草甸草原放牧场退化定量评估指标体系建立

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.15.017

中国农业科学 ›› 2021, Vol. 54 ›› Issue (15): 3343-3354.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.15.017

• 畜牧·兽医·资源昆虫 • 上一篇下一篇

草甸草原放牧场退化定量评估指标体系建立

闫瑞瑞¹(),高娃¹,沈贝贝¹,张宇¹,王淼¹,朱晓昱^1,²,辛晓平¹()

¹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
²农业农村部环境保护科研监测所,天津 300191

收稿日期:2020-07-01 接受日期:2021-05-25 出版日期:2021-08-01 发布日期:2021-08-10
通讯作者: 辛晓平
作者简介:闫瑞瑞,E-mail： yanruirui@caas.cn
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划(2016YFC0500601);国家重点研发计划(2017YFE0104500);国家自然科学基金面上项目(31971769);中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务费专项(Y2020YJ19);中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务费专项(1610132021016);呼伦贝尔市科技计划项目(YYYFHZ201903);国家现代农业产业技术体系、农业基础性长期性科技工作(NAES037SQ18)

Index System for Quantitative Evaluation of Pasture Degradation in Meadow Grassland of Inner Mongolia

YAN RuiRui¹(),GAO Wa¹,SHEN BeiBei¹,ZHANG Yu¹,WANG Miao¹,ZHU XiaoYu^1,²,XIN XiaoPing¹()

¹Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Hulunbeir Grassland Ecosystem Research Station, Beijing 100081
²Agro-Environmental Protection Institute, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Tianjin 300191

Received:2020-07-01 Accepted:2021-05-25 Online:2021-08-01 Published:2021-08-10
Contact: XiaoPing XIN

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【背景】内蒙古草原是我国北方重要的天然生态屏障,其中草甸草原处于森林向草原过渡地带,在我国温性草甸草原是一种非常宝贵的自然再生资源。且内蒙古草原在我国温性草甸草原所占比例最大,其中大部分是放牧场。放牧是人类影响草地生态系统最主要的方式之一,过度的放牧会导致草原群落发生逆行演替,草地的生产性能不断降低,从而限制了草地畜牧业的稳定发展。【目的】全面准确及时地评估放牧场退化状况,为维护和促进草地可持续利用提供支持。【方法】通过总结草地放牧场退化演替规律及驱动机制,采用层次分析、专家调查以及比较矩阵分析方法,构建了内蒙古草甸草原放牧场退化指标体系,包括地上生物量、盖度、平均高度、植物种数、枯落物量、退化指示植物比例、土壤有机碳含量、土壤容重共8个指标。基于评估综合指数模型的建立,提出对照基准指标的参数,利用定量评估的综合指数反映草甸草原放牧场退化的整体状况。同时,探讨和研究了内蒙古草甸草原放牧场退化定量评估指标体系构建及其技术方法,以呼伦贝尔谢尔塔拉控制放牧试验为基础,对该方法进行了评估验证。【结果】研究得出内蒙古草甸草原放牧场评价指标体系的8项指标权重由大到小依次为地上生物量、盖度、平均高度、退化指示植物比例、植物种数、枯落物量、土壤有机碳含量、土壤容重增加比例。草甸草原退化分级可以分为未退化、轻度退化、中度退化、重度退化4个等级,当放牧等于零或很轻的放牧状态时草地属于未退化草地范围。当放牧为90%以上时草原属于重度退化草地范围。【结论】基于上述研究,建议在今后的研究中进行更长时期的探讨,对基准参考值做进一步的完善和更新,对放牧场退化评估指标体系更加完善和成熟有利,可以为放牧场退化定量评估提供依据。

关键词: 草甸草原, 放牧场退化, 指标筛选, 定量评估

Abstract:

