ISSN 1064-2293, Eurasian Soil Science, 2021, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 150–160. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2021.

Russian Text © The Author(s), 2021, published in Pochvovedenie, 2021, No. 1, pp. 136–148.

DEGRADATION, REHABILITATION,
AND CONSERVATION OF SOILS

Dynamics of Agricultural Soil Erosion in Siberia and Far East

L. F. Litvina, Z. P. Kiryukhinaa, S. F. Krasnova, N. G. Dobrovol’skayaa, and A. V. Gorobetsa, *
a
Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, 119991 Russia
*e-mail: GorobetsAV@geogr.msu.ru
Received March 17, 2020; revised March 28, 2020; accepted April 24, 2020

Abstract—Socioeconomic reforms in agrarian sector together with climate changes induce spatial changes in
the anthropogenic factors of agricultural soil erosion and soil erosion patterns in the Asian part of Russia.
Comparison of pre- and post-reform quantitative parameters of erosion rate and soil loss from arable slopes
was performed using logical-mathematical erosion models for different administrative regions of the Asian
part of Russia. Significant spatially-differentiated decrease in the annual soil loss from arable slopes was
revealed in most of the administrative regions, except for the Altai krai and Amur oblast. On the arable lands
of other administrative regions, the decrease in the annual soil loss varied within 25–50% of the soil loss in
1960–1990. The maximum decrease was observed in arid landscapes of the republics of Tyva and Buryatia
and in the Zabaykalsky (Transbaikal) krai (–73–93%). Spatial changes in the rate of erosion are less promi-
nent on currently cultivated land; a significant growth in the rate of agricultural soil erosion has taken place
in the Far East economic region. The main driver of the post-reform dynamics of agricultural erosion was the
countrywide decrease of cropland area and the change in the soil-protecting capacity of agrocenoses.

Keywords: soil erosion, dynamics of factors, erosion rate, soil loss, cropland, unsown plowland, fallow
DOI: 10.1134/S1064229321010075

INTRODUCTION tion in the area of cultivated land affected not only

Lands suitable for agriculture form a narrow strip
along the southern border of the Asian part of Russia.
In the east, these lands are concentrated in large
depressions or widened parts of river valleys. Often,
these areas are also characterized by the relatively high
population density and by concentration of industry.
Because of these reasons, the agricultural soil erosion
(ASE)—the most intense of natural and anthropo-
genic types of erosion—is an important factor in the
agricultural economy and ecology. It contributes to
the pollution of water objects, development of ravines,
and deterioration of natural soil fertility and ecological
functions. At the same time, under the currently pre-
vailing soil cultivation systems, accelerated water ero-
sion is an inevitable companion of rainfed agriculture.
This fully applies to arable land in the south of Siberia
and the Far East. Recent decades have been character-
ized by drastic changes in the anthropogenic factors of
ASE. Socioeconomic reforms in agriculture, which
affected all regions of the Russian Federation, could
not but affect the spread and intensity of soil erosion in
the Asian part of Russia. First of all, this is a reduction
in the area of cultivated arable land, that is, the actual
ASE area. An important factor in the dynamics of ASE
is the change in the soil-protecting function of agro-
cenoses, which, with a stable farming technology, is
determined by the ratio of crops with different soil-
protecting capacity. It should be noted that the reduc-
Siberia but all developed countries of the world [7, 21,
40, 41]. Thus, the absolute reduction in the area of
arable land in the Russian Federation (mainly at the
expense of its conversion to hayfields and pastures)
amounted to 10.7 million hectares, and the reduction
in the area of cultivated arable land according to offi-
cial sources is estimated in the range from 30 to 48 mil-
lion hectares [21, 41]. With regard to regional systems
of soil cultivation and agricultural technology in gen-
eral, no radical transformation has taken place. Exam-
ples of the application of new “revolutionary” agricul-
tural technologies in terms of soil protection, such as
minimal or zero tillage, are still rare in Russia.
Scientific and technical substantiation of high-cost
projects of erosion control measures requires, first of
all, different-scale quantitative territorial assessments
of the intensity of erosion and tendencies of its dynam-
ics. The objective of this work is to quantitatively assess
changes in the geography of anthropogenic factors and
the main parameters of ASE in the Asian territory of
Russia in the post-reform period in the context of
large administrative units.
OBJECTS AND METHODS
To assess the intensity of ASE, a variety of methods
are used, including long-term stationary observations,
field and laboratory experiments, and the most inten-

