放牧强度对草甸草原植物群落特征及营养品质的影响

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.13.004

中国农业科学 ›› 2020, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (13): 2550-2561.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.13.004

• 草甸草原退化过程与机制 • 上一篇下一篇

放牧强度对草甸草原植物群落特征及营养品质的影响

张宇,侯路路,闫瑞瑞(),辛晓平

中国农业科学院农业资源与农业区划研究所/呼伦贝尔草原生态系统国家野外科学观测研究站,北京 100081

收稿日期:2019-09-25 接受日期:2019-12-20 出版日期:2020-07-01 发布日期:2020-07-16
通讯作者: 闫瑞瑞
作者简介:张宇,E-mail: zhangyu517@163.com。
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划(2016YFC0500601);国家自然基金面上项目(31971769);中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务费专项(1610132018009);中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务费专项(1610132018023);中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务费专项(1610132019031);中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务费专项(1610132019040);中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务费专项(Y2019YJ13);国家重点研发计划-中美政府间合作项目(2017YFE0104500);呼伦贝尔市科技计划项目(YYYFH201903);现代农业产业技术体系建设专项资金(CARS-34-11)

Effects of Grazing Intensity on Plant Community Characteristics and Nutrient Quality of Herbage in a Meadow Steppe

ZHANG Yu,HOU LuLu,YAN RuiRui(),XIN XiaoPing

Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Hulunber Grassland Ecosystem Observation and Research Station, Beijing 100081

Received:2019-09-25 Accepted:2019-12-20 Online:2020-07-01 Published:2020-07-16
Contact: RuiRui YAN

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】 植物群落特征是草地生态系统功能变化的敏感指标,是判别干扰条件下植被退化的重要生态学指标之一。研究不同放牧强度下温性草甸草原植物特征及品质变化情况,以了解放牧作用下草原植物退化的过程和机制,为退化草地生态恢复提供理论依据。【方法】 以呼伦贝尔草甸草原肉牛控制放牧试验为平台,分析6种不同放牧强度（对照区G0.00:0,轻度放牧G0.23:0.2 cow.AU/hm²,较轻度放牧G0.34:0.34 cow.AU/hm²,中度放牧G0.46:0.46 cow.AU/hm²,较重度放牧G0.69:0.69 cow.AU/hm²,重度放牧G0.92:0.92 cow.AU/hm²）下温性草甸草原植物群落数量特征、多样性、功能群与营养品质的变化,并探讨他们之间的相关性。【结果】 放牧强度大于0.34 cow.AU/hm²时,群落盖度、群落高度、群落地上生物量、原有优势植物（羊草(Leymus chinensis))和贝加尔针茅(Stipa baicalensis)）生物量、地下生物量、枯落物生物量均呈现显著降低（P<0.05）,退化指示植物生物量（冷蒿、二裂委陵菜、星毛委陵菜和寸草苔）显著增加（P<0.05）;随着放牧强度的增加,群落α多样性指数呈现先升高后降低的趋势,放牧强度为0.34—0.46 cow.AU/hm²时,草地群落α多样性指数最高,符合中度干扰假说;植物功能群禾本科植物及其优势植物重要值随着放牧强度的增加逐渐降低,当放牧强度大于0.23 cow.AU/hm²时,优势植物重要值显著降低（P<0.05）,莎草科与退化指示植物重要值显著增加（P<0.05）。放牧不同程度增加了植物粗蛋白、粗灰分、总磷、钙和无氮浸出物含量,显著降低了植物粗脂肪、中性洗涤纤维和粗纤维含量（P<0.05）;群落α多样性指数相互之间呈极显著正相关（P<0.01）,与植物功能群豆科植物和杂类草重要值呈显著正相关、与禾本科植物重要值呈负相关;植物功能群禾本科和毛茛科植物重要值与植物酸性洗涤纤维和钙呈显著负相关、与中性洗涤纤维呈显著正相关,莎草科植物重要值与之相反。【结论】 不同放牧强度下植物群落特征及营养品质发生不同程度的变化,放牧强度为0.23—0.34 cow.AU/hm²较为适宜,适度放牧有利于提高群落物种多样性,保持草地植物群落稳定,促进草地生态系统可持续发展。

