The Silent Ecological Cost of War
What happens to nature when habitats become war zones? Using the rare orchid Orchis punctulata, found on the Russian occupied Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea, as a starting point, this article explores the often overlooked ecological consequences of armed conflict. Scientific research from Ukraine and other conflict regions reveals how military activities can permanently alter ecosystems, threaten endangered species and disrupt conservation efforts. A scientifically accurate botanical model handcrafted by Sebastian Brandt draws attention to this neglected dimension of warfare.
ORCHIDEEN
The ecological consequences of war arise through several interacting mechanisms.
Direct habitat destruction
Military operations can physically transform landscapes through explosions, trenches, vehicle movements, fortifications and the construction of temporary infrastructure. Such disturbances can destroy vegetation, compact soils and fragment previously continuous habitats. For terrestrial orchids, physical disturbance may damage underground storage organs and disrupt the soil conditions necessary for survival. Habitat fragmentation can also isolate small populations, potentially reducing opportunities for pollen exchange and recolonisation.
Soil contamination
Military activity can introduce fuel residues, heavy metals, explosive compounds and other hazardous substances into soils. The ecological consequences depend on contaminant type, concentration, soil chemistry and exposure duration. Potential effects include changes in microbial communities, reduced plant growth and altered nutrient availability. These processes are particularly relevant to orchids because their life cycles depend on associations with soil fungi. However, a scientifically responsible assessment must distinguish potential ecological risks from demonstrated species specific damage. The presence of contaminated soil does not, by itself, prove that an orchid population has declined.
Wildfires and altered vegetation
Explosions and military activity can ignite vegetation fires, while conflict may prevent effective fire management. Repeated or unusually severe fires can change plant communities, alter soil properties and accelerate erosion. Some grassland ecosystems are adapted to periodic disturbance, but excessive fire frequency or intensity can threaten species whose regeneration depends on specific conditions.
The collapse of environmental monitoring
One of the less visible consequences of armed conflict is the interruption of scientific research. Protected areas may become inaccessible, researchers may be displaced, and long term monitoring programmes may cease. For rare species, these gaps in observation are particularly serious. A population may decline without being documented, while the absence of recent observations makes it difficult to distinguish genuine population loss from insufficient survey effort. In conflict zones, uncertainty is therefore not merely a scientific inconvenience. It becomes an obstacle to conservation planning.
1. Orchis punctulata: A rare orchid in a politically contested landscape
Orchis punctulata in the conflict zone of the Crimean Peninsula
Orchis punctulata botanical model made by Sebastian Brandt
Armed conflicts leave visible traces: destroyed cities, damaged infrastructure, displaced communities and devastated agricultural landscapes. Their ecological consequences, however, are often less immediately apparent. Rare plants disappear from disturbed habitats, soils become contaminated, freshwater systems are transformed, and conservation programmes may be interrupted for years.
For species with small or fragmented populations, the destruction of a single habitat can have lasting consequences.
The rare orchid Orchis punctulata offers a compelling example. Its distribution includes the Crimean Peninsula, internationally recognised as part of Ukraine and occupied by Russia since 2014. A botanically accurate model of this species, created by Sebastian Brandt of Reco Brandt, provides an opportunity to examine a larger scientific question:
What happens to biodiversity when the ecosystems on which species depend become part of a war zone?
2. How armed conflict affects plant biodiversity
Orchis punctulata Steven ex Lindl. is a terrestrial orchid native to parts of southeastern Europe and western Asia. Crimea represents an important part of its Ukrainian distribution, although the species is not restricted to the peninsula. Its flowers are typically pale yellow to yellowish green, with purple or brownish markings on the lip. The species occurs in open woodland, shrub communities and grassland habitats, including steppe vegetation.
Like other terrestrial orchids, it depends on complex ecological relationships. Its tiny seeds have very limited nutrient reserves and require compatible fungi to support germination and early development. Reproductive success also depends on insect pollination, while habitat conditions influence seedling establishment and the survival of mature plants.
