Forest type

The concept of forest type is broader than the concept of plant association adopted by botanists . To one type of forest can be attributed areas that differ in the species composition of plants ; what is needed is a similarity of their environmental requirements . Within the forest type, even tree species can vary; edifiers (for example, European and Siberian spruce can form one type).

First forest type classification experiments

The idea of ​​the relationship of the forest and the conditions of its growth was noted by the peasants even before the development of scientific forestry . In the first silvicultural works the local terminology was widely used:

It is necessary to be able to immediately look at the forest and at the environment occupied by it; such a generalization has long been living in the age-old wisdom of the people, with its catchy words that noted the totality of both the territory and its forest population, the degree of their consistency with each other in terms such as ramen, suramen, suborra, sogra, etc. analyze and highlight the totality of conditions created by ramen, suramen, suborus <...>.

- G.F. Morozov, 1917

This tradition is largely preserved in later classifications.

Forest growers expressed the idea of ​​identifying forest types as early as the first half of the nineteenth century. Until the end of the XIX century, however, forests were classified on the basis of the characteristics of the stand itself (composition, age structure, origin, etc.).

With the development of forestry there is a need to take into account in the classification of forests and factors of forest formation. The first experience of this kind was made by I.I. Gutorovich ^[2] . The purpose of his work was to assess the quality of wood in the forests of the north of the European part of Russia . Somewhat later, the classifications of P. P. Serebrennikov and D. M. Kravchinsky were created, which also had primarily economic significance, due to the need to identify areas with different quality of wood .

Another economic problem related to forest typology — the choice of the most successful method of renewal — was solved during this period by A. A. Bitrich and G. F. Morozov . The work of the latter was fundamental to the further development of forest typology.

Of the other researchers who stood at the origins of the forest typology, it is impossible not to name V. N. Sukachev , A. A. Kryudener, A. Kayandera.

The Views of G. F. Morozov

G.F. Morozov considered soil-soil conditions to be one of the most important factors of the forest-forming process:

<...> The conditions of a particular territory can also be broken down into types of growing conditions. The selection of plantings may correspond to the process of identifying types of plant growth conditions as parts of the earth's surface, homogeneous in themselves <...>. The position above sea level or river, the exposure, the steepness of the slope, the nature of the surface, the composition of the soil <...> can create and create places that are not homogeneous in forest biology.

- G.F. Morozov, 1917

The criteria for identifying forest types remain his economic, but he already considered possible the allocation of forest types without taking into account economic goals. He did not consider the composition of the forest and other taxation characteristics as a criterion for identifying forest types, however, he noted the connection between forest types and taxation characteristics with each other.

G. F. Morozov created a hierarchical forest classification system. The largest unit were climatic zones . Zones shared areas identified with regard to geological features. Within the districts, the types of forest areas confined to the relief were distinguished. The elementary units were the types of plantations that depended on the soil.

On the basis laid down by the works of G. F. Morozov , in the USSR and, subsequently, in Russia, the two schools of forest typology mentioned above were developed.

Classification of forest types by ground cover

According to VN Sukachev's classification principles, for each formation (pine, spruce, etc.), an edapho-phytocentotic scheme is constructed. Groups of forest types are confined to phytocentotic conditions. Each group is composed of forest types. One of them is the most characteristic, the others change in the direction of drawing closer to the neighboring group. The result is eda-phytocenotic series, a classic example of which is the “Sukachev's cross”:

The name of the forest type in the classification of V.N. Sukachev and similar is given by the predominant tree species and another characteristic feature, as a rule, by the prevailing plant in a shrub , grass or moss - lichen layer . Sukachev himself considered it necessary to use the soil classification as the basis for the forest typology, and considered the use of the characteristic for dominant plants as an indirect analogue.

The type of forest, according to V. N. Sukachev , is confined to a specific climatic region . Lesotypological classification, respectively, has a zonal character.

The classification of forest types by ground cover is widely used in the taiga zone, coniferous-deciduous forests , as well as in other zones, if the anthropogenic influence has relatively little effect on shrubs , grasses or moss - lichen cover.

Criticism of the classification of forest types by ground cover

In the reproach of V. N. Sukachev, an insufficiently complete and precise disclosure of the interaction of the leading factors in the allocation of forest types was posed:

The following features of the “system” indicate that the ecological series <...> did not move within the “generalized system” [that is, the Sukachev forest type scheme] into something broader and deeper. First, the interposition of the series itself, although based on oppositions, but these oppositions do not have an elementary basis. Row A of the increasing dryness of the soil <...> is opposed to the row of increasing "flow-through moisture" <...>. Row B of increasing “stagnant moisture” <...> is opposed to row C of increasing soil wealth <...>. There is no need to prove that these oppositions are random [author’s italics]. Much more reason would be to do what foresters did in their edaphic classification, proceeding from oppositions: 1) qualitative - food of plants and moisture and 2) quantitative - maximums and minimums of food of plants and moisture.

- P. S. Pogrebnyak, 1955, p. 217

It is impossible to imagine a way out of the lines of the cross towards the sectors between them based on “coordinates”, if imaginary X and Y axes have such a varied content: the X axis contains both varying moistening and changing soil fertility, and Y axis - varying moistening, aeration and fertility of the soil, and all this with a very vague "predominance" of the author’s emphasis on one or the other factor.

