The Current State of the Shelterbelt Featuring English Oak (Quercus robur L.) and Norway Maple (Acer platanoides L.)

Complete text of the article:

Download article (pdf, 0.6MB )

UDС

630*5:581.526.13:633.872./674.031.772.224.2

DOI:

10.17238/issn0536-1036.2019.4.34

Abstract

Shelterbelt forests are one of the most important factors of ecological optimization of agrolandscape. The research purpose is to analyse the current state of the forest belt with the involvement of English oak (Quercus robur L.) and Norway maple (Acer platanoides L.) in the vicinity of Zolotaryovka village (Stanichno-Luganskiy district of Lugansk region, Ukraine) and development of necessary measures for belt’s regeneration. Archival data on the time of planting and age of the studied object were not found out. Shelterbelts in Lugansk region were created in accordance with Stalin’s plan for the transformation of nature, which was designed for the period from 1949 till 1965. We laid out two permanent trial plots due to the branch standard OST 56-69–83 in the studied plantation. We determined the composition of the shelterbelt, the diameter and mean height of trees and their condition by Kraft using the results of the enumerative inventory. The vital status of trees was estimated based on the “Sanitary regulations in the forests of the Russian Federation”. Undergrowth of Norway maple, Tatarian maple and mahaleb cherry (Prunus mahaleb L.) is the most numerous under the canopy of parent plantations. These species originally were not in the stand composition of the shelterbelt. It has been found that in the stand there is a forest-forming process aimed at formation of a forest biocenosis with predominance of Norway maple. The decisive factor affecting the condition of oak trees in the shelterbelts is the condition of their last rows. The survival rate of oak depends on the fall of Norway maple with the natural formation of forest stand in the plantation created by the corridor or ordinary way. It was revealed that it is necessary to carry out increment felling in the rows of Norway maple in order to improve the conditions for growth and development of English oak in the studied plantation. If a set of measures for promotion of tree regeneration in the shelterbelt is not carried out, then in the future there may be a change of English oak to Norway maple and Tatarian maple trees.

Authors

O.V. Gribacheva, Candidate of Biology, Assoc. Prof., Head of the Department of Horticulture and Silviculture; ORCID: 0000-0002-6192-3939

Affiliation

Lugansk National Agrarian University, gorodok LNAU-1, Lugansk, 91008, Ukraine; e-mail: olesya_kopaneva_78@mail.ua

Keywords

shelterbelt, English oak, Norway maple, forest stand, shrub layer, ground cover, average tree diameter, total and average tree crosscut area

For citation

Gribacheva O.V. The Current State of the Shelterbelt Featuring English Oak (Quercus robur L.) and Norway Maple (Acer platanoides L.). Lesnoy Zhurnal [Forestry Journal], 2019, no. 4, pp. 34–44. DOI: 10.17238/issn0536-1036.2019.4.34

