欧宝体育

欢迎访问 欧宝体育,今天是

放牧家畜对(dui)东祁连(lian)山(shan)高寒灌丛草地枯(ku)落物层及水文功能的影(ying)响

宋美娟 徐长林 王琳 鱼小军

引用本文: 宋美娟,徐长林,王琳,鱼小军. 放牧家畜对东祁连山高寒灌丛草地枯落物层及水文功能的影响. 欧宝体育, 2021, 38(9): 1683-1693 doi: shu
Citation:  SONG M J, XU C L, WANG L, YU X J. Effects of grazing domestic animals on litter layer and hydrological function of alpine shrubland in Eastern Qilian Mountains. Pratacultural Science, 2021, 38(9): 1683-1693 doi: shu

放牧家畜对东祁连山高寒灌丛草地枯落物层及水文功能的影响

    作者简介: 宋美娟(1995-),女,内蒙古赤峰人,在读硕士生,主要从事草地资源与生态研究。E-mail: 2915059627@qq.com
    通讯作者: 鱼小军(1977-),男,甘肃陇西人,教授,博士,主要从事草地资源与生态研究。E-mail: yuxj@gsau.edu.cn
  • 基金项目: 国家自然科学基金(31760695)

摘要: 为探究放牧不同家畜对高寒灌丛草地枯落物层和土壤层的水文影响,于2020年7月 – 8月在东祁连山天祝高寒地区对放牧甘肃马鹿(Cervus elaphus kansuensis)和混牧牦牛(Bos grunniens)与藏羊(Ovis aries)的灌丛草地枯落物层和土壤层的持水性、持水速率、拦蓄量等特性进行了研究。结果表明,枯落物总厚度表现为混牧牦牛与藏羊样地(3.53 cm) > 放牧甘肃马鹿样地(2.83 cm),枯落物总储量表现为混牧牦牛与藏羊样地(219.45 g·m−2) > 放牧甘肃马鹿样地(92.86 g·m−2) (P < 0.05);混牧牦牛与藏羊样地的枯落物平均持水量和初始持水速率均大于放牧甘肃马鹿样地;枯落物平均最大持水量表现为混牧牦牛与藏羊样地(20.78 t·hm−2) > 放牧甘肃马鹿样地(10.71 t·hm−2),平均最大持水率表现为混牧牦牛与藏羊样地(221.00%) > 放牧甘肃马鹿样地(148.11%),平均最大拦蓄量表现为混牧牦牛与藏羊样地(939.21 t·hm−2) > 放牧甘肃马鹿样地(348.58 t·hm−2),以及有效拦蓄量表现为混牧牦牛与藏羊样地(627.52 t·hm−2) > 放牧甘肃马鹿样地(187.90 t·hm−2) (P < 0.05)。放牧甘肃马鹿样地灌丛间和灌丛内的浅层(0 − 40 cm)土壤含水率均显著高于混牧牦牛与藏羊样地,深层(40 − 100 cm)土壤相反;灌丛间0 – 30 cm土层容重表现为混牧牦牛与藏羊样地 > 放牧甘肃马鹿样地,灌丛内则相反;土壤初渗速率表现为放牧甘肃马鹿样地(10.98 mm·min−1) > 混牧牦牛与藏羊样地(6.92 mm·min−1),稳渗速率同样表现为放牧甘肃马鹿样地(7.12 mm·min−1) > 混牧牦牛与藏羊样地(5.90 mm·min−1)。综上所述,与单牧马鹿相比, 混牧牦牛与藏羊更有利于高寒灌丛草地水源涵养和水土保持功能的发挥。

English

    1. [1]

      杨路存, 李长斌, 宁祎, 聂秀青, 徐文华, 周国英.  青海高寒金露梅灌丛碳密度及其分配格局[J]. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(1): 62-70.
      YANG L C, LI C B, NING Y, NIE X Q, XU W H, ZHOU G Y.  Carbon density and its spatial distribution in the Potentilla fruticosa dominated alpine shrub in Qinghai, China[J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2017, 41(1): 62-70.

