Natural basis of geoecological processes in the region Župa Aleksandrovačka

K

BULLETIN OF THE SERBIAN GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY

2008.

LXXXVIII -

. 1

YEAR 2008

TOME LXXXVIII - N 1

UDC 911.3:504(497.11)

M . ∗

А А А

А А А

: , . O ,

, , a

.

-, , –

. ,

-,

. ђ

.

: , , , , ,

Abstract: Natural basis is a complex, dynamic and meaningful geospatial category. Although its intensity is subject to changes, it is both a permanent determinant of social development and a physical basis of geoecological processes. Due to its own development tendencies and more intensive and various anthropogenic influences, the relation between natural basis and human society is characterised by a specific structure and dynamics of geoecological processes. In the case study of the region Župa Aleksandrovačka (despite its small territory), geoecological processes are characterised by a number of specific and detectable morpho-physionomical and morpho-functional elements and relations. Such a structure of geoecological processes provides geographical homogenity and individuality to the region of Župa Aleksandrovačka.

Key words: Natural basis, geoecological process, relief, drainage area, basin, ecology

,

-,

.

.

. , ,

: , , , .

XVII : , , , , ,

. XX : . 1927, .

1927, . 1929, . 1945, . , 1960, . 1962,

. T 1969, . 1976, A. , 1983, . . 1986, .

-, 1987-, . 1987, . . 1998. .

∗ _{А. , , - , 3/3,}

.

, , - ,

3/3, .

146010

(Churchill Semple E., 1911, Hartschorn R., 1939, Taylor G., 1951, Huntington E., 1962, McHarg I., 1971 )

,

-, .

ђ ( )

.

( . ., 2001;

. ., ., ., 2007)1.

ђ

.

XX . Troll (1968., 1970.) ( . Geoecology)

. ,

-. Zonneveld (1990) ,

, , ,

-, .

, , ,

(eng. Landscape architecture).

, . ђ

, „ “,

-.

e,

„ “ ђ 2 ,

– 1196. ( . ., 1870)

1197. „ ” („COZNO“) ( ., 1974).

, „ “

-. (

-, ) ,

( ), ђ

.

-, ђ

. ђ ,

–

-,

-, ( ).

ђ , , ,

-. ђ ,

,

? ,

1 _{„ “ ( , ),}

( )

. ђ

, ,

.

2 _{, , , , .,}

–

„ “ „ “ ( . ., 2006).

-,

− , ( ),

, ,

.

160 − 258 − 387 − 420 1.000 km2. . ., (1980)

(200 700 m . ) 17 km 11 12 km.

-

( )3

-. 4

(386,55 km2).

-, ,

( , ,

).

1. –

(1 – ; 2 – ; 3 – ; 4 – . )

ђ

-, . ,

(1492 m)

ђ . (313,46 km2,

81,1%) ( ) –

(L=220 km F=15.468 km2).

: – 213,2 km2

55,16%, , , 100,26 km2 25,94%.

(52,79 km2 13,66% ),

3 _{- , XIX ,}

.

4 _{„ “ − ,}

(1150-1250 m . .) (163,5 km2),

(L=244 km F=7.985 km2) –

(L=31 km F=261 km2)5.

( 20,3 km2) , ,

-.

. „

-,

ђ “ ( ., Ђ

., 1991).

-- ( ) –

- . ( )

-, (

) - ( )6.

ђ .

. . „ ђ - ,

ђ ,

“ ( ., . ., 1995).

2. -

5 _{(2.758 km}2_{) (199 km}2_).

– 66,3%.

6

– , „ “

-

– - 7 ( , ђ ,

-, ), -

-. (

) - ( , ),

-

-. –

.8

-, .

( ,

-, , , , , ,

.)

. ,

, ,

-, .

- −

-, .

(

-) ( 500 200 ) ( 200

70 ) .

,

-,

-. , ,

.

(

). ,

( . . 1995). ,

, .

„

“ ( . Ђ .,

1991). , ,

-- 9

− „ “ ( . . 1976).

„

“,

-,

( . . 1976).

( )

- .

7

e

-. . (1975), ., Ђ . ., (1995)

-- - .

8 _{., (1964) „}

“.

9 _{, ђ .}

( – –

. - –

,

( )10 .

-,

-ђ

( ) .

, - ( . . 1976),

-− .

(

- ),

-.

( . Ђ .,

1991). „ –

“ ( . . 1976).

–

( . Ђ ., 1991).

,

, ( ., 1954).

( ., et. al. 1976),

, ,

( ., 1958). .

– ( )

( ) 11. ,

, ( ђ

. ., 1961). ђ (

-), ,

( ђ .,

., 1961).

-.

, ,

( ) ( )

.

, , , ,

( „ “). (

., 1958). ( )

( ., 1958). 0,3–

0,4 m, ., (1958) , „

5 m , “.

( )

-.

-, – . -

.

,

.

10 _{– 10.000 km}3_{, 2100 km}2 ₍

85 25 km). (17,54 24 ±3 × 106 _{) ђ}

( ., 1995).

11 _{. ( , , ),}

-12

. ( )

(540 m), (490 m . .)

, ,

.

-ђ 13.

( ).

.

-, ,

-.

, ,

, ђ

.

-- ( 1600 m),

(400–800 m) ( ., 1971).

(NNW–SSE).

. 5

mm/ . ( ђ ), ( - ) –

2–4 mm/ . , ,

1–2 mm/ ( ., 1971).

, .

( > ), (

) ( ђ ). ,

-,

-, .

. . ,

„V“ –

. ђ , je

-, 1978–1984. .

. ,

20 40 m

-, (

).

- ( ), ( )

– 230 m . .

-,

. ., (1964)

. ,

( )

– .

.

12 _{( 1:100.000) 50 km}2_{. ,}

¼ . 20 km2 _(40%

-). - (

-, , ).

13 _–

-. ,

, ,

.

-. ,

/

( , , ,

-, , , ...).

, ,

-.

177 m . . –

2 m ( ),

1785 m . . – ( ),

10,2 . , ,

-: ( - 1123 m, - 1216 m, ђ - 1350 m, - 1418 m,

- 1542 m, - 1557 m, - 1645 m, - 1779 m,

- 1785 m )14,

( ђ )

( ) (

– )

.

-. (

), ( ),

( ,

-), (7–15 20–30 m . .)

. (

-)

. – 166,68 km2

(43,11%) – 144,27 km2 (37,32%), –

73,95 km2 (19,13%) – 1,7 km2 (0,44%) .

, ,

. , ,

– 190 m/km2, 500 m/km2.

.

(10–60 m/km2) (60–100 m/km2). ,

, ђ (

), – ,

( ), ( ђ ), ( . ), (

-) .

– .

. a ђ , .

.

.

-,

-.

, ( , , )

( ). ђ ,

. „

14 _{, , ,}

“

-. , ( ,

) ,

-. (800–1200 m3/km2).

. ( ђ

.), ( – , ,

), , џ

.

-, , –

. , ,

.

–

– , 3 km.

3.

. , 400 m . . ,

,

. . , 390 m . , ђ

- .

, ,

-, , .

.

. , , /

-/ . ђ

-, .

.

-.

– , 15.

-,

( ), .

. , , ђ

– :

, , , .

-, (

) , ,

( ) .

. , ,

. ђ ,

-,

.

ђ ( ,

-, , .) .

-, , , ( )

-.

4.

( )

(S+SW+SE)

180 km2 46,56%, (N+NW+NE) 124,22 km 32,13%

-. , E W

60,9:15,35 km2 15,75%:3,97%.

6 km2 1,6% . (S–S )

(N–N )

(

ђ )

.

-: , ,

-, , .

15 _{., (1964) .}

( )

( ) ( )

-16 .

„ “ – , ,

-ђ , ,

, 17.

33 km 35 km ( ., 1995)18.

( - )

.

-,

. ђ , ,

-.

,

– . –

– – . ( ),

-19

,

.

-, ,

-, ,

-. ,

-.

,

, ,

( ., 1995). (

– , , , , )

, .

, ,

.

-, 18–22 km ( )

600 700 C,

-,

.

( ) . (

– ),

16

( )

-- ( ) .

17 _{ђ, ,}

-. ,

-.

18 _{. . (1990) 35-40 km.}

19 _{- .,}

1978. (60×106m3)20

1978–1984 .

.

,

(

-), , ,

, .

-, 21.

(U, Th, K), ,

-22

( ) .

,

- , (

., . ., 1995)23.

.

, (

-) .

( ) ,

,

-. ,

. ,

-. ., (1922) ђ

.

„ “ (Ђ ., 1962)24

„ “ ( ., 1995),

-: . ., (1976), . . ., (2006) .

, ,

-, ,

,

, .

( – ) ( )

„Vc“ :

,

20 _1,3×1010 _{t -}

-. (60×1010 _m3_),

.

21

-

-.

. . .

(1990) .

22 _{4 ppm U, 16 ppm Th 2,2% K.}

2,4 × 10 -6W/m3 _{( . . 1995).}

23 _{. Ђ ђ ., (1995) (}

-) 1:100.000

.

24 _-

-ђ 1947–1960. . ђ ,

, . ,

, ( ) .

,

-, .

,

, ä

.

, 700 m . . -

.

– 25.

(359 m . .) 11,0 C,

21,3 C (Ђ ., 1962)26. (20,5 C),

(-0,8 C). Ђ ., (1962)

1947-1960. 65,1 C ( max +40 C;

min -25,1 C). .

-, , .

(22. ), (1. ).

, .

-

„ “. 256 (14. – 29. ).

3.960 C, 3.594 C.

,

. .

75 20,55% (10. IX – 23. XI). ,

( – 11,3 C) .

-, 111 30,41% (24. XI – 14. III).

98 (4. VI – 9. IX), 81 (13. III – 3. VI)27.

, (

620 mm). .

.

25 _{, ( ., .,}

-., 2004) „ “

– . ,

, „

-“. ,

, , ,

,

-, , . ђ , (Vitis vinifera L.)

-. ,

( , ) , XII XIII

, .

, - .

-, ђ 800-1300 , . „ “ ђ 1400 1600,

1400. .

( )

( ).

– , , . ђ ,

ђ . XIX

( ) ( ) „

-“, . (

-, .) ,

.

26 _{1950–1994. 10,6 C,}

21,9 C ( ., 1995).

, . ,

, -

-. (81 mm) (72 mm),

(37 mm) (39 mm).

. ,

. 2,19

.

-, ( ),

.

, ,

( 510‰ ) 28,

. , , ,

. – 16

-, ,

-. (6,6 ), (3,5 )

.

( 700 m),

,

-:

. , , ,

. 700-1200 m . .

-, ,

, ,

.

,

ђ ,

.

800–900 mm, .

(590 m . .), , 1955.

1640 mm

( ., 1995).

(

-) ,

-. ђ (

)

-, .

, ђ ,

.

-- ,

.

ђ

.

-,

.

, ,

. ,

-, –

-, -

-- – -

-. ,

-- ( ), ( )

( ) . ђ

ђ ,

-, , ,

-,

-- , .

ђ , . , . (1961). К Ј , , .

, . (1980). , , . 30, , .

- , . (1958). ,

„ “, X, .

, . (1976).

-, 4. Ј

-, 2, , , .

, . (1997).

, 100 , , .

, , , . , . (1995).

-, К ,

, .

, . (1987). ,

-, 20, , .

, . (1995). ,

-, . LIX, .2, .

, . (1995). ,

К ,

-, .

, , Ђ , . , . (1995). ,

К ,

-, .

, , , . , . (1990). , 1:500.000, , .

, , , . , .. (2004). -, , LXXXIV – .2, .

Ђ . , (1962). К ( ) .

Karamata, S. (2006). The geological framework of Balkan Penisula: its origin due to the approaching, coollision and compression of Gondwanian and Eurasian units, Zapisnici SGD, SGD, Beograd.

, . (2006). ,

, , .

, . . (1976). , , LVI, 2, .

, . . (1980). , ,

-, . XCIII, , , .

, . . (1976). , , ,

-.

, . Ђ , . (1991). ,

, . LV, . 2, , .

, . . (2001). , , , .

, . . , . (2006). – ,

, , .

, . , , . , . (2007). –

, – . 1, ,

, . (1957). ( ), ЈЦ , .IX, . 2, .

, . (1964). , „Ј

Ц ” . 19, .

, . (1969). ђ , , .

XLIX, .2, .

, . Ђ ђ , . (1995). ,

К ,

, .

, . (1974). COSNO ,

, XXI, .

, . , . (1987).

-, , 20, , .

, . (1954). ,

, , .

, . (1998). , , .

, . (1976) 1:100000, К ,

-, .

(1976). 1:100000, , .

, . (1995). ,

К , , .

, . (1995). К К , , , .

Šafarik, J.P, (1870) Pamtaky drevniho pisemnicstvi Jihoslovanuv, Listiny, Praha. MIROLJUB A. MILINČIĆ

MILOVAN PECELJ

S u m m a r y

NATURAL BASIS OF GEOECOLOGICAL PROCESSES IN THE REGION ŽUPA ALEKSANDROVAČKA

The role and significance of nature in people’s lives, in valorization of space, and at the same time in formation of basis of geoecological processes, is an old and common subject of interest in geography and related sciences. Approaches in explanation of its impact are extremely divergent. The approach described in this paper is close to the positions of environmental determinism.

The paper points out that the increasing antagonism and opposition between society and nature (disrupt of ecological balance) make the research of geoecological processes one of the most significant modern geospatial studies, with the increasing stress on existential context. Therefore, the perception of natural basis, as a possible meaningful determinant of geoecological processes, is presented as a real need of modern society. This is the argument in favour of application of geoecological science.