中蒙毗邻小针茅草原放牧生态学比较研究
|
摘要
中国内蒙古和蒙古国共同占据着蒙古高原的主体部分。由于各种因素的干扰,中蒙两国草原生态环境已存在不同程度的退化。对蒙古高原草原放牧生态学的系统对比研究尚未见报道。因此本论文选取中蒙两国毗邻小针茅草原类型2个样地进行对比研究,研究内容包括植被群落多样性、植物功能群特征、主要植物营养特性、表层土壤理化特性等。以期探寻不同放牧方式的生态学差异,为蒙古高原小针茅草原生态环境保护和合理利用提供理论依据。主要研究结果如下：
1植被群落特性对比研究表明,建群种和优势种重要值表现为四季游牧(FSNG)>定居放牧(SG);一年生植物重要值表现为SG>FSNG。说明内蒙古地区长期定居放牧后导致原生植被中建群种的作用减弱,一年生植物大量增加,植被退化。
2植物营养成分分析结果表明,FSNG的氮、可溶性糖、磷、钾含量显著或极显著高于SG。建群种植物营养成分分析结果表明FSNG显著或极显著高于SG；而一年生植物营养成分变化规律与建群种相反,FSNG显著或极显著低于SG。总体结果表明FSNG植物营养水平高于SG。
3植物光合色素在不同样地的植物类群间存在显著差异,建群种植物光合色素平均含量为FSNG>SG;一年生植物光合色素变化规律为SG>FSNG。
植物营养(氮、可溶性糖、磷、钾含量)与光合色素含量相关分析均呈正相关关系,其中磷、糖与光合色素间的相关性比氮、钾的相关性高。
4土壤物理特性研究表明,FSNG表层土含水量显著大于SG; SG砂土含量显著高于FSNG,而轻壤土和中壤土含量显著低于FSNG。土壤化学特性研究表明FSNG表土有机质、C/N、全氮、碱解氮、全磷、速效磷和速效钾含量均显著高于SG。而SG表层土pH值和全钾含量显著高于FSNG。说明内蒙古地区长期定居放牧后,导致原生植被表层土壤理化特性发生变化,土壤营养水平下降。
5土壤与植被群落特征相关分析表明,植被群落高度、盖度和重要值均与砂土、砂壤土含量、pH值及全钾含量间基本呈负相关,与土壤其他特性间基本存在正相关。植物营养与土壤特性相关分析表明,植物各营养指标与土壤pH间均呈负相关,可溶性糖与土壤全钾间呈负相关,各营养指标与其余土壤特性间基本呈正相关。群落多样性指数与土壤特性间相关分析表明,群落多样性指数与砂土、pH和全钾间均呈负相关,与其他指标间基本存在正相关性。
相关分析结果说明土壤砂化和盐碱化增加不利于植被群落的正常发育,降低其营养水平、生产性能和生态效益。
6比较研究结果表明,内蒙古小针茅草原植被严重退化,主要原因可能是由于长期定居放牧,定居点附近超载过牧,植被没有足够恢复生长期,植被枯草盖度明显低于蒙古四季游牧,表层土壤长期得不到营养补给土壤营养水平长期不平衡造成物理性质砂化和盐碱化增加,植被营养缺乏后导致植被退化。
Inner Mongolia and Mongolia jointly occupy the main part of the Mongolian Plateau. Due to various factors, Chinese and Mongolian grassland ecological environment have varying degrees of degradation. The study of grasslands on the Mongolian Plateau of a grazing ecology has not been reported. Therefore, in this study, we chose two semi-desert steppes which were adjacent in China and in Mongolia and both of them were with two different grazing(FSNG and SG).The study includes plant community diversity, plant functional group characteristics, the main features of plant nutrition, soil physical and chemical characteristics and so on to explore the ecological differences with different grazing to provide theory that was to the Mongolian Plateau semi-desert grassland ecological environment protection and rational use of available theory. The major findings are as follows:
1 The result of vegetation community characteristics in Mongolian Plateau semi-desert grassland showed that the value of constructive species and the dominant species was FSNG(four seasonal nomadic grazing)>SG(settled grazing), the annuals important value was SG>FSNG It meant that the effect of species declined after the long-term settled grazing in Inner Mongolia, annual plants increased and the vegetation degenerated.
2 The analysis of plant nutrition showed that the value of Nitrogen, Soluble sugar, Phosphorus, Potassium were Mongolia's nomadic seasons plot significantly or very significantly higher than the plot of Inner Mongolia. Not similarly constructive species of plant nutrient analysis showed that the value of plots with FSNG in Mongolian was significantly or very significantly higher than the plots with SG in Inner Mongolia. However, the nutrition of annual plants was in contrast with the constructive species. In short, plant nutrition of plots with FSNG in semi-desert grassland Mongolia more than in semi-desert grassland Inner Mongolia.
3 There was significant difference between the Photosynthetic pigments of constructive species and the one of Annual, the Photosynthetic pigments of constructive species was SG>FSNG and the one of Annual was FSNG>SG. The average content of constructive species photosynthetic pigments was FSNG in Mongolian higher than other plots in Inner Mongolia, while the photosynthetic pigments of annual plant species was opponent. The relative analysis between plant nutrition (nitrogen, soluble sugar, phosphorus, and potassium) and photosynthetic pigment showed that both of them were positive correlation relationship, in which the correlation between phosphorus, sugar and photosynthetic pigments better than the correlation between N and K.
4 The research of soil physical properties showed that the surface soil water content of the plots with FSNG in Mongolian was more than SG in Inner Mongolia, the sand content of the plots with SG in Inner Mongolia more than FSNG in Mongolian, but the Light loam and medium loam content were both less than FSNG in Mongolian. The research of soil chemical properties showed that the surface soil organic matter, C/N, total nitrogen, available nitrogen, total phosphorus, available phosphorus and potassium with FSNG in Mongolian were significantly higher than with SG in Inner Mongolia, but the pH and the total K were opponent. It meant that the soil physical and chemical properties of original vegetation had changed and the level of soil nutrient had gone down.
5 The correlation analysis of soil and community characteristics showed that there were negative correlation between vegetation community characteristics (community height, coverage and importance values) and sand, sandy loam, pH, and total K while were positive correlation between other Soil characteristics. The analysis of plant nutrition and soil characteristics showed that there were negative correlation between nutritional indices of plants and soil pH. Soluble sugar and total K were negative correlation. Nutritional indices of plants and the rest of soil characteristics were positive correlations. The correlation analysis of species diversity index and soil characteristics showed that there were negative correlation between species diversity index and sand, pH and total K while were positive correlation with other indicators.
6 All analysis could show the reason for the degradation of semi-desert grassland in Mongolian Plateau was mainly due to the imbalances of soil nutrient which caused the changes of physical properties. The vegetation cover sub-tilis of semi-desert steppe region of Inner Mongolia-grazing that was Over-grazing long time was significantly lower than that with FSNG in Mongolia, which led surface soil to could not get nutrient long-term and appeared Serious soil desertification. Soil sand severe degree. Lack of nutrition resulted in vegetation degradation.
1植被群落特性对比研究表明,建群种和优势种重要值表现为四季游牧(FSNG)>定居放牧(SG);一年生植物重要值表现为SG>FSNG。说明内蒙古地区长期定居放牧后导致原生植被中建群种的作用减弱,一年生植物大量增加,植被退化。
2植物营养成分分析结果表明,FSNG的氮、可溶性糖、磷、钾含量显著或极显著高于SG。建群种植物营养成分分析结果表明FSNG显著或极显著高于SG；而一年生植物营养成分变化规律与建群种相反,FSNG显著或极显著低于SG。总体结果表明FSNG植物营养水平高于SG。
3植物光合色素在不同样地的植物类群间存在显著差异,建群种植物光合色素平均含量为FSNG>SG;一年生植物光合色素变化规律为SG>FSNG。
植物营养(氮、可溶性糖、磷、钾含量)与光合色素含量相关分析均呈正相关关系,其中磷、糖与光合色素间的相关性比氮、钾的相关性高。
4土壤物理特性研究表明,FSNG表层土含水量显著大于SG; SG砂土含量显著高于FSNG,而轻壤土和中壤土含量显著低于FSNG。土壤化学特性研究表明FSNG表土有机质、C/N、全氮、碱解氮、全磷、速效磷和速效钾含量均显著高于SG。而SG表层土pH值和全钾含量显著高于FSNG。说明内蒙古地区长期定居放牧后,导致原生植被表层土壤理化特性发生变化,土壤营养水平下降。
5土壤与植被群落特征相关分析表明,植被群落高度、盖度和重要值均与砂土、砂壤土含量、pH值及全钾含量间基本呈负相关,与土壤其他特性间基本存在正相关。植物营养与土壤特性相关分析表明,植物各营养指标与土壤pH间均呈负相关,可溶性糖与土壤全钾间呈负相关,各营养指标与其余土壤特性间基本呈正相关。群落多样性指数与土壤特性间相关分析表明,群落多样性指数与砂土、pH和全钾间均呈负相关,与其他指标间基本存在正相关性。
相关分析结果说明土壤砂化和盐碱化增加不利于植被群落的正常发育,降低其营养水平、生产性能和生态效益。
6比较研究结果表明,内蒙古小针茅草原植被严重退化,主要原因可能是由于长期定居放牧,定居点附近超载过牧,植被没有足够恢复生长期,植被枯草盖度明显低于蒙古四季游牧,表层土壤长期得不到营养补给土壤营养水平长期不平衡造成物理性质砂化和盐碱化增加,植被营养缺乏后导致植被退化。
Inner Mongolia and Mongolia jointly occupy the main part of the Mongolian Plateau. Due to various factors, Chinese and Mongolian grassland ecological environment have varying degrees of degradation. The study of grasslands on the Mongolian Plateau of a grazing ecology has not been reported. Therefore, in this study, we chose two semi-desert steppes which were adjacent in China and in Mongolia and both of them were with two different grazing(FSNG and SG).The study includes plant community diversity, plant functional group characteristics, the main features of plant nutrition, soil physical and chemical characteristics and so on to explore the ecological differences with different grazing to provide theory that was to the Mongolian Plateau semi-desert grassland ecological environment protection and rational use of available theory. The major findings are as follows:
1 The result of vegetation community characteristics in Mongolian Plateau semi-desert grassland showed that the value of constructive species and the dominant species was FSNG(four seasonal nomadic grazing)>SG(settled grazing), the annuals important value was SG>FSNG It meant that the effect of species declined after the long-term settled grazing in Inner Mongolia, annual plants increased and the vegetation degenerated.
