The Area and Fragmentation of the Natural Framework in the Krasny Liman, Slavyansk, and Konstantinovka districts of the Donetsk People's Republic
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52575/2712-7443-2025-49-1-169-183Keywords:
Donetsk People's Republic, ecological framework, natural and quasi-natural territories, fragmentation indicators, polarized landscapeAbstract
The comparative analysis of the structure of the natural framework in three administrative districts of the DPR selected in the north – south direction showed a clear tendency toward a reduction in natural and quasi-natural sites’ area – from the far periphery toward the region’s center. In the course of the study, we assessed the presence of sites representing the main types of regional vegetation cover in these districts: steppes, forests, forest-steppes, and sites with marsh-meadow vegetation, as well as their areas and indicators of their fragmentation. To some extent, this trend proves the concept of a “polarized landscape”. The indicators of natural framework fragmentation also reflect the spatial aspect of their location within the districts: the presence of large forests in the north and a higher proportion of the steppe component in the south. In terms of the ecological network of the studied sites, we can state that there are large and very large natural cores represented mainly by forests in the Krasny Liman and Slavyansk districts. There are practically no large natural cores in the Konstantinovka district, with the exception of a few steppes.
Acknowledgements: the work was carried out on the topic of the state assignment of the Donetsk Botanical Garden Federal State Budgetary Institution "Study of the current state of vegetation cover in the Donetsk upland and in the Northern Azov region" (Registration number 123101300195-2).
Downloads
References
Список источников
Колбовский Е.Ю. 2022. Пространственный анализ в геоэкологии. М., МГУ, 820 с.
Самсонов Т.Е. 2019. Основы геоинформатики. М., Географический факультет МГУ, 543 с.
Explore the Worlds Protected Areas. Electronic resource. URL: http://protectedplanet.net (date of the application: 20.09.2021).
EcoServ-GIS v.3.3: A toolkit for mapping ecosystem services. 2018. A review of the tool's capabilities and possible applications. Scottish Natural Heritage.
QGIS Development Team. 2019. Electronic resource. URL: https://qgis.org. (date of the application: 20.09.2021).
Список литературы
Блакберн А.А. 2022. Оценка экологического каркаса Донецкого региона на основе первичной инвентаризации его природных и квазиприродных территорий. Региональные геосистемы, 46(2): 267–283. https://doi.org/10.52575/2712-7443-2022-46-2-267-283.
Брагина Т.М. 2024. Развитие степной экологической сети Казахстана (2013–2023). В кн.: Степи Северной Евразии. Материалы X международного симпозиума, Оренбург, 27 мая – 02 июня 2024. Оренбург, Институт степи УрО РАН Оренбургского федерального исследовательского центра УрО РАН: 205–209. https://doi.org/10.24412/cl-37200-2024-205-209.
Верхотуров А.А. 2020. Анализ изменений состояния экосистем на острове Атласова (Курильские острова). Вестник СГУГиТ, 25(3): 139–150. https://doi.org/10.33764/2411-1759-2020-25-3-139-150.
Гусев А.П., Шпилевская Н.С., Филончик Н.Н. 2021. Нормализованный дифференцированный вегетационный индекс охраняемых ландшафтов юга Беларуси. Вестник Воронежского Государственного Университета. Серия: География. Геоэкология, 2: 13–19. https://doi.org/10.17308/geo.2021.2/3442.
Давидович Ю.С., Яцухно В.М. 2024. Исследование и оценка фрагментации ландшафтов Беларуси с использованием методов дистанционного зондирования. В кн.: Актуальные проблемы геоэкологии и ландшафтоведения. Материалы I Белорусского географического конгресса: к 90-летию факультета географии и геоинформатики Белорусского государственного университета и 70-летию Белорусского географического общества, Минск, 8–13 апреля 2024. Минск, БГУ: 81–87.
Захаров К.В. 2015. Оценка степени фрагментации местообитаний диких животных искусственными рубежами на примере Московского региона. Бюллетень Московского общества испытателей природы. Отдел биологический, 120 (2): 3–10.
Зенгина Т.Ю., Пакина А.А., Муканова Н.Н. 2022. Геоинформационный анализ изменения показателей фрагментированности городских лесов Алматы. ИнтерКарто. ИнтерГИС, 28(1): 204–218. https://doi.org/10.35595/2414-9179-2022-1-28-204-218.
