Variability of Silvicultural Characteristics of Forest Shelterbelts in Krasnodar Krai

Complete text of the article:

Download article (pdf, 0.4MB )

UDС

630*260:581.55(470.620)

DOI:

10.37482/0536-1036-2021-1-60-68

Abstract

Modern shelterbelts of Krasnodar Krai do not fully protect arable land and often have different sanitary state. Under these conditions, the preservation of forest shelterbelts and their protective functions in the system of agroforestry and other complex continues to be relevant. The research was carried out in the main and auxiliary forest shelterbelts within the boundaries of the Ust-Labinsk district of Krasnodar Krai. The purpose of the research was to determine the ecological state of the forest shelterbelts by identifying their integrity and implementation of forestry and land reclamation assessment. In order to obtain more complete information on their state, a remote assessment of the tree canopy integrity of the shelterbelts was carried out. It follows from the remote assessment analysis that about 42.5 % of the area surveyed in the key plots of plantations has an average degree of integrity of tree canopy, high – 22.3 %, low and very low – 35.2 %. Lower indicators of the tree canopy integrity are observed in the auxiliary forest shelterbelts. The percentage participation of each group of forest shelterbelts allowed us to rank the ranges of integrity corresponding to a certain forestry and land reclamation assessment (units). The range of the tree canopy integrity from 0 to 25 % corresponds to grade 1, from 25 to 50 % – 2, from 50 to 70 % – 3, from 70 to 100 % – 4. Based on this, the shelterbelts were devided into 4 groups: norm, risk, crisis and disaster. The results of determining the ecological state of the forest shelterbelts by ground and remote methods in the Ust-Labinsk district of Krasnodar Krai showed that a significant part of the surveyed plantations has a dense structure and requires silvicultural care. The group of the forest shelterbelts “disaster” needs reconstruction. This will significantly improve the environmental condition and reclamation efficiency, as well as increase the service life of the systems of forest sheltebelts.

Authors

Nikolay V. Primakov^1,2, Candidate of Agriculture, Assoc. Prof.;
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9225-024X

Affiliation

¹Kuban State University, ul. Stavropol’skaya, 149, Krasnodar, 350040, Russian Federation; e‑mail: nik-primakov@yandex.ru
²Kuban State Agrarian University named after I.T. Trubilin, ul. Kalinina, 13, Krasnodar, 350044, Russian Federation; e-mail: nik-primakov@yandex.ru

Keywords

forest shelterbelts, forestry and land reclamation assessment, sanitary assessment, degree of integrity, shelterbelt design, remote assessment, ecological state

For citation

Primakov N.V. Variability of Silvicultural Characteristics of Forest Shelterbelts in Krasnodar Krai. Lesnoy Zhurnal [Russian Forestry Journal], 2021, no. 1, pp. 60–68. DOI: 10.37482/0536-1036-2021-1-60-68