Consequently, protecting the orchid involves more than preventing the collection or destruction of individual specimens. It requires the preservation of an entire ecological system.
3. Lessons from other war zones: Gorongosa National Park, Mozambique
The ecological consequences of armed conflict are not unique to Ukraine.
Gorongosa National Park in Mozambique provides one of the clearest documented examples of how warfare can transform an ecosystem. During the Mozambican Civil War, from 1977 to 1992, large mammal populations in the park experienced dramatic declines. A study published in Journal of Animal Ecology in 2019 analysed aerial wildlife surveys spanning approximately five decades. The researchers found that the total biomass density of large herbivores had declined by more than 90 percent during the war.
Although wildlife populations recovered substantially after the conflict, the composition of the ecosystem changed dramatically. Species that had previously dominated, including elephants, buffaloes and hippopotamuses, became proportionally less abundant, while waterbuck and other antelopes increased. By 2018, waterbuck accounted for more than 74 percent of the park's large herbivore biomass. The researchers concluded that the recovery of total animal biomass does not necessarily imply the restoration of the original ecological community. This distinction is fundamental to restoration ecology. An ecosystem may appear green, productive and biologically active while having lost important components of its original biodiversity.
The same principle applies to plant communities. The return of vegetation after military disturbance does not automatically mean that rare orchids, specialised fungi, pollinators or other sensitive organisms have recovered. Ecological recovery must be measured by the restoration of species and ecological functions, not simply by the return of vegetation cover.
5. Why rare orchids are particularly vulnerable
Orchids are among the most specialised groups of flowering plants. Many species depend on specific combinations of habitat conditions, soil fungi and pollinators. Their seeds are exceptionally small and contain little stored nutrition. Successful germination generally requires fungal assistance, while the establishment of mature plants may take several years. These characteristics can make orchid populations vulnerable to environmental disturbance. A damaged habitat may recover sufficiently to support common grasses or shrubs while remaining unsuitable for a rare orchid.
Furthermore, the apparent disappearance of flowering plants in a particular year does not necessarily indicate population extinction. Some terrestrial orchids can remain underground or fail to flower under unfavourable conditions. Accurate population assessment therefore requires repeated surveys and careful interpretation. For Orchis punctulata, the available Crimean population research provides an important foundation for future monitoring. Ideally, conservation assessments following the conflict would examine not only the number of flowering individuals but also juvenile recruitment, soil conditions, associated vegetation and the availability of suitable habitat.
Orchis puctulata botanical model by Sebastian Brandt
6. Protecting nature under international humanitarian law
The environmental consequences of armed conflict are also recognised in international humanitarian law. In 2020, the International Committee of the Red Cross published updated Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict. The guidelines explain how existing legal rules apply to environmental protection and recommend practical measures for reducing ecological harm during military operations. They address issues including the conduct of hostilities, precautions in attacks and the protection of environmentally sensitive areas.
The ICRC also recommends considering special protection arrangements for areas of particular ecological importance or fragility. These provisions recognise that the natural environment is not merely a passive backdrop to armed conflict. It supports human health, food production, water availability and the ecological processes upon which communities depend.
Nevertheless, the implementation of environmental protections during active hostilities remains difficult. Environmental monitoring may be impossible, damage can emerge gradually, and the restoration of affected habitats may require international cooperation long after fighting has ended.
7. Biodiversity conservation during and after armed conflict
Protecting biodiversity in conflict affected regions requires a combination of immediate risk reduction and long term ecological planning. Several approaches are particularly important.
Preserving scientific records
Historical population surveys, herbarium specimens, vegetation maps and ecological databases provide essential reference information. Without reliable baseline data, the extent of environmental damage may be impossible to determine.
Remote environmental monitoring
Satellite imagery can reveal changes in vegetation cover, wildfire extent, flooding and landscape disturbance. However, remote sensing cannot reliably establish the survival of individual orchid populations or their underground fungal associations. Field investigations remain essential.
Protecting surviving habitats
Where security conditions permit, priority should be given to protecting habitats containing threatened species and preventing further avoidable disturbance.
