Forest cover dynamics of the Bazoy Siberian pine (Pinus sibirica Du Tour) forest from 1915 to 2015
Article Category: Research paper
Publié en ligne: 11 mars 2021
Pages: 52 - 63
Reçu: 30 mai 2020
Accepté: 04 déc. 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fsmu-2020-0014
Mots clés
© 2020 Nikita Debkov et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The goals of the United Nations Declaration (2000) state the critical link between forests and sustainable development. The area of forest cover is one of the indicators for the 7th goal “to ensure environmental sustainability”. Forest cover dynamics is recognised as one of the most pressing environmental problems in the world (Yang & Mountrakis, 2017; Kundu, 2017). A complex combination of economic and social development factors, agricultural productivity levels and urbanisation, climatic conditions and geographical features, as well as historical factors, together determine the rate of deforestation (Lambin
With the advent of remote sensing, large-scale studies of deforestation have been feasible since 1972 (Skole & Tucker, 1993). Numerous studies have shown the promise of remote sensing for assessing the dynamics of forest cover (Selvaraj
In this context, the goal of our work is to assess the dynamics of the Bazoy Siberian pine (
The BSPF is located in the vicinity of the village of Bazoy (Figure 1), which was founded in 1575. The village is located in the south of the Tomsk region, 190 km from the capital of the region. According to the Köppen-Geiger climate classification (Kottek
Figure 1
Study area.
It should be noted that Siberian pine is a nut-bearing tree species. From the beginning of the colonisation of Siberia by the Russian people, the beneficial and nutritional properties of Siberian pine nuts have been noted (Danchenko & Bekh, 2010). Therefore, the local population sought to create nut (seed) orchards with a predominance of Siberian pine near their villages (Debkov, 2014). As a rule, Siberian pine trees were left during felling, while the remaining tree species were cut down, resulting in the formation of Siberian pine seed orchards (Debkov, 2019).
The experimental data are based on the materials of the national forest inventories of 1915, 1974 and 2015, carried out on the territory of the BSPF. In Russia, on the plains, the division of the forest fund within the forestry boundaries (the subject of forest management) into small, usually rectangular or square, sections (quarters) was used. Most quarters were 1 x 1, 1 x 2, 2 x 2 or 2 x 4 km in size, and each was assigned an identification number. We analysed 14 quarters on a total area of 1,420.41 ha. Within the boundaries of each quarter, elementary units (plots) were distinguished – forest stands and other land categories, in accordance with approved regulatory documents (for example, forest inventory instruction). Regardless of the size of the quarter, it contained several dozens of plots. In our case, 293 plots were analysed. When conducting forest inventories, each plot was evaluated in terms or more than 10 indicators. In forest stands, the composition, age, height, diameter, type of forest, sum of basal areas and stand volume were determined visually and with the help of instruments. Natural regeneration (composition, height, age, density) was also described.
The initial data for digitisation consisted of raster forest maps of 1915, 1974 and 2015 and vector data of the quarterly network of the Tomsk region. These data were obtained from forest inventories and a previous publication (Alekseev & Sedykh, 1976). Digitisation was carried out using the Easy Trace vectorizer version 9.5 (Digitization of vegetation, 2011). Preliminary georeferencing of forest maps was performed at reference points in the geographic information system software package of the Arcgis Desktop 10.4 (Mitchell, 2005); by means of automatic and manual tracing, vector layers of forest maps were created with the assignment of the corresponding attribute information. Further, by arranging the pages (sets of layer elements located on the virtual page, including the legend) in Arcgis Desktop 10.4 (Keranen & Malone, 2017), the ready-made forest maps of 1915, 1974 and 2015 were exported into jpeg files.
