Assessment and Inventory of Forest Ecosystems Biodiversity: Case Study for Karelian Isthmus of Leningrad Region, Russia

Alexander S Alekseev

doi:10.4236/oje.2018.85019

Abstract

Regular grid of permanent sample plots (PSP) of ICP-Forests monitoring system was used for forest ecosystems biodiversity assessments and inventory. The supplementary features were added to the PSP structure to conduct biological diversity census: eight sample plots 1 × 1 m for geo-botanical description; two sample plots of 5 × 5 m each for description of the PSP’s undergrowth; one 25 × 25 m plot for coarse woody debris estimations; four soil inventory pits. The total number of PSP amounted to 248. Total data used are as following: 1) 1984 geo-botanical descriptions of vegetation belonging to ground cover layers made on 1 × 1 m sample plots; 2) 496 descriptions of undergrowth on 5 × 5 m sample plots; 3) 178 descriptions of woody debris on 25 × 25 m sample plots; 4) 496 descriptions of soil inventory pits. General statistical indicators characterizing forest land cover diversity were calculated. Statistic indicators of α-diversity for the Karelian Isthmus forest vegetation cover have the following values: 1) m (mean number of species per PSP) = 26 species; 2) σ (standard deviation) = 9.5 species; 3) v (variation coefficient) = 36.5%; 4) Р (deviation amplitude) = 60 – 7 = 53 species. β – diversity of forest ecosystems as well as γ – diversity also was studied on the base of information collected on the same regular grid of sample plots. It appears that sample plots distribution by species diversity gradation is well described by the standard curve of normal distribution for the entire Karelian Isthmus forest (determination coefficient of the curve being 95.2%) as well as for each type of forest. Hence, the criterion (standard) of biodiversity for forest ecosystems can be defined as the mean value of alpha diversity for each forest type group – m; and the standard deviation – σ, as a tool for assessing deviations from the standard. PSP locations are fixed using GPS technology, this allows biodiversity assessments at the same place in the next years for biodiversity trends estimations and consist the frame for systematic biodiversity inventory.

Highlights

Today the society is becoming increasingly aware of the fact that, due to protracted and careless exploitation of natural resources, it irretrievably loses natural complexes and many animal and plant species as these species cannot exist outside their natural ecosystems [1]
Regular grid of permanent sample plots (PSP) of ICP-Forests monitoring system was used for forest ecosystems biodiversity assessments and inventory
Statistic indicators of α-diversity for the Karelian Isthmus forest vegetation cover have the following values: 1) m = 26 species; 2) σ = 9.5 species; 3) v = 36.5%; 4) Р = 60 − 7 = 53 species. β – diversity of forest ecosystems as well as γ – diversity was studied on the base of information collected on the same regular grid of sample plots

Summary

Introduction

Today the society is becoming increasingly aware of the fact that, due to protracted and careless exploitation of natural resources, it irretrievably loses natural complexes and many animal and plant species as these species cannot exist outside their natural ecosystems [1]. Climax forests in Europe remain only in the northern part of Russia (in Karelia and Komi republics as well as in Murmansk and Arkhangelsk regions) These forests focus the attention of researchers from Western Europe, in particular those coming from countries with close climatic conditions as Finland or Sweden. The problem of conserving the biodiversity attracts so much attention, it seems necessary to formulate and ground clearly the concept of biodiversity How can it be defined, how can it be measured in order to support practical measures for its monitoring, protection and conservation? The most experienced method for biodiversity conservation is, by no means, the development of protected natural areas network Such networks exist in many countries, but protected areas have limitation in size or statuses and cannot account for the conservation of all unique habitats. Forest resources can be regenerated but still require rational and careful utilization [8]

Methods

Results

Conclusion