Landscape structure change of Matua Island in the latter half of the 20th – beginning of the 21st centuries (Kuril Archipelago)

Landscape structure change of Matua Island in the latter half of the 20th – beginning of the 21st centuries (Kuril Archipelago)

Geography and Natural Resources 31 (2010) 257–263 Landscape structure change of Matua Island in the latter half of the 20th – beginning of the 21st c...

1MB Sizes 0 Downloads 8 Views

Geography and Natural Resources 31 (2010) 257–263

Landscape structure change of Matua Island in the latter half of the 20th – beginning of the 21st centuries (Kuril Archipelago) K. S. Ganzei a, *, N. G. Razzhigayeva a and A. V. Rybin b b

a Pacific Institute of Geography FEB RAS, Vladivostok Institute of Marine Geology and Geophysics FEB RAS, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk

Received 31 December 2009

Abstract For the first time for the Kuril Islands, we present the results derived from investigating the changes in landscape structure of Matua Island that have been taking place since the latter half of the 20th century under the effect of volcanic activity. We constructed the 1:200 000 landscape maps for different time spans. We consider in detail the issue relating to the development of the geosystems on the island in the wake of the 2009 eruption. A cartographic-statistical analysis of the landscape maps is carried out, and the role of volcanism in the change of the quantitative parameters of landscapes is highlighted. Keywords: Matua Island, geosystems, volcanism, landscape-forming factors, landscape diversity.

Formulation of the problem Matua Island is situated in the central part of the Kuril Islands; it was formed by Sarychev Peak, one of the most active volcanoes in this region. Since about the 1660s, twelve eruptions of different intensities have been recorded on the island, with four of them occurring in the period of our interest here, namely since the latter half of the 20th century till the present [1, 2]. Active volcanicity on the island was of paramount importance in the formation of landscape structure of this small island. In this context, the purpose of this investigation was to study the influence of volcanic activity on the formation of landscape structure on Matua Island during the time span from 1964 to 2009. The island is of Late Pleistocene–Holocene age, with an area of 52.57 km2 (the data as of the year 2008). The southern part of the island exhibits fragments of the somma rings of the ancient caldera, and its northwestern portion is the home to Sarychev peak. This intracaldera stratovolcano typical of the Kuril Islands was formed by alternating flows of lavas and pyroclastics. The rocks are dominated by basaltic andesites and andesites [1, 3, 4]. The climate on the island is monsoonic in character. As regards annually mean indices, the air temperature is * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K. S. Ganzei), nadyar@ tig.dvo.ru (N. G. Razzhigayeva), [email protected] (A. V. Rybin).

1.8 °С, the wind velocity is 7.4 m/s, and the air humidity constitutes 85.2%. Every year the island receives 1223 mm of atmospheric precipitation, the winters are notable for frequent snowstorms, with 138 being the annual mean number of days with snowstorms. Stable snow cover on the island is formed on 30 November and disappears on 6 May [5]. The island’s vegetation is dominated by shrub alder vegetation [6]. The soil cover was formed under the influence of two main factors: volcanogenic, and biogenic. The soils of the island, as is also the case with all Middle Kuril Islands, are typified by stratification, poor development of the soil profile, presence of buried horizons, light-weight mechanical composition, high water permeability, and by strong erodibility [7]. The analysis of the island’s landscape structure was made on the basis of the landscape maps constructed on a scale of 1:200 000. In mapping the landscapes as of the year 1964, we used aerial photography images and published data [4, 8–10]. Based on results from expedition-based research done in the time interval 2007–2008 within the framework of the Kuril Biocomplex Project (Washington State University, Seattle, USA) and using Landsat imagery [11] the landscape map of the island was constructed in 2008. The space-acquired ASTER image [12], and data from field investigations made in late June 2009 were used in carrying out a landscape mapping program as of 30 June 2009. We used, as the mapping unit, the geom, i.e. a geomer of regional dimension combining similar (in structural-dynamical indices) classes of facies [13].

Copyright © 2010 IG SB, Siberian Branch of RAS. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved doi:10.1016/j.gnr.2010.09.011

258

K.S. Ganzei et al. / Geography and Natural Resources 31 (2010) 257–263

Research results and discussion Landscape structure of Matua Island as of 1964. The literature provides brief, yet substantive data for the effects of a number of eruptions on the island’s landscape structure. On 13 February 1930 there occurred an eruption, as a result of which at the northeastern base of the volcanic cone the thickness of volcanogenic material reached 3 m, and in the southern part of the island (northern part of the Ainu Bay) the shoreline moved 30 m into the sea [4]. The most powerful (in the 20th century eruption of Sarychev Peak occurred in November 1946, with effusion of lava flows down the northwestern and eastern slopes as well as with formation of pyroclastic flows. Volcanic bombs were falling in the area of the Dvoinaya Bay, and on Toporkovy Island. The houses in the northern part of the settlement, in the area of the Dvoinaya Bay, were heavily damaged, and one of them was burnt down. In the northwestern part of the island, the lava flows reached the shoreline to produce three new capes 10–15 m in length. Deposits of pyroclastic flows formed banks up to 5 m in height within a radius of 50–60 m. However, as pointed out by S. N. Glavatsky and G. K. Yefremov [8], the configuration and topography of the island did not undergo any substantial changes. The thickness of fallen ash in the southeastern part of the island did not exceed one centimeter. In the remainder of the island, the ash layer was 10 cm thick, with the thickness increasing in the eastern, northern and northwestern portions of the island which receive the bulk of erupted products. In zones in which extrusive material was concentrated and to which the lava flows descended, the vegetation was destroyed. On the eastern, northeastern, western and northwestern slopes of the volcano, the vegetation was heavily damaged. And the layer of volcanic ash exceeded 15 cm in thickness [8]. A next volcanic eruption occurred on 30 August 1960. It was not as strong. As a result of the explosion, clouds of gas and ash reached an altitude of 500 m and were transported along an eastward direction to a distance of 8–10 km. On 1 September, the activity of the volcano started to decline; on 8 September, it reverted to its usual state, namely the crater was issuing weak jets of fumarolic gases. On 11 September, volcanic ash on the slopes of the volcano was washed away by rain. Small amounts of ash persisted on the lower leaves of shrub alder vegetation. Ash did not form a continuous mantle on the slopes of the central cone [9]. E. K. Markhinin [10], who visited the island in the autumn of 1960, pointed out that the lower parts of the volcano’s slopes in some places were overgrown with dense herbaceous vegetation. In some tracts there still persisted dwarf alder branches that had been singed and scorched by volcanic material. Herbaceous vegetation occurred in the area of Cape Lisy and Cape Sivuch. In published material, we did not find (except for what is reported in this study) any mention of the changes in geologo-geomorphological structure of landscapes caused

by preceding eruptions. It seems reasonable to say that the island’s topography was formed as a result of a complex of earlier eruptions. A dominant position was occupied by the geoms of steep and moderately steep slopes configured by lava flows with pyroclastic material (46.28% of the island’s area) which encircled the stratovolcanic cone (Fig. 1). A subdominant position corresponded to the geoms of steep and moderately steep slopes of the stratovolcanic cone (17.1% of the island’s area), configuring the summit part of the volcano, and the upper parts of the slopes as well as the geoms of subhorizontal surfaces of the terraces and plains composed of basaltic andesites, tuffstones and pyroclastic deposits (14.8% of the island’s area) and occupying the southeastern part of Matua Island. A subdominant position was also occupied by the geoms of the abrasion-denudation benches (16.64% of the island’s area), encircling the entire island. Geoms of dissected scarps with outcrops of basaltic andesites with fragmentary lithomorphic lichens were clearly pronounced to the north-east and south of the stratovolcanic cone. The vegetation and soil cover was characterized by the following features: the southeastern part of the island was occupied by dense overgrowth shrub alder with ferns and reedgrasses on dark gleyic burozems. In the southernmost part of the island, between cape Pology and Cape Orlova, sparse dwarf alder thickets and forbs meadows were forming. Tall-grass communities on thin layers of soddy soils were of the most widespread occurrence in the southern half of the island on the abrasion-denudation benches. With increasing elevation along the southeastern slopes of Sarychev Peak, the thick overgrowth of shrub alder at an altitude of about 400–420 m were becoming sparser, with the ecotone zone standing out as a narrow strip, with sparse herbaceous vegetation, with individual persisting bushes of shrub alder reaching an altitude of 600 m. Farther upward, a volcanic desert stretched on the slopes of the volcano, with fragmentary lithomorphic lichens. Separate lower areas of the slopes of the volcano, in the area of Cape Lisy and in the northwestern part of the island, for example, developed sparse forbs meadows on primitive soddy soils (see Fig. 1). We believe that as a result of the eruptions that occurred in the first half of the 20th century, the vegetation cover on the slopes of the volcano was completely destroyed. By 1964, herbaceous communities had encroached onto the northern slopes of the volcano; it is not inconceivable, however, that there have survived single plants growing previously. In all likelihood, the upper limit of occurrence of shrub alder vegetation moved upward on the southeastern slopes. Unfortunately, no botanical studies on the island have been undertaken yet; therefore, it is hard to suggest with assurance the exact rate of these processes and the species composition of pioneer plants. One may speculate that on Matua Island, as in the case of Atlasov Island, the pioneer plants were represented by sagebrushes (Artemisia glomerata, and A. opulenta) and crosswhite (Pennellianthus frutescens), having a high growth rate of their underground organs and being

