Research Article |
Corresponding author: Alexey A. Romanov ( romanov.alexey63@mail.ru ) Academic editor: Klaus Henle
© 2017 Alexey A. Romanov, Elena G. Koroleva, Tatyana V. Dikareva.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Romanov AA, Koroleva EG, Dikareva TV (2017) Integration Species and Ecosystem Monitoring for Selecting Priority Areas for Biodiversity Conservation: Case Studies from Palearctic . Nature Conservation 22: 1-28. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.22.10711
|
At the start of the third millennium, new opportunities have arisen in biogeographical research, namely in the generalisation, visualisation and cross-spectrum analysis of biological and geographical information and in the compilation of biogeographical maps and innovative models for regions that differ in the availability of distribution data. These tasks include long-term monitoring of plants and animals which are in danger of extinction, geographical analysis of biodiversity distribution and development of effective wildlife conservation strategies for specific regions. The studies of the Department of Biogeography of Moscow University on geography and biodiversity conservation are based on long-term field expeditions. The examples of the Asian Subarctic Mountains, the steppes of Central Kazakhstan and the urbanised north-west of Russia are used to illustrate Russian approaches to the use of biogeographical monitoring for the identification of priority areas for biodiversity conservation. The species populations of the higher plants and vertebrates listed in the Red Books have been considered as the basic units of biodiversity.
biodiversity, biogeographical mapping, monitoring, wildlife conservation
Biodiversity analysis is an actively developing method for assessing the Earth‘s living state. Biodiversity analysis affects not only relevant fields of scientific knowledge, but also the scope of the states‘ international obligations to preserve the diversity of life in their territories. Preservation of biodiversity is currently regarded as one of the priorities of the states‘ sustainable development. The contribution of Northern Eurasia, a territory of Russia and its bordering countries, to the global biodiversity of the planet is exceptionally large. The global role of the states in this area is estimated first by assessing the biosphere functions and ecosystem services provided by the respective biota and ecosystems. Due to the preservation of natural landscapes, the number of the functions and services existing in Russia constitutes about 10% of the world’s entire quantity of such functions and services (
As previous attempts to protect the species listed in the Red Books have shown, patronising protection or cultivation of these species in artificial conditions without attempts to protect and recover the ecosystems do not give the desired result (
One stage of biodiversity conservation strategy is quantitative and comparative assessment in natural ecosystems at different levels. Mere inclusion in the federal and regional Red Books is insufficient; without identifying rare species, establishing their status and range boundaries, defining factors that have a negative effect on their populations, organising habitat protection and undertaking regular monitoring, the majority of the species in the Red Books would become extinct. Therefore, an essential responsibility of conservation programmes for rare species is to monitor the status of their various regional groups (i.e. the populations of the species) within the range of the state. For the next stage – the cartographic stage – biogeographical maps are created of various subject matters; these maps spatio-temporally integrate the different scales and types of information (
There are many articles in the non-Russian literature on the global and regional aspects of the assessment and conservation of biodiversity. These articles are devoted to species distribution modelling (
The aim of this study is to summarise the experience of long-term monitoring, mapping and assessment of rare and protected plant and animal species at various spatial scales and levels in Russia. The basic units of biodiversity considered were species, families and populations of protected plant and animal species. Different parts of the Palearctic were selected on the basis of the area’s biogeographic zoning: the Russian Subarctic (Putorana Plateau), the steppe zone of Central Kazakhstan and the urbanised north-west of Russia (Kaliningrad region).
The Putorana Plateau is a remote and under-explored region of the Russian Arctic that is located almost entirely north of the Arctic Circle. This is one of the few vast regions of the Central Palearctic that has unusually diverse northern taiga fauna and an admixture of tundra and mountain elements. The Putorana Plateau is a significant region that ensures biodiversity of the entire Palearctic. In 2010, its territory was designated as a UNESCO world cultural and natural heritage site.
The great extent of the plateau in both latitudinal and longitudinal directions and its clearly defined vertical zoning have resulted in great diversity and a unique combination of animal communities that are prevalent throughout the Palearctic (
The lesser white-fronted goose (Anser erythropus (Linnaeus, 1758)) is an endangered species with a continuously and drastically decreasing population and it is included in the Red Book of Russia (
Putorana Plateau is one of the largest and most under-explored parts of the species’ range, including its borders and the number of breeding pairs. Over the last 35 years, the population has decreased to one-sixth of its original size – from 100,000 to 18,000. Of the remaining 18,000 animals, about 5,000 inhabit Taimyr which forms the southern boundary of the Palearctic (Morozov and Suroechkovskiy Jr. 2002).
The white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla (Linnaeus, 1758)) is a widespread Palearctic species. Its range includes the entire territory of Russia, but no more than 2,500 pairs remain (
Haliaeetus albicilla is distributed widely throughout the vast area of the Eurasian territory. A similar pattern can also be seen in Siberia, where H. albicilla has always been the most common large bird of prey, with its greatest numbers in the northern taiga subzone (
The Putorana Plateau is located at the extreme north-western tip of the Central Siberian Plateau (north of the Krasnoyarsk territory; 65°00'–71°00N; 90°00'–100°00E; (Fig.
Areas and years of ornithological research on the Putorana Plateau: 1 Northern regions (Lake Bokovoye; rivers: Ayan, Ambar, Munil, Nerakachi, Dakit, Kholokit, Khukelche), 1989 2 Central regions (Lake Ayan, Lake Kapchug; rivers: Amnundakta, Gulyami, Bolshoy Khonna-Makit, Kapchug), 1988 3 Western regions (lakes: Kutaramakan, Kapchuk, Khantayskoye; rivers: Verkhniy Kutaramakan, Kutaramakan, Kapchuk, Bogadil, Irkinda), 1990 4 Southern regions (Lake Nyakshingda, Lake Vivi; rivers: Amundykan, Verkhnyaya Nyakshingda, Nyakshingda, Irbukon, Morktakon, Sengan), 1991 5 Western regions (lakes: Keta, Nakomyaken, Sobachye, Glubokoye; rivers: Nahta, Mikchangda, Muksun), 1999, 2004, 2008 6 South-west (Lake Dyupkun Kureiskiy; rivers: Kureyka, Yagtali), 2001, 2006 7 South-western regions (lakes: Agata Verkhnyaya, Agata Nizhnyaya, Severnoye; rivers: Oron, Epekli-Sen, Severnaya), 2003 8 Eastern regions (lakes: Kharpicha, Dyupkun Kotuiskiy, Lyuksina; Kotuy River), 2007. Traditional border of Putorana Plateau.
Therefore, widespread mountain–tundra landscapes within the belt occupy about half of the territory in the south and most of the territory in the central part. Amidst the mountain landscape, integral, separate and unique fauna complexes have been formed, such as forest (mountain–northern taiga), golets (mountain–forest tundra) and sub-golet (mountain–tundra) belts (
Recording and monitoring of the populations of rare and endangered Palearctic avifauna were undertaken from 1988 to 2008 (during 13 summer seasons from May to August). Field parties of two to four people were organised to walk overland and to navigate water routes by boat. The expeditionary groups’ equipment consisted of navigational aids, special optical equipment, individual telemetry tracking devices for birds, items for labelling and standard field equipment for field research in the Arctic. During this period, an area of about 200,000km2, including 11 large tectonic lakes, was investigated. All the material was collected using survey routes. The total length of the overland survey routes was 8,617km and that of water routes was 1,516km. While traversing the routes, the researchers visually assessed all species of birds and their status (such as nomadic, breeding, hunting). The investigation also included assessing the borders of territorial pairs as well as areas potentially suitable for the birds to breed. Fixed surveillance of the birds’ flight during the migration season and daily monitoring of the nests during the breeding season were undertaken.
