Synecology diagnostics methodology transformations of the structural and functional organization forest ecosystems

  • O. I. Blinkova Institute of Dendrology of Polish Academy of Sciences
  • V. V. Lavrov Bila Tserkva National Agrarian University
  • O. I. Bordugova Luhansk Taras Shevchenko National University
  • N. V. Demidova Luhansk Taras Shevchenko National University
Keywords: anthropogenic impact, forest ecosystem, biodiagnostics, synecology, ecosystem indicators

Abstract

The main directions of development of biotic diagnostics of disruption of forest ecosystems with modern methodical approaches to assessing their condition according to selection criteria are considered. The issue of indicating the state of the forest ecosystem by the structural parameters of biocomponents occupies an important position among a number of ecological and biological studies. It was established according to an analytical review of the literature. To solve the existing methodological problems of biodiagnosis of anthropogenic transformation of forest ecosystems, it is necessary to evaluate the current state, the mechanisms of their change, which are caused by environmental threats, according to various criteria, and bioindication should be carried out according to ecosystem indicators. Informative diagnostic signs of recreational disturbance of forests of various categories of functional purpose in the initial stages changes are biomorphological, ecomorphic, systematic structures of the grass layer, ecological strategies and ecological valences of species, diversity indices. From the III stage of digression, the tree stand (sanitary, vital structures, taxation indicators) and the soil surface (distribution by status categories) reveal the indicator signs. Violation of recreational and health forests and park plantations in city conditions is manifested by an increase in the contribution of evrybiont species according to edaphic factors, therophytes and species with a primary and secondary strategy, which have the R-sign, a higher index of adventitization of flora (over 20%). To diagnose the consequences of water erosion of soil in mountain systems (Carpathians, Crimea), it is advisable to use the characteristics of different layers of the tree stand and grass layer at all stages of soil erosion digression. Representatives of Poaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Asteraceae with dominance of cryptophytes and therophytes, species with CSR- and R-type strategies are representative. Indicative signs are the ratio of rhizome species to species without formations, as well as species with a creeping aerial shoot to a rosetteless type of shoot. On the gradient of increasing water-erosive transformation of the ecosystem, diagnostic indicators of the structure of ecomorphs are the edaphic factor of humidity and salt regime of the soil, but only by the change in the share of the herbaceous fractions of stenobiont and evrybiont species. Diagnostic signs of moderate and intensive soil erosion degradation are changes in the values ​​of diversity and dominance indices.

References

 



Alekseev, E. V. (1928). Tipy Ukraynskoho lesa. Pravoberezhe [Types of Ukrainian forest. Right bank of Ukraine]. Kyiv (in Russian).



Belgard, A. L. (1950). Lesnaia rastytelnost yuho-vostoka USSR  [Forest vegetation of the south-east of the Ukrainian]. Kharkiv (in Russian).



Blinkova, O. I. (2015). Analysis of synergies between the vegetation cover and the intensity of outwash in mountain conditions. Ecology and noospherology, 26 (1), 66–74.



Blinkova, O. I. (2021). Synekolohichni osnovy diahnostyky antropohennoi transformatsii lisovykh ekosystem. Avtoref. dys. ... dokt. biol. nauk. NUBIP Ukrainy, 51 s. [Synecological bases of anthropogenic transformation diagnostics of forest ecosystems. Abstract  of  the thesis for  the  degree of  the  doctor of biol. sciences. NULESU, 51 p.]. Kyiv (in Ukranian).



Burda, R. I. (2015). Rol evoliutsii v invaziiakh sudynnykh roslyn [The role of evolution in vascular plant invasions] Factors of experimental evolution of organisms, 16, 26–31.



Clements, F. E. (1973). Plant succesion and indicators.  New York.



Didukh, Y. P., Plyuta, P. H. (1994). Fitoindykatsyia ekolohichnykh faktoriv [Phytoindication of ecological factors]. Kyiv (in Ukrainian).



Ellenberg, H. (1979). Zeigerwerte der Gefasspflanzen Mitteleuropas. Scripta geobotanica, 9 (1), 1–122.



Gensiruk, S. A. (1992). Lisy Ukrainy [Forests of Ukraine]. Kyiv (in Ukrainian).



Golubec, M. A. (2000). Ekosystemolohiia [Ecosystemology]. Lviv (in Ukranian).



Golubec, M. A. (2010). Typolohichne vporiadkuvannia riznomanitnosti lisovykh uhrupovan Ukrainy [Typological arrangement of the diversity of forest communities of Ukraine]. Lviv (in Ukranian).



Jalas, J. (1953). Hemerokorit ja hemerobit. Luonnon Tutkija, 57, 12–16.



Jorgensen, S. E., Xu, F. L., Costanza, R. (2010). Handbook of ecological indicators for assessment of ecosystem health, 2nd  ed. London CRC, Press.



Kopecky, K., Hejny, S. (1978). Die Anwendung einer deduktiven Methode syntaxonomischer Klassifikation bei der Bearbeitung der straßenbegleitenden Pflanzengesellschaften Nordostböhmens. Vegetatio, 36 (1), 43–51.



