Release:2015, Vol. 1. №2(2)
About the author:Andrey P. Gusev, Cand. Geol.-Min. Sci., Associate Professor, Ecology Department, Homel State University
Abstract:In article results of the researches directed on revealing of communication between plant successions and anthropogenic transformation of the surrounding landscape are resulted. Researches problems: studying of anthropogenic changes of landscapes in XVIII-XXI centuries; quantitative assessment of landscape structure and anthropogenic transformation; finding-out of impact of anthropogenic disturbances in a surrounding landscape on a course succession processes; revealing of differences of successions in the landscapes having various degree of anthropogenic transformation. Researches were spent on two test areas located in the southeast of Belarus (the territories adjoining to the city of Gomel). Test areas differed with anthropogenic transformation and history of development. It is established that regenerative successions in strongly transformed landscape proceed more slowly. For succession in strongly transformed landscape it is characteristic the big duration of time of domination of terophyta and time of domination of synanthropic species. In strongly transformed landscape later on a gradient of succession there are trees, wood species, species of climax ecosystems. Wood stages of succession in strongly transformed landscape differ raised synanthropization (in 5,5 times) and adventization (in 9,4 times). Thus, the landscape environment is the important factor which stipulates the common direction (trajectory) of the succession and its separate characteristics.
1. Sochava, V. B. Vvedenie v uchenie o geosistemah (Introduction to the Study of Ecosystems).Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1978. 318 p. (in Russian).
2. Gusev, A. P. Features of plant succession in landscapes disturbed by anthropogenic activity (by example of Southeastern Belarus) // Sibirskii ekologicheskii zhurnal — Siberian Journal of Ecology, 2012. № 2. Pp. 231-236 (in Russian).
3. Gusev, A. P. Specific features of early stages of progressive succession in an anthropogenic landscape: an example from Southeastern Belarus // Ekologiia — Ecology, 2009. № 3. Pp. 174-179 (in Russian).
4. Gusev, A. P. Land-use history as a factor of the contemporary state of a plant cover: an example from Southeastern Belarus // Contemporary Problems of Ecology. 2014. Vol. 7. № 2. Pр. 182-186.
5. McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. A., Neel, M. C., Ene, E. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps, project’s homepage [Electronic resource] / University of Massachusetts. Amherst, 2002. Mode of access: http:// www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html. Last accessed date: 12 September 2012.
6. Cushman, S. A., McGarigal K., Neel M. C. Parsimony in landscape metrics: Strength, universality, and consistency // Ecological Indica-tors, 2008. Vol. 8. Pр. 691–703.
7. Agroecologiya (Agroecology) / Ed. V. A. Chernikov, A. I. Chekeres. Moscow: Kolos, 2000. 536 p. (in Russian).
8. Steinhard, U., Herzog, F., Lausch, A., Muller, E., Lehmann, S. Hemeroby index for landscape monitoring and evaluation // Environmental Induces — System Analysis Approach. Oxford: EOLSS Publ., 1999. Pp. 237-254.
9. Mirkin, B. M., Naumova, L. G., Solomeshch, A. I. Sovremennaya nauka o rastitel’nosti (Modern Science of Vegetation). Moscow: Logos, 2002. 264 p. (in Russian).
10. Braun-Blanquet, J. Pflanzensociologie. Wien-New York: Springer-Verlag, 1964. 865 p.11. Gusev, A. P. Plant succession and landscape pattern (on an example of the southeast of Belarus) // Vestnik Vitebskogo gosudarstven-nogo universiteta — Vitebsk State University Herald, 2013. № 4. Pp. 21-25 (in Russian).