Landscape and biological diversity of protected areas network in Perm Krai

Article history: Received 25 June 2014 Received in revised form 8 July 2014 Accepted 10 August May 2014 Available online 30 August 2014


INTRODUCTION
The problem of creating the systems of PAs representing the geographical diversity of different territories is acute. Creation of the territory nature protection systems always requires comprehensive assessment of the representativeness of the existing PA network. Such work is done at the international level (WWF, IUCN), and at the level of different states and regions [19,9,4,10,20,22]. The research carried out by the group of authors and entitled "Protected areas of Russia: current state and aspects of development" is well-known [12]. The latest similar research concerning Perm region was done in 1998. It should be emphasized that the work was devoted to Perm region but the territory of the former Komi-Permyak Autonomous District (part of Perm region today) was not considered in it.
The protected areas (PA) network of Perm region was formed at the end of the 80-s, at the beginning of the 90-s of the XX century. Since that time a part of protected areas has been eliminated, the borders and size of the others have been changed; the others have become local. Also the composition of protected biological species has changed. And finally the structure of Perm region nature management has been changed.  To determine the necessary size of PAs for Perm region;  To assess the representativeness of the PA network on landscape diversity;  To assess the habitat representativeness of protected species in the PA network.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
To assess the PA network representativeness on landscape diversity we used the long-term studies of PAs done by Biogeocenology and Nature Protection Department of Perm State National Research University (PSNRU), forest management data and the Earth remote sensing data (submeter resolution images).
To assess the habitat representativeness of protected species in th e PAs network we used the data about the species included in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and Perm region provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources, Forestry and Ecology of Perm region, herbarium materials of Perm University, as well as the data provided by PSNRU Biogeocenology and Nature Protection Department.
Spatial analysis and calculations were done in ArcGIS 9.3 (ESRI). Results: PA necessary percentage: To assess the geographical diversity representativeness of the territories in PAs we should determine the appropriate proportion of protected areas with respect to the territory as a whole. The percentage of lands recommended for PAs is rather various (Table 1). The recommended PAs proportions lie in the range of 10-90%. Nowadays the Perm region PAs proportion of the total area is 6,4 %. We find it rather reasonable to accept the world average figure equal to 12% as a necessary portion of protected areas.

Representativeness of PAs network on landscape diversity:
The evaluation of landscape representativeness is determined by the presence of natural zones of Perm region in the PAs network.
There are 6 zones in Perm region (the Central Urals, the West Urals, middle and southern taiga, mixed and broad-leaved forests and Kungur forest-steppe zone) according to natural zoning [2]. The distribution of PAs within these zones is shown in table 2. The present work is devoted to the regional and federal protected areas of Perm Krai with the exception of biological reserves as they are created to preserve game animals whereas the maintenance of ecological balance is possible due to complex nature protection. Besides, some reserves are similar to other regional PAs in territory.
The PAs size in the middle taiga zone is the biggest -4342,3 km 2 . The comparable size of PAs is in the Central Urals. The size of PAs in the West and Southern Urals zones is 2976,4 and 1598,5 km 2 respectively. The same figure for mixed and broad-leaved forests is slightly more than 567 km 2 . Kungur forest steppe zone almost does not have PAs as their size is slightly more than 50 km 2 .
The Central Urals is the most provided with PAs zone (35,7%). The middle taiga zone is not enough provided with PAs (10,5%). The West Urals (5,0%), mixed and broad-leaved forests (2,8%) and the southern taiga (1,4%) are the zones which are less provided with PAs. But Kungur forest steppe is the least provided Advances in Environmental Biology, x(x) August 2014, Pages: x-x zone (0,8%). Accepting 12% as a necessary portion of PAs, we receive the minimal territory required for the creation of new protected areas (see table 2).
The next objective is to determine the representation of bogs (as intrazonal formation) in the modern nature conservation network. Bogs are widely spread in Perm region (especially in northern districts) and they are an integral part of natural complexes. The significant part of PAs includes bogs. So 92 protected areas are totally or partly bog complexes which include small ("Chelvinskoie bog" with the area of 20 hectares) as well as huge PAs ("Big Kama bog" with the area of more than 80 thousands hectares) There are 4 peatbog zones in Perm region according to the peculiarities of genesis, structure, dominance of various types and frequency of occurrence (table 3) [21]. The proportion of protected bogs changes according to the zones (table 3). So, most bogs (77,37%) of Verhne-Kamskiy peatbog zone are included in PAs. About one forth (26,02%) of bogs are protected in Sredne-Kamskiy zone. And not enough proportion of bogs, slightly more than 11%, is in the protected areas of Priuralskiy mountain and Southern forest steppe zones.
The necessary proportion of protected areas is absolutely maintained in Verhne-Kamskiy and Sredne-Kamskiy zones. For 2 peatbog zones it is necessary to increase the PAs size by 44 and 126 hectares (in Priuralskiy mountain and Southern forest steppe zones respectively).

