Volume 7. Novosibirsk: Nauka, Poaceae Graminea. Onocleaceae-Saxifragaceae, USSR, Vol. Bobrov ed. Rozhevits, B. Genus Onobrychis. XIII, M. Genus Vicia. XIII, p. Flora USSR, Komarov ed. Science, pp. Shishkin ed. Komarov V. Bush ed. Shishkin B. Shishkin, E. Bobrov eds. Science, p. Bobrov, S. Cherepanov ed. Tsvelev ed. Determinant, v. Galushko, A. Girenko, M. Leningrad: Agropromizdat. Genus Kochia. Cultigenic plant area. Moscow: Nauka. Lubenetc P. Shelyag-Sosonko Y. Grigoryev, Yu. Grossgeim, A.
Tiflis, p. Genus Medicago. Galega genus. Genus Melilotus. Grossheim, A. Genus Galega. Genus Trigonella.
- The Sabbath and the Sunday.
- Drobilki Rasteniya Iz Rossii.
- Biodiversity in space and time.
- Structure of Plant Diversity!
- FLORICULTURE IN RUSSIA: CHANCES MUST NOT TO BE MISSED | Шашкова | Biosfera.
- Shop with confidence.
- Understanding Criminal Law.
Saint Petersburg: Nauka. Ilyin, M. Asparagus-Asparagus L. Moscow: Kolos. Ivanova, K. Leaf vegetable plants. Leningrad: Agropromizdat, vol. Jakovlev-Sibirjak I. Juzepchuk, S. Komarov, V. Leningrad: Leningrad University Publishers. Moscow-Leningrad, State Agricultural publishing company, Vol. XVII, pp. Koropachinsky, I. Common sea buckthorn. Sobolevskaya, K.
Download Красная Книга Республики Адыгея Ч 1 Растения И Грибы
Novosibirsk: Nauka, P. Kovalev, N. Uzbekistan SSR. Malyshev, ed. Map Krylov, G. Genus Medicago Leguminosae. The Hague The Netherlands. Pome fruit trees apple, pear and quince. Moscow: Kolos, p. Luneva, N. Botanical Journal, vol. Maleyev, V. Pear-Pyrus L. Peshkova, Poaceae Gramineae. Malyshev, L. Peshkova, eds. Kovalevskaja ed. Tashkent, pp. Vergleichende Chorologie der Zentraleuropischen Flora.
- Literature. Relatives;
- Библиографический список.
- The Christmas Cat?
- Библиографический список – Грибы Новосибирской области?
- Rollo at Work.
- How Win Conflicts - Change to Grow.
- Le chant du solstice : T2 - La magie blanche (French Edition).
- Пчеловодный Атлас. Том 1-ый- Медоносные Растения; Beekeeping/ Honey RUSSIAN | eBay!
- Healing Kentucky: Medicine in the Bluegrass State (New Books For New Readers).
Stankevich, ed. Nikiforova, O. Nikitin, V. Ovchinnikov, P. Alma-Ata: Publishing House Acad. Kazakhstan SSR. Currant and gooseberry. Pavlova, N. Siberian Flora. Peshkova, G. Every subject conducted some work on the Red Data books. Meanwhile there is a Red Data book for all.
Russia and some additional ones, which were devoted to some territories or some objects. Red Data books of Russia have a legislative base: special laws on them were adopted. Any activity causing reducing in number or worsening the habitats of species listed in the red books is not allowed "on protection of environment" Law of the Russian Federation, Studying documents and official web-sites of the federal subjects of Russia, we collected information on the local Red Data books. We found out, how many books exist now, and what methodology was used therein. Afterwards we compared these methodologies with the principles of the IUCN red list, analyzing their substantiation.
All-Russian Red Data book was also analyzed. We estimated how the species of the this book have been assessed on a world-wide scale, and how the IUCN recent recommendations IUCN, , have been used in Russia. We have found out that almost all federal subjects within Russia have got Red Data books recently, or at least the lists of species, which have to be included into them. Most of the books have been published in the 's. We have not found the books of only four members. Usually there are no special web-sites devoted to regional red book-keeping, but the lists of species are indicated in the documents of administrations, and the web-site for all-Russia book-keeping exists www.
In some regions the books have been re-edited twice. It is considered, that the lists have to be re-composed once every 10 years. Total number of books and lists studied was The books are not uniform in respect to the systems of assessment categories. Early versions of the IUCN system, or similar schemes, turned out to be most widely accepted books of 55 members of the Federation.
This kind of assessment was supported by the resolution of the Russian Ministry for natural resources in the s. It indicates the following categories: 0 — probably extinct, 1 — under the threat of extinction, 2 — decreasing in number, 3 — rare, 4 — uncertain probably belonging to above, but mentioned categories do not completely conform to them , 5 — restoring.
How to Cite
Four books either do not contain any divisions on categories of threatened species, or are in the process of formation. The other books contain their own system of categories. For example, the book of Tomskaya oblast contains an additional category "nature monument", the book of Omskaya oblast contains a category "commercially threatened". The books of Karelia, Saint Petersburg, and Leningradskaya oblast contain the terms of the last version of the IUCN list, but the other meaning was ascribed to them.
A term "least concern" turned out especially confusing.
