Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
VAK Russia 5.2.5
UDC 339.54
UDC 338.001.36
The object of this study is the border territories of North Asia within Russia (Altai Krai, Amur Oblast, Zabaykalsky Krai, Omsk Oblast, the Republic of Buryatia, Tyva Republic and Tyumen Oblast), Mongolia (8 aimags bordering Russia) and Kazakhstan (Pavlodar Oblast, North Kazakhstan Oblast and East Kazakhstan Oblast). The purpose of the study is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the anthropogenic load on the agricultural landscapes of the territories under consideration in the context of 2010-2020. Based on the chosen methodological approach, the authors calculated specific indicators of the environmental intensity of agricultural systems and economic development, and made a scoring assessment of the complex anthropogenic load on agricultural landscapes based on the total root-mean-square assessment of deviations. The results showed that most of the Russian regions, with the exception of the Zabaykalsky Krai and the Republic of Tyva, belong to regions with high and medium anthropogenic load. All model Mongolian aimags are included in the group with low anthropogenic load. Despite the high share of agricultural land in the total area of the territory, the efficiency of their development is not reflected in economic development indicators. All three Kazakhstan regions are included in different groups in terms of the level of complex anthropogenic load. The high degrees of plowing of farmland and a significant increase in anthropogenic load over 10 years in the North Kazakhstan and Tyumen regions require the development of a set of special measures. The methodological approach used can be recommended for further research into areas for optimizing agricultural landscapes of model territories.
agricultural landscapes, agricultural development, plowing, pasture load, rural population density, transboundary territories, Russia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, North Asia
1. Reymers N.F. Prirodopol'zovanie: slovar'-spravochnik. M.: Mysl', 1990. 637 s.
2. Loshakov A.V. Sovremennoe sostoyanie i ohrana agrolandshaftov Central'nogo Predkavkaz'ya, dissertaciya na soiskanie uchenoy stepeni doktora geograficheskih nauk, na pravah rukopisi. M.: 2020. 412 s.
3. Foley J.A., Defries R., Asner G.P., Barford C., Bonan G., Carpenter S.R., Chapin F.S., Coe M.T., Daily G.C., Gibbs H.K. (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science, 309 (5734), 570.
4. Lambin E.F., Turner B.L., Geist H.J., Agbola S.B., Angelsen A., Bruce J.W., Coomes O.T., Dirzo R., Fischer G., Folke C., George P.S., Homewood K., Imbernon J., Leemans R., Li X., Moran E.F., Mortimore M., Ramakrishnan P.S., Richards J.F., Skanes H., Steffen W., Stone G.D., Svedin U., Veldkamp T.A., Vogel C., Xu J. (2001). The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Glob. Environ. Change, 11 (4), 261.
5. Pedroli G., Meiner A. (2017). Landscapes in transition: An account of 25 years of land cover change in Europe.
6. Li Z., Ren Y., Li J., Li Y., Rykov P., Chen F., Zhang W. (2018). Land-use/cover change and driving mechanism on the west bank of Lake Baikal from 2005 to 2015 – a case study of Irkutsk city // Sustainability. 10 (8). 2904.
7. Ren Y., Li Z., Li J., Ding Y., Miao X. (2022). Analysis of Land Use/Cover Change and Driving Forces in the Selenga River Basin // Sensors. Vol. 22, 1041.
8. Priess J.A., Schweitzer C., Wimmer F., Batkhishig O., Mimler M. (2011). The consequences of land-use change and water demands in Central Mongolia. Land Use Policy, 28 (1), 4.
9. Ozeranskaya N., Abeldina R., Kurmanova G., Moldumarova Zh. and Smunyova L. (2018). Agricultural Land Management in the System of Sustainable Rural Development in the Republic of Kazakhstan // International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology. 9(13). pp. 1500-1513.
10. Chibilev A.A (ml.), Grigorevskiy D.V., Meleshkin D.S. Prostranstvennaya ocenka urovnya antropogennoy nagruzki stepnyh regionov Rossii // Uchenye zapiski Kazanskogo universiteta. Seriya Estestvennye nauki. 2019. T. 161, kn. 4. S. 590-606. DOI:https://doi.org/10.26907/2542-064X.2019.4.590-606
11. Bayarmaa V. Raschet i ocenka ekologo-hozyaystvennogo balansa v geoinformacionnoy sisteme zapadnyh somonov Selengiyskogo aymaka Mongolii // Priroda vnutrenney Azii. 2017. № 2 (3). s. 62-68.
12. Suocheng Dong, Yijia Li, Yu Li, Shifeng Li (2021). Spatiotemporal Patterns and Drivers of Land Use and Land Cover Change in the China-Mongolia-Russia Economic Corridor / Pol. J. Environ. Stud. Vol. 30, No. 3 (2021), 1-15.
13. Kochurov B.I. Ekodiagnostika i sbalansirovannoe razvitie. M.; Smolensk: Madzhenta, 2003. 381 s.
14. Denisov V.V. Ekologiya. Rostov n/D, M.: MarT, 2004. 672 s.
15. Sistema ocenki i normirovaniya antropogennoy nagruzki dlya formirovaniya ekologicheski sbalansirovannyh agrolandshaftov. Kollektivnaya monografiya / pod obsch. red. Masyutenko N.P. Kursk: FGBNU VNIIZiZPE, 2014. 187 s.
16. Orlova I.V. Ocenka sel'skohozyaystvennogo vozdeystviya na prirodnye sistemy: teoretiko-metodologicheskie podhody / I.V. Orlova, S.N. Sharabarina // Geografiya i prirodnye resursy. 2015. № 4. S. 26-32.
17. Bardahanova T.B. Razvitie sel'skogo hozyaystva i ego vozdeystvie na prirodnuyu sredu na rossiyskih transgranichnyh territoriyah Severnoy Azii // Mezhdunarodnyy sel'skohozyaystvennyy zhurnal. 2022. № 4 (388). S. 406-411.
18. Bardahanova T.B. Ekologo-ekonomicheskaya ocenka ispol'zovaniya sel'skohozyaystvennyh zemel' na rossiyskih transgranichnyh territoriyah Severnoy Azii // Mezhdunarodnyy sel'skohozyaystvennyy zhurnal. 2023. № 3 (393). S. 227-232.
19. Razrabotka metodicheskih podhodov resheniya geoekologicheskih problem agrolandshaftov v usloviyah tehnogennogo vozdeystviya: otchet o NIR./ Gosudarstvennyy universitet po zemleustroystvu. M., 2017. 97 s.
