The Condition of Woody Plants at the Sites of Protective Afforestation and Landscaping of the Kalachevsky District, Volgograd Region. P.58-72

Complete text of the article:

Download article (pdf, 2MB )

UDС

630.181:625.77

DOI:

10.37482/0536-1036-2022-5-58-72

Abstract

The Kalachevsky district of the Volgograd region belongs to the regions that require stabilization of natural resources use. Land and forest reclamation and landscaping will ensure the resource potential of the district’s landscapes at increasing recreational and natural load. The studies have shown that differences in inventory parameters, development, fruiting and sustainability of plants are due to soil and climatic conditions, and anthropogenic impact. The research objects are woody species, predominantly of European habitats: sweet chestnut – Castanea sativa Mill.; Pallas pine (Crimean pine) – Pinus pallasiana D. Don.; European crab apple – Malus sylvéstris Mill.; white poplar (silver poplar) – Populus alba L.; white willow – Salix alba L.; English oak – Quercus robur L.; European ash – Fraxinus excelsior L.; Lombardy poplar – Populus nigra var. italica Münchh.; wych elm – Ulmus glabra Huds.; golden currant – Ribes aureum Pursh.; common lilac – Syringa vulgaris L.; Russian pea shrub – Caragana frutex (L.) K. Koch; common privet – Ligustrum vilgare L.; Oregon grape – Mahonia aquifolium (Pursh.) Nutt.; cinnamon rose – Rosa cinnamomea L. It was found that relatively stable species in the Kalachevsky district are European crab apple, golden currant (which has the best salinity resistance), Russian pea shrub, wych elm, Oregon grape, but they are inferior to poplars, willows, lilacs, chestnuts in inventory parameters and growth rate. The best performance on a number of economically valuable features were observed in chestnut, spruce, apple, poplar, willow, elm, ash, and rose. Chestnut, currant, Oregon grape, lilac, privet, cinnamon rose have the highest score of ornamentality for landscaping plantations. Chestnut, rose, and oak have the best fruiting rates; ash and privet have medium fruiting rates. The strongest stage of recreational digression is observed in areas remote from settlements: there is densification of plantings, lack of sanitary cuttings, medium passability. Areas near water sources, as well as public gardens and parks, require sanitary care, reduction of recreational pressure and the selection of species from the recommended range of trees and shrubs. In order to ensure the greatest sustainability of plantings and obtain a rapid silvicultural effect, perennial, fast-growing species as well as fruit shrubs recommended in the basic assortment should be included in the protective and landscaping plantations of the arid region.

Authors

Aleksandra S. Solomentseva, Senior Research Scientist; ResearcherID: W-4142-2018, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5857-1004

Affiliation

Federal Scientific Centre for Agroecology, Complex Melioration and Protective Afforestation of the Russian Academy of Sciences, prosp. Universitetskiy, 97, Volgograd, 400062, Russian Federation; alexis2425@mail.ru

Keywords

trees, shrubs, use of trees and shrubs in plantations, assortment of trees and shrubs, landscaping, protective afforestation, Volgograd region

Funding

The work was carried out within the topic of the State Assignment No. 0713-2019-0009 “Theoretical Foundations, Development of New Competitive Crop Biotypes with High Rates of Productivity, Quality, Sustainability and Varietal Technologies Based on the Latest Methods and Technological Solutions in a Changing Climate”.

For citation

Solomentseva A.S. The Condition of Woody Plants at the Sites of Protective Afforestation and Landscaping of the Kalachevsky District, Volgograd Region. Lesnoy Zhurnal = Russian Forestry Journal, 2022, no. 5, pp. 58–72. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.37482/0536-1036-2022-5-58-72

References

1. Abakumova L.I., Barabanov A.T., Belitskaya M.N. et al. Land and Forest Reclama tion. Ed. by А.L. Ivanov, K.N. Kulik. Volgograd, VNIALMI Publ., 2006. 746 p.
2. Abysheva L.N., Budantsev A.L., Lesiovskaya E.E. et. al. Wild Useful Plants of Russia.Saint Petersburg, SPKhFA Publ., 2001. 663 p.
3. Vardanyan J.A. Methodological Aspects of Assessing the Decorative Value of Woody Plants. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences of Armenia, 2017, vol. 117, no. 4,pp. 340–349.
4. Gordeev A.V., Kleshchenko A.D., Chernyakov B.A., Sirotenko O.D. Bioclimatic Po tential of Russia: Theory and Practice. Moscow, KMK Publ., 2006. 512 p.
5. Zalesov S.V., Platonov E.P., Zalesova E.S., Opletaev A.S., Dancheva A.V., Krekova Ya.A. Studying the Prospects of Woody Introduced Species. Yekaterinburg, USFEU Publ., 2014. 13 p.
6. Ivanenko B.I. Phenology of Tree and Shrub Species. Moscow, Sel’khozizdat Publ., 1962. 184 p.
7. Kulik K.N., Dubenok N.N., Rulev A.S., Pugacheva A.M. All-Russian Scientific Re search Amelioration Institute – the Leader of the Russian Agroforestry Science: The Modern Concept of Protective Afforestation. Science of VolSU. Natural sciences, 2015, vol. 3(13),pp. 108–114.
8. Forestry Regulations of the Kalachevsky Forest District. Voronezh, 2019. 242 p. Access mode: https://www.garant.ru/ doc/1224948/ 
9. Lotova L.I. Botany. Morphology and Anatomy of Higher Plants. Moscow, KomKniga Publ., 2007. 512 p.
10. Mikhin V.I. Forest Reclamation of Landscapes: Monograph. Voronezh, VGLTA Publ.,2006. 127 p. 
11. Nikolaev V.A., Avessalomova I.A., Chizhova V.P. Natural and Anthropogenic Land scapes: Urban, Recreational, Garden and Park. Moscow, MSU Publ., 2011. 112 p. 
12. Rysin L.P., Rysin S.L. Methodology for Assessing the Effects of Recreational Forest Management. Lesnoy vestnik = Forestry Bulletin, 2000, no. 6, pp. 56–59. 
13. Savel’eva L.S. Stability of Trees and Shrubs in Protective Forest Plantations. Moscow, Lesnaya promyshlennost’ Publ., 1975. 168 p.
14. Strategy for the Development of Protective Afforestation in the Russian Federation until 2025. Volgograd, VNIALMI Publ., 2015. 35 p.
15. Borrelli P., Modugno S., Panagos P., Marchetti M., Schütt B., Montanarella L. Detection of Harvested Forest Areas in Italy Using Landsat Imagery. Applied Geography, 2014, vol. 48, pp. 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.01.005
16. Edwards D.M., Jay M., Jensen F.S., Lucas B., Marzano M., Montagné C., Peace A., Weiss G. Public Preferences across Europe for Different Forest Stand Types as Sites for Recreation. Ecology and Society, 2012, vol. 17, no. 1, art. 27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ ES-04520-170127
17. Laarman J.G., Sedjo R.A. Global Forests. New York, McGraw Hill College, 1992. 337 p.
18. Mansourian S., Vallauri D., Dudley N. Forest Restoration in Landscapes. New York, Springer, 2005. 438 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29112-1
19. Martynova M., Sultanova R., Khanov D., Talipov E., Sazgutdinova R. Forest Management Based on the Principles of Multifunctional Forest Use. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 2020, vol. 40, iss. 1, pp. 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2020.1734025
20. Richardson S.D. Forests and Forestry in China. Washington D.C., Island Press, 1990. 352 p.
21. Stritzke S. Seltene Obstarten im Garten. Berlin, VEB Deutscher Landwirtschafts verlag, 1973. 88 S. (In Ger.).