«MISCELLANEOUS»

PROTECTED AREA NETWORK OF THE SOUTHERN FAR-EAST — BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION REQUIRES TERRITORIAL OPTIMISATION

Biological diversity is a fundamental property of biota. Research of biodiversity and development of biodiversity conservation approaches are important fields of study nowadays (Lushekina, Neronov, 1999; Global Biodiversity…, 2002). Territorial protection of wild nature is the key aspect of the biodiversity conservation. The need in such studies is recognised in decisions made at highest international and national levels (Conservation…, 1997; National…, 2001).

Successful practical examples of territorial biodiversity conservation include some international conservation initiatives, for instance, the WWF 'GLOBAL 200' programme (1988). WWF experts believe that in order to conserve global biodiversity, it is necessary to identify zones which represent all basic species, populations, communities, systems, and relations between various organisms and natural environments. Such zones were called 'ecoregions' and their conservation would guarantee the conservation of global biodiversity on Earth. Most ecoregions are located in tropics and on islands but 3 ecoregions overlap.

The southern part of the Russian continental Far-East, despite its small size (only 2.5% of the total Eurasian area), comprehensively represents the whole range of ecosystem transitions - from forest-tundra ecosystems, through various taiga ecosystems, to nemoral and steppe ones. In addition, continentality sectors of the eastern spectrum - from the supercontinental to pacific - are well-represented here, too (Figure 1).

The general methodical approach to taxonomic diversity assessment included obtaining data that demonstrate the total species diversity of flora and fauna within certain zones - similarly with earlier studies that targeted azonal territorial units (Bocharnikov et. al., 2001).

In this study, we aimed to identify the sufficiency degree of existing protected areas, identify their distribution features, and propose quantitative criteria for their optimisation. We believed that the identification of top-priority sites and further optimisation of the whole PA network must be based on exhaustive survey of biota features and living conditions, while the factual territorial protection sufficiency degree must be assessed in relation with its biodiversity level.

The assessment of PAs territorial distribution was based on the original ecoregion zonation scheme that had been specifically adopted for biodiversity assessment purposes (Bocharnikov et. al., 2002). Sub-biome has been taken as the working level purposively because a unit of this rank is an elementary zonal ecosystem that can not be divided anymore using either zonal or sector criteria. This level, therefore, combines both typicality and uniqueness criteria which is extremely important for geographical zapovednik network creation purposes (Lavrenko et al, 1958; Benchmark…, 1973; Puzachenko, Mirotvortsev, 1976; Vtorov, Vtorova, 1983; Gunin, Radziminsky, 1990; Sokolov et al., 1997).

Current Protected Area Network — Main Features

The assessment of territorial distribution of existing zapovedniks (strict nature reserves) and zakazniks (refuges) in the Far-Eastern Ecoregional Complex (FEERC) shows that their distribution is irregular: zapovedniks trend to concentrate in the southern part, while in the central and northern parts they are either rare or absent at all (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Location and composition (by categories) of protected areas in the Far-East Ecoregion

Sub-biomes (figures in black circles): 1 - subpacific southern forest-tundra with Pinus pimula (Palas) Regel brushwood; 2 - northern eucontinental softwood taiga; 3 - northern subcontinental softwood, rarely - hardwood taiga; 4 - northern subpacific hardwood and softwood taiga; 5 - medium supercontinental partially stepped softwood taiga; 6 - medium eucontinental softwood taiga; 7 - medium subcontinental softwood, rarely - hardwood taiga; 8 - medium subpacific hardwood and softwood taiga; 9 - medium eupacific hardwood taiga; 10 - southern eucontinental partially stepped softwood taiga; 11 - southern subcontinental softwood, rarely - hardwood taiga; 12 - southern subpacific hardwood and softwood taiga; 13 - southern eupacific hardwood taiga; 14 - subcontinental partially stepped softwood subtaiga; 15 - subpacific hardwood and softwood subtaiga; 16 - eupacific hardwood subtaiga; 17 - subcontinental subnemoral stepped forests; 18 - subpacific subnemoral partially stepped forests; 19 - eupacific subnemoral forests; 20 - subpacific nemoral partially stepped forests; 21 - eupacific nemoral forests.

