Accès libre

Forest shelter belts in organic agricultural landscape: structure of biodiversity and their ecological role

Vitaliy Lavrov
Vitaliy Lavrov
, 
Nataliіa Miroshnyk
Nataliіa Miroshnyk
, 
Tatіana Grabovska
Tatіana Grabovska
 et 
Tatіana Shupova
Tatіana Shupova
   | 13 mars 2021
Folia Forestalia Polonica's Cover Image
À propos de cet article
Article précédent
Article suivant
Citez
Article Category: Original article
Publié en ligne: 13 mars 2021
Pages: 48 - 64
Reçu: 17 juin 2020
Accepté: 12 janv. 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ffp-2021-0005
© 2021 Vitaliy Lavrov, Nataliіa Miroshnyk, Tatіana Grabovska, Tatіana Shupova, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

Structure of the studied organic agrolandscape (demonstration site of Institute of Agroecology and Environmental Management of NAAS of Ukraine): OF – organic fields; CF – conventional fields; 1, 2, 3, 4 – forest shelter belts No. С1, С2, С3 – sections of the forest belt No. 4; G1, G2 – fruit gardens, G3 – dendrological garden; VG – vegetable garden; AB – administrative buildings; FY – farmyard; Р-32, Р-18 – regional routes
Structure of the studied organic agrolandscape (demonstration site of Institute of Agroecology and Environmental Management of NAAS of Ukraine): OF – organic fields; CF – conventional fields; 1, 2, 3, 4 – forest shelter belts No. С1, С2, С3 – sections of the forest belt No. 4; G1, G2 – fruit gardens, G3 – dendrological garden; VG – vegetable garden; AB – administrative buildings; FY – farmyard; Р-32, Р-18 – regional routes

Figure 2

Ecological characteristics of the biotope on the phytoindication scales of Tsyganov, points
Ecological characteristics of the biotope on the phytoindication scales of Tsyganov, points

Figure 3

The ratio of grass tier species in relation to climatic and soil factors according to the index of ecological tolerance, where SB – stenobionts, HSB – hemistenobionts, MB – mesobionts, HEB – hemieuribionts, EB – euribiont species
The ratio of grass tier species in relation to climatic and soil factors according to the index of ecological tolerance, where SB – stenobionts, HSB – hemistenobionts, MB – mesobionts, HEB – hemieuribionts, EB – euribiont species

Figure 4

Distribution of birds by types of nesting strategy (%): t – crown-nesting, b – nest in understorey, h – hollow-nesting, g – terrestrial, cc – nesting parasite; 1, 2, 3, 4 – FSB
Distribution of birds by types of nesting strategy (%): t – crown-nesting, b – nest in understorey, h – hollow-nesting, g – terrestrial, cc – nesting parasite; 1, 2, 3, 4 – FSB

Figure 5

Distribution of birds by feeding types (%): F – predators, Z – zoophages, I – entomophages, M – phytoentomophages, R – phytophages
Distribution of birds by feeding types (%): F – predators, Z – zoophages, I – entomophages, M – phytoentomophages, R – phytophages

The structure of life forms of the FSB grass tier

Signs forms of life Life forms Number, individuals Share of all herbaceous plants on TP,%
Life cycle duration Annuals 40 50.6
Perennials 39 49.4
The structure of aboveground shoots Creeping 5 5.8
Rosette 16 20.1
Without rosette 54 70.7
Turf 3 2.3
Creepers (climbing) 1 1.1
The structure of underground shoots Long-rhizome 20 24.1
Short-rhizome 16 19.3
Without formations 40 48.2
Bunch-root 7 8.4
Type of root system Taproot 65 63.7
Fibrous root 37 36.3
Type of vegetative mobility Vegetatively mobile 20 26.3
Vegetatively sedentary 13 16.2
Vegetatively immobile 46 57.5
Climamorphs (Raunkier life forms) Phanerophytes 1 1.4
Hamephytes 2 2.5
Therophytes 31 39.2
Hemicryptophytes 34 41.4
Geophytes 12 15.5
Ratio Therophytes/Geophytes – 2.4
ITG, c.u. – –0.4
Heliomorphs Heliophytes 61 74.4
Scioheliophytes 19 23.2
Sciophytes 2 2.4
Cenomorphs (by Belgard) Silvants 18 18.4
Pratants 15 13.1
Stepants 8 7.5
Ruderants 40 36.5
Adventives 32 24.5
of which nitrophils (%) 15 14.7

