Changes in Density and Species Composition of Undergrowth at Different Distances from the Forest Edges in Postagrogenic Areas

Complete text of the article:

Download article (pdf, 0.8MB )

UDС

631.95

DOI:

10.37482/0536-1036-2020-1-88-98

Abstract

The work is devoted to the study of changes in density and species diversity of undergrowth at different distances from the forest edges on postagrogenic lands, as well as factors affecting the distribution of undergrowth by area. The studies were done in the middle subzone of taiga in the Velsk district of Arkhangelsk region. Undergrowth was studied on tapes laid out parallel to the forest edges and at different distances from them with 10-meter intervals. Enumerations were carried out by breed, height class and living state. The type of use, the period of non-use as intended, the degree of grassing down and the particle-size composition of soil were determined for all postagrogenic areas. The most important deriver affecting the process of overgrowth and range of propagation of undergrowth is the period of non-use of this area for the intended purpose (correlation coefficient is 0.94) and the degree of grassing down (correlation coefficient is 0.54). The more time has passed since the termination of agricultural activity, the higher the quantity of undergrowth and the further it spreads from the forest edges. At 10 years of non-use, the undergrowth occurs up to a distance of 50 m, and already at 20–25 years it appears at a distance of 90 m from the forest edge. The range of propagation of undergrowth from the forest edge is not affected by such characteristics of the field as the type of use and the particle-size composition of soil. The total density of undergrowth decreases at a distance from the forest edge from 10,000 (0–30 m) to 1,600 (80–90 m) pcs/ha. These figures for the economically valuable species, such as spruce and pine, are from 7,533 (10 m from the forest edge) to 800 (90 m from the forest edge) pcs/ha and from 2,533 to 400 pcs/ha, respectively. The species spectrum of undergrowth corresponds to the woody vegetation composition within the forest edges adjacent to the fields and includes pine, spruce, birch, alder, and aspen. Aspen disappears from the species composition with a distance of 30 m from the forest edge. The species ratio in the undergrowth composition varies, however the dominant species are spruce and pine at different distances from the forest edges.

Authors

P.A. Feklistov², Doctor of Agriculture, Prof.; ORCID: 0000-0001-8226-893X
M.V. Averina¹, Postgraduate Student
I.N. Bolotov², Doctor of Biology; ResearcherID: P-2892-2015, ORCID: 0000-0002-3878-4192
B.Yu. Filippov¹, Doctor of Biology, Assoc. Prof.; ResearcherID: O-7389-2017, ORCID: 0000-0002-6965-7137
D.N. Klevtsov¹, Candidate of Agriculture, Assoc. Prof.; ORCID: 000-0001-6902-157X

Affiliation

¹Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov, Naberezhnaya Severnoy Dviny, 17, Arkhangelsk, 163002, Russian Federation; e-mail: averina.mariya1990@yandex.ru
²Federal Center for Integrated Arctic Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Naberezhnaya Severnoy Dviny, 23, Arkhangelsk, 163000, Russian Federation; e-mail: dirnauka@fciarctic.ru

Keywords

undergrowth, tree species, density of undergrowth, height of undergrowth, postagrogenic lands

Funding

The studies were carried out within the framework of the state assignment of the Federal Center for Integrated Arctic Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences (project No. 0409-2019-0039; No. ГР АААА-А18-118011690221-0).

For citation

Feklistov P.A., Averina M.V., Bolotov I.N., Filippov B.Yu., Klevtsov D.N. Changes in Density and Species Composition of Undergrowth at Different Distances from the Forest Edges in Postagrogenic Areas. Lesnoy Zhurnal [Russian Forestry Journal], 2020, no. 1, pp. 88–98. DOI: 10.37482/0536-1036-2020-1-88-98