    2. [2]

      聂雪花. 祁连山灌木林水源涵养功能的研究. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学硕士学位论文, 2009.
      NIE X H. Study on water conservation function of shrub in Qilian mountains. Master Thesis. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University, 2009.

    3. [3]

      STARR G, OBERBHUER S F, AHLQUIST L E.  The photosynthetic response of Alaskan tundra plants to increased season length and soil warming[J]. Arctic Antarctic & Alpine Research, 2008, 40(1): 181-191.

    4. [4]

      王红义, 王顺利, 张克海.  祁连山高山灌丛土壤物理性质及水源涵养功能研究[J]. 林业科技通讯, 2018, (3): 19-21.
      WANG H Y, WANG S Y, ZHANG K H.  Study on soil physical properties and water conservation function of alpine shrubs in Qilian mountains[J]. Forest Science and Technology, 2018, (3): 19-21.

    5. [5]

      李红琴, 宋成刚, 张法伟, 李英年.  青海高寒区域金露梅灌丛草甸灌木和草本植物固碳量的比较[J]. 植物资源与环境学报, 2014, 23(3): 1-7. doi:
      LI H Q, SONG C G, ZHANG F W, LI Y N.  Comparsion on fixed carbon amount of shrub and herb of Potentilla fruticosa shrub meadow in alpine region of Qinghai Province[J]. Journal of Plant Resources and Environment, 2014, 23(3): 1-7. doi:

    6. [6]

      杨开恩, 杨雪梅, 祁玉德.  浅析祁连山水源涵养林保护意义及发展对策[J]. 甘肃科技, 2012, 28(3): 10-12, 15. doi:
      YANG K E, YANG X M, QI Y D.  A brief analysis of the significance and development countermeasures of water conservation forest protection in Qilian Mountains[J]. Gansu Science and Technology, 2012, 28(3): 10-12, 15. doi:

    7. [7]

      盛海彦, 曹广民, 李国荣, 周靖靖, 焦文月, 李吉鹏, 张平.  放牧干扰对祁连山高寒金露梅灌丛草甸群落的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2009, 18(1): 235-241. doi:
      SHENG H Y, CAO G M, LI G R, ZHOU J J, JIAO W Y, LI J P, ZHANG P.  Effect of grazing disturbance on plant community of alpine meadow dominated by Potentilla froticosa shrub on Qilian Mountain[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2009, 18(1): 235-241. doi:

    8. [8]

      盛海彦, 张春萍, 曹广民, 朱广芬.  放牧对祁连山高寒金露梅灌丛草甸土壤环境的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2009, 18(3): 1088-1093. doi:
      SHENG H Y, ZHANG C P, CAO G M, ZHU G F.  Effect of grazing on soil environment of alpine meadow dominated by Potentilla froticosa shrub on Qilian Mountain[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2009, 18(3): 1088-1093. doi:

    9. [9]

      KÜRSCHNER, H, HERZSCHUH U, WAGNER D.  Phytosociological studies in the north-eastern Tibetan Plateau (NW China): A first contribution to the subalpine scrub and alpine meadow vegetation[J]. Botanische Jahrbücher, 2005, 126(3): 273-315.

    10. [10]

      贾文雄, 王洁, 张禹舜, 刘亚荣.  祁连山南坡灌丛草甸生物量变化与水热因子的关系研究[J]. 地理科学, 2016, 36(8): 1243-1251.
      JIA W X, WANG J, ZHANG S Y, LIU Y R.  Biomass varitation of shrubbery meadow and relation with humidity and heat facts in the southren slop of the Qilian Mountains[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica., 2016, 36(8): 1243-1251.

    11. [11]

      刘旻霞.  亚高寒草甸不同坡向金露梅种群的空间分布格局及空间关联[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(6): 1817-1823.
      LIU M X.  Spatial distribution and spatial association of Potentilla fruticosa populations on different slope aspects in subalpine meadow[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2017, 28(6): 1817-1823.

    12. [12]

      于应文, 胡自治, 张德罡, 徐长林.  金露梅株丛的植物量及其空间分布的研究[J]. 甘肃农业大学学报, 1999, 34(3): 237-242.
      YU Y W, HU Z Z, ZHANG D G, XU C L.  Study on biomass and its distribution of Potentilla fruticosa[J]. Journal of Gansu Agricultural University, 1999, 34(3): 237-242.

    13. [13]

      赵维俊, 刘贤德, 张学龙, 金铭, 王顺利, 敬文茂, 牛赟, 马剑.  祁连山西水林区亚高山灌丛土壤入渗性能研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2015, 29(2): 106-110.
      ZHAO W J, LIU X D, ZHANG X L, JIN M, WANG S L, JING W M, NIU Y, MA J.  Study on soil infiltration capacity of sub-alpine shrub in Xishui forest zone of Qilian mountain[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2015, 29(2): 106-110.

    14. [14]

      赵永宏, 刘贤德, 张学龙, 牛赟, 赵维俊, 刘炳芳.  祁连山区亚高山灌丛土壤含水量的空间分布与月份变化规律[J]. 自然资源学报, 2016, 31(4): 672-681. doi:
      ZHAO Y H, LIU X D, ZHANG X L, NIU Y, ZHAO W J, LIU B F.  The spatial distribution and monthly variation of soil moisture of sub-alpine shrubs in Qilian mountaions[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2016, 31(4): 672-681. doi:

    15. [15]

      赵锦梅, 徐长林, 马瑞, 马维伟, 张富.  东祁连山不同高寒灌丛草地土壤抗蚀性研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2016, 30(5): 119-123.
      ZHAO J M, XU C L, MA R, MA W W, ZHANG F.  Study on soil anti-erodibility of different alpine shrub grassland in eastern Qilian Mountain[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2016, 30(5): 119-123.

    16. [16]

      刘亚荣, 贾文雄, 黄玫, 李悦悦, 武正丽, 李燕飞.  近51年来祁连山植被净初级生产力对气候变化的响应[J]. 西北植物学报, 2015, 35(3): 601-607. doi:
      LIU Y R, JIA W X, HUANG M, LI Y Y, WU Z L, ZHANG Y S, LI Y F.  Response of vegetation net primary productivity to climate change in the Qilian Mountains since recent 51 years[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica., 2015, 35(3): 601-607. doi:

    17. [17]

      陈京华. 祁连山植被NDVI变化特征及其对气候变化的响应. 兰州: 西北师范大学硕士学位论文, 2016.
      CHEN J H. Change characteristic of vegetation NDVI and its response to climate change in Qilian mountains. Master Thesis. Lanzhou: Northwest Normal University, 2016.

    18. [18]

      贾文雄, 赵珍, 俎佳星, 陈京华, 王洁, 丁丹.  祁连山不同植被类型的物候变化及其对气候的响应[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(23): 7826-7840.
      JIA W X, ZHAO Z, ZU J X, CHEN J H, WANG J, DING D.  Phenological variation in different vegetation types and their response to climate change in the Qilian mountains, China, 1982-2014[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2016, 36(23): 7826-7840.

    19. [19]

      马正锐, 程积民, 班松涛, 赵凌平.  宁夏森林枯落物储量与持水性能分析[J]. 水土保持学报, 2012, 26(4): 199-203, 238.
      MA Z R, CHENG J M, BAN S T, ZHAO L P.  Litter storage and water-holding characteristics of typical forest types in Ningxia[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2012, 26(4): 199-203, 238.

    20. [20]

      马任甜, 方瑛, 安韶山.  云雾山草地植物地上部分和枯落物的碳、氮、磷生态化学计量特征[J]. 土壤学报, 2016, 53(5): 1170-1180.
      MA R T, FANG Y, AN S S.  Ecological stoichiometry of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and C: N: P in shoots and litter of plants in grassland in Yunwu Mountain[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2016, 53(5): 1170-1180.

    21. [21]

      XIAO H, PENG Z, XU C L, ZHANG D G, CHAI J L, PAN T T, YU X J.  Yak and Tibetan sheep trampling inhibit reproductive and photosynthetic traits of Medicago ruthenicavar. Inschanica[J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2018, 190(9): 507-. doi:

    22. [22]

      杨良辰, 张楠.  沿坝地区3种混交林枯落物层与土壤层水源涵养能力[J]. 水土保持研究, 2019, 26(3): 253-258.
      YANG L C, ZHANG N.  Water conservation capacity of litter and soil layer in three mixed forests in along the Dam area[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2019, 26(3): 253-258.

    23. [23]

      郝弯弯, 赵鹏, 李思维, 谷建才.  御道口牧场不同类型防护林的枯落物水文效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33(6): 197-204.
      HAO W W, ZHAO P, LI S W, GU J C.  Hydrologic effects of different forest types shelterbelt litter in Yudaokou ranch[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2019, 33(6): 197-204.

    24. [24]

      中国科学院南京土壤研究所土壤物理研究室. 土壤物理性质测定方法. 北京: 科学出版社, 1978: 140-148.
      Institute of Soil Science, Academina Sinica, Nanjing. Methods for Determination of Soil Physical Properties. Beijing: Science Press, 1978: 140-148.

    25. [25]

      姚志诚, 刘振生, 王兆锭, 胡天华, 李志刚.  贺兰山野化牦牛冬春季食性[J]. 生态学报, 2011, 31(3): 673-679.
      YAO Z C, LIU Z S, WANG Z D, HU T H, LI Z G.  Winter and spring diet composition of feral yak in Helan Mountains, China[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2011, 31(3): 673-679.

    26. [26]

      何欢. 内蒙古高格斯台地区夏季和冬季甘肃马鹿食物组分比较研究. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学硕士学位论文, 2015.
      HE H. Comparison of Gansu wapiti ’s food components between summer and winter in the Gaogesitai National Nature Reserve, Inner Mongolia, China. Master Thesis. Harbin: Northeast Forestry University, 2015.

    27. [27]

      叶晶, 吴家森, 张金池, 童志鹏.  不同经营年限山核桃林地枯落物和土壤的水文效应[J]. 水土保持通报, 2014, 34(3): 87-91.
      YE J, WU J S, ZHANG J C, TONG Z P.  Hydrological effects of litters and soil in Carga cathayensis forest with different managing time[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2014, 34(3): 87-91.

    28. [28]

      宣立辉, 佟彦国, 张军, 谷建才, 黄冬梅.  冀北山区油松人工林林分密度对枯落物层和土壤层水文特征的影响[J]. 林业与生态科学, 2019, 34(1): 15-23.
      XUAN L H, TONG Y G, ZHANG J, GU J C, HUANG D M.  Effects of thinning on hydrological characteristics of forest litter in Pinus tabulaeformis plantation in northern Hebei[J]. Forestry and Ecological Sciences, 2019, 34(1): 15-23.

    29. [29]

      孙欧文, 蔡建国, 吴家森, 葛宏立.  浙江省典型森林类型枯落物及林下土壤水文特性[J]. 水土保持研究, 2019, 26(1): 118-123.
      SUN O W, CAI J G, WU J S, GE H L.  Hydrological characteristics of litter and forest soil of typical forest types in Zhejiang Province[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2019, 26(1): 118-123.

    30. [30]

      吴强, 楚聪颖, 张鹏, 宋伟, 元文革, 陆贵巧, 谷建才.  滦河上游7种典型林分类型水土保持功能[J]. 水土保持学报, 2015, 29(5): 40-44.
      WU Q, CHU C Y, ZHANG P, SONG W, YUAN W G, LU G Q, GU J Q.  Soil and water conservation function of 7 typical forest types in the upper reaches of the Luanhe River[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2015, 29(5): 40-44.

    31. [31]

      王安宁, 蔺鑫, 穆枫, 李玉灵, 李晓红.  冀北木兰围场沙荒坡地不同坡位黄柳沙障内枯落物的持水性能[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2018, 40(1): 98-107.
      WANG A N, LIN X, MU F, LI Y L, LI X H.  Water holding capacity of litter at different slope positions of sand slope in Salix gordejevii sand barrier of Mulan paddock of northern Heibei Province, northern China[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2018, 40(1): 98-107.

    32. [32]

      孙立博, 余新晓, 陈丽华, 贾国栋, 常晓敏, 刘自强.  坝上高原杨树人工林的枯落物及土壤水源涵养功能退化[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33(1): 104-110.
      SUN L B, YU X X, CHEN L H, JIA G D, CHANG X M, LIU Z Q.  Degradation of litter and soil water conservation function of poplar plantation in Bashang plateau[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2019, 33(1): 104-110.

    33. [33]

      王谦, 孙保平, 丁国栋, 赵国平, 邓继峰, 高广磊, 王新星, 李旭.  陕西榆林樟子松人工林土壤及枯落物水文效应[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 43(8): 123-132.
      WANG Q, SUN B P, DING G D, ZHAO G P, DENG J F, GAO G L, WANG X X, LI X.  Hydrological effects of soil and litters in Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica plantations in Yunlin, Shannxi[J]. Journal of Northwest A & F University (Natural Science Edition), 2015, 43(8): 123-132.

    34. [34]

      张平, 刘贤德, 张学龙, 赵维俊, 敬文茂, 王顺利.  祁连山林草复合流域灌木林水文生态功能研究[J]. 干旱区地理, 2013, 36(5): 922-929.
      ZHANG P, LIU X D, ZHANG X L, ZHAO W J, JING W M, WANG S L.  Shrubbery eco-hydrological effect of forest-grass catchment of Qilian mountains[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2013, 36(5): 922-929.

    35. [35]

      BELACHEW A, MEKURIA W, NACHIMUTHU K.  Factors influencing adoption of soil and water conservation practices in the northwest Ethiopian highlands[J]. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 2020, 8(1): 80-89. doi:

    36. [36]

      赵锦梅, 王彦辉, 王紫, 杨鹏.  祁连山东段金强河河谷高寒草地土壤的水文特征[J]. 欧宝体育, 2020, 37(2): 256-265. doi:
      ZHAO J M, WANG Y H, WANG Z, YANG P.  Soil hydrological characteristics of alpine grasslands in the Jinqiang River valley in eastern Qilian Mountains[J]. Pratacultural science, 2020, 37(2): 256-265. doi:

    37. [37]

      SASAL M C, CASTIGLIONI M G, WILSON M G.  Effect of crop sequences on soil properties and runoff on natural-rainfall erosion plots under no tillage[J]. Soil & Tillage Research, 2010, 108(1/2): 24-29.

    1. [1]

      刘越李雨珊单姝瑶杨磊徐浩杰 . 甘肃祁连山国家级自然保护区水源涵养量的时空变化. 欧宝体育, 2021, 38(8): 1420-1431. doi: 

    2. [2]

      巩飞罗勇田犀于慧 . 张家口坝上地区水源涵养功能的重要性评估. 欧宝体育, 2020, 37(7): 1337-1344. doi: 

    3. [3]

      周文静袁泽湖李熙成郭淑珍兰贵生闫佰鹏李发弟李万宏乐祥鹏 . 3种不同类型藏羊的屠宰性能和肉品质的比较分析. 欧宝体育, 2019, 36(7): 1869-1878. doi: 

    4. [4]

      马培杰李亚娇潘多锋陈本建李心诚王德利 . 牦牛干扰下草原毛虫对小嵩草高寒草甸植物群落特征的影响. 欧宝体育, 2017, 11(4): 698-705. doi: 

    5. [5]

      薛艳锋郝力壮刘书杰 . 玉树州藏嵩草草地牧草营养价值评定与营养载畜量. 欧宝体育, 2015, 9(10): 1660-1667. doi: 

    6. [6]

      罗惦柴林荣常生华程云湘侯扶江 . 我国青藏高原地区牦牛草地放牧系统管理及优化. 欧宝体育, 2017, 11(4): 881-891. doi: 

    7. [7]

      王立红王悦王德凯解李娜马成仓 . 放牧对小叶锦鸡儿种群数量特征的影响. 欧宝体育, 2018, 12(4): 800-806. doi: 

    8. [8]

      夏悦王国会沈禹颖马景永 . 黄土高原草地植被的嬗变. 欧宝体育, 2021, 38(9): 1869-1881. doi: 

    9. [9]

      周学兰吴晓云梁春年郭宪丁学智褚敏王宏博裴杰包鹏甲阎萍 . 基于CNKI数据库的牦牛文献计量分析. 欧宝体育, 2019, 36(8): 2151-2158. doi: 

    10. [10]

      李令贺慧丹未亚西杨永胜罗谨李红琴李英年周华坤 . 三江源农牧交错区植被群落及土壤固碳持水能力对退耕还草措施的响应. 欧宝体育, 2017, 11(10): 1999-2008. doi: 

    11. [11]

      郑群英刘刚肖冰雪陈莉敏陈立坤张洪轩倪泽霖 . 放牧对川西北高寒草甸植物物种丰富度和生物量的影响. 欧宝体育, 2017, 11(7): 1390-1396. doi: 

    12. [12]

      范小红杨得玉郝力壮刘书杰牛建章张晓卫孙璐张成图李吉业 . 青海省海晏县牧场牧草营养品质全年动态. 欧宝体育, 2017, 11(11): 2359-2365. doi: 

    13. [13]

      侯明杰张霞石福于王虎成 . 高寒区牛内脏组织的采集及其RNA的贮存. 欧宝体育, 2018, 12(3): 645-653. doi: 

    14. [14]

      鲁春霞 . 冀西北自然要素变化与水源涵养功能保持研究. 欧宝体育, 2020, 37(7): 1215-1217. doi: 

    15. [15]

      ??崴何京丽??浩??荣 . 论牧区水土保持生态修复技术与模式. 欧宝体育, 2009, 3(1): 40-44.

    16. [16]

      郭晓朦黄茹何丙辉沈普翠李天阳 . 不同水土保持林草措施对三峡库区土壤理化性质的影响. 欧宝体育, 2016, 10(4): 555-563. doi: 

    17. [17]

      肖翔李多才安玉峰马周文武哲彭泽晨侯扶江 . 甘肃马鹿夏季牧场草地植物群落特征. 欧宝体育, 2019, 36(7): 1693-1705. doi: 

    18. [18]

      杨志娟张相锋董世魁 . 甘肃临夏农牧交错区牦牛、犏牛易地育肥试验. 欧宝体育, 2015, 9(1): 119-124. doi: 

    19. [19]

      胡俊奇陈先江侯扶江 . 高寒草原群落特征对甘肃马鹿冬季放牧的响应. 欧宝体育, 2016, 10(6): 1028-1034. doi: 

    20. [20]

      马周文王宏于应文常生华周青平侯扶江 . 甘肃马鹿冬季牧场牧草再生性对刈割的短期响应. 欧宝体育, 2018, 12(1): 157-164. doi: 

  • 欧宝体育

    图 1  近33年各样地载畜量变化状况

    Figure 1.  Variation of grazing capacity of each plot in recent 33 year

    GWP表(biao)示单牧甘肃马鹿样地,YTSP表(biao)示混牧牛藏羊样地;下同(tong)。

    GWP is the plot of Cervus elaphus kansuensis, and YTSP is the plot of Yak and Tibetan sheep; this is applicable for the following figures and tables as well.

