Geography and Natural Resources

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 358–364 | Cite as

Structure and Diversity of Soil Zoocenoses in the Tunka Depression

  • E. P. BessolitsynaEmail author
  • I. V. Balyazin
  • N. N. Voropai
Regional Problems of Environmental Studies and Natural Resources Utilization


A landscape and ecological analysis is made of the structure of soil zoocenoses in the Tunka depression and the foothill area of Khamar–Daban. We examine the patterns of change in quantitative characteristics and taxonomic diversity of invertebrate communities in the landscape–ecological range under the influence of natural and anthropogenic factors. Taxonomic diversity and structure change mainly in the gradient of edapho–climatic and phytocenotic conditions which vary with the location of a biogeocenosis in the landscape. Within the taiga and forest landscapes, the general regularity of distribution of soil invertebrates is an increase in the number of species from steppificated pine and larch forests to dark coniferous–fir and mixed sufficiently moist biogeocenoses of the mountain forest belt. The relatively low heat availability of the root layer, combined with high humidity, and also the high temperatures that lead to drying of the soil, negatively affect on the taxonomic diversity of the mesopopulation. The main trend of change in taxonomic diversity of pedobiont communities is a decrease of the number of species in the gradient of increasing climate aridity, and an enhancement in hypothermaia and anthropogenic pressure. A structural and dynamical analysis identified two main types of structure of the communities: mesothermohygrophile (with a relatively small contribution from of insects and a large contribution from annelids), and xeroresistant (with a significant involvement of representatives of the insecta class. The first type includes zoocomplexes of taiga, forest, meadow and wetland biogeocenoses represented mainly by moisture–loving forms; the second type includes steppificated, steppe and radically anthropogenically disturbed biogeocenoses, the composition of which is dominated by invertebrates with relatively short development cycles and largely adapted to moisture deficit.


geosystem soil invertebrates biogeocenosis type of community biodiversity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Sochava, V.B. An Introduction to the Theory of Geosystems, Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1978 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tishkov, A.A. Biospheric Functions of Natural Ecosystems of Russia, Moscow: Nauka, 2005 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tilman, D.D. The Ecological Consequences of Change in Biodiversity: A Search for General Principles, Ecology, 1999, vol. 80, issue 5, pp. 1455–1474.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pokarzhevskii, A.D. Gongal’skii, K.B. Zaitsev, A.S. and Savin, F.A. Spatial Ecology of Soil Animals, Moscow: KMK, 2007 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bessolitsyna, E.P. Landscape–Ecological Analysis of the Structure of Soil Geocenoses in the South of Siberia, Irkutsk: Inst. Geogr. SO RAN, 2001 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ganin, G.N. Structural–Functional Organization of Mesopedobiont Communities in the South of the Far East of Russia, Vladivostok: Dal’nauka, 2011 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chesnova, L.V. and Striganova, B.R. Soil Ecology–Science of the 20th Century, Moscow: Yanus–K, 1999 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sochava, V.B. Geography and Ecology (Ser.: Material for the V Congress of the Russian Geographical Society), Leningrad; [Irkutsk: Tipografiya No. 1], 1970 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krauklis, A.A. Problems in Experimental Landscape Science, Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1979 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gilyarov, M.S. Characteristics of the Soil as the Habitat and Its Significance in the Evolution of Insects, Moscow; Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1949 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gilyarov, M.S. The Zoological Method of Soil Diagnostics, Moscow: Nauka, 1965 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wallwork, J.A. Ecology of Soil Animals, London: McGraw–Hill, 1970.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wallwork, J.A. The Distribution and Diversity of Soil Fauna, London; New York; San Francisco: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mordkovich, V.G. Zoological Diagnostics of Soils in the Forest–Steppe and Steppe Zones of Siberia, Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1977 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sochava, V.B. Mikheev, V.S. and Ryashin, V.A. General Landscape Mapping on the Basis of Integration of Elementary Geosystems, Dokl. Inst. Geogr. Sibiri i Dal’nego Vostoka, 1965, issue 10, pp. 9–22 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kholboeva, S.A. and Namzalov, B.B. Steppes of the Tunka Depression (Southwestern Cisbaikalia), Ulan–Ude: Buryat. Univ., 2000 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    The Program and Technique of Biogeocenological Investigations, N.V. Dylis, Ed., Moscow: Nauka, 1987 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Quantitative Methods in Soil Zoology, M.S. Gilyarov and B.R. Striganova, Eds., Moscow: Nauka, 1987 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bessolitsyna, E.P. Spatial Analysis of Changes in the Coenosis Diversity of Soil Biota in Taiga Geosystems, Geogr. Prir. Resur., 2005., no. 2, pp. 123–131 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bessolitsyna, E.P. Soil Mesopopulation Distribution Patterns in Geosystems of the Southern Part of East Siberia, Problemy Regionl’noi Ekologii, 2013, no. 1, pp. 22–27 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Levy, R.A. and Nufio, C.R. Dispersal Potential Impacts Size Clines of Grasshoppers Across an Elevation Gradient, Oikos, 2015, vol. 124, issue 5, pp. 610–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bessolitsyna, E.P. Landscape–Ecological Analysis of the Organization of Soil–Biotic Communities in Geosystems of the South of Siberia, Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing, 2016 [in Russian].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. P. Bessolitsyna
    • 1
    Email author
  • I. V. Balyazin
    • 1
  • N. N. Voropai
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.V. B. Sochava Institute of Geography, Siberian BranchRussian Academy of SciencesIrkutskRussia
  2. 2.Institute of Monitoring of Climatic and Ecological Systems, Siberian BranchRussian Academy of SciencesTomskRussia

Personalised recommendations