References

1. [Averina M.V., Feklistov P.A., Tretyakov S.V., Kononov O.D. Secondary Successions on the Lands from under Agricultural Use in the Kenozersky National Park Territory. Vestnik KrasGAU [The Bulletin of KrasGAU], 2016, no. 5, pp. 25–32.
2. Aleksandrova L.N., Naydenova O.A. Laboratory and Practical Classes in Soil Science. Leningrad, Kolos Publ., 1976. 280 p.
3. Anuchin N.P. Forest Inventory. Moscow, Lesnaya promyshlennost’ Publ., 1977. 512 p.
4. Belyaev V.V., Kononov O.D., Karaban A.A., Staritsyn V.V. Condition of Woody Plants on the Farmlands Excluded from the Economic Turnover in the Arkhangelsk Region. Vestnik Severnogo (Arkticheskogo) federal’nogo universiteta. Seriya: Estestvennyye nauki, 2013, no. 2, pp. 5–11.
5. Varaksin G.S., Vais A.A., Baikalov E.M. Agricultural Land Colonization by Tree Vegetation. Vestnik KrasGAU [The Bulletin of KrasGAU], 2012, no. 5, pp. 201–205.
6. Voityuk M.M. Rural Forests, Their Distinctive Features and Productivity. Lesnoy vestnik [Forestry Bulletin], 2005, no. 5, pp. 126–136.
7. Gul’be A.Ya. Forming of Tree Species Offspring on Grass Sward in the Southern Taiga (On the Example, Yaroslavl Region): Cand. Biol. Sci. Diss. Abs. Moscow, 2009. 23 р.
8. Gusev I.I. Inventory of the Forest Stand. Arkhangelsk, ASTU Publ., 2000. 71 p.
9. Degteva S.V., Golovneva L.B. Features of the Meadow – Gray Alder Succession Series. Trudy Komi filiala AN SSSR, 1987, iss. 82, pp. 67–76.
10. Zalesov S.V., Magasumova A.G., Jurovskih E.V. Regeneration of Former Agricultural Lands Inslobodo-Turinsky District of Sverdlovsk Region. Lesa Rossii i khozyaystvo v nikh, 2009, no. 4(34), pp. 14–23.
11. Zalesov S.V. Formation of Stands on the Lands Taken out of Agricultural Use in the Middle Taiga Subzone of Perm Region. Lesa Urala i khozyaystvo v nikh, 2004, no. 25, pp. 30–41.
12. Kurnayev S.F. Forest Vegetation Zoning of the USSR. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1973. 203 p.
13. Forest Inventory Guide for the North-East of the European Part of the USSR (Standards for Arkhangelsk and Vologda Regions, and the Komi ASSR). Content by G.S. Voynov, E.G. Tyurin, I.I. Gusev. Arkhangelsk, AILiLKh Publ., 1986. 358 p.
14. Lyuri D.I., Goryachkin S.V., Karavayeva N.A., Denisenko E.A., Nefedova T.G. Dynamics of Agricultural Lands of Russia in the 20th Century and Post-Agrogenic Restoration of Vegetation and Soils. Moscow, GEOS Publ., 2010. 415 p.
15. Melekhov V.I., Antonov A.M., Lokhov D.V. Forestry Potential of Unused Agricultural Lands. Vestnik Pomorskogo universiteta. 2011, no. 3, pp. 62–66.
16. Melekhov I.S. Forest Science. Moscow, MGUL Publ., 1999. 398 p. 
17. Minin N.S., Seryy I.S. The Anatomical Structure and Wood Density of Pine Forests Formed on the Lands Taken out of Agricultural Use. Proceedings of the All-Russian Conference: The Fourth Melekhov’s Scientific Readings Dedicated to the 105th Anniversary of I.S. Melekhov “Issues of Forest Science and Forestry”, Arkhangelsk, November 10–12, 2010. Arkhangelsk, 2010, pp. 77–80.
18. Morozov A.M., Nikolayeva I.O. Features of Forest Regeneration on Arable Lands and Hayfields. Vestnik Altayskogo gosudarstvennogo agrarnogo universiteta [Bulletin of Altai State Agrarian University], 2013, no. 5(103), pp. 82–86.
19. Morozov G.F. The Doctrine of Forest. Moscow, Goslesbumizdat Publ., 1949. 456 p.
