Historical avenues of research in Russian forest typology: ecological, phytocoenotic, genetic, and dynamic classifications

Abstract

The Russian Federation is one of many countries that have signed the Montreal Protocol and Pan-European Forest Process. These initiatives are aimed at harmonizing national forest inventory systems with criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. In Russia, the classification of forest type is at the heart of national forest inventory systems. For various historical reasons, Russian scientific advancements in the field of forest typology remain little known in the rest of the world. This paper is aimed at addressing this deficiency. Here, we provide an overview of the main trends in the field of forest typology studies in the previous political states of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and the Russian Federation from the end of the nineteenth century to the beginning of the twenty-first century. We detail the principles that formed the basis of the most significant forest type classifications. We also perform similarity and differences analyses comparing approaches used by members of different scientific schools in the field of forest typology. The historical relationship between ecological, phytocoenotic, genetic, and dynamic forest type classifications are discussed as well as the reasons for the prevalence of certain forest type classifications in different regions of Russia.

The Effectiveness of Sludge Pits Recultivation by Planting Willon Cuttings in the Northern Taiga Subzone

“…Дополнительно учитывалась приживаемость (сохранность) высаженных черенков ивы и отмечалось развитие живого напочвенного покрова. Поскольку рекультивируе-мые шламовые амбары являются по своей сути новыми землями, механический состав почвогрунта, формирование подроста, подлеска и живого напочвенного покрова позволяет проследить формирование типа леса [17]. Последнее особенно важно, если учесть, что объекты нефтегазодобычи оказывают влияние на все компоненты прилегающих насаждений, включая репродуктивную систему деревьев [18] и даже сообщества дереворазрушающих грибов [19].…”

Site types revisited: Comparison of traditional Russian and Finnish classification systems for European boreal forests

“…The understorey vegetation is assumed to indicate the biological value of the site regardless of the development stage or management history of the stand: the site type definitions account for the vegetation changes caused by succession and/or harvesting by describing not only characteristic climax communities but also characteristic seral stages. In Sukachev's classification, forest types are determined based on several factors in addition to the understorey: the composition and structure of the tree stand, soil moisture, and site productivity (Fomin et al, 2017).…”

“…Sukachev developed his forest classification system around the same time as Cajander. It is used especially in the European part of Russia (Fomin et al, 2017). Both Cajander's and Sukachev's classification systems are vegetation‐based: they build on the premise that the occurrence of plant species and the composition of forest understorey vegetation reflect environmental factors.…”

“…The understorey vegetation is assumed to indicate the biological value of the site regardless of the development stage or management history of the stand: the site type definitions account for the vegetation changes caused by succession and/or harvesting by describing not only characteristic climax communities but also characteristic seral stages. In Sukachev's classification, forest types are determined based on several factors in addition to the understorey: the composition and structure of the tree stand, soil moisture, and site productivity (Fomin et al, 2017). It thus formally takes into account also temporally variable, secondary environmental factors (e.g., tree species, microclimate), whereas Cajander's classification assumes that comparatively permanent, primary environmental factors (e.g., basic properties of the soil, macroclimate) are manifested in the vegetation even as secondary factors change over time.…”

“…As ecosystems undergo rapid, anthropogenic changes, it is necessary to re‐evaluate the functionality of classifications used to guide their management. Both Cajander and Sukachev considered that mature forests assigned into the same type ought to be comparatively uniform in species composition, environmental responses, and site quality, and that forests of the same type ought to require similar management under the same economic objectives and constraints (Fomin et al, 2017). Since the inception of these classifications, forest management objectives have diversified beyond economic ones to include multiple ecosystem services, resilience, and biodiversity (Barbati et al, 2014; Moen et al, 2014; Seidl et al, 2016).…”