On June 6, 2023, at 2:30 am, Russian military forces detonated the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant, which they had mined back in late February 2022. This act of terrorism became the most significant impact on natural ecosystems since the events starting from February 24, 2022, in Ukraine.

Some foreign publications have neutrally reported on this catastrophic event. However, it is crucial to examine some of the most devastating consequences of the dam destruction.

The Kakhovka Reservoir is the second-largest reservoir in Ukraine in terms of area (2,155 km²) and the largest in terms of water volume (18.19 km³). It is located in the three regions of Ukraine: Zaporizhzhia, Dnipropetrovsk and Kherson, spanning a length of 240 km. A nearly 4 km long hydrocomplex has supported a 16-meters raised  water level of the Dnipro River. Therefore, the negative consequences of this terrorist attack on wildlife will be visible over an area of at least 5,000 km² (including the flooded and dried-up zones). The zone that was covered by the reservoir’s waters for the past 68 years and is now will be exposed, could exceed 1,000 km²!

We are considering the consequences of the Kakhovka HPP dam explosion solely for wildlife, although we fully realize that apart from ecological effects, there are equally important implications for the economy, energy, population, and ultimately, nuclear safety in Ukraine, which should be evaluated by relevant experts. Other aspects, such as the impact on water supply for the population in the Kakhovka HPP area, effects on agriculture, and more, have already been addressed in other publications by various scientists and journalists.

Spatial flooding model.

Let’s examine the spectrum of consequences of this terrorist attack for the wild nature, to which the rapid outflow of water from the Kakhovka Reservoir has already led or will lead in the coming days. All of them can be divided into two types: the consequences of the desiccation of the Kakhovka Reservoir and the consequences of the flooding downstream of the Dnipro River.

We have identified the following groups of catastrophic impacts on wildlife caused by the destruction of the Kakhovka HPP:

Consequences of desiccation of the Kakhovka Reservoir and water outflow from it:

a. Impact on fish population: One of the major impacts of this disaster is on fish resources. Ukraine is losing vast fish stocks. The Kakhovka Reservoir, like the lower  floodplains of the Dnipro River, has one of the largest concentrations of freshwater commercially important fish species in Ukraine. At the time of the terrorist attack, the Kakhovka Reservoir alone was habitat to no less than 43 fish species, of which 20 species have commercial importance (annual catches amounted to up to 2.6 thousand tons). It will take a minimum of 7-10 years to restore such stocks. All spawning grounds and the main volume of water, which are the fish habitats , have been destroyed. The spawning of most species occurs in late spring and early summer, during which a spawning ban is in action —a special “silence” regime on water bodies when fishing is not allowed, and restrictions on the movement of motorboats are imposed, along with other measures. As a result of the rapid draining of the reservoir, almost all juvenile fish in the shallow water will be left stranded, doomed to perish, which will undermine the long-term spawning results.

Furthermore, as a result of the desiccation of the Kakhovka Reservoir, it is likely that the wintering ground in the Republican Bay area within the territory of the Kamianska Sich National Nature Park will cease to exist. The wintering grounds in the waters of the Havrylivska Bay, Dudchanska Bay, and the bay near the village of Novovoroncivka (adjacent to the boundaries of the Kamianska Sich National Nature Park) are also under threat of desiccation. The vast majority of fish that inhabited the reservoir will be carried out to the sea and perish in saline water.

b. Impact on birds.Due to the almost complete disappearance of the Kakhovka Reservoir in this area, a number of bird species that nest in these places (including martins, terns, etc.) will disappear. It is currently impossible to assess the impact of reservoir desiccation on the bird populations. There are no studies which tried to model such effects. For example, the nesting of birds on the so-called “kuchugury” (elevated places) in the center of the reservoir is significant. These areas were previously on isolated islands but can now have direct terrestrial access for predators and humans. These places have long been studied by ornithologists and are of considerable interest, as mentioned in the publication, which indicates the nesting of rare species such as squacco heron (Ardeola ralloides), little egret (Egretta garzetta), common spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia), eurasian oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus), penduline tit (Remiz pendulinus), and others.

c. Impact on benthic fauna (benthos).A large number of organisms inhabiting water bodies live in the benthic mud in the coastal zone – the ripal zone – the part of the riverbed where vegetation and sunlight are present. Within a few hours, this zone has been exposed, inevitably leading to the death of the majority of benthic organisms in the former reservoir. Together with the information about the loss of fish populations, it can be concluded that the vast majority of all living organisms that inhabited the Kakhovka Reservoir have already perished or will perish in the coming days. This includes various invertebrates, which constitute the main animal biomass of the reservoir, particularly mollusks (such as bivalves) and various species of midges (Chironomus, subfamily Culicinae), which are a food base for fish, birds, amphibians, and others.

d. Impact on plant life.As a result of the catastrophic decrease in water level in the reservoir, aquatic and riparian plants of the Kakhovka Reservoir will disappear. In their place, invasive alien plants such as Canadian fleabane (Erigeron canadensis), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), giant goldenrod (Solidago gigantea), and others will take over. Overall, the exposed zone of the reservoir bed will become the largest hotspot of dangerous invasive species propagation in the region.

e. Impact on rare habitat types.All living organisms coexist in nature and form biotops (natural habitats), unique “varieties of nature” that are also rare and protected at the pan-European level. In general, within the territory affected by the ecological catastrophe, 38 rare habitat types, protected under the Bern Convention, have been identified (Appendix 5). Areas of the Emerald Network were created in Ukraine specifically for their protection. Aquatic habitats and waterlogged habitats will suffer the most from desiccation.

f. Impact on national protected areas.Above the Kakhovka HPP dam at least 11 protected areas, will be affected by desiccation, including National Nature Parks Kamianska Sich (12,261.14 ha), Great Meadow (16,756 ha) and Regional Landscape Park Panai   (Appendix 4)..

g. Impact on protected areas of international importance. The consequences of the disaster will have a negative impact on the EmeraldNetwork sites UA0000106 Kakhovske Reservoir (218,119 ha), Velykyi Luh National Nature Park (SiteCode: UA0000037) (16,755 ha) and Bazavluk (SiteCode: UA0000467) (65220,25га), as well as the wetlands of international importance Archipelago Velyki and Mali Kuchugury (7,740.0 ha) and the Sim Maiakiv Floodplain (2,140 ha).

 

Consequences for flooded areas below the destroyed dam

 

a. Impact on terrestrial fauna.Quantifying the extent of fauna destruction is impossible since no research on similar catastrophes has been conducted in Ukraine. However, it can confidently be stated that the scale of this catastrophe is difficult to compare with any previous events in Ukraine. Over the past 90 years, the floodplain of the Dnipro River in Ukraine has been regulated (with the construction of six dams) and populated by animals that lack effective mechanisms for escaping flooding. The rapid rise in water levels in low-lying areas and especially on islands leaves no chances to survive for most terrestrial animals (mammals, reptiles, insects, etc.) and colonies of most bird species. On June 6th, in one day, some species’ populations faced a  significant impact   maybe even bigger, than they have experienced in the past 100 years. Nearly all known locations of the rare ant species, Liometopum microcephalum, and possibly all the places where Tapinoma kinburni were found, are located in the flooded areas. Additionally, there has been a catastrophic impact on populations of globally endangered mammal species. For example, 70% of the world population of Nordmann’s birch mouse (Sicista loriger) has been flooded, which may lead to its extinction in the future. The population of the  sandy blind mole-rat (Spalax arenarius) has been reduced by up to 50%, as well as the population of the Falz-Fein’s thick-tailed jerboa (Stylodipus telum falzfeini). 

Reptiles are one of the most vulnerable groups of animals to flooding and destruction of biotopes. Among them there are species listed in the Red Data Book of Ukraine: Steppe viper (Vipera renardi), Caspian whipsnake (Dolichophis caspius), Sarmatian ratsnake (Elaphe sauromates), Smooth snake (Coronella austriaca), and species listed in Annexes II and II of the Bern Convention – Sand lizard (Lacerta agilis) and Steppe runner (Eremias arguta). Pollutants that have entered the water can negatively affect not only reptiles but also amphibian populations that are very sensitive to water quality. Such amphibians (some of them are listed in the Red Data Book of Ukraine, like crested newt – Triturus cristatus) and common newt Lissotriton vulgaris, will be especially affected. The latter one is a promising species to be included in the Red Data Book of Ukraine in the nearest future.

b. Impact on bird nesting colonies.In the flood zone, important nesting sites of water and shorebird species will be destroyed, including tens of thousands of individuals. The lower Dnipro floodplains are habitats to the largest colonies of herons and other colonial birds in the region. It should be noted that the catastrophic impact affected birds during their nesting period, including the presence of fledglings. There is no time left for the establishment of new colonies and subsequent breeding (re-nesting will not result in the appearance of migratory fledglings by the end of summer). Some birds, such as herons (Ardeola ralloides, Casmerodius albus, Ardea purpurea), ibises (Plegadis falcinellus), terns (Chlidonias niger, Ch. leucopterus, Ch. hybridus), ducks (Anas clypeata, A. querquedula, A. platyrhynchos), rails (Porzana), coots (Fulica atra), moorhens (Gallinula chloropus), and mute swans (Cygnus olor), will lose their nesting colonies but will be able to restore their population within 3-7 years. The recovery of predator populations, such as marsh harriers (Circus aeruginosus), will require more time (5-10 years).

c. Impact on flora.The flooded area is a habitat for a specific flora, including many species with very localized distribution in this region. These include endemics of the Lower Dnipro Sands such as Centaurea breviceps, Jurinea laxa, Thymus borysthenicus, as well as the Bug-Dnipro endemic species Alyssum savranicum, Crataegus alutacea, Agropyron dasyanthum, and Goniolimon graminifolium.

Expectedly, as a result of flooding, hundreds of thousands of individuals of these plants, which constitute a significant share of their total population, are expected to perish. Appendix 6 contains a list of plant species and plant communities under protection that may be affected.

To an uninformed reader, it may seem that water cannot harm plants. However, it primarily concerns plants,  inhabiting sandy ecosystems, for which even a rise in groundwater levels can be detrimental. As a result of flooding, a part of birch and oak forests is likely to perish, including some of the largest oaks in the Kherson region, located in the Zburiv Forestry near the Dnipro River bank. Populations of wild orchids (Anacamptis coriophora, A. picta, A. palustris, Dactylorhiza incarnata, and Epipactis palustris) from the Red Data Book of Ukraine will also be flooded. Additionally, the flooding will cause a significant rise in groundwater levels throughout the southern region of Ukraine. This will not only increase soil humidity but also lead to salinization, which is detrimental to vegetation. For instance, it may result in the permanent disappearance of relic remnants of natural forests (the legendary Hileya) and artificial forests created on the Dnipro sands in the past (this circumstance may further expand the zone of flooding’s negative impact by another 15-20 thousand hectares).

d. Impact on rare habitats.Sandy biotopes, both coastal and continental, with their unique flora and fauna (Appendix 5), will suffer the most from flooding. Water habitats will also be heavily affected due to water pollution. Shallow water bodies, that will remain after the water level recedes, will essentially be a mixture with a large amount of pollutants, including pullution from tens of thousands of toilets that are currently flooded in settlements.

e. Impact on national protected areas.Most of the area affected by the Kakhovka HPP explosion within the flood zone has nature protection status at the national and international levels. According to our calculations, 47 national protected areas, including Black Sea Biosphere Reserve, National Nature Parks Ivory Coast of Sviatoslav, Lower Dnipro, Oleshky Sands, and Kinburn Spit Regional Landscape Park, 16reservations, 3 reserve stows, 22 natural monuments, and 2 parks-monument of garden art, will be partially or completely affected by flooding. It should be noted that the territory of the Black Sea Biosphere Reserve has been protected since 1927 and it is part of the UNESCO World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The total area of flooded protected areas may exceed 120,000 hectares. More details can be found in Appendix 1. Another 22 protected areas within the flood zone are in the process of being established (Appendix 2).

Furthermore, the scale of destruction will rapidly increase as the swift current along the fairway under the high right bank of the Dnipro will erode a series of protected areas located along the riverbank. This will result in the erosion of high banks in the first few days after the onset of flooding and continued erosion in the future.

f. Impact on the Emerald Network.The flooded area includes fully or partially 9 Emerald Network sites, established by the decisions of the Council of Europe from 2009 to 2020 (Annex 3). The loss of natural features in these territories jeopardizes Ukraine’s commitments to preserve these areas for the whole Europe.

g. Impact on wetlands of international importance.The Dnipro Delta, covering an area of 33,630 ha, is listed as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention (wetland 3UA009). Moreover, the deslination of the northern part of the Black Sea may negatively impact four other Ramsar wetlands in the region. However, this issue remains largely unexplored, and we cannot confidently assert its implications.

h. River flooding.As a result of the catastrophic flood, not only the Dnipro River but also its tributaries such as Ingulets and Viriovchyna will be affected. The lower reaches of these rivers have been submerged by water released from the Kakhovka Reservoir for many kilometers. As of the morning of June 7, 2023, these rivers are experiencing a backflow. As a consequence, the natural ecosystems along the banks of these rivers will suffer. Since the riverbeds have been heavily regulated, terrestrial ecosystems of non-aquatic type have formed along their banks. Furthermore, the mixing of water from the Dnipro and Ingulets will introduce additional species to the fauna, which may worsen the conditions for the local fish population. Additionally, pollutants lifted from the reservoir’s bottom by the backflow will reach these rivers.

Consequences for the Black Sea

a. Desalination of the sea.The discharge of such a large amount of freshwater may temporarily desalinate certain areas of the Black Sea. However, considering that it this desalination could mostly affectthe waters of the Dnipro-Bug Estuary, which has been replenished by the Dnipro and Southern Bug rivers for thousands of years, this impact is unlikely to have catastrophic consequences.

b. Marine pollution.The destruction of the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant dam has resulted in the entry of a significant amount of fuel and lubricants into the water, which are toxic to aquatic organisms and can form a film on the water surface. Already now you can observe dead shrimp and fish on the seashore in the Odessa region. Moreover, the flooding of settlements, including those with sewage pits, agricultural lands, gas stations, landfills and other sources of pollution, means the introduction of an unusually large amount of pollutants into the sea, which can affect various groups of living organisms, from plankton to cetaceans. It is worth mentioning the presence of heavy metals and other pollutants accumulated in the reservoir’s sediment for decades from the emissions of industrial enterprises in cities like Zaporizhia, Dnipro, Kamyanske, etc. The large volume of contaminated freshwater combined with hot summer conditions can trigger the proliferation of microorganisms and algae, leading to algal blooms with all the negative consequences associated with this phenomenon.

What conclusions can be drawn from the statement?

In the short term, the consequences of the terrorist act, the destruction of the Kakhovka HPP by Russia, are catastrophic for nature and people. The scale of destruction of wildlife, natural ecosystems, and entire national parks is incomparably greater than the consequences for the wilderness of all military operations since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022.

As for the long-term consequences, this is a subject for separate research. Far-sighted scenarios for further development of events may completely abandon the idea of restoring the HPP dam. It may also be found that, taking into account climatic and other considerations, it would be more reasonable to restore the flow of the Dnipro River and reorient the economy of southern Ukraine from arable farming to pasture livestock farming, which is sustainable in the current climate conditions and justified in terms of the advancing desertification processes in the region. Alternatively, the funds needed to rebuild the Kakhovka HPP could be used to build modern pumping stations that would allow water to be taken directly from the Dnipro River for industrial and agricultural needs, bypassing the reservoir.

Prepared by: Dr. Sci. Moisiienko I.I., Dr. Sci. Khodosovtsev O. Ye., Vasyliuk O.V., Parkhomenko V.V., Candidate of Biological Sciences Rusin M.Yu., Candidate of Biological Sciences Viter S.G., Dr. Sci. Kuzemko A.A., Drapaliuk A.M., Filyuta K.O., PhD Sadogurska S.S., PhD Marushchak O.Yu., Candidate of Biological Sciences Nekrasova O.D., Candidate of Biological Sciences Vasheniak I.A., Varukha A.V., Candidate of Biological Sciences Kutsokon Yu.K., Candidate of Biological Sciences Spinova Yu.O., Candidate of Biological Sciences Bezsmertna O.A., Sirenko I.P., Artamonov V.A.

Appendix 1. National Protected Areas that will be affected by the flooding of the area below the Kakhovka HPP dam:

1. Black Sea Biosphere Reserve;
2. National Nature Park Ivory Coast of Sviatoslav;
3. Lower Dnipro National Nature Park;
4. Oleshky Sands National Nature Park;
5. Kinburn Spit Regional Landscape Park; 

Reservations:

1. Solyane Lake (Hydrological, 120 ha);
2. Bakai (Forest, 420 ha);
3. Berezovi Kolky (Forest, 1,312 ha);
4. Stanislavski (Landscape, 659 ha);
5. Oleksandrivsky (Landscape, 996 ha);
6. Inhuletsky Liman (Botanical, 50 ha);
7. Krestova Saga (Botanical, 30 ha);
8. Shaby (Botanical, 20 ha);
9. Bakai Zholob (General Zoological, 1,680 ha)
10. Korsunsky (General Zoological, 3,357 ha);
11. Shyroka Balka (Botanical, 116 ha);
12. Sofiivsky (Botanical, 194 ha);
13. Yagorlytsky (Ornithological, 30,300 ha);
14. Saga (Landscape, 500 ha),
15. Korsunsky (General Zoological, 3,357 ha);
16. Bobrove Ozero (Landscape, 50 ha); 

Reserve Stows:

1. Tsyurupinsky Pine Grove
   1. Starozburivsky Acacia Forest (14 ha)
   2. Goloprystansky Acacia Forest (42 ha) 

Natural Monument:

1. Krynkyvsky Beaver Settlement (Zoological, 5 ha)
2. Shilova Balka Spring (Hydrological)
3. Kozatske Spring (Hydrological)
4. Bilozerski Springs (Hydrological)
5. Mykilske Snake Settlement (Hydrological, 4 ha)
6. Ponyativske Snake Settlement (Hydrological, 5 ha)
7. Part of Lake “Hopri” (Hydrological, 5 ha)
8. 7 Quercus robur 
9. Curtain of Oaks (Botanical)
10. Poplars (Botanical)
11. Curtain of Ancient Oaks (Botanical)
12. Acacia Tree Stand (Botanical)
13. Ancient Oaks (Botanical)
14. Memorial Oaks (Botanical)
15. Ancient Plane Trees (Botanical)
16. Ancient Pines (Botanical) 

  Parks-monuments of garden art:

1. Park of the “Hopri” Sanatorium (18 ha)
2. Dendrological Park of Nizhnedniprovsk State Pedagogical University (3 ha)

Appendix 2. Prospective protected areas affected by the destruction of the Kakhovska HPS dam:

1. National Nature Park “Dolina Kurganiv” 

Reservations

1. “Burgunska Balka”
2. “Vyazemsky”
3. “Donchikha”
4. “Zabarinye”
5. “Korovodynsky”
6. “Tyahynska Balka” 
7. “Kardashynske Bog” 
8. “Lesovyi Canyon” 
9. “Vilkhovi Sagi”

Natural Monument

1. “Orlovsky” 
2. “Miocene Sediment Outcrops near Lvove Village” 
3. “Baydi-Bombanderi” 
4. “Ivanivsky Oak”
5. “Mariykin Oak”
6. “Mstyslav and Oleksiy Nestruiev Poplars”
7. “Oleksiy Nestruiev (Senior) Poplars”
8. “Sophia Faltz-Fein Poplars”
9. “Starozburivska Poplars”
10. “Olga Ash” 
11. “Kurgan near Bratske”
12. “Kurgan near Ochakivske”

Appendix 3. Emerald Network sites that fall under the inundation:

1. UA0000192 Lower Dnipro (52386 ha),
2. UA0000107 Oleshkivski Pisky (46259 ha),
3. UA0000321 Lower Inhulets river valley (13570,98 ha)?
4. UA0000215 Kinburnska Kosa (46588 ha),
5. UA0000017 Black Sea Biosphere Reserve (115873 ha),
6. UA0000097 Biloberezhzhia Sviatoslava National Nature Park (35242 ha)
7. UA0000109 Dniprovsko-Buzkyi Lyman (71276 ha),
8. UA0000336 Loess outcrops of the Dnipro estuary (589,20 ha)
9. UA0000572 Olviiska khora (1319,56 ha)

 

Appendix 4. National Protected Areas affected by the damming of the Kakhovka HPS and the subsequent drainage of the territory:

National Nature Parks:

1. Kamianska Sich  (12,261.14 ha)
2. Great Meadow  (16,756 ha)
3. Regional Landscape Park “Panai”

Reservations: 

4. Kayirska Balka (664.9 ha)

1. May Hora Locality (68 ha)
2. Kam’yansky Forest Massif
3. Ivanivsky Bir
4. Vodyanski Kuchuhury

Reserve Stows: 

9. Stoyany (15 ha)

1. Malokakhovsky Bir (177 ha)

 Parks-monuments of garden art: 

11. Dendrological Park of Kakhovka Forestry (15 ha)

Appendix 5. List of habitats of Resolution 4 of the Bern Convention affected by the destruction caused by the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Station:

Due to drainage:

C1.1 Permanent oligotrophic lakes, ponds and pools

C1.222 Floating Hydrocharis morsus-ranae rafts

C1.225 Floating Salvinia natans mats

C1.32 Free-floating vegetation of eutrophic waterbodies

C1.33 Rooted submerged vegetation of eutrophic waterbodies

C1.5 Permanent inland saline and brackish lakes, ponds and pools

C1.66 Temporary inland saline and brackish waters

C2.33 Mesotrophic vegetation of slow-flowing rivers

C2.34 Eutrophic vegetation of slow-flowing rivers

C3.4 Species-poor beds of low-growing water-fringing or amphibious vegetation

C3.51 Euro-Siberian dwarf annual amphibious swards (but excluding C3.5131 Toad-rush swards)

D4.1 Rich fens, including eutrophic tall-herb fens and calcareous flushes and soaks

D5.2 Beds of large sedges normally without free-standing water

E2.2 Low and medium altitude hay meadows

E3.4 Moist or wet eutropic and mesotrophic grassland

F3.247 Ponto-Sarmatic deciduous thickets

F9.1 Riverine scrub

G1.11 Riverine Salix woodland

G1.41 Alnus Swamp Woods not on acid peat

Due to inundation:

B1.3 Shifting coastal dunes

B1.4 Coastal stable dune grassland (grey dunes)

B1.8 Moist and wet dune slacks

C1.5 Permanent inland saline and brackish lakes, ponds and pools

C1.66 Temporary inland saline and brackish waters

C3.4 Species-poor beds of low-growing water-fringing or amphibious vegetation

C3.51 Euro-Siberian dwarf annual amphibious swards (but excluding C3.5131 Toad-rush swards)

D6.1 Inland salt marshes

E1.12 Euro-Siberian pioneer calcareous sand swards

E1.9 Open non-Mediterranean dry acid and neutral grassland, including inland dune grassland

E2.2 Low and medium altitude hay meadows

E3.4 Moist or wet eutropic and mesotrophic grassland

E6.2 Continental inland salt steppes

F3.247 Ponto-Sarmatic deciduous thickets

F9.1 Riverine scrubs

F9.3 Southern riparian galleries and thickets

G1.11 Riverine Salix woodland

G1.22 Mixed Quercus – Ulmus – Fraxinus woodland of great rivers

G1.41 Alnus Swamp Woods not on acid peat

X02 Saline coastal lagoons

X03 Brackish coastal lagoons

X29 Salt lake islands

Appendix 6 A. LIST OF PLANT, FUNGI, AND LICHEN SPECIES IN THE NPP THAT REQUIRE MANDATORY PROTECTION in the inundation zone.

List of plant, fungi, and lichen species in the NPP that require mandatory protection (included in the Red Data Book of Ukraine):

1. Brown Harrow (2)
2. Gray Harrow (1)
3. Wandering Xanthoparmelia (2)
4. Rough-ridged Parmelia (2)
5. Rootless Pizolite (3)
6. Cartilage Squamarina (3)
7. Schrader’s Scitine (3)
8. Aldrovanda vesiculosa (1)
9. Dnieper Birch (1)
10. Summer Whitlow-grass (1)
11. Great-rooted Water Chestnut (2)
12. Dnieper Water Chestnut (2)
13. Danube Water Chestnut (2)
14. Floating Water Chestnut (2)
15. Short-headed Butterwort (2)
16. Marsh Warbler (3)
17. Flea Warbler (3)
18. Painted Warbler (2)
19. Saprophytic Warbler (2)
20. Dnieper Feathergrass (3)
21. Flesh-colored Roundleaf Sundew (4)
22. Blackening Henbane (4) Total: 22 plant and fungi species *1, 2, 3, 4 – categories of species protection

LIST OF SYNTAXA OF VEGETATION IN THE NPP THAT REQUIRE MANDATORY PROTECTION in the inundation zone.

List of syntaxa of vegetation in the NPP that require protection (included in the Green Data Book of Ukraine, 1987): Syntaxa:

1. 1. Dnieper Birch (2)
   2. Dnieper Feathergrass (2)
   3. Reed Lepidium (3)
   4. Seaside Ammophila (3)
   5. Floating Salvinia (2)
   6. Aldrovanda vesiculosa (1)
   7. Floating Water Chestnut (1)
   8. Shieldleaf Floating Pondweed (2)
   9. Don Cuscus Grass (1)
   10. White Water Lily (3)
   11. Yellow Pitcher Plants
   12. Sarmatian Rdest (3)
   13. Submerged Cuscus Grass (3)
   14. Yellow Pondweed of the Rioni (3)Total: 14 types of plant communities
       • 1, 2, 3 – categories of protection for syntaxa