Protected areas (figures outside circles):
Zapovedniks:
1 - Bureinsky, 2 - Zeisky, 3 - Norsky, 4 - Bureinsky, 5 - Khingansky, 6 - Bastak, 7 - Bolshekhekhtsirsky, 8 - Komsomolsky, 9 - Bolonsky, 10 - Botchinsky, 11 - Sikhote-Alinsky, 12 - Khankaisky, 13 - Ussuriysky, 14 - Lazovsky, 15 - Kedrovaya Pad, 16 - Dalnevostochny Morskoy (Far-East Marine);

Zakazniks:
17 - Kava, 18 - Ozerny, 19 - Ulia, 20 - Lopchinsky, 21 - Urushinsky, 22 - Urkansky, 23 - Magdagachinsky, 24 - Tolbuzinsky, 25 - Bekeldeul, 26 - Verkhne-Depsky, 27 - Vana, 28 - Semenovsky, 29 - Iversky, 30 - Orlovsky, 31 - Gerbikansky, 32 - Blagoveshensky, 33 - Berezovsky, 34 - Burminsky, 35 - Tashinsky, 36 - Tom'sky, 37 - Ulminsky, 38 - Muravievsky, 39 - Amursky, 40 - Kharkovsky, 41 - Zavitinsky, 42 - Verkhne-Zavitinsky, 43 - Irkun, 44 - Zhlundinsky, 45 - Andreevsky, 46 - Khingano-Arharinsky, 47 - Ganukan, 48 - Dublikansky, 49 - Badjalsky, 50 - Oldjikansky, 51 - Kharpinsky, 52 - Udil, 53 - Orlik, 54 - Dichun, 55 - Zhuravliny, 56 - Shukhi-Poktoi, 57 - Ulzhuri, 58 - Churki, 59 - Zabelovsky, 60 -Khekhtsirsky, 61 - Bobrovy, 62 - Tumninsky, 63 - Birsky, 64 - Churensky, 65 - Verkhnebikinsky, 66 - Losiny, 67 - Taezhny, 68 - Goraly, 69 - Tikhy, 70 - Berezovy, 71 - Vasilkovsky, 72 - Chernie Skali, 73 - Poltavsky, 74 - Borisovskoe Plato, 75 - Barsovy, 76 - Manominsky Corridor, 77 - Manau, 78 - Pikhtsa, 79 - Mataisky;

Nature park: 80 - Khasansky.

The map was produced using information layers developed by IAC "TIGIS", Pacific Institute of Geography of the Far-East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Some taiga sub-biomes include only zapovedniks and no zakazniks, national, or nature parks (including perspective PAs), while in the others the situation is opposite. In north-taiga subpacific, south-taiga eucontinental, and south-taiga subcontinental sub-biomes, zapovedniks and zakazniks are present in relatively equal proportions.

Perhaps, the relatively low density of PAs in the taiga part of FEERC is caused by the low development degree in this area - primary landscapes still predominate here, while low population density and lack of roads provide for preservation in the future. It is necessary to keep in mind, however, that development rates can grow extremely quickly in case of big investments into the mining sector. Examples of such quick development include exploitation of Sakhalin shelves and Elgin coal deposits, Chiney mining-custom plant, and some other economic projects implemented with record pace.

PAs located in subcontinental and subpacific subnemoral and nemoral forests go to the other extreme: the PA network here consists of isolated small areas. Many such areas are 'islands of wilderness' surrounded by arable lands and secondary forests. The PA density is so small because it is really difficult to identify well-preserved sites and designate new PAs overcoming numerous administrative barriers.

Within the transbiome subpacific-pacific part of FEERC that covers shores of Okhotsk and Japan seas, the PA density is high and even very high, while the network itself (especially in the south) is well-designed and includes complex conservation frameworks. From one side, these regions are moderately developed (primary landscapes alternate secondary ones in a diffusive manner) - this allows to designate new PAs here relatively easy. From the other side, these regions attract close attention of conservation organisations.

