CLASSIFICATION OF VERTEBRATE COMMUNITY AMPHIBIAN, BIRDS AND SMALL MAMMALS OF THE WEST SIBERIAN PLAIN

 

Yu.S. Ravkin*, L.G. Vartapetov, V.A. Yudkin, I.V. Pokrovskaja, K.V. Toropov, V.S. Zhukov, S.M. Tzybulin, A.K. Dobrotvorsky, B.N. Fomin, V.V. Panov, V.N. Blinov, T.K. Blinova, A.M. Adam, I.N. Bogomolova, E.L. Shor, I.V. Lukyanova, V.P. Starikov, S.A. Solovyev, V.M. Anufriev, A.A. Ananin, G.M. Tertitsky

Laboratory of zoological monitoring Institute of Animal Systematics and Ecology Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, 630091, Russia, zm@eco.nsc.ru

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. Russia, 630091 Novosibirsk, Frunze str. 11

 

Key words: amphibian, birds, small mammals, West Siberia, community, classification

Abstract

The unified classification of the population number in the second half of summer of amphibian, birds and small mammal communities of West Siberian Plain is presented.

Introduction

Heterogeneity of amphibian , birds and small mammal communities, considered together, is analyzed. The communities involve the greater part of the terrestrial vertebrate population. Thus , it is reasonable to suppose, that the common picture in spatial changes of these taxocenoses is compared with that in all terrestrial vertebrates of the studied area. Regions and census years and full list of participants involved are given in previous publications (Ravkin et al., 1977, 1991, 1995 a,b; 2001). Latin species names are given according to publications of A.G. Bannikov, et al. (1977), The Catalogue of Mammalia of USSR (1981), A.I. Ivanov (1976), types of fauna after B.K. Shtegman (1938) with some refinements and additions.

Materials and methods

Animals were censused in the second half of summer (from 16 July till 31 August) since 1963 till 1995. To compare data the relative indices of amphibian and small mammal abundance are adjusted to the absolute ones (Ravkin, Lukjanova, 1976). Then the species abundance for each group of animals was averaged on the plots of the map "Vegetation of the West Siberian Plain" (1976), and differentiated over three almost equal longitudinal bands. The latter was done lest the information on the provincial differences of the population (when present) should be lost. Thereafter, the communities' variants of the three groups of animals, distinguished on these plots and having the same number are combined. Data on settlement population and water-water-adjacent communities are also averaged. The latter is conventionally limited by amphibian and small mammals, encountered only on trembling bogs and narrow coastal band, temporary drained when shallowing and after the tides.

The described averaging and the unification of original data resulted in 363 mean variants of the community, used for father estimation of the Jaccar-Naumov similarity coefficients. According to these coefficients the community was classified with one of the methods of cluster analysis (Trofimov, Ravkin,1980). The comparison of the distinguished groups, additionally subdivided into subgroups, shown that the influence of provinciality is not so great as compared with other more important environmental factors. Thereafter, the obtained mean data were again averaged over the plots of the map, independently of the belonging to the latitudinal band. This averaging resulted in 271 means, used again for the community classification.

Groups of variants, combined at the first division of the totality, were considered as the types of the community. Conceptually and territorially they approximate to the notion of the vegetation type (forest, meadow, steppe), including other, but similar variants of the communities. For example, the forest type can include the community of the afforestated marshes. Types are combined into systems, if on the dominant similarity they follow each other, forming zonal rows, (e.g. tundra type is alternated by the forest tundra, then by the forest and steppe). Usually these systems consist of types with more pronounced similarity between them, than with types of other systems. Rows from West Siberia usually show the decreased similarity between northern and more southern types. It allows supra-type grouping to be distinguished inside the rows. Types again are subdivided into subtypes, then into classes and sometimes into subclasses in the same fashion that the totality. In all combinations the equally pronounced environmental factors or their combinations (regimes) are found. These factors or combinations shouldn't be traced on the territory, occupied by other distinguished group. For example, according to the similarity type the totality of the communities was divided into three groups: the first one involved the community of forests, the second –the mosaic habitats, with the forest areas combined with the open forests, and the third – open biotopes. In this case, one can state, that the division coincides with the afforestation changes, and it serves as explanation for the division and for the basis of the taxa names.