Statistical analysis of our data was carried out using the STATISTICA 10 program. We used the standard descriptive statistics (mean ± standard error) with a level of
The forest cover as of 1915 (Figure 2, Table 1) was a forested area (96.2%), with Siberian pine forests occupying 48.4%. Wetlands accounted for only 3.8% of the total area. In 1974, the ratio of land categories remained virtually unchanged (Figure 2, Table 1). The area on which forest stands grew was 96.1%, and the area occupied by wetlands was 3.9% (an additional area of 1.4 hectares was allocated in Quarter 102). However, there was a change in the area of Siberian pine forests, which increased their share to 64.7%, that is, by 16.3%. The most significant changes occurred in Quarters 98, 99, 101 and 102, where the area of Siberian pine forests increased. On the contrary, in Quarters 109, 114, 115, 116, 119 and 120, the area of Siberian pine forests decreased. However, overall, the balance was positive throughout the BSPF. The state of the forest cover as of 2015 (Figure 2, Table 1) is characterised by a decrease in the share of wetlands (2.3%), but a new category of land has appeared – non-forest areas (3.7%), which include glades, wasteland and hay-fields. In this regard, the forested area decreased slightly (94.0%). The area occupied by Siberian pine forests decreased to 58.7%, that is, by 6.0% compared to 1974. Spatially, there have been serious changes in the location of the wetlands, most of which were reallocated in Quarters 97, 99, 100, 106 and 114. In the quarters in which the wetlands were located previously, they had either disappeared or significantly reduced in terms of area. Non-forest areas were mainly prevalent in Quarters 98, 101, 119 and 121. A positive dynamic in increasing the area of Siberian pine forests was observed only in Quarter 102, albeit this was not statistically significant. The area of Siberian pine forests began to increase in Quarters 97, 100 and 106. After a decrease in 1974, an increase in the share of Siberian pine stands in Quarters 109, 115, 116 and 120 was recorded, while in Quarters 114, 119 and 121, the Siberian pine forest area steadily decreased. In Quarters 98, 99 and 101, there is a slight decrease in the area of Siberian pine forests relative to 1974.
Figure 2
State of forest cover of the Bazoy Siberian pine forest in 1915, 1974, 2015.
Distribution of the Bazoy Siberian pine forest by land categories (ha).
| Quarter | Wetlands | Non-forest areas | Non-Siberian pine stands | Siberian pine stands | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1915 | 1974 | 2015 | 1915 | 1974 | 2015 | 1915 | 1974 | 2015 | 1915 | 1974 | 2015 | |
| 97 | – | – | 21.4 | – | – | – | 54.9 | 54.9 | 16.3 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 22.8 |
| 98 | – | – | – | – | – | 10.5 | 161.2 | 46.6 | 63.4 | 0.7 | 115.2 | 85.9 |
| 99 | – | – | 1.4 | – | – | 2.9 | 139.0 | 61.6 | 84.2 | – | 77.4 | 39.6 |
| 100 | – | – | 5.9 | – | – | 0.01 | 52.3 | 52.3 | 26.3 | 25.8 | 25.8 | 45.8 |
| 101 | – | – | – | – | – | 10.1 | 121.4 | 15.6 | 24.1 | 5.3 | 111.14 | 92.3 |
| 102 | – | 1.4 | 1.0 | – | – | 0.5 | 117.2 | 53.4 | 50.9 | – | 62.3 | 64.6 |
| 106 | – | – | 0.6 | – | – | 2.9 | 36.5 | 36.5 | 16.6 | 63.4 | 63.4 | 79.8 |
| 109 | 15.7 | 15.7 | – | – | – | 0.5 | 2.3 | 8.6 | 13.3 | 125.7 | 119.4 | 129.8 |
| 114 | – | – | 1.0 | – | – | – | – | 17.0 | 25.6 | 92.7 | 75.7 | 66.1 |
| 115 | 4.7 | 4.7 | – | – | – | – | – | 37.8 | 32.6 | 73.6 | 35.8 | 45.8 |
| 116 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.0 | – | – | – | – | 52.3 | 36.2 | 57.0 | 4.7 | 21.5 |
| 119 | 18.1 | 18.1 | – | – | – | 11.4 | – | 2.3 | 23.6 | 114.1 | 111.7 | 97.3 |
| 120 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 0.6 | – | – | – | – | 10.4 | 11.5 | 34.8 | 24.4 | 30.9 |
| 121 | 6.5 | 6.5 | – | – | – | 13.7 | – | – | 76.0 | 95.9 | 95.9 | 12.2 |
| Sum | 55.0 | 56.4 | 32.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 52.5 | 684.6 | 449.4 | 500.5 | 694.7 | 928.6 | 834.4 |
In the modern forest cover of the BSPF, grassy Siberian pine stands (32.1%, Figure 3) of optimal age (120–140 years) prevail, which are characterised by the best seed productivity and the largest share of Siberian pine trees in the composition of communities (77%, Table 2). Old-aged Siberian pine forests (over 140 years old) occupy 17.4%; in the medium term, they will be damaged, including during entomogenic successions (Krivets
Figure 3
Distribution of forest area of the Bazoy Siberian pine forest by forest type.
