Advanced search


Full Text:


High biodiversity and degree of endemism of mountain biota strengthen the mountain regions’ status for the territorial nature conservation. Analysis of the protected areas’ representativeness in various mountain regions of Russia shows some discrepancy between their quantity, square and regional biodiversity originality. The biggest divergences are marked for the Northern Caucasus. The main problems: small area of the protected territories and also cluster character of their spatial distribution, mostly in the high mountains are not supposed to conform with the highest values of the regional flora’s and fauna’s uniqueness, to compensate representativeness of the protected biota and, in anyway, to correspond with the purpose of nature protection frame—the protected territories ecologic network’s forming. The situation in the Urals, Siberia and the Far East seems to be better. The large areas of the protected territories are in general agreement with the high originality of the nature ecosystems. Nevertheless each concrete case needs analysis of the regional biota’s and ecosystems’ biodiversity distribution within the protected areas, including character and (or) unique elements of the regional biodiversity to be held. The development of the effectual territorial conservation of mountain regions needs differential approach. The creation of the large representative parcels of nature landscapes in the key-areas has the considerable meaning in the low-developed regions, difficult to access. And well-developed regions have the necessity of nature protected territories’ network development and the planning of the ecological frame’s forming. The territorial biodiversity conservation, including the system of federal, regional and local levels with protective conservation of the rare species has to be combined with ecosystem’s restoration, especially in the zones disturbed by erosion, recreation and military actions. Also it is necessary to develop the new types of the protected areas—ethnic-cultural territories of traditional mountain land-use. The biological resources’, ecosystems’ and ecological detriments’ evaluation is appropriate for the mountain biodiversity conservation. The latter is aimed to raise the effectiveness of the nature conservation activities and to prove the introduction of new mechanisms of their financing.

About the Authors

Arkady Tishkov

Russian Federation
Institute of Geography RAS, Staromonetny per., 29, 119017 Moscow, Russia

Elena Belonovskaya
Institute of Geography RAS, Staromonetny per., 29, 119017 Moscow, Russia
Russian Federation


1. Amirkhanov, A.M., Tishkov, A.A., Belonovskaya, E.A. (2002). Conservation of the Russian

2. mountains’ biological diversity. Ministry of natural resources of Russian Federation, Institute

3. of geography, Project SEF “Biodiversity conservation”, Мoscow, 80 p. (Russian).

4. Anenkhonov, O.A. (ed.) (2001). Guide-book of the plants of Buryatia. Ulan-Ude, 672 p.

5. (Russian).

6. Belonovskaya, E.A. (2000). The human-induced transformation of the ecosystems of the

7. Caucasus Mountains – In: Breymeyer A. (ed.) – Euro-Mab IV. Mountain zonality facing

8. global change, Conf. Papers, 21, IGiPZ PAN, Warszawa: 41–57.

9. Belonovskaya, E.A., Korotkov, K.O., Saravaiskiy, A.L., Tishkov, A.A. (1998). Survey and conservation

10. of the biodiversity in the mountain regions. Proceedings of RAS. Ser. geogr, (6):

11. –72. (Russian).

12. Belonovskaya, E.A., Zimina, R.P., Yasnyi, E.V., 1984. – Vegetative cover and animal population.

13. The Greater Caucasus – In: The Greater Caucasus – the Stara Planina (Balkan). “Nauka”,

14. Moscow: 121–147. (Russian).

15. Bolshakov, V.N., Berdyugin, K.I. (2001). Strategy of the Russian mountain ecosystem

16. biodiversity’s conservation – In: Sustainable development of the mountain territories:problems of regional partnership and regional policy of mountain areas. Publishing House

17. Art-Business-Centre, Moscow: 11–23. (Russian).

18. Gorchakovsky, P.L. (1968). Vegetation. In: The Urals and Ural region. “Nauka”, Moscow:

19. –262. (Russian).

20. Green data book of Siberia, 1996. – Rare and endogenous plant communities. Siberian

21. Publishing House, “Nauka”, Novosibirsk, 396 p. (Russian).

22. Grosskheim, A.A. (1949). The Guide book of the Caucasian plants. “Sovetskaya Nauka”,

23. Moscow, 704 p. (Russian).

24. Klimesh, L. (1999). Contrasts and problems of the mountains, surrounding Baikal lake.

25. In: Mountains of Earth: the global priority. Publishing House “Noosphere”, Moscow: 20 p.

26. (Russian).

27. Kuminova, A.V. (1960). Vegetation cover of the Altai. Publishing House of the Sib. Dep. AS

28. USSR, Novosibirsk, 450 p. (Russian).

29. Kuminova, A.V. (ed.) (1976). Vegetation cover of Khakassiya. “Nauka”, Novosibirsk, 424 p.

30. (Russian).

31. Kuvaev, V.B. (1980). Altitudinal distribution of plants in the Putoran Mountains. “Nauka”,

32. Leningrad, 264 p. (Russian).

33. Malyshev, L.I. (1994). Floristic richness of the USSR. In: Actual problems of the comparable

34. floristic study: Materials of the III working conference on the comparable floristic. Kungur,

35. “Nauka”, Sant-Petersburg: Pp.34–96. (Russian).

36. Ogureeva, G.M. (ed.) (1999). Latitudinal zones and altitudinal belts’ types vegetation in Russia

37. and adjoining territories. Scale 1:8000000. Legend and keywords of the map. Moscow,

38. p. (Russian).

39. Red Data Book of Plant Communities in the Former USSR (1997). Lancaster University, UK, 69 p.

40. Red data book of Russian Federation. Animals (2001). AST Astrel, Moscow, 862 p.

41. (Russian).

42. Red data book of Russian Federation. Plants (1988). Rosagropromizdat, Moscow, 590 p.

43. (Russian).

44. Regions of Russia. Statistical digest. 1999. Goscomstat of Russia, Moscow, 1: 232 p.;

45. : 861 p. (Russian).

46. The First National Report “Biological diversity conservation in Russian Federation” (1997).

47. Moscow. Goscomecology of Russia, Project SEF “Biodiversity conservation”, Moscow,

48. p. (Russian).

49. Tishkov, A.A. (1995). Nature protected areas and the frame of stability creation. In:

50. Evaluation of the environmental quantity and ecological cartography. IG RAS, Moscow:

51. p. 94–107. (Russian).

52. Tishkov, A.A. (1997). Ecological restoration of the Northern disturbed ecosystems. ROU

53. RAO, Moscow, 115 p. (Russian).

54. Tishkov, A.A., Maslyakov, М.Yu., Tsarevskaya, N.G. (1995). Anthropogenic transformation of

55. biodiversity in the process of casual introduction of organisms (biogeographical consequences).

56. Proceedings of RAS. Ser. geogr. (4): Pp. 74–85. (Russian).

57. Urbanavichyus, G.P. (2002). Lichenoindication of the contemporary and palaeobioclimatic

58. conditions of the Southern Baikal region. Proceedings of RAS. Ser. geogr. (4): 74–85.

59. (Russian).

60. Voroshilov, V.N. (1982). The Guide-book of the plants of the Soviet Far East. “Nauka”, Moscow,

61. p. (Russian).

For citation:


Views: 377

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

ISSN 2071-9388 (Print)
ISSN 2542-1565 (Online)