The breeding accuracy was estimated according to the criteria recommended by the European Ornithological Atlas Committee (EOAC) (
In addition to observations recorded along the same survey routes as for H. albicilla, Anser erythropus was studied by satellite telemetry. Adult moulted birds (n=6) accompanying litters were equipped with plastic collars with fixed satellite “NORTH STAR” transmitters at nesting sites in the south-west of Putorana. The transmitters allowed the birds’ locations to be traced for eight months. The telemetry data were processed using Argos-tools (http://gis-lab.info/programs/argos/index-rus.htm) and the Google Maps mapping service allowing the birds’ movements to be traced in real-time (http://gis-lab.info/projects.piskulka.html) using scalable space Landsat images. Uncertainty in object position did not exceed 10 m. Descriptions of the habitats in the resting areas during migration were compiled using large-scale maps, space images and regional physico-geographical summaries (
The collected data allowed identification of the nesting area, estimation of the number of breeding birds and an assessment of the breeding habitat and migration. Figure
Distribution of Anser erythropus during the nesting period on Putorana Plateau. 1 meeting points of territorial pairs, litters and non-breeding individuals 2 long-term successful nesting areas 3 southern boundary of breeding range; 4: Putorana Plateau border.
The critical nesting factor in Putorana is the presence of a wide flat coastal area of the lakes with sedge–mixed herbs and osier. These areas, extending for tens of kilometres along the lacustrine coast, provide the geese with both plentiful, easily accessible food and secure hiding places in case of danger. The average nesting density in the most favourable habitats is two pairs per 10 km of coastline. The average litter size (n=59) is four chicks.
Telemetry tracking has shown that the Putorana population hibernates in Syria and Iraq, migrating through Western Siberia, Kazakhstan, the Caspian Sea, Iran and Turkey. These migration routes are part of the global migration flows that are common to the population of A. erythropus breeding in the western half of its range, from Western Taimyr to Southern Yamal and Northern European (Fig.
Flight scheme of Anser erythropus based on the results of telemetry tracking. Note: 1, 2, 3 flight trajectories of three lesser white-fronted geese; A Azerbaijan; B Armenia; C Syria.
The results of monitoring other protected species, i.e. the white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla), provided the basis for the assertion that the modern state of this species’ nesting on Putorana Plateau is stable. There were no drastic changes in the number of the species in the past decade. An average of one territorial pair travels within about 1,176 km2 and the forest landscapes in which H. albicilla nests comprise no more than 50% of the plateau area - about 500–580 km2 (
Location | Route length (km) | Survey year | Number of breeding pairs | Average number of breeding pairs per 10 km of the route | Average distance between neighbouring occupied nests (km) | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Middle reach of the Ayan River | 70 | 1989 | 6 | 0.86 | 11.7 |
|
Pothole of Lake Ayan | 70 | 1988 | 4 | 0.57 | 17.5 |
|
Pothole of Lake Kutaramakan | 80 | 1990 | 4 | 0.5 | 20 |
|
Potholes of the lakes Nakomyaken, Sobachye and the eastern terminus of Lake Glubokoye | 100 | 1999 | 4 | 0.4 | 25 |
|
Valley of the Mikchangda River | 110 | 2004 | 3 | 0.27 | 36.7 | Rupasov and Zhuravlev 2007 |
Basin of the Severnaya River | 430 | 2003 | 11 | 0.26 | 39 | Romanov and Rupasov 2007 |
Upstream of the Kotuy River | 100 | 2007 | 3 | 0.3 | 33 |
|
Upstream of the Kotuy River | 300 | 1983 | 4* | 0.13* | 75* |
|
Upstream of the Kotuy River | 350 | 1984 | 5* | 0.14* | 70* |
|
Table
In early spring, the wellbeing of H. albicilla on Putorana Plateau is directly related to the abundance of carrion and the remains of prey left by terrestrial predators and the nesting areas of most pairs coincide with the areas of wild reindeer mass migration. The shift in the main reindeer migrations from western to eastern Putorana during 1970–1980 was probably one of the most significant factors that negatively affected H. albicilla population dynamics in some western areas of Putorana. However, the reduced number of nesting pairs on the western plateau did not mean an automatic reduction in the overall number of Putorana family groups. Following the reindeer migration routes indicated a smooth transition of breeding H. albicilla into the interior and eastern regions of the plateau.
Overall estimates show that about 170 pairs nest in the Putorana Plateau territory, of which at least 70 pairs nest in potholes of western lakes (
The biogeographical features of Putorana Plateau, in particular its location within the boundaries of the Yenisei zoogeographic border which is one of the largest meridional biogeographic borders of Eurasia, support abundant biological and landscape diversity in the region, a transitional nature of the fauna and many endemic and rare species. The annual seasonal migration of the world’s largest population of wild Taimyr reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) attracts many predators and acts as a regulator for these predators’ distribution, abundance and reproductive behaviour. Thus, research and monitoring of Anser erythropus and Haliaeetus albicilla are considered top priorities and represent major international environmental challenges, demonstrating the need for maintaining the Russian Subarctic nature protection status for Putorana Plateau and for continuing research on rare and protected species in its territory.
