呼伦贝尔沙地沙漠化成因及植被演替规律的研究
|
摘要
呼伦贝尔沙地是我国四大沙地之一,近些年来,由于受自然条件变化和不合理人为活动的影响,造成了该沙地大面积草场退化、沙漠化,目前成为我国四大沙地中沙漠化唯一仍在扩展的沙地。恢复呼伦贝尔沙地植被、防止沙漠化进一步扩展已经迫在眉睫。因此本文在对呼伦贝尔沙地形成的历史背景进行系统分析的基础上,以沙漠化发展最为严重的陈巴尔虎旗作为研究区,通过考察近几十年的气候变化规律和主要社会经济情况,探讨沙漠化扩展原因。同时,通过大量的野外调查,研究了呼伦贝尔沙地植被资源状况、特征及植被演替规律,为天然植被的保护利用和建立稳定的人工植被提供科学依据。通过研究得出如下主要结论:
1.呼伦贝尔沙地的沙漠化是由自然因素和人为因素共同造成的。温度的持续升高和降水量的不断减少,使得气候更加趋于干旱化,构成沙漠化过程的基本背景,而随着当地人口的增加,以及对资源需求的扩大,对土地产生愈来愈大的压力,加速了沙漠化的进程。
2.调查结果显示,研究区所见植物共有种子植物54科,146属,199种。常以建群种或优势种出现的有菊科的蒿属,禾本科的针茅属(Stipa)、蝇子草属(Cleistogenes)、芨芨草属(Achnatherum)、碱茅属(Puccinellia)、拂子茅属(Calamagrostis)、赖草属(Leymus)、芦苇属(Phragmites),豆科的锦鸡儿属(Caragana)、棘豆属(Oxytropis)、岩黄耆属(Hedysarum),藜科的碱蓬属(Suaeda)、莎草科的薹草属(Carex),鸢尾科的鸢尾属(Iris)等。
3.在过度放牧所引起的逆行演替中,固定沙地,半固定沙地和流动沙地的植物群落物种组成从31种锐减到了2种,盖度从61%降低到8%,群落的物种丰富度逐渐降低,流动沙地的的物种丰富度分别是半固定沙地和固定沙地的0.25、0.065倍,多样性指数分别为2.464、1.584、0.554,固定沙地最大,为流动沙地的4.45倍;物种均匀度0.497、0.528、0.554。流动沙地最大,是固定沙地的1.11倍。高度及生物量亦均呈递减趋势,优势种和建群种发生更迭,群落结构趋于简单。
4.在人工干预状态下的恢复演替中,植物的进展演替规律为:以沙米为优势种的一年生先锋植物群落以糙隐子草为优势种其他多年生禾草伴生的过渡型植被群落冰草+糙隐子草过渡型植被群落羊草+冷蒿亚稳定型群落。与此同时,土壤的结构、理化性质得到改善。
The Hulunbeier sandy land is our country one of four big sands. Recent year, because natural environment's worsening adds fells, opens up wasteland, herds, excavates and excessively human’s unreasonable activity caused the Hulunbeier sand big area pasture to the sandy land to desertification. It’s the only expanding land in china. Combat desertification becoming more and more important in china. This paper choose Chenbaerhu Banner as the trail area based on almost 20 year’s climate’date and vegetation date to investigate the reason of desertification, the vegetation constructs and sandy land restored method. Through this research the main purpose of this paper is to give the effective suggestion on restores with the reconstruction degeneration ecosystem. The main conclusion is as follows:
1. The Hulunbeier sand's desertification is created together by the natural factor and the human factor. The temperature continues to elevate with the precipitation reduction, the climate is getting drier, along with local population's increase, as well as resource demand's expansion has put more and more tremendous pressure to the land, which accelerated the desertification advancement.
2. There are 54 families, 146 genera and 199 species seed plants in the research area. The dominant genera are Artemisia of Asteraceae family, Stipa, Cleistogenes, Achnatherum, Puccinellia, Calamagrosti, Leymus, Phragmites of Gramineae family, Caragana, Oxytropis, Hedysarum of leguminosae family,Suaeda of Chenopodiaceae family, Carex of sedge family and Iris of Iridaceae family.