150
 DYNAMICS OF AGRICULTURAL SOIL EROSION IN SIBERIA AND FAR EAST
sively developing methods of radioisotope labels [8, 17].
The results of most of them are reliable only at the local
or “point” territorial level. For regional territorial
assessments of ASE dynamics, two groups of methods
are applied, i.e., the soil-morphological method and
the logical-mathematical (the term suggested by Shvebs
[36]) modeling substantiated and verified by stationary
field observations and measurements.
The soil-morphological method with the use of
aerial photography and, later, satellite images formed
the basis of soil-erosion surveys that covered virtually
the entire arable land in Russia [25]. Repeated soil
erosion surveys can be used to estimate the dynamic of
ASE. Thus, a comparison of the results of repeated soil
erosion surveys with known time difference has been
performed for the zones of chernozems and chestnut
soils in the Altai krai [24]. The repeated survey was
carried out at separate key areas with further spatial
interpretation, because continuous soil-erosion sur-
veys of vast territories require too much time and labor
expenses and are unprofitable. It should be noted that
the principles of interpolation itself are currently
insufficiently substantiated. A limitation of the soil-
morphological method for assessing the ASE dynam-
ics over a short period (30–40 years) is the low accuracy
of determining the thickness of the washed off soil layer,
and the low reliability of the results in areas with thin
soils [27]. Thus, the washout of a five-centimeter layer
in 30 years, that is, with an intensity of about 20 tons per
hectare per year, is insufficient for assigning the soil to
a different degree of erosion class [25].
Currently, in Russia and abroad, models that esti-
mate the average long-term parameters of erosion pro-
cesses have found wide practical application: the Uni-
versal Soil Loss Equation and its modifications
(USLE, RUSLE), the model of snowmelt erosion
developed by the State Hydrological Institute (SHI),
and the Surmach model [12, 31, 42]. The use of such
models to assess the dynamics of ASE also requires the
comparison of the results obtained in different years.
Their advantage lies in the ability to perform erosion
estimates for an arbitrarily chosen period of time last-
ing at least 20 years [18], provided that information
about the factors-arguments is available. Another
advantage is the presentation of results in a quantita-
tive form, e.g., in tons per hectare per year, which to a
greater extent meets the requirements of the design of
soil protection and environmental protection mea-
sures, as well as the identification of environmental
consequences. The results of such modeling, of
course, need to be verified using the data of stationary
erosion observations.
To identify the dynamics of ASE in the Asian part
of Russia, we compared data on its intensity and dis-
tribution of erosion in the pre-reform (1960–1990)
and post-reform (2010–2017) periods. The erosional
state of arable lands in the pre-reform period was
assessed by the staff of the Research Laboratory of Soil
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 1 2021
151
Erosion and Fluvial Processes of the Geographical
Faculty of Lomonosov Moscow State University on the
basis of a quantitative model, which is a modernization
and adaptation to Russian conditions of the USLE
model and deep processing of the SHI model [16]. As a
result, extensive “factorial” databases were created
that characterize natural and anthropogenic condi-
tions, both rainstorm erosion and snowmelt erosion.
Also, calculations were made of the intensity of ero-
sion and the mass of annually washed away soil within
individual farms, administrative districts, regions and
large natural territorial units. On the basis of calcula-
tions, various-scale maps of erosion intensity were
compiled, including the map “Erosion-Hazardous
Lands of Russia” on a scale of 1 : 1500000; geograph-
ical features of the location of various types of soil ero-
sion were revealed [18]. The methodology developed
for compiling this map was also used to record the ero-
sion state of arable lands in the Asian part of the Rus-
sian Federation after the reform period (2010–2017).
The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE model)
and its modifications [42, 16] have the following prod-
uct form:
W = K × R30 × LS × C,
where W is the potential long-term average annual
intensity of soil washout (t/ha per year); K is the soil
erodibility factor characterizing the soil capacity to
withstand the action of raindrops and runoff flows
(t/ha per R30 units); R30 is the rainfall erosivity factor
characterizing the average of the sum of the erosivity
values for every year’s rainfalls; LS is the topographic
factor as a function of the product of slope steepness (S)
and length (L); and C is cover and management factor
characterizing the protective capacity of crops (crop
rotations, agrocenosis) estimated as the ration of the
intensity of soil washout from slope under the particular
crop to that under the clean-tilled continuous fallow.
Calculations of the intensity of erosion (in t/(ha
year)) for snowmelt and rainstorm erosion in the post-
reform period were carried out using the computer pro-
gram “EROSION” by S.F. Krasnov. We used the same
grid of territorial evaluation units—elementary erosion
areas—as for the map of the pre-reform period [18].
Information on the current state of anthropogenic
factors of ASE (arable land area, patterns of cultivated
land, cropping structure) was obtained from official
sources: reference books of the Russian Statistical
Yearbook, State (national) reports On the State and Use
of Lands, reference books Agroindustry of Russia pre-
pared by the Ministry of Agriculture, Land Fund of the
Russian Federation prepared by the Russian Land
Cadaster Service (Roszemkadastr), Agriculture in Rus-
sia. 1998, and Federal Agricultural Census 2006. The
dynamics of climatic factors were estimated on the
basis of regional studies with their verification by sta-
tionary observations of slope runoff and soil washout
during snowmelt [2, 3, 10, 11, 32, 34].
152 LITVIN et al.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Dynamics of natural factors. The natural factors of
ASE include climatic, soil, and geomorphic condi-
tions essential for natural erosional phenomena trans-
formed to some degree by agriculture. Climatic
parameters (characteristics of atmospheric precipita-
tion, temperature regime of the soil, etc.) are least sus-
ceptible to such transformation. When assessing ero-
sion-significant changes in these factors, it is neces-
sary to study the patterns of their spatial distribution,
temporal variability, and also establish their normative
values. Thus, according to the World Meteorological
Organization mean annual values of air temperature
and precipitation are to be calculated for the reference
period of 1961–1990 [38].
The great length of the agricultural zone in the
Asian part of Russia and its complex topography pre-
determine significant climatic contrasts, for example,
between the arid southwest of Orenburg oblast, Trans-
baikal region, and humid Far East coastal zone with
the mean annual precipitation above 800 mm. During
the period taken as the climatic normative, the agri-
cultural zone of Western Siberia was characterized by
the uniformity of the spatial distribution of both the
rainfall erosivity (R30 > 5 units) and the water reserves
in snow before the snowmelt season (60–80 mm). To
the east, the contrasting relief contributed to signifi-
cant differences in the erosion-significant climatic
indicators of neighboring agricultural enclaves. Thus,
in Krasnoyarsk, R30 is 6.5 units; in the Minusinsk
Depression, 3.2 units; and in Tuva, 2.4 units. Water
reserves in snow in these basins reduce by two– three
times to 20–40 mm. Western and Eastern Transbaikal
regions are no less different in this respect. In Ulan-
Ude, R30 is 4.4 units; in Chita, it reaches 8.8 units. The
monsoons of the Far East cause an extremely high ero-
sion hazard of rainfall. According to weather station
data, in Blagoveshchensk, Khabarovsk, and Vladivo-
stok, the R30 values exceed 20 units, which is compa-
rable to the value typical of the foothill plains of the
North Caucasus, while the pre-spring water reserves
in the snow are minimal (20–30 mm).
Dynamics of the erosion potential of rain. The spa-
tial and temporal distributions of the long-term aver-
age annual R30 values for plain forest-steppe and
steppe territories are characterized by extreme vari-
ability [18, 20]. Climatic contrasts of the agricultural
enclaves of Siberia, where the trends in annual precip-
itation are different in magnitude and sign even for the
given climatic regions [2], the spatial variability of R30
is also considerable. Thus, in Central Siberia, R30 val-
ues tend to increase according to weather records at
the Krasnoyarsk and Achinsk weather stations and
decrease in Khakassia, the Olkhon region, and Western
Transbaikal region. Pluviometric data from 15 weather
stations over a 25–30-year-long observation period
also indicate a small absolute value of the R30 changes
(from 0.01 to 0.19) negative for most points [2]. In gen-
eral, taking into account insufficient length of observa-
tion series and different directions of the observed
trends for the long-term average annual values, it can be
concluded that taking into account the current trends in
this indicator is not sufficiently substantiated.
Climatic factors of the snowmelt erosion. In models
of soil erosion during snowmelt, the long-term average
intensity of washout from arable slopes is directly pro-
portional to the mean annual layer of the spring (snow-
melt) slope runoff [16, 31]. At the same time, the for-
mation of the seasonal runoff layer is an extremely mul-
tifactorial and difficult to predict process, which has
been studied by many researchers. The most important
climatic factors for the formation of snowmelt runoff on
the cultivated slopes are the depth of soil freezing and
the pre-spring water reserves in the snow cover. Soil
freezing predetermines the high coefficients of snow-
melt runoff; the formation of impermeable ice
“screens” in arable soils favors the intensification on
snowmelt runoff and soil washout from slopes.
A common feature for the entire agricultural zone
of Siberia is the extremely low temperature of the cold
season, which ensures deep soil freezing; the average
depth of freezing is from 1.5 meters in the west to 2–
2.5 m in the Angara and Transbaikal regions. These
values significantly exceed the “limiting” freezing
value (no more than 30–50 cm), at which runoff is not
formed regardless of the level of snow reserves [4].
According to 30-year-long observations on the slopes
under agrocenoses in Western Siberia, snowmelt
runoff and soil washout are usually observed in this
region [34]. Stationary observations in the subtaiga
zone of the southeast of the West Siberian Plain also
indicate the annual snowmelt runoff and soil washout
on arable land in 1988–2017. At the same time, the
intensity of soil washout in 1993–1996 (5.9 m3/ha) was
slightly higher than in 2012–2017 (5.2 m3/ha) [10].
Erosion potential of the relief and soil erodibility.
The relief and soils of cultivated lands are the factors
that are much more influenced by the anthropogenic
activity than the climatic factors. Thus, the length and
steepness of the cultivated slopes—the most important
indicators of the intensity of washout—are largely
determined by the agricultural technology of agricul-
ture, i.e., by the type of mechanisms, methods of
transporting products, etc. Arable soils transformed by
repeated tillage and washout into agrozems differ from
the initial native soils in their density, organic matter
content, structure, aggregate composition, and other
erosion-significant properties.
The erosion resistance of soils and the topography
of arable lands are the most conservative elements of
erosion-slope systems. For old-arable soils, the main
properties that control their erosion resistance
(organic matter content and particle-size distribution)
are fairly stable over time. The values of other soil
properties (water permeability, structure) vary from
year to year and from season to season. The erosion
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 1 2021
 DYNAMICS OF AGRICULTURAL SOIL EROSION IN SIBERIA AND FAR EAST
resistance of soils also varies somewhat throughout the
