Next Article in Journal
Comparative Assessment of the Resistance to Lead (Pb) Pollution of Forest, Forest-Steppe, Steppe, and Mountain-Meadow Soils of the Central Ciscaucasia and the Caucasus Regions
Next Article in Special Issue
Impact of Field-Protective Forest Belts on the Microclimate of Agroforest Landscape in the Zone of Chestnut Soils of the Volgograd Region
Previous Article in Journal
Seasonal Water Uptake Patterns of Different Plant Functional Types in the Monsoon Evergreen Broad-Leaved Forest of Southern China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 13
Issue 10
10.3390/f13101529
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Agroforestry-Enhancing Typification of Agricultural Territories as a Basic Condition for Increasing the Efficiency of Protective Afforestation

by
Alexey A. Tubalov
Federal Scientific Center of Agroecology, Complex Melioration and Protective Afforestation, Russian Academy of Sciences, 97, University Ave, 400062 Volgograd, Russia
Forests 2022, 13(10), 1529; https://doi.org/10.3390/f13101529
Submission received: 16 August 2022 / Revised: 12 September 2022 / Accepted: 16 September 2022 / Published: 20 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Contributions of Agroforestry to Ecosystem Services and Climate Action)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Upgrading the scale of agricultural production and the effectiveness of protective afforestation is based on the strategy of identifying similar crop production conditions. The given research identifies the territories that require different approaches to forest reclamation. The research is based on the use of remote data as well as geoinformation research methods. The area for investigation is the territory of the right bank of the Khoper River in the Volgograd region. This territory is characterized by the distribution of the most fertile soils in the world, southern chernozems and typical chernozems. The study area is a long-standing historical center of agricultural production, and the task of protecting and increasing the fertility of cultivated soils is very urgent for this territory. The investigation of the catchment areas for identifying spatial patterns is an important methodological aspect of the present research. The studies were carried out within the network of catchments in ravines and gullies. The parameters of the areas of each catchment were used to calculate the specific indicators characterizing the territory. Mapping the territory of the research area made it possible to identify the range of parameters which characterize the erosion process as well as the parameters that cause its development. The studies of the interdependence of land structure and relief parameters made it possible to identify the processes for evaluating the agroecological state of the territories and their typification. These parameters include: erosive dissection, km/km2; the density of ravine tops, units/km2; the area of arable land in the catchment located on slopes with a steepness of more than 3°, %; and the nonforested area of slopes with a steepness of more than 8°. The values of indicators estimated on the basis of statistical scoring procedures became the basis for the allocation of four groups of conditional agroecological states of territories: normal, risk, crisis, and disaster. These groups differ in the set of reclamation measures used and their focus and scope.

1. Introduction

The problem of ensuring food security for regions, countries, and the world as a whole is an urgent challenge faced by humankind. This problem is closely related to the need for the conservation of the soil resources of our planet and overcoming the ecological crisis caused by unsustainable human activity. The crisis manifests itself in the degradation and depletion of the resources of the planet. The loss of soil fertility is 1.5–2 times ahead of natural soil formation [1]. The total area of forests as our main source of oxygen has decreased by 6% over the past 20 years [1,2]. The rate of desertification in the Caspian steppe has more than doubled over the past 20–30 years and reached 50 thousand hectares per year [1,3].
The paradigm of sustainable development is the scientific conception designed to solve the emerging problem of nature management [4,5,6,7,8,9]. Its purpose is to ensure the simple and expanded reproduction of natural resources. The guiding principle that ensures the achievement of the set goal consists in ensuring the balance between the natural potential of a particular territory and the anthropogenic impacts it is exposed to.
In agricultural production, agroforestry is the activity most consistent with the principles of sustainable development. Agroforestry is a system of forestry activities aimed at improving land and agricultural conditions. It is based on the use of soil-protective, water-regulating, environment-protective, environment-transforming properties of forest plantations [10].
It is agroforestry that most closely corresponds to the cocreation between man and nature [11]. Using the properties of plants allows this branch of human activity to gently affect agrolandscapes in a positive way and minimally disturb existing connections in geosystems. Agroforestry gently solves problems with the help of an element already present in the agrolandscape (for example, plants), and it does not lead to the emergence of new potentially dangerous objects (for example, concrete hydraulic structures created to regulate flow). When solving some problems such as microclimate regulation and drought control, the creation of protective forest plantations is the only ecofriendly alternative.
Protective forest plantations are areas with a multifunctional impact. They regulate the microclimate, improve the hydrological regime, reduce runoff, prevent the processes of soil erosion and deflation, reduce the negative impact of droughts and hot winds, optimize soil formation processes, stimulate the diversity of flora and fauna, and increase the bioproductivity of agricultural landscapes [12,13,14,15].
The improvement of land with the help of forest plantations is one of the most long-lasting types of reclamation in terms of effect. Under favorable conditions, the effect can be observed for up to a few decades [16,17].
Protective forest plantations have a complex and long-term impact on the components of agricultural landscapes. The effect of their creation can be estimated in monetary units. Protective forest plantation systems are able to increase the yield of grain crops by 10–15% and by 25% for industrial crops [18,19,20]. This economic assessment does not take into account all the positive aspects created through the impact of planting. It is necessary to remember the sanitary, hygienic, and aesthetic role of forest belts [21,22,23].
However, despite the indisputable positive aspects associated with agroforestry reclamation, the further development of forest reclamation work on agricultural land is fraught with problems and difficulties that, of course, must be resolved. These include the reluctance of many farmers to create protective forest plantations at their own expense. This circumstance is due to the substantial long-term costs associated with forest reclamation of agricultural land. It is necessary to develop state incentive measures as well as a financial and legal plan that would regulate the creation and maintenance of protective forest plantations on the land of agricultural enterprises.
The legal and financial aspects and measures require the study of the general strategy of long-term forest reclamation activities. It is necessary to determine whether the agroforestry work should take place throughout the whole territory or in enclaves. The second method is certainly preferable since the creation of integral, complete systems of forest belts makes it possible to focus on the emergent properties of forest belt systems that are absent in isolated forest plantations [14].
The strategy of differentiation and focus on carrying out forest reclamation measures involves taking into account the priorities and the validity of the choice of territories for the immediate implementation of agroforestry reclamation measures.
The effectiveness of ongoing agroforestry reclamation is largely determined by the volume and quality of planning activities which include determining the location of forest belts, selecting the species composition of trees, etc. Agroforestry is a consumer of environmental information, while remote and cartographic studies serve as a provider of this information.
Modern mapping, based on the use of the latest technologies, is one of the most popular methods for studying nature. Geoinformation mapping makes it possible to qualitatively and quickly obtain the necessary information about the important characteristics of agrolandscapes, such as the degradation state of a territory (types of degradation, dynamics of development), anthropogenic load (forms of impact, spatial and temporal dynamics of change), as well as to evaluate the key natural factors (relief, soils, vegetation cover, etc.). The scientific and technological revolution made the use of methods for constructing maps based on space photography data with the involvement of computer tools for processing the obtained images widely available [24,25,26,27].
This paper is concerned with the information and technological aspects of forest protection. The purpose of the study is to develop approaches to the typification of agricultural areas, on the basis of which forest reclamation works will be planned and carried out. The research objectives include the identification of the groups of territories in compliance with their differentiated needs and the specificity of agroforestry works.