【Background】 Inner Mongolia grassland is an important natural ecological barrier in northern China, among which meadow steppe is located in the transition zone from forest to grassland, and it is a very valuable natural renewable resource in China. The proportion of meadow grassland in Inner Mongolia is the largest in China, most of which are pastures. Grazing is one of the most important ways for human beings to affect grassland ecosystem. Excessive grazing will lead to retrograde succession of grassland community, and grassland production performance will be continuously reduced, thus limiting the stable development of grassland animal husbandry. 【Objective】 Comprehensive, accurate and timely assessment of pasture degradation is of great significance for maintaining and promoting sustainable grassland utilization. 【Method】 In this study, the degradation succession law and driving mechanism of grassland pasture were summarized, and the degradation index system of grassland pasture in Inner Mongolia was established by using analytic hierarchy process (AHP), expert investigation and comparative matrix analysis methods, which included 8 indexes, such as aboveground biomass, coverage, average height, plant species, litter, proportion of degradation indicator plant, soil organic carbon content and soil bulk density. Based on the establishment of the comprehensive evaluation index model, the parameters of the reference index were put forward, and the comprehensive index of quantitative evaluation was used to reflect the overall situation of grassland degradation. At the same time, the quantitative evaluation index system of grassland degradation in Inner Mongolia and its technical method were discussed and studied. This method was evaluated and verified based on the controlled grazing experiment in Xeltala of Hulunbuir. 【Result】 The results showed that the weight of the eight indexes from the largest to the smallest in the evaluation index system of Inner Mongolia meadow steppe were aboveground biomass, coverage, average height, proportion of degraded plants, number of plant species, litter, soil organic carbon content, and proportion of soil bulk density increase. Meadow grassland degradation could be classified into four grades: non-degradation, mild degradation, moderate degradation and severe degradation. When the grazing was equal to zero or very light grazing, the grassland belonged to the scope of non-degraded grassland. When the grazing rate was above 90%, the grassland belonged to the range of severely degraded grassland. 【Conclusion】 It was suggested that a longer period of discussion should be carried out in the future research to further improve and update the benchmark reference value, which was conducive to the improvement and maturity of the evaluation index system of pasture degradation, and could provide a basis for quantitative assessment of pasture degradation.

Key words: meadow steppe, degradation of grazing land, index screening, quantitative evaluation

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.

YAN RuiRui, GAO Wa, SHEN BeiBei, ZHANG Yu, WANG Miao, ZHU XiaoYu, XIN XiaoPing. Index System for Quantitative Evaluation of Pasture Degradation in Meadow Grassland of Inner Mongolia[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2021, 54(15): 3343-3354.

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.0578-1752.2021.15.017

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2021/V54/I15/3343

图/表 7

图1

表1

专家调查法筛选指标判断矩阵"

指标 Factor	平均高度 Height	地上生物量 Above-ground biomass	盖度 Coverage	中型禾草占比例 Proportion of medium grasses	枯落物量 Amount of litter	退化指示植物比例 Degradation indicates plant proportion	裸斑、盐碱斑比例 Bare spot, saline-alkali spot ratio	可食草种占总量比例 Proportion of herbivores in the total	可食草种增加率 Increase rate of herbivores	不可食草占总量比例 Non-herbivores as a percentage of the total	有害草占总量比例 Proportion of harmful grass in total
平均高度 Height	1	1	1	2	4	1	2	2	3	2	2
地上生物量 Above-ground biomass	1	1	1	2	5	1	2	2	4	3	3
盖度 Coverage	1	1	1	2	4	1	2	2	3	2	3
中型禾草占比例 Proportion of medium grasses	1/2	1/2	1/2	1	2	1/2	1	1	2	1	2
枯落物量 Amount of litter	1/4	1/5	1/4	1/2	1	1/4	1/2	1/2	1	1/2	1
退化指示植物比例 Degradation indicates plant proportion	1	1	1	2	4	1	2	1	3	2	2
裸斑、盐碱斑比例 Bare spot, saline-alkali spot ratio	1/2	1/2	1/2	1	2	1/2	1	1	2	1	1
可食草种占总量比例 Proportion of herbivores in the total	1/2	1/2	1/2	1	2	1	1	1	2	2	2
可食草种增加率 Increase rate of herbivores	1/3	1/4	1/3	1/2	1	1/3	1/2	1/2	1	1	1
不可食草占总量比例 Non-herbivores as a percentage of the total	1/2	1/3	1/2	1	2	1/2	1	1/2	1	1	1
有害草占总量比例 Proportion of harmful grass in total	1/2	1/3	1/3	1/2	1	1/2	1	1/2	1	1	1
土壤侵蚀模增加比例 Soil erosion patterns increase in proportion	1/3	1/3	1/3	1/2	1	1/3	1/2	1/2	1	1	1
鼠洞面积占草地面积比例 Proportion of rat hole area to grassland area	1/5	1/5	1/5	1/3	1	1/4	1/2	1/3	1/2	1/2	1/2
土壤容重增加比例 Proportion of soil bulk density increased	1/2	1/2	1/2	1	3	1	1	1	2	1	2
土壤全氮减少比例 Proportion of TN decreased	1/4	1/4	1/4	1/2	1	1/3	1/2	1/2	1	1/2	1/2
土壤含盐量增加比例 Proportion of soil salt increased	1/9	1/9	1/9	1/6	1/3	1/9	1/6	1/7	1/4	1/5	1/4
有机质含量减少比例 Organic matter content decreases proportionally	1/2	1/2	1/2	1	2	1/2	1	1	1	1	1
禾草类占比例 Proportion of grasses	1/4	1/5	1/5	1/3	1	1/4	1/2	1/3	1/2	1/2	1/2
沙化指示植物增加比例 Desertification indicates an increased proportion of plants	1/4	1/4	1/4	1/2	1	1/3	1/2	1/2	1	1/2	1/2
盐渍化指示植物增加比例 Salinization indicates an increased proportion of plants	1/4	1/5	1/4	1/2	1	1/2	1/2	1/3	1/2	1/2	1/2
土壤有机碳比例 Proportion of SOC	1/2	1/2	1/2	1	3	1	1	1	2	1	2
植物种类 Plants species	1/2	1/2	1/2	1	3	1	1	1	2	2	2
指标 Factor	土壤侵蚀模增加比例 Soil erosion patterns increase in proportion	鼠洞面积占草地面积比例 Proportion of rat hole area to grassland area	土壤容重增加比例 Proportion of soil bulk density increased	土壤全氮减少比例 Proportion of TN decreased	土壤含盐量增加比例 proportion of soil salt increased	有机质含量减少比例 Organic matter content decreases proportionally	禾草类占比例 Proportion of grasses	沙化指示植物增加比例 Desertification indicates an increased proportion of plants	盐渍化指示植物增加比例 Salinization indicates an increased proportion of plants	土壤有机碳比例 Proportion of SOC	植物种类 Plants species
平均高度 Height	3	5	2	4	9	2	4	4	4	2	2
地上生物量 Above-ground biomass	3	5	2	4	9	2	5	4	4	2	2
盖度 Coverage	3	5	2	4	9	2	5	4	4	2	2
中型禾草占比例 Proportion of medium grasses	2	3	1	2	6	1	3	2	2	1	1
枯落物量 Amount of litter	1	1	1/3	1	3	1/2	1	1	1	1/3	1/3
退化指示植物比例 Degradation indicates plant proportion	3	4	1	3	9	2	4	3	2	1	1
裸斑、盐碱斑比例 Bare spot, saline-alkali spot ratio	2	2	1	2	6	1	2	2	2	1	1
可食草种占总量比例 Proportion of herbivores in the total	2	3	1	2	7	1	3	2	3	1	1
可食草种增加率Increase rate of herbivores	1	2	1/2	1	4	1	2	1	2	1/2	1/2
不可食草占总量比例 Non-herbivores as a percentage of the total	1	2	1	2	5	1	2	2	2	1	1/2
有害草占总量比例 Proportion of harmful grass in total	1	2	1/2	2	4	1	2	2	2	1/2	1/2
土壤侵蚀模增加比例 Soil erosion patterns increase in proportion	1	1	1/2	1	4	1	2	1	2	1/2	1/2
鼠洞面积占草地面积比例 Proportion of rat hole area to grassland area	1	1	1/3	1	2	1/2	1	1	1	1/3	1/3
土壤容重增加比例 Proportion of soil bulk density increased	2	3	1	2	7	1	3	2	3	1	1
土壤全氮减少比例 Proportion of TN decreased	1	1	1/2	1	3	1/2	1	1	1	1/2	1/3
土壤含盐量增加比例 Proportion of soil salt increased	1/4	1/2	1/7	1/3	1	1/5	1/2	1/3	1/3	1/7	1/8
有机质含量减少比例 Organic matter content decreases proportionally	1	2	1	2	5	1	2	2	2	1	1
禾草类占比例 Proportion of grasses	1/2	1	1/3	1	2	1/2	1	1	1	1/3	1/3
沙化指示植物增加比例 Desertification indicates an increased proportion of plants	1	1	1/2	1	3	1/2	1	1	1	1/3	1/3
盐渍化指示植物增加比例 Salinization indicates an increased proportion of plants	1/2	1	1/3	1	3	1/2	1	1	1	1/3	1/3
土壤有机碳比例 Proportion of SOC	2	3	1	2	7	1	3	3	3	1	1
植物种类 Plants species	2	3	1	3	8	1	3	3	3	1	1

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

图2

参考文献 32

[1]	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(2):31-37.
	YU F Y, QIN J, JIN Y X, HAN M Q, WANG S X, KANG J, HAN G D. Effect of grazing intensity on vegetation plant community characteristic of meadow steppe. Grassland and Prataculture, 2018(2):31-37.(in Chinese)
[2]	孙海群, 周禾, 王培. 草地退化演替研究进展. 中国草地, 1999, 21(1):51-56.
	SUN H Q, ZHOU H, WANG P. Progress on grassland degenerated succession. Grassland of China, 1999, 21(1):51-56.(in Chinese)
[3]	萧运峰, 李世英. 羊草草原放牧退化演替及其退化原因分析. 中国草原, 1980(3):20-27.
	XIAO Y F, LI S Y. Analysis on the degradation succession of Leymus chinensis grassland and its causes. Chinese Grassland, 1980(3):20-27. (in Chinese)
[4]	周丽艳, 王明玖, 韩国栋. 不同强度放牧对贝加尔针茅草原群落和土壤理化性质的影响. 干旱区资源与环境, 2005(S1):182-187.
	ZHOU L Y, WANG M J, HAN G D. Effects of different grazing intensities on community and soil physical and chemical characteristics in Stipa baicalensis steppe. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2005(S1):182-187.(in Chinese)
[5]	潘学清, 李章春, 吕新龙. 呼伦贝尔主要天然草场生产力和放牧演替规律的初步研究. 中国草原, 1987(3):36-40.
	PAN X Q, LI Z C, LÜ X L. Preliminary study on productivity and Succession law of main natural grassland in Hulun Buir. China's Grasslands, 1987(3):36-40.(in Chinese)
[6]	郝敦元, 刘钟龄, 王炜, 梁存柱. 内蒙古草原退化群落恢复演替的研究: 群落演替的数学模型. 植物生态学报, 1997(6):503-511.
	HAO D Y, LIU Z L, WANG W, LIANG C Z. Research on the restoring succession of the degenerated grassland in Inner Mongolia ⅲ A mathematical model for plant community succession. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica, 1997(6):503-511.(in Chinese)
[7]	李博. 中国北方草地退化及其防治对策. 中国农业科学, 1997(6):1-9.
	LI B. The rangeland degradation in North China and its preventive strategy. Scientia Agricutura Sinica, 1997(6):1-9.(in Chinese)
[8]	孙海群, 周禾, 王培. 草地退化演替研究进展. 中国草地, 1999(1):51-56.
	SUN H Q, ZHOU H, WANG P. Progress on grassland degenerated succession. Grassland of China, 1999(1):51-56.(in Chinese)
[9]	蒙旭辉, 李向林, 辛晓平, 周尧治. 不同放牧强度下羊草草甸草原群落特征及多样性分析. 草地学报, 2009, 17(2):239-244.
	MENG X H, LI X L, XIN X P, ZHOU Y Z. Study on community characteristics and α diversity under different grazing intensity on Leymus chinensis(trin.)Tzvel.Meadow steppe of Hulunbeier. Acta Agrectir Sinica, 2009, 17(2):239-244.(in Chinese)
[10]	李永宏, 汪诗平. 放牧对草原植物的影响. 中国草地, 1999, 21(3):11-19.
	LI Y H, WANG S P. Response of plant and plant community to different stocking rates. Grassland of China, 1999, 21(3):11-19.(in Chinese)
[11]	乌仁其其格, 武晓东, 闫瑞瑞. 呼伦贝尔草甸草原羊草群落不同退化程度土壤理化指标. 干旱区资源与环境, 2009(9):123-127.
	WURENQIQIGE, WU X D, YAN R R. Studies on the physical and chemical indicators of soil under different degree of degradation in Leymus chinensis community of Hulunbuir meadow steppe. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2009(9):123-127.(in Chinese)
[12]	刘兴元, 龙瑞军, 尚占环. 草地生态系统服务功能及其价值评估方法研究. 草业学报, 2011(1):167-174.
	LIU X Y, LONG R J, SHANG Z H. Evaluation method of ecological services function and their value for grassland ecosystems. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2011(1):167-174.(in Chinese)
[13]	张志强, 徐中民, 程国栋. 生态系统服务与自然资本价值评估. 生态学报, 2001(11):1918-1926.
	ZHANG Z Q, XU Z M, CHENG G D. Valuation of ecosystem services and natural capital. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2001(11):1918-1926. (in Chinese)
[14]	傅伯杰, 刘世梁, 马克明. 生态系统综合评价的内容与方法. 生态学报, 2001(11):1885-1892.
	FU B J, LIU S L, MA K M. The contents and methods of integrated ecosystem assessment (IEA). Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2001(11):1885-1892.(in Chinese)
[15]	陈仲新, 张新时. 中国生态系统效益的价值. 科学通报, 2000, 45(1):17-22.
	CHEN Z X, ZHANG X S. The value of ecosystem benefits in China. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2000, 45(1):17-22.(in Chinese)
[16]	XU L J, SHEN B B, NIE Y Y, XIN X P, GAO W, LI D, WANG D, YAN R R, CHEN B R. Degradation classification of natural grazing land in semi-arid pastoral areas in northern China. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2019(2):163-173.
[17]	唐善茂, 张瑞梅. 区域旅游可持续发展评价指标体系构建思路探讨. 桂林工学院学报, 2006, 26(1):143-147.
	TANG S M, ZHANG R M. Establishment and evaluation of index system for sustainable development of regional tourism. Journal of Guilin University of Technology, 2006, 26(1):143-147.(in Chinese)
[18]	尹剑慧, 卢欣石. 中国草原生态功能评价指标体系. 生态学报, 2009, 29(5):2622-2630.
	YIN J H, LU X S. Construction of evaluation indicator system of China grassland ecological function. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2009, 29(5):2622-2630.(in Chinese)
[19]	单贵莲, 徐柱, 宁发. 草地生态系统健康评价的研究进展与发展趋势. 中国草地学报, 2008, 30(2):98-103, 115.
	SHAN G L, XU Z, NING F. Study progresses and development directions in grassland ecosystem health evaluation. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2008, 30(2):98-103, 115. (in Chinese)
[20]	任继周. 草地资源的属性、结构与健康评价. 中国草地科学进展:第四届第二次年会暨学术讨论会文集, 1996.
	REN J Z. Attribute, structure and health evaluation of grassland resources// Advances in Grassland Science in China: Proceedings of the 4th 2nd Annual Conference and Symposium, 1996. (in Chinese)
[21]	中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局. 中国标准书号 GB/T 5795—2002[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2004.
	General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China. China STANDARD book numbering. GB/T 5795—2002[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2004. (in Chinese)
[22]	《内蒙古草地资源》编委会. 内蒙古草地资源. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古人民出版社, 1990.
	Editorial Board of Inner Mongolia Grassland Resources. Inner Mongolia Grassland Resources. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia People's Publishing House, 1990. (in Chinese)
[23]	吴波, 苏志珠, 杨晓晖, 刘文, 鞠洪波, 刘燕. 荒漠化监测与评价指标体系框架. 林业科学研究, 2005, 18(4):490-496.
	WU B, SU Z Z, YANG X H, LIU W, JU H B, LIU Y. A framework of indicator system for desertification monitoring and evaluation. Forest Research, 2005, 18(4):490-496.(in Chinese)
[24]	刘玉平. 荒漠化评价的理论框架. 干旱区资源与环境, 1998(3):74-82.
	LIU Y P. Theoretic framework for desertification assessment. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 1998(3):74-82.(in Chinese)
[25]	党普兴, 侯晓巍, 惠刚盈, 赵中华. 区域森林资源质量综合评价指标体系和评价方法. 林业科学研究, 2008, 21(1):84-90.
	DANG P X, HOU X W, HUI G Y, ZHAO Z H. Evaluation indicator system and evaluation method of regional forest resource quality. Forest Research, 2008, 21(1):84-90.(in Chinese)
[26]	SAMPSON A W. Plant succession in relation to range management. Ieice Transactions on Communications, 1919, 89-B(12):3425-3427.
[27]	陈结平. 基于水质净化及环境景观的焦岗湖水生植物优化配置研究[D]. 淮南:安徽理工大学, 2019.
	CHEN J P. Research on optimal allocation of aquatic plants in Jiaogang Lake based on water quality purification and environmental landscape[D]. Huainan: Anhui University of Science and Technology, 2019. (in Chinese)
[28]	王东波, 陈丽. 土壤有机碳及其影响因素. 黑龙江科技信息, 2015(27):126.
	WANG D B, CHEN L. Soil organic carbon and its influencing factors. Heilongjiang Science and Technology Information, 2015(27):126.(in Chinese)
[29]	阿穆拉, 赵萌莉, 韩国栋, 贾乐, 董亭. 放牧强度对荒漠草原地区土壤有机碳及全氮含量的影响. 中国草地学报, 2011, 33(3):115-118.
	AMULA, ZHAO M L, HAN G D, JIA L, DONG T. Influences of grazing intensity on carbon and nitrogen contents in desert steppe. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2011, 33(3):115-118.(in Chinese)
[30]	TANSLY A G. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology, 1935, 16:284-307. doi: 10.2307/1930070
[31]	DYSTERHUIS E J. Condition and management of range land based on quantitative ecology. Journal of Range Management, 1949, 2(3):104-115. doi: 10.2307/3893680
[32]	ANDERSON T W. An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1984.

指标 Factor	权重Weight
地上生物量Above-ground biomass	0.093
盖度Coverage	0.089
平均高度Average height	0.087
退化指示植物比例Degradation indicates plant proportion	0.071
植物种类Plants species	0.056
枯落物量Amount of litter	0.055
土壤有机碳比例Proportion of SOC	0.053
可食草种占总量比例Proportion of herbivores in the total	0.052
土壤容重增加比例Proportion of soil bulk density increased	0.052
中型禾草占比例Proportion of medium grasses	0.048
裸斑、盐碱斑比例Bare spot, saline-alkali spot ratio	0.045
有机质含量减少比例Organic matter content decreases proportionally	0.041
不可食草占总量比例Non-herbivores as a percentage of the total	0.038
有害草占总量比例Proportion of harmful grass in total	0.033
可食草种增加率Increase rate of herbivores	0.029
土壤侵蚀模增加比例Soil erosion patterns increase in proportion	0.028
全氮减少比例 Proportion of TN decreased	0.022
沙化指示植物增加比例Desertification indicates an increased proportion of plants	0.022
盐渍化指示植物增加比例Salinization indicates an increased proportion of plants	0.020
鼠洞面积占草地面积比例 Proportion of rat hole area to grassland area	0.019
禾草类占比例Proportion of grasses	0.018
土壤含盐量增加比例proportion of soil salt increased	0.008

因子 Factor	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	权重平均 Average weight
地上生物量 Above-ground biomass (kg·hm^-2)	0.2	0.2	0.15	0.15	0.25	0.2	0.2	0.25	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.25	0.20
盖度Coverage (%)	0.15	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.15	0.25	0.15	0.2	0.1	0.15
平均高度Average height (cm)	0.1	0.15	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.05	0.15	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.15
植物种数Plants species (种/m²)	0.15	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.15	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.05	0.1	0.1	0.10
枯落物量Amount of litter (kg·hm^-2)	0.05	0.1	0.1	0.05	0.1	0.05	0.1	0.15	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.15	0.10
退化指示植物比例 Degradation indicates plant proportion (%)	0.15	0.1	0.15	0.1	0.1	0.15	0.1	0.15	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.05	0.11
土壤有机碳含量Soil organic carbon (g·kg^-1)	0.1	0.15	0.1	0.15	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.05	0.05	0.1	0.1	0.05	0.10
土壤容重Soil bulk (g·cm^-3)	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.15	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.05	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.10

指标 Factor	评估指标参考最大值（Axn）
地上现存量Aboveground stock (kg·hm^-2)	3400
盖度Coverage (%)	87
平均高度Average height (cm)	75
植物种数Plants species (种/m²)	50
枯落物量Amount of litter (kg·hm^-2)	2600
退化指示植物比例 Degradation indicates plant proportion (%)	90
土壤有机碳含量Soil organic carbon (g·kg^-1)	45
土壤容重Soil bulk (g·cm^-3)	1.35

退化程度分级 Grade of degradation	综合指标指数（EI）
未退化 No degradation	EI≥65
轻度退化 Mild degradation	50≤EI <65
中度退化 Moderate degradation	35≤EI <50
重度退化 heavy degradation	EI <35

草甸草原放牧场退化定量评估指标体系建立

Index System for Quantitative Evaluation of Pasture Degradation in Meadow Grassland of Inner Mongolia

RichHTML

PDF

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 7

参考文献 32

相关文章 8

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]	卞能飞, 孙东雷, 巩佳莉, 王幸, 邢兴华, 金夏红, 王晓军. 花生烘烤食用品质评价及指标筛选[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(4): 641-652.
[3]	沈倩,张思平,刘瑞华,刘绍东,陈静,葛常伟,马慧娟,赵新华,杨国正,宋美珍,庞朝友. 棉花出苗期耐冷综合评价体系的构建及耐冷指标筛选[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(22): 4342-4355.
[4]	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.
[5]	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.
[6]	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.
[7]	路之娟，张永清，张楚，刘丽琴，杨春婷. 不同基因型苦荞苗期抗旱性综合评价及指标筛选[J]. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(17): 3311-3322.
[8]	王红梅, 孙启忠, 花梅. 草甸草原区不同植物群落牧草的青贮效果[J]. 中国农业科学, 2013, 46(12): 2566-2575.