K.S. Ganzei et al. / Geography and Natural Resources 31 (2010) 257–263

able to rapidly consolidate the loose volcanic material [14]. The landscape structure of Matua Island by the year 2008 had changed considerably. The 1976 eruption notwithstanding, the geologo-geomorphological framework of landscapes underwent no changes. In September–October 1976 there occurred an effusion of lava flows down the western, southwestern and northwestern slopes of the cone. The volume of erupted lava is estimated at 0.008 km3. Gas and ash

259

avalanches descended also down the declivities on the western and northwestern slopes of the cone, singing and covered with fine debris material the grass and the not numerous shrubs. As noticed by V. N. Andreyev and collaborators [2], there occurred no substantial changes in the morphology of topography. In the southeastern part of the island, the thickness of ash did not exceed one centimeter. The main ash falls corresponded to the northern-northeastern slopes.

Fig. 1. The landscape maps of Matua Island as of 1964, 2008, and 2009. Topography: I – steep and moderately steep slopes of the stratovolcanic cone with a thick mantle of pyroclastic deposits; II – steep and moderately steep slopes of lava flows composed of basaltic andesites with pyroclastic deposits; III – steep and moderately steep slopes of weakly lithified pyroclastic deposits and subvolcanic bodies; IV – dissected scarps with outcrops of basaltic andesites; V – subhorizontal surfaces of terraces and plains (in the littoral part with storm banks) composed of basaltic andesites, tuffstones and pyroclastic deposits; VI – abrasion-denudation benches with boulder-pebble beaches and storm banks. Vegetation and soil cover: 1 – fragmentary lithomorphic lichens with no soil cover; 3–3 – dwarf alder thickets with moss-lichen cover and forbs meadows, all on dark gleyic burozems, and in places on meadow-soddy soils; 14–6 – meadow communities with tall grasses; 14–9 – sparse forbs meadows with dwarf alder and moss-lichen cover, all on primitive soddy soils or thin layers of meadow-soddy soils; 14–11 – heavily sparse herbaceous vegetation, with no soil cover or on primitive soddy soils; 14–12 – without vegetation and soil cover. а – lahars; b – elevations; c – anthropogenic territories.

260

K.S. Ganzei et al. / Geography and Natural Resources 31 (2010) 257–263

Over the course of 44 years the structure of vegetation and soil cover underwent dramatic changes, except in the southeastern part of the island. Only the stratovolcanic cone became devoid of vegetation, which was favored by loose volcanic deposits, the increase in slope steepness, and by the decline in temperature indices with height (see Fig. 1). There occurred no change in the geoms of dissected scarps with outcrops of basaltic andesites with fragmentary lithomorphic lichens to the north-east and south of the stratovolcanic cone. The geoms of the lava flows were almost entirely overgrown with shrub alder incorporating ferns and reedgrasses on primitive soddy stratified soils. However, the thickets were not as dense as in the southeastern part of the island. There occurred tracts with sparse shrub alder vegetation and herbaceous communities. On the southwestern, southeastern, northwestern and northeastern slopes of the volcano there have remained open tracts with fragmentary lithomorphic lichens, apparently representing lava flows whose effusion dates back to 1946 and 1976. As pointed out by S. Yu. Grishin and collaborators [14], the lava flows from the 1972 eruption on Atlasov Island were overgrown with lichens by 30–40%, and vascular plants covered less than 1% of the area of the flows. In the northern part of Matua Island, shrub alder encroached into an altitude of up to 450 m. On the southern slopes of the volcano, its maximum penetration was recorded at an altitude of 840 m.Thus the shrub alder thickets ascended up the slopes by about 240 m over the course of 44 years, i.e. at a rate averaging about 5.5 m per year. However, the possibility must not be ruled out that separate shrubs could persist at higher levels after the eruptions in the time interval between 1930 and 1976. The geoms of abrasion-denudation benches were occupied by herbaceous tall-grass communities on thin layers of soddy soils. The southeastern portion of the island shows also a decrease in anthropogenic impact due to closure of the settlement of Sarychevo. Landscape structure of Matua Island as of 30 June 2009. A violent eruption of Sarychev Peak began in the night-time between 11 and 12 June 2009, with ejection of ash clouds to an altitude of up to 16 km [15]. The active phase of the eruption lasted until 15 June. More than 9 giant explosions were recorded during that period. The effects of volcanic activity were detectable from the city of Komsomolsk-onAmur to the Alaska Peninsula in the form of an increase in atmospheric SO2 concentration [16], while ash fall-out was observed not only on neighboring islands but also in the eastern part of Sakhalin Island. According to the Bulletin of the Global Volcanism Network [15], the area encompassed by pyroclastic flows was 8 km2, but our data indicate that this index was significantly higher, about 25 km2. The volume of erupted material is estimated at 0.4 km3. In an effort to study the aftermaths of volcanic activity the Institute of Marine Geology and Geophysics FEB RAS organized the expedition envisaging assessments of the changes in the island’s landscape structure.

The entry of large amounts of volcanic material at the time of the 2009 eruption lead to a considerable rearrangement of the geosystems. The distribution of the eruption products on the island was proceeding extremely non-uniformly. The largest amount of pyroclastic material was localized within the central cone and its base. In this place, the numerous pyroclastic flows descended from the summit to the coast. Within the flows, the thickness of the deposits can reach 15– 20 m; however, the visible thickness in the marginal parts on the coast was 2–3 m (Fig. 2). The pyroclastic flows were overlain by a layer of volcanic ash as thick as 28–30 cm, and by a layer of cinder 1–2 cm thick, and more rarely 3–5 cm in thickness, with filling material of differently-grained silty sand and particles of gravel size. Along the southward direction from Sarychev Peak, the thickness of material is gradually decreasing. A zone stands out, in which the mantle of volcanic ash is 6–15 cm thick. Ash is represented by grey silt with cinder (up to 5–6 cm). In the southeastern part of the island, the layer of volcanic ash decreases to one centimeter, and cinder 1–2 cm in size is encountered (see Fig. 2). However, a volcanic bomb 11 cm long was discovered in this zone.

Fig. 2. Thickness of volcanic material and spread directions of pyroclastic flows during the 12–15 June 2009 eruption on Matua Island. 1 – < 1 cm; 2 – 1–6 cm; 3 – 6–15 cm; 4 – pyroclastic deposits overlain by an ash layer 28–30 cm thick; 5 – spread boundaries of pyroclastic flows; 6 – spread directions of pyroclastic flows; 7 – elevations.

K.S. Ganzei et al. / Geography and Natural Resources 31 (2010) 257–263

As a result of the eruption, the island’s geosystems underwent serious changes. A complete rearrangement of the geosystems occurred within the confines of the volcano, which is due to the passage of pyroclastic flows which exerted thermal (the temperature was 420 °С at a depth of 30 cm in the pyroclastic flow in the northern part of the island on 28 June) ) and mechanical effects. The vegetation and soil cover here were completely destroyed. The summit part of the volcano came to be occupied by geoms of the stratovolcanic cone with a thick mantle of pyroclastic deposits. The slopes of the volcanic cone are now dominated by geoms of steep and moderately steep slopes covered by loose and weakly lithified pyroclastic deposits (32.76% of the island’s area) (see Fig. 1). In some places there have remained geoms of steep and moderately steep slopes of lava flows (23.55% of the island’s area) and dissected scarps. Along the southeastern base of the volcanic cone there is a tract representing an ecotone between the zones of complete transformation (“dead zone”) and the smallest transformation of geosystems. The boundary of occurrence of shrub alder thickets has descended to the present-day elevation of about 450 m. The transition zone shows an almost total drying of the shrub alder thickets. The greatest damage was done by the ash falls to the not tall plants, i.e. small subshrubs, such as golden rhododendron (Rhododendron aureum), crowberry (Empetrum sibiricum), clubmoss mountain heather (Cassiope lycopodioides), Aleutian mountain heather (Phyllodoce aleutica), and others. Some of them growing near the “dead zone” were almost entirely overlain by a layer of ash but continued blossoming. The projective cover in areas where the ash layer is as thick as 10–12 cm, makes up a mere 10–15%. Low subshrubs, such as cowberries suffered the highest levels of damage. They are completely buried in areas of intense ash fall-out. The smallest volcanic transformation was experienced by the gems of terraced surfaces in the southeastern part of the island. They remained within their former boundaries; volcanic ash fall-out did not have any substantial influence on the vegetation and soil mantles. In the lower part of the island, shrub alder (Duschekia fruticosa) was the least affected; in the same areas, it bears no evidence of negative effects as contrasted to Siberian mountain ash (Sorbus sambucifolia). Mountain ash leaves are fringed by a yellow border, although it is hardly probable that such changes will have profound effects on vegetation of the shrub. The shrub alder thickets occurring in the zone of macrofragmental ash and cinder fall-out bear on their leaves evidence of drying, and spots. On some of them there has remained a thin layer of ash of silt size. Tall grasses occurring in the southeastern part of the island was not affected by ash falls. In this zone, inferior plants (mosses, and lichens) were affected dramatically; they were wholly overlain by a layer of ash. Along the entire coast before the eruption there occurred geoms of abrasion-denudation benches with boulder-pebble beaches and storm banks, with meadow communities and tall grasses on meadow-soddy soils (8.31% of the island’s

261

area). The passage of pyroclastic flows as far as the coast caused their destruction in the northern half of the island (0.89% of the island’s area). The island’s area increased by about 1.1 km2 (or by 2.09%). It seems likely that the frontal portion of the pyroclastic flows will be scoured in the near future, which will lead to further changes in the shoreline. A similar process was pointed out by G. S. Gorshkov [4] after the 1946 eruption. Prior to the eruption, almost the entire central cone was clad in numerous snow patches. It seems likely that during the early stage of eruption (most likely, on 12 June), as a result of a rise in surface temperature under the effect of erupted volcanic material, several lahars descended down the slopes, which left the traces of their passage in the eastern and southeastern parts of the island. A similar process in перу wake of the November 1960 eruption was pointed out by E. K. Markhinin [10]. The most violent and extended flow was observed on the southern slope of the volcano reaching the old runway at a distance of 2.4 km. The width of the influence zone of the lahars did not exceed 10–15 m, and the vegetation and soil cover was totally destroyed in the zone of passage of the lahar. Rapid thawing of the snow patches at the time of the eruption gave rise to numerous ephemeral streams on the surface of a small bog in the Ainu Bay, which was not observed in 2007–2008. When processing the landscape maps, a quantitative analysis of the landscape structure was made, which has a wide use in landscape investigations of mountain and plain territories [17]. The period under consideration (45 years) involved substantial changes in quantitative parameters of the island’s landscape structure (see the table). As pointed out earlier in the text, the ejected pyroclastic flows from the 2009 eruption resulted in a transformation of the island’s shoreline, with an increase in the area of the island. In 1964, 2008 and 2009, the number of landscape contours on the island was 21, 14 and 29, respectively. A tendency for a decrease of the number of geosystems on the island was observed during 1964 to 2008; after the 2009 eruption this index increased to 13. During the period from 1964 to 2008 the landscape structure decreased in complexity more than by a factor of two, and the 2009 eruption increased this index more than by a factor of four. It should be remarked, however, that the entropy measure of complexity representing the probability of replacement of one geosystem by another underwent only a minor change for 45 years. A change in the landscape diversity indices has also a tendency for a decrease in the volcanic period of calmness. During 1964 to 2008 the island’s geomorphological structure did not experience any substantial changes. The vegetation and soil mantles were evolving toward encroachment into new territories, which was beneficial for the smoothingover of the boundaries between different landscapes, and for a decrease in landscape “polygons” and of the number of landscapes on the island. The 2009 eruption interrupted this process and almost doubled the landscape diversity. Such changes in landscape diversity are supported by data on