Results and discussion

Classification of the community

I.                    The community system of unbuilt territory

A.   Northern supra-type grouping

1.                  Arctic tundra type of the community (leaders on the abundance are Lemmus sibiricus, Calidris minutus, Calidris alpina, Phalaropus lobatus, Philomachus pugnax; the community density – 906 specimens per km square; the total number of seen species is 40 / including the background – 29; the portion of representatives of arctic type is 98%)[1]

Subtypes of the community

1.1                  – tundra, flood-plain willow stands, meadows (Lemmus sibiricus, Calidris minutus, Eremophila alpestris, Calcarius lapponicus, Philomachus pugnax, 850; 29/19; arctic type 99%);

1.2                  – bogs (Calidris minutus, Calidris alpina, Phalaropus lobatus, Lemmus sibiricus; 1439; 29/25; arctic type 98%);

1.3                  – seaside meadows “tamps” (Lemmus sibiricus, Philomachus pugnax, Calidris temminckii, Calidris minutus, Phalaropus lobatus; 538; 25/21; arctic type 92%);

2. – Subarctic tundra type of the community (Lemmus sibiricus, Sorex tundrensis, Microtus oeconomus, Sorex caecutiens, Rana arvalis; 3275; 119/44; arctic type 42%, tundra-forest steppe relicts 32%, transpalearcts 14%.

Subtypes of the community:

2.1 – northern subarctic tundras, bogs and meadows (Lemmus sibiricus, Sorex tundrensis, Anthus cervina, Calcarius lapponicus, Dicrostonys torquatus; 6485; 64/33; arctic type 76%; tundra-forest steppe relicts 21%);

2.2 – southern low bush tundra (Lemmus sibiricus, Sorex tundrensis, Microtus oeconomus, Calcarius lapponicus, Dicrostonys torquatus; 887; 63/24; arctic type 45%, tundra-forest steppe relicts 25%, transpalearcts 18%;

2.3 – southern bush tundra (Microtus oeconomus, Sorex tundrensis, Acanthis flammea, Lemmus sibiricus, Sorex caecutiens; 2317; 62/34; transpalearcts 45%, tundra forest steppe relicts 26%, arctic type 15%);

2.4 – southern subarctic tundra palsa and polygonal bogs (Sorex tundrensis, S. caecutiens, Lemmus sibiricus, Anthus cervina, Calcarius lapponicus; 1248, 55/30; tundra-forest steppe relicts 58%; transpalearcts 18%, arctic type 16%);

2.5 – forest tundra and northern taiga tundra and palsa bogs (Rana arvalis, Sorex tundrensis, S. caecutiens, Clethrionomys rutilus, Microtus oeconomus; 1181; 92/35; european type 42%, tundra-forest-steppe relicts 20%, transpalearcts 17%, siberian type 11%);

2.6 – subarctic tundra flood-plains of large rivers (Sorex tundrensis, S. caecutiens, Microtus oeconomus, , Anthus cervina, Lemmus sibiricus; 8159; 62/33; tundra-forest steppe relicts 59%, transpalearcts 26%).

B. Middle supratype grouping[2]

3.                  Forest tundra type of the community (Rana arvalis, Clethrionomys rutilus, Sorex caecutiens, S. tundrensis, Microtus oeconomus; 4507; 167/58; siberian type 34%; transpalearcts 28%, european and arctic types by 14%).

3.1.      Subtype of the community of light forests (Rana arvalis, Clethrionomys rutilus, Sorex caecutiens, S. tundrensis, Microtus oeconomus; 4499; 126/46; european type 32%, siberian type 30%, transpalearcts 24%, tundra-forest steppe relicts 13%).

Classes of the community:

3.1.1 – forest tundra (Sorex tundrensis, Clethrionomys rutilus, Sorex caecutiens, Emberiza pusilla, Acanthis flammea; 2550; 95/37; siberian type 36%, tundra-forest steppe relicts 28%, transpalearcts 26%);

3.1.2 – northern taiga (Rana arvalis, Clethrionomys rutilus, Sorex caecutiens, S. tundrensis, Microtus oeconomus; 6015; 106/45; european type 40%, siberian 27%, transpalearcts 24%);

3.2. Subtype of the community of north- taiga pine forests and high bogs (Rana arvalis, Sorex caecutiens, Clethrionomys rutilus, Sorex tundrensis, Microtus agrestis; 4522; 144/62; european type 41%, siberian and transpalearcts by 25%).

4.                  Forest type of the community (Rana arvalis, Bufo bufo, Sorex araneus, Hynobius keyserlingi, Sorex caecutiens; 50392; 334/128; european type 88%).

Subtypes of the community:

4.1 – unpine and unlight forests of the forest tundra and northern taiga (Rana arvalis, Clethrionomys rutilus, Sorex caecutiens, S. tundrensis, S. araneus; 13632; 141/66; european type 56%, siberian 19%, transpalearcts 16%);

4.2              – flood plains of large rivers within the forest tundra and northern taiga (Rana arvalis, Sorex araneus, Microtus oeconomus, Hynobius keyserlingi, Sorex tundrensis; 22165, 139/70; european type 86%);

4.3               – dark coniferous, dark coniferous-small leaved and small leaved forests, burns, felled areas, fields-coppices and southern taiga (Rana arvalis, Bufo bufo, Sorex araneus, S. caecutiens, Clethrionomys rutilus; 32145; 230/109; european type 70%; siberian 15%, transpalearcts 15%).

