ASSESSMENT OF LANDSCAPE FUNCTIONS OF DRAINED LANDS OF MESHCHERA LOWLAND
https://doi.org/10.7868/S037324441705005X
Abstract
The widespread abandonment of ameliorated lands, which occurred after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, has resulted in emergence of a new postameliorated type of landscapes. The research of new trends in dynamics and evolution of such landscapes forms the informational base for the assessment of the losses of a part of former natural and socioeconomic functions. The drained in 1966 landscape in the Central Meshchera Lowland was selected as a model area, where since 1977 stationary studies for its dynamics and functioning have been conducting in the zone of influence of the melioration system and beyond. The qualitative estimation of the changing of landscape functions over the periods of active use of drainage systems from 1966 to 1991 and from 1993 to 2015 by the 18 environmental and socioeconomic indicators is given. The method of relative scaling is reasoned. Based on this method, the four most important landscape functions providing biological productivity, surface water quality, soil fertility, and aesthetic attractiveness are analyzed. For the assessment of landscape functions from the viewpoint of the local society, the references at the regional level are taken. The weights method for these four functions allows concluding that in a greatest degree this area is suitable for agricultural activities and in a lesser degree for nature protection objectives, although the differences are small.
About the Authors
K. N. Diakonov
Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Faculty of Geography
Russian Federation
Faculty of Geography
T. I. Kharitonova
Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Faculty of Geography
Russian Federation
Faculty of Geography
References
1. Avessalomova I.A., Dyakonov K.N., Savenko A.V., Kharitonova T.I. Geochemical transformation of postameliorative landscapes. Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 5. Geogr., 2014, no. 2, рp. 17–24. (In Russ.).
2. Avessalomova I.A., Mikliaeva I.M. Structural-functional peculiarities of meadows and fens of Central Meschera landscapes. Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 5. Geogr., 1997, no. 1, рp. 43–48. (In Russ.).
3. Bazilevich N.I. Biologicheskaja produktivnost’ ekosistem Severnoi Evrazii [Biological Productivity of Ecosystems of Northern Eurasia]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1993. 293 р.
4. Bugmyrin S.V., Bespyatova L.A., Anikanova V.S., Ieshko E.P. Abundance of larvae and nymphs of the taiga tick Ixodes persuicatus (acari: ixodidae) on small mammals in the cut-over lands of the middle taiga subzone of Karelia. Parazitologiya, 2009, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 338–346. (In Russ.).
5. Diakonov K.N., Abramova T.A. Results of paleolandscape research in Central Meschera. Izv. RGO, 1998, vol. 130 (4), рp. 10–21. (In Russ.).
6. Diakonov K.N., Anoshko V.S. Meliorativnaya geografiya [Meliorative Geography]. Moscow: MSU Publ., 1995, 254 p.
7. Kochurov B.I., Buchatskaya N.V. Estimation of aesthetic potential of landscapes. South of Russia: ecology, development, 2007, no. 4, pp. 16–28. (In Russ.).
8. Lyuri D.I., Goryachkin S.V., Karavaeva N.A. Dinamika sel’skohoz jajstvennyh zemel’ v Rossii v HH veke i postagrogennoe vosstanovlenie rastitel’nosti i pochv [Dynamics of Agricultural Land in Russia in the XX century and Postagrogenic Recovery of Vegetation and Soils]. Moscow: GEOS Publ., 2010. 416 p.
9. Maslov B.S. Gidrologija torfjanykh bolot. [Hydrology of Peaty Bogs]. Tomsk: Tomsk State Pedagogical Univ. Press, 2008. 424 p.
10. Maslov B.S., Minaev I.V. Melioratsiya i okhrana prirody [Melioration and Nature Conservation]. Moscow: Rosselkhozizdat Publ., 1985. 271 p.
11. Mukhin G.D. Ecological-economic assessment of land use structure within the European territory of Russia during two recent decades. Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 5. Geogr., 2012, no. 5, рp. 19–27. (In Russ.).
12. Ochagov D.M. Bird population and drainage. In: Geograficheskie Problemy Osushitel’nykh Melioratsii [Geographical problems of drainage melioration]. Moscow, 1990, pp. 94–123. (In Russ.).