The best situation is in 6 sub-biomes where the PA density is high and even very high (15-20% of the total sub-biome area). These are small sub-biomes of subpacific and eupacific sectors located in basins of rivers that fall directly into Okhotsk and Japan seas (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Density of the current PA network in the Russian Far East and expert proposals on its extension

Figures on the map correspond to numbers in square brackets near references in the article.

The map was produced using information layers developed by IAC "TIGIS", Pacific Institute of Geography of the Far-East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

In the central part of FEERC, the nature ecosystem fragmentation degree is high. In some ecosystems, small isolated PAs were designated. A relatively full-scale (in some aspects even model) conservation framework consisting of 7 neighbouring protected areas exists only east of the Khabarovsk City. This PA framework can be considered as the 'core' of intact ecosystems for the most part of Western Sikhote-Alin and somewhat - for North-Western Sikhote-Alin.

Therefore, based on PA density, the Far-Eastern Ecoregion can be divided into 4 parts:

• north-taiga-middle-taiga continental-subcontinental;
• nemoral subcontinental-subpacific;
• south-taiga-subtaiga subcontinental-subpacific; and
• transbiome subpacific-pacific.

Assessment of existing PA categories shows that zakazniks predominate in the region (more than 50% of the total PA number). The equity of zapovedniks is about 30%. Perspective national and nature parks also have a relatively high equity (their total area should be up to 12% of the total PA network area). Most integral conservation frameworks are also located here; each of these frameworks has a zapovednik in the centre ('core') and a number of zakazniks and/or national parks that perform buffer functions. However, even here the borders and combination of various PA categories are still far from perfection.

Review of Scientific Proposals on Far-East PA Network Creation

The development of PA network in FEERC includes two phases:

1. beginning of the XX century - 1951; and
2. 1951 - present time.

In the 1950s - beginning of the 1960s, the then existing Far-East zapovednik system was transformed and their area reduced significantly (Zapovedniks…, 1985). Since the beginning of the 1970s, there were many changes in the PA development process. Many different proposals on regional PA network development and optimisation were made within several last decades. Issues related to conservation of vascular plants, birds, big mammals (ungulates and predators), and forests are addressed well enough.

S.D. Shlotgauer (1984 [31], 1990) has identified main focuses of rare plants in Khabarovsk Krai and Jewish Autonomous Region that are suitable for protected area designation. S.S. Kharkevich and I.V. Vishin (1985) [30] believe that Primorsky Krai, where 1723 vascular plant species (43% of the regional flora) grow in 5 zapovedniks, has specific significance for the Far-East flora biodiversity conservation.

Significant attention has been paid to the conservation of forest ecosystems. For example, on the basis of studies by V.A. Rozenberg (Rozenberg, 1986) and calculations by S.M. Krasnoperov, the territorial specificity of the state forest fund distribution by forest types has been identified; their conservation significance clarified; and the native forest preservation degree in Primorsky Krai assessed. These and other outputs of multiyear studies have been summarised in the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Sikhote-Alin (Bogatov et al., 2000) [3].

Some interesting proposals on Far-East PA network optimisation have been made by ornithologists. Data on seabird colonies distribution and condition and population trends in the Far East are summarised in an article by A.G. Velizhanin (1978). Study by V.N. Bocharnikov and Yu.V. Shibnev [6] provides a list of 29 most important wetland sites, briefly describes their ornithological complexes, and shows their significance for migratory birds.

Both in Russian and abroad, great attention is traditionally paid to territorial protection of big predators (first of all, the Amur tiger and Far-East leopard) and ungulates (wild pig, Siberian stag, elk, axis deer, reindeer, and bighorn sheep). Experts believe that PAs designated to conserve animals listed above must be large enough and not isolated from each other. Otherwise predators' and their victims' populations become fragmented due to their large reproductive activity range (Pikunov, Korkishko, 1992; Matyushkin et al., 1996; Conservation Strategy for Amur Tiger…, 1996; Conservation Strategy for Far-East Leopard…, 1999).