关键词: 放牧强度, 草甸草原, 群落特征, 营养品质

Abstract:

【Objective】 Plant community characteristics are sensitive indicators to changes in ecosystem function of grasslands. In order to understand the processes and mechanisms characterizing grassland degradation with grazing, the characteristics and quality changes of grassland plants under different grazing intensities were examined to provide theoretical grounds for ecological restoration of degraded grasslands. 【Method】 Based on a grazing experiment with six different grazing intensities that targeted at the Hulunber meadow steppe, changes in community characteristics, community diversity, and community functional groups were measured by the standard rangeland ecological methodology, whilst the nutritional quality of herbage plants was determined by the national procedure for chemically analyzing crude cellulose, crude protein and raw fat components of vegetal feed. The six grazing intensities are control area G0.00: 0, light grazing G0.23: 0.23 cow.AU/hm², lighter grazing G0.34: 0.34 cow.AU/hm², moderate grazing G0.46: 0.46 cow.AU/hm², heavier grazing G0.69: 0.69 cow.AU/hm², and heavy grazing G0.92: 0.92 cow.AU/hm². 【Result】 The canopy height, coverage, total biomass, biomass of the dominant species, root biomass, and litter biomass had decreased significantly at the grazing intensities greater than 0.34 cow.AU/hm² (P<0.05), whereas the phytomass of increasers (Artemisia frigida, Potentilla bifurca, Potentilla acaulis, and Carex duriuscula) increased significantly (P<0.05). With the increase in grazing intensity, the community diversity index showed a trend of first increasing and then decreasing, with the maximum community diversity index occurred at the grazing intensities of 0.34-0.46 cow.AU/hm². The dominance value of grasses decreased significantly with increases in grazing intensity. In stark contrast, those for forbs and annuals increased apparently with increasing grazing intensity. The important values of functional groups of grasses and their dominant plants gradually decreased with the increase of grazing intensity. When the grazing intensity was greater than 0.23 cow.AU/hm², the important values of dominant plants significantly decreased (P<0.05), and the important values of sedges and degenera significantly increased (P<0.05). Of special note, the various grazing intensities all enhanced the contents of crude protein, crude ash, total phosphorus, calcium, and nitrogen-free exudates to varying degrees of all plant species as a whole, but significantly reduced the contents of crude fat, neutral detergent fiber, and crude fiber (P<0.05). The four indexes of α diversity were positively correlated with one another (P<0.01), positively correlated with the important values of legumes and heterophytes, and negatively correlated with the important values of gramineae. The important values of gramineae and ranunculaceae were significantly negatively related to the contents of acid washing fiber and calcium of the plants, whilst they were significantly positively related to the neutral washing fiber. 【Conclusion】 Different grazing intensities differed substantially in their effects on the community traits, diversity characters and nutritional quality of this meadow steppe. The appropriate grazing intensity was between 0.23-0.34 cow.AU/hm². Moderate grazing was conducive to improving the species diversity of the community, maintaining the stability of the grassland plant community, and promoting the sustainable development of the grassland ecosystem.

Key words: grazing intensity, meadow steppe, community characteristics, nutritional quality

张宇, 侯路路, 闫瑞瑞, 辛晓平. 放牧强度对草甸草原植物群落特征及营养品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(13): 2550-2561.