2 The analysis of plant nutrition showed that the value of Nitrogen, Soluble sugar, Phosphorus, Potassium were Mongolia's nomadic seasons plot significantly or very significantly higher than the plot of Inner Mongolia. Not similarly constructive species of plant nutrient analysis showed that the value of plots with FSNG in Mongolian was significantly or very significantly higher than the plots with SG in Inner Mongolia. However, the nutrition of annual plants was in contrast with the constructive species. In short, plant nutrition of plots with FSNG in semi-desert grassland Mongolia more than in semi-desert grassland Inner Mongolia.
3 There was significant difference between the Photosynthetic pigments of constructive species and the one of Annual, the Photosynthetic pigments of constructive species was SG>FSNG and the one of Annual was FSNG>SG. The average content of constructive species photosynthetic pigments was FSNG in Mongolian higher than other plots in Inner Mongolia, while the photosynthetic pigments of annual plant species was opponent. The relative analysis between plant nutrition (nitrogen, soluble sugar, phosphorus, and potassium) and photosynthetic pigment showed that both of them were positive correlation relationship, in which the correlation between phosphorus, sugar and photosynthetic pigments better than the correlation between N and K.
4 The research of soil physical properties showed that the surface soil water content of the plots with FSNG in Mongolian was more than SG in Inner Mongolia, the sand content of the plots with SG in Inner Mongolia more than FSNG in Mongolian, but the Light loam and medium loam content were both less than FSNG in Mongolian. The research of soil chemical properties showed that the surface soil organic matter, C/N, total nitrogen, available nitrogen, total phosphorus, available phosphorus and potassium with FSNG in Mongolian were significantly higher than with SG in Inner Mongolia, but the pH and the total K were opponent. It meant that the soil physical and chemical properties of original vegetation had changed and the level of soil nutrient had gone down.
5 The correlation analysis of soil and community characteristics showed that there were negative correlation between vegetation community characteristics (community height, coverage and importance values) and sand, sandy loam, pH, and total K while were positive correlation between other Soil characteristics. The analysis of plant nutrition and soil characteristics showed that there were negative correlation between nutritional indices of plants and soil pH. Soluble sugar and total K were negative correlation. Nutritional indices of plants and the rest of soil characteristics were positive correlations. The correlation analysis of species diversity index and soil characteristics showed that there were negative correlation between species diversity index and sand, pH and total K while were positive correlation with other indicators.
6 All analysis could show the reason for the degradation of semi-desert grassland in Mongolian Plateau was mainly due to the imbalances of soil nutrient which caused the changes of physical properties. The vegetation cover sub-tilis of semi-desert steppe region of Inner Mongolia-grazing that was Over-grazing long time was significantly lower than that with FSNG in Mongolia, which led surface soil to could not get nutrient long-term and appeared Serious soil desertification. Soil sand severe degree. Lack of nutrition resulted in vegetation degradation.
引文
1 刘振国.内蒙古退化草原对不同类型干扰的响应研究[D].中国科学院研究生院博士学位论文，2006
2 姚拓,王刚,张德罡,等.天祝高寒草地植被,土壤及土壤微生物时间动态的比较[J].生态学报,2006,26(6)：1926-1932
3 常会宁,夏景新.放牧制度及其评价[J].国外畜牧学—草原与牧草.1994,(4)：9-14
4 敖仁其,胡尔查.内蒙古草原牧区现行放牧制度评价与模式选择[J].内蒙古社会科学(汉文版),2007,28(3)：90-92
5 韩茂莉.历史时期草原民族游牧方式初探[M].中国经济史研究,2003
6 祁永.放牧对草原群落特征及种群繁殖特性的影响[M].中国农业大学博士学位论文,2005
7 韩国栋,卫智军,许志信.短花针茅草原划区轮牧试验研究[J].内蒙古农业大学学报,2001,(1)：60-67
8 汪诗平,陈佐忠,王艳芳等.绵羊生产系统对不同放牧制度的响应[J].中国草地,1999,3：42-50
9 郭学斌.蒙古草原现状及生态环境保护[J].山西林业科技,2005,(1)：17-19
10 Mcnaughton S J.Compensatory plant growth as a response to herbivory[J].Oikos, 1983,40:329-336.
11 中国沙漠化(土地退化)防治研究课题组,中国沙漠化(土地退化)防治研究[M].北京：中国环境科学出版社,1998,58-62
12 Laycock, W. A., D. Loper, F. W. Oberrmiller, L. Smith et al. Grazing on Public Lands [M] CAST Rep,1996
13 Heady, H. F. Continuous Vs. Specialized Grazing Systems:A Review and Application to the California Annual Type[J]Range Mgt.1961,14 (4):182-193
14 李博.中国北方草地退化及对策[J].中国农业科学,1997,30(6)：1-9
15 王志民.内蒙古草原沙化惊人[N].人民日报,2000
16 李世英,萧运峰.内蒙呼盟莫达木吉地区羊草草原放牧演替阶段的初步划分[J].植物生态学与地植物学丛刊,1965,3(2)：200-217
17 李永宏,汪诗平.放牧对草原植物的影响[J].中国草地,1999,3：11-19
18 赵新权,张耀生,周兴民.高寒草甸畜牧业可持续发展：理论与实践[J].资源科学,2000,22(4)：50-61
19 陈佐忠.沙尘暴的发生与草地生态治理[J].中国草地,2001,(3)：731-741
20 王仁忠.放牧影响下羊草种群生物量形成动态的研究[J].应用生态学报,1997,8(5)：505-509
21 彭祺,王宁.不同放牧制度对草地植被的影响[J].农业科学研究,2005,26(1)：26-30
22 卫智军,杨静,杨尚明.短花针茅荒漠草原不同放牧制度群落稳定性研究[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(6)：121-124
23 Huston M. a general.hypothesis of species diversity [J/OL] am.net.1979,13:81-101
24 白永飞,陈佐忠.锡林河流域羊草草原植物物种和功能群的长期变异性及其对群落稳定性的影响[J].植物生态学报,2000,24(6)：641-647
25 李永宏.草原生态系统持续管理原则：生物多样性与生产力的维持.见：李博主编,现代生态学讲座[M].北京：科学出版社.1995：79-82
26 Welch D. Scott D. Studies in the grazing of healthier moorland in northeast Scotland. VI.20 year trends in botanical composition [J]. Journal of Applied Ecology,1995, 32:596-611
27 侯扶江,杨中艺.放牧对草地的作用[J].生态学报,2006.26(1)：245-261
28 徐广平,张德罡,徐长林,等.放牧干扰对东祁连山高寒草地植物群落物种多样性的影响[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2005,40(6)：789-796
29 陈云云,谢应忠.退化草地恢复过程中植被与环境动态特征研究[J].宁夏农学院学报,2004,25(1)：21-25
30 Marcelo S., Mario G., Avi. P., Eugene D. U. And Jaime K. Vegetation response to grazing management in a Mediterranean herbaceous community:a functional group approach[J]. Journal of Applied Ecology,2000,37:224-237
31 Mclachlan J. S, Foster R. D. Fabian Menal led. Anthropogenic ties to late-successional structure and composition in four New England Hemlock stands [J]. Ecology,2000,81 (3):717-733
32 Hodgson J. Variations in the surface characteristics of the sward and the short-term rate of herbage intake by calves and lambs [J]. Grass and Forage Science,1981,36:49-57
33 王玉辉,何兴元.放牧强度对羊草草原的影响[J].草地学报,2002,10(1)：45-49
34 薄涛.内蒙古草甸草原放牧退化演替研究[D].内蒙古农业大学硕士论文,2009
35 任继周,朱兴运.中国河西走廊草地农业的基本格局和它的系统相悖—草原退化的机理初探[J].草业学报1995,4(1)：69-80
36 Belsky A J. Does herbivory benefit plants A review of the evidence [M]. American Naturalist,1986,127:870-892
37 李金花,李镇清,任继周.放牧对草原植物的影响[J].草业学报,2002,11(1)：4-11
38 Tardiff S E, Stanford J A. Grizzly bear digging:effects on subalpine meadow plants in relation to mineral nitrogen availability [J]. Ecology.1998,79:2219-2228
39 Unkovich M, Sanford P, Pate J et al. Effects of grazing on plant and soil nitrogen relations of pasture-crop rotations [J]. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 1998,49:475-485
40 张岁岐,山仑.植物水分利用效率及其研究进展[J].干旱地区农业研究,2002,12(1)：1-5
41 蒙荣,杨劫等.不同放牧制度对大针茅草原营养成分及其消化率的影响[J].华南农业大学学 报.2004,25(2)：45-48
42 韩友吉,陈桂琛,周国英.青海湖地区高寒草原植物个体特征对放牧的响应[J].中国科学院研究生院学报,2006,23：118-124
43 Haynes R J, Williams P H. Nutrient cycling and soil fertility in the grazed pasture ecosystem. Adv. Agron,1993,49:119-199.
44 贾树海,崔学明,李绍良,等.牧压梯度上土壤物理性质的变化[A]：中国科学院内蒙古草原生态系统定位研究站编.草原生态系统研究(第5集).北京：科学出版社,1996.12-16
45 Song BY. Effects of Several Grand factors on evapo transpiration from the steppe communities. Acta Phytaecol Sin,1996,20(6):485-493
46 红梅,陈有君,李艳龙,等.不同放牧强度对土壤含水量及地上生物量的影响[J].内蒙古农业科技(土肥专辑),2001：25-26
47 姚爱兴,王培.不同放牧强度下奶牛对多年生黑麦草／白三叶草地土壤特性的影响[J].草地学报.1995，3(3)：95-102
48 戎郁萍,韩建国,王培,等.放牧强度对草地土壤理化性质的影响[J].中国草地,2001,23(4)：41-47
49 Green wood K L, Macleod D A, HutchinsonK J. Long term stocking rate effects soil physical properties [J].Aus. J.Exp.Agric,1997,37:413-419
50 Hiernaux P, Bielders C L, Valentin C, et al. Effects of livestock grazing on physical and chemical properties of sandy soils in Sahelian rangelands. J. Arid Environ,1999,41:231-245.
51 张蕴薇,韩建国,李志强.放牧强度对土壤物理性质的影响[J].草地学报,2002,10(1)：74-78
52 周丽艳,王明玖,韩国栋.不同强度放牧对贝加尔针茅草原群落和土壤理化性质的影响[J].干旱区资源与环境,2005,19(7)：182-187
53 杨智明,王宁,张志强.放牧对草原生态系统的影响[J].宁夏农学院学报,2004,25(1)：70-95
54 安渊,徐柱,闫志坚,等.不同退化梯度草地植物和土壤的差异[J].中国草地,1999,4：31-36,66
55 董全民,赵新全,马玉寿,等.放牧强度对高寒人工草地土壤有机质和有机碳的影响[J].青海畜牧兽医杂志,2007,37(1)：6-8
56 裴海昆.不同放牧强度对土壤养分及质地的影响[J].青海大学学报,2004,22(4)：29-31
57 春兰.蒙古高原典型草原不同利用方式下土壤特性及植被群落特征对比研究[D].内蒙古农业大学硕士学位论文,2009
58 干友民,李志丹,泽柏,等.川西北亚高山草地不同退化梯度草地土壤养分变化[J].草业学报,2005(4)：38-42
59 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
60 郑淑华,赵萌莉,韩国栋,等.不同放牧压力下典型草原土壤物理性质与植被关系的研究[J].干旱区资源与环境,2005,19(7)：199-203
61 王顺忠,陈桂琛,柏玉平,等.青海湖鸟岛地区植物群落物种多样性与土壤环境因子的关系[J].应用生态学报,2005,16(1)：186-188
62 Simpson, R.L. Ecology of soil seed bank. San Diego:Academic Press.1989,149-209
63 Zak D R, Host G E and Pregitzer K S. Regional variability in nitrogen mineralization, nitrifieation, and overstory biomass in northern lower Miehigan[J]. Canadian Journalof Forest Researeh,1989,19:1521-1526
64 邹琪.植物生理学实验指导[M].中国农业出版社.2000.
65 张少英,乌兰巴特尔.植物生理实验指导[M].2000.
66 土壤农化分析[M].南京农业大学主编.北京：农业出版社.1990.
67 Stewart G R, Lee J A. The role of proline accumulation in halophytes[J]. Planta, 1974,120:279-289.
68 杜占池,杨宗贵.羊草和大针茅光合生态特性的比较研究[A].草原生态系统研究(第2集)[C].北京：科学出版社,1988.52-53
69 代平利,周守标,刘寿峰,等.轻度放牧后陌上管形态和生理特征及地上部分营养成分的动态[J].草业学报,2009,18(4)：47-53.
70 郑云玲,李雪松,张瑞,等.放牧强度对草原土壤与植被的影响[J].内蒙古农业大学学报，2008,29(1)：262-266
71 庞亚娟.退化草地牧草营养与土壤特性的相关关系研究[D].内蒙古农业大学硕士学位论文,2007
72 Sinclair T R Nitrogen influence on the physiology of crop yield[A]. In:Theoretical production Ecology:Reflections and Prospects[C]. Rabbing, R.,1990,41-55
73 Foyer G H, Galtier N. Source-sink interaction and communication in leaves [A]. In: Zanski E, eds. Photo assimilate distribution in plants and crops [C]. New York:Marcel DekkerInc,1990,41-55
74 李香真.放牧对暗栗钙土壤的贮量和形态的影响[J].草业学报,2001,10(2)：28-32
75 周尧治,郭玉海,刘历程等.围栏禁牧对退化草原土壤水分的影响研究[J].水土保持研究,2006,13(3)：5-7
76 刘玉,李林立,赵柯,等.岩溶山地石漠化地区不同土地利用方式下的土壤物理性状分析[J].水土保持学报,2004,18(5)：142-145
77 Braunack M. V, Walker J. Recovery of some surface soil properties of ecological interest after sheep grazing in a semiarid[J].Australian Journal of Ecology,1985, 10(3):451-460
78 Berg W A, Bradford J A, Smis P L. Long-term soil nitrogen and vegetation change on sand hill rangeland[J]. Journal of Range Management,1997,50(5):482-486.
79 易津.黑龙江靠山种畜场羊草草地退化情况的调查[J].内蒙古草原.1987,(4)：34-36
80 关世英,常金宝,贾树海,等.草原暗栗钙土退化过程中的土壤性状及其变化规律的研究[J].中国草地,1997,(3)：39-43
81 卫智军,韩国栋,杨静,吕雄.短花针茅荒漠草原植物群落特征对不同载畜率水平的响应[J].水土保持学报,2000,14(4)：172-176
82 侯晓东.蒙古高原不同草原区土壤因子及根茎禾草生长发育状况的比较研究[D].内蒙古农业大学硕士学位论文,2007
83 春兰.蒙古高原典型草原不同利用方式下土壤特性及植被群落特征对比研究[D].内蒙古农业大学硕士学位论文,2009
84 李永宏.内蒙古典型草原地带退化草原的恢复动态[J].生物多样性,1995,3(3)：125-130
85 朱鹤健.土壤地理学[M].北京,高等教育出版社,1992,67-84
2 姚拓,王刚,张德罡,等.天祝高寒草地植被,土壤及土壤微生物时间动态的比较[J].生态学报,2006,26(6)：1926-1932
3 常会宁,夏景新.放牧制度及其评价[J].国外畜牧学—草原与牧草.1994,(4)：9-14
4 敖仁其,胡尔查.内蒙古草原牧区现行放牧制度评价与模式选择[J].内蒙古社会科学(汉文版),2007,28(3)：90-92
5 韩茂莉.历史时期草原民族游牧方式初探[M].中国经济史研究,2003
6 祁永.放牧对草原群落特征及种群繁殖特性的影响[M].中国农业大学博士学位论文,2005
7 韩国栋,卫智军,许志信.短花针茅草原划区轮牧试验研究[J].内蒙古农业大学学报,2001,(1)：60-67
8 汪诗平,陈佐忠,王艳芳等.绵羊生产系统对不同放牧制度的响应[J].中国草地,1999,3：42-50
9 郭学斌.蒙古草原现状及生态环境保护[J].山西林业科技,2005,(1)：17-19
10 Mcnaughton S J.Compensatory plant growth as a response to herbivory[J].Oikos, 1983,40:329-336.
11 中国沙漠化(土地退化)防治研究课题组,中国沙漠化(土地退化)防治研究[M].北京：中国环境科学出版社,1998,58-62
12 Laycock, W. A., D. Loper, F. W. Oberrmiller, L. Smith et al. Grazing on Public Lands [M] CAST Rep,1996
13 Heady, H. F. Continuous Vs. Specialized Grazing Systems:A Review and Application to the California Annual Type[J]Range Mgt.1961,14 (4):182-193
14 李博.中国北方草地退化及对策[J].中国农业科学,1997,30(6)：1-9
15 王志民.内蒙古草原沙化惊人[N].人民日报,2000
16 李世英,萧运峰.内蒙呼盟莫达木吉地区羊草草原放牧演替阶段的初步划分[J].植物生态学与地植物学丛刊,1965,3(2)：200-217
17 李永宏,汪诗平.放牧对草原植物的影响[J].中国草地,1999,3：11-19
18 赵新权,张耀生,周兴民.高寒草甸畜牧业可持续发展：理论与实践[J].资源科学,2000,22(4)：50-61
19 陈佐忠.沙尘暴的发生与草地生态治理[J].中国草地,2001,(3)：731-741
20 王仁忠.放牧影响下羊草种群生物量形成动态的研究[J].应用生态学报,1997,8(5)：505-509
21 彭祺,王宁.不同放牧制度对草地植被的影响[J].农业科学研究,2005,26(1)：26-30
22 卫智军,杨静,杨尚明.短花针茅荒漠草原不同放牧制度群落稳定性研究[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(6)：121-124
23 Huston M. a general.hypothesis of species diversity [J/OL] am.net.1979,13:81-101
24 白永飞,陈佐忠.锡林河流域羊草草原植物物种和功能群的长期变异性及其对群落稳定性的影响[J].植物生态学报,2000,24(6)：641-647
25 李永宏.草原生态系统持续管理原则：生物多样性与生产力的维持.见：李博主编,现代生态学讲座[M].北京：科学出版社.1995：79-82
26 Welch D. Scott D. Studies in the grazing of healthier moorland in northeast Scotland. VI.20 year trends in botanical composition [J]. Journal of Applied Ecology,1995, 32:596-611
27 侯扶江,杨中艺.放牧对草地的作用[J].生态学报,2006.26(1)：245-261
28 徐广平,张德罡,徐长林,等.放牧干扰对东祁连山高寒草地植物群落物种多样性的影响[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2005,40(6)：789-796
29 陈云云,谢应忠.退化草地恢复过程中植被与环境动态特征研究[J].宁夏农学院学报,2004,25(1)：21-25
30 Marcelo S., Mario G., Avi. P., Eugene D. U. And Jaime K. Vegetation response to grazing management in a Mediterranean herbaceous community:a functional group approach[J]. Journal of Applied Ecology,2000,37:224-237
31 Mclachlan J. S, Foster R. D. Fabian Menal led. Anthropogenic ties to late-successional structure and composition in four New England Hemlock stands [J]. Ecology,2000,81 (3):717-733
32 Hodgson J. Variations in the surface characteristics of the sward and the short-term rate of herbage intake by calves and lambs [J]. Grass and Forage Science,1981,36:49-57
33 王玉辉,何兴元.放牧强度对羊草草原的影响[J].草地学报,2002,10(1)：45-49
34 薄涛.内蒙古草甸草原放牧退化演替研究[D].内蒙古农业大学硕士论文,2009
35 任继周,朱兴运.中国河西走廊草地农业的基本格局和它的系统相悖—草原退化的机理初探[J].草业学报1995,4(1)：69-80
36 Belsky A J. Does herbivory benefit plants A review of the evidence [M]. American Naturalist,1986,127:870-892
37 李金花,李镇清,任继周.放牧对草原植物的影响[J].草业学报,2002,11(1)：4-11
38 Tardiff S E, Stanford J A. Grizzly bear digging:effects on subalpine meadow plants in relation to mineral nitrogen availability [J]. Ecology.1998,79:2219-2228
39 Unkovich M, Sanford P, Pate J et al. Effects of grazing on plant and soil nitrogen relations of pasture-crop rotations [J]. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 1998,49:475-485
40 张岁岐,山仑.植物水分利用效率及其研究进展[J].干旱地区农业研究,2002,12(1)：1-5
41 蒙荣,杨劫等.不同放牧制度对大针茅草原营养成分及其消化率的影响[J].华南农业大学学 报.2004,25(2)：45-48
42 韩友吉,陈桂琛,周国英.青海湖地区高寒草原植物个体特征对放牧的响应[J].中国科学院研究生院学报,2006,23：118-124
43 Haynes R J, Williams P H. Nutrient cycling and soil fertility in the grazed pasture ecosystem. Adv. Agron,1993,49:119-199.
44 贾树海,崔学明,李绍良,等.牧压梯度上土壤物理性质的变化[A]：中国科学院内蒙古草原生态系统定位研究站编.草原生态系统研究(第5集).北京：科学出版社,1996.12-16
45 Song BY. Effects of Several Grand factors on evapo transpiration from the steppe communities. Acta Phytaecol Sin,1996,20(6):485-493
46 红梅,陈有君,李艳龙,等.不同放牧强度对土壤含水量及地上生物量的影响[J].内蒙古农业科技(土肥专辑),2001：25-26
47 姚爱兴,王培.不同放牧强度下奶牛对多年生黑麦草／白三叶草地土壤特性的影响[J].草地学报.1995，3(3)：95-102
48 戎郁萍,韩建国,王培,等.放牧强度对草地土壤理化性质的影响[J].中国草地,2001,23(4)：41-47
49 Green wood K L, Macleod D A, HutchinsonK J. Long term stocking rate effects soil physical properties [J].Aus. J.Exp.Agric,1997,37:413-419
50 Hiernaux P, Bielders C L, Valentin C, et al. Effects of livestock grazing on physical and chemical properties of sandy soils in Sahelian rangelands. J. Arid Environ,1999,41:231-245.
51 张蕴薇,韩建国,李志强.放牧强度对土壤物理性质的影响[J].草地学报,2002,10(1)：74-78
52 周丽艳,王明玖,韩国栋.不同强度放牧对贝加尔针茅草原群落和土壤理化性质的影响[J].干旱区资源与环境,2005,19(7)：182-187
53 杨智明,王宁,张志强.放牧对草原生态系统的影响[J].宁夏农学院学报,2004,25(1)：70-95
54 安渊,徐柱,闫志坚,等.不同退化梯度草地植物和土壤的差异[J].中国草地,1999,4：31-36,66
55 董全民,赵新全,马玉寿,等.放牧强度对高寒人工草地土壤有机质和有机碳的影响[J].青海畜牧兽医杂志,2007,37(1)：6-8
56 裴海昆.不同放牧强度对土壤养分及质地的影响[J].青海大学学报,2004,22(4)：29-31
57 春兰.蒙古高原典型草原不同利用方式下土壤特性及植被群落特征对比研究[D].内蒙古农业大学硕士学位论文,2009
58 干友民,李志丹,泽柏,等.川西北亚高山草地不同退化梯度草地土壤养分变化[J].草业学报,2005(4)：38-42
59 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
60 郑淑华,赵萌莉,韩国栋,等.不同放牧压力下典型草原土壤物理性质与植被关系的研究[J].干旱区资源与环境,2005,19(7)：199-203
61 王顺忠,陈桂琛,柏玉平,等.青海湖鸟岛地区植物群落物种多样性与土壤环境因子的关系[J].应用生态学报,2005,16(1)：186-188
62 Simpson, R.L. Ecology of soil seed bank. San Diego:Academic Press.1989,149-209
63 Zak D R, Host G E and Pregitzer K S. Regional variability in nitrogen mineralization, nitrifieation, and overstory biomass in northern lower Miehigan[J]. Canadian Journalof Forest Researeh,1989,19:1521-1526
64 邹琪.植物生理学实验指导[M].中国农业出版社.2000.
65 张少英,乌兰巴特尔.植物生理实验指导[M].2000.
66 土壤农化分析[M].南京农业大学主编.北京：农业出版社.1990.
67 Stewart G R, Lee J A. The role of proline accumulation in halophytes[J]. Planta, 1974,120:279-289.
68 杜占池,杨宗贵.羊草和大针茅光合生态特性的比较研究[A].草原生态系统研究(第2集)[C].北京：科学出版社,1988.52-53
69 代平利,周守标,刘寿峰,等.轻度放牧后陌上管形态和生理特征及地上部分营养成分的动态[J].草业学报,2009,18(4)：47-53.
70 郑云玲,李雪松,张瑞,等.放牧强度对草原土壤与植被的影响[J].内蒙古农业大学学报，2008,29(1)：262-266
71 庞亚娟.退化草地牧草营养与土壤特性的相关关系研究[D].内蒙古农业大学硕士学位论文,2007
72 Sinclair T R Nitrogen influence on the physiology of crop yield[A]. In:Theoretical production Ecology:Reflections and Prospects[C]. Rabbing, R.,1990,41-55
73 Foyer G H, Galtier N. Source-sink interaction and communication in leaves [A]. In: Zanski E, eds. Photo assimilate distribution in plants and crops [C]. New York:Marcel DekkerInc,1990,41-55
74 李香真.放牧对暗栗钙土壤的贮量和形态的影响[J].草业学报,2001,10(2)：28-32
75 周尧治,郭玉海,刘历程等.围栏禁牧对退化草原土壤水分的影响研究[J].水土保持研究,2006,13(3)：5-7
76 刘玉,李林立,赵柯,等.岩溶山地石漠化地区不同土地利用方式下的土壤物理性状分析[J].水土保持学报,2004,18(5)：142-145
77 Braunack M. V, Walker J. Recovery of some surface soil properties of ecological interest after sheep grazing in a semiarid[J].Australian Journal of Ecology,1985, 10(3):451-460
78 Berg W A, Bradford J A, Smis P L. Long-term soil nitrogen and vegetation change on sand hill rangeland[J]. Journal of Range Management,1997,50(5):482-486.
79 易津.黑龙江靠山种畜场羊草草地退化情况的调查[J].内蒙古草原.1987,(4)：34-36
80 关世英,常金宝,贾树海,等.草原暗栗钙土退化过程中的土壤性状及其变化规律的研究[J].中国草地,1997,(3)：39-43
81 卫智军,韩国栋,杨静,吕雄.短花针茅荒漠草原植物群落特征对不同载畜率水平的响应[J].水土保持学报,2000,14(4)：172-176
82 侯晓东.蒙古高原不同草原区土壤因子及根茎禾草生长发育状况的比较研究[D].内蒙古农业大学硕士学位论文,2007
83 春兰.蒙古高原典型草原不同利用方式下土壤特性及植被群落特征对比研究[D].内蒙古农业大学硕士学位论文,2009
84 李永宏.内蒙古典型草原地带退化草原的恢复动态[J].生物多样性,1995,3(3)：125-130
85 朱鹤健.土壤地理学[M].北京,高等教育出版社,1992,67-84