- Ibid, with. 218

Example of classification of forest types by ground cover

For cedar forests of the subtaiga part of Western Siberia ^[3] .

Example of forest type description by ground cover

Broad-grass cedar forests are found on the highest plateaus in the northern part of the subtaiga zone of Western Siberia .

Soils are rich , loamy , well drained.

The near-village cedar forests are pure in composition; for taiga , an admixture of fir is characteristic, sometimes a second fir layer .

Crown closeness 0.4–0.6 (from 0.3 to 0.8).

The grass cover is very diverse, the most typical snyt common ( Aegopodium podagraria L. ), the wrestler is high ( Aconitum excelsum Koelle ), cocoa spear-shaped ( Cacalia hastata L. ), common oxicelle ( Oxalis acetosella L. ), Volodushka golden ( Bupleurum aureum Fistus , globular sedge ( Carex globularis L. ), Linnaeus’s moth ( Gymnocarpium dryopteris ( L. ) Newm. ), Forest reed ( Calamagrostis arundinaceae ( L. ) Roth. ), Russian Iris ( Iris ruhtenica Ker Gawl. ), Northern Lynoia ( Linnaea borealis L. ), northern bedtime bed ( Galium boreale L. ), ordinary bracken ( Pteridium aquilinum ( L. ) Kuhn ), medicinal bath ( Polygonatum officinale All. ).

Classification of forest types according to soil conditions.

The tradition of using soil conditions in forest typology begins with A. A. Krudener. He proposed to diagnose forest types according to soil moisture and texture , as well as aeration , humus type, moisture frequency. Since the stand in the name of forest types is not taken into account, the Krudener classification has been compiled, in fact, for types of forest conditions; This feature is preserved in the works of his followers.

Later A. Kryudener’s classification was modified both in the direction of simplification (E. V. Alekseev and P. S. Pogrebnyak (inaccessible link) ), and in the direction of complication (D. V. Vorobyov). The classifications, developed on the basis of soil conditions, could both characterize the diversity of forest types of one physiographic region, and be intrazonal.

Currently, the classifications of P. S. Pogrebnyak (inaccessible link) (the so-called “Pogrebnyak grid”; here given by: Bulygin, Yarmishko [2003] and Sennov [2008]) are the most widely used from classifications of this type. As a classification feature, he indicated soil moisture and fertility (from the poorest areas, called boron, to the richest oak forests):

P. Pogrebnyak (inaccessible link) considered his classification to be intrazonal.

The classification of forest types according to soil conditions is most common in the forest-steppe and steppe zones , where the ground cover under anthropogenic influence is often greatly changed, which sharply reduces its value as a diagnostic feature.

Criticism of forest type classification by soil conditions

The scope of classifications based on soil conditions is narrowed due to the impossibility of an objective assessment of soil fertility . In addition, attempts to extend them to all climatic zones lead to the fact that forests that differ from each other very much turn out to be of the same type:

In the “complex subori”, or “sugrudki” or “surameni”, spruce and pine are included in the forests of northern taiga, and spruce, fir, pine and larch in the north-eastern part. It also includes pine-spruce-oak and spruce-broad-leaved stands of more southern latitudes. Then “climatic forms” fall here - pine-oak-hornbeam in the west, non-grab pine-oak-maple in the east, and pine-spruce forests in Polesye. Beech and chestnut stands belong to the same category. Finally, sugrudki include such climatic options as the Crimean pine in the Crimea and the Pitzundan pine in the Transcaucasus.

- M.Ye. Tkachenko, 1955

Example of classification of forest types by soil conditions.

In the tape forests of the Altai Territory, due to significant and repeated violations of the natural forest environment, the ground cover was changed quite significantly. Therefore, to distinguish forest types, various classification options for soil conditions were used there (actually, by relief , since the properties of all elements of the biogeocenoses of tape forests , including the soil , are determined by the proximity of groundwater , which is strongly dependent on meso-relief ).

According to the forest inventory of the 1950s, the following types prevail in tape forests ^[4] :

• dry boron of high mounds (A ₀ , 15% of the total area);

• dry boron of gentle soils (A ₁ , 50%);

• Westernized forest boron (A ₂ , 25%).

The rest is accounted for by grass bur (A ₃ , 9%) and birch forests by depressions and swamps (A _4-5 , 1%). The proportion of dry types decreases, while fresh ones increase as you move to the northwest.

Example of forest type description by soil conditions

Dry boron of high mounds A ₀ is found on the tops and upper parts of the slopes of the dunes , elevated 7 m or more above the depressions. The depth of groundwater (10-15 m) exceeds the capacity of plants to extract it.

The soils are dry , loose , weakly humus and poorly fertile , with signs of podzolization .

The stand is single-tier , clean, accommodation curtain. The completeness is 0.2—0.4. The root system extends 10-15 meters from the trunk.

The undergrowth is very rare, concentrated in the cone of the midday shade (10-14 hours) of large trees.

In the grass cover, fescue - tonnogue and cereal - sedge associations predominate . Projective cover 20-30%.

More or less recognized is the fact that the forest type is not an absolutely stable classification unit. Over time, under the action of multidirectional forces, the type of forest may change. This question was worked most deeply by B. P. Kolesnikov and I. S. Melekhov (inaccessible link) .

According to B. P. Kolesnikov , who developed the ideas of B. A. Ivashkevich , during the life of one generation of forest-forming species in the same area, a number of types of plantations are replaced. The types of plantations, successively replacing each other in time, and form the type of forest:

The scope of the concept of forest type here is greater than that of V. N. Sukachev. The forest type is characterized by growing conditions and developmental features [my underlining is Member - Sawer ].

- S. N. Sennov, 2008

Unlike B. P. Kolesnikov , I. S. Melekhov (inaccessible link) does not consider the course of forest development on the same site to be strictly deterministic. По его мнению, на одном и том же участке может сформироваться ряд типов леса, что зависит от множества внешних факторов, в том числе антропогенных .

Основным препятствием для изучения динамики типов леса является отсутствие длительных рядов наблюдений.

Пример смены типов леса на одном участке

Кедровые леса на границе южной и средней тайги Западно-Сибирской равнины формируются, как правило, под пологом лиственных насаждений. Когда кедр становится господствующей породой (около 140—180 лет), по напочвенному покрову лес обычно можно отнести к зеленомошной группе типов. Дальнейшее развитие протекает под влиянием усиливающегося из-за особенностей породы застойного увлажнения . По достижении древостоем кедра первого поколения возраста 280—300 лет лес, как правило, относится уже к сфагновой группе типов ^[5] .

На методы классифицирования лесов в зарубежных странах оказали существенное влияние идеи Г. Ф. Морозова и В. Н. Сукачёва .

В основе лесной типологии зарубежных стран могут находиться как типы леса, так и типы лесорастительных условий. Первое более типично для многолесных стран, в которых сохранилось относительно много лесов естественного происхождения (классификация Каяндера в Финляндии ). Классификация по типам лесорастительных условий более характерна для стран с преобладанием искусственно созданных насаждений и высокой интенсивностью лесного хозяйства ( Польша , Венгрия , Румыния ). Возможно и сочетание этих принципов ( Англия ).

Разнообразие конкретных методик классификации и периодическая их смена не способствуют полноценному учёту географического районирования. Однако, в ряде стран ( Франция , Германия , США ) географические особенности учитываются при выделении типов леса.

В некоторых странах ( Австралия , Австрия ) во внимание принимается история развития древостоев.

Свои особенности имеет классификация горных лесов. Обычно при выделении типов во внимание высотная поясность, экспозиция склона, направление господствующих ветров. Кроме того, в некоторых странах могут использоваться и дополнительные признаки (глубина снежного покрова, индекс холода, средний прирост древостоя и т. д.).

Наиболее очевидная хозяйственная функция лесной типологии — оценка количества и качества древесных ресурсов. Известно, что с типом леса связан бонитет , который является оценкой продуктивности древостоя . Кроме продуктивности, выражаемой в объёме древесины, получаемой с единицы площади, тип леса характеризует также сортиментный состав и качество древесины . Столь же очевидно влияние леса и на продукты побочного пользования .

Тип леса (тип лесорастительных условий) необходимо учитывать и при планировании лесохозяйственных мероприятий: планировании рубок, выборе способа очистки лесосек , проектировании содействия естественному возобновлению или лесокультурных работ и т. д.

С типом леса связана устойчивость его к различным неблагоприятным воздействиям: болезням , вредителям ^[6] , пожарам ^[7] , ветровалу и другим. Соответственно, при планировании лесозащитных работ и работ по охране леса от пожаров необходимо учитывать тип леса.

• Древостой
• Насаждение

• Булыгин Н. Е., Ярмишко В. Т. Дендрология. Изд-е 2-е. — М.: МГУЛ, 2003. — 528 с.
• Колесников Б. П. Генетический этап в лесной типологии и его задачи. — Лесоведение. — 1974. — № 2. — С. 3—20.
• Морозов Г. Ф. О типологическом изучении лесов. Труды Костромского научного общества по изучению местного края. Issue Vi. — Кострома, 1917. — С. III—XX. Цит. по: Избранные труды Г. Ф. Морозова. — М.: МГУЛ, 2004.
• Погребняк П. С. Основы лесной типологии. 2nd ed. испр. and add. — Киев: Изд-во АН УССР, 1955. — 456 с.
• Сеннов С. Н. Лесоведение и лесоводство. 2-е изд., стер. — М.: Академия, 2008. — 256 с.
• Тимофеев В. П., Дылис Н. В. Лесоводство. — М.: Сельхозгиз, 1953. — 552 с.
• Ткаченко М. Е. Общее лесоводство. 2nd ed., Rev. and add. — М.-Л.: Гослесбумиздат, 1955. — 599 с.

• Лесной бюллетень: Возвращение к истокам . Большое количество отсканированных работ русских лесоведов конца XIX — начала XX века, включая и типологические.
• Подробные описания типов леса европейской России (недоступная ссылка)