Classes of the community:

4.3.1 – middle taiga (Bufo bufo, Rana arvalis, Sorex caecutiens, S. araneus, Clethrionomys rutilus; 29763; 155/73; european type 67%; siberian 16%, transpalearcts 15%);

4.3.2 – southern taiga (Rana arvalis, Bufo bufo, Sorex araneus, S. caecutiens, Clethrionomys rutilus; 33244; 219/115; european type 715%, siberian 15%; transpalearcts 11%).

Subtypes of the community:

4.4 – pine, dark-coniferous and birch-pine and high bogs from the middle taiga to the forest-steppe includingly (Rana arvalis, Bufo bufo, Sorex araneus, S. caecutiens, Clethrionomys rutilus; 32752; 237/102; european type 88%);

4.5 – sedge marshes, unsteppe meadows and flood-plains of large rivers from the middle taiga to the forest-steppe includingly (Rana arvalis, Bufo bufo, Hynobius keyserlingi, Sorex araneus, Rana amurensis; 103829; 282/115; european type 93%);

4.6 – steppe meadows and steppes within the forest-steppe, birch-aspen forests, fields-coppices, fields and flood-lands within subtaiga forests and the forest-steppe (Rana arvalis, Pelobates fuscus, Bufo bufo, Sorex araneus, S. minutus; 26355; 241/103, european type 90%).

Classes of the community:

4.6.1 – birch-aspen forests (Rana arvalis, Bufo bufo, Rana amurensis, Sorex araneus, S. minutus; 19507; 198/103; european type 75%, siberian 16%);

4.6.2 – forests-coppices and fields (Rana arvalis, Bufo bufo, Pelobates fuscus, Sorex araneus, Apodemus agrarius; 17159;112/80; european type 85%);

4.6.3 – steppe meadows and steppes (Rana arvalis, Pelobates fuscus, Microtus gregalis, Sorex araneus, Apodemus agrarius; 19028; 107/66; european type 96%);

4.6.4 – floodlands (Rana arvalis, Pelobates fuscus, Sorex minutus, Microtus oeconomus, Micromys minutus; 40579; 177/76; european type 86%).

Subtypes of the community:

4.7 – forest-steppe dumps (Rana arvalis, Passer montanus, Microtus gregalis, Corvus frugilegus, Cannabina cannabina; 13480; 43/38; european type 68%, transpalearcts 13%);

4.8 – steppe flood-lands (Bufo viridis, Rana arvalis, Pelobates fuscus, Sorex minutus, S. araneus; 82260; 130/81; european type 62%, mediterranean 31%).

5. Steppe type of the community (steppe zone; Rana arvalis, Pelobates fuscus, Bufo viridis, Microtus arvalis, Scirtopoda telum; 30762; 184/92; european type 88%).

Subtypes of the community:

5.1 – steppes and meadows (Rana arvalis, Pelobates fuscus, Bufo viridis, Microtus arvalis, Scirtopoda telum; 41031; 169/47; european type 91%);

5.2 – fields (Alauda arvensis, Pelobates fuscus, Cricetulus migratorius, Passer montanus, Corvus frugilegus; 5594; 64/57; transpalearcts 48%; european type 27%, mediterranean 15%);

5.3              – pine forests (Bufo viridis, Rana arvalis, Microtus arvalis, Pelobates fuscus, Sorex tundrensis; 4597; 63/43; european type 56%, mediterranean 30%).

II. System of water-water-adjacent communities

A. Northern supra-type grouping

Types of the community:

6             – arctic lakes and bays (Clangula hyemalis, Calidris temminckii, Anser albifrons, Calidris minutus, Phalaropus lobatus; 250; 33/18; arctic type 96%);

7 – arctic rivers (Branta bernicla, Philomachus pugnax, Calidris temminckii, Calidris minutus, Larus argentatus; 65; 16/10; arctic type 91%);

8                    – bays within subarctic tundra and forest-tundra (Calcarius lapponicus, Motacilla flava, Acanthis flammea, Philomachus pugnax, Calidris minutus; 326; 68/33; arctic type 60%; transpalearcts 15%; siberian type 13%);

9                    – subarctic lakes and rivers (Motacilla alba, Calidris temminckii, Clangula hyemalis, Motacilla flava, Gavia arctica; 167; 53/24; arctic type 45%; transpalearcts 29%; siberian type 19%);

10                – forest-tundra lakes and rivers (Anas crecca, Sterna paradisaea, Clangula hyemalis, Gavia arctica, Tringa glareola; 201; 42/18; arctic type 33% ;transpalearcts 36%; arctic type 34%; siberian 25%).