2. Materials and Methods

The development of erosion processes is conditioned by a whole complex of factors, and many researchers have paid attention to this issue [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. A number of anthropogenic factors take a special place in this complex. The actual development of erosion processes in cultivated areas may be a kind of indicator of irrational nature management. The more the soil degradation associated with water runoffs is developed, the greater the need for a set of measures aimed at preventing the negative phenomenon is.
The methodological basis for carrying out agroforestry typification of the study area is represented by the works of B.V. Vinogradov associated with the allocation of four conditional agroecological states of agrolandscapes: normal, risk, crisis, and disaster [40,41].
The methodology for agrolandscape typification in the study area is based on the analysis of the range and estimation of the values of four indicators: the density of ravines, km/km2; the density of ravine tops, units/km2; the area of arable land in the catchment located on slopes with a steepness of more than 3°, %; the nonforested area of slopes with a steepness of more than 8°, %. The first two indicators characterize the actual spread of degradation processes in the area of study, while the third and fourth ones characterize the factors which indirectly affect the development of degradation.
The parameters “the area of arable land in the catchment located on slopes with a steepness of more than 3°, %” and “the non-forested area of slopes with a steepness of more than 8°, %” were selected based on the results of correlated studies. We analyzed the interdependence of the parameters of erosion development, the land use structure, and the relief of the study area (steepness and exposure of slopes).
The relief is the leading natural factor affecting the development of erosion [29,30,31]. The more ploughed the slopes in the area, the stronger the manifestations of erosion. The forest is a powerful factor preventing the development of erosion. The location of forests is a peculiar feature of their development. As a rule, ravine forests occupy the steepest slopes of ravines so their absence is a factor contributing to the development of erosion.
The data obtained by decoding the mosaic of satellite images as well as cartographic data of topographic maps represent the source of data for calculating specific indicators. The methodology for the use of remote information is based on the development of research methods by the Department of Landscape Planning and Aerospace of the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Agroforestry Reclamation [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49].
Based on the results of remote and cartographic studies, we formed the following cartographic models: erosion spread, the structure of nature management, the boundaries of catchments, the steepness and exposure of slopes.
The maps of the relief in the study area were drawn on the basis of SRTM data and topographic maps with a scale of 1:100,000. The map of slope steepness was drawn on the basis of the gradation of slopes by steepness used in agroforestry studies: 0–0.5°; 0.6–3°, 4–7°, 8–35° [50].
The superimposition of the created cartographic models made it possible to obtain additional parameters, in particular, the parameters of the area of arable land in the catchment located on slopes with a steepness of more than 3°, % and the non-forested area of slopes with a steepness of more than 8°, %
The use of a catchment approach to the allocation of territorial complexes is an important methodological aspect of the conducted research [51,52,53,54,55,56]. In the course of the research based on topographic maps, we drew the boundaries of watersheds between adjacent catchments and revealed the structure of catchments in the study area as a whole. A total of 229 ravine catchments were identified in the study area. The obtained materials were used to calculate the specific indicators and identify spatial features in the distribution of the studied indicators.
The agroforestry grouping was made on the basis of three interrelated mathematical procedures: rating of parameters (scoring); determining the significance of parameters, i.e., score “weighing”; and summation of “weighted” scores [57,58,59].
The procedure of rating the indicators is the basis for comparing numerous samples of catchments. It allows a single dimension of the studied indicators to be obtained. The procedure is carried out by dividing the entire range of values of a parameter into intervals equal in the range of values and assigning them evaluation scores. We used a five-score scale.
The scoring procedure for different parameters was performed according to uniform rules. The maximum score is attributed to the parameter range that contributes to erosion development to the greatest extent and the minimum score to the parameter range that contributes to erosion development to the least extent. As a result, catchments with the highest scores are the most eroded or the most potentially degradable.
The weighing allows arithmetic operations (summation) with scores related to the same area (catchment) to be performed. Ultimately, this mathematical operation makes it possible to evaluate the state of catchments based on several parameters. The weighing procedure was carried out using the correlation method.
First of all, the most general indicator was identified. Based on this indicator, the need for agroforestry works was evaluated. For the study area, such an indicator was represented by the ravine dissection of catchments, km/km2. Then we analyzed the interdependence of the remaining cartographic parameters and the erosive dissection of catchments. When determining the weighing coefficients, each of the obtained correlation coefficients was related to the maximum.
The final addition procedure was the summation of the values of the obtained estimates in accordance with the weighing coefficients. The summation results were used for allocating the gradation of the sums of weighted scores.
The research area is the agricultural landscape of the right bank of the Khoper River within the Volgograd region (Figure 1). The total area for the research is 3800 km2.
This territory is part of old arable land with a long history of agricultural development. The issues related to the study of erosion processes and preventative erosion measures are relevant for this territory.
An important feature of this territory is the somewhat greater development of erosion processes [60,61,62] in comparison with other parts of the Volgograd region. This circumstance is due to the peculiarity of the relief as the leading factor predetermining the development of erosion.
From a geomorphological viewpoint, the study area belongs to the territory of the Kalach Upland, which, in turn, is part of the Central Russian Upland (the status of a geomorphological region) [63,64].
The eastern end of the Kalach Upland is an elevated (up to 200–240 m above sea level) denudation–erosion plateau of the Neogene period, slightly inclined to the east–southeast. The southern part of the upland is located between the merging rivers Don and Khoper. It is lowered to 180 m and has softer relief forms. Denudation residual hills are most characteristic of the relief of the described morphostructural area. The presence of numerous erosion forms (up to 2–4 km per 1 km2), both ancient and modern, indicates a long geological period of relief development under the influence of external forces during upward movements of the crust of the Earth in the past and in modern times. Most of the ravines in this area have flattened slopes and wide bottoms. Some ravines have secondary ravines.
According to the generally accepted classification, the study area belongs to the continental East European climatic province. The sum of effective temperatures is 2700–2900 °C; the hydrothermal coefficient is 0.6–0.8; the average annual rainfall is 400–550 mm; the temperature minimum is −37 °C; the temperature maximum is +38 °C.
Over recent years, there has been a trend towards an increase in the amount of precipitation. Over the past decade, the value of the increase for the period of the year with positive temperatures is about 20–30 mm [65,66].
The soils of the study area are represented by the following types: chernozems (subtypes of ordinary chernozem and southern chernozem); alluvial floodplain soils (subtype of alluvial meadow).
The hydrography of the study area is represented by tributaries of the right bank of the Khoper River as well as the rivers of Rasteryaevka, Evdovlya, Akishevka, Tishanka, Bezymyannaya, and Topkaya.

