退化亚高山草甸恢复过程中地上生物量和适宜载畜量分析
|
摘要
2012—2018年,以香格里拉退化亚高山草甸为研究对象对其实施连续封育,测定和分析恢复演替过程中植被地上生物量和植物学组成及其变化趋势,并运用中度干扰假说判断试验区退化草地的适宜封育年限和适宜载畜量。结果表明:与退化区相比较,封育第1年、第2年和第5年均显著提高了草地地上生物量,封育期间草地地上生物量呈现幂函数型增长趋势;草地的抵抗力和恢复力分别为518.8 g/m2和56.3个月;封育第5年草地中不可饲用植物(包含有毒有害植物)仍然占到29.2%,适宜载畜量2.81～3.37个羊单位/hm2。该试验表明封育结合其他措施,将有利于更加有效地改善草地质量和提高草地生产力。
In this study, the degraded sub-alpine meadow in Shangri-La City, locating in the northwest part of Yunnan Province,was chosen as the subject investigated and was continuously enclosed from 2012 to 2018. Above-ground biomass and botanical composition of vegetation in restoration succession was determined and assessed, and both of their variation trends were characterized. Furthermore, intermediate disturbance hypothesis was used to evaluate the reasonable enclosure period and stocking capacity. The results showed that compared to the degraded areas, the significant higher above-ground biomass was observed in the enclosed plots at the first, second and fifth year of enclosing; the above-ground biomass of the grassland was increased as power function model during the enclosure period, and the resistance and resilience of the grassland was 518.8 g/m2 and 56.3 months; at the fifth year of enclosure, the non-forage species(including poisonous and harmful species) still accounted for 29.2% of all the species of vegetation, and the suitable stocking capacity was 2.81-3.37 ewe equivalent per hectare. In conclusion, weeds removing in combination with enclosure during pasture restoration succession is conductive to improve pasture quality and increase pasture productivity in a more efficient way.
In this study, the degraded sub-alpine meadow in Shangri-La City, locating in the northwest part of Yunnan Province,was chosen as the subject investigated and was continuously enclosed from 2012 to 2018. Above-ground biomass and botanical composition of vegetation in restoration succession was determined and assessed, and both of their variation trends were characterized. Furthermore, intermediate disturbance hypothesis was used to evaluate the reasonable enclosure period and stocking capacity. The results showed that compared to the degraded areas, the significant higher above-ground biomass was observed in the enclosed plots at the first, second and fifth year of enclosing; the above-ground biomass of the grassland was increased as power function model during the enclosure period, and the resistance and resilience of the grassland was 518.8 g/m2 and 56.3 months; at the fifth year of enclosure, the non-forage species(including poisonous and harmful species) still accounted for 29.2% of all the species of vegetation, and the suitable stocking capacity was 2.81-3.37 ewe equivalent per hectare. In conclusion, weeds removing in combination with enclosure during pasture restoration succession is conductive to improve pasture quality and increase pasture productivity in a more efficient way.
引文
[1]ODUM E P.Basic Ecology[M].Philadelphia:Saunders College Publishing,1983.
[2]周晓峰.中国森林与生态环境[M].北京:中国林业出版社,1999:232-233.
[3]CONNELL J H.Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs[J].Science,1978,199(4335):1302-1310.
[4]王猛,袁福锦,吴文荣,等.封育对滇西北亚高山草甸群落及土壤的影响[J].草原与草坪,2017,37(2):69-73.
[5]徐粒,高琼,王亚林.围封6年对温带典型草原坡地物种多样性及其与地上生物量的关系的影响[J].生态环境学报,2014,23(3):398-405.
[6]赵菲,谢应忠,马红彬,等.封育对典型草原植物群落物种多样性及土壤有机质的影响[J].草业科学,2011,28(6):887-891.
[7]冯忠心,吴建平,史静,等.草地培育措施对重度退化亚高山草甸植被特征的影响[J].草原与草坪,2014,34(1):74-80.
[8]蒋德明,苗仁辉,押田敏雄,等.封育对科尔沁沙地植被恢复和土壤特性的影响[J].生态环境学报,2013,22(1):40-46.
[9]左万庆,王玉辉,王风玉,等.围栏封育措施对退化羊草草原植物群落特征影响研究[J].草业学报,2009,18(3):12-19.
[10]单贵莲,徐柱,宁发,等.围封年限对典型草原植被与土壤特征的影响[J].草业学报,2009,18(2):3-10.
[11]刘凤婵,李红丽,董智,等.封育对退化草原植被恢复及土壤理化性质影响的研究进展[J].中国水土保持科学,2012,10(5):116-122.
[12]王炜,刘钟龄,郭敦元,等.内蒙古草原退化群落恢复演替的研究Ⅱ:恢复演替时间进程的分析[J].植物生态学报,1996,20(5):460-471.
[13]单贵莲,徐柱,宁发,等.围封年限对典型草原植被与土壤特征的影响[J].草业学报,2009,18(2):3-10.
[14]赵彩霞,郑大玮,何文清,等.不同围栏年限冷蒿草原群落特征与土壤特性变化的研究[J].草业科学,2006,23(12):89-92.
[15]王炜,刘钟龄,郝敦元,等.内蒙古退化草原植被对禁牧的动态响应[J].气候与环境研究,1997,2(3):236-240.
[16]韩天虎,赵忠,王安禄,等.青藏高原东缘异针茅草地群落组成及生产力研究[J].草业学报,2007,16(6):62-66.
[17]陈全功.江河源区草地退化与生态环境的综合治理[J].草业学报,2007,16(1):10-15.
[18]杨晓辉,张克斌,侯瑞萍,等.封育措施对半干旱沙地草场植被群落特征及地上生物量的影响[J].生态环境,2005,14(5):730-734.
[2]周晓峰.中国森林与生态环境[M].北京:中国林业出版社,1999:232-233.
[3]CONNELL J H.Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs[J].Science,1978,199(4335):1302-1310.
[4]王猛,袁福锦,吴文荣,等.封育对滇西北亚高山草甸群落及土壤的影响[J].草原与草坪,2017,37(2):69-73.
[5]徐粒,高琼,王亚林.围封6年对温带典型草原坡地物种多样性及其与地上生物量的关系的影响[J].生态环境学报,2014,23(3):398-405.
[6]赵菲,谢应忠,马红彬,等.封育对典型草原植物群落物种多样性及土壤有机质的影响[J].草业科学,2011,28(6):887-891.
[7]冯忠心,吴建平,史静,等.草地培育措施对重度退化亚高山草甸植被特征的影响[J].草原与草坪,2014,34(1):74-80.
[8]蒋德明,苗仁辉,押田敏雄,等.封育对科尔沁沙地植被恢复和土壤特性的影响[J].生态环境学报,2013,22(1):40-46.
[9]左万庆,王玉辉,王风玉,等.围栏封育措施对退化羊草草原植物群落特征影响研究[J].草业学报,2009,18(3):12-19.
[10]单贵莲,徐柱,宁发,等.围封年限对典型草原植被与土壤特征的影响[J].草业学报,2009,18(2):3-10.
[11]刘凤婵,李红丽,董智,等.封育对退化草原植被恢复及土壤理化性质影响的研究进展[J].中国水土保持科学,2012,10(5):116-122.
[12]王炜,刘钟龄,郭敦元,等.内蒙古草原退化群落恢复演替的研究Ⅱ:恢复演替时间进程的分析[J].植物生态学报,1996,20(5):460-471.
[13]单贵莲,徐柱,宁发,等.围封年限对典型草原植被与土壤特征的影响[J].草业学报,2009,18(2):3-10.
[14]赵彩霞,郑大玮,何文清,等.不同围栏年限冷蒿草原群落特征与土壤特性变化的研究[J].草业科学,2006,23(12):89-92.
[15]王炜,刘钟龄,郝敦元,等.内蒙古退化草原植被对禁牧的动态响应[J].气候与环境研究,1997,2(3):236-240.
[16]韩天虎,赵忠,王安禄,等.青藏高原东缘异针茅草地群落组成及生产力研究[J].草业学报,2007,16(6):62-66.
[17]陈全功.江河源区草地退化与生态环境的综合治理[J].草业学报,2007,16(1):10-15.
[18]杨晓辉,张克斌,侯瑞萍,等.封育措施对半干旱沙地草场植被群落特征及地上生物量的影响[J].生态环境,2005,14(5):730-734.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |