Assessment of the Conservation Value of Abandoned Land on Gogland Island, Baltic Sea

Abstract

Gogland Island, located in the Gulf of Finland in the Baltic Sea, was densely populated in the past but has been nearly abandoned since the Second World War. The self-restoration of wildlife takes place there. Recent research on the island aimed to evaluate the conservation value of this process. It was expected that the island would demonstrate a standard for the perfect state of protected areas of the boreal zone of Europe. The island has been overgrown with forests; open areas occupy insignificant parts and tend to shrink. Picturesque landscapes have been formed, but the conservation value of these areas are questionable as the biodiversity is rather low there. They contain “empty forest” that is partly impassable. The island demonstrates that to achieve the maximum effect for biodiversity conservation, the abandonment of land without any management would be insufficient. The fate of the island partly supports the concept of Pleistocene rewilding: a mosaic of forests and meadows, maintained by ungulates, should be considered a normal state of environments.

1. Introduction

The establishment of protected areas where anthropogenic activities are either restricted or prohibited is one of the most effective measures for environmental protection [1,2]. However, in Europe, these areas are being created in places that have long been subjected to anthropogenic pressures; felling, grazing, the extermination of wild animals, and other human activities have progressed in these locations over several thousands of years. Perceptions about the normal state of the environment have shifted over time [3,4,5]. Therefore, it is no longer clear how to manage protected wildlife areas: either to strive to eliminate all human activities or somehow influence the areas to improve their state. To answer this question, it is important to assess areas that have existed for a long time under extremely weak anthropogenic impacts. Gogland Island located in the Gulf of Finland in the Baltic Sea is one such area. It has been nearly abandoned since the Second World War, although the nearest mainland is densely populated and suffers from strong anthropogenic pressure. The island was (and still is) not a protected area officially, but in fact, it was strongly protected. Access to the island was limited for a long time because it is located close to the state border zone and has military significance. In the 1990s, several changes were made in this regard, and since then, the island has been visited by various researchers. In particular, the Russian Geographical Society has been carrying out expeditions to the island for several years, in which we took part. Our research aimed to characterize the habitats and biodiversity of the island and to reveal the objects representing special value in terms of environment conservation. It was expected that the island would demonstrate a standard for the perfect state of protected areas of the boreal zone of Europe.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Gogland Island has the shape of an elongated oval that is 11 km long and 1.5–3 km wide. The distance to the mainland is 44 km in the north and 55 km in the south. There are several smaller islands at a distance of 10–18 km around it. Before World War II, Gogland belonged to Finland and was densely populated; the population was approximately 1000 people. They lived in several settlements and were mainly engaged in fishing, seal hunting, and sea transport. Part of the island was used for agriculture. To arrange farmlands, a system of dams and ditches was created in the central part of the island. In the 1920s, the island became a recreational place; restaurants and hotels were built and their number increased. The number of visitors reached up to 10,000 per summer [6]. After the Second World War, the island was annexed to Russia, the local population was evicted, and economic activity was essentially stopped [7]. The presence of humans on the island has been insignificant; several military posts, a weather station, and two lighthouses occupy a small portion of the island.

2.2. Methodology

To assess the state of the island, we used the approaches developed during the design and survey of the protected areas [8,9]. To determine the nature conservation value of an area, the research focused on the variety of habitats and the objects demonstrating the following: high biodiversity, concentrations of animals, a presence of threatened species (listed in the regional red data books or classified as threatened in the IUCN Red List), uniqueness, and aesthetic value. Particular attention was paid to the registration of vertebrates or traces of their occurrence because these animals are good indicators of the state of the environment. Since they require a relatively large space, their presence reflects ecosystems that include other animals and plants.

