The Role of Geological Nature Monuments of the Kandalaksha and Teresky Coasts of the White Sea in the Conservation of Rare Plants

On the Kandalaksha and Tersky coasts of the White Sea there are three geological nature monuments of regional significance, created to preserve unique geological or mineralogical objects: “Fluorites of Yolokorgskii Navolok,” “Granitoids of Mikkov Island,” and “Amethysts of Cape Korabl.” In 2019–2022, comprehensive field botanical and geological studies were carried out, the purpose of which was to assess their environmental significance. All three nature monuments have a geological profile. They preserve manifestations of rare mineralization, outcrops of characteristic or rare rocks with visual signs of their composition, structure and texture, as well as other clear evidence of the processes of their formation. In addition to valuable geological formations, protected plant species listed in the Red Books of Murmansk oblast and/or the Russian Federation were found at all three sites. From a botanical point of view, the ecosystems of Mikkov Island and Korabl Cape have a significant importance. The diversity of plants on Korabl Cape is determined by geological structures that are not present in other strictly protected nature areas of Murmansk oblast. The largest population of sand pink (Dianthus arenarius) in Murmansk oblast was found here, which is also not represented in other strictly protected nature areas of the oblast. The diversity of plants on Mikkov Island is primarily due to the complex structure of the vegetation cover and the Holocene history of this area. Rock formations play an insignificant role in preserving habitats of rare plant species. Despite the presence of vein body outcrops on the surface within the boundaries of the nature monument “Fluorites of Yolokorgskii Navolok,” suitable habitats for rare plant species are very limited due to its small area. Currently, anthropogenic impact varies greatly across the three nature monuments studied. The lowest impact is typical for the Yolokorgskii Navolok, moderate for Mikkov Island, and very high for Korabl Cape, which is reflected both in the direct transformation of ecosystems and is determined by the number of alien species found. For the last two nature monuments, it is recommended to change the profile from geological to complex (landscape). In order to preserve the ecosystems of Korabl Cape, it is recommended to strengthen the protection regime, both to avoid illegal extraction of geological samples and to preserve populations of rare plant species. The high importance of the proposed changes is explained by the increasing recreational pressure on the ecosystems of natural monuments caused by the growing popularity of Arctic tourism.

1. Ardislamov F.R. Geological monuments of nature and measuresfor their conservation and sustainable use in the Republic of Bashkortostan. Vestn. Bashkir. Univ., 2017, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 418–423 (In Russ.).

2. Atlas geologicheskikh pamyatnikov prirody Yaroslavskoi oblasti [Atlas of Geological Nature Monuments of the Yaroslavl Region)]. Kiselev D.N., Ed. Yaroslavl: Pedagog. Univ. Publ., 2003. 120 p.

3. Bailagasov L.V., Piyantinov A.O. Geological monuments of nature and their preservation in the system of protected areas of the Altai Republic. Prir. Resur. Gorn. Altaya, 2012, no. 2, pp. 138–142. (In Russ.).

4. Belyankin D.S., Kupletskii B.M. Rocks and minerals of the northern coast and adjacent islands of the Kandalaksha Bay of the White Sea. Tr. Severn. Nauch.-Prom. Ekspedits., 1924, no. 18, pp. 1–76. (In Russ.).

5. Breslina I.P. Rasteniya i vodoplavayushchie ptitsy morskikh ostrovov Kol’skoi Subarktiki [Plants and Water Birds of the Sea Islands of the Kola Subarctic]. Leningrad: Nauka Publ., 1987. 220 p.

6. Briggs A., Newsome D., Dowling R. A proposed governance model for the adoption of geoparks in Australia. Int. J. Geoheritage Parks, 2021, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2021.12.001

7. Cai Y., Wu F., Watanabe M., Han J. Characteristics of geoparks in China and Japan: Similarities and differences. Geoheritage, 2021, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 11–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00628-x

8. Fedotova M.G. Fluorite of the Yolokorgovsky Navolok. Tietta, 2009, no. 3, pp. 14–19. (In Russ.).

9. Figueroa F., Sánchez-Cordero V. Effectiveness of nature protected areas to prevent land use and land cover change in Mexico. Biodivers. Conserv., 2008, vol. 17, pp. 3223–3240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9423-3

10. Han J., Wu F., Tian M., Li W. From geopark to sustainable development: Heritage conservation and geotourism promotion in the Huangshan UNESCO Global Geopark (China). Geoheritage, 2018, vol. 10, no. 1, 83 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0227-2

11. Hockings M., Stolton S., Leverington F., Dudley N., Courrau J. Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas. 2-nd edition. Gland, Cambridge: IUCN, 2006. 105 p.

12. IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 16. 2024. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf (accessed: 03.03.2025).

13. Karpunin A.M., Mamonov S.V., Mironenko O.A., Sokolov A.R. Geologicheskie pamyatniki prirody Rossii [Geological Nature Monuments of Russia]. Moscow: Lorien Publ., 1998. 200 p.

14. Kostina V.A., Urbanavichyus G.P., Belkina O.A., Konstantinova N.A., Urbanavichene I.N. Materials on the diversity of plants and lichens of the planned specially protected areas on the Murmansk coast of the White Sea. Tr. Belomorsk. Biol. Stants., 2006, vol. 10, pp. 87–91. (In Russ.).