References

1. Logginov B.I. Agroforestry Zoning of Ukrainian SSR. Kiev, Gossel’khozizdat USSR Publ., 1991, pp. 307–319.
2. Manaenkov A.S. The Regularities of Water Regime, Growth and Longevity of Artificial Forest Stands in Dry Conditions. Izvestia Sankt-Peterburgskoj Lesotehniceskoj Akademii [News of the Saint Petersburg State Forest Technical Academy], 2017, iss. 221, pp. 91–106. DOI: 10.21266/2079-4304.2017.221.91-106
3. Methodological Guidance for Improving the Durability of Wide-Strip Protective Plantations in the South of the European Part of Russia. Volgograd, VNIALMI Publ., 2013. 56 p.
4. Forest Management Instruction: Approved by the Order no. 31 of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia from February 6, 2008. Available at: www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_77100/(Accessed 12.12.18).
5. OST 56-69–83. Forest Management Trial Plots. Method of Laying out. Moscow, TsBNTILKh Publ., 1984. 50 p.
6. Pavlovskiy E.S. Cultivation of Protective Plantations in the Kamennaya Steppe. Moscow, Lesnaya promyshlennost’ Publ., 1965. 170 p.
7. Pavlovskiy E.S. Silvicultural Feature of Agroforestry Plantations of the Kamennaya Steppe: Dr. Agric. Sci. Diss. Abs. Voronezh, 1969. 38 p.
8. Ramenskiy L.G. Introduction to the Integrated Soil-Geobotanical Study of Lands. Moscow, Sel’khozgiz Publ., 1938. 620 p.
9. Ryzhkov O.V. State and Development of Oak Woods of the Central Forest-Steppe. Tula, Nauka Publ., 2001. 182 p.
10. Ryabtsev I.S. Regeneration of Broad-Leaves Species under the Stand Canopy: Dr. Biol. Sci. Diss. Saint Petersburg, 2014. 180 p.
11. Ryabtsev I.S., Tikhodeeva M.Yu., Ryabtseva I.M. Under Shelterwood Regeneration of Woody Plants in Oak-Dominated (Quercus robur L.) Broadleaf Stands of Different Age. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta [Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University], 2009, ser. 3, iss. 2, pp. 12–21.
12. Sanitary Regulations in the Forests of the Russian Federation: Approved by the Order of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia on November 19, 2007. Available at: www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_72929/ (Accessed 12.12.18).
13. Sorogovets P.E. On the Ecology of Oak Self-Seeding (Influence of Light on Growth and Development). Byulleten’ Instituta biologii, 1957, iss. III, pp. 28–34.
14. Sukachev V.N. Guidance to the Study of Forest Types. Moscow, Gosudarstvennoye izdatel’stvo sel’skokhozyaystvennoy i kolkhozno-kooperativnoy literatury, 1931. 328 p.
15. Fisunenko О.P., Zhadant V.I. Nature of Lugansk Region. Lugansk, LGPI im. T.G. Shevchenko Publ., 1994. 233 p.
16. Brandle J.R., Ruark G. Working Trees: Windbreaks for Carbon in the U.S. Inside Agroforestry, 2000/2001, vol. Fall 2000 / Winter 2001: Carbon, pp. 1; 9.
17. Coates K.D. Tree Recruitment in Gaps of Various Size, Clearcuts and Undisturbed Mixed Forest of Interior British Columbia, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management, 2002, vol. 155, iss. 1-3, pp. 387–398. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00574-6
18. Concha J.Y., Alegre J.C., Pocomucha V. Determination of Carbon Reservations in the Aerial Biomass of Agroforestry Systems of Theobroma cacao L. in the Department of San Martin, Peru. Ecologia Aplicada, 2007, vol. 6, no. 1-2, pp. 75–82.
19. Jose S. Agroforestry for Ecosystem Services and Environmental Benefits: An Overview. Agroforestry Systems, 2009, vol. 76, iss. 1, pp. 1–10. DOI: 10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7
20. Lacombe S., Bradley R.L., Hamel C., Beaulieu C. Do Tree-Based Intercropping Systems Increase the Diversity and Stability of Soil Microbial Communities? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2009, vol. 131, iss. 1-2, pp. 25–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.08.010
21. Reynolds P.E., Simpson J.A., Thevathasan N.V., Gordon A.M. Effects of Tree Competition on Corn and Soybean Photosynthesis, Growth, and Yield in a Temperate Tree-Based Agroforestry Intercropping System in Southern Ontario, Canada. Ecological Engineering, 2007, vol. 29, iss. 4, pp. 362–371. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.09.024
22. Walther G.-R., Post E., Convey P., Menzel A., Parmesan C., Beebee T.J.C., Fromentin J.-M., Hoegh-Culdberg O., Bairlein F. Ecological Responses to Recent Climate Change. Nature, 2002, vol. 416, no. 6879, pp. 389–395.

Received on February 21, 2019