Eurasian Soil Science

, Volume 43, Issue 11, pp 1202–1210 | Cite as

The first digital maps of biological productivity parameters

  • V. A. RozhkovEmail author
  • A. Z. Shvidenko
On the Centennial Anniversary of the Birth of N.I. Bazilevich


The databases and maps of the phytomass, mortmass, and annual production for Northern Eurasia published by N.I. Bazilevich in 1993 historically played an important role in the intensification of studies of the biological productivity of plant ecosystems in the countries of the former Soviet Union. The development of biological science in the last decades emphasized the priority and importance of these studies. This work presents the results of the formal processing of the digitized original maps of the phytomass, mortmass, and annual production compiled by Bazilevich for the natural zones and natural-agricultural provinces in the entire territory of the former Soviet Union. The values averaged for the entire territory of the former Soviet Union were 218.2 Gt of raw material (1 Gt = 109 t) for the phytomass reserves, 81.4 Gt for the mortmass, and 15.7 Gt/ha for the annual production. These are the theoretical estimates of the potential reserves of plant organic matter in the land systems of Northern Eurasia without consideration for the anthropogenic impacts (the infrastructure, settlements, land use, etc.) and the natural destruction processes. These estimates are not only of historical interest but they also quantitatively characterize the initial state of the ecosystems in the former Soviet Union for the assessment of the dynamics of the production process on the threshold of the epoch of global changes.


Eurasia Gross Primary Production Annual Production EURASIAN Soil Science Natural Zone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    V. A. Alekseev and R. A. Birdsi, Carbon in Ecosystems of Forests and Mires of Russia (Inst. Lesa i Drevesiny Ross. Akad. Nauk, Krasnoyarsk, 1994), 232 pp. [in Russian].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. I. Bazilevich, Biological Productivity of Ecosystems of Northern Eurasia (Nauka, Moscow, 1993), 293 pp. [in Russian].Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. L. Beruchashvili, Geophysics of Landscape (Vyssh. Shkola, Moscow, 1990), 280 pp. [in Russian].Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. I. Budyko, Global Ecology (Mysl’, Moscow, 1977), 327 pp. [in Russian].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. I. Kobak, Biotic Components of the Carbon Cycle (Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad, 1988) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. A. Kovda, Biogeochemistry of the Soil Cover (Nauka, Moscow, 1985) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. S. Orlov and O. N. Biryukova, “The Reserves of Carbon of Organic Compounds in the Soils of Russian Federation,” Pochvovedenie, No. 1, 21–32 (1995).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Natural-Agricultural Regionalization and Land Use in the Soviet Union (Kolos, Moscow, 1983), 336 pp. [in Russian].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    V. I. Prokaev, Methodological Basis of the Physiographic Regionalization (Prosveshchenie, Moscow, 1983), 174 pp. [in Russian].Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. A. Usol’tsev, Biological Productivity of the Forests of Northern Eurasia. Methods, Data Base, and Its Applications (Izd. Ross. Akad. Nauk, Yekaterinburg, 2007), 636 pp. [in Russian].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. D. Baldocchi, “Assessing the Eddy Covariance Technique for Evaluating Carbon Dioxide Exchange Rates of Ecosystems: Past, Present and Future,” Glob. Change Biol., No. 9, 479–492 (2003).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. F. Baker, R. M. Law, K. R. Gerney, et al., “TransCom 3 Inversion Intercomparison: Impact of Transport Model Errors on the Interannual Variability of Regional CO2 Fluxes, 1988–2003,” Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles, No. 20, 1002 (2006).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Beer, W. Lucht, C. Schmullius, and A. Shvidenko, “Small Net Carbon Dioxide Uptake by Russian Forests during 1981–1999,” Geoph. Res. Lett., No. 33, 1029 (2006).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    W. Cramer and D. W. Kicklighter, et al., “Comparing Global Models of Terrestrial Net Primary Productivity (NPP): Overview and Key Results,” Global Change Biol., No. 5, 1–15 (1999).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. J. Gustafson, A. Z. Shvidenko, B. R. Sturevant, and R. M. Sheller, “Predicting Global Change Effects on Forest Biomass and Composition in South-Central Siberia,” Ecol. Appl., No. 20, 700–715 (2009).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. P. Kolchugina and T. S. Vinson, “Comparison of Two Methods to Assess the Carbon Budget of Forest Biomes in the Former Soviet Union,” Water, Air, Soil Pollut., 70, 207–221 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. D. McGuire, J. M. Melillo, and L. A. Joyce, “Interactions between Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics in Estimating Net Primary Productivity for Potential Vegetation in North America,” Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles, No. 6, 101–124 (1992).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Shvidenko, S. Nilsson, and V. Rozhkov, “Status and Possibilities for Increased Influences of the Terrestrial Biota on the Carbon Budget in the Territories of the Former USSR,” Proc. Air&Waste Management Association Int. Specialty Conf. April 5–8, 1994 Global Climate Change-Science, Policy, and Mitigation Strategies (Phoenix, Arizona, 1994), p. 923–939.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Shvidenko, I. McCallum, S. Nilsson, et al., “Regional Terrestrial Vegetation Full Greenhouse Account for Northern Eurasia: A Systems Approach,” EGU General Assembly (Vienna, 2008), pp. 15–20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dokuchaev Soil Science InstituteRussian Academy of Agricultural SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.International Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisLaxenburgAustria

Personalised recommendations