3. Results

3.1. Mapping of the Territory

As a result of decoding the mosaic of satellite images and the application of topographic map data, the following cartographic models were created: the structures of catchments, the distribution of ravines, the steepness of slopes, the exposure of slopes, land use patterns, and the distribution of protective forest belts.
Three cartographic models are the most significant for the subsequent agroforestry typification of the territory: the distribution of ravines (Figure 2); the steepness of slopes (Figure 3); and land use patterns (Figure 4). As an example, the figures show an image of the Evdovlya River, one of the six tributaries of the Khoper River located on the territory of the research area.
The cartographic model of the distribution of ravines (Figure 2) served as the basis for removing the following parameters from the created maps: the ravine dissection, the density of ravine tops, the length of the ancient erosion structure (ravine structure), and the ratio between the ancient and modern erosion.
The cartographic model of slope steepness served as the basis for evaluating the relief and calculating the indicators of the proportion of slopes with different steepness in the structure of the study area.
The cartographic model of land use structure served as the basis for taking into account the influence of anthropogenic factors on the development of erosion processes. Figure 4 served as the basis for calculating the area of arable land and the area of settlement land in the structure of the studied catchments.

3.2. Evaluation of the Territory

Evaluation of the territory was carried out within the boundaries of the catchments in the study area. The structure of the catchments is represented by two hierarchical levels: the catchments of the tributaries of the Khoper River and the catchments of the ravines that form them. A total of 229 boundaries of ravine catchments were identified in the study area.
Mapping of the territory made it possible to remove a set of parameters from the created cartographic models of the study area. These were the parameters that characterized: (1) the development of degradation processes (erosive dissection, km/km2; density of ravine tops, units/km2); (2) the nature management structure (area of agricultural land as a % of the catchment area); (3) the relief steepness (areas of different groups of slope steepness expressed as a % of the catchment area); (4) the morphometric indicators of ravine catchments (length, width); (5) the proportion of slopes of various exposures; and (6) artificial afforestation of agricultural land. The superimposition of cartographic models made it possible to obtain combined indicators including areas of arable land in the catchment area located on slopes with a steepness of more than 3° and the nonforested areas of slopes with a steepness of more than 8°.
The evaluation of the territory was based on the use of the above-mentioned parameters. To identify the potential for the development of erosion processes, we carried out the analysis of the interdependence between the erosive dissection parameter and other cartographic parameters.
The correlated research in the studied sample of catchments made it possible to reveal the indicators associated with changes in the values of the erosive dissection parameter. These indicators included: the density of the ravine tops, units/km2; the area of arable land in the catchment located on slopes with a steepness of more than 3°, %; and the nonforested areas of slopes with a steepness of more than 8°, %. The coefficients of correlation with the parameter of erosive dissection were 0.9, 0.78, and 0.68, respectively. The other indicators showed low correlation coefficients and were excluded from further stages of the research.