Korshikov, I. I. (1996). Adaptatsyia rastenyi k uslovyiam tekhnohenno-zahriaznennoi sredy [Adaptation of plants to the conditions of  polluted environment]. Kyiv (in Russian).



Korzhenevskij, V. V. (1993). Іndykatsyia sovremennikh protsessov relefoobrazovanyia na osnove ekoloho-florystycheskoi klassyfykatsyy. Avtoref. dys... dokt byol. nauk. Nykyt. botan. sad., 41 s [Indication of modern processes of relief formation on the basis of ecological and floristic classification. Abstract  of  the thesis for  the  degree of  the  doctor of biol. sciences. Nikita botan. Garden, 41 p]. Yalta (in Russian).



Landolt, E. (1977). Okologische Zeigerwerte zur Schweizer Flora. Veroff. Geobot. Inst. der Eidgen. Techn. Hochschule in Zurich, 64, 1–208.



Lavrov, V. V. (2003). Systemnyi pidkhid yak metodolohichna osnova dlia otsinky i zmenshennia zahroz bioriznomanittiu (lisovi ekosystemy). Otsinka i napriamky zmenshennia zahroz bioriznomanittiu Ukrainy / za red. O.V.  Dudkina [A systematic approach as a methodological basis for assessing and reducing threats to biodiversity (forest ecosystems). Assessment and directions for reducing threats to Ukraine's biodiversity / ed. by O. V. Dudkin]. Kyiv (in Ukrainian). 156–272.



Margalef, R. (1968). Perspectives in ecological theory. Chicago.



Mavricshev, V. V. (2005). Problema dynamyky lesnykh fytotsenozov y sovremennoe sostoianye teoryy suktsessyi [The problem of the dynamics of forest phytocenoses and the current state of succession theory]. Bulletin of BSPY, 3 (3), 38–41



Migunova, E. S. (2014). Typy lesa i typy pryrody: monohrafyia [Types of forest and types of nature: monograph]. Saarbrucken (in Russian).



Müller, F.  (2000). Handbook of Ecosystem Theories and Management. 1st ed. Boca Raton



Müller, F., Hoffmann-kroll, R., Wiggering, R. (2000). Indicating ecosystem integrity – theoretical concepts and environmental requirements. Ecol. Modelling., 130, 13–23.



Ostapenko, B. Ph., Ulanovskij, M.S. (1999). Typolohycheskoe raznoobrazye lesov Ukrainy [Typological diversity of Ukrainian forests. Steppe]. Kharkiv (in Russian).



Parpan, V. I. (1994). Struktura, dynamika, ekolohichni osnovy ratsionalnoho vykorystannia bukovykh lisiv Karpatskoho rehionu Ukrainy. Avtoref. dys…. dokt. biol. nauk. DNU, 42 s. [Structure, dynamics, ecological foundations of rational use of beech forests of the Carpathian region of Ukraine. Abstract  of  the thesis for  the  degree of  the  doctor of biol. sciences. DNU, 42 p.]. Dnipropetrovsk (in Ukranian).



Pasternak, P. S. (1968). Vzaymodeistvye mezhdu lesom y pochvoi v osnovnykh typakh lesa Ukraynskykh Karpat. Avtoref. dys. ... dokt. s.-kh. nauk. Ukrainska silskohospodarska akademiia, 52 s. [Links between forest and soil in the main forest types of the Ukrainian Carpathians. Abstract  of  the thesis for  the  degree of  the  doctor of agricult. sciences. Ukrainian Agricultural Academy, 52 р.]. Kyiv (in Russian).



Pogrebnyak, P. S. (1955). Osnovy lesnoi typolohyy [Basics of forest typology]. Kyiv (in Russian).



Protopopova, V. V. et al. (2009). Invaziini roslyny u flori Pivnichnoho Prychornomoria [Invasive plants in the flora of the Northern Black Sea region]. Kyiv (in Ukrainian).



Shelyag-Sosonko, Yu. R., Grodzinsky, M. D., Romanenko, V. D. (2004). Kontseptsyia, metody y kryteryy sozdanyia ekosety Ukrainy [The concept, methods and criteria of creating an eco-network of Ukraine] Kyiv (in Russian).



Solodkiy, V. D., Lavrov, V. V. (2009). Ekolohichno zbalansovane ta intehrovane upravlinnia richkovymy baseinamy y vodnymy resursamy Bukovynskykh Karpat [Ecologically balanced and integrated management of river basins and water resources of the Bukovyna Carpathians]. Ecology and noospherology, 20 (1–2), 151–155.



Sukopp, H. (1969). Der Einfluss des Menschen auf die Vegetation. Vegetatio, 17, 360–371.



Tsyganov, D. N.  (1983). Fytoyndykatsyia ekolohycheskykh rezhymov v podzone khvoino-shyrokolystvennykh lesov [Phytoindication of ecological regimes in the subzone of coniferous-broadleaf forests]. Moscow (in Russian).


Abstract views: 21
PDF Downloads: 9
Published
2022-05-04
How to Cite
Blinkova, O., Lavrov, V., Bordugova, O., & Demidova, N. (2022). Synecology diagnostics methodology transformations of the structural and functional organization forest ecosystems. Ecology and Noospherology, 33(1), 15-22. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15421/032203