Истомин С.А., Холоденко А.В. 2021. Изменение территориальной организации природного парка «Волго-Ахтубинская пойма» с ростом антропогенной нагрузки в период с начала 2000-х годов до 2020 года. Природные системы и ресурсы, 11(3) 26–33. https://doi.org/10.15688/nsr.jvolsu.2021.3.4.
Мирзеханова З.Г., Климина Е.М. 2023. Сохранение ландшафтного разнообразия для региональной экологической политики: значимость и проблемы применения. Вестник Воронежского государственного университета. Серия: География. Геоэкология, 1: 113–121. https:// doi.org/10.17308/geo/1609-0683/2023/1/113-121.
Родоман Б.Б. 2021. «Поляризованный ландшафт»: полвека спустя. Известия Российской Академии Наук. Серия Географическая, 85(3): 467–480. https:// doi.org/10.31857/S2587556621030122.
Савин И.Ю., Березуцкая Э.Р. 2024. Концепция наземного покрова (Land Cover) как основа дистанционного мониторинга земель. Региональные геосистемы, 48(1): 77–90. https:// doi.org/10.52575/2712-7443-2024-48-1-77-90.
Стишов М.С., Дадли Н. 2018. Охраняемые природные территории Российской Федерации и их категории. Москва, Всемирный фонд дикой природы (WWF), 248 с.
Терехин Э.А. 2021. Особенности многолетней динамики вегетационного индекса залежных земель на территории Центрального Черноземья. Региональные геосистемы, 45(4): 505–515. https:// doi.org/10.52575/2712-7443-2021-45-4-505-515.
Brown Gr. Fagerholm N. 2015. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS Mapping of Ecosystem Services: A Review and Evaluation. Ecosystem Services, 13: 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007
Ergüner Y., Kumar J., Hoffman F.M., Dalfes H.N., Hargrove W.W. 2019. Mapping Ecoregions Under Climate Change: a Case Study from the Biological “Crossroads” of Three Continents. Turkey. Landscape Ecology, 34: 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0743-8
Esswein H., Schwarz von Raumer H.-G. 2006. Effektive Maschenweite und Unzerschnittene Verkehrsarme Räume über 100 km2 als Umweltindikatoren für die BRD – GIS-Einsatz und vergleichende Analyse. In: Angewandte Geoinformatik: Beiträge zum. Heidelberg, AGIT-Symposium Salzburg, 18: 135–144.
Forman R.T. 2016. Urban Ecology Principles: Are Urban Ecology and Natural Area Ecology Really Different? Landscape Ecology, 31: 1653–1662.
Forman R.T.T., Moore P.N. 1992. Theoretical Foundations for Understanding Boundaries in Landscape Mosaics. Hansen A., di Castri F., eds. Landscape boundaries. New York, Springer, 236–258.
Gibson J.J. 2015. The Ecological approach to Visual Perception. New York, NY. Psychology Press. Taylor & Francis: 347 p.
Grekousis G. 2020. Spatial Analysis Methods and Practice: Describe – Explore – Explain Through GIS. New York, NY'Cambridge University Press, 518 p.
Hansen M.C., Potapov P.V., Pickens A., Tyukavina A., Hernandez Sern A., Zalles V., Turubanova S., Kommareddy I., Stehman S.V., Song X-P. 2022. Global Land Use Extent and Dispersion within Natural Land Cover Using Landsat data. Environmental Research Letters, 17(3): 034050. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac46ec
Jabrayilov E.A. 2021. Ecological Network Model in Shahdagh National Park. Vestnik Voronezskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seria: Geografia. Geoekologia, 2: 61–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17308/geo.2021.2/3449.
Jaeger J. 2000. Landscape Division, Splitting Index, and Effective Mesh Size: New Measures of Landscape Fragmentation. Landscape Ecology, 15: 115–130.
Jaeger et al., 2011; Jaeger J., Soukup T., Madriñán L.F. 2011. Landscape fragmentation in Europe. Joint EEA-FOEN report. EEA Report. 2. Veröffentlicht von der Europäischen Umweltagentur (EEA) und dem Schweizerischen Bundesamt für Umwelt (FOEN). Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union: 87 p.
Jiang B. 2015. Geospatial Analysis Requires a Different way of Thinking: the Problem of Spatial Heterogeneity. GeoJournal, 80(1): 1–13.
Lowell K.E. 1990. Differences Between Ecological Land Type Maps Produced Using GIS or Manual Cartographic Methods. Photogrammetric. Engineering and Remote Sensing, 56: 169–173.