3.3. Typification of the Territory

The agroforestry grouping of catchments was based on the statistical estimation of four cartographic parameters: current erosive dissection, the density of ravine tops, the area of arable land located on slopes with a steepness of more than 3°, and the nonforested area of near-net slopes and the slopes of the hydrographic network. The procedures of rating and weighing were used, and the final evaluation was made according to the sums of weighted scores.
The coded value ranges of the selected parameters are shown in Table 1. The values are given according to the reference five-score scale. The parameter of the current erosive dissection showed a range of values from 0 to 2.2 km/km2. The entire range of values was divided into four equal groups. A group of catchments with a complete absence of linear forms of erosion was identified. The parameter of the density of ravine tops showed a range of values from 0 to 4 units/km2. Depending on the value of the parameter, five groups of catchments were distinguished: four equal groups depending on the value of the density of ravine tops and a group of catchments with the absence of current erosion manifestations. The parameter characterizing the extent of slope tillage in the catchment showed values within the limits of 25 to 52% of the catchment area. The parameter of the nonforested area of slopes with a steepness of more than 8° showed values from 15 to 65%. Five groups of gradation were distinguished. A scoring procedure was carried out: the catchments with a value indicating the greatest development of degradation processes were assigned the maximum score (5), and those with a value indicating the least development of degradation processes were assigned the minimum score (1).
The weighing procedure made it possible to evaluate the agroforest reclamation of catchments according to several parameters. The weighing coefficients were determined on the basis of the correlation method. The weighing coefficients for the selected parameters were as follows: current erosive dissection (1); the density of ravine tops (0.9); the area of arable land in the catchment located on slopes with a steepness of more than 3° (0.78); and the nonforested area of slopes with a steepness of more than 8° (0.68).
The final score of the modern erosion state of catchments is based on the gradation of the sums of weighted scores. Table 2 shows the boundaries of the four ranges of score values corresponding to the conditionally allocated environmental states of normal, risk, crisis, and disaster.
Based on the values of the sums of the weighted scores, we compiled a map of the agroforestry grouping of the catchments located on the right bank of the Khoper River (Figure 5).
The obtained materials made it possible to assess the current ecological state of the catchments of the study area. A score in the range from 8.6 to 11 was the most common sum of weighted scores. The catchments with a given score corresponded to a conditionally distinguished ecological state of risk. The catchment area with this value was 2035 km2 or 52% of the area of the entire territory.
The catchments which corresponded to the state of normal were characterized by the value of the sum of the weighted score in the range of 6–8.5 and occupied an area equal to 1212 km2 or 31% of the territory. The catchments with a total score of more than 13.6 corresponded to the ecological state of disaster.
These catchments occupied 4% of the territory. The catchments with the value of the sum of weighted scores from 11.1 to 13.5 corresponded to the ecological state of crisis and occupied 14% of the study area or 523 km2.
The analysis of the characteristics of territories with different scores of the erosion state evaluation made it possible to carry out a comparative evaluation of the erosion state of the tributaries of the Khoper River. The largest territories with the normative ecological states of disaster and crisis were located in the Evdovlya River, the catchment area of the second tributary of the Khoper River and in its catchments. The share of their total area was 31 and 52%, respectively. Of particular note was the high proportion of “disaster” catchments rising from the Khoper River. The largest number of catchments characterized by the states of risk and normal corresponded to the tributaries of the rivers of Akishevka and Topka. In these tributaries, the areas with the score value of 6–11 occupied 96% and 97% of the tributary area, respectively. In the catchments of the other tributaries of the rivers of Rasteryaevka, Dobrinka, and Tishanka, the score values were close to the values for the study area as a whole.

4. Discussion

The planning of agroforestry activities in adaptive landscape development involves the study of the characteristics of reclaimed agrolandscapes [67,68,69,70,71].
The development of plans for the improvement of degraded land through agroforestry was based on the agroforestry grouping of catchments, which made it possible to unite the territories on the basis of establishing differences in the manifestation of degradation processes and the factors that determine their development. Territories with ecological states of normal, risk, crisis, and disaster occupied 30, 52, 14, and 4%, respectively, of the region under study.
The selected groups of territorial complexes differ in the degree of need for land reclamation activities and the focus and specifics of the technologies to be used.
Table 3 presents the arithmetic mean values of the indicators which served as the basis of the agroforestry grouping of soils as well as the indicators of natural forest cover and the tillage of catchments.
In the group of “disaster” catchments, the indicators of agroforestry evaluation were equal: current erosive dissection, 1.4 km/km2; the density of ravine tops, 3.4 units/km2; and the share of nonforested areas with a steepness of more than 8°, 60%. Due to the development of degradation processes, the current structure of agricultural use was characterized by a minimum amount of arable land in the catchment areas (26%), but despite this, most of it was located on sloping land that indicates the share of arable land in catchments located on slopes with a steepness of more than 3° (25%).
The agroforestry group of catchments was mainly confined to the floodplain of the Khoper River. The agrolandscape of this territory is characterized by a large share of slopes with a steepness of 4 to 35° (40%) compared to the average values for the region as well as by the largest area of outcrops of chalk and marl rocks and the largest residential area. Erosion in these catchments is the most dangerous with regards to its consequences, namely, the siltation of the Khoper riverbed.
The priorities for the use of natural resources in this territory are determined by the establishment of the Nizhnekhopersk Natural Park and, according to the law [72], they consist of: ensuring the conservation of natural landscapes; the creation of conditions for recreation; the development and implementation of effective methods of nature protection; and maintaining the ecological balance in the context of the recreational use of territories.
Taking into account the current state of natural–artificial complexes (for example, the catastrophic development of erosion processes) and the priorities of use, it is possible to determine the main tasks facing the entire complex of adaptive landscape measures: the protection of water resources from the pollution caused by erosion processes; the prevention of further degradation of the soil cover; and the restoration of natural plant communities.
Environmental measures that can prevent further catastrophic development of erosion processes consist of the withdrawal of significant areas of arable land from active agricultural use and the implementation of forest reclamation measures on the slopes.
To speed up the restoration of natural herbaceous vegetation on the withdrawn land, it is advisable to carry out meadow reclamation measures.
Forest reclamation activities should be aimed at creating illuvial plantations along the bottom of the hydrographic network as well as massive afforestation on the near-net slopes.
The catchments included in the identified agroforestry group of crisis were characterized by the following values of the evaluation parameters: current erosive dissection, 0.6 km/km2; the density of ravine tops, 1.1 units/km2; the area of arable land in the catchment located on slopes with a steepness of more than 3°, 36%; and the nonforested area of the slopes of the hydrographic network and the near-net slopes, 45%. The ravine catchments, included in the second agroforestry group, were mainly located in the area of the second right bank tributary of the Khoper River, the Evdovlya River, and in the catchments opening into the floodplain of the Khoper River.
The development of erosion processes in the catchments of the group under consideration is not only due to the peculiarities of the natural components of the agricultural landscape (for example, large slope steepness and minimal forest cover) but also to the quality of the anthropogenic load. The peculiarity of agriculture, which was revealed during the ground research in the study area, lies in the ineffective technologies that do not ensure the reproduction of soil resources, namely, two-field crop rotations (fallow–wheat, fallow–sunflower).
The priorities for the development of this territory are to ensure efficient agricultural production. The interaction between the components of the agrolandscape is contradictory so the task of efficient agricultural production is only feasible through the implementation of the entire complex of adaptive landscape measures (organizational, forest reclamation, agrotechnical, meadow reclamation, and hydrotechnical). Organizational measures are of the highest importance.
The catchments of the agroforestry group of risk were characterized by the following arithmetic mean indicators: erosive dissection, 0.3 km/km2; the density of ravine tops, 0.4 units/km2; the area of arable land in the catchments, located on slopes with a steepness of more than 3°, 42%; and the nonforested area of slopes with a steepness of more than 8°, 33%.
The agrolandscape of the third agroforestry group was the most common type of the territory on the right bank of the Khoper River. These catchments are the main source of agricultural production. The natural and anthropogenic factors are in balance; therefore, radical methods of erosion control, such as grassing a part of the arable land, are of little use. Special attention should be paid to the creation of the frame elements of the agrolandscape, i.e., complete systems of forest belts.
Taking into account the characteristics of the relief of the study area, runoff-regulating forest belts should be the main type of protective forest plantations. Such forest belts usually have two or three rows and are planted across the slope, approximately along the land line. According to the standards and guidelines [73,74,75], the distance between the rows should be 2.5 m. The structure of the forest belts should be permeable. To provide complete absorption of surface runoff, it is advisable to reinforce runoff-regulating plantations with ramparts and ditches. Ditches with a depth greater than the depth of soil freezing (1–1.5 m) are usually arranged in the lower inter-row spacing of forest belts. In the places where runoff flows (along hollows), it is necessary to increase the proportion of shrubs, forming a dense structure in forest belts. The planting patterns of runoff control belts are determined based on specific conditions and current standards and recommendations. In any case, the distance between the main belts should not exceed 500 m.
The distribution of the catchments of the fourth agroforestry group of normal was characterized by a number of visually perceived centers on the map: the Shakin Forest (the southeastern part of the Rasteryaevka River catchment); the Dynamo farm (the southern part of the Akishevka River catchment); and the catchments of the Dobrinka River. All these territories are distinguished by a large number of forests and a minimum scale of erosion. The average value of erosive dissection was 0.1 km/km2, and the maximum percentage of forest cover was 27%. The share of nonforested slopes with a steepness of more than 8° was only 17% of the catchment area. The anthropogenic load is optimal in this territory, with a total amount of arable land of 39% of the catchment area, and the amount of arable land located on slopes with a steepness of more than 3° was 22%.
The interaction between the components of the agrolandscape of the considered group of catchments is the most balanced. The need for land reclamation is minimal. The agroforestry measures in these catchments are aimed at enhancing protection against adverse factors and ensuring the expanded reproduction of soil resources.

5. Conclusions

The developed classification aims to increase the efficiency of protective afforestation through the differentiated implementation of agroforestry technologies, taking into account the diversity of the landscape in the study area.
The evaluation of the environmental state of the agrolandscape made it possible to map out four territorial groups. Each of these groups united catchments with similar parameters of erosive dissection, the density of ravine tops, the area of arable land located on slopes with a steepness of more than 3°, and the nonforested area of slopes with a steepness of more than 8°.
To ensure sustainable land use in the study area, agroforestry reclamation activities should be carried out.
The “disaster” group united a few territories characterized by severe erosion processes. The priorities of nature management in these territories include the prevention of the development of degradation processes and to minimize their harmful effects which can be achieved through the application of agroforestry techniques ensuring the required long-term effect. These include the removal and grassing of arable land and the creation of illuvial plantations along the bottom of the ravines and gullies.
The “normal” and “risk” groups united territories with minimal manifestation of erosion processes. It should be noted that in the current practice of land use, these territories are stable in the long term and do not degrade. The priorities of nature management are related to ensuring sustainable agricultural production of the required volume and proper quality. Agroforestry measures that can ensure the stability of these territories against the impact of adverse factors under the conditions of a changing climate are associated with the creation of complete systems of antierosion and field-protective forest belts.
The “crisis” group united the territories that are clearly degrading. In these conditions, obtaining agricultural products in the long term is associated with high economic costs or is impossible. Both hydrotechnical and agroforestry measures should be taken in the near future. The activities related to the planning of reclamation works and the coordination of all ongoing land reclamation measures are of the greatest importance. These territories are interesting from a scientific point of view. In particular, the establishment of clear criteria for determining the priorities of nature management and the choice between ecology and the economy is of special interest.