To collect this information, the following methods were used:

• Literature search: We gathered publications on Gogland Island by examining the Russian Science Citation Index [10] and Scopus databases [11], as well as by searching in the libraries of the Russian Academy of Sciences and St. Petersburg State University.
• Survey of the island: We walked around the island along the coastline and crossed it lengthwise, i.e., from north to south, and in several places from east to west or vice versa, and observed the inland water bodies. A schematic map of the habitats was composed by combining the observation results with aerial pictures. Moreover, we focused on the animal species that had not been sufficiently studied by other researchers. We registered bats during the nighttime with the assistance of an ultrasonic detector (Patterson D 200) and photographed them. To identify bat species, we used sound records [12]. To study the carnivorous mammals, we installed camera traps (Bushnell Nature View). To attract the animals, we used fish as bait (Crucian carp Carassius carassius caught on-site). Our surveys were performed during four expeditions: September 2015, August 2018, June 2021, and September 2022.

3. Results

3.1. Habitats

The island was almost completely overgrown with trees. Most of the forests were composed of pines (Pinus sylvestris) and spruce (Picea abies), and fallen tree trunks were numerous. In some places, windblows occupied an area of several hectares. Such areas were practically impassable because they were comprised of a continuous layer of fallen trunks and dense thickets of young trees. Open areas occupied an insignificant part of the island. Arboreal vegetation was scarce only in rocky areas, where there was no continuous soil cover (Figure 1 and Figure 2). In some places, signs of forest fires were evident, but even these plots were covered by dense thickets of small trees. There were several meadows near the meteorological station and the military posts, as well as on the sites of abandoned villages. However, the overgrowth of arboreal vegetation still progressed there. Relatively stable meadows were found only near houses.

3.2. Biodiversity

During the re-exploration of the island by biologists in the period of 1990–2000, 663 species of vascular plants [13,14], 178 species of mosses [15], and 385 species of lichens [16] were recorded. This list of local flora and fauna has been minimally supplemented [17], the process of which is gradually continuing. The number of known species is higher on the nearest mainland. Relevant estimates were not made for all taxa, but it is known that there are at least 824 species of higher plants [18] and 722 species of lichens [19]. At the same time, six species of vascular plants and several species of mosses not registered on the mainland were recorded on the island [14,17].

As for the animals, most of the data concern vertebrates (the invertebrates are understudied and comparing the island with the mainland in this respect is problematic). There are three species of amphibians (the toad Bufo bufo, common frog Rana temporaria, and common newt Lissotriton vulgaris) and three species of reptiles (the common viper Vipera berus, grass snake Natrix natrix, and common lizard Zootoca vivipara) [20]. Such numbers are slightly higher on the nearest mainland, where six other species of reptiles and amphibians occur.

During the studies performed in the 2000s, 113 bird species were registered [21]. We also observed some of them and added one (the grey heron Ardea cinerea) (

Table 1. Species of birds recorded on Gogland Island.