year, however, it is practically impossible to quantify
these changes [17]. It has been established that the
resistance of thawed soils to washout soils decreases by
20–25% in comparison with frozen soils [15], but this
has little effect on the washout intensity, because rains
in this period are quite rare. In the long-term perspec-
tive, all these erosion-significant parameters of old-
arable soils (all soils cultivated during the post-reform
period can be classified as old-arable soils) are very
stable: their changes over a 30-year period, as a rule,
do not exceed the statistical measurement errors.
The spatial distribution of the erodibility of arable
soils is mainly determined by the geography of the
genetic types of soils and the texture of their plow hori-
zon. For arable lands in the West Siberian soil province
and in the steppe part of the Altai krai, where cherno-
zems (Haplic Chernozems (Pachic)) with a high con-
tent of organic matter prevail, the soil erodibility does
not exceed 1.5 t/ha per R30 unit. The erodibility of cher-
nozems in large agricultural enclaves of the East Sibe-
rian soil province is somewhat higher. Gray forest soils
(Greyzemic Phaeozems) are characterized by the high
erodibility, but it is maximum in soddy-podzolic soils
(Eutric Retisols (Cutanic, Ochric)) on mantle loams:
up to 3.6 t/ha per R30 unit [13]. An important aspect for
large-scale ASE assessments in the Asian part of Russia
is that vast territories of administrative regions often
include several landscape zones with soils sharply dif-
ferent in their erodbility.
The erosion potential of the relief (LS factor in the
USLE) as a function of the length of runoff lines and
the steepness of slopes is characterized by extreme
spatial variability: on any slope, there are areas where,
according to the conditions of the relief, soil washout
does not occur. The spatial variability of the erosion
potential of the relief is controlled by specificity of the
geomorphic structure of the territory and patterns of
its agricultural development or, on the contrary, the
abandonment of arable land on the slopes. The latter
circumstance is extremely important for assessing the
dynamics of ASE in the post-reform period. Direct
assessment of changes in the relief factor by comparing
maps of the erosion potential of relief (LS) or maps of
the length and steepness of slopes developed during
the pre-reform period with modern maps of the same
parameters of the relief for arable land is currently dif-
ficult, because large-scale maps of arable land require
regular correction for the highly dynamic land use pat-
terns. It should be noted that the conversion of arable
land into other land categories in the Asian part of
Russia has not been associated with the intensity of
erosional processes. In fact, the relief (LS factor) is not
the major factor of abandoning of arable land in the
recent decades in this region. Distance from the local
settlements and, especially, soil fertility are more
important. Less fertile soils in remote areas have
mainly been abandoned [6, 34]. Under conditions of
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 1 2021
153
extensive changes in the land use, when the share of
abandoned (converted to unmanaged fallow) arable
land reaches tens of percent, radical changes in the LS
factor seem to be unlikely. In some local areas, for
example, in the Transbaikal Tunka Depression, the
redistribution of arable land in the relief is quite notice-
able [30], which may have a significant erosion effect.
Dynamics of anthropogenic factors. With respect to
the ASE, the main erosion-significant consequences
of socioeconomic reforms were (a) the widespread
absolute reduction in the area of ASE in relation to the
reduction of cultivated arable land; (b) the expansion
of the area of a new type of land use—unsown arable
land, i.e., an unmanaged fallow with the high soil-pro-
tective capacity of vegetation—which is officially still
included in the arable land fund; (c) the change in the
structure of crops—the decisive factor of the soil-pro-
tective capacity of agrocenoses; and (d) a sharp reduc-
tion in the application of mineral fertilizers and herbi-
cides (dechemization of agriculture).
An absolute decrease in the area of arable land
recorded by official statistics is associated with the
transfer of arable land to other land categories (land of
settlements, etc.) or to other types of agricultural land
(fallow, natural forage lands) has been accelerated in
the Asian part of the Russian Federation, since the
1990s. This reduction can be called absolute in the
sense that these lands will not be cultivated again in the
foreseeable future. For the period of 1990–2015, such
a reduction for economic regions varied from 6 to 11%
of the initial arable land area; the maximum reduction
in the East Siberian region reached 26.3% [33]. For
large administrative units (oblasts, krais, republics),
the indicators are more contrasting. For most of them,
the reduction in the area of arable land is only a few
percent, in some regions with low natural soil fertility
or insufficient moisture [35], it reaches tens of per-
cent. In Eastern Siberia, this decline is much more
pronounced: 61.1.% in the arid Republic of Tyva,
78.7% in the Transbaikal region, and 64.0% in Kha-
barovsk krai. However, in the neighboring Amur
oblast and the Jewish Autonomous oblast, the reduc-
tion in arable land is only 1 and 7%, respectively. This
variability in the absolute reduction in the area of ara-
ble land (as agricultural land) has probably not only
objective natural and economic reasons but also an
administrative component.
The reduction in cultivated arable land owing to its
conversion to other agricultural land uses (hayfields,
pastures) predetermines a radical attenuation of soil
erosion. On abandoned arable lands, the “natural”
vegetation cover with a high soil-protecting capacity is
quickly restored. Owing to relatively low slope steep-
ness on the former arable land (according to the norm,
it should not exceed 12°) and low pasture loads, the
intensity of erosion processes on slopes with new pas-
tures is reduced by two–three orders of magnitude,
that is, to the level of “natural” erosion. As for arable
154 LITVIN et al.
land transferred to other land categories, e.g., land of
settlements, their share in most of administrative
regions is small: a few percent. The erosional fate of
such lands has not been identified.
Uncultivated (unsown) arable land. In the pre-
reform period, it was believed that all the lands offi-
cially referred to arable land were cultivated, and this,
with minor local deviations, corresponded to reality.
At present, everywhere the area of officially arable
land significantly exceeds the actually cultivated area
(the sum of the sown area and fallow). In official sta-
tistics, the difference in the area of arable land and the
area actually cultivated is formally covered by the “sta-
tistical” exaggeration of the fallow area, which in no
way corresponds to the actual ratio of crops and fallow
fields in modern crop rotations [21]. Official sources
do not contain data on the areas of fallow for adminis-
trative units. This circumstance causes serious dis-
agreements in the estimates of the total reduction in
the area of cultivated land, which for the Russian Fed-
eration vary in the range from 30 to 48 million hectares
[21, 41]. The calculation of the actual modern area of
fallow land is possible on the basis of data on the “pre-
reform” ratios of fallow fields and field under crops for
each of the regions (oblasts). This method of estima-
tion was used earlier by researchers to calculate the
areas of the so-called “uncultivated” or “unsown”
arable land [19, 21]. Such lands form a new type of
land use with high soil-protecting properties of vegeta-
tion close to those of vegetation of long-term unman-
aged fallow or natural vegetation. Long-term removal of
such tracts of arable land from crop rotation with their
further reforestation or restoration of herbaceous vege-
tation is a ubiquitous phenomenon both in the Euro-
pean and Asian parts of the Russian Federation [34].
The geographic patterns of the distribution of the
share of unsown arable land in the context of eco-
nomic regions are similar to the distribution of the
absolute reduction in the arable land, but exceed the
latter by two–three times. The maximum share of
unsown arable land in the East Siberian economic
region reaches 41% of the arable land in 1980. Taking
into account the absolute loss of officially arable land,
the area of cultivated arable land has decreased by
67.2% (Table 1). It is interesting that in the adminis-
trative units with the maximum absolute reduction in
arable land, the share of unsown arable land is less than
the average for the territories of the same administrative
rank. Thus, in the Transbaikal region (Zabaykalsky
krai), unsown arable land reaches 21% of the total ara-
ble land area in 1980 with the total loss of 89.3% of ara-
ble land, whereas in Khabarovsk krai, these values con-
stitute about 5 and 68.6%, respectively.
Calculations show that the total decrease in the
area of regularly cultivated arable land as a whole, that
is, the sum of the areas of absolute losses of arable land
and unsown arable land in the Ural and West Siberian
economic regions exceeds the “absolute” loss of arable
land by two–three times. According to regional indi-
cators, this decrease may be up to five–seven times or
even by an order of magnitude (dozens of percent). A
somewhat different picture is in the East Siberian eco-
nomic region, where the total loss of cultivated arable
land is maximum (67.2%). Here, absolute losses in
individual regions in the Zabaykalsky krai and the
Republic of Tyva reach 89.3 and 93%, respectively. For
the Khabarovsk krai, the absolute loss of arable land is
64%, and the total loss of cultivated arable land (sown
area) is 68.6%. The Republic of Buryatia is an excep-
tion: unsown arable land accounts for a quarter of the
total loss: 18.6 and 80% (2012 to 1980). The minimum
overall reduction of arable land of about 15% occurred
in the Altai krai [7], where the share of unsown arable
land is almost equal to the share of absolute losses. In
some administrative units, there is a noticeable spatial
intraregional differentiation of both indicators. Thus,
the area of arable land in the Tunka depression
decreased by nine times owing to the conversion of
arable land to pastures [30], while in Irkutsk oblast as
a whole, the area of arable land under cultivation
decreased by 59.7%.
Thus, in all the administrative units of the Asian
part of the Russian Federation, the area of actually
sown arable land has decreased considerably owing to
the expansion of “unsown” arable land. The resto-
ration of natural vegetation with a high soil-protective
capacity in such areas predetermines the decrease in
the mass of soil washout from the slopes. The predic-
tion of the temporal dynamics of the actually culti-
vated areas is rather complicated. In most of the
administrative units, the period of 2006–2010 was a
period of stabilization of the cultivated land area with
a weak tendency for its further decrease in the Siberian
part of the Ural economic region and a noticeable
increase in the Far East economic region (Fig. 1). In
this regard, it seems justified to use the relevant data
on any year from 2010 to 2020 to estimate the areas of
cultivated arable land.
A reduction in the area of cultivated soils takes
place in most of the developed countries of the world
[21, 39, 41]. Numerous factors and reasons for the ter-
ritorial differentiation of this phenomenon have both
common economic foundations and regional specific
features. Fundamental studies indicate that demo-
graphic factors are the main reasons for the spatial
variability in the reduction of the cultivated arable land
in Russia, while natural conditions (bioclimatic
potential) most often only enhance or weaken the
effect of demographic factors [21, 40, 41]. Secondary
factors include transport accessibility of the territory
and proximity to industrial centers [21, 40]. The sets of
factors and their hierarchy are not the same for territo-
rial units of different ranks [21].
The specificity of the rapid agricultural development
of Siberia consisted in the decisive role of the factors of
natural soil fertility and the absence/smoothness of the
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 1 2021
 DYNAMICS OF AGRICULTURAL SOIL EROSION IN SIBERIA AND FAR EAST 155

