p. 857−867
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
p. 869−884
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
p. 885−899
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
p. 901−914
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
p. 915−928
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
p. 929−938
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
p. 939−948
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
p. 949−962
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
p. 936−971
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
p. 973−985
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
p. 987−996
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
p. 997−1011
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
p. 1013−1027
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
p. 1029−1041
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
p. 1043−1054
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
p. 1055−1071
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
p. 1073−1083
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
p. 1085−1098
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
p. 1099−1109
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
0.05), So that the highest percentage of functional potential to the north and lowest in the East was estimated. Vegetation organization index for geographical aspects North, South, East and west were respectively 0.53, 0.43, 0.38 and 0.51. The results showed that except cryptogam cover and Micro-topography indexes, all indicators were significant in different geographical aspects (P> 0.05).]]>
p. 1111−1121
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4
p. −
2423-7795
Vol.71/No.4