УДК 504.054(265.4)

ЭКОЛОГИЧЕСКИЙ КРИЗИС В ВОДОСБОРЕ ЗАЛИВА ПЕТРА ВЕЛИКОГО, ПРИМОРЬЕ

Урусов Виктор Михайлович1, Варченко Лариса Ивановна2
1Дальневосточный федеральный университет, Владивосток, доктор географических наук, профессор
2ФГБУН Тихоокеанский институт географии ДВО РАН, Владивосток, научный сотрудник, лаборатория биогеографии и экологии

Аннотация
В наиболее населённом юго-западном макрорайоне Северной Пацифики за 20 последних лет потеряно 98% биомассы деликатесной морской биоты и около 9/10 промысловых видов рыб. Современный экологический кризис у нас не первый и преодолевался прежде эпохами безлюдья. Если непосредственно перед включением в состав России субклимаксовые экосистемы в водосборе зал. Петра Великого (зПВ) занимали около 60% территории и не доминировали только в микрорайоне Краскино-Посьет, то теперь на них приходится от 1 до 12% суши, и уцелели они прежде всего в заповедниках. Антропогенная деградация усиливалась при снятии административного контроля как в средневековье, так и в 1918-1930-х гг. и с 1993 г. Ценная биота может быть восстановлена не только как источник сырья, но и как важный рекреационный ресурс.

ECOLOGICAL CRISIS IN THE RESERVOIR OF PETER THE GREAT BAY, PRIMORYE

Urusov Victor Mikhaylovich1, Varchenko Larisa Ivanovna2
1Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia, doctor of geographical Sciences, professor
2Pacific Geographical Institute FEB RAS, Vladivostok, Russia, researcher, Laboratory of biogeography and ecology

Abstract
In the most occupied south-west macroarea Northern Pasific for last 20 years 98 % of a biomass sea biote and about 9/10 trade kinds of fishes are lost. Modern ecological crisis at us not the first also was overcome before by epoch of a deficiency. If directly ahead of inclusion in structure of Russia subklimaces ecosistemes in a reservoir a hall Peter the Great Bay borrowed about 60 % of territory and did not dominate only over microdistrict Kraskino-Poset, now on them it is necessary from 1 up to 12 % of a land, and they have escaped first of all in reserves. Anthropogenous degradation amplified at removal of the administrative control both over the Middle Ages, and in 1918-1930 and with 1993. Valuable biothat can be restored not only as a source of raw material, but also as the important recreational resource.

Keywords: ecological crisis, ecosystem, reservoir


Рубрика: 11.00.00 ГЕОГРАФИЧЕСКИЕ НАУКИ

Библиографическая ссылка на статью:
Урусов В.М., Варченко Л.И. Ecological Crisis in the Reservoir of Peter the Great Bay, Primorye // Современные научные исследования и инновации. 2015. № 8 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://web.snauka.ru/issues/2015/08/56847 (дата обращения: 20.11.2016).

In the most occupied south-west macroarea Northern Pasific for last 20 years 98 % of a biomass sea biote and about 9/10 trade kinds of fishes are lost. Modern ecological crisis at us not the first also was overcome before by epoch of a deficiency. If directly ahead of inclusion in structure of  Russia subklimaces ecosistemes in a reservoir a hall Peter the Great Bay borrowed about 60 % of territory and did not dominate only over microdistrict Kraskino-Poset, now on them it is necessary from 1 up to 12 % of a land, and they have escaped first of all in reserves. Anthropogenous degradation amplified at removal of the administrative control both over the Middle Ages, and in 1918-1930 and with 1993. Valuable biothat can be restored not only as a source of raw material, but also as the important recreational resource.

Peter the Great bay (PGB) is a zone of refraction of various economic interests which development passes spontaneously, not according to plan, without taking into account specificity of the interfaced development ecosistemes territories and coastal water areas. Now wildlife management in a coastal zone PGB has aggravated ecological conditions and has caused degradation of unique landscapes. The reason of it is acceptance not enough the thought over economic decisions based on poor-quality forecasts. Improvement of quality средне-and long-term forecasts and to a choice of optimum schemes of wildlife management can be promotedby retrospective estimations of historical stages of development of area.

For a substantiation of any forecast presence not less than three starting points is necessary.

Not exception and dynamics of natural territorial complexes (PTK).  Hence, the forecast of development of coast PGB should include not less than three various the differentiated stages of  becoming and transformation coastal geo- and ecosistemes. Allocation of these stages should be based on results of the retrospective analysis with use paleogeologic, paleogeographyc and paleoclimatic estimations of development PTK, and also on knowledge of history-economic characteristics of economic development of territories and water areas.