3. In plant's retrogression of succession, the plant community species composition changed. Species decreased from 31 to 2, coverage from 61% to 8%, species richness in shifting sandy land is 0.25 times of that in semi-fixed sandy land, 0.065 times of that in fixed sandy land. diversity index in Fixed sandy land, semi-fixed sandy land ,shifting sandy land are 2.464, 1.584 and 0.554.diversity index in Fixed sandy land was the biggest which is 4.45 times of that in shifting sandy land. Species evenness is 0.497, 0.528 and 0.554. Species evenness in shifting sandy land is the biggest which is 1.11 times of that in fixed sandy land. At the same time, the biomass also assumes the decreasing progressively tendency, the dominant species and constructs the group kind to occur alternates, the community structure tends to be simple.
4. Manual intervention in the restoration of state in succession, the progress of succession law: annual species such as Agriophyllum squarrosum as the dominant species in vegetation community. Cleistogenes squarrosa as the dominant species with another Perennial Grass in this kind of transition vegetation community Agropyron cristatum and Cleistogenes squarrosa together as the dominant species in the transition vegetation community Leymus chinensis and Artemisia frigida together as the dominant species in the metastable vegetation community. At the same time, the soil structure, improve physical and chemical properties.
Plant's progression of succession rule is: the stage of Agriophyllum squarrosum & Corispermum stauntonii -> the stage of Agropyron cristatum & Artemisia frigida -> Caragana microphylla & Stipa grandis & Cleistogeness quarrosa -> Carex rigescens & Agropyron cristatum. Meanwhile, the soil structure, the physics and chemistry nature are improved.
1.呼伦贝尔沙地的沙漠化是由自然因素和人为因素共同造成的。温度的持续升高和降水量的不断减少,使得气候更加趋于干旱化,构成沙漠化过程的基本背景,而随着当地人口的增加,以及对资源需求的扩大,对土地产生愈来愈大的压力,加速了沙漠化的进程。
2.调查结果显示,研究区所见植物共有种子植物54科,146属,199种。常以建群种或优势种出现的有菊科的蒿属,禾本科的针茅属(Stipa)、蝇子草属(Cleistogenes)、芨芨草属(Achnatherum)、碱茅属(Puccinellia)、拂子茅属(Calamagrostis)、赖草属(Leymus)、芦苇属(Phragmites),豆科的锦鸡儿属(Caragana)、棘豆属(Oxytropis)、岩黄耆属(Hedysarum),藜科的碱蓬属(Suaeda)、莎草科的薹草属(Carex),鸢尾科的鸢尾属(Iris)等。
3.在过度放牧所引起的逆行演替中,固定沙地,半固定沙地和流动沙地的植物群落物种组成从31种锐减到了2种,盖度从61%降低到8%,群落的物种丰富度逐渐降低,流动沙地的的物种丰富度分别是半固定沙地和固定沙地的0.25、0.065倍,多样性指数分别为2.464、1.584、0.554,固定沙地最大,为流动沙地的4.45倍;物种均匀度0.497、0.528、0.554。流动沙地最大,是固定沙地的1.11倍。高度及生物量亦均呈递减趋势,优势种和建群种发生更迭,群落结构趋于简单。
4.在人工干预状态下的恢复演替中,植物的进展演替规律为:以沙米为优势种的一年生先锋植物群落以糙隐子草为优势种其他多年生禾草伴生的过渡型植被群落冰草+糙隐子草过渡型植被群落羊草+冷蒿亚稳定型群落。与此同时,土壤的结构、理化性质得到改善。
The Hulunbeier sandy land is our country one of four big sands. Recent year, because natural environment's worsening adds fells, opens up wasteland, herds, excavates and excessively human’s unreasonable activity caused the Hulunbeier sand big area pasture to the sandy land to desertification. It’s the only expanding land in china. Combat desertification becoming more and more important in china. This paper choose Chenbaerhu Banner as the trail area based on almost 20 year’s climate’date and vegetation date to investigate the reason of desertification, the vegetation constructs and sandy land restored method. Through this research the main purpose of this paper is to give the effective suggestion on restores with the reconstruction degeneration ecosystem. The main conclusion is as follows:
1. The Hulunbeier sand's desertification is created together by the natural factor and the human factor. The temperature continues to elevate with the precipitation reduction, the climate is getting drier, along with local population's increase, as well as resource demand's expansion has put more and more tremendous pressure to the land, which accelerated the desertification advancement.
2. There are 54 families, 146 genera and 199 species seed plants in the research area. The dominant genera are Artemisia of Asteraceae family, Stipa, Cleistogenes, Achnatherum, Puccinellia, Calamagrosti, Leymus, Phragmites of Gramineae family, Caragana, Oxytropis, Hedysarum of leguminosae family,Suaeda of Chenopodiaceae family, Carex of sedge family and Iris of Iridaceae family.
3. In plant's retrogression of succession, the plant community species composition changed. Species decreased from 31 to 2, coverage from 61% to 8%, species richness in shifting sandy land is 0.25 times of that in semi-fixed sandy land, 0.065 times of that in fixed sandy land. diversity index in Fixed sandy land, semi-fixed sandy land ,shifting sandy land are 2.464, 1.584 and 0.554.diversity index in Fixed sandy land was the biggest which is 4.45 times of that in shifting sandy land. Species evenness is 0.497, 0.528 and 0.554. Species evenness in shifting sandy land is the biggest which is 1.11 times of that in fixed sandy land. At the same time, the biomass also assumes the decreasing progressively tendency, the dominant species and constructs the group kind to occur alternates, the community structure tends to be simple.
4. Manual intervention in the restoration of state in succession, the progress of succession law: annual species such as Agriophyllum squarrosum as the dominant species in vegetation community. Cleistogenes squarrosa as the dominant species with another Perennial Grass in this kind of transition vegetation community Agropyron cristatum and Cleistogenes squarrosa together as the dominant species in the transition vegetation community Leymus chinensis and Artemisia frigida together as the dominant species in the metastable vegetation community. At the same time, the soil structure, improve physical and chemical properties.
Plant's progression of succession rule is: the stage of Agriophyllum squarrosum & Corispermum stauntonii -> the stage of Agropyron cristatum & Artemisia frigida -> Caragana microphylla & Stipa grandis & Cleistogeness quarrosa -> Carex rigescens & Agropyron cristatum. Meanwhile, the soil structure, the physics and chemistry nature are improved.
引文
[1] 白可喻,韩建国,王培,等.放牧强度对人工草地植物地下生物量的影响[J].中国草地,2000,(2):15-20.
[2] 陈世横,张昊,占布拉,等.糙隐子草群落特点和规律的研究[[J].内蒙古草业,1995,3(4):35-39.
[3] 常学礼,赵学勇,李胜功,等.差不嘎蒿在科尔沁沙地草场植被中的作用[J].中国沙漠,1996,16(1):27-31.
[4] 丁国栋,李素艳,蔡京艳,等.浑善达克沙地草场资源评价与载畜量研究——以内蒙古正蓝旗沙地区为例[J].生态学杂志,2005,24(9):1038-1042.
[5] 丁国栋.沙漠学概论[M].北京:中国林业出版社.2002.
[6] 董厚德,唐炯炎.辽东山地“乱石窖”植被演替规律的初步研究[J].植物生态学与地植物学从刊,1965,(1):117-130.
[7] 郝敦元,刘仲龄,王炜.内蒙古草原退化群落恢复演替的研究—群落演替数学模型[J].植物生态学报,1997,21(6):503-511.
[8] 韩智毅.沙地樟子松林火烧迹地植被演替的初步研究[J].内蒙古林业科技,1985,(4):23-26.
[9] 姜恕.草地生态研究方法[M].北京:中国农业出版社,1988.
[10] 贾树海.草原退化及恢复改良过程中的土壤性质及其调控[M].草原生态系统(第五集).北京:科学出版社,1992.
[11] 康乐.生态系统的恢复与重建[M].北京:科学出版社,1990.
[12] 雷虹,王文成.围封对沙化草地植物群落变化的影响[[J].辽宁畜牧兽医,2002,(2):38-39.
[13] 林鹏.植物群落学[M].上海:科学技术出版社,1986.
[14] 李斌等.内蒙古统计年鉴[Z].北京:中国统计出版社,1994,1995,1997,1998,1999,2002,2003,2004.
[15] 李进,宝音.河北坝上弃耕地植被的演替特征及环境因子的影响[J].中国沙漠,1994,14(4):15-22.
[16] 李进.差不嘎蒿的分布及其在天然植被演替中的地位[J].中国沙漠,1991,11(2):55-60.
[17] 李绍良,陈有君,关世英,等.土壤退化与草地退化关系的研究[[J].干旱区资源与环境,2002,16(1):92-95.
[18] 刘家琼,邱明新,杨堃等．沙冬青植物群落的研究[J].中国沙漠,1995,15(2):109-115.
[19] 李新荣,赵雨兴,杨志忠,等.毛乌素沙地飞播植被与生境演变的研究[J].植物生态学报,1999,23(2):116-124.
[20] 李德新.放牧对克氏针茅草原影响的初步研究[J].中国草原,1980,(2):1-8.
[21] 刘昉勋,黄致远,蔡守坤,等.江苏海岸沙生植被的研究[J].植物生态学与地植物学学报,1986,10(2):115-122.
[22] 李永宏.内蒙古锡林河流域羊草草原和大针茅草原在放牧影响下的分异与趋同[J].植物生态学与地植物学报,1988,12(3):189-196.
[23] 李正海,裴浩,刘钟龄.羊草草原退化群落恢复演替的研究明.内蒙古大学学报(自然科学版),1994,25(1):87-88.
[24] 梁士楚.广西英罗湾红树植物群落的研究[J].植物生态学报,1996,20(4):310-321.
[25] 梁玉莲.内蒙锡盟桑根达来 3600 年来的植被及环境演变[J].中国沙漠,1991,11(2):33-38.
[26] 吕世海,卢欣石,曹帮华.呼伦贝尔草地风蚀沙化土壤种子库多样性研究[J].中国草地,2005,27(3):5-10.
[27] 聂浩刚,岳乐平,杨文,等.呼伦贝尔草原沙漠化现状、发展趋势与成因分析[J].中国沙漠,2005,25(5):635-639.
[28] 潘学清等.中国呼伦贝尔草地[M].吉林:吉林科学技术出版社.1992.
[29] 彭少麟,方炜,任海,等.鼎湖山厚壳桂群落演替过程的组成和结构动态[J].植物生态学报,1998,22(3):245-249.
[30] 曲仲湘,文振旺.琅琊山林木状况的分析[J].植物学报,1953,33(4):93-69.
[31] 邵立业,董光荣,陆福根,等.共和盆地草原沙漠化的正、逆过程与植被演替规律[J].中国沙漠,1988,8(1):30-40.
[32] 沈渭寿.沙蒿在沙坡头地区沙地植被演替的地位[J].中国沙漠,1986,6(4):13-22.
[33] 申元村,陆永华.盐池半荒漠风沙区草场演替及定向改造[J].干旱区资源与环境,1995,9(2):62-68.
[34] 王宇,初先进,安洪敏.草场封育对盐碱土理化性质的影响[J].防护林科枝,2006,(2):25-28.
[35] 王晓云,霍建林,漆建忠.灌木林放牧利用对沙地水分的缓解作用[J].水土保持通报(增刊),1994,14(7):15-21.
[36] 王庆锁,董学军,陈旭东,等.油蒿群落不同演替阶段某些群落特征的研究[J].植物生态学报,1997,21(6):531-538.
[37] 王炜,刘钟龄,郝软元,等.内蒙古草地退化群落及其恢复演替的研究1:退化草地的基本特征与恢复演替动力[J],植物生态学报,1996,20(5):460-471.
[38] 吴德东,刘淑玲,李玉航,等.围封对沙地草地的影响[[J].中国草地,1997,(6):36-40.
[39] 汪佩芳.全新世呼伦贝尔沙地环境演变的初步研究[J].中国沙漠,1992,15(2):13-19.
[40] 熊文愈,骆林川.植物群落演替研究概述[J].生态学进展,1989,6(4):229-235.
[41] 徐德成.胶东海岸的沙生植被[J].生态学杂志,1991,10(4):58-61.
[42] 杨龙.梵净山黔桐林的结构与动态[J].植物生态学与地植物学从刊,1983,(3):204-214.
[43] 岳明.陕北南部侧柏林演替时期的划分及其特征[J].植物生态学报,1998,22(4):327-335.
[44] 严国安,马剑敏,邱东茹,等.武汉东湖水生植物群落的研究[J].植物生态学报,1997,21(4):319-327.
[45] 赵哈林.科尔沁沙地两种主要群落的沙漠化演替特征[J].中国沙漠,1993,13(3):47-52.
[46] 张强,王振先.伊克昭盟植被演替与土地沙漠化的关系[A].中国科学院兰州沙漠所研究集刊,第 3 号[C].北京:科学出版社,1986.
[47] 赵雪.豫北沙地次生植被类型及其演替[J].中国沙漠,1993,13(2):37-421.
[48] 张柏忠.北魏至金代科尔沁沙地的变迁[J].中国沙漠,1991,11(1):36-42.
[49] 张龙生.毛乌素沙地东南部人工植被演替研究[J].中国沙漠,1994,14(1):79-82.
[50] 赵兴梁.沙坡头地区植物固沙问题的探讨[A].流沙治理研究(二)[C].银川:宁夏人民出版社,1988.
[51] 赵丽娅,李锋瑞.围封沙质草甸土壤种子库与幼苗库的特征[[J].西北植物学报,2003,23(10):1725-1730.
[52] 赵松龄,杨凤翔,陈庆诚,等.针茅草原放牧衰退演替阶段的模糊数学分类[J].植物学报,1982,4(4):366-373.
[53] 张新时.毛乌素沙地的生态背景及草地建设的原则与优化模式[J].植物生态学报,1994,18(1):1-16.
[54] 周纪伦.植物种群生态学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1992.
[55] 昭和斯图,祁永.内蒙古短花针茅草原放牧退化系列的研究[J].中国草地,1987,(1):29-35.
[56] Bigwood D W,Inouye DW Spatial pattern analysis of seed bank:An improved method and optimized sampling [J]. Ecology,1988,69(2):497-507.
[57] Boston:PW S Publishing Company,1994.Prach K,Prsek P,Smilauer P.Changes in species types during succession:a search for pattern [J].Oikos,1997,79:201-205.
[58] Clements.Plant Succession:Analysis of the Development of Vegetation[Z].Publication No.242.Garnegie Institution of Washington,Washington D. C.,U.S.A.,1916.
[59]Glenn-L ew in D C,Peet P K,Veblen T T.Plant succession:theory and prediction [M].London:Chapman&hall,1992.
[60] Giarratano J C,Riley G.Expert system s:p rinciples and programm ing [M].2nd edtion.2006.
[61] Hou Fu Jiang,Chang Sheng Hua,Yu Ying Wen.A review on trampling by grazed livestock[J].Acta Ecologica Sinica,2004,24(4):133-139.
[62] J.R.埃塞林顿(曲仲湘等译).环境和植物生态学[M].北京:科学出版社,1989.
[63] Odum E P (孙儒泳等译).生态学基础[M].北京:人民教育出版社,1982.
[64] P rach K,Prsek P,Smilauer P.Predition of vegetation succession in human-disturbed habitats using an expert systerm [J].Restoration Ecology,1999,7(1):15-23.
[65] R.克纳普(宋永昌等译).植被动态[M].北京:科学出版社,1986.
[66] Smith RS, Shiel RS, Millward D, Corkhill P, Sanderson RA. Soil seedbanks and the effects of meadow management on vegetation change in a 10-year meadow field trial [J].Journal of Applied Ecology,2002,39:279-293.
[67] Taddese G,Saleem MAM,Abyie A.Impact of grazing on plant species richness,plant biomass,plant attribute and soul physical and hydrological properties of Vertisol in East African Highlands[J].Environmental Management,2002,29(2):279-289.
[2] 陈世横,张昊,占布拉,等.糙隐子草群落特点和规律的研究[[J].内蒙古草业,1995,3(4):35-39.
[3] 常学礼,赵学勇,李胜功,等.差不嘎蒿在科尔沁沙地草场植被中的作用[J].中国沙漠,1996,16(1):27-31.
[4] 丁国栋,李素艳,蔡京艳,等.浑善达克沙地草场资源评价与载畜量研究——以内蒙古正蓝旗沙地区为例[J].生态学杂志,2005,24(9):1038-1042.
[5] 丁国栋.沙漠学概论[M].北京:中国林业出版社.2002.
[6] 董厚德,唐炯炎.辽东山地“乱石窖”植被演替规律的初步研究[J].植物生态学与地植物学从刊,1965,(1):117-130.
[7] 郝敦元,刘仲龄,王炜.内蒙古草原退化群落恢复演替的研究—群落演替数学模型[J].植物生态学报,1997,21(6):503-511.
[8] 韩智毅.沙地樟子松林火烧迹地植被演替的初步研究[J].内蒙古林业科技,1985,(4):23-26.
[9] 姜恕.草地生态研究方法[M].北京:中国农业出版社,1988.
[10] 贾树海.草原退化及恢复改良过程中的土壤性质及其调控[M].草原生态系统(第五集).北京:科学出版社,1992.
[11] 康乐.生态系统的恢复与重建[M].北京:科学出版社,1990.
[12] 雷虹,王文成.围封对沙化草地植物群落变化的影响[[J].辽宁畜牧兽医,2002,(2):38-39.
[13] 林鹏.植物群落学[M].上海:科学技术出版社,1986.
[14] 李斌等.内蒙古统计年鉴[Z].北京:中国统计出版社,1994,1995,1997,1998,1999,2002,2003,2004.
[15] 李进,宝音.河北坝上弃耕地植被的演替特征及环境因子的影响[J].中国沙漠,1994,14(4):15-22.
[16] 李进.差不嘎蒿的分布及其在天然植被演替中的地位[J].中国沙漠,1991,11(2):55-60.
[17] 李绍良,陈有君,关世英,等.土壤退化与草地退化关系的研究[[J].干旱区资源与环境,2002,16(1):92-95.
[18] 刘家琼,邱明新,杨堃等．沙冬青植物群落的研究[J].中国沙漠,1995,15(2):109-115.
[19] 李新荣,赵雨兴,杨志忠,等.毛乌素沙地飞播植被与生境演变的研究[J].植物生态学报,1999,23(2):116-124.
[20] 李德新.放牧对克氏针茅草原影响的初步研究[J].中国草原,1980,(2):1-8.
[21] 刘昉勋,黄致远,蔡守坤,等.江苏海岸沙生植被的研究[J].植物生态学与地植物学学报,1986,10(2):115-122.
[22] 李永宏.内蒙古锡林河流域羊草草原和大针茅草原在放牧影响下的分异与趋同[J].植物生态学与地植物学报,1988,12(3):189-196.
[23] 李正海,裴浩,刘钟龄.羊草草原退化群落恢复演替的研究明.内蒙古大学学报(自然科学版),1994,25(1):87-88.
[24] 梁士楚.广西英罗湾红树植物群落的研究[J].植物生态学报,1996,20(4):310-321.
[25] 梁玉莲.内蒙锡盟桑根达来 3600 年来的植被及环境演变[J].中国沙漠,1991,11(2):33-38.
[26] 吕世海,卢欣石,曹帮华.呼伦贝尔草地风蚀沙化土壤种子库多样性研究[J].中国草地,2005,27(3):5-10.
[27] 聂浩刚,岳乐平,杨文,等.呼伦贝尔草原沙漠化现状、发展趋势与成因分析[J].中国沙漠,2005,25(5):635-639.
[28] 潘学清等.中国呼伦贝尔草地[M].吉林:吉林科学技术出版社.1992.
[29] 彭少麟,方炜,任海,等.鼎湖山厚壳桂群落演替过程的组成和结构动态[J].植物生态学报,1998,22(3):245-249.
[30] 曲仲湘,文振旺.琅琊山林木状况的分析[J].植物学报,1953,33(4):93-69.
[31] 邵立业,董光荣,陆福根,等.共和盆地草原沙漠化的正、逆过程与植被演替规律[J].中国沙漠,1988,8(1):30-40.
[32] 沈渭寿.沙蒿在沙坡头地区沙地植被演替的地位[J].中国沙漠,1986,6(4):13-22.
[33] 申元村,陆永华.盐池半荒漠风沙区草场演替及定向改造[J].干旱区资源与环境,1995,9(2):62-68.
[34] 王宇,初先进,安洪敏.草场封育对盐碱土理化性质的影响[J].防护林科枝,2006,(2):25-28.
[35] 王晓云,霍建林,漆建忠.灌木林放牧利用对沙地水分的缓解作用[J].水土保持通报(增刊),1994,14(7):15-21.
[36] 王庆锁,董学军,陈旭东,等.油蒿群落不同演替阶段某些群落特征的研究[J].植物生态学报,1997,21(6):531-538.
[37] 王炜,刘钟龄,郝软元,等.内蒙古草地退化群落及其恢复演替的研究1:退化草地的基本特征与恢复演替动力[J],植物生态学报,1996,20(5):460-471.
[38] 吴德东,刘淑玲,李玉航,等.围封对沙地草地的影响[[J].中国草地,1997,(6):36-40.
[39] 汪佩芳.全新世呼伦贝尔沙地环境演变的初步研究[J].中国沙漠,1992,15(2):13-19.
[40] 熊文愈,骆林川.植物群落演替研究概述[J].生态学进展,1989,6(4):229-235.
[41] 徐德成.胶东海岸的沙生植被[J].生态学杂志,1991,10(4):58-61.
[42] 杨龙.梵净山黔桐林的结构与动态[J].植物生态学与地植物学从刊,1983,(3):204-214.
[43] 岳明.陕北南部侧柏林演替时期的划分及其特征[J].植物生态学报,1998,22(4):327-335.
[44] 严国安,马剑敏,邱东茹,等.武汉东湖水生植物群落的研究[J].植物生态学报,1997,21(4):319-327.
[45] 赵哈林.科尔沁沙地两种主要群落的沙漠化演替特征[J].中国沙漠,1993,13(3):47-52.
[46] 张强,王振先.伊克昭盟植被演替与土地沙漠化的关系[A].中国科学院兰州沙漠所研究集刊,第 3 号[C].北京:科学出版社,1986.
[47] 赵雪.豫北沙地次生植被类型及其演替[J].中国沙漠,1993,13(2):37-421.
[48] 张柏忠.北魏至金代科尔沁沙地的变迁[J].中国沙漠,1991,11(1):36-42.
[49] 张龙生.毛乌素沙地东南部人工植被演替研究[J].中国沙漠,1994,14(1):79-82.
[50] 赵兴梁.沙坡头地区植物固沙问题的探讨[A].流沙治理研究(二)[C].银川:宁夏人民出版社,1988.
[51] 赵丽娅,李锋瑞.围封沙质草甸土壤种子库与幼苗库的特征[[J].西北植物学报,2003,23(10):1725-1730.
[52] 赵松龄,杨凤翔,陈庆诚,等.针茅草原放牧衰退演替阶段的模糊数学分类[J].植物学报,1982,4(4):366-373.
[53] 张新时.毛乌素沙地的生态背景及草地建设的原则与优化模式[J].植物生态学报,1994,18(1):1-16.
[54] 周纪伦.植物种群生态学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1992.
[55] 昭和斯图,祁永.内蒙古短花针茅草原放牧退化系列的研究[J].中国草地,1987,(1):29-35.
[56] Bigwood D W,Inouye DW Spatial pattern analysis of seed bank:An improved method and optimized sampling [J]. Ecology,1988,69(2):497-507.
[57] Boston:PW S Publishing Company,1994.Prach K,Prsek P,Smilauer P.Changes in species types during succession:a search for pattern [J].Oikos,1997,79:201-205.
[58] Clements.Plant Succession:Analysis of the Development of Vegetation[Z].Publication No.242.Garnegie Institution of Washington,Washington D. C.,U.S.A.,1916.
[59]Glenn-L ew in D C,Peet P K,Veblen T T.Plant succession:theory and prediction [M].London:Chapman&hall,1992.
[60] Giarratano J C,Riley G.Expert system s:p rinciples and programm ing [M].2nd edtion.2006.
[61] Hou Fu Jiang,Chang Sheng Hua,Yu Ying Wen.A review on trampling by grazed livestock[J].Acta Ecologica Sinica,2004,24(4):133-139.
[62] J.R.埃塞林顿(曲仲湘等译).环境和植物生态学[M].北京:科学出版社,1989.
[63] Odum E P (孙儒泳等译).生态学基础[M].北京:人民教育出版社,1982.
[64] P rach K,Prsek P,Smilauer P.Predition of vegetation succession in human-disturbed habitats using an expert systerm [J].Restoration Ecology,1999,7(1):15-23.
[65] R.克纳普(宋永昌等译).植被动态[M].北京:科学出版社,1986.
[66] Smith RS, Shiel RS, Millward D, Corkhill P, Sanderson RA. Soil seedbanks and the effects of meadow management on vegetation change in a 10-year meadow field trial [J].Journal of Applied Ecology,2002,39:279-293.
[67] Taddese G,Saleem MAM,Abyie A.Impact of grazing on plant species richness,plant biomass,plant attribute and soul physical and hydrological properties of Vertisol in East African Highlands[J].Environmental Management,2002,29(2):279-289.