Seasonal Dynamics in the Context of Polystructural Organization of Landscapes

  • Olga Yu. Gurevskikh
  • Oksana V. Yantser
Part of the Landscape Series book series (LAEC, volume 26)


Dynamic seasonal aspect in studying landscape structure involves the identification of the order of states changes in time. The specifics of the intercomponent relationships are determined by hierarchical levels of geosystems and lead to different quantitative and qualitative characteristics of seasonal processes. The most visible of them are manifested in plants that indicate changes in climatic indices. To study seasonal development, we applied quantitative tools: method of registrars term, method of integrated descriptions, and method of integrated phenological characteristics. Study of dynamic changes was performed in the Sverdlovsk region, which is located within the three physiographic countries, two geographical zones, and climatic sectors. We identified local and regional characteristics of the seasonal vegetation dynamics, controlled by polystructural organization of the landscape. The study identified indicators and criteria for dynamic seasonal changes for the representative natural systems. Seasonal changes are clearly visible in the lower level landscape units, which are the least resistant and the least durable. Regional level units have more heterogeneous conditions resulting in variability of seasonal processes; the characteristics of seasonal development within their boundaries tend to be more generalized.


Polystructural organization Hierarchy Geosystems Seasonal dynamics Quantitative methods Phenological studies Pheno-indicator 


  1. Gurevskih, O. Yu., Kapustin, V. G., Skok, N. V., & Yantser, O. V. (2016). Physical-geographical regionalization and landscapes of Sverdlovsk region. Ekaterinburg: Ural State Pedagogical University. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  2. Hudson, I. L., & Keatley, M. R. (2010). Phenological research: Methods for environmental and climate change analysis. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Isachenko, A. G. (1991). Landscape science and physical-geographical regionalization. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  4. Isachenko, G. A. (2014). The concept of long-term landscape dynamics and modern challenges. In K. N. Dyakonov, V. M. Kotlyakov, & T. I. Kharitonova (Eds.), Issues in geography. Vol. 138. Horizons of landscape studies (pp. 215–233). Moscow: Kodeks. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  5. Kupriyanova, M. K. (2010). V.A.Batmanov – founder of novel direction in phenology. In State-of-art in modern phenology and development perspectives (pp. 42–56). Ekaterinburg. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  6. Mamay, I. I. (1992). Landscape dynamics. Research methods. Moscow: MSU Publishing House. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  7. Schwartz, M. D. (Ed.). (2013). Phenology: An integrative environmental science. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Skok, N. V., Ivanova, Y. R., & Yantser, O. V. (2014). Application of quantitative phenological methods to characterization of mountainous belt in the Middle Urals. Proceedings of Tomsk University, Series Natural and Technical Sciences, 19(5), 1569–1572. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  9. Skok, N. V., & Yantser, O. V. (2016). Phenological research methods in study of landscape dynamics: Review. Proceedings of Bashkirsky University, 21(1), 91–100. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  10. Yantser, O. V., & Terent’eva, E. Yu. (2013). General phenology and methods of phenological research. Ekaterinburg: Ural State Pedagogical University. (in Russian).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olga Yu. Gurevskikh
    • 1
  • Oksana V. Yantser
    • 1
  1. 1.Ural State Pedagogical UniversityEkaterinburgRussia

Personalised recommendations