Evaluation and Dynamic Analysis of Forage Value of Main Grassland Types in the Middle Section of Tianshan Mountains

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.08.027

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】 Tianshan is an important mountain pasture in Xinjiang. In order to liberate the dynamics of grassland community quality under grazing conditions. 【Method】 the continuous positioning method was used to analyze the forage value dynamics of plant communities from 1985 to 2001. 【Result】 The research results showed that：（1） the good forage was the main composition in the desert steppe which can account for 80.1% of the average aboveground biomass over the years ; and the excellent and good forage can account for 59.5% of the aboveground biomass in grassland ; the value of the meadow grass communitye was low, and the medium and low forage grasses can account for 91.6% of the average over the years. （2） the aboveground biomass had a state of fluctuation in different grassland types, and different grassland types have different rules.it had lower annual variability in high forage value and lower annual variability in the community. 【Conclusion】 （1） The forage value of the grassland community is unstable, and it is greatly affected by the fluctuation of the biomass on the various pasture grasslands of the community. （2） The three types of grassland forages have different types of growth and decline patterns, which are always in continuous fluctuations between each year, and the fluctuation coefficient and annual variability between the years are large. （3） The fluctuations of the mountain desert grassland and mountain grassland are reversible, while the mountain grassland The changes in the feeding value of the main groups of the meadows cannot be completely restored to the original state, but only approaching the equilibrium state, which is a manifestation of the degradation of the community's feeding value due to over-utilization.

Key words: forage value; fluctuation coefficient; annual rate of change

摘要：

【目的】研究放牧条件下草地群落质量动态。【方法】采用连续定位测定方法,分析1985~2001年间植物群落牧草饲用价值动态。【结果】（1）饲用价值评定上,荒漠草原草地植物群落中,良等牧草是群落植物组成的主体,占群落历年平均地上生物量的80.1%;草原草地植物群落中,优等牧草与良等牧草占群落地上生物量的59.5%;草甸草地组成群落牧草的饲用价值较低,中、低等牧草占历年平均值的91.6%。（2）牧草饲用价值动态上,各类型草地牧草的地上生物量均处于波动状态之下,草地类型不同,群落植物的消长变化规律不同,群落中饲用价值高的类群要较低的类群年变率大。【结论】（1）草地群落牧草饲用价值不稳定,受组成群落各类牧草地上生物量的波动影响较大;（2）3类草地牧草不同类群的数量消长模式,各年度间始终处于连续的波动状态,且年度之间波动系数、年变率较大;（3）山地荒漠草原、山地草原草地的波动具有可逆性,而山地草甸主要类群饲用价值变化,不具备可逆性,是过度利用导致群落饲用价值退化的表现。

关键词: 牧草饲用价值, 波动系数, 年变率

CLC Number:

ZHANG Xianhua, LI Jiangyan, ZHU Jinzhong. Evaluation and Dynamic Analysis of Forage Value of Main Grassland Types in the Middle Section of Tianshan Mountains[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(8): 2051-2057.

张鲜花, 李江艳, 朱进忠. 天山中段主要草地类型牧草饲用价值评价与动态分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(8): 2051-2057.

Figures/Tables 7

References 15

[1]	朱进忠. 草地资源学[M]. 北京: 中国农业科学出版社, 2010: 3-6, 13-18.
	ZHU Jinzhong. Grassland Resources[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural Science Press, 2010: 3-6, 13-18.
[2]	朱进忠, 靳瑰丽, 等. 伊犁绢蒿荒漠草地退化生态系统研究[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2013: 1-2.
	ZHU Jinzhong, JIN Guili, et al. Study on degraded ecosystem of Seriphidium transiliense desert grassland[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2013: 1-2.
[3]	许鹏. 新疆草地资源及其利用[M]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆科技卫生出版社, 1993: 98-100.
	XU Peng. Xinjiang grassland resources and its utilization[M]. Urumqi: Xinjiang Science and Technology Publishing House, 1993, 98-100.
[4]	中国科学院新疆综合考察队. 新疆地貌[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1985: 4-6.
	Xinjiang Comprehensive Investigation Team of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Xinjiang Landform[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 1985: 4-6.
[5]	中国科学院新疆综合考察队, 中国科学院植物研究所. 新疆植被及其利用[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1978: 85-91.
	Xinjiang Comprehensive Investigation Team of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Xinjiang vegetation and its utilization[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 1978: 85-91.
[6]	冯缨. 天山北坡中段草地多样性研究[D]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆农业大学, 2005.
	FENG Yin. Study on the grassland diversity in the middle section of the northern slope of Tianshan Mountains[D]. Urumqi: Xinjiang Agricultural University, 2005.
[7]	孟林. 草地评价[M]. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社, 2010: 142-179.
	MENG Lin. Grassland evaluation[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 2010: 142-179.
[8]	中华人民共和国农业部畜牧兽医司, 全国畜牧兽医总站. 中国草地资源[M]. 北京: 中国科学技术出版社, 1996: 385-386.
	Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China, National Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Station. China Grassland Resources[M]. Beijing: China Science and Technology Press, 1996, 385-386.
[9]	崔乃然. 新疆主要饲用植物志[M].(第一册) 乌鲁木齐: 新疆人民出版社, 1990, 143-144.
	CUI Nairan. Xinjiang Main Forage Plants[M].(Volume 1) Urumqi: Xinjiang People's Publishing House, 1990, 143-144.
[10]	张鲜花, 朱进忠, 吴咏梅. 天山北坡羊茅草原群落结构与数量特征的动态变化[J]. 草地学报, 2012, 20(5): 819-824.
	ZHANG Xianhua, ZHU Jinzhong, WU Yongmei. Dynamic of communitystructure and quantitative characteristics of Festuca ovin grassland in the northern slope of Tianshan mountains[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2012, 20(5): 819-824.
[11]	常虹, 孙海莲, 刘亚红, 等. 东乌珠穆沁草甸草原不同退化程度草地植物群落结构与多样性研究[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(1): 184-192.
	CHANG Hong, SUN Hailian, LIU Yahong, et al. Community structure and diversity under different degrees of degraded grassland in east Wuzhumuqin Meadow[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2020, 28(1): 184-192.
[12]	李博. 生态学[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2002: 151.
	LI Bo. Ecology[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2002: 151.
[13]	宋永昌. 植被生态学[M]. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社, 2001: 249-250.
	SONG Yongchang. Vegetation ecology[M]. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press, 2001: 249-250.
[14]	成湘. 不同封育年限下伊犁绢蒿荒漠草地群落动态变化[D]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆农业大学, 2016.
	CHENG Xiang. Dynamic changes of Seriphidium transiliensein desert grassland under different durations of closure[D]. Urumqi: Xinjiang Agricultural University, 2016.
[15]	郑振杰. 古田山5ha样地2007-2012物种多样性及优势种群动态更新[D]. 杭州: 浙江师范大学, 2018.
	ZHENG Zhenjie. Species diversity and dominant popolation dynamics in the 5ha plot in Gutianshan from 2007 to 2012[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Normal University, 2018.

草地类型 Grassland type	牧草种类 plant species	评价指标 Evaluation index					评定等级 Rating
草地类型 Grassland type	牧草种类 plant species	粗蛋白质 Crude protein（%）	粗纤维 Crude fiber（%）	家畜适口性 Livestock palatability	耐牧性 Grazing tolerance	冷季保存率 Cold season preservation rate	评定等级 Rating
山地荒漠草原 Mountain desert grassland	镰芒针茅 Stipa caucsica	9.15	24.3	喜食	强	良好	良等
	博洛特绢蒿 Seriphidium borotalense	8.87	26.8	喜食	强	良好	良等
	短柱苔草 Carex turkestanica	12.23	25.31	乐食	强	良好	良等
	刺旋花 Convolvulus tragacanthoide	5.86	32.21	可食	差	差	低等
山地草原 Mountain grassland	羊茅 Festuca ovina	8.71	28.09	嗜食	强	良好	优等
	针茅 Stipa capillta	10.24	25.55	喜食	强	良好	良等
	冷蒿 Artemisia frigida	10.33	24.34	喜食	强	良好	良等
	新疆亚菊 Ajania fastigiata	7.09	23.25	乐食	强	良好	中等
	万年蒿 Artemisia gmelinii	12.16	23.08	乐食	强	良好	中等
山地草甸 Mountain meadow	紫花鸢尾 Iris ruthenica	11.79	27.83	可食	强	良好	低等
	草原老鹳草 Geranium pratense	11.9	20.56	乐食	差	差	中等
	草地早熟禾 Poa pratensis	12.14	27.42	嗜食	强	良好	优等
	亚洲异燕麦 Helictrichon hookeri	7.94	33.34	喜食	强	良好	良等
	草原糙苏 Phlomis pratensis	10.54	21.37	可食	差	差	低等

草地类型 Grassland type	牧草种类 plant species	评价指标 Evaluation index					评定等级 Rating
草地类型 Grassland type	牧草种类 plant species	粗蛋白质 Crude protein（%）	粗纤维 Crude fiber（%）	家畜适口性 Livestock palatability	耐牧性 Grazing tolerance	冷季保存率 Cold season preservation rate	评定等级 Rating
山地荒漠草原 Mountain desert grassland	镰芒针茅 Stipa caucsica	9.15	24.3	喜食	强	良好	良等
	博洛特绢蒿 Seriphidium borotalense	8.87	26.8	喜食	强	良好	良等
	短柱苔草 Carex turkestanica	12.23	25.31	乐食	强	良好	良等
	刺旋花 Convolvulus tragacanthoide	5.86	32.21	可食	差	差	低等
山地草原 Mountain grassland	羊茅 Festuca ovina	8.71	28.09	嗜食	强	良好	优等
	针茅 Stipa capillta	10.24	25.55	喜食	强	良好	良等
	冷蒿 Artemisia frigida	10.33	24.34	喜食	强	良好	良等
	新疆亚菊 Ajania fastigiata	7.09	23.25	乐食	强	良好	中等
	万年蒿 Artemisia gmelinii	12.16	23.08	乐食	强	良好	中等
山地草甸 Mountain meadow	紫花鸢尾 Iris ruthenica	11.79	27.83	可食	强	良好	低等
	草原老鹳草 Geranium pratense	11.9	20.56	乐食	差	差	中等
	草地早熟禾 Poa pratensis	12.14	27.42	嗜食	强	良好	优等
	亚洲异燕麦 Helictrichon hookeri	7.94	33.34	喜食	强	良好	良等
	草原糙苏 Phlomis pratensis	10.54	21.37	可食	差	差	低等

牧草等级 Forage grade	年变率 Annual rate of change（%）													平均年变率Average annual rate of change（%）
牧草等级 Forage grade	1985	1986	1987	1988	1991	1992	1994	1995	1996	1998	1999	2000	2001	平均年变率Average annual rate of change（%）
优等牧草 Premium forage	-	37.3	75	-	-	-	-	26.9	-	3.8	51.9	-	50	40.8
良等牧草 Good forage	1.2	15.3	23	0.9	1.1	8.2	5.4	18.7	43.5	2.1	26	9.4	33.7	14.5
低等牧草 Lower forage	40.3	47.6	-	14.2	53.3	-	-	35.9	-	-	1.8	11.4	-	29.2

牧草等级 Forage grade	年变率 Annual rate of change（%）													平均年变率Average annual rate of change（%）
牧草等级 Forage grade	1985	1986	1987	1988	1991	1992	1994	1995	1996	1998	1999	2000	2001	平均年变率Average annual rate of change（%）
优等牧草 Premium forage	-	37.3	75	-	-	-	-	26.9	-	3.8	51.9	-	50	40.8
良等牧草 Good forage	1.2	15.3	23	0.9	1.1	8.2	5.4	18.7	43.5	2.1	26	9.4	33.7	14.5
低等牧草 Lower forage	40.3	47.6	-	14.2	53.3	-	-	35.9	-	-	1.8	11.4	-	29.2

牧草等级 Forage grade	年变率 Annual rate of change（%）													平均年变率Average annual rate of change（%）
牧草等级 Forage grade	1985	1986	1987	1988	1991	1992	1994	1995	1996	1998	1999	2000	2001	平均年变率Average annual rate of change（%）
优等牧草 Premium Pasture	33.2	12.5	39.1	40.8	30.2	53.9	25	25.6	29.9	14.6	34.1	63.4	31.5	23.2
良等牧草 Good forage	35.5	2.9	26.3	38.8	35.2	2.5	20.1	44.9	34.9	20.5	19.4	67.2	40.8	47.3
中等牧草 Medium pasture	42.7	9.8	8.9	6.7	15.7	21.8	32.7	27.6	38.1	32.3	9.2	17.5	46.7	45.8