GIS-analysis of the Influence of the Land Use Type on the Current Diversity of Forest Plantations in the Kenozersky National Park. P. 27–41

Complete text of the article:

Download article (pdf, 0.8MB )

UDС

630*261:004.93

DOI:

10.37482/0536-1036-2023-5-27-41

Abstract

The problem of agricultural land abandonment is a worldwide problem. In the forest zone, the transformation of fallow lands is associated with afforestation and the formation of so-called secondary forest growths. Postagrogenic forests reflect the agricultural history of fallow areas, which imprint the "mute" realities of time and the social order of their development. The type of previous land use creates sufficiently stable factors, which in the process of natural overgrowth are weakly changed by natural factors and affect the emerging forests. In the key area of Kenozersky National Park (middle taiga forest region), located in the Plesetsk District of the Arkhangelsk region, we traced, according to the 1861 boundary plans, the regularities of evolution of land use areas of different categories during forest overgrowth. We assessed the area, tree species and typological structure of modern forests according to the 2014 forest inventory and traced the connection between the transformation of agro-ecosystems into forests and the history of the use of these lands after the land survey. As of the year when the boundary plans were drawn up, more than half of the territory of the key site was under agrarian influence (arable land, perelogs, haymaking, etc.). After 160 years a forest massif was formed (97 % of the territory), in which a part of hayfields was preserved. First of all, perelogs and hayfields were overgrown with forests (99 and 85 %, respectively). The allocation characterization of taxation descriptions of forest stands showed that bilberry and oxalis type pine forests were formed more often (89,7; 81,0; 78.5 %, respectively) on abandoned arable lands, perelogs and hayfields. All formed stands, classified as bilberry and oxalis type pine forests during forest inventory, have rather high productivity (I–II quality classes) and mixed composition. Forests of lower quality classes (III and IV) were rewealed in the formation of bilberry forest type. At present about 70 % of the bilberry and oxalis type pine forests on the 1861 boundary plan, formed on arable land, are dominated by birch (more than 3 units), about 10 % – by gray alder; the share of stands dominated by aspen is high. Reduced soil fertility on swidden plots ensured a more stable position of pine in the composition of emerging stands (60 % of pine-dominated stands). The character of tree species composition in stands formed on hayfields corresponds to lands with high soil fertility, which indicates the formation of hayfields on abandoned arable land. The studies have demonstrated significant differentiation of derived forest landscapes, sometimes hidden due to the widespread growth of the main forest-forming species and the formation of zonal-type forests. Intralandscape differentiation associated with the history of agricultural development has been preserved for more than 100 years and requires close study.

Authors

Alexander V. Kozykin¹, Research Scientist; ResearcherID: HNQ-5782-2023, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7182-953X
Elena N. Nakvasina^2*, Doctor of Agriculture, Prof.; ResercherID: A-5165-2013, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7360-3975

Affiliation

¹Kenozersky National Park, Researcher, Naberezhnaya Severnoy Dviny, 78, Arkhangelsk, 163000, Russian Federation; gryllus2007@gmail.com
²Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov, Naberezhnaya Severnoy Dviny, 17, Arkhangelsk, 163002, Russian Federation; e.nakvasina@narfu.ru*

Keywords

boundary plans, plantation plan, fallow lands, land categories, arable land, perelog, haymaking, forest types, quality class, stand composition, GIS-analysis, geographic information system, Kenozersky Park

Funding

The study was carried out within the framework of the theme "Identification of objects of slash-and-burn and swidden farming on the territory of Kenozersky National Park".

For citation

Kozykin A.V., Nakvasina E.N. GIS-analysis of the Influence of the Land Use Type on the Current Diversity of Forest Plantations in the Kenozersky National Park. Lesnoy Zhurnal = Russian Forestry Journal, 2023, no. 5, pp. 27–41. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.37482/0536-1036-2023-5-27-41

References

1. Bobrovsky M.V. Forest Soils of European Russia: Biotic and Anthropogenic Factors of Formation. Moscow, KMK Publ., 2010. 359 p. (In Russ.).

2. Golubeva L.V., Nakvasina E.N. Transformation of Postagrogenic Lands on Carbonate Deposits. Arkhangelsk, KIRA Publ., 2017. 152 p. (In Russ.).