13. Pylenok P.I., Sidorov I.V. Prirodoohrannye meliorativnye rezhimy i tehnologii [Ecological Reclamation Regimes and Technologies]. Moscow: Rosselkhozakademia Publ., 2004. 323 p.
14. Sorokina N.P., Kozlov D.N. Experience in digital mapping of soil cover patterns. Euras. Soil Sci., 2009, no 2, pp. 182–193. (In Russ.).
15. Tishkov А.А. Biosphere functions and ecosystem services of landscapes within the steppe zone of Russia. Arid Ecosystems, 2010, vol. 16, no. 41, pp. 5–15. (In Russ.).
16. Kharitonova T.I. Response of the productivity of Meschera landscapes to the changes in nature management types. Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 5. Geogr., 2013, no. 5, рp. 67–74 (In Russ.).
17. Kharitonova T. The change in socioeconomic functions of postmeliorated landscapes. Problems of Geography, 2014, vol. 138, рp. 409–435. (In Russ.).
18. Andersen R., Francez A.-J., Rochefort L. The physicochemical and microbiological status of a restored bog in Quebec: Identification of relevant criteria to monitor success. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2006, 38 (6), pp. 1375–1387.
19. Bastian O., Grunewald K., Khoroshev A.V. The significance of geosystem and landscape concepts for the assessment of ecosystem services: exemplified in a case study in Russia. Landscape Ecology, 2015, vol. 30 (7), рp. 1145–1164.
20. Cornell S. Valuing ecosystem benefits in a dynamic world. Climate Research, 2010, no. 45, рp. 261–272.
21. de Groot R.S., Wilson M.A. and Boumans R.M.J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 2002, no. 41, рp. 393–408.
22. Glenk K., Schaafsma M., Moxey A., Martin-Ortega J., Hanley N. A framework for valuing spatially targeted peatland restoration. Ecosystem Services, 2014, no. 9, рp. 20–33.
23. de Groot R.S., Wilson M.A. and Boumans R.M.J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 2002, no.41, р. 393–408.
24. Jenkins W.A., Murray B.C., Kramer R.A., Faulkner S.P. Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Ecological Economics, 2010, vol. 69, no. 5, рp. 1051–1061.
25. Johansson L.J., Hall K., Prentice H.C., Ihse M., Reitalu T., et al. Semi-natural grassland continuity, long-term land-use change and plant species richness in an agricultural landscape on Öland, Sweden. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2008, vol. 84 (3–4), рp. 200–211.
26. Katoh K., Sakai S., Takahashi T. Factors maintaining species diversity in satoyama, a traditional agricultural landscape of Japan. Biological Conservation, 2009, vol. 142 (9), рp. 1930–1936.
27. Knieß A., Holsten B., Kluge W., Trepel M. Prediction of long-term changes in ecosystem functions of a peatland site with the semi-quantitative decision support system PMDSS. Geoderma, 2010, vol. 154 (3–4), pp. 233–241.
28. Kuhry P., Vitt D.H. Fossil carbon/nitrogen ratios as a measure of peat decomposition. Ecology, 1996, vol. 77 (1), pp. 271–275.
29. Laiho R. Decomposition in peatlands: Reconciling seemingly contrasting results on the impacts of lowered water levels. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2006, vol. 38 (8), pp. 2011–2024.
30. Peatlands and Climate Change. Strack M., Ed. International Peat Society, Jyväskylä, Finland, 2008. 223 p.
31. Price J.S., Heathwaite A.L., Baird A.J. Hydrological processes in abandoned and restored peatlands: An overview of management approaches. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 2003, no. 11, p. 65–83.
32. Schuster B., Diekmann M. Changes in species density along the soil pH gradient – evidence from German plant communities. Folia Geobotanica, 2003, no. 38, p. 367–379.
Review
For citations:
Diakonov K.N., Kharitonova T.I. ASSESSMENT OF LANDSCAPE FUNCTIONS OF DRAINED LANDS OF MESHCHERA LOWLAND. Izvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk. Seriya Geograficheskaya. 2017;(5):57-71. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.7868/S037324441705005X
Views:
577
Email this article 