ZHANG Yu, HOU LuLu, YAN RuiRui, XIN XiaoPing. Effects of Grazing Intensity on Plant Community Characteristics and Nutrient Quality of Herbage in a Meadow Steppe[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(13): 2550-2561.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.13.004

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2020/V53/I13/2550

图/表 7

图1

图2

表1

图3

图4

图5

表2

植物群落特征、功能群以及营养品质之间的相关关系"

因子 Factor	多样性指数 Shannon-weiner index	优势度指数 Simpson index	均匀度指数 Pielou index	丰富度指数 Margalef index	豆科 Legumi-nosae	禾本科 Poaceae	菊科 Asteraceae	毛茛科 Ranuncul-aceae	莎草科 Cyperaceae	杂草类 Broadleaved herb	粗蛋白 CP (%)	粗脂肪 EE (%)	粗灰分 CA (%)	中性洗涤纤维 NDF (%)	酸性洗涤纤维 ADF (%)	粗纤维 CF (%)	钙 Ca (%)	全磷 TP (%)	无氮浸出物 NFE (%)
多样性指数 Shannon-weiner index	1.00	0.80**	0.93**	0.84**	0.52*	-0.31	0.04	0.26	0.02	0.60**	0.43	-0.34	0.35	-0.12	0.32	-0.45	0.22	0.22	0.18
优势度指数 Simpson index		1.00	0.61**	0.83**	0.55*	-0.50*	0.06	0.15	0.25	0.51*	0.34	-0.34	0.21	-0.06	0.51*	-0.42	0.13	0.19	0.21
均匀度指数 Pielou index			1.00	0.62**	0.47*	-0.12	-0.06	0.32	-0.13	0.61**	0.34	-0.26	0.27	0.05	0.21	-0.35	0.06	0.11	0.16
丰富度指数 Margalef index				1.00	0.61**	-0.37	0.17	0.30	-0.01	0.55*	0.47*	-0.28	0.45	-0.20	0.33	-0.38	0.25	0.29	0.01
豆科Leguminosae					1.00	-0.16	-0.22	0.35	-0.04	0.60**	0.25	0.04	0.22	0.14	0.41	0.05	0.06	-0.04	-0.33
禾本科Poaceae						1.00	-0.35	0.14	-0.74**	-0.29	-0.06	0.12	0.00	0.48*	-0.56*	0.41	-0.49*	-0.15	-0.38
菊科Asteraceae							1.00	-0.02	-0.19	-0.14	-0.16	-0.35	0.09	-0.32	-0.11	-0.27	0.14	-0.10	0.43
毛茛科Ranunculaceae								1.00	-0.52*	0.21	0.04	-0.39	0.26	0.07	-0.23	0.06	-0.57*	-0.10	-0.14
莎草科Cyperaceae									1.00	0.02	0.06	0.17	-0.18	-0.38	0.54*	-0.22	0.54*	0.24	0.19
杂草类 Broadleaved herb										1.00	0.26	0.14	0.12	0.28	0.51*	-0.19	0.11	0.02	-0.01
粗蛋白CP(%)											1.00	-0.12	0.88**	-0.37	0.06	-0.61**	0.43	0.92**	-0.16
粗脂肪EE(%)												1.00	-0.26	0.32	0.31	0.54*	0.11	-0.06	-0.60**
粗灰分CA(%)													1.00	-0.44	-0.06	-0.56*	0.31	0.81**	-0.19
中性洗涤纤维 NDF(%)														1.00	0.12	0.42	-0.60**	-0.53*	-0.07
酸性洗涤纤维 ADF(%)															1.00	-0.18	0.37	-0.04	0.06
粗纤维CF(%)																1.00	-0.40	-0.57*	-0.65**
钙Ca(%)																	1.00	0.45	0.04
全磷TP(%)																		1.00	-0.15
无氮浸出物NFE(%)																			1.00

表2

参考文献 43

[1]	白永飞, 李德新, 许志信, 魏志军. 牧压梯度对克氏针茅生长和繁殖的影响. 生态学报, 1999,19(04):479-484.
	BAI Y F, LI D X, XU Z X, WEI Z J. Growth and reproduction of Stipa Krylovii population on a grazing gradient. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 1999,19(4):479-484. (in Chinese)
[2]	BRANSON F A, MILLER R F. Effects of increased precipitation and grazing management on northeastern montana rangelands. Journal of Range Management, 1981,34(1):3-10.
[3]	盛海彦, 曹广民, 李国荣, 周靖靖, 焦文月, 李吉鹏, 张平. 放牧干扰对祁连山高寒金露梅灌丛草甸群落的影响. 生态环境学报, 2009,18(1):235-241.
	SHENG H Y, CAO G M, LI G R, ZHOU J J, JIAO W Y, LI J P, ZHANG P. Effect of grazing disturbance on plant community of alpine meadow dominated by Potentilla froticosa shrub on Qilian mountain. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2009,18(1):235-241. (in Chinese)
[4]	YAN R R, XIN X P, YAN Y C, WANG X, ZHANG B H, YANG G X, LIU S M, DENG Y, LI L H. Impacts of differing grazing rates on canopy structure and species composition in Hulunber meadow steppe. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 2015,68(1):54-64.
[5]	闫瑞瑞, 辛晓平, 王旭, 闫玉春, 邓钰, 杨桂霞. 不同放牧梯度下呼伦贝尔草甸草原土壤碳氮变化及固碳效应. 生态学报, 2014,34(6), 1587-1595.
	YAN R R, XIN X P, WANG X, YAN Y C, DENG Y, YANG G X. The change of soil carbon and nitrogen under different grazing gradients in Hulunber meadow steppe. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2014,34(6), 1587-1595. (in Chinese)
[6]	DENG L, ZHANG Z, SHANG G, ZHOU P. Long-term fencing effects on plant diversity and soil properties in China. Soil and Tillage Research, 2014,137:7-15.
[7]	DEVI T I, YADAVA P S, GARKOTI S C. Cattle grazing influences soil microbial biomass in subtropical grassland ecosystems at Nambol, Manipur, northeast India. Tropical Ecology, 2014,55(2):195-206.
[8]	张成霞, 南志标. 放牧对草地土壤理化特性影响的研究进展. 草业学报, 2010,19(4):204-211.
	ZHANG C X, NAN Z B. Research progress on effects of grazing on physical and chemical characteristics of grassland soil. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2010,19(4):204-211. (in Chinese)
[9]	汪诗平, 王艳芬, 陈佐忠. 气候变化和放牧活动对糙隐子草种群的影响. 植物生态学报, 2003,27(3):337-343.
	WANG S P, WANG Y F, CHEN Z Z. Effect of climate change and grazing on populations of Cleistogenes squarrosa in Inner Mongolia steppe. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica, 2003,27(3):337-343. (in Chinese)
[10]	殷国梅, 王明盈, 薛艳林, 赵和平. 草甸草原区不同放牧方式对植被群落特征的影响. 中国草地学报, 2013,35(2):89-93.
	YIN G M, WANG M Y, XUE Y L, ZHAO H P. Effect of different grazing patterns on vegetation characteristics of meadow steppe. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2013,35(2):89-93. (in Chinese)
[11]	YANG Y H, FANG J Y, MA W H, SMITH P, MOHAMMAT A, WANG S P, WANG W. Soil carbon stock and its changes in northern China’s grasslands from 1980 to 2000s. Global Change Biology, 2010,16(11):3036-3047.
[12]	闫瑞瑞, 辛晓平, 张保辉, 闫玉春, 杨桂霞. 肉牛放牧梯度对呼伦贝尔草甸草原植物群落特征的影响. 中国草地学报, 2010,32(3):62-67.
	YAN R R, XIN X P, ZHANG B H, YAN Y C, YANG G X. Influence of cattle grazing gradient on plant community characteristics in Hulunber meadow steppe. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2010,32(3):62-67. (in Chinese)
[13]	ONATIBIA G R, AGUIAR M R. Continuous moderate grazing management promotes biomass production in Patagonian arid rangelands. Journal of Arid Environments, 2016,125:73-79.
[14]	秦洁, 韩国栋, 乔江, 武倩, 靳宇曦. 内蒙古不同草地类型中羊草地上生物量对放牧强度的响应. 中国草地学报, 2016,38(4):76-82.
	QIN J, HAN G D, QIAO J, WU Q, JIN Y X. Response of Leymus chinensis above-ground biomass to grazing intensity in different grasslands of Inner Mongolia. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2016,38(4):76-82. (in Chinese)
[15]	段敏杰, 高清竹, 万运帆, 李玉娥, 郭亚奇, 旦久罗布, 洛桑加措. 放牧对藏北紫花针茅高寒草原植物群落特征的影响. 生态学报, 2010,30(14):3892-3900.