The purpose of our research is not display of touching interaction of the person and the nature at early stages of economic development of a society (by the published спорово-pollen diagrams of areas of ancient settlements, in our macroarea of it and was not at least in a late neolith), and the analysis of the tendency and speed of change ecosistemes (fig. 1, 2).

Leaning on it it is possible to make the qualitative and quantitative forecast of prospects of restoration degraded geo- and ecosistemes.

Fig. 1. – Parking, settlements and areas of the ancient cultures which have affected becoming of vegetative formations in the south of the Far East

Symbols: 1 paleolithic parking, including in caves of calcareous files; 2  –  Neolith and

Latepaleolit parking; 3  –  Zaisan culture of 5-2 millenia up to b.c. and its basic area; 4  – Jenkovskiy culture of 9-5 centuries up to b.c. and its area; 5 – Croun culture – the first millenium up to b.c.  –  the beginning of the first millenium after b.c. development of agriculture, cattle breeding, hunting; 6 –Mohe sites of ancient settlement 4-8 centuries after b.c. 7 – the basic ranges; 8 –lateneoleolit and Ohotes parking of Sakhalin  (approximately 2500-1500 after b.c.); 9 – Aines monuments of the late Middle Ages  –  New time of Sakhalin; 10  –  multilayered Finnish settlements of Kuriles; 11 – zones of the most ancient anthropogenous destruction of vegetation

The idea of differentiation of historical process of development and influence is put in a basis of an offered periodization on ecosistemes the south of the Far East on four basic stages: 1) becoming unique nature-resource potential (PRP) with selective settling the certain ecological niches, including accumulative coast and large river valleys of the south and the east of Primorski Krai  – mezolith, a neolith, early iron; 2) during an epoch of the prestate formations; 3) during medieval state formations; 4) the Russian stage of modern development (stages of scientific development 1911-1918, 1949-1991; upstage transition to the market). Correlation of historical data with available  data about stability of coastal geosystems and threshold changes in PTK, occuring as a result of economic or other activity of the person, has allowed to range territories and coastal water areas on ecology-economic parameters.

As a result of the lead ranging four historical macrostages in development of coasts PGВ which include important substeps are characterized.

1. A stage of formation PRP (these are epoch of a paleolith and a transition period by a neolith; a neolith and paleolithiron; the prestate formations). To ancient and early golocen at decomposition taiga of the forest communities which have gone through stadial, the ancient person rendered so big influence on vegetation  –  probably, through fires and selective use of separate kinds, – that as it is proved by us in a number of works [4], – has not let out from refuges

Abies holophylla, having left it for ever in the form of extensive or local isolates even in the warmest macroareas of a reservoir PGB.

By a late neolith mixed (coniferous-deciduous)  and polydominant manchurian woods near significant settlements were replaced by belobereznyki,  oak forests, even by hazel thrickets.

Fig. 2. -  Zones of ancient agriculture and antropogenization of the subklimaces vegetation in the Far East and in neighbouring countries. A.P. Dobrynin’s data, A.Tcherkasov are involved, etc.

Symbols: 1  –  border of Russia; 2  –  a zone of agriculture 7-8 thousand y.a. and finds of the earliest neolith ceramics 12-13 thousand y.a.; 3 – a zone of agriculture 4-5 thousand y.a. and finds of ancient agricultural instruments; 4– antropogenezic oak forests with a larch; 5 – secondary oak forests

The private residence costs an ecological phenomenon of island of Petrov on which in aneolith-early iron wildlife management have entered  in a landscape kalopanaksovy pine-oak-hornbeam forest liana woods with the bottom circle from a yew and a yew grove, man-made on genesis. What culture posesses this phenomenon which has been not repeated anywhere on continent?

Reconstruction of the basic tendencies in change of life-support systems of the population of Southern Primorski Krai on the average and the beginning late golocen, on Y.E.Vostretsov [3]:

1) The sea craft changed during an average holocene a little. The main object of collecting were oysters. While minor kinds and extraction of a  varied. It is connected with changes of resource base of the sea collecting, caused by reorganization of a climate and structure of sea landscapes.

Activization of sea collecting is connected with peaks of transgressions and the beginnings of regresses.

2) hunting for ground mammals was, apparently, concerning stable during an average golocen.

3) in penetration of agriculture into region was two stages which beginning is connected with change of an ecological situation nearby 4800 and 2300 after b. c. The cold snap of a climate and falling of a sea level led to degradation of sea life-support systems and depopulation of coastal areas. Agriculture gave stability to power receipts in communities.

2. A stage of the medieval states – increase before incidentally very significant influence of the person on PTK:  our reconstruction of a vegetative cover of a reservoir PGB, its wood landscapes on the end of an epoch of kingdom Bohai (698-926 after b. c. .) establishes prevalence in valleys and low mountains the grounds mastered by farmers at the population of pool р. Guerrilla nearby 600 thousand person, that twice more modern. After 926.  In the warmest natural boundaries woods and light forests of an oak gear Quercus  dentatа  are restored. To blossoming the state churgshen (926-1234), i.e. to the beginning of XIII century forest and the structure of woods in the south of Primorski Krai is surprisingly close modern (fig. 3).

Fig. 3. – Domination, including modern, at a level of large fragments or files of wood formations of typical coniferous breeds of the south of Primorski Krai and natural boundaries where on a regular basis there are individuals of a yew peaked.

Borders of Russia (1), a reservoir GPB (2), administrative areas (3), reserves (4), files of pines densiflora and – area Ussurijsky – pinus x funebris (5), microbiota decussata (6), taxus (7), picea komarovii (8), larix x lubarskii (9), pinus koraiensis (10), abies holophylla (11)

3. A stage of restoration биоты after the mongolian invasion (1234) in the late Middle Ages [the population is small and shown, possibly, to first tens thousand person; in the extreme south of Primorski Krai are restored   Quercus dentata, Rhododendron schlippenbahii + Betula schmidtii, Weigela praccos and individual individuals Pinus densiflora, and also pine forests; on peninsula Gamov – azalievye pine forests, up to 45 ° с.ш. and in Primorski Krai, in  the south of edge as a whole – black fir-broad-leaved forests. (fig. 4, 5)].

The manchurian stage of a tiger and deer, restoration of woods crednegorias and high

nizkogoria (above 450 m) after 1644 – people of tungus have moved to China. Up to emperor Dao Guanya (1826) resettlement in edge Sungarijsky « and especially cultivation there the grounds » is forbidden to Chineses. The law on an interdiction of resettlement of Chineses to Manchuria is confirmed in 1844 [1, 2].

 

Fig. 4. -  Pinus densiflora  of the penincula Gamov, area Khasansky of Primorski Krai.

A.E.Vrishch’s photo

Fig. 5. – Pinus koraiensis in chernopihtarnik Botanical garden-institute Russia Far Eastern Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences  the Russian Academy of Science. B.S.Petropavlovsky’s photo

 

4.1.  Russian destabilizing stage from 1860 to 1910. Coniferous woods in 1860  borrowed

about 60 % of territory of Primorski Krai, about 75 % of territory of the peninsula Muraviov-Amursky and the nearest islands, about 28-36 % of territory to the south from 44 ° north latitude, and coniferous, mixed and broadleaf woods to the south about 43 ° north latitude about 30 % low mountains and up to 50 % average mountains are covered, but ancient agricultural zones were marked by a zone of meadows and oak forests in width from 20 km [5].

Because of inflow earlier “market experts” of China not supposed here by manchurians and Korea hostile to a taiga by virtue of history ukrainians, the most valuable recede for sawing woods.

Fires penetrate into the high mountains, which led to the expansion or rehabilitation in the zone kurums, wooded back in the cold period of the Millennium lifting the timber.

Any order in a wood has been induced to 1910.  Hence, 50 years later after administrative

transfer of edge to Russia. On Alaska economic recession after exhaustion seal a craft too to 1860 is overcome.  And in 1867 Alaska is ostensibly sold. And gold Bodaibo has appeared in paws of English Jews in 1906 though certainly, not they have found local gold. But if in Primorski Krai officials reigning got out all orochi of the Chinese slavery Russian Alaska, its American Indian and Russian population are betraid by the maximum imperial authority and N.N.Muraviov if it not simply swindle yankee. The case from Bodaibo in Russian empire is unique or nearly so unique, but to the USSR and the Russian Federation it became a rule, however, for us the period for which is introduced order in territory is important is 50 years. After 1922 in woods of Primorski Krai the normal infrastructure of protection of a wood is restored to 1949-1951.

4.2. The beginning of scientific resource management – after 1910 and on 1918

4.3. With 1918 even in a zone of Vladivostok of cabin and fires cover up to ½ coniferous woods.

The cedar Korean, bought by Japanese on the railway, partly was not restored and  now, for example, in distant vicinities Spassk-Dalny.