The problem of biodiversity protection is particularly acute in regions affected by global climate change. These regions include steppe landscapes with preserved relict plant species and unique ecotopes, demonstrated by the forest outliers of the steppe region in Central Kazakhstan – the Pleistocene relicts of a single forest range that had contact with taiga forests of Western Siberia and with mountain and submontane forests of Altai in the cold and wet Pleistocene age. The presence of rare boreal and nemoral species surviving in these woods has led to the unique nature and high conservation value of these steppe landscapes. Amongst the total number of rare and endangered plants in Kazakhstan (about 600), 175 species reside in steppe landscapes.
The aim of this study was to assess the botanical diversity of Karkaraly National Park within the Karkaralinskie and Kent mountain ranges and the changes to this diversity during 2007–2014, in order to identify the most important ecotopes for rare and relict species in the studied region.
Kazakhstan is a large country located in central Eurasia. It covers an area of 2,715,000 km2, stretching nearly 3,000 km from west to east and 1,600 km from north to south. The landscape in Kazakhstan is diverse. The Kazakh Hummocks and Karkaralinskie and Kent mountain ranges are located in the central part of the country (Fig.
The climate in the republic is sharply continental. The average January temperature ranges from -19°C in the north to -5°C in the south and the average July temperature ranges from +17°C in the north to +31°C in the south. Summer is hot and torrid everywhere in the country. The temperature can reach +50°C. Winter in the country is dry and cold and the temperature can reach -58°C (
The research area is located within the Kazakh Hummocks and limited to the Karkaralinskie and Kent mountain ranges. The coordinates of the area are 49°25'00'N and 75°25'00E. The area of Karkaraly National Park, where most of the research was undertaken, is 112,120 ha.
By botanical–geographical zoning, the research area belongs to the Bayanaulsko–Karkaralinsko–Kent district in the Eastern–Kazakhstan sub-province of Zavolzhsko–Kazakhstan province in the Prichernomorsko–Kazakhstan sub-region of the Eurasian steppe region (
The area covered by Karkaralinskie and Kent mountains is an ancient Paleozoic shield that, during Neogene-Quaternary time, underwent powerful geomorphological transformations that led to the modern look of these mountains, with their peaked ridges, abundance of screes and narrow, difficult-to-access canyons. The soil in the area is mainly represented by dark chestnut and mountain chestnut soils. The small islets of meadow chernozem soil is associated with mountain ranges and confined to river valleys. Intermountain valleys feature salt-washed chernozems and there are widespread solonetzic and alkaline soils in degradations (
At the end of the 19th century, the first serious geobotanical studies were performed in the Kokshetau forests by a professor at Kazan University,
The significant floristic unique nature of the East-Kazakhstan sub-province consists in the high percentage of species that have spread towards the east, such as the eastern Palearctic, eastern Kazakhstan, eastern Kazakhstan-Mongolic, eastern Kazakhstan and southern Siberian-Mongolic regions (
Pine forests mostly grow on mountain ranges with an understory of Rosa spinosissima, Rosa majalis, Juniperus sabina, Lonicera tatarica, Padus avium and Crataegus sanguinea which account for 71.3% of the total mountain forest area. Birch forests (Betula pendula, B. pubescens) are confined to the slopes with exposure to the north and northeast and to intermontane valleys along rivers and streams. Birch forests occupy 10% of the forested area. Aspen forests (Populus tremula) comprise about 2% of the forested country and are confined to relief depressions, valleys of rivers and streams and the base of round slopes.
Pine forest outliers are an amazing natural phenomenon of the western Siberian-Kazakhstan steppes. Conservation of these epibiotic complexes in the depths of the steppe area favour specific edaphic conditions (loose, salt washed sands or granites). However, where the forests have been destroyed by people, natural recovery has become impossible. Many places have retained the names of forests that were lost long ago (
The materials for this study were compiled during expeditions during the summer (June and July) in 2007–2014. The area of research occupies a territory of about 100,000ha in the Karkaralinskiy and Kent mountain ranges, the steppe river valleys and the intramontane bolted areas. Monitoring of rare and relict species was undertaken both in the interfluvial zones and in the mountains. Routine geobotanic descriptions have been made, floristic lists on each type of ecotopes have been compiled and a herbarium has been collected. The investigations were undertaken along routes (distance from 2 to 25 km) and permanent plots in ecotopes which are important for rare and relict species of flora. Overall, 360 leaves deposited in the herbarium were studied, with 216 geobotanic descriptions being mapped across 70 routes.
The research also includes analysis of the lists of rare and protected species of Kazakhstan plants (373 species) (
Figure
The highest indices of alpha- and beta-diversity were located on stream banks, valleys of temporary streams, lake banks, floating bogs in the limnetic zones of lakes, sphagnum bogs, raised bogs and swamp-subor forests, crevices of stone chunks, vegetation at the basis of rocky mountain ridges, pine forests on the flanks and shelves of high mountains with an understory of moss or moss and grass and sticky alder forests.
We divided the studied ecotopes into ten groups according to their importance for rare and relict species and identified groups of specific and unique ecotopes.
Group 1. Stream banks and shady canyons. Most important
This ecotype is the most important one for the conservation of rare and relict species. Species of the families Rosaceae (Padus avium, Crataegus alpinum, Sorbus sibirica, Rubus idaeus, Filipendula ulmaria), Grossulariaceae (Ribes nigrum, Ribes hispidum), Umbelliferae (Heracleum sibiricum, Angelica sylvestris, Pleurospermum uralense), Primulaceae (Lysimachia vulgaris, Naumburgia thyrsiflora), Compositae (Ligularia sibirica, Crepis sibirica), Equisetaceae (Equisetum sylvaticum, E. pratense) and Ericaceae (Pyrola rotundifolia, P. minor) dominate. Slightly less widespread are the species of the families Adoxaceae (Viburnum opulus), Onocleaceae (Matteucia struthiopteris), Athyriaceae (Athyrium filix-femina), Dennstaedtiaceae (Pteridium aquilinum), Cyperaceae (Scirpus sylvaticum), Rubiaceae (Galium boreale), Geraniaceae (Geranium sylvaticum) and Salicaceae (Salix caprea). Orchidaceae (Dactylorhiza maculata) was rarely seen.
Group 2. Important
This group includes sphagnum bogs, raised bogs and swamp-subor forests. They are characterised by families with species that are specific to the bogs of the northern taiga, as follows: Salicaceae (Salex Lapponum), Ericaceae (Oxycoccus palustris), Droseraceae (Drosera potundifolia, D. anglica), Cyperaceae (Rhyncospora alba, Eriophorum angustifolium, E. gracile, Carex vaginata, C. loliacea, C. buxbaumii, C. rostrata, C. magellanica), Scrophulariaceae (Pedicularis palustris, P. sceptrum-carolinum), Orchidaceae (Spiranthes sinensis) and Menyanthaceae (Menyanthes trifoliata). Some families grew on mounds. The representatives of these families, which usually grow in coniferous taiga, are Caprifoliaceae (Linnaea borealis), Orchidaceae (Goodyera repens) and Ericaceae (Vaccinium vitis-idaea, Pyrola rotundifolia, P. minor).
Group 3. Intermediate importance
Moss-grown and moss-grass-grown pine forests on the shoulders and tails of mountains are less favourable compared with the sphagnum bogs. The plant species, characterising these pine forests, belong primarily to the families Caprifoliaceae (Linnaea borealis), Orchidaceae (Goodyera repens, Neottianthe cucullata), Ericaceae (Moneses uniflora, Chimaphila umbellata, Orthilia secunda, Pyrola chlorantha, P. rotundifolia, P. minor) and Cystopteridaceae (Gymnocarpium dryopteris, G. robertianum, G. tenuipes).
Group 4. Less important
This group includes boil places, lakeshores and crevices of granite chunks in equal proportion. The following rare Orchidaceae were located near springs, with constant running and humifying water: Cypripedium calceolus, Cyprepedium macranthon, Dactylorhiza fuchsia and Dactylorhiza maculata. Corallorhiza trifida grew in the moss cover along the banks of streams that flow from springs. The following Pyrola species were observed: Pyrola rotundifolia and Pyrola minor. In addition, the fern Gymnocarpium dryopteris was found.