20. Nikitin K.E., Shvidenko A.Z. Meth ods and Technique of Forestry Information Processing. Moscow, Lesnaya promyshlennost’ Publ., 1978. 273 p.
21. Novoselova N.N. The Formation of Forest Stands on the Lands Taken out of Agricultural Use in the Taiga Zone of the Perm Krai: Cand. Agric. Sci. Diss. Yekaterinburg, 2007. 125 p.
22. Sokolov N.N. Growth and Productivity of Pine Stands on Old Arable Lands. Lesnoy Zhurnal [Russian Forestry Journal], 1978, no. 4, pp. 22–25.
23. Feklistov P.A., Drozhzhin D.P., Glasova N.V. Workshop on Ecology. Arkhangelsk, ASTU Publ., 2007. 61 p.
24. Shimanyuk A.P. Colonization of Former Arable Land by Pine and Spruce. Lesnoye khozyaystvo, 1950, no. 9, pp. 50–52.
25 Baeten L., Velghe D., Vanhellemont M., De Frenne P., Hermy M., Verheyen K. Early Trajectories of Spontaneous Vegetation Recovery after Intensive Agricultural Land Use. Restoration Ecology, 2010, vol. 18, iss. s2, pp. 379–386. DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00627.x
26. Bellemare J., Motzkin G., Foster D.R. Legacies of the Agricultural Past in the Forested Present: An Assessment of Historical Land-Use Effects on Rich Mesic Forests. Journal of Biogeography, 2002, vol. 29, iss. 10-11, pp. 1401–1420. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2002.00762.x
27. Connell J.H., Slatyer R.O. Mechanisms of Succession in Natural Communities and Their Role in Community Stability and Organization. The American Naturalist, 1977, vol. 111, no. 982, pp. 1119–1144.
28. Flinn K.M., Vellend M. Recovery of Forest Plant Communities in PostAgricultural Landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2005, vol. 3, iss. 5, pp. 243–250. DOI: 10.1890/1540-9295(2005)003[0243:ROFPCI]2.0.CO;2
29. Fridley J.D., Wright J.P. Drivers of Secondary Succession Rates across Temperate Latitudes of the Eastern USA: Climate, Soils, and Species Pools. Oecologia, 2012, vol. 168, pp. 1069–1077. DOI: 10.1007/s00442-011-2152-4 
30. Hedlund K., Santa Regina I., Van der Putten W.H., Lepš J., Díaz T., Korthals G.W. et al. Plant Species Diversity, Plant Biomass and Responses of the Soil Community on Abandoned Land across Europe: Idiosyncrasy or Above-Belowground Time Lags. Oikos, 2003, vol. 103, iss. l, pp. 45–58. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12511.x
31. Meiners S.J., Pickett S.T.A., Handel S.N. Probability of Tree Seedling Establishment Changes across a Forest-Old Field Edge Gradient. American Journal of Botany, 2002, vol. 89, iss. 3, pp. 466–471. DOI: 10.3732/ajb.89.3.466
32. Stanturf J.A., Schweitzer C.J., Gardiner E.S. Afforestation of Marginal Agricultural Land in the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley, U.S.A. Silva Fennica, 1998, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 281–297. DOI: 10.14214/sf.688
33. Štolcová J. Secondary Succession on an Early Abandoned Field: Vegetation Composition and Production of Biomass. Plant Protection Science, 2002, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 149–154. DOI: 10.17221/4871-PPS
34. Van der Putten W.H., Mortimer S.R., Hedlund K., Van Dijk C., Brown V.K., Lepä J. et. al. Plant Species Diversity as a Driver of Early Succession in Abandoned Fields: A Multi-Site Approach. Oecologia, 2000, vol. 124, no. 1, pp. 91–99. DOI: 10.1007/s004420050028

Received on January 25, 2019