CC BY
51
Что же касается мониторинга и природоохранной деятельности, то Северокавказский регион -один из удачных примеров решения данной проблемы. Здесь создано 4 заповедника общей площадью около 3% территории, что соответствует требованиям закона об охране природы. Расположены они в основном в западной части региона и охватывают своим контролем геосистемы всех высотных поясов. Вне экологического контроля по-прежнему остаются горные геосистемы Дагестана. До сих пор не создан обсуждаемый с 80-х годов прошлого столетия Гутонский (Тляратинский) горный заповедник в виду сопротивления местных хозяйствующих субъектов. Между тем здесь расположены наиболее самобытные и уязвимые в отношении антропогенной нагрузки горные геосистемы. Вследствие бесконтрольных рубок и перевыпаса скота верхняя граница лесов понизилась здесь на сотни метров, а альпийские луга деградируют и теряют свой естественный облик. Создание Гутонского заповедника совместно с уже существующими могло бы поставить под систематический экологический контроль весь северный склон Большого Кавказа с выработкой для всего региона скоординированной социальной и эколого-экономической политики устойчивого развития.
Библиографический список
1. Алексеев Б.Д. Растительные ресурсы Дагестана. - Махачкала, 1979. - 99 с. 2. Атаев З.В. Высотная дифференциация и вопросы оптимизации предгорных ландшафтов Дагестана // Географические аспекты охраны природы. - Воронеж: Изд-во ВорГУ, 1990. - С.99-104. 3. Большой Кавказ - Стара-Планина (Балкан). Отв. ред-ры: И.П. Герасимов, Ж. Гылыбов. - М.: Наука, 1984. - 254 с. 4. Гасанов Ш.Ш. Структурная экология. Методология и методы. - Махачкала: ИД Наука плюс, 2006. - 200 с. 5. Гребенщиков О.С. Опыт климатической характеристики основных растительных формаций Кавказа // Ботан. журн. - 1974, т.59, №2. 6. Данилова Н.А. Климаторекреационные ресурсы Северного Кавказа // Материалы метеорологических исследований. - М., 1982, №5. 7. Зоны и типы поясности растительности России и сопредельных территорий. М-б 1:8000 000. Пояснительный текст. Отв. ред. Г.Н. Огуреева. - М., 1999. - 64 с. 8. Лепёхина А.А. Флора Дагестана и её охрана. - Махачкала, 1988. - 80 с. 9. Полтараус Б.В. Фёны Западного Кавказа // Метеорол. и гидрол., 1972. №7. 10. Селиверстов Ю.П. Состояние и развитие горных систем // Изв. РГО, 2002. Т.134, Вып.6. - С.7-14. 11. Справочник по климату СССР. - Л.: Гидрометеоиздат, 1976, вып.15. 12. Физическая география Дагестана. Отв.ред. Б.А. Акаев. - М.: Школа, 1996. - 382 с.
УДК 504.64 (23)
A TRIAL TO APPLY BIOENERGETIC INDEX FOR ESTIMATION OF HETEROGENEITY
Биологическая вариативность - один из важных индексов, характеризующих экосистемы, состояние их баланса. Этот термин применим фактически ко всем экологическим системам.
Biodiversity is a term applied practically to all ecological systems, therefore it is understandable that it appears also in landscape ecology. It is one of the important indices characterizing ecosystems and their balance state.
It is more and more often accepted that it is one of important indices characterizing ecosystems, their state of balance. When considering biodiversity of landscape, one should speak about its heterogeneity and not solely of heterogeneity of living elements, since landscape consists also of technical elements, civilization items (Crist, Roworth, 2001; Forman, 1989; Risser, 1987). Heterogeneity of landscape is usually analyzed as analysis of numbers, configuration, size of patches, hence spatial structure determined visually. One should recall that patches are considered as nonlinear diversified surfaces of landscape, which are distinguished visually in the landscape from the surroundings (Klopatek, Gardner and ed., 1999). When relying on definition of landscape
OF MOUNTAIN LANDSCAPE AREA
© 2007. Zofia Fischer, Piotr Belicki
Catholic University of lublin, Republic of Poland
by Forman and Gordon (1986), Turner M.G., Gardner R.H., O'Neill R.N. (2001), which are not contradictory to one of earliest definitions by Grigoriev (Grigoriev, 1960, 1966), the landscape takes form heterogenic space consisting of aggregation of co-dependent ecosystems (patches) co-occurring in a certain sequence.
Landscapes are most often described as their structure, function and variation - the traits typical for any type of landscape (Forman, Gordon, 1986). Structure is understood by majority of authors as spatial relation between adjacent patches which determines flow of energy and matter depending on their shape, number, type and configuration.
As already was said, each landscape can be characterized by its heterogeneity-diversity. Here a question arises whether heterogeneity is a mosaic and spatial distribution of patches, corridors, or it is diversity of functions (Fischer, Magomedov, 2004). Does the spatial diversity follow that of function? Investigations carried out in Carpathian Mts. (Klich, 2006) have shown that for analysis of landscape diversity one can apply bioenergetic indices as based on determining patchiness of landscape with methods different than visual ones. Thus obtained results are not congruent with those obtained by classic (visual) method.
The aim of present paper was a trial to compare determining heterogeneity of landscape as obtained by analysis of its structure, patchiness determined visually from dominant plant species and from analysis of functional differentiation. Since according to Grigoriev (1966), Armand (1957, 1975), Fischer, Magomedov (2004) solar energy is a basic factor determining the landscape, amount of energy bound in primary production was chosen as an index of functional differentiation.
A hypothesis was accepted that energy accumulated in plant biomass is decisive for activity of ecosystem and can be an index of functional heterogeneity of landscape. Relying on this premise analysis was performed of heterogeneity of structure of patchiness in two high-mountain valleys of Tien-Shan massif by using the index of diversity by Simpson and Wiener-Shannon as applied to landscape by Turner M.G., Gardner R.H., O'Neill R.V. (2001). Analogous analysis was done using the same indices but taking into account the energetic value of patches.
Investigations were performed in two sections of terrain, transects typical for high-mountain desert zone and high-mountain meadow-steppe landscape zone of Central Tien-Shan.
First transect was postglacial valley of Baraibas River in Akshijrak region. It is located at 78°31' of east longitude and 41°44' of north latitude. The study area which has been analyzed is situated at relative altitudes of 3,340-3,506 m a. s. l. and its surface was 41,280 m2.
Second transect was investigated in erosive valley in Ak-Zoltoj region. This valley is situated at 41°31' of north latitude and 77°51' of east longitude. The investigated area was 9,000 m2 at relative altitudes of 34533499 m a. s. l. This was high-mountain, meadow-steppe landscape zone.
In order to evaluate diversity of the terrains examined one relies on number of patches, their percentage incidence as well as using indices applied for of landscape diversity evaluation by Turner M.G., Gardner R.H., O'Neill R.V. (2001), Gergel S.E., Turner M.G. (2003), namely:
Shannon-Wiener index of uniformity with formula:
where P - ratio of area of a given patch type to total area of investigated terrain. Patches were distinguished by two ways: A) relying on dominance of plants.
Both in postglacial valley (transect A) as in erosive valley (transect B) 10 micro-patches were chosen that were characterized by smaller or larger dominance of cover with the following plant species: Artemisia rhodantha, Caragana arborescens, Carex melanantha, C. stenocarpa, Elymus dasystachys, Festuca coelestris, F. krilowiana, F. sulcata, Kobresia angusticarpa, K. humitis, K. pseudopilosa, Potentilia orientalis, Stipa caucasica, S. kirghisorum, S. orientali, mosses and lichenes.
S
-X ( p, )ln( p, )
H =_£!-
ln(s)
where: pi - per cent of area covered with a given type of vegetation, and
S - number of cover types.
Simpson's index of diversity
Ландшафтная экология r^CP Юг России: экология, развитие. Вып. 1, 2007
Landscape ecology_ШШ The South of Russia: ecology, development. Vol. 1, 2007
B) relying on energy value of plant biomass obtained by harvesting method.
Ten spans were distinguished each showing plant biomass within the limits of 200 kcal m-2. Thus, spans were: 0-200 kcal m-2; 200-400 kcal m-2......2000-2200 kcal m-2.
Due to different size of transects the obtained data were recalculated to a surface of 1,000 m2 for both transects. Such calculated per 1,000 m2, number of patches obtained by visual method was 2.68 and that by visual method 2.2, for the both transects. Results of general characteristics of the two transects obtained by the two methods are given in Table 1.
Table 1
Characteristics of transect A and B done with the two methods: classic one and the method based on energetic value of plant biomass
Classic method Method based on energy of plant biomass
No. types of patches Min/max size m2 No. types of patches Min/max size m2 Min/max energetic value kcal m-2
Transect A 11 851-7380 5 1461-21913 0-793
Transect B 11 24-2202 5 380-4143 0-2180
In such described transects analyses were made of patchiness relying on Simpson's diversity index by and Shannon-Wiener's index of uniformity. These two indices range within 0-1. If Shannon-Wiener index is close to 0 then the landscape is dominated by one or several types of cover. If it is close to 1, then proportions among all types of cover are similar or almost equal, so it characterized great heterogeneity, without a clear dominance. At the both ways of calculation, with visual and bioenergetic method (energy bond in plant biomass, values of the both indices of evenness (or uniformity) and biodiversity are high. If Simpson's index is close to 1, it means that the landscape is strongly diversified is clearly uniform.
At the two ways of calculation, thus basing on landscape structure determined visually and that relying on bioenergetic value of plant biomass, values of diversity and uniformity indices are high (Tab. 2).
Table 2
Indices of heterogeneity of landscape calculated on distinguishing patches visually and
on energetic value of plant biomass
Shannon-Wiener index Simpson index
Transect A Tien-Shan Transect B Tien-Shan Transect A Tien-Shan Transect B Tien-Shan Carpathians
Visual method 11 851-7380 5 1461-21913 0-793
Bioenergetic method 11 24-2202 5 380-4143 0-2180
This is corresponding to the statement that generally high-mountain massif of Tien-Shan has a tendency to high, but relatively uniform heterogeneity. It should be stressed that in both the cases the analysis was based on microstructure of the area investigated. Majority of calculations points to the fact that at both transects the visual method yields higher diversity than the energetic method.
The obtained result means that structural diversity of landscape is not always equal to functional diversity. Investigations done by Klich in Carpathian Mts. (Klich, 2006, in press) speak in favor of this thesis. The Simpson's index was used for analysis of landscape diversity there, and as the bioenergetic - index the rate of decomposition of organic matter. The landscape of Carpathian Mts. is of mezzo-patchiness, contrary to the high mountain landscape of Tien-Shan, where the micro-diversity type was prevailing.
It seems interesting that values of Simpson's index in the two so different areas as calculated by functional process method are very similar, whereas they differ very strongly when calculated with the commonly used visual method, it may suggest that depending on the size of patches, thus micro- or mezzo-heterogeneity of landscape, the error of results obtained with visual method is different; it is larger when larger patches are analyzed. It is just a suggestion which claims for further studies.
To sum up, it can be said that the landscape in question, high-mountain steppe of Tien-Shan, is characterized by high heterogeneity and that the visual method of landscape diversity analysis yields different results as compared with the method based on energetic background.
1. Armand D.L. Предмет, задача и цель физической географии (Scope, aims, and reasons of physical geography) // Вопросы географии. № 40. - 1957. 2. Armand D.L. Наука о ландшафте. M.: Мысль, 1975. - С.286. 3. Crist M., Ro-worth E. Cumulative effects of roads and logging on landscape structure in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado (USA) // Landscape Ecol. Vol. 16, no. 4. - 2001. - Pp.327-349. 4. Fischer Z., Magomedov M-R.D. Ekologia-Krajobraz-Energia. (Ecology-Landscape-Energy). - Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL, 2004. - 250 p. 5. Forman R.T.T. Ecological sustainable Landscapes: The role of spatial configuration // Zonneveld US. Forman R.T.T. Changing landscapes: An ecological perspective. - 1989. - Pp.261-278. 6. Forman R.T.T., Godron M. Landscape ecology. - John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA, 1986. 7. Gergel S.E., Turner M.G. Learning Landscape Ecology. A practical guide to concepts and techniques. -Springer-Verlag, 2003. - 316 p. 8. Gesellschaft fur Erdkund, Berlin, Germany. - Pp.241-298. 9. GrigorievA.A. Географическая оболочка (Geographical backgrounds) // Краткая географическая энциклопедия. - Т. 1. - М., 1960. 10. Grigoriev A.A. Закономерности строения и развития географической среды (Principles of foundation and development of geographical environment) // Избранные теоретические работы. - М., Мысль, 1966. - С.382. 11. Klich D. Does the visual delimitation of patches correspond to their functional differentiation? // Ecological Questions, 2006. 12. Klopatek J.M., Gardner R.H. ed. Landscape Ecological Analysis. - Springer-Veriag-NewYourk. - NewYourk, USA, 1999. 13. Risser P.G. Landscape ecology: State and Art. // Landscape heterogeneity and Disturbance. Ed. M.G. Turner. - Springer Verlag, New York- Berlin-Heidelberg, 1987. - Pp.3-5. 14. TurnerM.G., GardnerR.H., O'NeillR.V. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice. - New York: Springer-Verlad, 2001. - 398 p.
Рассмотрены основные природные факторы, обусловившие размещение казачьих поселений. Выделены исторические этапы заселения Области Войска Донского.
The main natural factors, which conditioned the settling of the Don Cossacks, are considered. There are revealed historical stages of the Don Forses District settling.
Первые казачьи поселения, называемые городками, возникли в середине XVI в. Длительное время они располагались только по берегам Дона и его крупных притоков - Хопра, Бузулука и Медведицы. В условиях постоянной военной опасности поселение выполняло функцию оборонительного укрепления, поэтому особенности его топографического положения должны были обеспечивать, прежде всего, недоступность для врагов. Поймы крупных рек, поросшие густым лесом, часто низменные и заболоченные, неприступные во время весеннего половодья, наилучшим образом отвечали условиям боевого образа жизни донского казачества. Дополнительными и важными преимуществами пойменного положения являлись наличие удобных водных путей и обеспеченность лесными, охотничьими и рыболовными угодьями. Высоко ценилось островное положение городка. Древние столицы казачества - Раздоры и Черкасск - располагались именно на крупных островах.
Дон в нижнем течении играл роль естественного рубежа, охранявшего казаков от набегов ногайцев, черкесов, калмыков и прочих народов, кочевавших по Задонской и Кубанской степи. Поэтому
References
УДК 316.334.55/.56 (470.61)
ВЛИЯНИЕ ЛАНДШАФТНО-ЭКОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ ФАКТОРОВ НА РАССЕЛЕНИЕ ДОНСКОГО КАЗАЧЕСТВА
© 2007. Шишкина Д.Ю.
Южно-Российский федеральный университет (Ростовский государственный университет)