B. Middle supra-type grouping

Types of the community:

11                – north taiga lakes and rivers (Anas acuta, Anas crecca, Philomachus pugnax, Motacilla alba, Anas penelope; 302; 67/29; transpalearcts 42%; siberian type 22%; arctic type 19%);

12            – lakes and rivers of middle and southern taiga (Riparia riparia, Actitis hypoleucos, Motacilla alba, Anas crecca, Anas querquedula; 245; 117/27; transpalearcts 82%).

Subtypes:

12.1          – large and middle rivers (Riparia riparia, Larus canus, Motacilla alba, Sterna hirundo, Corvus cornix; 208; 95/23; transpalearcts 86%);

12.2          – lakes and small rivers (Actitis hypoleucos, Anas crecca, Riparia riparia, Anas querquedula, Motacilla alba; 282; 94/27; transpalearcts 79%).

13 – The type of the community of subtaiga and forest-steppe lakes and rivers (Rana arvalis, R. amurensis, Pelobates fuscus, Sorex minutus, Micromys minutus; 16322; 212/85, european type 87%).

Subtypes of the community:

13.1 – rivers, reservoirs and fresh lakes (Rana arvalis, Rana amurensis, Pelobates fuscus, Sorex araneus, Micromys minutus; 17216; 202/79; european type 87%);

13.2 – salt lakes (Sorex minutus, Micromys minutus, Microtus oeconomus, Arvicola terrestris, Sorex araneus; 2005; 92/56; european type 36%; transpalearcts 29%, mediterranean-chinese type 14% and tundra-forest steppe relicts 13%).

14                – Types of the communities of steppe lakes and rivers (Rana arvalis, Bufo viridis, Pelobates fuscus, Motacilla flava, Fulica atra; 20976; 122/76; european type 55%, mediterranean 29%, transpalearcts 14%).

Subtypes of the community:

14.1 – fresh lakes and rivers (Rana arvalis, Bufo viridis, Pelobates fuscus, Arvicola terrestris, Sorex araneus; 36210; 106/65; european type 62%, mediterranean 34%);

14.2 – salt lakes (Larus ridibundus, Phalaropus lobatus, Tadorna tadorna, Recurvirostra avosetta, Anas acuta; 497; 64/35; transpalearcts 57%, arctic type 13%).

The studies were financed by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research.

References

Bannikov A.G., Darevskij I.S., Ischenko V.G. et al. (1977) The determinant of amphibian and lizards of fauna of USSR. M., Prosveshenie, 415 pp.

Catalogue of Mammalia of USSR (1981) L., 455 pp.

Ivanov A.I. (1976) Catalogue of birds of USSR.- Nauka, 276 pp.

Ravkin Yu.S., Vartapetov L.G., Yudkin V.A. et al. (1995 a) Spatial structure of the Amphibian Assemblages of the West Siberian Plain. Amphibian population of the Commonwealth of Independent status: Current Status and Declines. M.: Pensoft, 74-87.

Ravkin Yu. S., Bogomolova I.N., Erdakov L.N., et al. (1977) Spatial-typological structure and organization of small mammal community of West-Siberian plain. Advances of the current biology, v. 117, N6, pp.738-755

Ravkin Yu.S., Vartapetov L.G., Milovidov S.P. et al. (1991) Spatial-typological structure and organization of summer bird community of the middle region of the USSR. Materials of the 10th All-Union ornithological conference. Minsk, pp.133-134.

Ravkin Yu.S., Vartapetov L.G., Yudkin V.A. et al (1995 b) Territorial heterogeneity of the amphibian community of West-Siberian plain. Siberian ecological journal, v. 2, N 2, pp. 110-121.

Ravkin Yu.S., Vartapetov L.G., Yudkin V.A. et al. (2001) Classification of summer bird community of West-Siberian plain. Izvestia Acad. Sci., Biol. Ser., Nauka, № 3, pp. 362-371.

Ravkin Yu.S., Lukjanova I.V. (1976) Geography of vertebrates from southern taiga of West Siberia. Novosibirsk, Nauka, 360 pp.

Shtegman B.K. (1938) Bases of ornithogeographic division of Palearctic fauna of the USSR, Birds, M-L., Publ. Acad. Sci. USSR, v.1, N 2, 156 pp.

Trofimov V.A., Ravkin Yu.S. (1980) Express-method of the estimation of the connection of spatial heterogeneity of animals and environmental factors / Quantitative methods en ecology of animals, L., pp. 113-115.

 



[1] Later all significations are given by simple intersection.

[2] Southern supratype grouping are absent over West Siberian Plain (Ravkin et al., 1991).