Reviews and Comments ïîñëå ïîëíîãî êðàõà ïîïóëÿöèé âèäà â þãî-âîñòî÷íîì ðåãèîíå ê 2000 ã. (Ëåâèí, 2008b). Äàííûå ìîíèòîðèíãà ñâèäåòåëüñòâóþò î òîì, ÷òî ÷èñëåííîñòü áàëîáàíà âî âñåõ êîíòðîëèðóåìûõ õðåáòàõ Âîñòî÷íîãî Êàçàõñòàíà ñíèæàëàñü, è èç 66-òè ïîñòîÿííî íàõîäÿùèõñÿ ïîä íàáëþäåíèåì ãí¸çä çàíÿòûìè ê 2008 ã. îêàçàëèñü ëèøü 16 (24%); ïî ýêñïåðòíûì îöåíêàì ÷èñëåííîñòü ýòîé ïîïóëÿöèè ñîêðàòèëàñü ñ 200– 250 ïàð â 2000 ã. äî íåñêîëüêèõ äåñÿòêîâ ïàð â 2008 ã., â áîëüøèíñòâå èç îáñëåäîâàííûõ ãîðíûõ ãðóïïèðîâîê êîëè÷åñòâî ãíåçäÿùèõñÿ ïàð óìåíüøèëîñü â 2–3 ðàçà (Ëåâèí, 2008b). Ðåçóëüòàòû ìîíèòîðèíãà À.Ñ. Ëåâèíûì ïðàêòè÷åñêè åæåãîäíî ïóáëèêîâàëèñü, îòðàæàÿ íåóòåøèòåëüíûå ðåçóëüòàòû ñîêðàùåíèÿ ÷èñëåííîñòè áàëîáàíà â Âîñòî÷íîì Êàçàõñòàíå (Ëåâèí, 2008à; 2008b; 2008ñ; Levin, 2000; 2001; Levin, Dixon, 2008), ëèøü â 2002 ã. â Âîñòî÷íîì Êàçàõñòàíå íàáëþäàëîñü íåêîòîðîå óâåëè÷åíèå ÷èñëåííîñòè áàëîáàíà (áûëî íàéäåíî 23 íîâûõ çàíÿòûõ ãíåçäà) (Levin, 2003), îäíàêî óæå ñ 2003 ã. îïÿòü íà÷àëîñü óñòîé÷èâîå å¸ ïàäåíèå (Ëåâèí, 2008a; 2008b). Íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî îáùåå êîëè÷åñòâî èçâåñòíûõ ãí¸çä áàëîáàíà â ðåãèîíå âîçðîñëî ñ 10 â 2000 ã. äî 86 â 2008 ã., äîëÿ çàíÿòûõ ãíåçäîâûõ òåððèòîðèé ñíèçèëàñü ñ 70% äî 24% (Ëåâèí, 2008b). Äëÿ ãîðíûõ ãðóïïèðîâîê Òàðáàãàòàÿ, Ìàíðàêà, Àðêàëû, Êàðàáàñà, Äæóíãàðñêîãî Àëàòàó, Àðãàíàòû, Àðõàëû, Êûñêàø èç 101 èçâåñòíîãî ãíåçäîâîãî ó÷àñòêà ê 2008 ã. îñòàëîñü ëèøü 19, íà êîòîðûõ çàðåãèñòðèðîâàíî ðàçìíîæåíèå áàëîáàíà, à îöåíêà ÷èñëåííîñòè ñî 131 ïàðû ñíèçèëàñü äî 24 ïàð (Ëåâèí, 2008c). Îáñëåäîâàíèå Êàëáèíñêîãî Àëòàÿ â 2006 ã. ïîçâîëèëî îöåíèòü ÷èñëåííîñòü áàëîáàíà íà åãî òåððèòîðèè â 20–30 ïàð (Ñìåëÿíñêèé è äð., 2006).  2007 ã. â ìåëêîñîïî÷íèêàõ Âîñòî÷íî-Êàçàõñòàíñêîé îáëàñòè îáíàðóæåíî 8 ãíåçäîâûõ ó÷àñòêîâ áàëîáàíà, èç êîòîðûõ çàíÿòûìè îêàçàëèñü 6–7 ó÷àñòêîâ, à ðàçìíîæåíèå èìåëî ìåñòî íà 4-õ (Ñìåëÿíñêèé è äð., 2008). Ïîñëåäíåå ïðåäïîëàãàåò ãíåçäîâàíèå åù¸ êàê ìèíèìóì 2-õ äåñÿòêîâ ïàð â ìåëêîñîïî÷íèêàõ Âîñòî÷íî-Êàçàõñòàíñêîé îáëàñòè. Îäíàêî óæå þæíåå Ãåîðãèåâêè áàëîáàí ïðîïàäàåò – çäåñü âûÿâëåí åäèíñòâåííûé ãíåçäîâîé ó÷àñòîê â 2009 ã. (Áàðàøêîâà è äð., 2009). Îïðåäåë¸ííî áàëîáàí ãíåçäèòüñÿ íà Êàçàõñêîì Àëòàå è â Çàéñàíñêîé êîòëîâèíå, îäíàêî åñëè áû åãî ÷èñëåííîñòü çäåñü áûëà âû-
Raptors Conservation 2010, 19
53
Áàëîáàí. Ôîòî À. Êîâàëåíêî. Saker Falcon. Photo by A. Kovalenko.
an old nest in 2004 (Starikov, 2005); a Saker was encountered near Bukhtarminskoe Lake during July 7–10th, 2005 (Starikov, 2006). The number of Sakers in this territory seemed to be so little, that it could be estimated only in terms of single breeding pairs. Summarizing all the available data, including on Altai and Tarbagatai, A. Levin (2008a) reports the number of Sakers has decreased there from 300–350 pairs to 80–100 pairs over 15 years, and from 400–450 to 120– 145 pairs throughout the east and north-east (including pine forests) of the region. South-Eastern Kazakhstan The Saker has been monitored regularly in South-Eastern Kazakhstan since 1984. According to R. Pfeffer, who had researched the breeding biology of Sakers in south-east Kazakhstan over 10 years, 22 living nests were located in the vicinity of Almaty, within a radius of 200 km – in the Anarchay, Serektas, Malay-Sary, Boguty and Turaygyr mountain ridges (Levin, 2008b). The monitoring of Saker breeding territories has shown that initially they vanished in the mountains of South-Eastern Kazakhstan. The first publications about the collapse of the south-eastern populations of the Saker were in 2000: the decrease in numbers of breeding pairs had been evident already by 1997. The Saker number had declined from 24 in 1993 to fewer than 5 pairs in 1997; as a result of the trapping of birds and chicks, the breeding success of Sakers in Kazakhstan had fallen down to its lowest level by 1998. (Levin et al., 2000). Breeding was registered only in 2 out of 22 nests known in the vicinity of Almaty in 2000 (Levin, 2001). It was remarkable, that females on both of the remaining nests in the Syugatinskaya depression were