Habitat representativeness of protected species in PAs network:
One of the main tasks of PAs network is to conserve species from the Red Book. We should identify the habitat of rare species to assess the role of modern PAs network in biodiversity conservation.
The For the assessment all species were divided into several conventional groups: 1. Species inhabits everywhere or is widely spread; 2. Species inhabits PAs; 3. Species inhabits Perm region but not in PAs; 4. Species habitats are not identified in Perm region; 5. No data. The species has not been studied in Perm region.
In general wide spread species and PAs species are 50% of all protected species. The population of these species is rather stable and they are not in danger of existence.
All the identified habitats for 56 species (16,2%) are outside the protected areas. Their location is not supported by the territory protection. Among these species are a grayling (Thymallus thymallus), spade-footed toad (Pelobates fuscus), pale harrier (Circus macrourus), common partridge (Perdix perdix), flea thyme (Thymus ovatus), sickle-fruited astragalus (Astragalus falcatus), redshank bolet (Boletus luridiformis), blog club-moss (Lycopodium inundatum), brioriya Flemont (Bryoria fremontii) and many others. The major part of these species is included in the main list of the Red Book of Perm region and it is obvious that part of these habitats must have the status of PAs.
5 other species (4 species of fish and the only representative of Cyclostomes) are not able to inhabit Perm region because of their migratory mode of life. Their habitat in Perm Krai is impossible because of numerous hydroelectric power stations on the Volga and Kama.
Nowadays there is no reliable data about a rather big group of species (97 species or 28,0%). All these species (except for one) are included in the supplement to the Red Book of Perm region (The Red Book of Perm Krai …, 2008).
We need additional investigations to determine biological peculiarities and distribution of 117 species (the two last groups).
All species protected in the territory of Perm region are included in this analysis. Meanwhile, each of 3 lists of species from the Red Book has its own peculiarities (tables 5-7). The species from the Red Book of the Russian Federation form a group of extinct species. There is also a group of species which inhabit everywhere or are wide spread. This is explained by the national scale of the list [18].  The present list of the species from the Red Book of Perm region is characterised by the species habitats outside the PAs [18]. The present list has been initially formed from the species which are not enough studied and their status should be determined from further investigations. Therefore, the supplement to the Red Book of Perm region includes all species (except one) for which there is no reliable data [18]. And they need further investigation of their geographical distribution.

Discussion:
The practice of organization of protected areas in the Perm region during from the early 20th century. However, representative system of protected areas is not yet created. Apparently, work to improve the network of protected areas should be continued permanently. This confirms the fact that such works are constantly held in various regions of the world [19,9,4,10,20,22].
The habitats of 117 protected species (33,8%) in the Perm region not identified (table 4). It is an information gap and requires further study. This is confirmed by modern theoretical concepts of GAP analysis [8].
The next step, after this work, will be list of recommendations to supplement the current network of protected areas. This is evidenced by the experience of previous studies [12,19,9,4].

Conclusions:
The necessary proportion of the protected areas for Perm region should not be less than 12%. The area of the existing PAs should be increased by 11006,6 km 2 .
The representativeness of Perm region natural zones in the PAs network is non-uniform. The central Urals (the proportion of PAs is 35,7%) has enough PAs. The creation of the representative PAs network of Perm region demands: the increase of the PAs size in the middle taiga by 10,5%; in the West Urals by 7,0%; in mixed and broad-leaved forests by 9,2%; in the Southern taiga by 10,6%; and in Kungur forest steppe by 11,2%.
The bogs representativeness in the PAs network reveals the necessity to increase the PAs size by 44 hectares in Predurals mountain zone and by 126 hectares in the Southern forest steppe zone to fully preserve the diversity of bogs complexes. The required rate protection for 2 other peat-bog areas (Verhne-Kamskiy and Sredne-Kamskiy zones) is completely observed.
Almost half (167 species or 48,3%) of the rare species in Perm region are preserved in modern PAs. The modern level of study of 56 rare species distribution allows to pass to the development of PAs for their conservation.