Funding

This study was funded within the framework of State Assignment No 122020100312-0 “Theory and principles of formation of adaptive agroforestry-meliorative complexes of the dry steppe zone in the south of Russia in the context of climate change” to Federal Scientific Center of Agroecology, Complex Melioration and Protective Afforestation, Russian Academy of Sciences.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution “Federal Scientific Centre for Agroecology, Complex Melioration and Protective Afforestation, Russian Academy of Sciences” for providing the technical equipment for the field research.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lyuri, D.I.; Goryachkin, S.V.; Karavaeva, N.A.; Denisenko, E.A.; Nefedova, T.G. Dynamics of Agricultural Lands in Russia in the 20th Century and Post-Agrogenic Restoration of Vegetation and Soils; GEOS: Moscow, Russia, 2010; 415p. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zonn, I.S.; Kust, G.S.; Andreeva, O.V. The desertification paradigm: 40 years of development and global action. Arid Ecosyst. 2017, 23, 3–16. [Google Scholar]
  3. UNCCD. Global Land Outlook, 1st ed.; UNCCD: Bonn, Germany, 2017; 337p. [Google Scholar]
  4. Zubakov, V.A. XXI Century. Scenarios for the Future: An Analysis of the Consequences of the Global Ecological Crisis. Green World 1996, 2, 3–26. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kondratiev, K.Y.; Sherman, S.G. Biosphere stability and preservation of civilization. Nature 1993, 3, 3–16. [Google Scholar]
  6. Danilov-Danilyan, V.I.; Gorshkov, V.G. Environment between the Past and the Future; World and Russia; VINITI RAS: Moscow, Russia, 1994; 131p. [Google Scholar]
  7. LD Initiative. 2013. The Rewards of Investing in Sustainable Land Management. Interim Report for the Economics of Land Degradation Initiative: A global Strategy for Sustainable Land Management. Available online: www.eld-initiative.org (accessed on 5 August 2022).
  8. Bannikova, K.S.; Radchenko, T.A. The goals of sustainable development are included in Russia’s domestic policy. Russ. Newsp. 2020, 211, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  9. UNCCD. Zero Net Land Degradation: A Sustainable Development Goal for Rio + 20; UNCCD: Bonn, Germany, 2012; 32p. [Google Scholar]
  10. Pavlovsky, E.S. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Agroforestry; VNIALMI: Volgograd, Russia, 2004; 675p. [Google Scholar]
  11. Rubanov, V.G.; Rubanova, E.V. The main provisions of the noosphere concept of V.I. Vernadsky. Bull. Tomsk. State Univ. Philos. Sociol. Political Sci. 2016, 3, 54–65. [Google Scholar]
  12. Petrov, N.G. Landscape Agroforestry; Kolos: Moscow, Russia, 1996; 175p. [Google Scholar]
  13. Pavlovsky, E.S. Protective Forest Plantations in the Landscape Organization of Agricultural Territory; VNIALMI: Volgograd, Russia, 1993; 22p. [Google Scholar]
  14. Wilson, M.H.; Lovell, S.T. Agroforestry—The next step in sustainable and resilient agriculture. Sustainability 2016, 8, 574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Brandle, J.; Hodges, L.; Wight, B. Windbreak practices. In North American Agroforestry: An Integrated Science and Practice; Garrett, H.E., Rietveld, W.J., Fisher, R.F., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 2000; pp. 79–118. [Google Scholar]
  16. Pavlovsky, E.S. The Conception of Modern Agroforestry; VNIALMI: Volgograd, Russia, 1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rulev, A.S.; Pugacheva, A.M. Formation of a new agroforestry paradigm. Bull. Russ. Acad. Sci. 2019, 10, 1044–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tribunskaya, V.M. Economic Efficiency of Protective Forest Plantations in the System of Soil Protection from Erosion; Agropromizdat: Moscow, Russia, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  19. Korneeva, E.A. Economic Evaluation of Ecological Restoration of Degraded Lands through Protective Afforestation in the South of the Russian Plain. Forests 2021, 12, 1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lehmann, L.; Smith, J.; Westaway, S.; Pisanelli, A. Productivity and economic evaluation of agroforestry systems for sustainable production of food and non-food products. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hillbrand, A.; Borelli, S.; Conigliaro, M.; Olivier, A. Agroforestry for Landscape Restoration: Exploring the Potential of Agroforestry to Enhance the Sustainability and Resilience of Degraded Landscapes; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2017; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/b-i7374e.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2022).
  22. Kibblewhite, M.G.; Miko, L.; Montanarella, L. Legal frameworks for soil protection: Current development and technical information requirements. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 573–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sileshi, G.W.; Mafongoya, P.L.; Nath, A.J. Agroforestry systems for improving nutrient recycling and soil fertility on degraded lands. In Agroforestry for Degraded Landscapes; Dagar, J.C., Gupta, S.R., Teketay, D., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 225–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Berlyant, A.M. Soros Educational Journal. Electron. Mapp. Russ. 2000, 6, 1. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lurie, I.K. Geoinformation Mapping. Methods of Geoinformatics and Digital Processing of Space Images: Textbook; KDU: Moscow, Russia, 2008; 424p. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kulik, K.N.; Rulev, A.S. Geoinformation mapping in agroforestry. Rep. RAAS 2000, 1, 42–43. [Google Scholar]
  27. McLaughlin, J.D.; Nicholas, S.E. Parcel-Based Land Information Systems. Surv. Mapp. 1987, 47, 11–29. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kozmenko, A.S. Fundamentals of Erosion Control Melioration; Selkhozkhgiz: Moscow, Russia, 1954; 423p. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kurdyumov, L.D. Patterns of the Erosion-Accumulation Process; Gidrometeoizdat: Leningrad, Russia, 1977; 128p. [Google Scholar]
  30. Surmach, G.P. Relief Formation, Formation of Forest-Steppe, Modern Erosion and Anti-Erosion Melioration; VNIALMI: Volgograd, Russia, 1992; 174p. [Google Scholar]
  31. Garshinev, E.A. Erosion-Hydrological Process and Forest Reclamation: Theory and Models; VNIALMI: Volgograd, Russia, 1999; 196p. [Google Scholar]
  32. Makkaveev, N.I. River Bed and Erosion in Its Basin; MGU: Moscow, Russia, 2003; 355p. [Google Scholar]
  33. Zaslavsky, M.N.; Larionov, G.A.; Litvin, L.F. Mechanism and Patterns of the Process Manifestation. Erosion Processes (Geographic Science Practice). Part 2. Soil Erosion; Makkaveeva, N.I., Chalov, R.S., Eds.; Mysl: Moscow, Russia, 1984; pp. 31–44. [Google Scholar]
  34. Golosov, V.N. Erosion-Accumulative Processes in River Basins of Developed Plains; GEOS: Moscow, Russia, 2006; 296p. [Google Scholar]
  35. Litvin, L.F. Geography of Soil Erosion of Agricultural Lands in Russia; Akademkniga: Moscow, Russia, 2002; 255p. [Google Scholar]
  36. Gitas, I.Z.; Douros, K.; Minakou Ch Silleos, G.N.; Karydas, G.N. Multi-Temporal Soil Erosion Risk Assessment in N. Chalkidiki Using a Modied USLE RasterModel. EARSeL Eproc. 2009, 8, 40–52. [Google Scholar]
  37. Morgan, R.P.C. Soil Erosion and Conservation, 3rd ed.; Blacwell Science Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005; pp. 11–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Stone, R.P.; Hilborn, D. Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). Factsheet 2012, 7. Available online: http://omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/12-051.htm (accessed on 1 May 2022).
  39. Wang, B.; Zheng, F.; Romkens, M.J.M.; Darboux, F.B. Soil erodibility for water erosion: A perspective and Chinese experiences. Geomorphology 2013, 187, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vinogradov, B.V.; Orlov, V.A.; Snakin, V.V. Biotic criteria for identifying zones of ecological disaster in the Russian Federation. Izv. RAN. Ser. Geography 1993, 5, 77–89. [Google Scholar]
  41. Vinogradov, B.V. Fundamentals of Landscape Ecology; GEOS: Moscow, Russia, 1998; 418p. [Google Scholar]
  42. Application of Aerospace Methods in Agroforestry: Methodological Recommendations; VASKHNIL: Moscow, Russia, 1991; 56p.
  43. Kulik, K.N. Methodological Manual on the Use of Information Technology in Agroforestry Mapping; VNIALMI: Volgograd, Russia, 2003; 46p. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kulik, K.N.; Koshelev, A.V. Methodological basis for agroforestry reclamation assessment of protective forest plantations according to remote monitoring data. For. Eng. J. 2017, 3, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Kulik, K.N.; Vinogradov, B.V. Mapping of the dynamics of land desertification by repeated aerial and space images. Mapp. Sci. Remote Sens. 1996, 33, 259–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pavlovsky, E.S.; Kulik, K.N. Aerospace monitoring of protective forest plantations. In Aerospace Monitoring of Forest Resources in the Zone of Intensive Management; Publishing House of the Institute of Space Research: Lvov, Ukraine, 1988; pp. 12–14. [Google Scholar]
  47. Petrov, V.I.; Kulik, K.N. Aerospace methods of forest reclamation assessment and monitoring of arid territories. In Forest Reclamation Methods for Increasing the Productivity of Agricultural Production and Nature Protection; VNIALMI: Volgograd, Russia, 1985; pp. 61–64. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kulik, K.N.; Rulev, A.S.; Yuferev, V.G. Geoinformational analysis of desertification dynamics in the Astrakhan region. Arid Ecosyst. 2015, 3, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kulik, K.N. Aerial and Satellite methods of research in agrosilvicultural amelioration. In Proceedings of the Third International Windbreaks, End Agroforestry Symposium, Ridgetown College, Ridgetown, ON, Canada, 2–7 June 1991; pp. 55–59. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kochetov, I.S.; Barabanov, A.T.; Garshinev, E.A. Agroforest Reclamation Adaptive-Landscape Arrangement of Watersheds; VNIALMI: Volgograd, Russia, 1999; 84p. [Google Scholar]
  51. Trofimov, A.M.; Kochurov, B.I.; Petrova, R.S.; Khaziakhmetova; Yu, A. Principles and approaches to compiling geoecological maps. Ecol. Syst. Devices 2003, 8, 22–35. [Google Scholar]
  52. Korytny, L.M. Geosystem-hydrological approach to natural and economic zoning. Geogr. Nat. Resour. 1987, 2, 32–36. [Google Scholar]
  53. Shvebs, G.I. The Concept of Paragenetic Landscapes and Nature Management. In Geography and Practice; Nauka: Leningrad, Russia, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  54. Milkov, F.N. Paragenetic Landscape Complexes; Voronezh Branch of the Geographical Society of the USSR: Voronezh, Russia, 1966; 167p. [Google Scholar]
  55. Korytny, L.M. Classification of Siberian river systems according to their size. Geogr. Nat. Resour. 1985, 4, 26–30. [Google Scholar]
  56. Horton, R.E. Erosion Development of Rivers and Drainage Basins; IL: Moscow, Russia, 1948; 240p. [Google Scholar]
  57. Dospekhov, B.A. Field Experience Methodology (with the Basics of Statistical Processing of Research Results); Aleans: Moscow, Russia, 2012; 352p. [Google Scholar]
  58. Plokhinsky, N.A. Biometrics: Textbook; MGU: Moscow, Russia, 1970; 254p. [Google Scholar]
  59. Davis, J. Statistics and Analysis of Geological Data; Mir: Moscow, Russia, 1977; 586p. [Google Scholar]
  60. Selezneva, A.V.; Dedova, I.S. Morphogenetic analysis of the erosional relief of the Volgograd right bank. Geomorphology 2019, 4, 88–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Timofeev, D.A.; Bylinskaya, L.N. Erosion hazard assessment map for the relief of the USSR. In Patterns of the Manifestation of Erosion and Channel Processes in Various Natural Conditions; MGU: Moscow, Russia, 1987; pp. 24–25. [Google Scholar]
  62. Armand, D.L. Zoning of the Territory of the USSR According to the Main Factors of Erosion; Nauka: Moscow, Russia, 1965; 235p. [Google Scholar]
  63. Brylev, V.A. Natural Conditions and Resources of the Volgograd Region; Peremena: Volgograd, Russia, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  64. Spiridonov, A.I. Geomorphology of the European Part of the USSR; Higher School: Moscow, Russia, 1978; pp. 72–74. [Google Scholar]
  65. Sazhin, A.N. Modern climate change and zonal agro-climatic problems (on the example of the Lower Volga region). Probl. Reg. Ecol. 2001, 1, 14–20. [Google Scholar]
  66. Reed, M.S.; Stringer, L.C.; Amiraslani, F.; Bernoux, M.; Bragante, D.; Centritto, M.; De Vente, J.; Kust, G. Climate change and desertification: Anticipating, assessing and adapting to future change in drylands. In Proceedings of the Impulse Report for the 3rd UNCCD Scientific Conference, Cancun, Mexico, 9–12 March 2015; Agropolis International and Groupe CCEE: Montpellier, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  67. Kiryushin, V.I. Theory of Adaptive Landscape Agriculture and Design of Agricultural Landscapes; Kolos: Moscow, Russia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  68. Tubalov, A.A. Recommendations for the Protection of Soils from Erosion and Increasing the Fertility of Eroded Lands in the Volgograd Region; VNIALMI: Volgograd, Russia, 1981; 51p. [Google Scholar]
  69. Craig, R.; Elevitch, D.; Mazaroli, N.; Ragone, D. Agroforestry Standards for Regenerative Agriculture. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Kashtanov, A.N.; Rulev, A.S. Methodological Manual and Normative Materials for the Development of Adaptive-Landscape Systems of Agriculture; Miracle Publishing House: Kursk, Russia, 2001; 260p. [Google Scholar]
  71. Garshinev, E.A.; Barabanov, A.T.; Zykov, I.G. Main directions of anti-erosion melioration. J. Agric. Sci. 1988, 1, 145–151. [Google Scholar]
  72. Act of the Volgograd Region of 7 May 2002 703-OD “On the Creation of the Nizhnekhopersky Natural Park”. Available online: http://oopt.aari.ru/oopt/Нижнехоперский (accessed on 19 May 2022).
  73. VNIALMI. Standards for the Formation of Optimal Forest Reclamation Complexes on Arable Land, Taking into Account the Factors of Degradation of Agricultural Landscapes in Farms of Various Forms of Ownership; VNIALMI: Moscow, Russia, 2002; 55p. [Google Scholar]
  74. Surmach, G.P.; Garshinev, E.A.; Kuznetsov, A.P. Recommendations for the Creation of a Complex of Agroforestry Reclamation Anti-Erosion Measures; VNIALMI: Volgograd, Russia, 1973; 114p. [Google Scholar]
  75. Zykov, I.G.; Dolgilevich, M.I.; Shvebs, G.I. Scientific Foundations of Forecasting and the System for Preventing Erosion Processes; VNIALMI: Volgograd, Russia, 1993; 146p. [Google Scholar]
Forests 13 01529 g001 550
Figure 1. Location of the study area.
Figure 1. Location of the study area.
Forests 13 01529 g001
Forests 13 01529 g002 550
Figure 2. The Evdovlya River: a fragment of the cartographic model of the distribution of ravines.
Figure 2. The Evdovlya River: a fragment of the cartographic model of the distribution of ravines.
Forests 13 01529 g002
Forests 13 01529 g003 550
Figure 3. The Evdovlya River: a fragment of the cartographic model of slope steepness.
Figure 3. The Evdovlya River: a fragment of the cartographic model of slope steepness.
Forests 13 01529 g003
Forests 13 01529 g004 550
Figure 4. The Evdovlya River: a fragment of the cartographic model of land use patterns for 2018.
Figure 4. The Evdovlya River: a fragment of the cartographic model of land use patterns for 2018.
Forests 13 01529 g004
Forests 13 01529 g005 550
Figure 5. Map of agroforestry grouping of catchments in the study area.
Figure 5. Map of agroforestry grouping of catchments in the study area.
Forests 13 01529 g005
Table
Table 1. Scoring of the agroforestry evaluation indicators.
Table 1. Scoring of the agroforestry evaluation indicators.
Range of Values of Erosive Dissection (km/km2)Range of Values of the Density of Ravine Tops (units/km2)Share of the Arable Land in the Catchment Located on Slopes with a Steepness of More Than 3°, %Share of the Nonforested Area of Slopes with a Steepness of More Than 8°, %Score
0025–3015–251
0.1–0.50.1–131–3526–352
0.6–11.1–236–4036–453
1.1–1.52.1–341–4546–554
>1.6>3.146–5256–655
Table
Table 2. Summation scoring of the agroforestry evaluation.
Table 2. Summation scoring of the agroforestry evaluation.
Gradation of Weighted ScoresConditional Agroecological StateGroup No.
6–8.5normalI
8.6–11riskII
11.1–13.5crisisIII
>13.6disasterIV
Table
Table 3. Arithmetic mean values of the mapped indicators calculated for selected agroforestry groups of territories.
Table 3. Arithmetic mean values of the mapped indicators calculated for selected agroforestry groups of territories.
Agroforestry GroupErosive Dissection (km/km2)Density of Ravine Tops (units/km2)Area of Arable Land Located on Slopes with a Steepness of More Than 3°, %Nonforested Areas of Slopes with a Steepness of More Than 8°, %Percentage of Forest Cover, %Area of Arable Land, %
IV (disaster)1.43.52561427
III (crisis)0.61.136461042
II (risk)0.30.442331152
I (normal)0.10.123172739
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tubalov, A.A. Agroforestry-Enhancing Typification of Agricultural Territories as a Basic Condition for Increasing the Efficiency of Protective Afforestation. Forests 2022, 13, 1529. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13101529

AMA Style

Tubalov AA. Agroforestry-Enhancing Typification of Agricultural Territories as a Basic Condition for Increasing the Efficiency of Protective Afforestation. Forests. 2022; 13(10):1529. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13101529

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tubalov, Alexey A. 2022. "Agroforestry-Enhancing Typification of Agricultural Territories as a Basic Condition for Increasing the Efficiency of Protective Afforestation" Forests 13, no. 10: 1529. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13101529

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop