• صفحه اصلی
  • بررسی اثر ساختار گیاهان چوبی بر عملکرد اکوسیستم های مرتعی

اشتراک گذاری

آدرس مقاله


کد مقاله : 526707 بازدید : 134 صفحه: 12 - 25

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی

بررسی اثر ساختار گیاهان چوبی بر عملکرد اکوسیستم های مرتعی

محورهای موضوعی : جنگلداری

غلامعلی حشمتی 1 , پریا کمالی 2

1 - استاد دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان
2 - دانشجوی دکترای علوم مرتع دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان

تاریخ دریافت : 1393/08/15 تاریخ پذیرش : 1394/03/04 تاریخ انتشار : 1394/12/01

کلید واژه: ساختار گیاهان چوبی, ارزیابی سطح خاک, integerrima Berberis, Acantholimon erinaceum, Onobrychis alba,

چکیده مقاله :

بررسی روابط بین پوشش گیاهی و خاک کمک شایانی به شناخت پتانسیل ها و عملکرد مراتع خواهد داشت. گونه های چوبی جز جدایی ناپذیر مراتع می باشند و نقش قابل توجهی در مشخصه های خاک مراتع دارند. تحقیق حاضر به منظور بررسی اثر ساختار گیاهان چوبی بر تغییرات عملکرد مراتع منطقه پرور در استان سمنان صورت گرفت. با استفاده از روش آنالیز عملکرد چشم انداز (LFA)[1]، 11 ویژگی سطح خاک در سه نوع از ساختار گیاهان چوبی (فشرده، نیمه فشرده و باز) در طول 3 ترانسکت صورت گرفت در طول هر ترانسکت 5 تکرار از هر نوع لکه اکولوژیک و نیز خاک لخت برداشت شد. سپس فاکتورهای اندازه گیری شده در قالب سه مشخصه پایداری، نفوذپذیری و چرخه عناصر غذایی در هر نوع ساختار طبقه بندی شد. نتایج نشان داد که گونه های چوبی با فرم فشرده تر نقش پررنگتری در بهبود شاخص های عملکرد مرتع از جمله پایداری، نفوذ پذیری و چرخه عناصر غذایی در مقایسه با ساختار نسبتا فشرده و نیز باز گونه های چوبی دارند. از طرفی هرچه ارتفاع گونه های چوبی کوتاه تر باشد نقش آنها در پایداری خاک بیشتر خواهد بود.

چکیده انگلیسی:

To shed light on the relationship between vegetation and soil will help to identify rangelands potential and functions. As an integral part of rangelands, woody plants play a substantial role in constituting soil properties. The present study was aimed to investigate the effects of woody plants on rangelands functions in Parvar region, Semnan province. According to landscape function analysis method (LFA), the number of eleven soil features on three woody plant structures (closed, semi- closed and open canopy) with three transects were studied along which  five replicates on per patch  as well as bare soil considered. Then factors measured on three parameters of stability, infiltration and nutrient cycling were classified as per each structure. The results showed that woody species with closed canopy have more contributes in improving rangeland function indices, including stability, infiltration and nutrient cycling compared to those relatively closed and open. On the other hand, the shorter woody species have greater contribution in soil stability.

منابع و مأخذ:

References

 

  1. Abedi, M., H. Arzani, 2006. Evaluation of structure and function of plant parts in arid and semi-arid rangelands. Environment Journal 32: 117-126.
    2.
  2. Amanelahi, J., Gh.A. Dianati tilaki, A. Sahehi, & H. Sohrabi, 2008. Effective analysis of soil properties in three sites  pasture. Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources 15(3): 181-192.
    3.
  3. Arzani, H., 2008. National guidelines for evaluation of different climatic ranges. Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands. Research and development 21 (1): 199-210.
    4.
  4. Arzani, H., M. Abedi, A. Shahriari, & M. Ghorbani, 2006. Evaluation of soil surface parameters and performance characteristics of pasture grazing and tillage intensity (A Case Study of urease Taleghan Range and Desert Research 14 (1): 68-79.
    5.
  5. Bestelmeyer, B.T., J.P. Ward, J.E. Herrick, & A.J. Tugel, 2006. Fragmentation effects on soil aggregate stability in patchy arid grassland. Rangeland Ecol Manage 59: 406 - 415.
    6.
  6. Bochet, E., J. Poesen, & J.L. Rubio, 2000. Mound development as an interaction of individual plants with soil, water erosion and sedimentation processes on slopes. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 25: 847-867.
    7.
  7. Butterfield, B.J., & J.M. Briggs, 2008. Patch dynamics of soil biotic feedbacks in the Sonorant desert. Journal of Arid Environments 73: 96-102.
    8.
  8. Drewry, J. J., J.A. Lowe,  & R.J. Paton, 2004. Effect of sheep stocking intensity on soil physical properties and dry matter production on a Southland. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 42: 493-499.
    9.
  9. Eldridge, D.J.,  & R.S.B. Greene, 1994. Micro biotic soil crusts: a review of their role in soil and ecological processes in the rangelands of Australia. Australian Journal of Soil Research 32: 389-415.
    10.
  10. Eldridge, D.J., E. Zaady, & M. Shachak, 2000. Infiltration through three contrasting biological soil crusts in patterned landscapes in the Negev, Israel. Catena 40: 323-336.
    11.

  1. Fahimipour, A., M.A. Zarechahouki, & A. Tavili, 2010. To consider some of the species range of environmental factors. Rangeland Journal 4 (1): 23-32.
    2.

  1. Ghahsare ardestani, A., M. Basriri, M. Tarkesh & M. Borhani, 2010. Models to investigate the distribution of species richness and diversity in relation to environmental factors and indicators Hill in Isfahan province four rangeland sites. Pasture Systems and Watershed Management 63 (3): 378-397.
    2.
  2. Ghilichnia, H., Gh. Heshmati, & Chaeichi, 2008. Comparative assessment of soil properties and pasture with grazing Bvthzar four criteria Golestan National Park. Research and development, 78: 41-51.
    3.
  3. Heshmati, Gh., K Naseri, & Ghanbari, Gh., 2008. Landscape function analysis, evaluation and monitoring methods pastures, jihad, Mashhad University Press, 112 p.
    4.
  4. Howes, D.A., & A.D. Abrahams, 2003. Modeling runoff and runon in a desert shrubland ecosystem, Jornada Basin, New Mexico. Geomorphology 53: 45-73.
    5.
  5. Itzhak, K., D.G. Blumberg, H. Lavee, &  P. Sarah, 2007. Spatial distribution dynamics of topsoil moisture in shrub microenvironment after rain events in arid and semi-arid areas by means of high resolution maps. Geomorphology 86: 455-464.
    6.
  6. Jafari, M., M.A. Zare Chahooki, N. Rahimzade, & M. Shafihzade Nasrabadani, 2008. Comparison of litter quality and its effect on habitat soil of three range species in Vardavard region. Range Journal, 12(1): 1-10
    7.
  7. Li, X.J., X.R. Li, W.M. Song,  Y.P. Gao, J.G. Zhengand & R.L. Jia, 2008. Effects of crust and shrub patches on runoff, sedimentation, and related nutrient (C, N) redistribution in the desertified steppe zone of the Tengger Desert, Northern China. Geomorphology 96: 221-232.
    8.
  8. Lotfi anari, N., & Gh. Heshmati. 2011. Verify and evaluate the soil surface with LFA (Case Study: Yazd Amin Farm summer pasture). Pasture, 5: 302-312.
    9.
  9. Mesdaghi, M., 2001. Vegetation description and analysis. Mashhad University Jihad Publications, 228 p.
    10.
  10. Moghadam, M. 1999. Range and rangeland, Tehrn University press, 257 p.
    11.
  11. Noy-Meir, I., 1973. Desert ecosystems: environment and producers. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 25-51.
    12.
  12. Palmer, A. R., F.J. Killer, A.M. Avis, & D.J. Tongway, 2001. Defining function in rangelands of the peddie district, eastern cape, using landscape function analysis. Afr. J. of Range & Forage Science 18: 53-58.
    13.
  13. Rey, F., 2004. Effectiveness of vegetation barriers for marly sediment trapping. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 29: 1161-1169.
    14.
  14. Rezaei, S.A., & H. Arzani, 2007. Potential habitat assessment using soil characteristics. Journal - of Range and Desert Research, 14 (2): 232-248.
    15.
  15. Sabeti, H. A. (1975) Relation between plant and environment (sinecology). Dehkhoda, Iran: 492 p.
    16.
  16. Sallaway, M.M. & D.K. Waters, 1994. Spatial variation in runoff generation in granitic grazing lands. Proceedings of “Water Down Under” hydrology conference, Adelaide. Institute of Engineers Australia, 485-9.
    17.
  17. Schlesinger,W.H., J.F. Reynolds, G.L. Cunningham, L.F. Huenneke, W.M. Jarrell, R.A. Virginia, & W.G. Whiteford, 1990. Biological feedbacks in global desertification. Science 247: 1043-1048.
    18.
  18. Shachak, M., & G.M., Lovett, 1998. Atmospheric deposition to a desert ecosystem and its implications for management. Ecological Applications 8 455-463.
    19.
  19. Stallins, J.A., 2006. Geomorphology and ecology: unifying themes for complex systems in biogeomorphology. Geomorphology 77 207-216.
    20.
  20. Steffens M., A. Kolbl, K.U. Totsche, & I. Kogel-Knabner, 2008. Grazing effects on soil chemical and physical properties in a semiarid steppe of Inner Mongolia (PR China). Geoderma, 143: 63-72.
    21.
  21. Tongway, D. & J., Ludwig, 2002. Reversing Desertification in Rattan Lal (Ed) Encyclopaedia of Soil Science. Marcel Dekker, New York.
    22.
  22. Tongway, D. J., & J.A. Ludwig, 1990. Vegetation and soil patterning in semi-arid mulga lands of Eastern Australia. Australian. Journal of Ecology, 15: 23-34.
    23.
  23. Wilcox, B.P., D.D. Breshears, & C.D. Allen, 2003. Ecohydrology of a resource-conserving semi-arid woodland: effects of scale and disturbance. Ecological Monograph 73 223-239.
    24.
  24. Zarechahouki, M.A., M. Jafari, & H. Arzani, 2007  . The relationship between environmental factors and species diversity in pastures Poshtkuh Yazd. Research and development 21 (1): 192-199. 
    25.

مقالات مرتبط

حقوق این وب‌سایت متعلق به سامانه مدیریت نشریات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی است.
حق نشر © 1403-1400

صفحه اصلی| عضویت/ ورود| درباره سند| تماس با ما|
[English] [العربية] [en] [ar]