Group 5. Lacustrine ecotopes
Ecotopes of many rare boreal relicts, such as Lycopodium clavatum and Diphasiastrum complanatum, are located along the edges of lakes. On the edge of lakes in the pine forest, there are many individuals of the fern Pteridium aquilinum. A rare species, Dryopteris carthusiana, also grew here. On the lakeshores of Svetloe and Zerkalnoe in the Karkaralinskie mountains, the species Trientalis europaea, which is exceptionally rare for Kazakhstan, has been preserved. It grows in groups in the pine-birch forest on peaty soils, on pap at the base of birch trunks. Equisetum hyemale forms the entire tangle at the margin of Lake Borovoe in the mouth of the Imanayskiy well spring. Vaccinium vitis-idaea is located mainly close to lakes.
Group 6. Rocky ecotopes
Rocky inselbergs at the edges and on the sides of mountains and mountain uplifts are home to Rubus idaeus and the ferns Asplenium septentrionale, Polypodium vulgare, Woodsia ilvensis and Cystopteris fragilis which grow in crevices filled with fine grained soils. Pentaphylloides fruticosa and Chamerion angustifolium grow on the rocky edge of the Sinyukha mountain (southern side) and Saxifraga sibirica grows in shady moist crevices on northern side.
Group 7. Sticky alder forests
Black alder communities (Alnus glutinosa) are found in stream valleys and often in deep shady canyons that shelter many rare boreal relicts. Growth of boreal species in alder stands prefer abundant running humifying water, a wealth of soil, well-developed leaf-litter and a shadowing leaf canopy. Circaea alpina, Circaea lutetiana, Delphinium elatum, Athyrium filix-femina, Matteucia struthiopteris and others are found in this habitat type.
Group 8. Seasonal ecotopes
Two of the least important ecotopes for relict species are valleys of temporary streams and niches at the bottom of rocky edges of mountains in equal proportion. From the mountainsides in some places, streams flow down that are fully flowing after rains but dry up during dry summer periods. The boreal flora of the temporary stream valleys is less prevalent, including only Ribes nigrum, Salix caprea, Solidago virgaurea, Rubus saxatilis, Galium boreale and some others.
Group 9. Rocky shelters
On the northern sides of higher mountains and on mountain uplifts at the bottom of steep-sided rocky edges, snow usually accumulates in the winter and usually does not melt until the beginning or middle of June. There are shady places that offer shelter from the wind amongst large rocky inselbergs formed by a heavy layer of fine-grained soil. In these places, moisture is abundant as a result of melting snow and rain flowing down from the rocky edges as well as from the occurrence of condensation in crevices. Such shady niches serve as ecotopes for several rare relict plants. For example, Juniperus communis in the form of bunches and small trees (up to 3m), grow in the niches at the bottom of Sinyukha mountain in the Karkaralinskie mountains; however, in more open spaces, it takes the form of an elvin wood. Rubus idaeus, Ribes nigrum, Athyrium filix-femina and Dryopteris filix-mas were also observed.
Group 10. Lacustrine floating bogs
The least favourable ecotope for the conservation of rare species are the floating bogs in limnetic zones. The floating bogs on the lakeshores serve as distinctive ecotopes for the fern Thelypteris palustris which forms sporadic tangles. Equisetum palustre and Equisetum fluviatile were also observed.
The common feature of all these ecotopes is the presence of multiple rare and relict species that contribute to the high biodiversity and unique nature of the region (Fig.
The re-studies of vegetation of the evaluated areas have shown a gradual increase in species numbers and diversity, suggesting a favourable effect in the protection regime introduced in the national park and the decrease in grazing pressure (
Existing protected territories and those that are recommended for protection in Karkaraly National Park.
Thus, the annual floristic monitoring and biogeographical assessments of the ecotope’s coverage of rare plant species allowed the identification of priority areas for Strictly Protected Natural Areas. These areas are primarily the stream banks, especially in deep shady crevices, sphagnum bogs, raised bogs and swamp-subor forests, as well as moss-grown and moss-grass-grown pine forests on the shoulders and tails of high mountains. Thus, for Karkaraly National Park, zoning is recommended based on the ecotopes with the highest diversity of rare and relict plant species. In the shaded area on the map, protective measures, including prohibitions on visiting, should be imposed and regular monitoring should be undertaken. To improve the efficiency of the network of protected areas for the preservation of the unique plant biodiversity of the Karkaralinskie mountains, expansion of geobotanical research in this region must continue (Gerstner 2014).
The Kaliningrad region is unique in Russia; it is Russia’s western enclave, both geopolitically and naturally. The region belongs to an inhabited urbanised territory that surpasses the Baltic States, Belarus and the North-West Federal region of Russia in population density, degree of urbanisation, intensity of agriculture and density of the traffic network. The high degree of agricultural development and deep transformation of natural complexes, wide development of hydro-engineering, transport and forest-based and agro-industrial systems greatly affect attempts to preserve landscapes and ecosystems in a near natural state to prevent the numbers and ranges of rare and endangered species of plants and animals from decreasing. Despite the existing network of special protected natural areas in the Kaliningrad region, the area’s status and activities do not fully comply with modern conservational concepts and international obligations which Russia has regarding conservation of biological and landscape diversity. The traditional specificity of this area requires special measures for the conservation and recovery of the most important natural complexes that are of common European importance. This specificity also calls particular attention to compromises between conservational and economic interests. One approach may be the development of conservation strategies for rare species based on a detailed examination of the regional pattern of biodiversity.
The Kaliningrad region is located on the western outskirt of the East European plain at the southeast coast of the Baltic Sea between 55°19'N and 54°19'N and 19°38'E and 22°52'E (Fig.
Based on natural and climatic conditions, the Kaliningrad region belongs to the south-taiga forest zone. The territory is characterised by abundant humifying, medium heat provision and a relatively steady temperature regime with a mild winter, cool summer and a long autumn period. The landscape of the Kaliningrad region has transitionary features between eastern and western Europe that are observed in the vegetation and soil layers of the territory. Zonal types of plants in the region’s territory are represented by mixed broad-leafed fir forests (Picea abies, Quercus robur, Carpinus betulus, Fagus sylvatica) and nemoral forests with a grass layer that includes boreal floristic elements. Their differential characteristic is the high amount of broad-leafed species (up to 20%) and sticky alder (up to 15%), respectively. The region’s territory is bordered with beech and fir forests. However, since the 17th century, the natural forest range has been cut down in the main part of the territory for grazing. Currently, the natural ecosystems of the Kaliningrad region are represented by forests, wetlands, meadows and dune complexes as well as the Baltic Sea water complexes. The biodiversity of the Kaliningrad region consists of 1,436 species of tall plants of which 26% are endangered and 338 terrestrial vertebrate species (mammals and birds), about half of which are rare and threatened (
This study involved the authors’ own field materials on rare and protected species of plants and animals gathered in 2000–2013 in the Kaliningrad region, the contemporary records of I. Kant Kaliningrad University and national and regional Red Book materials (
The cartographic modelling of species was performed via grid mapping (a method of square grids). This method supported spatial statistical analysis of species distribution with a large amount of chronological data. This method was used for the first time in Great Britain (
Although European projects used a single-square (50×50 km) grid, no single grid was used for the territory of Russia. Thus, while performing regional investigations, researchers should create square grid systems of the actual region. For the Kaliningrad region, a subdominant double grid of squares (large and small) has been prepared using GIS-technologies (Sokolov 1999,
The square grid of the Kaliningrad region with an example of numeration of the “small square”
The method of grid mapping was used for the Kaliningrad region, in addition to compiling traditional floristic and faunistic maps and this made it possible to perform a biogeographical assessment to detect the protected biota (flora and fauna), a benchmark assessment of historical floristic monitoring data and a current valuation of modern territorial conservation measures.
Separate distribution maps of protected plant and animal species, certain groups and families are the initial stages and transition elements of biodiversity mapping (
As can be seen from Figures
The protected plant and animal species spread in the territory of Kaliningrad region. 1 plants 2 animals 3 plants and animals
Species saturation (number of species in a square) of the protected plant and animal species in the territory of Kaliningrad region. 1 1-3 species per square; 2 4-6 species per square; 3 7-9 species per square.
Dynamic trends in the distribution and/or disappearance of protected species using retrospective and modern mapping are shown in terms of the protected plants from the Red Book of the Russian Federation. The benchmark study of available archive materials from a historical perspective (until 1945) and with modern data allow the following conclusion to be drawn: The territories located east of Polesye and the south Gvardeyskiy districts showed fewer protected plant species in the last decade. The survey has also shown that, in the western and north-western regions, however, both the frequency of rare species and the amount of species in a single territory increased. This obviously testifies to the efficacy of protection measures in these regions. (Fig.
The protected plant species distribution in the territory of Kaliningrad region in the middle of XX century (bottom figure) and early XXI century (top figure).
Figure
The plant species distribution for which there is a threat of extinction in the range. A species that are threatened with extinction in the range (under natural protection, category I) B species that are under international protection. The numbers designate the species: 1 Botrychium simplex E. Hitchc. 2 Orchis mascula L. 3 Taxus baccata L., 4 Gladiolus palustris Gaudin 5 Cypripedium calceolus L. (IUCN Red Book) 6 Epipogium aphyllum Sw. (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) 7 Orchis morio L. (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora).
Dimensional cartographical analysis of the protected biodiversity elements undertaken using GIS-technologies, databases and computer design reflects the historical and modern distribution of the protected flora and fauna species and shows how close they are to extinction in the range and region. This analysis also identifies the areas of high species richness. The key areas in the Kaliningrad region include the Curonian and Baltic Spits, the Sambiyskaya Upland and the coastline of the Sambiyskiy peninsula, Neman river delta, the Vishtynetskaya and Varmiyskaya Uplands, the Pregolskaya and Polessye Lowlands and Sheshupskaya Plain. Currently, less than 15% of the prioritised biodiversity conservation areas including the national park “Curonian Spit” (which is on the List of World Cultural and Natural Heritage UNESCO) are under territorial protection. For the rest, including the unique dune complexes, large forest ranges, watersides and upland moors, state protection measures do not apply. For valuable natural complexes, the Kaliningrad region has developed a range of conservation projects and offers, amongst which the most valuable align with the biogeographical assessment results. These projects and offers can be regarded as previously developed schemes in the specially protected areas (
Wildlife, biological and landscape diversity conservation is currently considered to be a leading direction of sustainable development. To realise this conservation, strategic documents (concepts) must be developed that define the formation of the regional (national) network of specially protected natural areas, which include, along with all typical, rare and unique landscapes, the ecosystems, separate communities and ecotopes of rare and endangered species from the Red Books.
Biogeographical approaches may serve as a basis for the development of concepts and implementation plans for regional biodiversity conservation. These approaches require researchers to undertake regular monitoring and quantitative accounting of biota, to analyse and assess the conservation value and biogeographical specificity of the territories, to define the priority and efficiency of the species and ecosystems conservation and to plan conservation undertakings.
The assessment of the number of Anser erythropus and Haliaetus albicilla and their breeding population size in the Subarctic under national and international protection shows the importance of the Putorana Plateau as a key region for reproduction of these species in the Asian part of Russia. This increases the plateau’s conservation importance. Relict pine forest outliers in the steppe zone of Central Kazakhstan conserve many rare and endangered plants in favourable ecotopes. For these forests, we recommend a strict reserve status of conservation within the boundaries of Karkaraly National Park. In highly urbanised regions (e.g. in the Kaliningrad region), where almost all the territories preserved in a natural state should be protected, an efficient and effective conservation principle should be realised. In accordance with that principle, the proposed conservation approach, differentiated by its level and priority, will help to conserve the most valuable natural complexes and objects that merit being included into a common European ecological network.
The three examples shown in this research belong to different geographical districts of the Palearctic region, with various degrees of exploration, anthropogenic transformation of the landscapes and development of protected natural area systems. The conducted research also differs by scale, object and method. However, they demonstrate new opportunities, generalisation, visualisation and cross-spectrum analysis of biologic and geographical information of conservation biogeography for practical conservation aims.
The writing of this paper was supported by Russian Science Foundation project No. 14-50-00029.