Nijhuis S., van Lammeren R.J. A., van der Hoeven F. 2011. Exploring the Visual Landscape: Advances in Physiognomic Landscape Research in the Netherlands. Research in urbanism series, 2. https://doi.org/10.7480/rius.2.
Noss R.F., Cooperrider A., Schlickeise R. 2013. Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting And Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, 443 p.
Turner M.G., Gardner R.H. 1991. Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. New York, Springer, 536 p.
Velázquez J., Gutiérrez J., Hernando A., García-Abril A. 2017. Evaluating Landscape Connectivity in Fragmented Habitats: Cantabrian Capercaillie (Tetrao Urogallus Cantabricus) in Northern Spain. Forest Ecology and Management, 389: 59–67.
Walz U. 2011. Landscape Structure, Landscape Metrics and Biodiversity. Living Reviews in Landscape Research, 5(3): 1–35.
Waters N. 2018. Tobler's First Law of Geography. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg1011.
References
Blackburn A.A. 2022. The Assessment of Ecological Framework of the Donetsk Region Based on Primary Inventory of Its Natural and Quasi-Natural Territories. Regional Geosystems,
(2): 267–283 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.52575/2712-7443-2022-46-2-267-283.
Bragina T.M. 2024. Development of the Steppe Ecological Network of Kazakhstan (2013–2023). In: Steppes of Northern Eurasia. Proceedings of the X International Symposium, Orenburg, 27 May – 02 June 2024. Orenburg, Pabl. Institut stepi UrO RAN Orenburgskogo federalnogo issledovatelskogo tsentra UrO RAN: 205–209 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.24412/cl-37200-2024-205-209.
Verkhoturov A.A. 2020. Analysis of Changes in the State of Ecosystems on Atlasova Island (Kuril Islands). Bulletin of the SSUGT, 25(3): 139–150 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.33764/2411-1759-2020-25-3-139-150.
Gusev A.P., Shpilevskaya N.S., Filonchik N.N. 2021. Normalized Difference Vegetation Index in Specially Protected Natural Areas of Southern Belarus. Bulletin of the VSU. Series: Geography. Geoecology, 2: 13–19 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.17308/geo.2021.2/3442.
Davidovich Y.S., Yatsukhno V.M. 2024. Research and Assessment of Fragmentation of Landscapes of Belarus Using Remote Sensing Methods. In: Current Issues of Geoecology and Landscape Science. Proceedings of the First Belarusian Geographical Congress: dedicated to the 90th anniversary of the Faculty of Geography and Geoinformatics of the Belarusian State University and the 70th anniversary of the Belarusian Geographical Society, Minsk, 8–13 April 2024. Minsk, Pabl. BSU: 81–87 (in Russian).
Zaharov K.V. 2015. Landscape Fragmentation in the Moscow Region. Bulletin of Moscow Society of Naturalists. Biological Series, 120(2): 3–10 (in Russian).
Zengina T.Y., Pakina A.A., Mukanova N.N. 2022. Geoinformation Analysis of Changes in Indicators of Almaty City’s Forests Fragmentation. InterCarto. InterGIS, 28(1): 204–218 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.35595/2414-9179-2022-1-28-204-218.
Istomin S.A., Kholodenko A.V. 2021. Changes in the Territorial Organization of the “Volga-Akhtuba Floodplain” Natural Park with an Increase in Anthropogenic Load in the Period from the Beginning of the 2000s to 2020. Natural systems and resources, 11(3): 26–33 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.15688/nsr.jvolsu.2021.3.4.
Mirzekhanova Z.G., Klimina E.M. 2023. Conservation of Landscape Diversity for Regional Environmental Policy: the Importance and Application Problems. Bulletin of Voronezh State University. Series: Geography. Geoecology, 1: 113–121 (in Russian). https:// doi.org/10.17308/geo/1609-0683/2023/1/113-121.
Rodoman B.B. 2021. "Polarized Landscape": half a century later. Regional Research of Russia, 11 (3): 315–326 (in Russian). https:// doi.org/10.1134/S2079970521030102.
Savin I.Yu., Berezutskaya E.R. 2024. The Concept of Land Cover as a Basis for Remote Sensing Monitoring of Land. Regional Geosystems, 48(1): 77–90 (in Russian). https:// doi.org/10.52575/2712-7443-2024-48-1-77-90.