Restoring ecological relationships
Restoration should address soil structure, hydrology, vegetation composition and species interactions. For orchids, successful restoration may require the recovery of compatible soil fungi and suitable pollinator communities.
Long term monitoring
Ecological recovery may take decades. Conservation success should therefore be evaluated through sustained observation rather than short term changes in vegetation. These measures are relevant not only to Ukraine but to conflict affected ecosystems worldwide.
8. The role of scientific models in biodiversity conservation
Suggested image placement: photographs of Sebastian Brandt's original Orchis punctulata model, showing the complete plant and detailed views of its flowers. Scientific models provide a distinctive means of communicating biodiversity and the vulnerability of threatened species. Unlike living botanical specimens, accurately produced models can be displayed permanently without requiring repeated collection from natural populations. They allow museums, botanical gardens and educational institutions to present rare plants in a form that remains accessible throughout the year, independent of flowering seasons or cultivation requirements. The botanical model of Orchis punctulata, handcrafted by Sebastian Brandt of Reco Brandt, reproduces the orchid's distinctive botanical structures in epoxy resin.
Its significance extends beyond botanical representation. The model draws attention to a species associated with a region where political conflict has created considerable uncertainty for environmental conservation and scientific monitoring. It also illustrates a central challenge of biodiversity protection: the visible plant represents only one component of a much larger ecological network. Its continued existence depends on habitats, soils, fungi, insects and environmental processes that are often invisible to the observer.
A scientifically accurate model can preserve the appearance of a species for educational purposes. It cannot preserve the living ecological relationships upon which that species depends.
9. Conclusion: Nature must not become a footnote to war
The human consequences of armed conflict are immediate and devastating. Protecting human life must remain the foremost priority. Yet the environmental consequences of warfare are inseparable from the long term future of affected regions. Damaged soils, polluted waterways, fragmented habitats and declining wildlife populations can influence ecological conditions for generations. Research from Ukraine and Mozambique demonstrates that warfare can produce profound and persistent changes in ecosystems.
For Orchis punctulata, available scientific studies document the ecological characteristics and population dynamics of the species in Crimea. They do not yet provide sufficient evidence to determine the direct effects of the current war on its populations.
That distinction matters.
Scientific conservation must be based on evidence, while recognising that the absence of data from inaccessible regions can conceal emerging threats. The rare Crimean orchid therefore represents more than an endangered component of Ukraine's botanical heritage. It symbolises the many species whose survival receives little attention during human conflict, despite their ecological importance and the possibility that some losses may be irreversible.
Wars may eventually end. The ecological consequences can endure for generations, and extinction is permanent. Protecting biodiversity must therefore be part of the scientific, political and humanitarian considerations surrounding armed conflict and reconstruction.
Scientific references
The following publications provide the research foundation for this article.
1. Letukhova, V. Yu. & Potapenko, I. L. (2021). Status and life strategy of Orchis punctulata Steven ex Lindl. (Orchidaceae) in the South Eastern Crimea. Acta Biologica Sibirica, 7, 407–423. Read the study
2. Orchids of Russia and Crimea: Herbarium collections provide sufficient data to recover the distributional changes with time. (2023). Flora. Read the study
3. Spears, B. M. et al. (2024). A rapid environmental risk assessment of the Kakhovka Dam breach during the Ukraine conflict. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 8, 834–836. Read the study
4. United Nations Environment Programme (2023). Rapid Environmental Assessment of the Kakhovka Dam Breach, Ukraine. Read the report
5. Environmental effects of the Kakhovka Dam destruction by warfare in Ukraine. (2025). Read the study
6. War induced collapse and asymmetric recovery of large mammal populations in Gorongosa National Park, Mozambique. (2019). Journal of Animal Ecology. Read the study
7. International Committee of the Red Cross (2020). Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict. Read the guidelines
Editorial note: This is a research based scientific feature article, not an original field study. Its central conservation argument is supported by published research, while the specific wartime condition of Orchis punctulata populations in Crimea remains uncertain.