3. Gromtsev A.N. Derived Forests in the Western Taiga Zone of Russia: Concepts, Origin, Identification. Trudy Karel'skogo nauchnogo centra RAN = Proceedings of the Karelian Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2019, no. 5, pp. 5–16. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17076/eco900

4. Gusev A.P. Anthropogenic Transformation of Landscapes and Vegetation Succession. Vestnik Tuymenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ekologiya i prirodopol'zovanie = Bulletin of the Tyumen State University. Ecology and Nature Management, 2015, vol. 1, no. 2(2), pp. 103–110. (In Russ.).

5. Durnovtsev V.I. "Environmental history" as "Ecological history" (Historiographical notes). Vestnik Surgutskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta = Bulletin of Surgut State Pedagogical University, 2017, no. 6(51), pp. 10–19. (In Russ.).

6. Ivanov A.L., Zavalin A.A., Kuznetsov M.C. et al. Agroecological State and Prospects of Utilization of Russian Lands Retired from Active Agricultural Turnover. Ed. by G.A. Romanenko. Moscow, Rosinformagrotech Publ., 2008. 64 p. (In Russ.).

7. Kozykin A.V. Methodology of Assessment of Agro-cultural Landscape Changes based on GIS-processing of the 1861 Survey Plans and Modern Description of the Forest Fund of the Kenozersky National Park. Istoricheskaya informatika = Historical Informatics, 2021, no. 2, pp. 221–232. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.7256/2585-7797.2021.2.35089

8. Kosenkov G.L., Kolbovsky E.J. Periodization and Reconstruction of the History of Development of the Territory of the Smolensk Lakeland National Park for the Purposes of the Cultural Landscape Typology. Yaroslavskij pedagogicheskij vestnik = Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin, 2012, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 232–238. (In Russ.).

9. Kukushkina O.V., Alyabina I.O., Golubinsky A.A. Experience of Reconstruction of Land Use of the Soil Cover of Balakhna Uyezd, Nizhny Novgorod Province in the XVIIIXIX Centuries (based on Cartographic Sources). Pochvovedenie = Soil Science, 2018, no. 7, pp. 882–892. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0032180X18070067

10. Matasov V.M. Intralandscape Dynamics of Meshcherskaya Lowland Land Use Over the last 250 Years. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 5: Geografiya = Bulletin of the Moscow University. Series 5: Geography, 2017, no. 4, pp. 65–74. (In Russ.).

11. Survey plans of 1861 of Kenozerskaya Dacha of Vershininskaya Volost, Kargopolsky Uyezd, Olonets Province. Archive of Kenozersky National Park. Archive fund 1, record 8, cаse 401, 402. (In Russ.).

12. Milov L.V. The Great Russian Plowman and the Peculiarities of the Russian Historical Process. Moscow, ROSSPEN Publ., 2001. 576 p. (In Russ.).

13. Moskalenko S.V., Bobrovsky M.V. Dispersal of Forest Plant Species from Old-Growth Oak Forests to Abandoned Arable Lands in the Kaluga Zaseki Nature Reserve. Izvestiya Samarskogo NC RAN = Izvestia of the Samara Scientific Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2012, vol. 14, no. 1(5), pp. 1332–1335. (In Russ.).

14. Nakvasina E.N., Golubeva L.V. Identification of Post-agroforests in the Kenozersky National Park. Vestnik Severnogo (Arkticheskogo) federal'nogo universiteta, Seriya Estestvennye nauki = Bulletin of the Northern (Arctic) Federal University. Ser. “Natural Sciences”, 2015, no. 4, pp. 75–82. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17238/issn2227-6572.2015.4.75

15. Pashkevich O. Agrocultural Heritage: Origins, Realities, Future. Nauka i innovacii = Science and Innovation, 2020, no. 9(211), pp. 37–42. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.29235/1818-9857-2020-9-37-42

16. Explanatory Note to the Forest Inventory Materials of the Kenozersky National Park. Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Branch of FSUE "Roslesinforg", 2014. 170 p. (In Russ.).

17. Tomilov N.A. Ethnic Ecology, Ecological History, and Areas of Natural and Environmental Culture. Vestnik Omskogo universiteta, Ser. Istoricheskie nauki = Bulletin of Omsk University. "Historical Sciences" series, 2016, no. 2(10), pp. 88–93. (In Russ.).

18. Trapeznikova O.N., Tormosova N.I. Historical and Geoecological Analysis of the Development of the Russian North in the Conditions of Karst Process Development (on the example of Kargopolye). Geoekologiya. Inzhenernaya geologiya, gidrogeologiya, geokriologiya = Geoecology. Engineering Geology, Hydrogeology, Geocryology, 2019, no. 3, pp. 52–62. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31857/S0869-78092019352-62

19. Tretyakov S.V., Koptev S.V., Neverov N.A., Novikova N.S. Preservation of Agricultural Landscapes and their Sustainable Management in the Kargopol Sector of the Kenozersky National Park. Bulletin of PSU. Natural Sciences series, 2014, no. 3, pp. 40–47. (In Russ.).

20. Trubin D.V. Agroforest: Arable Land and Forest in an Inseparable Bond. Ekopotencial = Ecopotential, 2016, no. 2(14), pp. 12–21. (In Russ.).

21. Web mapping and navigation. SAS Planet. (In Russ.).

22. Broughton R.K., Bullock J.M., George C., Hill R.A., Hinsley S.A., Maziarz M. et al. Long-Term Woodland Restoration on Lowland Farmland Through Passive Rewilding. PLoS ONE, 2021, vol. 16, no. 6. Art. no. e0252466. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252466

23. Clark J.D., Johnson A.H. Carbon and Nitrogen Accumulation in Post-Agricultural Forest Soils of Western New England. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 2011, no. 75(4), pp. 1530–1542. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2010.0180

24. Cramer V., Hobbs R.J. Old Fields: Dynamics and Restoration of Abandoned Farmland. Society for Ecological Restoration International, Island Press, Washington, Covelo, London, 2007. 352 p.

25. D’Orangeville L., Bouchard A., Cogliastro A. Unexpected Seedling Growth in the Understory of Post-agricultural Forests from Eastern Canada. Annals of Forest Science, 2011, no. 68, pp. 759–769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-011-0073-3

26. Gibson D.J., Middleton B.A., Foster K., Honu Y.A.K., Hoyer E.W., Marilyn М. Species Frequency Dynamics in an Old-Field Succession. Effects of Disturbance, Fertilization and Scale. Journal of Vegetation Research, 2005, no. 16(4), pp. 415–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2005.tb02381.x

27. Kopecký M., Vojta J. Land-use Legacies in Post-agricultural Forests in the Doupovské Mountains, Czech Republic. Applied Vegetation of Science, 2009, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-109X.2009.01023.x

28. Macdonald D.V., Crabtree J.R., Wiesinger G., Dax T., Stamou N., Fleury P., Gutierrez Lazpita J.A., Gibon A. Agricultural Abandonment in Mountain Areas of Europe: Environmental Consequences and Policy Response. J. Environ. Manag., 2000, vol. 59(1), pр. 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1999.0335

29. Naaf T., Kolk J. Colonization Credit of Post-agricultural Forest Patches in NE Germany Remains 130–230 Years After Reforestation. Biological Conservation, 2015, vol. 182, pp. 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.12.002

30. Otero I., Marull J., Tello E., Diana G. L., Pons M., Coll F., Boada M. Land Abandonment, Landscape, and Biodiversity: Questioning the Restorative Character of the Forest Transition in the Mediterranean. Ecology and Society, 2015, no. 20(2), pp. 32–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07378-200207

31. Plieninger T., Schaich H. Socialist and Postsocialist Land-use Legacies Determine Farm Woodland Composition and Structure: Lessons from Eastern Germany. Eur. J. Forest. Res., 2014, no. 133, pp. 597–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-014-0788-4

32. Prévosto B., Kuiters L., Bernhardt-Römermann M., Dölle M., Schmidt W., Hoffmann M., Uytvanck J.V., Bohner A., Kreiner D., Stadler J., Klotz S., Brandl R. Impacts of Land Abandonment on Vegetation. Successional Pathways in European Habitats. Folia Geobot., 2011, no. 46, pp. 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12224-010-9096-z

33. Schulp C.J.E., Levers C., Kuemmerle T., Tieskens K.F., Verburg P.H. Mapping and Modelling Past and Future Land Use Change in Europe’s Cultural Landscapes. Land Use Policy, 2019, vol. 80, pp. 332–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.030

34. Sewerniak P. Survey of Some Attributes of Post-agricultural Lands in Polish State. Forests Ecological Questions, 2016, no. 22, pp. 9–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/EQ.2015.018

35. Smit R., Olff H. Woody Species Colonization in Relation to Habitat Productivity. Plant Ecology, 1998, no. 139, pp. 203–209. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009750216223

36. Vellend M., Verheyen K., Flinn K.M., Jacquemyn H. et all. Homogenization of Forest Plant Communities and Weakening of Species–environment Relationships via Agricultural Land Use. Journal of Ecology, 2007, no. 95, pp. 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01233.x