Stishov M.S., Dudley N. 2018. Okhranyayemyye prirodnyye territorii Rossiyskoy Federatsii i ikh kategorii [Protected Natural Territories of the Russian Federation and Their Categories]. Moscow, Pabl. World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 248 p.
Terekhin E.A. 2021. Long-Term Dynamics of the Vegetation Index for Abandoned Farmlands in the Central Chernozem Region of Russia. Regional Geosystems, 45(4): 505–515 (in Russian). https:// doi.org/10.52575/2712-7443-2021-45-4-505-515.
Brown Gr. Fagerholm N. 2015. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS Mapping of Ecosystem Services: A Review and Evaluation. Ecosystem Services, 13: 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007
Ergüner Y., Kumar J., Hoffman F.M., Dalfes H.N., Hargrove W.W. 2019. Mapping Ecoregions Under Climate Change: a Case Study from the Biological “Crossroads” of Three Continents. Turkey. Landscape Ecology, 34: 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0743-8
Esswein H., Schwarz von Raumer H.-G. 2006. Effektive Maschenweite und Unzerschnittene Verkehrsarme Räume über 100 km2 als Umweltindikatoren für die BRD – GIS-Einsatz und vergleichende Analyse. In: Angewandte Geoinformatik: Beiträge zum. Heidelberg, AGIT-Symposium Salzburg, 18: 135–144.
Forman R.T. 2016. Urban Ecology Principles: Are Urban Ecology and Natural Area Ecology Really Different? Landscape Ecology, 31: 1653–1662.
Forman R.T.T., Moore P.N. 1992. Theoretical Foundations for Understanding Boundaries in Landscape Mosaics. Hansen A., di Castri F., eds. Landscape boundaries. New York, Springer, 236–258.
Gibson J.J. 2015. The Ecological approach to Visual Perception. New York, NY. Psychology Press. Taylor & Francis: 347 p.
Grekousis G. 2020. Spatial Analysis Methods and Practice: Describe – Explore – Explain Through GIS. New York, NY'Cambridge University Press, 518 p.
Hansen M.C., Potapov P.V., Pickens A., Tyukavina A., Hernandez Sern A., Zalles V., Turubanova S., Kommareddy I., Stehman S.V., Song X-P. 2022. Global Land Use Extent and Dispersion within Natural Land Cover Using Landsat data. Environmental Research Letters, 17(3): 034050. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac46ec
Jabrayilov E.A. 2021. Ecological Network Model in Shahdagh National Park. Vestnik Voronezskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seria: Geografia. Geoekologia, 2: 61–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17308/geo.2021.2/3449.
Jaeger J. 2000. Landscape Division, Splitting Index, and Effective Mesh Size: New Measures of Landscape Fragmentation. Landscape Ecology, 15: 115–130.
Jaeger et al., 2011; Jaeger J., Soukup T., Madriñán L.F. 2011. Landscape fragmentation in Europe. Joint EEA-FOEN report. EEA Report. 2. Veröffentlicht von der Europäischen Umweltagentur (EEA) und dem Schweizerischen Bundesamt für Umwelt (FOEN). Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union: 87 p.
Jiang B. 2015. Geospatial Analysis Requires a Different way of Thinking: the Problem of Spatial Heterogeneity. GeoJournal, 80(1): 1–13.
Lowell K.E. 1990. Differences Between Ecological Land Type Maps Produced Using GIS or Manual Cartographic Methods. Photogrammetric. Engineering and Remote Sensing, 56: 169–173.
Nijhuis S., van Lammeren R.J. A., van der Hoeven F. 2011. Exploring the Visual Landscape: Advances in Physiognomic Landscape Research in the Netherlands. Research in urbanism series, 2. https://doi.org/10.7480/rius.2.
Noss R.F., Cooperrider A., Schlickeise R. 2013. Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting And Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, 443 p.
Turner M.G., Gardner R.H. 1991. Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. New York, Springer, 536 p.
Velázquez J., Gutiérrez J., Hernando A., García-Abril A. 2017. Evaluating Landscape Connectivity in Fragmented Habitats: Cantabrian Capercaillie (Tetrao Urogallus Cantabricus) in Northern Spain. Forest Ecology and Management, 389: 59–67.
Walz U. 2011. Landscape Structure, Landscape Metrics and Biodiversity. Living Reviews in Landscape Research, 5(3): 1–35.
Waters N. 2018. Tobler's First Law of Geography. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg1011.
Share
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2025 Regional Geosystems
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