Table 1. Spatiotemporal dynamics of agricultural soil erosion in the Asian part of Russia
Cultivated arable land Dynamics of soil loss Mass of eroded soil
Administrative units
(economic region, krai, area, thousand ha 2012 2012 thousand tons 2012
republic, oblast) 1980 1980 1980
1980 2012 +/– % +/– % 1980 2012 +/– %
Ural region* 7747 4814 –37.9 –9.7 9620 5395 –43.9
1. Kurgan oblast 3030.5 1732.6 –42.8 0 909 519 –42.8
2. Sverdlovsk oblast 1543.2 892.8 –42.1 –12.5 6172 3125 –49.4
3. Chelyabinsk oblast 3173.5 2188.1 –31.1 0 2538 1751 –31.1
West Siberian region 19534 14832 –24.1 12.1 26355 22424 –14.9
4. Altai krai and Altai Republic 7267.2 6172.6 –15.1 36.4 7993.9 9259 15.8
5. Kemerovo oblast 1563.6 1130.3 –27.7 6.5 9694 7460 –23.0
6. Novosibirsk oblast 3931 2683.4 –31.7 0 4717 3220 –31.7
7. Omsk oblast 4372.8 3217.8 –26.4 0 1311 965.3 –26.4
8. Tomsk oblast 671.1 429.8 –36.0 –6.9 1946 1160.4 –40.4
9. Tyumen oblast 1728.9 1197.8 –30.7 –25.0 692 359.4 –48.0
East Siberian region 9568 3139 –67.2 –6.1 77926 20780 –73.3
10. Buryat Republic 1020.8 204.7 –80.0 8.3 11025 2395 –78.3
11. Tyva Republic 492.2 34.2 –93.0 0 1969 136.9 –93.0
12. Krasnoyarsk krai and 4000.6 1938.6 –51.5 –6.0 20003 9111 –54.5
Republic of Khakassia
13. Irkutsk oblast 1786.4 719.9 –59.7 –9.7 18400 6695 –63.6
14. Zabaykalsky krai 2267.5 241.9 –89.3 –13.7 26530 2443 –90.8
Far East region 2828 1747 –38.2 44.1 16931 15068 –11.0
15. Amur oblast and Jewish 1793.2 1249.2 –30.3 73.2 7352 8870 20.6
Autonomous oblast
16. Primorsky krai 761.6 411.52 –46.0 27.3 8378 5761 –31.2
17. Khabarovsk krai 273.1 85.87 –68.6 15.9 1202 437.9 –63.6
*Only Asian part of the Ural economic region is taken into account. Data on arable land of Northeastern Siberia are not included
because of its insignificant area.