To 1930 the population of a tiger was reduced not less than to the order.

4.4.  Russian, or the Soviet (destabilizing) stage  of sharp strengthening of influence of the person on PTK, destabilizing coastal  landscapes  and  breaking  homeostasis  ПТК  to  1949  has turned back loss of a quarter кедровников, expansion of oak forests twice, reduction chernopihtarnik on the order, development of fires in среднегорьях, that has led to destruction of woods and mountain ground.

4.5. Modern after 1992 (crisis) stage – a stage of development and even increase of ecological crisis, the period of intensive anthropogenous influence on NTC, exceeding stability of the geosystems, well-being of the future generations destroying basis (because of change of balance of substance and energy as a result of construction of the various hydraulic engineering constructions influencing on hydro-and litho- dynamics in a coastal zone).

Primary development of extracting industries and focal character of development have led to that now in territory of the south of the Far East of Russia there are some tens areas with sharp ecological situations.

Industrial cabins of wood are one of powerful factors of transformation ecosistem region.

As if to unique landscapes to 2005 in a reservoir GPB remains no more than 25 % of radical woods.

However now and they partially restructure due to decrease in a share valuable forming species in a forest stand and undergrowth.

Hence, actually subklimaces ecosistemes are kept on 12 % of territory.

Development of economic activities at coast and water areas of a gulf within last 20-30 years has caused deterioration of an ecological situation in its separate areas, connected mainly with receipt of pollution from coastal sources.

And it at rather insignificant activization of capacities.

Conclusions 

1. Modern wildlife management at coast GPB considers local features of природно-climatic conditions, regenerative potential экосистем and does not provide rational use, protection and reproduction of natural resources. It is extensive, unsustainable and has undermined potential of reproduction renewable natural resources.

2. Wildlife management during the modern crisis period already has considerably exceeded opportunities of autopurification of coastal waters and self-reproduction coastal ecosistem: on a trepang, the crab, a salmon GPB even for 20 years has lost 90-98 % of a biomass.

3. The capacity NRP of territory and water area except for a bay the Gold Horn and of some bays of east coast Ussurijskiy of a gulf all still is not settled. Theoretically still there is an opportunity in the nearest and средне-long-term prospect to conduct here a facilities, but under condition of change of the consumer attitude to the nature on optimization schemes of use of renewed natural resources with search of balance in interaction “person-nature”.

4. The retrospective analysis of historical stages of development of a coastal zone GPB shows hopelessness of use habitual for last period of schemes of wildlife management.

5. Average-and long-term forecasts of the further economic development of coast GPB should consider the basic tendencies in development of coastal and coastal water areas.

An indispensable condition of wildlife management in a unique landscape  –  equation with natural development coastal ecosistem, that should provide their preservation and renewal.

Table – Number of waterfowl, shorebirds and raptors in various sections of the Amur River in 2010 and 2011 (individual)


References
  1. Arsenyev V.K. Short military-topographical and military-statistical study of the Ussuri kray, 2901-2911. Khabarovsk: Priamurskii military district, 1912. 324 p.
  2. Arsenyev V.K. Collected works in 6 volumes. 17 applications. Vol. 3. Vladivostok: Frontier, 2012. 784 p.
  3. Vostretsov Yu. E. Interaction of marine and agricultural adaptations in the Sea of Japan. // The Russian Far East in antiquity and the middle ages: the opening, problems, hupotheses / executive editor J.V. Andreeva. Vladivostok: Dalnauka, 2005. P. 159-186.
  4. Mayorov I.S. Natural resources in the coastal zone of the Peter Great Bay (history, perspectives and lessons of the environmental failures) // Vladivostok, 2007. №1 (55). P. 44-56.
  5. Urusov V.M., Varchenko L.I., Vrisch D.L. and others. Vladivostok  –  south of Primorsky kray: seculal and modern vegetation dynamics. Vladivostok: Dalnauka, 2010. 420 p.


Все статьи автора «Коробов Виталий Викторович»


© Если вы обнаружили нарушение авторских или смежных прав, пожалуйста, незамедлительно сообщите нам об этом по электронной почте или через форму обратной связи.

Связь с автором (комментарии/рецензии к статье)

Оставить комментарий

Вы должны авторизоваться, чтобы оставить комментарий.

Если Вы еще не зарегистрированы на сайте, то Вам необходимо зарегистрироваться:
  • Регистрация