262

K.S. Ganzei et al. / Geography and Natural Resources 31 (2010) 257–263

Table

Quantitative characteristics of landscape structure of Matua Island after the Sarychev Peak eruptions in 1964, 2008 and 2009 As of 30 June Index 1964 2008 2009 2 52.57 52.57 53.67 Island area (S), km Number of landscape contours (n)

21

14

29

Number of geosystem types (m)

10

8

13

Mean number of contours corresponding to one geosystem type (р)

2.1

1.75

2.23

Fractionality index (k)

0.4

0.27

0.54

Mean area of contour (S0 ), km2

2.5

3.76

1.85

Complexity coefficient (k1)

8.39

3.73

15.67

Entropy measure of complexity of landscape structure (Н)

3.04

2.49

2.85

Maximum possible complexity of geosystems (Нm)

3.32

3.00

3.70

Relative organization of geosystems (R)

0.08

0.17

0.23

Coefficient of disunity (К) Landscape diversity (Мg)

4.76

7.14

3.45

2.27

1.77

3.01

changes in landscape diversity on the Kuril Islands under the influence of the volcanic factor as reported in [18]. During large volcanic events on volcanic islands, most or the whole of their area is experiencing the effect of eruption products, which elicits the transition of most geosystems to an earlier development stage. On steep islands of the Kuril Archipelago, even with violent eruptions, only separate portions of the island undergo volcanic effects, which increases landscape diversity. The southern termination of Matua Island was not affected by erupted material in June 2009 thereby serving to enhance landscape diversity. It should be noted that at the time of volcanic calmness the geosystems of Matua Island were evolving under the action of internal forces. It is conceivable that it would be appropriate to use the term “relaxation of the natural environment” from the theory of island biogeography when applied to islands after their detachment from the mainland [19, 20]. It is the landscape relaxation process during volcanic periods of calmness that contributes to decreasing landscape “polygons”, fractionality of landscapes, and their complexity. Conclusion Thus the analysis of the landscape structure on Matua Island for the time interval from 1964 to 2009 revealed distinct evolutionary tendencies of the geosystems. Landscapes in the southeastern part of the island were experiencing the smallest changes. Even with the strong eruptions of the years 1946 and 2009, the thickness of the fallen volcanic ash layer was not affecting considerably the vegetation and soil cover. Under the effect of volcanic activity there were occurring changes in the geosystems within the boundaries of the Sarychev Peak structure which involved primarily destruction and burial of the vegetation and soil mantles. The catastrophic

eruption in June 2009 changed substantially the geologogeomorphological framework of the landscapes. The entry of huge amounts of pyroclastic material and its spread over the slopes of the volcano lead to burial of the landscapes of lava flows, and to a dramatic change of the shoreline. Because of the high volcanic activity, such processes are typical of the island’s geosystems. This is confirmed by the data obtained from a comprehensive analysis of the peatlands. It was established that during the Late Holocene the successions of dominants were determined by the fallout intensity of volcanic material affecting the changes of the degree of the territory’s humidification. Revegetation in the wake of volcanic eruptions was proceeding through the survived species of plants, which is evidenced by the selfregulation index for the flora on Matua Island (–0.9999, the minimum index for the Kuril Islands) as calculated by V. Yu. Barkalov [6]. The analysis of the quantitative indicators of landscape structure reveals that volcanism plays a role in changes in landscape diversity and of the complexity coefficient of the geosystems on the island. It is still premature to state that the identified regularities of volcanic transformation of the geosystems on the island will also be characteristic for the other islands of the Kuril Archipelago, because they largely depend on the character and force of eruption. It is pertinent to note that the geosystems of Matua Island will also be evolving further under the effect of volcanism. Their regeneration on the island is directly associated with the continuation and occurrence frequency of volcanic activity, the cooling process of volcanogenic deposits, an intensification of erosion and abrasion processes, and with changes of the hydrological regime and geochemical impact of eruption products on soil and vegetation cover. We wish to remark in closing that the issues related to investigating the changes in landscape structure under the

