Analysis the relationship between yield and area, animal unit and the number of exploiter in rangelands (Case Study: Isfahan Summer Range Management Plans)
Subject Areas : forestraufiraad valiollah 1 , Gh heidari 2 , Setareh Bagheri 3
1 - دانشجوی دکترای مرتعداری دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی ساری ساری ایران
2 - استادیار دانشکده منابع طبیعی دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی ساری ساری ایران
3 - دانشجوی دکترای متعداری دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی ساری ساری ایران
Keywords: Isfahan, Rangeland area, the number of exploiter, Animal unit, Rangeland yield, Summer Range Management Plan,
Abstract :
Abstract The goal of this study is to investigate the relationship between rangeland area, the number of exploiter, and animal unit to Range Management plan. First, the list of summer range of Isfahan plans was prepared. Then, rangeland area, the rangeland yield, the number of exploiter, and the animal unit were pulled out from the Range plans. Next, the number of existing animals in rangelands was counted. The number of samples was determined 90, among 226 Summer Range Management Plans, using Cochran's formula. Samples contain 45 plans of one exploiter and 45 plans of the group (plans which had more than one exploiter). Finally, the relationship between the rangeland area, the number of exploiter and animal unit (separately and commonly) and rangeland's yield were analyzed in both one exploiter's rangeland and group rangelands. Then, yield in two group's rangeland was compared. Also the number of existing animal and animal unit in each group (separately) were compared. Results indicated that a negative significant relationship was found between the yield and the rangeland area in both one exploiter rangelands (P≤ 0.01) and group rangelands (P≤ 0.05). A significant relationship was found between rangeland the yield and the animal unit in each two group's rangeland (P≤ 0.01). There is no significant difference (P≤0.05) between yields in two group's rangeland. Finally, a significant relation was found between the number of existing animal and animal unit in each two group's rangeland. Hence, sustainable rangeland management can be achieved by the selection of the number of animal unit based on rangelands area and yield.
References
1- Alizadeh, A., M. Bigdeli, & H. Moeenaldin, 2004. Result of Range management plans evaluation in the country, proceeding of the 2rd National conference on range and range management, Research Institute of Forest and Rangelands, Tehran, Iran, Pp: 208-229. (In Persian)
2- Anderson, J.E. & K.E. Holte, 1981. Vegetation Development over 25 years without grazing on Sagebrush-dominated rangelands in southeastern Idaho. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 34(l), 25-29.
3- Arzani, H., H. Azarnivand, & A.A. Mehrabi, 2005. Minimum rangeland area for rural pastoralism of Markazi province. Iranian Journal of Rangeland and Desert Research, 2 (10): 327-338.
4-Dehghan, A., 1997. Land Sustainable Management. Research's Institute of Agriculture planning and economic. Tehran, Iran, Pp: 205-213. (In Persian)
5- Ebrahimi, A. 2007. Towards an Integrated Framework of Determining Grazing Capacity in Low-productive, Spatially Heterogeneous Landscapes, PhD, Thesis, Ghent University, 175 p.
6- Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pipe, & C.H. Herble, 1995. Range management principles and practices. Prentice Hall. Inc. Upper Saddle River. New Jersey. 525pp.
7- Ganskopp, D, & D. Bohnert, 2006. Do pasture-scale nutritional patterns affect cattle distribution on rangelands? Rangeland Ecology and Management, 59, 189–196.
8- Khadmi, M. 2004. Problems and solutions in rangeland plans and investment. Proceeding of the 3nd National Conference on Range and Range management, Research Institute of Forest and Rangelands, Tehran, Iran, Pp: 283-287. (In Persian)
9- Khalighi, M.M, & M. Farahpoor, 2006. Study of ecological and social sustenance of different exploitation methods. Iranian Journal of Rangeland and Desert Research, 13(2): 14-27. (In Persian)
10- Mazhari, M, & H. Khaksar astanne, 2009. Range of Range of Performance Evaluation Plan (case study: province of Khorasan Razavi)., 23(2:12-20.
11- Moghaddam, M., 2007. Range and Range management (4nd ed.). University of Tehran Press, Pp: 183-210.
12- Mohammadi golrang, B., 1994. Changes in vegetation areas Amirkabir dam (Karaj) during the last 20 years (1993-1973). Ms.c thesis University, Iran.
13- Mohammadi, A.M., S.A. Khajedin, & SA. Khatoon Abadi, 2007. Determining size rangelands units using ecological factors - economic, social in Koohrang North River watershed. Technology and Sciences of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 40, 436-425.
14- O, Conner T.G., & P.W.Roux, 1995. Vegetation changes (1949-71) in a semi-arid, grassy dwarf shrub lands in the karoo, South Africa: influence of rainfall variability and grazing by sheep. Journal of Applied Ecology, 32, 612-626.
15- Safaian, N., & M. Shokri, 2003. A new approach to determine condition and capacity of rangeland for northern Iran. Iranian Journal of Natural Research, 55(4): 597-640. (In Persian)
16- Sarikhani, B., 2006. Methodology of research in social sciences. Vol.2 Trends &Techniques, Publications of Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies Research center, Pp: 520. (In Persian)
17- Rostami, Sh., 1995. Factors influencing changes in vegetation and playa kabootarkhan. MSc Thesis, Department of Natural Resources, Tehran University.
18-Yorks, T.P., N.E. West, & K.M. Carpels, 1992. Vegetation differences in desert shrub lands of western Utah's Pine Valley between 1933 and 1989. Journal Range Manage, 45(6): 569-577.