	DUAN M J, GAO Q Z, WAN Y F, LI Y E, GUO Y Q, DANJIU L B, LUOSANG J C. Effects of grazing on community characteristics and species diversity of Stipa purpurea alpine grassland in northern Tibet. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2010,30(14):3892-3900. (in Chinese)
[16]	卫智军, 李霞, 刘红梅, 吴青青, 吕世杰. 呼伦贝尔草甸草原群落特征对不同放牧制度的响应. 中国草地学报, 2011,33(1):65-70.
	WEI Z J, LI X, LIU H M, WU Q Q, LÜ S J. Response of meadow steppe community characteristics to different grazing systems in Hulunbeir. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2011,33(1):65-70. (in Chinese)
[17]	BAI Y F, WU J G, CLARK C M, PAN Q M, ZHANG L X, CHEN S P, WANG Q B, HAN X G. Grazing alters ecosystem functioning and C: N﹕P stoichiometry of grasslands along a regional precipitation gradient. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2012,49(6):1204-1215.
[18]	SCHÖNBACH P, WAN H, GIERUS M, LOGES R, MÜLLER K, LIN L, SUSENBETH A, TAUBE F. Effects of grazing and precipitation on herbage production, herbage nutritive value and performance of sheep in continental steppe. Grass and Forage Science, 2012,67(4):535-545.
[19]	闫瑞瑞, 闫玉春, 辛晓平, 杨桂霞, 王旭, 张保辉. 不同放牧梯度下草甸草原土壤微生物和酶活性研究. 生态环境学报, 2011,20(2):259-265.
	YAN R R, YAN Y C, XIN X P, YANG G X, WANG X, ZHANG B H. Changes in microorganisms and enzyme activities in soil under different grazing intensities in meadow steppe, Inner Mongolia. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2011,20(2):259-265. (in Chinese)
[20]	曾岳明, 黄玉洁, 周文春. 大山峰沼泽湿地植物群落特征及物种多样性研究. 浙江林业科技, 2015,35(4):32-37.
	ZENG Y M, HUANG Y J, ZHOU W C. Plant community characteristics and species diversity in marshland of Dashanfeng in Zhejiang. Journal of Zhejiang Forestry Science and Technology, 2015,35(4):32-37. (in Chinese)
[21]	梁丹妮, 刘德磊, 鲍浩, 李雪健, 沈艳. 划区轮牧对短花针茅荒漠草原植被及土壤的影响. 农业科学研究, 2015,36(1):11-16.
	LIANG D N, LIU D L, BAO H, LI X J, SHEN Y. The effect of rotation grazing on plants and soil of Stipa breviflora desert steppe. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2015,36(1):11-16. (in Chinese)
[22]	马红彬, 谢应忠. 不同放牧强度下荒漠草原植物的补偿性生长. 中国农业科学, 2008,41(11):3645-3650.
	MA H B, XIE Y Z. Plant compensatory growth under different grazing intensities in desert steppe. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2008,41(11):3645-3650. (in Chinese)
[23]	李永宏. 内蒙古锡林河流域羊草草原和克氏针茅草原在放牧影响下的分异和趋同. 植物生态学报和地植物学学报, 1988,12(3):189-196.
	LI Y H. Differentiation and convergence of Leymus chinensis Steppe and Stipa krylovii grassland in Inner Mongolia Xilin River Basin under the influence of grazing. Acta Phytoecologicaet Geobotanica Sinica, 1988,12(3):189-196. (in Chinese)
[24]	任继周. 放牧草原生态系统存在的基本方式-兼论放牧的转型. 自然资源学报, 2012,27(8):1259-1275.
	REN J Z. Grazing, the basic form of grassland ecosystem and its transformation-Also on the transformation of grazing. Journal of Natural Resources, 2012,27(8):1259-1275. (in Chinese)
[25]	HENDRICKS H H, BOND W J, MIDGLEY J J, NOVELLIE P A. Plant species richness and composition a long livestock grazing intensity gradients in a Namaqualand (South Africa) protected area. Plant Ecology, 2005,176(1):19-33.
[26]	WANG C J, TAS B M, GLINDEMANN T, RAVE G, SCHMIDT L, WEIßBACH F, SUSENBETH A, . Fecal crude protein content as an estimate for the digestibility of forage in grazing sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2009,149(3/4):199-208.
[27]	鱼小军, 景媛媛, 段春华, 徐长林, 杨海磊, 罗金龙, 安玉峰, 安晓东. 围栏与不同放牧强度对东祁连山高寒草甸植被和土壤的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2015,33(1):252-277.
	YU X J, JING Y Y, DUAN C H, XU C L, YANG H L, LUO J L, AN Y F, AN X D. Influence of enclosure and grazing intensity on alpine meadow vegetation and soil characteristics in the Eastern Qilian Mountains. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2015,33(1):252-277. (in Chinese)
[28]	CONNELL J H. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coralreefs. Science, 1978,199(4335):1302-1310.
[29]	王炜琛. 不同放牧强度对呼伦贝尔草甸草原群落特征及水分利用效率的影响[D]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古大学, 2018.
	WANG W C. The effects of intensity on community characteristics and water use efficiency of meadow grassland in Hulunbeier[D]. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia University, 2018. (in Chinese)
[30]	HATFIELD K D, DONAHUE D L. The western range revisited: Removing livestock from public lands to conserve native biodiversity. The Western Historical Quarterly, 2000,32(4):507.
[31]	于丰源, 秦洁, 靳宇曦, 韩梦琪, 王舒新, 康静, 韩国栋. 放牧强度对草甸草原植物群落特征的影响. 草原与草业, 2018,30(2):31-37.
	YU F Y, QIN J, JIN Y X, HAN M Q, WANG S X, KANG J, HAN G D. Effects of grazing intensity on vegetation plant community characteristics of meadow steppe. Grassland And Prataculture, 2018,30(2):31-37. (in Chinese)
[32]	张国钧, 张荣, 周立. 植物功能多样性与功能群研究进展. 生态学报, 2003,23(7):1430-1435.
	ZHANG G J, ZHANG R, ZHOU L. Trends and advances in researches on plant functional diversity and functional groups. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2003,23(7):1430-1435. (in Chinese)
[33]	刘文亭, 卫智军, 吕世杰, 王天乐, 张爽. 放牧对短花针茅荒漠草原植物多样性的影响. 生态学报, 2017,37(10):3394-3402.
	LIU W T, WEI Z J, LÜ S J, WANG T L, ZHANG S. The impacts of grazing on plant diversity in Stipa breviflora desert grassland. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017,37(10):3394-3402. (in Chinese)
[34]	De VRIES M F W, DALEBOUDT C. Foraging strategy of cattle in patchy grassland. Oecologia, 1994,100(1):98-106.
[35]	王旭, 王德利, 刘颖, 程志茹, 滕星, 杜鹃. 不同放牧率下绵羊的采食量与食性选择研究. 东北师大学报(自然科学版), 2002,34(1):36-40.
	WANG X, WANG D L, LIU Y, CHENG Z R, TENG X, DU J. The study on the intake and dietary composition of sheep under different stocking rates. Journal of Northeast Normal University, 2002,34(1):36-40. (in Chinese)
[36]	杨思维. 高寒草甸植物群落与土壤对短期放牧的响应研究[D]. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学, 2017.
	YANG S W. Studies on the effects of short-term grazing on plant community and soil of alpine meadow[D]. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University, 2017. (in Chinese)
[37]	王艳芬, 汪诗平. 不同放牧率对内蒙古典型草原牧草地上现存量和净初级生产力及品质的影响. 草业学报, 1999,8(1):15-20.
	WANG Y F, WANG S P. Influence of different stocking rates on aboveground present biomass and herbage quality Inner Mongolia steppe. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 1999,8(1):15-20. (in Chinese)
[38]	HEITSCHMIDT R K, DOWHOWER S L, PINCKAK W E, WALKER S K. Effects of stocking rate on quatity and quality of available forage in a southern mixed grass prairie. Range Manage, 1989,42(6):468-473.
[39]	任继周. 草业科学研究方法. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1998.
	REN J Z. Scientific Research Method of Grass Industry. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 1998. (in Chinese)
[40]	SCHÖNBACH P, WAN H, SCHIBORRA A, GIERUS M, BAI Y, MÜLLER K, GLINDEMANN T, WANG C, SUSENBETH A, TAUBE F. Short-term management and stocking rate effects of grazing sheep on herbage quality and productivity of Inner Mongolia steppe. Crop and Pasture Science, 2009,60(10):963-974.
[41]	姚喜喜, 宫旭胤, 张利平, 焦婷, 陶海霞, 郭斌, 张爱琴, 吴建平. 放牧和长期围封对祁连山高寒草甸优势牧草营养品质的影响. 草地学报, 2018,26(6):1354-1362.
	YAO X X, GONG X Y, ZHANG L P, JIAO T, TAO H X, GUO B, ZHANG A Q, WU J P. Effects of grazing and long-term fencing on nutritive values of dominant species in alpine meadow of Qilian Mountains. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2018,26(6):1354-1362. (in Chinese)
[42]	王天乐, 卫智军, 刘文亭, 白玉婷, 张爽, 丁莉君, 肖嘉圃, 吕世杰. 不同放牧强度下荒漠草原土壤养分和植被特征变化研究. 草地学报, 2017,25(4):711-716.
	WANG T L, WEI Z J, LIU WT, BAI Y T, ZHANG S, DING L J, XIAO J P, LÜ S J. Study on changes of soil nutrients and plant community of Stipa breviflora steppe under different grazing intensities. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2017,25(4):711-716. (in Chinese)
[43]	虞道耿. 海南莎草科植物资源调查及饲用价值研究[D]. 海口: 海南大学, 2012.
	YU D G. The resources and feeding value of Cyperaceae in Hainan.[D]. Haikou: Hainan University, 2012. (in Chinese)

