## 3 Results
### Spatial and Statistical Analysis
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**If the Effects of Factors of 2 nd**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**If the Effects of Factors of 1 st Half**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**If the Effects of Factors of 2 nd**} \\  & **Half of the 19 th Century-1 st Half** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**of the 20 th Century-2 nd Half of**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Half of the 20 th Century-1 st Half**} \\  & **of the 20 th Century Were** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**the 20 th Century Were**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**of the 21 st Century Were**} \\  & **Maintained** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Maintained**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Maintained**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **\(\tau_{\rm ij}\)** & \(p\)**-Value** & \(\tau_{\rm ij}\) & \(p\)**-Value** & \(\tau_{\rm ij}\) & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline Land & & & & & \\ productivity & \(-0.92\) & \(0.00\) & \(-0.11\) & \(0.25\) & \(0.16\) & \(0.52\) \\ scores & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 13: Results of correlation analysis between land productivity scores and forest cover areas. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**If the Effects of Factors of 2 nd**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**If the Effects of Factors of 2 nd**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**If the Effects of Factors of 2 nd**} \\  & **Half of the 19 th Century-1 st Half** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Half of the 19 th Century-2 nd**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Half of the 19 th Century–1 st Half**} \\  & **of the 20 th Century Were** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Half of the 20 th Century Were**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**of the 21 st Century Were**} \\  & **Maintained** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Maintained**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Maintained**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **\(\tau_{\rm ij}\)** & \(p\)**-Value** & \(\tau_{\rm ij}\) & \(p\)**-Value** & \(\tau_{\rm ij}\) & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline
320–40 & \(-0.35\) & \(0.57\) & \(-0.38\) & \(0.46\) & \(-0.42\) & \(0.39\) \\
40–130 & \(0.40\) & \(0.08\) & \(0.51\) & \(0.04\) & \(0.55\) & \(0.02\) \\
130–240 & \(0.26\) & \(0.25\) & \(0.23\) & \(0.31\) & \(0.29\) & \(0.22\) \\
240–320 & \(-0.42\) & \(0.34\) & \(-0.43\) & \(0.29\) & \(-0.52\) & \(0.17\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 14: Results of correlation analysis between aspect and changes in forest cover areas. The slopes are distributed more or less evenly throughout the district, but the links to them are not the same. GIS visualization of the hydrographic network (Figure 17) shows that it is oriented in the east-west direction. A visual analysis of the old military topographic maps shows that in the 2 nd half of the 19 th century, it is mostly absent along river banks. Later, this trend is not observed. It can be assumed that the changes in the surface that took place from the 19 th century to the 1 st half of the 20 th century are so great that they overshadow the influence of changes in later years. A correlation analysis was performed when analyzing the dependence of the change in forest cover on the altitudes of the land surface (Table 15). Indicators of correlation analysis:  
\(i\)--change in forest cover areas in the corresponding period, m\({}^{2}\);  
\(j\)--areas of altitudes of the land surface, m\({}^{2}\). The results of the correlation analysis presented in Table 15 show that correlation coefficients of moderate significance were obtained between the following altitudes of the land surface: 0-30, 40-70 m (\(1.04.0\,|\leq\tau_{\rm ij}\leq\,|\,0.73\,|\)) toward directions. However, only the correlation coefficients between the change in forest cover areas and the slope of the land surface in the eastern direction have statistical significance (\(0.02\leq p\)-value \(\leq 0.08\)). Figure 18 shows the map of altitudes of Jurbarkas District correlating/non-correlating with changes in forest cover in the 19 th-21 st centuries. Areas where weak correlations are observed are marked in blue, and areas where strong correlations are observed are marked in yellow.