Systematic structure of FSB dendroflora

Classes and species Number of species Share of species (%)
Division Pinophyta
Pinaceae 1 3.2
Division Magnoliophyta
Aceraceae 2 6.5
Adoxaceae 1 3.1
Betulaceae 1 3.2
Cornaceae 1 3.2
Fabaceae 3 9.7
Juglandaceae 2 6.5
Oleaceae 3 9.7
Rosaceae 8 29
Salicaceae 4 12.9
Ulmaceae 3 9.7
Vitáceae 1 3.3
Total 30 100.0

Distribution and status of birds nesting in FSB (pairs/ha)

Species № FSB Protected categories
1 2 3 4
Milvus migrans Boddaert 0.3 Bk2; Bo1,2; W2, RBU
Columba palumbus L. 1.7 –
Streptopelia turtur L. 3.3 Bk3
Cuculus canorus L. 0.3 Bk3
Lanius collurio L. 0.6 Bk2
Lanius minor Gmelin 0.3 Bk2
Oriolus oriolus L. 0.3 1.7 Bk2
Sturnus vulgaris L. 1.7 1.7 –
Sylvia atricapilla L. 1.3 0.6 3.3 Bk2
Sylvia borin Boddaert 1.4 Bk2
Sylvia communis Latham 0.3 1.7 Bk2
Phylloscopus collybita Vieillot 0.6 0.6 3.3 Bk2
Phylloscopus sibilatrix Bechstein 0.3 Bk2
Ficedula albicollis Temminck 0.6 Bk2; Bo2
Muscicapa striata Pallas 0.3 1.7 Bk2; Bo2
Phoenicurus phoenicurus L. 0.6 0.3 Bk2; Bo2
Erithacus rubecula L. 0.6 0.9 5.0 3.3 Bk2; Bo2
Luscinia luscinia L. 0.6 1.7 Bk2; Bo2
Turdus merula L. 1.7 5.0 Bk2; Bo2
Turdus philomelos C.L. Brehm 0.6 0.6 1.7 Bk2; Bo2
Parus caeruleus L. 0.6 0.9 3.3 Bk2
Parus major L. 1.9 2.9 5 Bk2
Sitta europaea L. 1.9 0.6 3.3 Bk2
Certhia familiaris L. 0.6 3.3 Bk2
Passer montanus L. 1.4 1.7 Bk3
Fringilla coelebs L. 1.3 2.3 3.3 Bk3
Carduelis carduelis L. 0.3 Bk2
Acanthis cannabina L. 0.3 Bk2
Emberiza citrinella L. 1.1 Bk2

Comparative spectra of leading families of different flora

Family The place of the family in the flora
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Asteraceae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Poaceae 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2
Fabaceae 3 2 4 4 4 – 3 3
Brassicaceae 9 5 2 6 3 3 5 4
Caryophyllaceae 18 6 9 5 5 4 4 6
Lamiaceae 6 8 5 7 5 7 2 5
Apiaceae 10 10 6 11 7 5 12 9
Cyperaceae 4 11 – 10 – – + 11
Rosaceae 8 4 – 3 7 – 11 7
Chenopodiaceae 19 – 7 18 8 + + 12
Scоrphulariaceae 5 7 8 9 8 + 4 10
Boraginaceae 16 – 10 12 6 – – 13
Ranunculaceae 17 9 – 14 8 + 3 8
Poligonaceae 25 – – 14 4 5 4 15
Euphorbiaceae 12 – – 16 6 5 + +
Convolvulaceae + – + – 8 5 – -
Geraniaceae + + + – 6 5 – -
Urticaceae – + – + 6 6 + -
Violaceae – – – + – 6 + +
Plantaginaceae – – – – 7 7 + 14
Papaveraceae – – – – 7 – – –
Oxalidaceae – – – – 7 – – –
Equisetaceae – – – – 7 – – –

Assessment and sanitary characteristics of field protective forest shelter belts around the organic experimental fields (Institute of Agroecology and Environmental Management of NAAS of Ukraine)