No.	Species	IUCN Category	No.	Species	IUCN Category
1	Arctic loon Gavia arctica	LC	38	Northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus	LC
2	Red-throated loon Gavia stellata	LC	39	Arctic jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus	LC
3	Great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus	LC	40	Mew gull Larus canus	LC
4	Mute swan Cygnus olor	LC	41	European herring gull Larus argentatus	LC
5	Whooper swan Cygnus cygnus	LC	42	Lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus	LC
6	Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus	LC	43	Great black-backed gull Larus marinus	LC
7	Greylag goose Anser anser	LC	44	Black-headed gull Larus ridibundus	LC
8	Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons	LC	45	Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea	LC
9	Barnacle goose Branta leucopsis	LC	46	Common tern Sterna hirundo	LC
10	Brent goose Branta bernicla	LC	47	Razorbill Alca torda	LC
11	Mallard Anas platyrhynchos	LC	48	Common woodpigeon Columba palumbus	LC
12	Common teal Anas crecca	LC	49	Stock dove Columba oenas	LC
13	Common eider Somateria mollissima	NT	50	Common cuckoo Cuculus canorus	LC
14	Tufted duck Aythya fuligula	LC	51	European nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus	LC
15	Velvet scoter Melanitta fusca	VU	52	Common swift Apus apus	LC
16	Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula	LC	53	Eurasian wryneck Jynx torquilla	LC
17	Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator	LC	54	Black woodpecker Dryocopus martius	LC
18	Goosander Mergus merganser	LC	55	Great spotted woodpecker Dendrocopos major	LC
19	Grey heron Ardea cinerea	LC	56	White-backed woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos	LC
20	White-tailed sea-eagle Haliaeetus albicilla	LC	57	Three-toed woodpecker Picoides tridactylus	LC
21	Greater spotted eagle Clanga clanga	VU	58	Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis	LC
22	Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis	LC	59	Barn swallow Hirundo rustica	LC
23	Eurasian sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus	LC	60	Western yellow wagtail Motacilla flava	LC
24	Eurasian buzzard Buteo buteo	LC	61	White wagtail Motacilla alba	LC
25	Rough-legged buzzard Buteo lagopus	LC	62	Tree pipit Anthus trivialis	LC
26	Eurasian hobby Falco subbuteo	LC	63	Meadow pipit Anthus pratensis	LC
27	Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus	LC	64	Rock pipit Anthus petrosus	LC
28	Western capercaillie Tetrao urogallus	LC	65	Red-backed shrike Lanius collurio	LC
29	Common crane Grus grus	LC	66	Northern wren Troglodytes troglodytes	LC
30	Corncrake Crex crex	LC	67	Dunnock Prunella modularis	LC
31	Common ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula	LC	68	European robin Erithacus rubecula	LC
32	Eurasian oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus	NT	69	Thrush nightingale Luscinia luscinia	LC
33	Green sandpiper Tringa ochropus	LC	70	Common redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus	LC
34	Common greenshank Tringa nebularia	LC	71	Whinchat Saxicola rubetra	LC
35	Common sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos	LC	72	Northern wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe	LC
36	Eurasian woodcock Scolopax rusticola	LC	73	Eurasian blackbird Turdus merula	LC
37	Jack snipe Lymnocryptes minimus	LC	74	Fieldfare Turdus pilaris	LC
75	Redwing Turdus iliacus	NT	95	Great tit Parus major	LC
76	Song thrush Turdus philomelos	LC	96	Eurasian blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus	LC
77	Mistle thrush Turdus viscivorus	LC	97	Eurasian treecreeper Certhia familiaris	LC
78	Marsh warbler Acrocephalus palustris	LC	98	Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella	LC
79	Common grasshopper warbler Locustella naevia	LC	99	Reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus	LC
80	Garden warbler Sylvia borin	LC	100	Common chaffinch Fringilla coelebs	LC
81	Eurasian blackcap Sylvia atricapilla	LC	101	Brambling Fringilla montifringilla	LC
82	Common whitethroat Curruca communis	LC	102	European greenfinch Chloris chloris	LC
83	Icterine warbler Hippolais icterina	LC	103	Eurasian siskin Spinus spinus	LC
84	Willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus	LC	104	Common rosefinch Carpodacus erythrinus	LC
85	Greenish warbler Phylloscopus trochiloides	LC	105	Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra	LC
86	Common chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita	LC	106	Eurasian bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula	LC
87	Wood warbler Phylloscopus sibilatrix	LC	107	House sparrow Passer domesticus	LC
88	Goldcrest Regulus regulus	LC	108	Common starling Sturnus vulgaris	LC
89	Spotted flycatcher Muscicapa striata	LC	109	Eurasian golden oriole Oriolus oriolus	LC
90	European pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca	LC	110	Siberian jay Perisoreus infaustus	LC
91	Red-breasted flycatcher Ficedula parva	LC	111	Northern nutcracker Nucifraga caryocatactes	LC
92	Long-tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus	LC	112	Eurasian magpie Pica pica	LC
93	Willow tit Poecile montanus	LC	113	Carrion crow Corvus corone	LC
94	Coal tit Periparus ater	LC	114	Common raven Corvus corax	LC

). The total number of bird species for the area around the island is two times larger [22].

Seven mammal species were recorded on the island in the 2000s: red fox Vulpes vulpes, raccoon dog Nyctereutes procyonoides, European mink Mustela lutreola, mountain hare Lepus timidus, red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris, common shrew Sorex araneus, and yellow-necked mouse Apodemus flavicollis [23]. We added four species of bats to them: Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentoni, pond bat Myotis dasycneme, Nathusius’s pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii, and northern bat Eptesicus nilssonii. Two species of seals were registered on the island, ringed seal Pusa hispida and grey seal Halichoerus grypus, but they only visit it in small numbers. The number of mammal species is 4–5 times higher on the nearest mainland [24].

In the past, ungulates existing on the island were reported. Feral goats and sheep were included in the list of local fauna. Their number was estimated as 100–200 in the 2000s. Moreover, the arrival of white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus, which are bred on the nearest mainland (Finland), was recorded. The other visitor was the Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx [23]. However, both had not settled on the island. During our survey, we did not find any traces of ungulates or other large mammals over most of the island, with only a small number of goats and sheep kept at the lighthouses.

3.3. Concentration of Animals

The island is located within a zone of the North Atlantic bird flyway. Numerous birds fly over the island during spring and autumn. Some birds linger there for some time under certain circumstances (during storms) [21], but the particular role of the island as a migratory stopover has not been noted. It is likely that the flyway of bats also passes there. Our bat surveys took place in August–September, which is a season of bat migrations.

3.4. Threatened Species

Several dozen plant species occurring on the island are listed in the local red data books [25]. However, they are not threatened on a global scale. The island is at the edge of their range, which is mostly located outside of Russia. Regarding animals, the most remarkable species is the European mink, which is a critically endangered species (it has almost disappeared over most of its native range because of competition with an invasive species of American mink, Neovison vison) [26]. It had been observed on the island in 2003 [23], but no other information about this was obtained afterwards. We found the scat of minks on two occasions in 2018 and 2021. However, the registration of minks using camera traps failed (foxes and raccoon dogs were photographed). Several other vertebrate species (bats and some birds) are listed in the regional red data books, but most of them are classified in the “Least Concern” category in the IUCN Red List. One of the local species, the velvet scoter, is considered vulnerable on a global scale [27], and three species are considered near-threatened: the pond bat [28], Eurasian oystercatcher [29], and northern lapwing [30]. The northern lapwing was observed once in 2004 [21], but its stable existence on the island is hardly probable because of the lack of open areas. Islands often serve as a refuge for pinnipeds, which are threatened animals, but in this case, they were extremely small in number [31]. They prefer small islands without trees.

3.5. Uniqueness and Aesthetic Value

There were many picturesque objects on the island, including rocks at the seashore, steep (up to 50–70 m) hills, grottoes, streams, lakes surrounded by rocks, and trees on rocks. The common pine and spruce often acquire unusual forms when they grow on stones. A unique object was a “stone river”, which is a plot without vegetation covered with rounded boulders, similar to a river bottom; there were several such rivers. Several “seids”, i.e., large stones on supports, were found on the island (Figure 3). The entire island, when viewed from the sea or from above, is perceived as an aesthetically valuable object.