It is used in. None of federal subjects used IUCN recent recommendations on the application of its principles on regional scale. The same concerns all-Russian Red Data book. Quantitative assessments of the IUCN categories have not been used as well, and producing them is hardly possible because of lack of data.
Some suggestions on the reissue of the Red Data Book of Novosibirskaya Oblast
Most of the species have been evaluated just based on the opinion of specialists. An objective to assess all species was not put during the work on all-Russian Red Data books. Only rare and threatened species are listed there, or at least the species which seem to be rare. In some cases the additional lists or additional categories have been introduced for the last ones. These additional lists differ from IUCN category "data deficient" DD , because this means not only the data is deficient, but inspiring some trouble.
Most of the bats represent a typical example for such cases: in some Russian territories they remain not investigated at all for example, in Novgorodskaya oblast Popov, , but it is widely known that they are often threatened by the lack of shelters, habitat loss, and sometimes by direct extermination. We counted species on the official web-page of the Russian Red Data book. Only species of them are considered as threatened or near threatened species in the IUCN list.
The others are either not evaluated or considered as "least concern" The opposite cases were also found, but they are not numerous: endangered freshwater bivalve Unio crassus, near threatened waders Limosa limosa and Numenius arquata, vulnerable noble crayfish, Astacus astacus, near threatened bat Myotis dasycneme are not included into all-Russian Red Data book. The information on them is still insufficient, the corresponding conservation studies only started recently Kovalyov, Popov, ; Popov, ; Popov, Starikov, In some Russian territories they really turned out to be common, but we believe that they are still threatened.
These cases indicate on weak links between regional and international databases. The Russian Red Data book and followed local ones try to balance information on a whole biodiversity — that is why a majority of phylums and classes are represented there. This represents a contrast to the IUCN red list, because it does not contain some phylums at all for example, Brachiopods and Bryozoans.
Red Data books contain some populations, or subspecies, in addition to the species. This seems reasonable in some cases. For example, European salmonid fishes are not rare in the Russian north, but their southern populations are evidently endangered, and they are in-. Meanwhile some southern populations, or subspecies of these fishes, differ from northern ones significantly, i.
Looking for the Red Data books we have found some accompanying ones: "a blue book" for endangered aquatic habitats, "green book" for rare plant communities Samara , Red Data book of soils Leningradskya oblast, Belgorodskaya oblast, Volgogradskaya oblast , Red Data book on protected areas Leningradskaya oblast, Altaiskiy kray. However this is not a common practice. A positive role of the IUCN list is evident, because it stimulated creation of regional Red Data books and promoted the conservative activities.
However the last IUCN version of the species assessment decreased its effectiveness. Nowadays the title "The IUCN red list of threatened species" does not reflect its content because not only threatened species are listed there, but non-threatened and "near threatened" ones as well. This principle does not become acceptable. Specialists and other citizens already realized that fact, that there is a Russian Red Data book with the list of rare species, which have to be protected.
Mass media popularized this for a long time, and several laws about them have been adopted. Meanwhile it is evident, that it is impossible to assess all species in the near future. Probably in some federative subjects having a small territory such an assessment will be possible, but now even the smallest territories are not enough explored.
For example, only recently an endangered bivalve species freshwater pearl mussel, Mar-garitifera margaritifera, was found within the administrative borderline of Saint Petersburg Popov, Ostrovsky, Similar discoveries or rediscoveries indicate numerous gaps in the information for the big territories.
AgroAtlas - Literature. Relatives
A category "least concern" turned out to be not only unnecessary, but confusing. Since it is indicated in the "List of threatened species" many readers decided that species of this category still inspire some trouble. Confusing interpretations take place very often even in the red books. Either "least concern" category is used for threatened species, or some "least concern" species are considered rare on a global scale, because they are indicated in the IUCN red list.
Moreover, according to the last version of the IUCN red list, "It is important to emphasize here that a taxon may require conservation action even if it is not listed as threatened" IUCN, Such a comment results in additional confusion, because "The IUCN Red List's main purpose is to highlight those species that are facing a high risk. Meanwhile the number of the "least concern" species is very big in the IUCN list. There are 34 such species, while total list consist of about 76 species. Many of these "least concern" species could not provoke any trouble before assessment brown rat, Rattus norvegicus, house mouse, Mus musculus, red fox, Vulpes vulpes, mountain hare, Lepus timidus, etc.
It is not clear why such a huge work was spent for the assessment of non-threatened species. On the contrary, many species, which at least seem to be threatened like most of the species of the Russian red book , are absent there. Such a misbalance tends to increase, because all species need updating. Quantitative assessments for the IUCN categories seem to be not enough effective. This resulted in the fact, that many species of the Russian Red Data books are considered as "least concern".
Some of them are at the margin of their distribution in Russia, and are probably really "least concern". However many species are scarcely distributed over a big area, and a significant share of their habitats is located within Russia. Total number of their representatives could be relatively big and they do not correspond criteria for the threatened or near threatened category, but they are evidently threatened for example, big raptors , and there are no exact data for their quantitative assessment.
We believe that such species cannot belong to the "least concern" category. So, a part of the least concern species are threatened and need conservation measures, the other part is non-threatened and does not need special protection. Category "near threatened" of the IUCN list also does not highlight the situation, because it is hardly possible to decide, whether they have to be specially protected or not.
Related Растения России. Красная книга (Russian Edition)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved