Landscape indication in solving the problems of nature management
https://doi.org/10.26897/1997-6011-2024-2-111-116
Abstract
The paper discusses the relevance and importance of studying landscape management in order to increase the conservation of biodiversity and the environmentally sustainable use of natural resources. The necessity of developing modern methods of monitoring the natural environment by means of landscape indication is shown. The purpose of the research is to develop the methodological foundations of landscape indication, to identify its types and levels. As a result of the research carried out, the subject, nomological and model types of landscape indication were determined and characterized. On the basis of system analysis, the following levels of landscape indication have been identified: evaluative, predictive, resulting, and integration. It is shown that landscape indication can act as a basic method for assessing a natural area according to the degree of favorable conditions for various economic activities. To solve the entire spectrum of tasks of the sectoral development of the national economy in landscape-indicative studies, it is necessary to be guided by the principles of integrity, complexity and consistency.
About the Authors
Yu. S. Cheryatova
Russian State Agrarian University – Moscow Timiryazev Agricultural Academy
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Yulia S. Cheryatova, Csc (Bio), associate professor
127434, Moscow, Timiryazevskaya str. 49
A. F. Jafarova
Russian State Agrarian University – Moscow Timiryazev Agricultural Academy
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Aliya F. Jafarova, student
127434, Moscow, Timiryazevskaya str. 49
A. I. Gresko
Russian State Agrarian University – Moscow Timiryazev Agricultural Academy
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alisa I. Gresko, student
127434, Moscow, Timiryazevskaya str. 49
References
1. Kristensen L.S., Thenail C., Kristensen S.P. Landscape changes in agrarian landscapes in the 1990s: the interaction between farmers and the farmed landscape. A case study from Jutland, Denmark // Journal of Environmental Management. 2004. Vol. 71(3). P. 231-244. – DOI 10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.03.003.
2. Liu Y., Li T., Zhao W. Landscape functional zoning at a county level based on ecosystem services bundle: Methods comparison and management indication // Journal of Environmental Management. 2019. Vol. 249. P. 109315. – DOI 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109315.
3. Alakhverdiev F.D., Gairabekov U.T., Abumuslimov A.A. Some aspects of assessing the PTK in the mountains using landscape indication methods // Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of the Chechen Republic. 2008. № 2-1(9). P. 77-82.
4. Betts M.G., Forbes G.J., Diamond A.W. Thresholds in songbird occurrence in relation to landscape structure // Conservation Biology. 2007. Vol. 21(4). P. 1046-1058. – DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00723.x.
5. Lindenmayer D., Hobbs R.J., Montague-Drake R. A checklist for ecological management of landscapes for conservation // Ecology Letters. 2008. Vol. 11(1). P. 78-91. – DOI 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01114.x.
6. Mörtberg U.M., Balfors B., Knol W.C. Landscape ecological assessment: a tool for integrating biodiversity issues in strategic environmental assessment and planning // Journal of Environmental Management. 2007. Vol. 82(4). P. 457-470. – DOI 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.01.005.
7. Ovaskainen O., Sato K., Bascompte J. Metapopulation models for extinction threshold in spatially correlated landscapes // Journal of Theoretical Biology. 2002. Vol. 215(1). P. 95-108. – DOI 10.1006/jtbi.2001.2502.
8. Tscharntke T., Tylianakis J.M., Rand T.A. Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes – eight hypotheses // Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 2012. Vol. 87(3). P. 661-685. – DOI 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00216.x.
9. With K.A. Assessing the risk of invasive spread in fragmented landscapes // Risk Analysis. 2004. Vol. 24(4). P. 803-815. – DOI 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00480.x.
10. Alphan H. Analysis of landscape changes as an indicator for environmental monitoring // Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2017. Vol. 189(1). P. 24. – DOI 10.1007/s10661-016-5748-7.
11. Makarov V.Z., Pichugina N.V., Danilov V.A. Landscape mapping. Saratov: Saratov National Research State University named after N.G. Chernyshevsky, 2013. 100 p.
12. Cheryatova Yu.S., Yembaturova E.Yu. Transgenic plants – a threat to local flora? // Ecological Genetics. 2022. Vol. 20. P. 54-55. – DOI 10.17816/ecogen112372.
13. Gonzalez A., Rayfield B., Lindo Z. The disentangled bank: how loss of habitat fragments and disassembles ecological networks // American Journal of Botany. 2011. Vol. 98(3). P. 503-516. – DOI 10.3732/ajb.1000424.
14. Cheryatova Yu.S. Exogenous secretory structures of flowering plants // Fundamental and applied science: state and development trends. Petrozavodsk: “New Science”, 2022. P. 139-155.
15. Cheryatova Yu.S. Actual aspects of anatomical research of medicinal plant material of Vinca minor L. // IOP Conference series: Earth and Environmental science: Agriculture, field cultivation, animal husbandry, forestryand agricultural products. 2021. Vol. 723. P. 022036. – DOI 10.1088/1755-1315/723/2/022036.
16. Ewers R.M., Didham R.K. Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation // Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 2006. Vol. 81(1). P. 117-142. – DOI 10.1017/S1464793105006949.
17. Mony C., Vandenkoornhuyse P., Bohannan B.J.M. A Landscape of Opportunities for Microbial Ecology Research // Frontiers in Microbiology. 2020. Vol. 11. P. 561427. – DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2020.561427.
Review
For citations:
Cheryatova Yu.S., Jafarova A.F., Gresko A.I. Landscape indication in solving the problems of nature management. Prirodoobustrojstvo. 2024;(2):111-116. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26897/1997-6011-2024-2-111-116
Views:
155
Email this article 