4. Discussion

Gogland Island demonstrates that open areas in the Baltic region can disappear without anthropogenic activities. The area of plots on the island without forests is insignificant and is predicted to decrease. Fires, windblows, and other natural processes can barely resist complete afforestation. The conservation value of this process provokes doubts. The island can hardly be considered a standard for the perfect state of wildlife. Among the criteria used to assess the value of the studied area, aesthetics was almost the only criterion that was clearly expressed. The island corresponds well to the characteristics of the “empty forest” [32] or “empty landscape” [33]: it seems to be in a good state but is defaunated. (Although the analysis of these “empty” lands concerned the tropics, the situation in a boreal zone seems to be similar). The biodiversity on the island is relatively high only for some plant taxa, but it is rather low as a whole. This is only partly explained by the small area and distance from the mainland and is probably related to “excessive” afforestation. The visits by lynx and deer showed that other ungulates or carnivorous mammals can reach the island by either walking on ice or swimming (e.g., elks, wild boars, or wolves), but they cannot settle there. This means that there is no favorable environment for them. Dense forest with numerous fallen tree trunks is unsuitable, not only for humans but for large mammals as well. They need a larger portion of open areas. The same is true for several bird species. Any bird species could easily visit the island, but some “common” species from the mainland are absent there (e.g., several grouses and waders) as they need either open areas or a combination of open areas with forests. With the exception of the European mink, the list of local species is rather trivial. Meanwhile, the local mink population is very small and it may be on the edge of extinction. Usually, the minks inhabiting the island can easily be recorded as they are used to feeding at the coastline, but in our case, they were well observed only once 20 years ago. It is perhaps the case that the transformation of the island is not favorable for this species.

Afforestation on Gogland Island shows that to achieve the maximum effect for biodiversity conservation, the abandonment of land without any management could be insufficient. In a boreal environment, some activity to keep a number of open areas is desirable. Open areas could be maintained by ungulates, but in this case, a small number of feral goats and sheep turned out to be insufficient to resist afforestation; they have decreased in number and disappeared over the last few decades. To maintain a significant portion of open areas, the ungulates should be larger and/or more numerous.

The case of wildlife restoration on Gogland Island is interesting with respect to assessing the normal state of vegetation in Europe. Since the Neolithic period, forest area has been continuously decreasing there [4,34]. This means that the overgrowth of open spaces and settlements with forests is a return to the original or normal state. However, overgrowing forests can be undesirable as open spaces can also be valuable habitats with high biological productivity. The overgrowth of grasslands with arboreal vegetation is often viewed as a negative process as it reduces ecosystem services and exterminates endemic ecosystems [35]. Protests against “the tyranny of trees” have occurred [36]. A “war” against forests and swamps of the boreal zone was declared with the concept of a Pleistocene park [37]. According to this concept, modern taiga and tundra represent an abnormal dominance of arboreal vegetation and mosses, which originated because of the extermination of large herbivores at the turn of the Holocene–Pleistocene period. In the past, tundra-steppe covered most of the northern part of Eurasia; its existence was supported by a large population of herbivores, and because of their extermination, shrubs, mosses, lichens, and trees expanded instead of grasses. This means that to restore the norm, it is necessary to introduce various ungulates (bison, horses, yaks, etc.), which could facilitate a reverse transformation. Experiments on such a transformation have been conducted in Pleistocene Park, a protected area in Yakutia. They have demonstrated that introduced ungulates survive, but because of their low abundance, no significant transformation of habitats has taken place to date [38]. The question of the possibility and feasibility of “returning to the Pleistocene” remains open. At the moment, such rewilding is a dream of several enthusiasts, which seems to be unrealistic. However, at least a partial return to the “Pleistocene” is a promising perspective. The fate of Gogland Island testifies rather in favor of this concept as it demonstrates well the opposite extreme: without large ungulates, an area becomes covered in an impassable mass of trees. This means that a norm for the environment should be assessed based not only on historic data but on prehistoric data as well.

5. Conclusions

Gogland Island demonstrates that in a boreal environment, the abandonment of land can result in total afforestation, which, in turn, results in a decline in biodiversity. In spite of the strong level of protection, the island hardly became a standard for the perfect state of a wildlife area. To achieve the maximum effect for biodiversity conservation, the abandonment of land without any management could be insufficient; human interventions might be appropriate aiming to maintain a number of open areas and the enrichment of fauna. A mosaic of forests and meadows inhabited by various animals would likely be more beneficial than a total overgrowth of forests. Otherwise, defaunated habitats could materialize (“the empty forests” or “empty landscapes”). The fate of the island partly supports the concept of Pleistocene rewilding: the baselines for nature conservation should be sought in the remote past, when large herbivores were much more numerous than now.