指标 Index	G0.00	G0.23	G0.34	G0.46	G0.69	G0.92
物种数Number of species	39.67±1.45a	45.33±4.18a	45.67±0.88a	44.00±1.53a	45.67±2.19a	46.33±0.88a
群落盖度Community coverage	84.65±0.63a	80.25±1.16ab	80.12±1.80ab	78.01±1.34b	78.23±1.49b	68.84±2.87c
群落高度Community height	22.40±2.41a	17.64±0.24b	17.64±0.97b	13.30±0.64c	10.65±0.81cd	7.13±0.09d
群落密度Community density	605.27±1.94b	661.67±70.25b	541.60±44.69b	729.13±77.41b	1,262.73±247.85a	843.07±16.15b
丰富度指数Margalef index	3.61±0.26b	4.13±0.32ab	4.33±0.05a	4.21±0.04ab	3.84±0.23ab	4.08±0.07ab
多样性指数Shannon-Weiner index	2.51±0.09b	2.66±0.10ab	2.84±0.03a	2.85±0.02a	2.60±0.15ab	2.73±0.05ab
优势度指数Simpson index	0.85±0.01b	0.87±0.02ab	0.91±0.01a	0.91±0.01a	0.88±0.01ab	0.88±0.01ab
均匀度指数Pielou index	0.79±0.01a	0.81±0.02a	0.85±0.01a	0.85±0.01a	0.78±0.04a	0.82±0.02a