References

1. Gribacheva O.V. The Current State of the Shelterbelt Featuring English Oak (Quercus robur L.) and Norway Maple (Acer platanoides L.). Lesnoy Zhurnal [Russian Forestry Journal], 2019, no. 4, pp. 34–44. DOI: 10.17238/issn0536-1036.2019.4.34, URL: http://lesnoizhurnal.ru/upload/iblock/0b4/34_44.pdf
2. Ivonin V.M., Tanyukevich V.V., Lobov N.E. Adaptive Forest Reclamation of Steppe Agricultural Landscapes. Ed. by V.M. Ivonin. Novocherkassk, NGMA Publ., 2009. 284 p.
3. Korneeva E.A. Forest Melioration Is as a Factor of Sustainable Development of Agroproduction in the Volgograd Region. APK: Ekonomika, upravleniye, 2019, no. 6, pp. 55–63. DOI: 10.33305/196-55
4. Nagalevskiy E.Yu. Economic and Geographical Aspects of Development of Agricultural Land Reclamation Systems in Different Types of Landscapes of Krasnodar Krai: Cand. Geogr. Sci. Diss. Abs. Krasnodar, 2004. 24 p.
5. Industry Standard. OST 56-69–83. Forest Inventory Testing Areas. Laying out Method. Moscow, TsBNTI Gosleskhoza SSSR Publ., 1983. 60 p.
6. Pavlovskiy E.S. Arrangement of Agroforestry Plantations. Moscow, Lesnaya promyshlennost’ Publ., 1973. 128 p.
7. Primakov N.V. Soil-Forming Effect of Forest Plantations in the Steppe Zone. Rostov-on-Don, SFeDU Publ., 2007. 171 p.
8. Rodimtseva A.V., Nesvat A.P. Distant and Forestry-Meliorative Evaluation of Field-Protecting Shelter-Belts of the Ural-Sakmara Mezhdurechye. Izvestiya Orenburgskogo agrarnogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Izvestia Orenburg State Agrarian University], 2017, no. 6(68), pp. 73–77.
9. Rulev A.S., Yuferev V.G., Koshelev A.V. Mapping of Protective Forests by Aerospace Images. Role and Place of Land and Forest Reclamation in Modern Society: Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference Dedicated to the 75th Anniversary of the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Agroforestry, Volgograd, October 10–13, 2006. Volgograd, VNIALIMI Publ., 2007, pp. 250–260.
10. Sanitary Rules in the Forests of the Russian Federation: Approved by the Federal Forestry Agency Dated January 15, 1998. Moscow, VNIITslesresurs Publ., 1998. 25 p.
11. Sautkina M.Yu., Cheverdin Yu.I. Microbiological Analysis of the Soil Cover of the Kamennaya Steppe Agroforestry Landscapes. Lesnoy Zhurnal [Russian Forestry Journal], 2019, no. 6, pp. 62–78. DOI: 10.17238/issn0536-1036.2019.6.62,
URL: http://lesnoizhurnal.ru/upload/iblock/9db/62_78.pdf
12. Suchkov D.K. Inventory of Forest Protection Belts in the Trinity Village, Mikhaylovsky District, Volgograd Region. Nauchno-agronomicheskiy zhurnal [Scientific and agronomic journal], 2019, no. 2, pp. 24–26.
13. Turusov V.I., Chekanyshkin A.S., Lepekhin A.A. Experience of the Reconstruction Cutting in the Forest Belts of Kamennaya Steppe. Lesnoy Zhurnal [Russian Forestry Journal], 2019, no. 5, pp. 48–56. DOI: 10.17238/issn0536-1036.2019.5.48, URL: http://lesnoizhurnal.ru/upload/iblock/d9e/48_56.pdf
14. 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 Martìn, Peru. Ecología Aplicada, 2007, vol. 6(1-2), pp. 75–82.
15. Kark S., van Rensburg B.J. Ecotones: Marginal or Central Areas of Transition? Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution, 2006, vol. 52, iss. 1, pp. 29–53. DOI: 10.1560/IJEE.52.1.29
16. Mize C., Brondle J. Native Shelterbelts. Ecology, 1999, vol. 48, pp. 27–54.
17. Puddu G., Falcucci A., Maiorano L. Forest Changes over a Century in Sardinia: Implications for Conservation in a Mediterranean Hotspot. Agroforestry Systems, 2012, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 319–330. DOI: 10.1007/s10457-011-9443-y
18. Ritter E., Vesterdal L., Gundersen P. Afforestation of Former Intensively Managed Soils. Effects of Afforestation on Ecosystems, Landscape and Rural Development: Proceedings of the AFORNORD Conference, Reykholt, Iceland, June 18–22, 2005. Copenhagen, Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007, pp. 187–188.
19. Sparovek G., Barretto A.G.O.P., Matsumoto M., Berndes G. Effects of Governance on Availability of Land for Agriculture and Conservation in Brazil. Environmental Science and Technology, 2015, vol. 49, iss. 17, pp. 10285–10293. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01300
20. Waring R.H., Schlesinger W.H. Forest Ecosystems: Concepts and Management. London, Academic Press, 1985. 340 p.