influence of military-historical factors. In a regional
geographic sketch of Siberia at the end of the 19th cen-
tury compiled under the supervision of P.P. Semenov-
Tien-Shanskiy, it was argued that “… the economic
fate of the population of the cultural zone of Siberia is
entirely determined, generally speaking, by the position
of arable farming and livestock breeding; on good lands,
the population reaches a high degree of prosperity and
grows both naturally and by the influx of migrants; on
bad lands, the population often spreads out to look for a
better place for settlement” [29, p. 97].
In the first years of reforms, the application of min-
eral fertilizers for grain crops in Russia decreased by
four times [9], and in some regions of Siberia, the
application of fertilizers and chemical ameliorants vir-
tually stopped [5]. Under such conditions, the eco-
nomic feasibility of agriculture was largely determined
by the bioclimatic potential of the territory (natural
soil fertility). It seems that, in Siberia, one of the main
reasons for the territorial differentiation of the reduc-
tion in the area of arable lands is the difference in the
natural fertility of cultivated soils (Fig. 2). In general,
this figure clearly shows two large regions: the Ural
region and West Siberia on the west and the huge east-
ern part of Asian Russia. In West Siberia (left part of
Fig. 2), the correlation coefficient between these indi-
cators is 0.51; for eastern territories, it reaches 0.68.
Deviations from this general pattern are seen in a very
large loss of arable land in Buryatia, Tyva, and the
Zabaykalsky krai (Table 1). Probably, the main factor
of such a considerable loss of arable land in these
administrative units is the deficit of moisture. Thus, in
Buryatia, over the past ninety years (1913–2003),
27 years were dry with the grain yield of less than
0.8 t/ha; in 1999–2003, it varied within 0.5–
0.82 t/ha [1]. Grain yields from cultivated arable lands
in these regions are almost two times lower than in
other regions of Siberia [9]. The lack of moisture also

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 1 2021

156 LITVIN et al.

20 000
18 000
16 000

Sown area, thousand ha

14 000
12 000
10 000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Years
–♦– 1 –■– 2 –▲– 3 –●– 4

Fig. 1. Dynamics of sown areas in the economic regions of the Russian Federation: (1) Ural, (2) West Siberian, (3) East Siberian,
and (4) Far East economic regions.

%
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
–20
–40
–60
–80
–100
Administrative unit no. (Table 1)
1 2

Fig. 2. The ratio of the relative loss of sown areas and the share of chernozems and gray forest soils in the arable land area: (1) loss
of sown area, % of the sown area in 1980; (2) share of chernozems and gray forest soils in arable land, %.

affects the yield in the western regions of Siberia, over-
riding the effect of reduced fertility of eroded soils [37].
Zonal-landscape differentiation of the loss of arable
land in Siberia at the regional level is difficult to trace,
but this differentiation can be clearly seen within the
regions. Thus, in Omsk oblast, the reduction of arable
land in the forest zone reached 75%, in the northern
forest-steppe zone, 46.3%; and in the southern forest-
steppe zone, 5% [22, 23].
Soil-protecting capacity of agrocenoses. The soil-
protective capacity of individual crops and agro-
cenoses is a significant factor determining the inten-
sity of ASE (Table 1). Soil-protective properties of
agrocenoses are determined by the agrobiological

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 1 2021

 DYNAMICS OF AGRICULTURAL SOIL EROSION IN SIBERIA AND FAR EAST
properties of individual crops, their shares in the crop
rotation (in the crop structure), soil cultivation tech-
nology, and regional relationships between the partic-
ular phases of plant development and seasonal distri-
bution of rainfall activity [16, 42]. According to the
degree of soil protection efficiency during rainstorm
erosion, field crops are combined into the following
agro-erosion groups: perennial grasses, winter cereals,
dense-cover spring crops, high-stemmed row crops,
low-stem row crops, and black fallows. For snowmelt
erosion, three agricultural backgrounds are distin-
guished: tilled land + fallow, winter cereals, and
perennial herbs [16]. In the used ASE model, indices
of soil-protecting capacity of agrocenoses during
snowmelt (Rs) and rainfall (Rr) runoff are taken into
account; they are estimated as the ratios of washout
from slopes under crops to washout from clean fallow,
so that the absolute values of these indices are
inversely proportional to soil-protecting capacity. The
annual index of soil-protecting capacity of agro-
cenoses is calculated taking into account the shares of
snowmelt and rainstorm erosion in the total annual
erosion. Because of crop rotation, the overall soil-pro-
tecting capacity of agrocenoses can only be estimated
for the administrative-economic units, i.e., for given
crop rotation fields, particular farms, administrative
district, and administrative oblasts.
Data the structure of cultivated crops for large
administrative units are published in official reference
books. The regularity of publications makes it possible
to assess the annual changes in the soil-protective
capacity of agrocenoses. Analysis of the dynamics of
the soil-protective capacity of agrocenoses in the
Asian part of the Russian Federation since 1996 indi-
cates the absence of cardinal changes. The structure of
cultivated areas in the context of agro-erosion groups
is rather conservative for the vast majority of the
regions. The ratio of the areas of agro-erosion groups
of crops changed over the years with weak or unex-
pressed trends, and the values of agro-erosion indices
changed accordingly, but the coefficients of variation
of their average regional values are small and do not
exceed 3–10%.
The amplitude of the regional values of the rainfall
runoff index (Rr) is within ±15%. A significant
decrease in the soil-protective capacity of agrocenoses
during rainfall runoff is observed only for the arable
land of the Far East economic region. The related
increase in the soil loss intensity in the Amur oblast
and Primorsky krai (by 75 and 28%, respectively) is
caused by a sharp increase in the area of soybeans, a
low-stem row crop (Fig. 3). Opposite trends are
observed in the north of Sverdlovsk and Tyumen
oblasts, where the Rr index decreased by 15.7 and
23.6%, respectively, due to an increase in the share of
perennial herbs. The soil-protective capacity of agro-
cenoses in the region with snowmelt runoff in most
parts of the Ural and West Siberian economic regions
has significantly decreased: by up to 25–30% in
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 1 2021
157
Tomsk, Omsk, and Kemerovo oblasts. In the rest of
the territory, this decrease is weak or absent. Such a
change in the soil-protecting capacity of agrocenoses
is associated with a change in the proportion of peren-
nial grasses and the ratio of cereals to row crops. In the
areas, where the share of perennial grasses noticeably
increased in 1990–2012, the average annual soil-pro-
tective capacity increased by 11–24%; the soil-protec-
tive capacity of agrocenoses with respect to rainfall
erosion has also increased (Irkutsk, Sverdlovsk, and
Tyumen oblasts).
Thus, insignificant changes in the soil-protective
properties of agrocenoses associated with the conser-
vatism of the structure of crops and methods of soil
cultivation led to the preservation of the pre-reform
rates of washout on the cultivated arable land in West-
ern and Eastern Siberia.
Dynamics of agricultural erosion. Comparison of
the main ASE indicators for the Asian part of Russia—
the territorial distribution of the areas of eroded arable
land, the intensity of soil washout, and the mass of the
soil lost—attests to significant changes in these param-
eters in the past thirty years. The short duration of this
period does not allow for a statistically reliable assess-
ment of the trends of changes in climatic factors of
erosion; they are differently directed in different
regions [2]. Territorially multidirectional and moder-
ate (± 7–13%) changes in the intensity of soil erosion
have been observed in the Siberian economic regions
(Table 1).
Differentiation within the economic regions is also
relatively small:– on average, regional indicators vary
from 0 to ± 10%. In Western Siberia, the maximum
decrease in the ASE intensity is noted for Tyumen
(‒25%) and Sverdlovsk (–12.5%) oblasts. A signifi-
cant increase in the average intensity of soil washout
took place on the arable lands of the Altai krai: 36.4%.
Probably, the reason for this is associated with a con-
siderable reduction in application of erosion control
measures rather than with a decrease in the soil-pro-
tective capacity of agrocenoses, because the structure
of crops changed insignificantly since 1996. The
intensity of ASE in three administrative units of the
Far East Economic region increased to the maximum:
by 16–73% in comparison with 1980. The reason for
this is a sharp increase in the share of row crops,
mainly soybeans, and a decrease in the share of dense-
cover cereals. In the modern cropland of the Amur
oblast and the Jewish Autonomous oblast, the share of
dense-cover cereals decreased to 36%, while the share
of row crops reaches 46% (Fig. 3).
Spatial differentiation of changes in the intensity of
ASE also depends to some extent on the environmen-
tal conditions. According to the results of pre-reform
repeated soil-erosion surveys, the proportion of
eroded soils on arable lands in the Altai krai changed
during the agricultural development as follows: dry
steppe, 0%; moderately dry steppe, 3.8%; slightly dry
158
80
Crop area, % of total sown area
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1995
–○– 1 –■– 2 –▲– 3 –●– 4
Fig. 3. Dynamics of sown crops in Amur oblast and the Jewish Autonomous oblast. Agro-erosion groups of crops: (1) dense-cover
winter crops, (2) dense-cover spring crops, (3) row crops, and (4) perennial herbs.
steppe, 7.6%; true steppe, 30.9%; and meadow-
steppe, 11.8% [24].
Calculations of the mass of soil material washed off
annually from arable slopes with due account for the
percent of sown arable land and the dynamics of the
soil-protective capacity of agrocenoses show that it has
significantly decreased during the post-reform period.
In the East Siberian and Asian parts of the Ural eco-
nomic regions, the mass of soil loss decreased by 73
and 44% in comparison with the pre-reform period,
respectively. In the West Siberian and Far East
regions, this decrease is smaller: –15 and –11%,
respectively. Comparison of the post-reform indica-
tors of the decrease in the areas of cultivated arable
land and the dynamics of the washout intensity indi-
cates the predominant effect of the decrease in the
area of sown arable land in the overall decrease of
ASE. The spatial variability of this indicator is directly
related to the natural soil fertility (East Siberian and
Far East economic regions) and the degree of aridity
of the territory. Analysis of data on the volume of soil
loss for administrative regions shows similar causal
relationships, except for the cases of a significant
increase in the intensity of erosion caused by the
anthropogenic factors. Thus, the mass of soil material
washed off from slopes has increased in comparison
with the pre-reform period in the Amur oblast and
Altai krai owing to changes in the structure of sown
areas and in applied agricultural technologies.
The spatial distribution of the dynamics of soil
washout in the European part of Russia demonstrates
its close relationship with landscape zonality [19]. In
the Asian part, due to the “narrowness” of the land-
scape zones, the territory of most administrative units,
including those with developed agriculture, includes
parts of several landscape zones. This makes it difficult
LITVIN et al.
2000 2005 2010 2015
Years
to find such patterns based on the analysis of regional
indicators. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the most
significant decrease in soil loss took place in the steppe
republics of Buryatia and Tyva: 73 and 90%, respec-
tively. In these republics, the share of chestnut soils in
the arable land is maximum for the entire region: 39 and
67%, respectively. A large decrease in the soil loss in the
Zabaykalsky krai is also partly associated with the loca-
tion of arable land mainly in the steppe zone [26]. The
share of chestnut soils here is 12% of the arable land,
and the climatic index of biological productivity of
soils in this soil province (60–67 units) is minimal for
the steppe zone [26]. Thus, the decrease in the area of
sown arable land was very considerable. In Irkutsk
oblast with the high share of soddy-podzolic soils of
the forest zone with low natural fertility in the arable
land (35%), the decrease in the arable land area and,
hence, in the ASE is also considerable.
Thus, among the natural and anthropogenic factors
of the dynamics of ASE in the Asian part of Russia, a
significant role belongs to the spatial differences in the
natural soil fertility and aridity of the territory. These
differences affect the scale of the decrease in the area of
cultivated arable land, and, consequently, the decrease
in the mass of annual soil loss from cultivated fields.
CONCLUSIONS
The spatial distribution of ASE and its natural and
anthropogenic factors in Siberia in the pre-reform
period was described in fundamental works by
A.D. Orlov, R.S. Kovaleva, A.A. Tanasienko,
V.V. Reimkhe, and O.I. Bazhenova. The study of the
geographical patterns of ASE and the factors con-
trolling it was based on the soil survey data on the dis-
tribution of eroded soils and made it possible to objec-
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 1 2021
 DYNAMICS OF AGRICULTURAL SOIL EROSION IN SIBERIA AND FAR EAST
tively assess the ASE in total for the entire period of
agricultural development. Stationary observations of
soil erosion and slope runoff, which allow us to
directly assess the current dynamics of ASE intensity,
are rare in the Asian part of Russia [3, 10, 14, 32, 34,
etc.]. Under these circumstances, the use of methods
of logical and mathematical modeling to assess the
current state of extremely dynamic processes of soil
erosion seems to have no alternative. Certain experi-
ence has been gained in using these methods for to
assess soil erosion in the pre-reform period with par-
tial verification of the results [2, 18, 28].
The main erosion-significant consequence of the
socioeconomic transformation of agriculture in the
recent decades is a large-scale territorially differentiated
reduction in the area of cultivated arable land—the area
of ASE—which amounted to 30 to 90% of the arable
land of the pre-reform period (1980–1990) in most of
the administrative units of the Asian part of Russia. At
the same time, the absolute loss of arable land (its trans-
fer to other land categories) in most administrative units
does not exceed the first ten percent. A significant rea-
son for the territorial differentiation of this phenome-
non is the differences in the natural soil fertility and the
degree of dryness of the territories.
Some influence on the dynamics of ASE intensity
has been exerted by the post-reform changes in the
soil-protecting capacity of agrocenoses. The crop
structure, which mainly determines this capacity, is a
relatively conservative element of soil erosion systems.
As a result, the intensity of soil washout underwent
minor changes. In most administrative units, its
changes do not exceed the first percent. However, in
the Far East economic region, a sharp increase in the
share of row crops (soybeans) has resulted in a drastic
increase in the ASE intensity by 44% in comparison
with the pre-reform period; the maximum increase—
by 73%—took place in Amur oblast.
During the post-reform period (2010–2017), the
mass of soil material annually removed from the arable
slopes by water has significantly decreased in all
administrative regions of the Asian part of Russia. This
decrease is most pronounced in the East Siberian eco-
nomic region (by 80–90%) in the Zabaykalsky krai
and in the republics of Tyva and Buryatia. The major
factor of this decrease in the reduction in the area of
really cultivated (sown) arable land. An increase in the
soil loss was noted only for the territory with a signifi-
cant increase in the intensity of soil washout because
of negative changes in the soil-protective capacity of
agrocenoses (in Amur oblast and Altai krai).
Currently, a tendency towards stabilization of
anthropogenic factors of the ASE—mainly, the areas
of cultivated arable land—is observed. At the same
time, the spatial and temporal variability of climatic
factors requires statistically reliable definitions and
estimates. First of all, this refers to the assessment of
trends in the rainfall erosivity index and in precipita-
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 1 2021
159
tion of the cold period, because the duration of mete-
orological observation is insufficient for reliable esti-
mates.
FUNDING
This study was performed in agreement with state
assignment of the N.I. Makkaveev Research Laboratory of
Soil Erosion and Fluvial Processes.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
1. R. M. Amsheev and A. V. Mordvinov, “Solar rhythms
of grain yield in Buryatia,” Geogr. Prirod. Resur.,
No. 4, 145–147 (2004).
2. O. I. Bazhenova, Modern Denudation of the Foothill
Steppe Plains of Siberia (Geo, Novosibirsk, 2018) [in
Russian].
3. O. I. Bazhenova, E. M. Lyubtsova, Yu. V. Ryzhov, and
S. A. Makarov, Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Erosion Dy-
namics in the South of Eastern Siberia (Nauka, Novosi-
birsk, 1997) [in Russian].
4. A. T. Barabanov, Agroforest Reclamation in Soil-Protec-
tive Agriculture (Volgograd, 1993) [in Russian].
5. S. A. Borovaya, E. P. Sinel’nikov, and Yu. I. Slabko,
“Nitrogen content of arable soils in Primorskii krai
during intensive agricultural use,” Vestn. Krasnoyarsk.
Gos. Agrar. Univ., No. 6, 41–46 (2013).
6. D. S. Bulgakov, D. I. Rukhovich, E. A. Shishkonakova,
and E. V. Vil’chevskaya, “The application of soil-agro-
climatic index for assessing the agronomic potential of
arable lands in the forest-steppe zone of Russia,” Eur-
asian Soil Sci. 51, 448–459 (2018).
7. O. Yu. Voronkova, “Ecological and economic pros-
pects of agricultural use of fallow and abandoned lands
in Altai krai,” Agroprod. Polit. Ross., No. 8 (32), 24–27
(2014).
8. V. N. Golosov, Erosion-Accumulative Processes in River
Basins on Agricultural Lands (GEOS, Moscow, 2006)
[in Russian].
9. A Report on the Status and Use of Agricultural Lands in
Russian Federation in 2016 (Rosinformagrotekh, Mos-
cow, 2018) [in Russian].
10. N. S. Evseeva, A. I. Petrov, M. A. Kashiro, Z. N. Kvas-
nikova, A. S. Batmanova, and E. A. Kirichenko, “Esti-
mated and natural determination of intensity of soil ero-
sion caused by melted snow water,” in Proceedings of the
XXXVI Congr. on Geomorphologic Commission of the Rus-
sian Academy of Sciences (Barnaul, 2018), pp. 152–159.
11. G. S. Zinchenko, I. A. Sutorikhin, and N. N. Bezuglo-
va, “Long-term fluctuations of air temperature and at-
mospheric precipitations in Altai krai,” Geogr. Prirod.
Resur., No. 4, 142–144 (2004).
12. Guide for Calculation of Hydrological Parameters in
Planning of Erosion Control Measures in the European
Part of the Soviet Union (Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad,
1979) [in Russian].
160 LITVIN et al.
13. Z. P. Kiryukhina and Z. V. Patsukevich, Erodibility of
plowed soils in Russia upon rainstorms, Eurasian Soil
Sci. 34, 1018–1023 (2001).
14. R. S. Kovaleva, A. A. Tanasienko, and A. F. Putilin,
“Slope runoff of snowmelt over plowed soils in the for-
est-steppe zone of West Siberia,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 31,
652–659 (1998).
15. M. S. Kuznetsov and G. P. Glazunova, Erosion and
Protection of Soils (Moscow State University, Moscow,
1996) [in Russian].
16. G. A. Larionov, Erosion and Deflation of Soils: General
Pattern and Quantitative Assessment (Moscow State
Univ., Moscow, 1993) [in Russian].
17. F. N. Lisetskii, A. A. Svetlichnyi, and S. G. Chernyi,
Modern Problems of Erosion Science (Konstanta, Bel-
gorod, 2012) [in Russian].
18. L. F. Litvin, Geography of Erosion of Agricultural Lands
(Akademkniga, Moscow, 2002) [in Russian].
19. L. F. Litvin, Z. P. Kiryukhina, S. F. Krasnov, and
N. G. Dobrovol’skaya, “Dynamics of agricultural soil
erosion in European Russia,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 50,
1344–1353 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229317110084
20. L. F. Litvin, S. F. Krasnov, and N. G. Dobrovol’skaya,
“Spatio-temporal evaluation of erosion potential of
rain precipitations,” in Soil Erosion and Channel Pro-
cesses (Moscow State University, Moscow, 2001),
No. 3, pp. 8–17.
21. D. I. Lyuri, S. V. Goryachkin, N. A. Karavaeva,
E. A. Denisenko, and T. G. Nefedova, Dynamics of Ag-
ricultural Lands of Russia in the 20th Century and Posta-
grogenic Recovery of Vegetation and Soils (GEOS, Mos-
cow, 2010) [in Russian].
22. S. K. Makenova and A. F. Stepanov, “Dynamics of the
land use structure in the northern zone of Omsk
oblast,” Omsk. Nauchn. Vestn., Ser. Resur. Zemli.
Chel., No. 1 (118), 252–256 (2013).
23. S. K. Makenova and T. A. Filippova, “Historical aspect
of land use formation in the forest-steppe zone of Omsk
oblast,” Omsk. Nauchn. Vestn., No. 2 (144), 160–164
(2015).
24. G. G. Morkovkin, T. V. Baikalova, N. B. Maksimova,
V. I. Ovtsinov, E. A. Litvinenko, I. V. Demins, and
V. A. Demin, “Dynamics of the soil cover conditions
and indicators of soil fertility in the general natural soil
zones of the Altai krai,” Vestn. Altaisk. Nauki, No. 1,
212–222 (2015).
25. All-Union Instruction on Soil Investigations and Compi-
lation of Large-Scale Land Use Maps (Kolos, Moscow,
1973) [in Russian].
26. Natural Agricultural Zonation of Land Resources of the
Soviet Union, Ed. by T. S. Dyuzheva (General Office of
Geodesy and Cartography, Moscow, 1984) [in Rus-
sian].
27. V. V. Reimkhe, Erosion Processes in Forest-Steppe Land-
scapes in Transbaikalia (Nauka, Novosibirsk, 1986) [in
Russian].
28. Yu. V. Ryzhov, Development of Ravines in the South of
Eastern Siberia (Geo, Novosibirsk, 2015) [in Russian].
29. Siberia and the Great Siberian Railway (with the Attach-
ment of a Map of Siberia), 2nd ed (Tipogr. I.A. Efrona,
St. Petersburg, 1896) [in Russian].
30. A. V. Silaev, “Cartographic analysis of the state of resi-
dential and plowed areas of the Tunkinskaya depression
over the last century,” Vestn. Irkutsk. Gos. Tekh. Univ.,
No. 2, 80–84 (2013).
31. G. P. Surmach, Relief and Forest-Steppe Development,
Modern Erosion, and Erosion Control Measures (All-
Russia Scientific Research Institute of Agroforest Rec-
lamation, Volgograd, 1992) [in Russian].
32. A. A. Tanasienko, A. S. Chumbaev, O. P. Yakutina, and
D. A. Filimonova, “The impact of climatic humidity of
the southeastern part of Western Siberia on spring defi-
cit of moisture in the profiles of eroded chernozems,”
Eurasian Soil Sci. 52, 935–944 (2019).
33. Russian Federal State Statistics Service, 1996–2012.
http://www.gks.ru.
34. V. A. Khmelev and A. A. Tanasienko, Land Resources of
Novosibirsk Oblast and Their Rational Use (Siberian
Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk,
2009) [in Russian].
35. E. Ya. Chebochakov, “The development of farming
systems in the south of Central Siberia: lessons and
problems,” Vestn. Krasnoyarsk. Gos. Agrar. Univ.,
No. 8, 85–89 (2013).
36. G. I. Shvebs, Theory of Erosion Science (Vishcha Shko-
la, Kiev, 1981) [in Russian].
37. O. P. Yakutina and V. M. Nazaryuk, “Assessment of the
fertility of eroded soils in the south of Western Siberia,”
Agrokhimiya, No. 11, 10–20 (2007).
38. Climatological normals (CLINO) for the period 1961–
1990: World Meteorological Organization Document
no. 847, 1996. http://ols.nndc.noaa.gov/plolstore/plsql/
olstore.prodspecific?prodnum=C00058-CDR-A0001.
39. Status of the World’s Soil Resources (SWSR): Main Re-
port (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome,
2015).
40. G. Ioffe and T. Nefedova, “Marginal farmland in Eu-
ropean Russia,” Eurasian Geogr. Econ. 45 (1), 31–45
(2004).
41. P. Meyfroidt, F. Schierhorn, A. V. Prishchepov, D. Muller,
and T. Kuemmerle, “Drivers, constraints and trade-offs
associated with recultivating abandoned cropland in
Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan,” Global Environ.
Change 37, 1–15 (2016).
42. W. H. Wischmeier and D. D. Smith, Predicting Rainfall
Erosion Losses—A Guide to Conservation Planning:
USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 537 (US Department
of Agriculture, Washington, DC, 1978).
Translated by D. Konyushkov
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 1 2021