Characteristics of stands of the Bazoy Siberian pine forest as at 2015.
| Composition, % | Age, years | Height, m | DBH, cm | Yield class, units | Forest type | Relative sum of basal areas, units | Trunk volume, m3 ha−1 | Average size of one stand, ha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 66S20B7P4Sp3A | 111±1 | 24.8±0.1 | 38.4±0.6 | 2.3±0.2 | gr | 0.64±0.02 | 394±15 | 12.6±4.1 |
| 77S13Sp7B3P | 131±1 | 24.9±0.2 | 36.6±1.0 | 2.6±0.1 | gr | 0.60±0.01 | 356±7 | 12.0±2.9 |
| 67S25Sp8B | 164±3 | 25.8±0.2 | 43.5±0.6 | 2.8±0.1 | gr | 0.60±0.02 | 389±15 | 9.2±2.8 |
| 44S34B22Sp | 138±2 | 23.2±1.2 | 35.2±2.3 | 3.4±0.2 | gr-sw | 0.54±0.02 | 286±16 | 3.8±1.0 |
| 46S39Sp11B4P | 155±2 | 23.1±0.5 | 40.5±1.8 | 3.4±0.2 | gr-sw | 0.51±0.04 | 274±21 | 4.9±1.6 |
| 71Sp19S10B | 140±5 | 22.1±0.5 | 28.4±1.6 | 3.4±0.2 | gr-sw | 0.65±0.02 | 236±12 | 3.7±0.8 |
| 54A35B10P1S | 53±7 | 19.8±2.8 | 22.6±3.0 | 2.1±0.4 | gr | 0.68±0.04 | 226±37 | 4.8±1.9 |
| 41P34B14S7A | 73±9 | 22.9±2.8 | 30.0±3.3 | 1.1±0.1 | gr | 0.69±0.01 | 246±33 | 3.4±0.6 |
| 94B4Sp2S | 76±1 | 18.7±0.3 | 21.0±0.5 | 5.2±1.8 | gr-sw | 0.61±0.01 | 129±38 | 2.1±0.3 |
| 70B14A8S4P4Sp | 77±1 | 24.3±0.4 | 28.1±0.6 | 2.0±0.1 | gr | 0.65±0.02 | 198±9 | 5.4±0.9 |
Explanations:
Composition: S – Siberian pine
Forest type: gr – grassy, gr-sw – grassy-swamp
Swamps occupy 2.28% of the total area of the BSPF (Figure 4) and are represented by the grassy type, with peat thickness of about 0.1 m. Almost all swamps are overgrown with 20–30% of white birch.
Figure 4
Distribution of non-forest land categories of the Bazoy Siberian pine forest.
Due to their linear characteristics, water bodies occupy a very small area (0.19%) and are represented by streams (up to 1 m wide) and the Kinda River (3–8 m wide).
Infrastructure facilities occupy 1.22% and are represented by quarter border paths (1–2 m wide), which are mostly overgrown and require clearing. The main share in this category of lands is occupied by forest roads, which have an unpaved surface with a width of 3–5 m.
Non-forest areas occupy 3.27% of the BSPF and are represented by glades, wasteland and hayfields. On the glades, natural regeneration consists of
Forest plantations cover over 4.49% of the BSPF. Half of the forest crops are monocultures of Scots pine aged 58–59 years, with a height of 23–26 m, a diameter of 20–28 cm and a trunk volume of 250–350 m3 ha−1. Occasionally (in no more than 10% of the plots), in the undergrowth, along with Scots pine and Siberian spruce, up to 10–20% consist of Siberian pine up to 1.5–2 m high and up to 400 seedlings ha−1. Scots pine cultures were established in 1961–1962, using furrowing, manual planting, a placement of 4.0 x 0.5 m and a density of 4,000 saplings ha−1.
Another part of the forest plantations was established in 1991, using machine ploughing and manual planting. Half of the plots had a placement of 4.0 x 0.5 m with a density of 4,000 saplings ha−1, and the other half had a placement of 4.0 x 1.0 m with a density of 2,000 saplings ha−1. Their condition is, however, unsatisfactory due to livestock damage. Tree composition varies greatly from 80% Siberian pine, 20% silver birch with a density of 4,000 saplings ha−1, up to 30% Siberian pine, 40% silver birch, 30% aspen with a density of 2,000 saplings ha−1. In the first case, Siberian pine has a height of 4 m and a diameter of 4 cm; silver birch is 1 m higher than Siberian pine. In this case, about 200 seedlings ha−1 of Siberian pine undergrowth, aged 10 years and with a height of 1.5 m, are in natural regeneration. In the second case, with a lower planting density, Siberian pine is 6 m high and 6 cm in diameter. However, aspen and silver birch are 10 m high and 12 cm in diameter.
The analysis of changes in the forest cover of the BSPF over 100 years has revealed some features of its development. Like other settlements in the Tomsk region, the village of Bazoy adjoined forests with a predominance of Siberian pine and deciduous stands with the presence of Siberian pine in the second tier or in the undergrowth. As a consequence of human activity, deciduous stands were used to meet the needs for fuel, building material, etc., and felling resembled selective cutting, which contributed to the gradual creation of favourable environmental conditions for the growth and development of Siberian pine trees.
According to this scheme, Siberian pine forests were formed in Quarters 98, 99, 101 and 102 (see Figure 2). Until 1915, these quarters were covered with 15–20-year-old silver birch forests, as evidenced by the results of a survey among residents of the village of Bazoy in the 1970s (Alekseev & Sedykh, 1976), as well as the presence of single silver birch trees aged 70–80 years as part of Siberian pine stands. In 1974, 70–80-year-old Siberian pine forests with an admixture of silver birch, Scots pine and Siberian spruce, with a relative sum of basal areas of 0.3 to 0.8, were common in these quarters. As at 2015, Siberian pine stands were 110–125 years old. An admixture of other species was preserved, while the relative sum of basal areas became more uniform with 0.5–0.7.
The same process of Siberian pine stand formation took place in Quarter 109. Initially, it was covered with silver birch forest stands with a second tier of Siberian pine trees. Then, residents of the village of Bazoy started cutting silver birch for fuel, which led to the formation of forest communities with a Siberian pine tree frequency of up to 90%.
However, although Siberian pine forests were established, they were also simultaneously degraded. As a result of constant human economic activities (logging, nut harvesting, picking berries and mushrooms, grazing, haying, hunting, etc.), the internal ties supporting the sustainability of forest communities are gradually disintegrating. With an increase in the intensity of anthropogenic impact due to population growth, there is also a decrease in the area of Siberian pine forests in the process of alienation of forest area for the construction of new dwellings, farm buildings, kitchen gardens, etc. This is especially evident when comparing the areas of the village of Bazoy in Figure 2.
Destruction and, accordingly, a decrease in the area of Siberian pine stands also occurred under the impact of fires caused by human activity. Thus, the Siberian pine stands in Quarters 116 and 121 died in 1915–1920 (Figure 2).