No FSB, trial plots (TP) – sections (C), placement relative to organic fields FSB construction Number of rows of tree species, pieces Species composition FSB parameters, m Density of canopy* Plantation condition
main tent undergrowtli and understorey H B Ic sanitary forestry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
FSB No 1, TP1, west side of the field two-tier, dense 4 main speices – Fraxinus excelsior L.; accompanying – Ulmus laevis Pall., Populus nigra L., P. laurifolia Ledeb., Robinia pseudoacacia L., F. excelsior, Ulmus laevis Pall., U. minor Mill.; invasive – Jugions regia L., Populus tremula L., Acer negundo L. UNDERGROWTH: A. negundo, Acer pseudoplatanus L., U. minor, F. excelsior, J. regia, Malus domestica Borkh.; UNDERSTOREY: Prunus serotina Ehrh., Sambucus nigra L.,Ligustmm vulgare L. Crataegus monogyna JACQ., Padus avium Mill. 17.4 20.0 0.58 2.43 weakened good, TPC –38.1%
FSB No 2, TP2, north side of the field three-tier, dense 7** main speices – Populus nigra L.; accompanying – P. laurifolia, Ouercus robur L., Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marshall, U. laevis; invasive – R. pseudoacacia, Cerasus avium (L.) Moench, J. regia, A. negundo UNDERGROWTH: R. pseudacacia, Q. robur, C. avium, F. excelsior, A. negundo; UNDERSTOREY: S. nigra, Prunus cerasifera Ehrh., P. serotino, Padus avium Mill., Swida sanguinea (L.) Opiz., Ligustrum vulgare L. 24.3 35.0** 0.81 2.28 weakened good, TPC –25.6%
FSB No 3, TP3, east side of the field one-tier, dense 2 main speices – P. laurifolia; accompanying – Q. robur, F. pennsylvanica, F. excelsior, U. laevis; invasive – Q. rubra L.,Pyrus communi s L., J. regia, A. negundo, P. tremula, C. avium UNDERGROWTH: Q. robur, F. excelsior, LF. laevis, P. communis, J. cinerea L., M. domestica, C. avium, A negundo; UNDERSTOREY: Sorbus aucupariaL.,P. serotino, S. nigra, S. sanguinea, Cerasus vulgaris Mill., L. vulgare, Rosa canina L. 22.6 16.0 0.72 2.23 weakened good, TPC –31.2%
FSB No 4, TP4-C1 south side of the field dense 3 main speices – U. minor, accompanying – F. excelsior, invasive – R. pseudoacacia, A. negundo, J. regia UNDERGROWTH: J. regia, A. negundo, C. avium, M. domestica; UNDERSTOREY: P. serotino, Salix caprea L., S. sanguinea (L.) Opiz., S. nigra, C. monogyna 14.2 12.0 0.62 1.48 healthy good, TPC – 17.6%
FSB No 4, TP4-C2 south side of the field wind-per- meable, there are gaps in the forest belt up to 20 m wide 1 main speices – U. laevis; invasive – J. regia, A. negundo, R. pseudoacacia, S. caprea UNDERGROWTH: Al. domestica, J. regia, A. negundo, P. communis, C. monogyna; UNDERSTOREY: P. serotino, S. nigra, L. vulgare, S. caprea, S. sanguinea 12.5 4.0 0.51 1.42 healthy satisfactory, the stand is liquefied, TPC –42.8%
FSB No 4, TP4-C3 south side of the field semi- permeable 2 main speices – F. excelsior, accompanying – Acer pseudoplatanus L., U. minor, invasive – R. pseudoacacia, J. regia, A. negundo, S. caprea UNDERGROWTH: P. communis, J. regia, A. C. negundo, avium, M. domestica; UNDERSTOREY: P. serotino, S. caprea, C. monogyna, P. avium, Rubus caesius L. 13.4 8.0 0.55 1.37 healthy satisfactory, the stand is liquefied, TPC –26.4%

The structure of bio- and ecomorphs of FSB dendroflora

Factors Life form Share of species, %
Biomorphs by IG Serebryakov (1962) trees 77.4
shrubs 21.3
lianas 1.3
Type of vegetative mobility vegetatively sedentary 38.6
vegetatively immobile 32.3
vegetatively mobile 29.1
Heliomorphs heliophytes 64.5
scioheliophytes 6.5
heliosciophytes 29.0
Hydromorphs xeromesophytes 9.7
mesohygrophytes 3.2
mesoxerophytes 12.9
mesophytes 74.2
Trophomorphs megatrophs 12.9
mesotrophs 80.6
oligotrophs 6.5
of which nitrophils 16.1

The structure of bio- and ecomorphs of FSB wood nitrophils

Species Biomorph Cenomorph Trophomorph Hygromorph
Acer negundo L. tree Ru, @ MgTr Ms
Sambucus nigra L. bush Sil MgTr Ms
Swida sanguineа (L.) Opiz. bush Sil MgTr Ms
Rubus caesius L. bush Sil MgTr MsHg
Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch. liana Sil, @ MsTr Ms
eISSN:
2199-5907
Langue:
Anglais
Périodicité:
4 fois par an
Sujets de la revue:
Life Sciences, Plant Science, Medicine, Veterinary Medicine
RSS Feed de la revue