includes not only scientific aspects, but also other, extraordinarily strong, non-scientific aspects.

The landscape is such a highly organised spatial system that a comprehensive study of it requires a good concept and organised co-operation of numerous scientific disciplines. This is very complicated, because not all disciplines are on the same level of development nor are all working with the same level of exact mathematical-physical apparatus and with the same system of precisely defined expressions. Negative, even tragic consequences can occur in using incorrect expressions, especially, when they are used in non-scientific branches, but referring to science. The result is misinformation, which becomes worsewhen it is joined to negative argumentation.

#### INTRODUCTION

This publication consists of papers which review the monitoring and evaluatate effects on individual landscape components in the area of the Gabcikovo project, during the last two years. The aim of monitoring changes of selected rank parameters, characterising the global state of particular observed landscape components in the specified time intervals, was to fimd out the impact of the Gabcikovo project on the development of spatial values of the monitored parameters, and on the gradual spatial changes during the two years. This requires evaluat- ing the impact of the Gabcikovo project on the landscape components, on individual geosystems, on the stabilily and probable resulting state, and also on the landscape as a whole; evaluating both positive and negative developments.

The Gabcikovo project has become a very discussed object in the internal and international political sphere, and also in various other spheres, including science and technology. There have been a large number of contradictory opinions expressed, which regularly tended to give discussions a with highly emotive charge. For most such discussions, the rational content was indirectly proportional to the emotive charge. This regularly resulted in only a very small possibility of mutual agreement and serious common result. From our point of view, it is important to only discuss this topic in a scientific sphere which is based on:

- an agreed formulation of word phrases, as precise as possible, to minimise the possibility of different meaningful, but inconsistent, interpretations in discussions and, in order to exclude or minimise the possibility of naming the same phenomenon by various expressions, or to name different phenomena by the same words, or using important phrasis which have not been agreed to in advance or are not precisely defined.
- previously agreed measured parameters of selected components of the natural environment; the number, way, and accuracy of measurement with scientifically admissible and verifiable tolerance, in advance determined,
- correctly combining independent measurements and observations, in a way to exclude influencing the measured results or any additional modification, to strictly preserve the scientific correctness,
- using agreed upon models, mutually comparing their results, their accuracy, and their allowed tolerances,
- strictly keeping to scientific ethics and scientific honour, perhaps minimising argumentation which aims to influence the result from the point of view of a rapacious, non-scientific aim.

Discussion on such a basis is a requirement for mutual agreement. If, in such a serious discussion matters went so far as to a questionable conclusion, the firm scientific platform gives the possibility of analysing backward and fimding out the moment in the discussion, which started the divergence of interpretation. At the divergence there will probably be a word phenomena incorrectly defimed, the consequence of which was the different inter- pretation of the information or model results. It is then possible to try to mutually agree to a redefinition of the identified description, idea, meaning, or correct model use.

#### LANDSCAPE, SCIENCE, MONITORING, INTERPRETATION

Science is a system, which is capable of immediate or at least supplementary auto-correction. It enables a deep- ening of knowledge by gradually excluding errors or incorrect conclusions. At the same time, this ability of autocorrection enables a gradual correction of true declarations, meaning precise, or at least a probable limiting of the extent of its accuracy. One of the fundamental assumptions of scientific auto-correction of science is combining its logical, methodological, and phenomenal apparatus with a strict scientific ethics and a strict standing of its principles by all members of the scientifiic community.

Choosing a platform of scientifiic discussion also enables the reconciliation of the most contradictory opinions held by participants in the discussion. It enables a gradual correction of formulating starting terms, a revision of questionable places or facts, and finally at least a gradual reaching of the same conclusions.

The importance of precisely formulating input expressions, and also the whole phraseology vocalbulary, exponentially rises with the complexity and interdisciplinarity of the observed problem. Accepting a common vocalbulary is one of the basic requirements for successful co-operation by any interdisciplinary teams consisting of scientific workers from various scientific branches, and is the basis for finding a common platform for mutual agreement in scientific discussion. In such a complicated interdisciplinary task, as is the environmental sphere, the formulation of correct terminology is of fundamental importance.

The environmental sphere does not concern only partial research, even though detailed and complicated, of individual landscape components itself, but of co-ordinated research of individual landscape components in their mutual spatial interaction. It does not concern only of studying, for example, the biosphere and its individual components itself, nor of studying the atmosphere, pedosphere, surface parts of the lithosphere, each with its own dynamics, but it concems the study and research of these landscape components in their mutual spatial interaction. The result of the mutual spatial interaction of these components are processes characterised by cycles of energy, which are specific only for the sphere of interaction - for the natural part of landscape creating a natural environment of man.

So it concerns research of the natural environment as a spatially organised unit of higher order with its own con- sequent dynamics and own spatial organisation. This organisation is a result of the dynamics and spatial distribution of individual landscape components and their mutual spatial interaction.

Studying such a highly organised spatial system as the landscape, requires a good concept and organised cooperation of numerous scientific disciplines. This is very complicated, because not all disciplines are on the same level of development nor are all working with the same level of exact mathematical-physical apparatus and with the same system of precisely defined expressions. Some scientific disciplines use more qualitative than quantitative expressions and definitions, which then also influences the selection and methodology of data collection and evaluation. Studying the processes and spatial organisation of individual components of the natural part of the landscape, and the natural part of the landscape as a spatially organised unit, is only one part of the problem.

The seeond part of the problem, of the same importance, is the fact, that, from an environmental point of view, it is necessary to study not only the natural environment, but also the influence of multidimensional spatial activities of human society on the individual components of the natural environment, man's impact on the natural environment as a spatially organised unit, and the reaction of the landscape and its individual components to various human impacts.

If we divide individual spheres of human spatial activity from the methodical point of view, for example into a forest management sphere, an industrial and energetic sphere, a transport and communication sphere, a residence sphere, and a communal and service sphere, then it is necessary to deal with the influence of activities in all these spheres, including the completion of all technical works in the landscape, to every individual environment component (natural environment) and landscape as a whole.

At the same time it is also a reaction of landscape and its individual components to inputs from these spheres. So if a study of multidimensional spatial interaction between human society and the natural part of landscape is to be completed, it is necessary to study not only the influence of man on landscape but also its response, reaction of the landscape and its individual components to all human activities.

Landscape is a highly organised spatial system with its own auto-regulating processes. In the scientific community it is a generally accepted reality that man, with his spatial activities, creates break-downs in auto-regulation of processes in the natural part of the landscape. Landscape and its individual components react to these breakdowns by a change of states and by changing its spatial organisation. Landscape and its individual components are balanced this way with influences brought by human activity.

Landscape as a spatially organised system is a very complicated one, and is studied from various stand-points by various scientific disciplines. Therefore, the terminology and phenomenon apparatus is under rapid development. The same phenomena are often expressed by different words, which are not precisely defined, so that essential meanings are changed and misunderstood by different scientific branches and frequently vice-versa, the same expression, ideas and impressions, which again brings superfluous information interference and distortion. into mutual communication.

For example, one of numerous very frequently used terms is "ecological catastrophe". Various scientists using this phrase understand very different meanings. The result of using such expressions in a scientific discussion, without accuratly establishing its meaning is, that scientific discussion is changed in consequenee of misunderstanding to "passionate discussion", with a strong emotive trend without any positive result. It is natural that all discussions based on incorrectly or insufficiently defined expressions are not scientifically constructive and, as a consequence of information distortion, they are turbulent meaning, they do not lead, and also from principle they cannot lead, to scientifically valuable conclusions.

While such a turbulent discussion and its consequential results should remain only an as internal matter of the science and the scientific community, it should not have a very negative impact. On the contrary, it can even have a positive impact by stimulating further study and discussions about the contents, precise limitations, and significance of each used expression. Science is capable, as a in final consequence, of auto-correction.

When such incorrect expressions are used in non-scientific branches, but referring to science, the consequences are negative, even tragic. The result is misinformation which becomes worse when it is joined to negative argumentation. Such methods are sometimes used by advocacy campaigns, and as communication skills in brainstorming.

For scientists from their own individual scientific branches to understand each other, during an interdisciplinary study of a spatially complicated organised system, such as landscape, they have to mutually agree on the precise formulation of terminology for landscape as a whole and for the individual landscape components. This is fundamentally important. It is of course possible to utilise already existing terms and phrases from individual scien- tific branches, however the meaning of all expressions has to be precisely defimed from the landscape point of view of further importance is the most precise formulation of the natural environment as a spatially organised unit, including its precisely formulated spatial limitations.

Foreign literature has elaborated a theory of geosystems, including also landscape, from the stand-point of systems theory. The problem of landscape as a spatially organised system, its global states and the states of its individual components as characterised by a set of state parameters, is a huge and very complicated problem. Already the special problem of selecting the needed number of parameters in order to sufficiently characterise the states of individual landscape components, and at the same time to enable studying its interconnections with other landscape components, is very complicated. Various scientific branches, which are studying individual landscape components, work with qualitative and quantitative expressions on a different qualitative level. There is also a composition and varied distribution of these parameters, being spread among individual scientific branches who are working studying landscape and its dynamics.

The spatial regime of these parameters in time meaning the values and frequencies of these values during selected time intervals, and also the dynamics of its spatial changes in this interval, are very important for a knowledge of the dynamics of processes in landscape.

The permanent monitoring of a certain number of representative state parameters (whether already quantitative or only qualitative) is a base for:

- a knowledge of the spatial distribution of measured values, and their courses through time,
- a gradual increase in knowledge and a more exact formulation of the number and importance of dependencies among individual landscape components, and for gradually perfecting the formulation of functions describing the tightness of feedback among them,
- a gradual increase in knowledge and a more exact formulation of the partial structures and fimally the total structure of landscape as spatially organised complex.

Therefore landscape as a spatially organised system was not a preliminary subject of works in this proceeding. The subjeet is the monitoring of a basic, representative number of selected state parameters from:

- the atmosphere,
- the hydrosphere,
- the pedosphere,
- the biosphere,

and also state parameters characterising the geological substrate in the territory. At the same time, a morphometric analysis of georelief, with expressions of the spatial distribution of individual morphometric parameter values, was elaborated in order to express precisely the influence of georelief on the spatial differentiation of observed state parameter values of individual landscape components. In order to describe the significance of the monitoring of individual selected state parameters described from the wider point of view, in this publication is included a contribution entitled "Landscape as a spatially organised system and the georelief as a subsystem of landscape - the influence of georelief on spatial differentiation of landscape ecological processes". In this contribution there is also briefly described the problem of landscape as a spatially organised system and georelief as its special spatial subsystem. In spite of dealing with the region of the Danubian lowland, georelief plays an important role in spatial differentiation of values of individual state parameters characterising hydrothermal and chemical regimes of soils. Georelief influences this spatial differentiation by means of its morphometric parameters. Therefore, a part of the whole programme is an exact detail morphometric analysis of georelief and modelling of its geometry by means of a complex digital model which is an integral part of GIS - Geographical Information System.

#### MONITORING AT THE FACULTY OF NATURAL SCIENCES

Even if there are presented results from only two years of monitoring after putting the Gabcikovo structures into operation, contributions of this publication are based on more long-dated research, carried out long before construction of the Gabcikovo project. This research created a reservoir of valuable knowledge and experience. The Faculty of Natural Sciences of Comenius University, together with the Slovak Academy of Sciences and other institutions, took important part on this research.

The scientific group at the Faculty of Natural Sciences supervised by Univ. Prof. Igor Mucha, has almost been continuosl involved in research of ground water on the territory of Danubian Lowland. In 1990, Faculty estalblished under his lead an independent group, "Ground Water Consulting", as an advisory group for the Slovak Government, and, the Plenipotentiary of the Government for the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Hydropower Scheme. Research results from this group have a fundamental importance for knowledge of processes in this area. The specifically new conception of the advisory group optimising effort, before and after putting the Gabcikovo structures into operation, positively influenced the impact of the Gabcikovo structures not only in the sphere of the ground water, but also in environment and public education and relations.

Monitoring selected parameters of individual landscape components occured through two essential periods, from the point of view of co-ordination and management.

- In the first period, monitoring of biota of the Danube river was co-ordinated by the Slovak Academy of Sciences, and the Faculty of Natural Sciences took part in monitoring.
- In the second period, monitoring is co-ordinated by the Faculty, and some institutes of the Slovak Academy of Sciences took part in monitoring, as weel as some other institutions.

Therefore, the fitnal results of monitoring are expressing the efforts of all participating institutions, which can be seen in the presentation of the contributions.

These proceedings include expressions of different opinions by authors in their evaluation of impact of the Gabcikovo project inpact on individual landscape components. The reader has the opportunity to judge the problem within a wide opinion spectrum and at the same time to become acquainted with the results of monitoring. Based on these results the reader can create his own opinion, whether the same or contrary to the conclusions of the authors of individual studies.

The results of monitoring are documented consistently and are elaborated with the thoroughness needed to fulfil all criteria from the point of view of scientific correctness. The work of monitoring is continuing and is also being continuously evaluated. This will enable us to evaluate all aspects of the developing processes from the point of view of landscape as a spatially organised system, and by that to also recognise the long-term impact of the Gabcikovo project in changing the states and changing the spatial organization of the landscape.

In order to fulfil this aim, all works on monitoring, and the systematic collection and elaboration of all measured parameters, have to be developed at a high professional level. Naturally, this emphasis puts great demans on all who participate in monitoring. It places the greatest demands on the co-ordinator of the work, the Faculty of Natural Sciences of Comenius University.

The project "Monitoring of biota of territory influenced by the construction and operation of the Gabcikovo project" is such a serious project that the co-ordinator role is deservidly prestigious. There is high responsibility from both the scientific and also the non-scientific points of view. Therefore, results have to be thoroughly elaborated and correctly documented. Our faculty carries the whole responsibility for it. Thoroughness of documentation and fimal conclusions must be elaborated to the highest level, because the Gabcikovo project, its im- pact on landscape and the evaluation of this impact, includes not only scientific aspects, but also other, extraordinarily strong, non-scientific aspects.

Therefore, if there would be, by chance, any doubts about the quality of the elaborated data, and this from any reasons, they have to be argued again by precise documentation and correct argumentation. On this, on scientific accuracy, stands or falls the authority of Faculty of Natural Sciences of Comenius University.