In the absence of repeated fires in these areas over time, one could expect the restoration of Siberian pine forests (according to the scheme described above) or their formation through targeted forestry activities. With repeated fires that prevent the formation of Siberian pine undergrowth, the restoration of Siberian pine forests can be extremely long or come to a halt. In particular, in the place of Siberian pine forests (Quarters 116 and 121) destroyed by fires in 1915–1920, in 1974, there were silver birch forests 55–60 years old, under the canopy of which there were only up to 300 Siberian pine seedlings ha−1 (Alekseev & Sedykh, 1976). Periodic fires arising from neigh-bouring agricultural land prevented the formation of a stable undergrowth of Siberian pine and ensured the presence of silver birch in these quarters for a long time.
As of 2015, in Quarter 116, 38% of the area of grassy silver birch forests do not have an undergrowth of Siberian pine and just represent long-term secondary communities. In the remaining area of silver birch forests, the share of Siberian pine trees in the composition of young growth is 30%, with a density of 1,200 seedlings ha−1 (limit 300–2,000 seedlings ha−1). Moreover, most often, the height of the Siberian pine is 8 m. It is important to note that in the upper tier of communities, the share of Siberian pine trees is already 17% in 90% of the silver birch forests. As of 2015, in Quarter 121, only 7% of the area of grassy silver birch forests do not have Siberian pine undergrowth and represent long-term secondary communities. In the remaining area of silver birch forests, the share of Siberian pine trees in the composition of young growth is 20%, with a density of 800 seedlings ha−1 (limit 200–2,000 seedlings ha−1). Also, most often, the height of the Siberian pine is 8 m. It should be noted that in the upper tier of communities, the share of Siberian pine trees is already 15% in 77% of the silver birch forests. Therefore, even without human intervention, the process of Siberian pine stand formation is ongoing.
In Quarter 115 and partially adjacent to it, as clearly seen in Figure 2, Siberian pine stands had been destroyed in a fire. Most of this degraded area was replanted with Scots pine in 1958–1959. Since these sites are occupied by communities of other tree species, for an indefinitely long time, it will be impossible to grow Siberian pine stands on them. A visual examination showed that these forest crops, due to the inconsistency of the habitat conditions (too high trophicity for Scots pine), are of low commercial value.
The main factor in deforestation is agriculture. Large-scale global reconstruction of the forest cover from 800 to 1700 showed that about 5 million km2 of natural vegetation (mainly forests) were converted to agricultural land (Pongratz
As a strategy for the restoration of degraded areas after intensive agriculture, for example in Ethiopia (Bishaw, 2001), social forestry practices have been developed. Until the late 1960s, when a reforestation program was launched in the villages, knowledge spread “from top to bottom” (Mgeni, 1992). Subsequently, it turned out that farmers are good experts in regeneration and tree care (Kajembe, 1994). A good example is shown in Macias & Dryjer (2004) where the dynamics of forest cover in the vicinity of Poznan was studied. During the period of 1830–2004, the forested area increased mainly due to afforestation in previously deforested areas and rationing of logging.
The dynamics of the forest cover of the BSPF for the period from 1915 to 1974 is characterised by a significant increase in the area of Siberian pine stands (by 16.3%). The main reason for this is the establishment of Siberian pine forests by cutting the upper tier from birch. In the period from 1974 to 2015, there was a tendency to reduce the area of Siberian pine stands (by 6.0%), resulting in the appearance of non-forest lands (glades, wastelands, hayfields). Glades and waste-lands are the result of either logging or, more likely, areas of non-renewed conflagrations and places of mass reproduction of phytophages of the past years. Haymaking is a direct consequence of the transfer of forest territory to non-forest areas, with the aim of conducting agricultural subsidiary farming. It has been established that the main factors in the dynamics of forest cover are felling and forest fires, of which the latter periodically arise and lead to the death of Siberian pine forests.
Our study clearly shows the possibility of sustainable forest management on communal lands, forming the most socially and ecologically acceptable forests near villages. It is also important to note that forests with the predominance of Siberian pine are the most indigenous type of vegetation cover and the best way to sequester carbon over a long period, which is important against the background of a changing climate.