放牧强度对草甸草原植物群落特征及营养品质的影响

Effects of Grazing Intensity on Plant Community Characteristics and Nutrient Quality of Herbage in a Meadow Steppe

RichHTML

PDF

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 7

参考文献 43

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	王淼,张宇,李瑞强,辛晓平,朱晓昱,曹娟,周忠义,闫瑞瑞. 放牧强度对羊草草甸草原植物器官及群落氮磷化学计量的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(7): 1371-1384.
[2]	李扬眉,刘鑫,贾梦晗,仝宇欣. 光期湿度对植物工厂生菜干烧心及其营养品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(20): 4011-4019.
[3]	翟胜男,刘爱峰,李法计,刘成,郭军,韩冉,訾妍,汪晓璐,吕莹莹,刘建军. 小麦籽粒黄色素含量检测方法的改良与应用[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(2): 239-247.
[4]	闫瑞瑞, 高娃, 沈贝贝, 张宇, 王淼, 朱晓昱, 辛晓平. 草甸草原放牧场退化定量评估指标体系建立[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(15): 3343-3354.
[5]	王海莲,王润丰,刘宾,张华文. 不同生长时期收获对甜高粱农艺性状及营养品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(14): 2804-2813.
[6]	侯路路,闫瑞瑞,张宇,辛晓平. 放牧强度对草甸草原羊草功能性状的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(13): 2562-2572.
[7]	闫瑞瑞,张宇,辛晓平,卫智军,乌仁其其格,郭美兰. 刈割干扰对羊草草甸草原植物功能群及多样性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(13): 2573-2583.
[8]	巩皓,杨柳,李丹丹,刘国富,肖知新,吴清莹,崔国文. 寒地黑土农区紫花苜蓿生产与品质对施肥和刈割频次的响应及效益分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(13): 2657-2667.
[9]	肖知新,王洋,刘国富,巩皓,李丹丹,巩林,白珍建,崔国文. 寒地黑土区春季施肥期对紫花苜蓿生产性能及营养品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(13): 2668-2677.
[10]	肖梦颖,张瑞栋,张壮,徐晓雪,陈小飞,周宇飞,孔繁华,黄瑞冬. 辽宁省地方高粱品种食用品质性状研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(4): 591-601.
[11]	朱宏, 梁克红, 徐海泉, 仇菊, 郭燕枝, 黄家章, 朱大洲, 孙君茂. 我国农产品营养标准体系现状与发展建议[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(18): 3145-3154.
[12]	朱常安,和志豪,蔡泽林,刘健飞,张智. 融合镁元素的水肥多因子耦合对黄瓜综合营养品质的调控[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(18): 3258-3270.
[13]	孙艳梅,张前兵,苗晓茸,刘俊英,于磊,马春晖. 解磷细菌和丛枝菌根真菌对紫花苜蓿生产性能及地下生物量的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(13): 2230-2242.
[14]	李祥栋，潘虹，陆秀娟，魏心元，陆平，石明，秦礼康. 薏苡种质的主要营养组分特征及综合评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2018, 51(5): 835-842.
[15]	武崎，吴鹏飞，王群，文勇立，高艳美，张荣芝，龙伟. 放牧强度对高寒草地不同类群土壤动物的群落结构和多样性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2016, 49(9): 1826-1834.