.


:




:

































 

 

 

 





Nationwide, humans cause almost 70-80% of wildfires, 20% to 30% of forest fires are ignited by lightning. Due to this fires the number of acres burned by these fires each year [1].

Catastrophic forest fires in Russia are a serious threat to both the unique biodiversity of boreal forests and the global carbon balance. In recent years, the Russian fire management policy has been unclear, ineffective and non-transparent. The current situation is even more alarming, since ongoing administrative reform and permanent changes in forest legislation lead to the dismantling of the present system of forest management in the country, not to improving its efficiency [2].

During that last few decades, many European countries have managed to almost completely eradicate wildfires, as the result of extremely efficient fire suppression systems and the overall low percentage of human caused fires. Yet, a great deal of scientific evidence has shown that this policy was inadequate in terms of achieving the sustainable management of commercial forests. The situation in Russia, however, is completely different as its fire suppression system has never been very effective in managed forests, let alone the huge parts of the country that remain outside of a system of forest fire suppression [2].

Wildfire is a natural phenomenon in boreal forest landscapes and intact forests often carry signs of fires that took place hundreds of years ago. Lightening strikes are the main natural cause of fires; although the spread of fires is dependent on weather, soil conditions, topography and the amount of dry organic matter (fuel) on the soil surface. The combination of these factors forms the fire regime, which is characterized by the intensity, pattern of distribution and type of fire (i.e. ground or crown fire) [2].

Russia has 25% of the worlds forests, of which only one quarter around 400 million hectares are still intact. Russian forests are of significant importance for their large storage capacity of carbon, which mitigates climate change. Forest fires have a serious effect on the carbon balance in Russian forests, by increasing carbon dioxide emission when burning the biomass of forests and extensive peatlands [2].

A recent research project in Siberia investigated fires role in the emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. It showed that the fires that affected 1.1 million hectares consumed about 35 million tons of phytomass and released close to 18 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere, which contributed to the formation of 52 million tons of carbon dioxide, 5 million tons of carbon monoxide and other radioactive trace gases and aerosol particles. The inability of the Russian authority to reduce the impact of human-caused fires may seriously affect Russias position with regard to global climate change debates and the Kyoto Protocol [2].

In addition, catastrophic fires have detrimental effects on biodiversity, especially in forest communities enriched in relic species and species on the northern edge of their occurrence. This can be observed in the south of the Russian Far East, in the famous Usury Taiga with its abundant Manchurian and subtropical relics. Thus in northern and central Sikhote-Alin strong repetitious burns lead to gradual replacement of rich uneven-aged mixed Korean Pine-dominated forests by simple larch communities. In the very south of the region, multiple ground fires, which develop mainly because of agricultural burns, and are especially destructive during drought periods, lead to substitution of mixed forests with Korean pine and Manchurian Fir by simpler deciduous communities dominated by Mongolian oak. Even in typical boreal forests, more frequent and severe fires could lead to complete elimination of fire refuges habitats, which are extremely important for survival of many successional species [2].

Therefore, reduction of the negative impacts of fires is one of the most acute challenges for the sustainable and responsible management of Russian forests.

70-80% - , 20-30% . , [1].

, . , , , , [2].

. , , . , , , [2].

, . , . , , () . , , (, ) [2].

25% , 400 . . , . [2].

, , , , 1100000 , 35 . 18 . , 52 . , 5 . . ( ) [2].

, . , . , - . , , , , , . , [2].

, .

 

 

1. httpHYPERLINK http://forestfire.nau.edu/analysis.htm://HYPERLINK http://forestfire.nau.edu/analysis.htmforestfireHYPERLINK http://forestfire.nau.edu/analysis.htm.HYPERLINK http://forestfire.nau.edu/analysis.htmnauHYPERLINK http://forestfire.nau.edu/analysis.htm.HYPERLINK http://forestfire.nau.edu/analysis.htmeduHYPERLINK http://forestfire.nau.edu/analysis.htm/HYPERLINK http://forestfire.nau.edu/analysis.htmanalysisHYPERLINK http://forestfire.nau.edu/analysis.htm.HYPERLINK http://forestfire.nau.edu/analysis.htmhtm

 

2. .. . : ? .: - , 2008. 115 .

 

. , ..





:


: 2016-10-27; !; : 476 |


:

:

,
==> ...

1687 - | 1627 -


© 2015-2024 lektsii.org - -

: 0.01 .