K.S. Ganzei et al. / Geography and Natural Resources 31 (2010) 257–263

effect of volcanic activity and the development stages of geosystems are of exceptional current importance in the context of gaining a deeper understanding of the formation characteristics of pioneer landscapes, the specific character of manifestation of landscape-forming factors, and the natural resistance of geosystems on geodynamically active island territories situated in the continent–ocean transition zone. This work was done with financial support from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (09–05–00364, and from FEB RAS (09–III–А–08–440). References 1. Gorshkov G. S. Volcanism of the Kuril Islands. Moscow: Nedra, 1967, 287 p. 2. Andreyev V. N., Shantser A. E., Khrenov A. P. et al. The Sarychev Peak eruption in 1976. Byull. vulk. stantsiy, 1978, No. 55, pp. 35–40 . 3. Modern and Holocene Volcanism in Russia. Ed. by N. P. Laverov. Moscow: Nauka, 2005, 604 p. 4. Gorshkov G. S. Sarychev Peak. Byull. vulk. stantsiy, 1948, No. 15, pp. 3–7. 5. Handbook on USSR Climate. Issue 34: Sakhalin Region, pt. 3. Leningrad: Gidrometeoizdat, 1968, 248 p. 6. Barkalov V. Yu. The Flora of the Kuril Islands. Vladivostok: Dalnauka, 2009, 468 p. 7. Kostenkov N. M., Oznobikhin V. I. and Shlyakhiv S. A. Atlas of the Kuril Islands. Moscow; Vladivostok: IPTs “DIK”, 2008, pp. 254–257.

263

8. Glavatsky S. N. and Yefremov G. K. The Sarychev Peak eruption in November 1946. Byull. vulk. stantsiy, 1948, No. 15, pp. 8–12. 9. Shilov V. N. The Sarychev Peak eruption in 1960. Trudy SakhKNII, 1962, issue 12, pp. 143–149. 10. Markhinin E. K. Sarychev Peak. Byull. vulk. stantsiy, 1964, No. 35, pp. 44–58. 11. Catalogue of Space-Acquired Images From LANDSAT ETM+ ftp://ftp.glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/glcf/Landsat/WRS2.2008. 12. Eruption Sarychev Peak, Kuril Islands: Natural Hazards. Earth Observation, NASA. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ NaturalHazards/view.php?id=39120. 2009. 13. Sochava V. B. An Introduction to the Theory of Geosystems. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1978, 320 p. 14. Grishin S. Yu., Barkalov V. Yu., Verkholat V. P. et al. Vegetation and soil cover of Atlasov Island (Kuril Islands). Komarovskiye chteniya, 2009, issue 56, pp. 64–119. 15. Sarychev Peak. Bulletin of the Global Volcanism Network, 2009, v. 34, No. 6, pp. 2–7. 16. Carn S. NASA image courtesy. www.nasa.gov. 2009. 17. Plyusnin V. M. Landscape Analysis of Mountain Territories. Irkutsk: Izd-vo In-ta geografii SO RAN, 2003, 257 p. 18. Ganzei K. S. Landscapes and Physical-Geographical Regionalization of the Kuril Islands: Author’s Abstract of Cand. Sc. Degree (Geogr.) Dissertation. Moscow, 2008, 24 p. 19. MacArthur R. H. and Wilson E. O. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Prinston, NJ: Prinston Univ. Press, 1967, 203 p. 20. Diamond J. M. Biogeographic kinetics: estimation of relaxation times for aviafaunas of south-west Pacific islands. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 1972, v. 69, No. 11, pp. 3199–3203.