15. Kozhin M.N., Kirillova N.R., Popova K.B., Razumovskaya A.V., Borovichev E.A. New data on the distribution of red-listed vascular plants in marine fishing areas in Murmansk Region. Tr. KNTs RAN, 2023, no. 5, pp. 18–29. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17076/bg1766

16. Krasnaya kniga Murmanskoi oblasti [Red Data Book of Murmansk Region]. Konstantinova N.A., Koryakin A.S., Makarova O.A., Bianki V.V., Eds. Kemerovo: Aziya-print Publ., 2014. 584 p.

17. Krasnaya kniga Rossiiskoi Federatsii: rasteniya i griby [Red Data Book of the Russian Federation: Plants and Fungi]. Geltman D.V., Ed. Moscow: VNII Eкologii, 2024. 944 p. .

18. Lapo A.V., Pashkevich N.G., Vdovets M.S., Petrov V.V. Geological nature monuments of Russia: state, problems and prospects for study. Zhizn’ Zemli, 1997, vol. 30, pp. 202–216. (In Russ.).

19. Lotsiya Belogo morya [White Sea Pilot Book]. Leningrad: Gidrograf. upravlenie voenno-morskikh sil, 1954. 375 p.

20. Lotsiya Belogo morya 1913 goda [White Sea Pilot Book 1913]. Petrograd: Glavnoe gidrograf. upravlenie Morskogo ministerstva, 1915. 1035 p.

21. Luneva E.V. Organization of geoparks in Russia and features of their legal regime. Lex Russica, 2021, vol. 74, no. 9, pp. 32–43. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2021.178.9.032-043

22. Luneva E.V. Legal protection and rational use of geological heritage in geoparks. Gosudarstvo Pravo, 2023, no. 2, pp. 72–82. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S102694520018992-2

23. Makarova O.A., Kondratovich I.I., Petrov V.N. Osobo okhranyaemye prirodnye territorii Murmanskoi oblasti [Specially Protected Nature Areas of Murmansk Region]. Murmansk, Apatity, 2003. 71 p.

24. Morov V.P. Geological monuments of nature of the Samara region and problems of their protection. Samarsk. Luka: Probl. Reg. Glob. Ekol., 2019, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 58–65. (In Russ.).

25. Nikolova V., Sinnyovsky D. Geoparks in the legal framework of the EU countries. Tour. Manag. Persp., 2019, vol. 29, pp. 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2018.11.007

26. Orus A.H., Urqui L.C. Twenty years of Spanish geoparks: Analysis and future prospects. Geoheritage, 2020, vol. 12, art. 87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-02000510-2.

27. Sannikov P.Yu., Bakharev P.N. Evaluation of conservation significance of protected area (example of “Visherskiy” state nature reserve). Antropogen. Transform. Prir. Sredy, 2023, no. 2, pp. 7–22. (In Russ.).

28. Shagapova R.A. The concept of “geopark” and its legal regime. Ekol. Pravo, 2022, no. 2, pp. 13–16. (In Russ.)

29. Shagapova R.A. Formation and development of the legal basis for geoparks. Imushch. Otnoshen. Ross. Fed., 2023, no. 10, pp. 65–74. (In Russ.)

30. Shirokshin N.V. Geognostic survey of the shores of Kandalaksha Bay and the White Sea to the town of Kem in Arkhangelsk province. Gornyi Zh., 1835, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 397–427. (In Russ.).

31. Shurkin K.A., Efimov M.M. Geological nature monuments of Kandalaksha Bay. Prir. Khoz. Severa, 1985, vol. 13, pp. 74–81. (In Russ.)

32. Sokolov D.D. Flora okrestnostei sela Kovda na Belom more [Flora of the vicinity of Kovda Village on the White Sea]. Moscow, 1992. 50 p.

33. Stishov M.S. Metodika otsenki prirodookhrannoi effektivnosti osobo okhranyaemykh prirodnykh territorii i ikh regional’nykh sistem [Methodology for Assessing the Environmental Effectiveness of Strictly Protected Nature Areas and Their Regional Systems]. Moscow: WWF, 2012. 284 p.

34. Unikal’nye geologicheskie ob’ekty Rossii: sokhranenie i rekreatsionnyi potentsial [Unique Geological Objects of Russia: Conservation and Recreational Potential]. St. Petersburg: VSEGEI. 2013. 152 p.

35. Ustoichivoe razvitie territorii geoparkov [Sustainable development of geoparks]. Belan L.N., Zakirova I.V., Eds. Ufa: RITs UUNiT, 2023. 196 p.

36. Zhirov D.V., Pozhilenko V.I., Belkina O.A., Kostina V.A., Koroleva N.E., Konstantinova N.A., Urbanavichene I.N., Davydov D.A. Terskii raion [Tersky District]. St. Petersburg: Nika Publ., 2006. 128 p. (In Russ.).

37. Zouros N. The European Geoparks Network. Geological heritage protection and local development. Episodes, 2004, vol. 27, pp. 165–171.