    图 2  放牧不同家畜样地的枯落物持水能力

    Figure 2.  Water-holding capacity of litter in different grazing livestock plots

    图 3  放牧不同家畜样地的枯落物持水过程

    Figure 3.  Water-holding process of the litter in different livestock grazing plots

    图 4  放牧不同家畜样地的枯落物吸水速率变化过程

    Figure 4.  Changing process of water-holding speed of litter in grazing different livestock plots

    图 5  放牧不同家畜样地的枯落物最大拦蓄量和有效拦蓄量

    Figure 5.  Largest retaining content and effective retaining content of litter in different livestock grazing plots

    图 6  放牧不同家畜样地的土壤含水率特征

    Figure 6.  Characteristics of soil water content in different livestock grazing plots

    图 7  放牧不同家畜样地的土壤容重特征

    Figure 7.  Characteristics of soil bulk density in different livestock grazing plots

    图 8  放牧不同家畜样地土壤入渗速率与浸水时间的关系

    Figure 8.  Relationship between soil infiltration rate and immersion time in different livestock grazing plots

    表 1  放牧不同家畜样地灌丛植被调查情况

    Table 1.  Survey of shrub vegetation in different livestock grazing plots

    样地
    Plot
    灌丛植被
    Shrub vegetation
    平均高度
    Average height/cm
    平均生物量
    Average biomass/(g·m−2)
    总盖度
    Total coverage/%
    GWP杯腺柳 + 小叶金露梅 + 高山绣线菊
    Salix cupularis + Potentilla parvifolia + Spiraea alpina
    38.033396.6631.14
    YTSP杯腺柳 + 小叶金露梅 + 高山绣线菊
    Salix cupularis + Potentilla parvifolia + Spiraea alpina
    82.475323.1567.97
    下载: 导出CSV

    表 2  放牧不同家畜样地的枯落物厚度和储量

    Table 2.  Thickness and storage of litter in different livestock grazing plots

    样地
    Plot
    枯落物厚度 Thickness of litter/cm枯落物储量 Storage of litter/(t·hm−2)
    未分解层
    Non-decomposed
    layer
    半分解层
    Fermentation
    layer
    总厚度
    Total
    未分解层
    Non-decomposed
    layer
    比例
    Proportion/%
    半分解层
    Fermentation
    layer
    比例
    Proportion/%
    总储量
    Total
    GWP1.50 ± 0.00b1.33 ± 0.17a2.83 ± 0.17b63.70 ± 6.18a68.6029.16 ± 4.04b31.4092.86 ± 0.10b
    YTSP2.07 ± 0.07a1.43 ± 0.03a3.53 ± 0.03a135.22 ± 22.37a61.6284.23 ± 7.44a38.38219.45 ± 0.15a
     同列不同字母表示不同放牧样地之间差异显著(P < 0.05);下同。
     Different lowercase letters within the same column indicate significant differences between different grazing plots; this is applicable for the following tables and figures as well.
    下载: 导出CSV
    欧宝体育
  • 加载中
图(8)表(2)
计量
  • PDF下载量:  12
  • 文章访问数:  1743
  • HTML全文浏览量:  313
文章相关
  • 通讯作者:  鱼小军, yuxj@gsau.edu.cn
  • 收稿日期:  2020-10-19
  • 接受日期:  2020-12-30
  • 网络出版日期:  2021-05-31
  • 刊出日期:  2021-09-15
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈(shen)阳(yang)化(hua)工大(da)学(xue)材料科学(xue)与工程学(xue)院 沈(shen)阳(yang) 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

/

返回文章
欧宝体育