Perhaps, the worst researched issue is the identification of borders in shore-marine protected areas. A.V. Zhirmunsky proposed to incorporate neighbouring sea areas into all maritime PAs (Zhirmunsky, 1982, 1987; Zhirmunsky, 1994). Some experts believe, however, that even this approach does not address maritime PAs designation problems completely (Spiridonov, Ozolinsh, 1999).

It is necessary to note that specific distribution features of various taxa have different biogeographic and ecological reasons and their biodiversity focuses, therefore, do not always coincide. This is why, all regional PA network development schemes proposed to the moment - both taxon-specific and complex - have certain taxonomic affinities (Long-term…, 1993 [11]; Urusov, 1997, 2000 [29]; Priority…, 1999 [21]; Bogatov et al., 2000, etc.). As a result, all these schemes aim to conserve less that 1% of the total biological diversity.

It is also necessary to note that the species diversity of all vertebrates (including fish) and vascular plants is only 14.0% of the global biological diversity, but if we take into account research degrees of various taxa, the equity of groups listed above reduces to 0.2%. According to Global Biodiversity Outlook (2002), insects, that normally are not taken into consideration during PA network planning, constitute at least 69.5% of the global biological diversity (up to 90% taking into account research degrees).

This is an evident contradiction because, according to the Convention on Biological Diversity (1995), Global Biodiversity Outlook (2002), and the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy of Russia (2001), each species, being the least genetically-closed system, deserves protection. The main PA designation criterion, therefore, should be to provide long-term territorial protection for as big portion and range of the regional biological diversity as possible. We believe that the existing PA network should be revised on the basis of data available not only for vertebrates and vascular plants but also for invertebrates who, in fact, constitute the backbone of the taxonomic diversity. It is also necessary to take into consideration specific features of ecosystem, population, and coenosis diversity and general condition of the gene pool - but this should be addresses in the framework of a specific programme.

Principal Proposals on FEERC PA Network Optimisation

Prior to reviewing regional situations and biodiversity conservation perspectives in FEERC, it is necessary to emphasise the following: It is proven that within an ecoregional complex, the level of biological diversity and biological significance of a territorial unit (in our case - sub-biome) depend on the following main factors: latitude and longitude of the site, its size, and the presence of mountains. Therefore, from the inventory point of view, most biologically-rich zonal units in FEERC are located in southern mountain-valley parts of the region, in the Amur River catchment area, while most poor zonal units are in the northern part of the ecoregion.

Economic development affects biodiversity in a complex way: from one side, any development disturbs native ecosystems; from the other side, local ecological diversity grows. Of course, this issue requires more detailed addressing taking into consideration concrete local conditions, but our analysis of the matrix demonstrating correspondence between biodiversity level and factual conservation status showed that biodiversity conservation perspectives in the framework of the current PA network in various FEERC sub-biomes are definitely not equal (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Recommendations on PA network optimisation in the Far-East Ecoregion

The lower inset shows biodiversity ranks. The upper table shows the correspondence between biodiversity ranks and factual conservation status of the area (PAs density) at the sub-biome level.

The PAs Density Legend

	higher than the optimal density more than by 10%
	higher than the optimal density less than by 10%
	optimal density
	lesser than the optimal density less than by 10%
	lesser than the optimal density more than by 10%

The map was produced using information layers developed by IAC "TIGIS", Pacific Institute of Geography of the Far-East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Subpacific and eucontinental north-taiga biomes where bird migration routes and colonies as well as significant mountains are located are most important for maintenance of taiga ecosystems and biophilotic complexes. These, from one side, maintain big ecological phenomena and, from the other side, ensure comfortable coexistence of common species of Eurasian taiga with East-Siberian, and Beringian species. Middle and northern Sikhote-Alin taiga biomes that combine features of taiga and subnemoral ecosystems are distinguished into a separate group.

We mean only a certain generalisation level that was possible for us. At landscape-provincial and local levels, concrete situations can differ strongly from the average situation. It is important to note that simple identification of 'hotspots' at the provincial level (Priority…, 1999) and development of conservation strategies based only on the distribution of big predators, forest formations, or Red Data Book species (Bogatov et al., 2000) is not sufficient now for assured conservation of biodiversity as a whole.

The following general conclusions can be made. Best biodiversity conservation opportunities exist in the north-western part of FEERC, in subcontinental hemiarctic ecosystems. The general biodiversity level here is low (species and taxonomic bareness in all model groups, almost complete absence of endemic spp., absence of altitude zoning), while the density of PAs is very high (25% of the total sub-biome area). Development focuses are dispersed, local conservation complexes are located among natural landscapes, anthropogenic pressure is insignificant, and PAs perform their functions successfully.

Territorial expansion could be useful for PA network optimisation in middle-taiga eupacific (currently PAs here occupy less than 15% of the total area) and nemoral eupacific sub-biomes. It is acceptable to designate federal-level traditional nature use areas in lands reserved for PA designation, for instance, in catchment areas of Samargi and Bikin rivers (Bikin…, 1997).

Within the subcontinental south-taiga sub-biome, where PAs occupy less than 15% of the total area, their area can be slightly enlarged through the designation of a buffer zone around the environmental hotspot "Nora and Selemja Interfluve" proposed in the regional review of environmental hotspots (Priority…, 1999).

The PA network in continental and transitional subcontinental-subpacific middle- and north-taiga sub-biomes and transitional subcontinental subnemoral forests is not adequate enough. For taiga ecosystems, the PA network is not adequate enough due to low and even extremely low density of PAs. For subnemoral ecosystems, the PA network is not adequate enough due to their high (for FEERC) biological status. We believe that it is necessary to designate a number of additional PAs in each region. An alternative way could be wise extension of existing PAs or combination of these two approaches. It is recommended to designate the at least two conservation complexes in eucontinental and subcontinental northern taiga on the extreme north of the Khabarovsk Krai where such areas are almost absent. Preliminary, on the basis of some factors (presence of infrastructure, ecological and landscape diversity of the sub-biomes, estimated location of major ecological corridors), it is recommended to designate both conservation complexes along the border with Yakutia: in the southern part of Sette-Daban Ridge, near winter trail Okhotsk - Ust-Maya; and in the eastern part of Suntar-Hayata Ridge, near winter trail Okhotsk - Oimyakon.

In all other south-taiga and sub-taiga sub-biomes, PA networks could be optimised without designating new PAs - it would be enough to revise the conservation status of existing PAs. Situation is similar in eucontinental south-taiga and supercontinental middle-taiga forests on the extreme north-west of Amur region where it is not necessary to extend the PA network significantly. In the extreme south-eastern part of Primorsky Krai, the situation in many ways is similar, too. The total area of PAs here is very large - almost 25% of the lands.

The situation in sub-biomes of nemoral and subnemoral subpacific forests in the western part of Primorsky Krai and middle part of Amur region is more serious. According to the biological status of this area and its importance for sustainable conservation of regional biodiversity, the total area of PAs here must be, at least, 20% (instead of current 7%). However, most lands are already developed and the figure mentioned above is unachievable. From the other side, the high economic development degree and high decline, transformation, and overuse threats to native ecosystems require to address this issue immediately.

To a certain extent, the issue should be addressed through the designation of a relatively large nature park in the northern part of Siny Ridge (Bogatov et al., 2000). The issue could also be partially addressed through the designation of a PA in the area specially reserved for this purpose (Pogranichny Ridge) (Bersenev, 1997). It is also crucial to continue the creation of an integral conservation complex near the Khanka Lake with cognominal zapovednik (i.e. Khankaisky) serving as the core (Glushenko, Shibaev, 1996). For this purpose, it was proposed to designate a nature park with seasonal regime on the western shore of the lake (Urusov, 2000) and extend buffer zones on the eastern shore (Priority…, 1999).

We would like to emphasise that our conclusions do not neglect the necessity to make more detailed rationales, including rationales for revising PA borders and status. Furthermore, to provide cores for conservation complexes, it is strongly recommended to raise status of certain zakazniks and designate them zapovedniks or national parks, especially in sub-biomes lacking such PAs to the moment.

Conclusion

In the Russian Far East, the adequacy of the PA network in continental and transitional subcontinental-subpacific middle- and north-taiga sub-biomes located in northern parts of Amur region and Khabarovsk Krai, where currently PAs are either lacking or their area is too small, is doubtful.

Biodiversity conservation perspectives are also uncertain in transitional subcontinental subnemoral forest of the south-eastern part of Amur region where the PA density is definitely insufficient. The biodiversity conservation situation in sub-biomes of subnemoral and nemoral subpacific forests in the western part of Primorsky Krai and middle part of Amur region, where the PA density must be increased significantly, is even more serious.

The PA density is adequate in most transitional subcontinental-subpacific south-taiga and sub-taiga sub-biomes in the south of Amur region, Khabarovsk Krai, and Primorsky Krai and in eupacific nemoral forests of the Peter the Great Bay in the southern part of Primorsky Krai. Biodiversity conservation perspectives are most optimistic in the extreme north of the region, in subcontinental hemiarctic ecosystems. The situation is safe enough in all other sub-biomes located along shores of Okhotsk and Japan seas.

References

Amur tiger conservation strategy in Russia. – Moscow; Vladivostok, 1996. – 38 p.

Benchmark taiga natural sites. – Irkutsk, 1973. – 109 p.

Bersenev Yu.I. Protected natural areas of Primorsky Krai. – Vladivostok, 1997 – 40 p.

Bikin: Complex assessment of natural conditions, biodiversity, and resources. – Vladivostok, 1997 – 156 p. with inset.

Bocharnikov N.V., Darman Yu.A., Ermoshin V.V. Taxonomic diversity assessment in the Far-East ecoregion – preliminary outputs // V Far-East Conference on Protected Area Management dedicated to the 80th anniversary of Academician A.V. Zhirmunsky. – Vladivostok, 2001. – p. 49–52.

Bocharnikov N.V., Martinenko A.B., Glushenko Yu.N., Darman Yu.A., Ermoshin V.V. Nedoluzhko V.A., Nechaev V.A., Biological diversity of the Far-East ecoregion. – Vladivostok, 2002. – 1p.:il.

Bocharnikov N.V., Shibaev Yu.N. Wetlands of the southern Far East as waterfowl biotopes (cadastre) // Birds of fresh waters and seashores of the Russian southern Far East and their protection. – Vladivostok, 1996. – p. 11–31.

Bogatov V.V., Mikuell D., Rosenberg V.A., Voronov B.A., Krasnopeev S.M., Merill T. – the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Sikhote-Alin. – Vladivostok, 2000. – 135 p.

Conservation Action Plan for the Russian Far East Ecoregion complex. – Vladivostok; Khabarovsk; Blagoveshensk; Birobidzhan, 2003. – Pt. 2. – 78 p.

Conservation of biological diversity in Russia. The first national report of the Russian Federation. Russia’s compliance with the obligations in the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity / Editor in Chief A.M. Amirkhanov. – Moscow, 1997. – 170 p., il.

Convention on Biological Diversity // Compendium of RF legislation – 1995. – #12. – p. 1024.

Far-East leopard conservation strategy in Russia. – Vladivostok, 1999. – 30 p.

Global 200. A Blueprint for Saving Life on Earth. – Gland, 1998.

Global Biodiversity Outlook. – Montreal; Qoebec, 2002. – 320 p.

Glushenko Yu.N., Shibaev Yu.N. Khankaisky Zapovednik requires extension // Birds of fresh waters and seashores of the Russian southern Far East and their protection. – Vladivostok, 1996. – p. 76–85.

Gunin P.D., Padziminsky P.Z. Cartographic model of protected ecosystems condition as an indicator of regional and global environmental disturbances // Zapovedniks of the USSR – their present and future: Theses for the All-Union Conference. – Novgorod, 1990. – p. 23–26.

Kharkevich S.S., Vishin I.B. Conservation of the natural flora gene pool in the Soviet Far East – condition and objectives (vascular plants) // Conservation of rare vascular plant species in the Soviet Far East. – Vladivostok, 1985.

Lavrenko E.M., Geptner V.G., Kinikov S.V., Formozov A.N. Perspective plan of geographical zapovednik network in the USSR (draft) // Environmental conservation and protected area management in the USSR. Moscow, 1958. – Bul. 3. – p. 3–62.

Long-term programme for environmental conservation and wise resource use in Primorsky Krai until 2005 (Ecological programme). – Vladivostok, 1993. – Part 1. – 192 p.

Lushekina A.A., Neronov V.M. Biological diversity in Mongolia and its conservation perspectives // Advances in modern biology. – 1999. – V. 119, #5. – p. 515–526.

Matyushkin E.N., Pikunov D.G., Dunishenko Yu.M., Mikuell D.G. Population, habitat structure, and condition of the Amur tiger living environment in the Russian Far East: Final report for the conservation policy and technology project in the Russian Far East of the US Agency for International Development. – Vladivostok, 1996. – 65 p.

National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy of Russia. – Moscow, 2001. – 76 p.

Pikunov D.G., Korkishko V.G. Leopard of the Far East. – Moscow, 1992. – 189 p.

Priority areas of the Russian Far East for biodiversity conservation (environmental ‘hotspots’) (review). – Vladivostok, 1999. – 200 p.

Puzachenko Yu.G., Mirotvortsev Yu. Zapovedniks of the Far East // Hunt and hunting economy. – 1976. – #4. – p. 18–20.

Rozenberg V. A. Design and Contens of a Database of Regional Inventory of Forest Types // Principles and Methods of Ecol. Information. – Moscow, 1986. – P. 55–57.

Shlotgauer S.D. Plant world of suboceanic mountains. – Moscow, 1990. – 224 p.

Shlotgauer S.D. Rare plant species in Khabarovsk Krai and their conservation: Preprint. – Khabarovsk, 1984. – 43 p.

Sokolov V.E., Filonov K.P., Nuhimovskaya Yu.D., Shadrina G.D. Ecology of Russian protected areas. – Moscow, 1997. – 576 p.

Spiridonov V., Ozolinsh A. Marine protected natural sites: a start in life // Protected natural areas: Materials for the Concept of protected area network in Russia. – Moscow, 1999. – p. 198–200.

Urusov V.M. Geography of biological diversity in the Far East (vascular plants). – Vladivostok, 1997. – 245 p.

Urusov V.M. The Far East: nature use within a unique landscape. Vladivostok, 2000. – 340 p.

Velizhanin A.G. Distribution and population condition of seabird colonies in the Far East // Actual conservation issues in the Far East. – Vladivostok, 1978. – p. 154–172.

Vtorov P.P., Vtorova V.N. Benchmarks of nature. – Moscow, 1983. – 204 p.

Zapovedniks of the Far East of the USSR / Editors V.E. Sokolov, E.E. Siroechkovsky. Moscow, 1985. – 319 p.

Zhirmunsky A. V. Marine reserves in Russia Far East and their role in conservation of species diversity // Bridges of Sci. between North America and their Rus. Far East: Proc. of 45th Arctic Sci. Conf. Anchorage, Alaska, 25–27 Aug. 1994; Vladivostok, Russia, 29 Aug. – 2 Sept. 1994. – Anchorage, 1994. – P. 78–82.

Zhirmunsky A.V. Development perspectives of marine protected areas located at shelves of Far-East seas // Shelves: nature use and environmental conservation issues: Theses for the IV All-Union Conference. – Vladivostok, 1982. – p. 127–128.

Zhirmunsky A.V. Marine protected areas located at shelves of Far-East seas // Studies of the Professors Club. – Vladivostok, 1997. – V.1. – p. 78–83.

This study had been undertaken with the financial support from WWF (grants ## 2063/RU0075.01/GLP and D84/RU0075.01/GLP "Ensuring long-term conservation of the Russian Far East Ecoregion")

Bocharnikov V.N.,
Ph.D. in Biology
(Pacific Institute of Geography of the Far-East Branch
of the Russian Academy of Sciences)

Martinenko A.B.,
Ph.D. in Biology
(Far-East State University)

<< | contents | top |