祁连山东段不同放牧强度下高原鼢鼠栖息地选择分析

doi:10.11686/cyxb2015234

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本研究以祁连山东段高寒草甸栖息的高原鼢鼠为研究对象,探讨不同放牧强度下高原鼢鼠栖息地特征及选择因素,为合理控制草原鼠害及保护草地生物多样性提供科学依据。本研究选择4个不同放牧强度小区,调查每个小区的高原鼢鼠相对种群密度、土壤紧实度和容重、植物学组成、植物物种丰富度、地上生物量、可食牧草产量及各植物功能群产量,并分析高原鼢鼠相对种群密度与这些要素之间的关系。结果表明,放牧强度与高原鼢鼠相对种群密度有正相关关系但不显著(P>0.05),重度放牧区下高原鼢鼠相对种群密度最高,禁牧区高原鼢鼠相对种群密度最低;高原鼢鼠相对种群密度与土壤紧实度呈显著负相关(P<0.05),与土壤容重和地上生物量呈负相关但不显著(P>0.05);高原鼢鼠相对种群密度与杂类草产量有正相关关系但不显著(P>0.05),与可食牧草产量、禾草产量和物种丰富度有负相关关系但不显著(P>0.05);多元线性回归方程表明影响高原鼢鼠栖息地选择的主要因素是土壤紧实度(Y=205.36-0.145X₁,X₁为土壤紧实度)。

Abstract: The objective of this study was to analyze the habitat selection and habitat characteristics of plateau zokor (Eospalax baileyi) in paddocks with different grazing intensities in the eastern Qilian Mountain region, in order to provide scientific information for controlling plateau zokor and conserving biodiversity in alpine meadows. Four paddocks with different grazing intensities were selected to investigate the zokor population density and habitat characteristics, including soil compaction and bulk density (g/cm³), vegetation botanical composition, plant species richness, aboveground plant biomass, and palatable forage biomass. A multiple regression analysis was used to determine the relationship between the plateau zokor population density and habitat characters. The zokor population density was highest in paddocks with the highest grazing intensity, and lowest in ungrazed paddocks (P>0.05). The zokor population density had a significant negative correlation with soil compaction (P<0.05) and a non-significant negative correlation with soil bulk density and aboveground plant biomass (P>0.05). The multiple regression for the relation between plateau zokor density and soil compaction, forb biomass, grass biomass, plants richness indicated that soil compaction was the dominant factor that influenced the plateau zokor habitat selection.

楚彬, 花立民, 周延山, 刘丽, 李帅. 祁连山东段不同放牧强度下高原鼢鼠栖息地选择分析[J]. 草业学报, 2016, 25(1): 179-186.

CHU Bin, HUA Li-Min, ZHOU Yan-Shan, LIU Li, LI Shuai. A study of habitat selection by plateau zokor in paddocks with different grazing intensities in the eastern Qilian Mountain region[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(1): 179-186.

参考文献

[1] Zhou X R, Guo Z G, Guo X H. The role of plateau pika and plateau zokor in alpine meadow. Pratacultural Science, 2010, 27(5): 38-44.
[2] Li W F, Tang Z M. Environment and safety of Qinghai-Tibet railway. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2003, 3(3): 65-67.
[3] Fan N C, Shi Y Z. A revision of the zokors of subgenus Eospalax . Acta Theriologica Sinica, 1982, 2(1): 183-200.
[4] Melladoa M, Olverab A, Querob A. Dietary overlap between prairie dog ( Cynomys mexicanus ) and beef cattle in a desert rangeland of northern Mexico. Journal of Arid Environments, 2005, 62(3): 449-458.
[5] Rosiere R E. An evaluation of grazing intensity influence on california annual range. Range Manage, 1987, 40(2): 160-165.
[6] Zhang Y W, Han J G, Li Z Q. A study of the effects of different grazing intensities on soil physical properties. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2002, 1(4): 74-78.
[7] Du Y G, Cao G M, Wang Q L, et al . Effect of grazing on surface character and soil physical property in alpine meadow. Journal of Moutain Science, 2007, 25(3): 338-343.
[8] Harald S, Atle M, Gunnar A. Sleep grazing and rodent populations: Evidence of negative interaction from a landscape scale experiment.Oecologa, 2005, 143(3): 357-364.
[9] Cui Q H, Jiang Z G, Lian X M, et al . Factors influencing habitat selection of root voles ( Microtus oeconomus ). Acta Theriologica Sinica, 2005, 25(1): 45-51.
[10] Fan N C, Wang Q Y, Zhou W Y, et al . The relationship between the plateau zokor population and vegetation damage. Proceedings of Alpine Meadow Ecosystem Congress[C]. Beijing: Science Press, 1988: 109-115.
[11] Zhang Y M, Liu J K. The biological characteristics of subterranean rodents and their roles in ecosystem. Acta Theriologica Sinica, 2002, 22(5): 144-153.
[12] Wu R N, Su B D, Bai M L. The influencing of subterranean rodents in agricultural ecosystem. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 2004, (6): 105-106.
[13] Han T H, Zhang W G, Ding L S. Features of vegetation in Myospalax baileyi habitat. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 1999, 8(2): 43-49.
[14] Zhang J, Ge Q Z, Zhang W G, et al . Correlations between vegetation properties and fitness of plateau zokor habitat. Pratacultural Science, 2011, 28(5): 836-840.
[15] Li F X, Zhang D G. Indicators and recovery approaches of degenerated grassland in China. Grassland and Turf, 2005, (1): 24-28.
[16] He J L, Zhang J S, Yang Y B, et al . The study patterns and characteristics of plateau zokor mound. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2006, 15(1): 107-112.
[17] Wu J, Wang J C. Principle and advantages of RTK. China Investigation Design, 2009, (9): 52-53.
[18] Mannetje L T. The dry-weight-rank method for the botanical analysis of pasture. Grass and Forage Science, 1963, 18(4): 268-275.
[19] Jones R M, Hargreaves J N G. Improvements to the dry-weight-rank method for measuring botanical composition. Grass and Forage Science, 1979, 34(3): 181-189.
[20] Gillen R L, Smith E L. Evaluation of the dry-weight-rank method for determining species composition in tall grass prairie. Journal of Range Management, 1986, 5(7): 283-285.
[21] Barnes D L, Odendaal J J, Beukes B H. Use of the dry-weight-rank method of botanical analysis in the eastern Transvaal Highveld. Proceedings of the Annual Congresses of the Grassland Society of Southern Africa, 1982, 17(1): 79-83.
[22] Friedel M H, Chewings V H, Bastin G N. The use of comparative yield and dry-weight-rank techniques for monitoring arid rangeland. Journal of Range Management, 1988, 41(5): 430-435.
[23] Dowhower S L, Teague W R, Ansley R J, et al . Dry-weight-rank method assessment in heterogenous communities. Journal of Range Management, 2001, 16(6): 71-76.
[24] Dekker B, Kirkman K P, Du Plessis S I. Use of the dry-weight-rank method of botanical analysis in semi-arid savanna communities. African Journal of Range and Forage Science, 2001, 18(1): 63-66.
[25] Hughes L E. Grazing systems:more thoughts and observations. Rangelands, 2011, 33(1): 35-40.
[26] Rajput B S, Bhadauria U P S, Rajput R L. Study on specific leaf area and its relation with leaf area, leaf dry weight and seed yield in Mung bean. Journal of Life Sciences, 2014, 11(1): 247-250.
[27] Haydock K P, Shaw N H. The comparative yield method for estimating dry matter yield of pasture. Animal Production Science, 1975, 15(76): 663-670.
[28] Lv Y Z, Li B G. Edaphology[M]. Beijing: Chinese Agricultural Press, 2006.
[29] Zhou J W, Hua L M, Zuo S T, et al . Research progress in habitat selection of plateau zokor. Pratacul Tural Science, 2013, 30(4): 647-653.
[30] Liu W, Zhou L, Wang X. Responses of plant and rodents to different grazing intensity. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 1999, 19(3): 376-382.
[31] Wen L Y, Li Z F. The effects of disturbance on maintaining mechanism of species diversity. Journal of Northwest Normal University (Natural Science), 2006, 42(4): 87-91.
[32] Huang B. The Relationship between Plateau Zokor and Vegetation, Soil Factors[D]. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2014.
[33] Wang Q Y, Zhou W Y, Wei W H, et al . The burrowing behaviour myospalax bailey and its relation to soil hardness. Acta Theriologica Sinica, 2000, 20(4): 277-283.
[34] Liu W G, Li L X, Xie H R, et al . Effect of soil bulk density on root morphology and biomass of vetiver grass seedlings. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(4): 214-220.
[35] Dai Q, Gu H J, Wang Y Z. Theories and models for habitat selection. Zoological Research, 2007, 28(6): 681-688.
[36] Zhao Q S, Lou Y Q, Sun Y H. A review of statistical methods for evaluating animal habitat selection. Chinese Journal of Zoology, 2013, 48(5): 732-741.
[37] Jin L R, Sun K P, He H S, et al . Research advances in habitat suitability index model. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2008, 27(5): 841-846.
[38] Bellis L M, Navarro J L, Vignolo P E, et al . Habitat preferences of lesser rheas in Argentine Patagonia. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2006, 15(9): 3065-3075.
[1] 周雪荣, 郭正刚, 郭兴华. 高原鼠兔和高原鼢鼠在高寒草甸中的作用. 草业科学, 2010, 27(5): 38-44.
[2] 李午峰, 唐祯敏. 青藏铁路的环境与安全. 安全与环境学报, 2003, 3(3): 65-67.
[3] 樊乃昌, 施银柱. 中国鼢鼠( Eospalax )亚属分类研究. 兽类学报, 1982, 2(1): 183-200.
[6] 张蕴薇, 韩建国, 李志强. 放牧强度对土壤物理性质的影响. 草地学报, 2002, 1(4): 74-78.
[7] 杜岩功, 曹广民, 王启兰, 等. 放牧对高寒草甸地表特征和土壤物理性状的影响. 山地学报, 2007, 25(3): 338-343.
[9] 崔庆虎, 蒋志刚, 连新明, 等. 田鼠栖息地选择的影响因素. 兽类学报, 2005, 25(1): 45-51.
[10] 樊乃昌, 王权业, 周文扬, 等. 高原鼢鼠种群数量与植被破坏程度的关系-高寒草甸生态系统国际学术讨论会文集[C]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1988: 109-115.
[11] 张堰铭, 刘季科. 地下鼠生物学特征及其在生态系统中的作用. 兽类学报, 2002, 22(5): 144-153.
[12] 乌日娜, 苏布道, 白梦兰. 地下鼠对农业生态系统的影响. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2004, (6): 105-106.
[13] 韩天虎, 张卫国, 丁连生. 高原鼢鼠栖息地植被特征. 草业学报, 1999, 8(2): 43-49.
[14] 张军, 葛庆征, 张卫国, 等. 植被性状与高原鼢鼠栖息地适合度的关系. 草业科学, 2011, 28(5): 836-840.
[15] 李凤霞, 张德罡. 草地退化指标及恢复措施. 草原与草坪, 2005, (1): 24-28.
[16] 何俊龄, 张金沙, 杨莹博, 等. 高原鼢鼠土丘空间格局及主要特征研究. 草业学报, 2006, 15(1): 107-112.
[17] 吴娇, 王军成. RTK工作原理及优缺点. 中国勘察设计, 2009, (9): 52-53.
[28] 吕贻忠, 李保国. 土壤学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社出版, 2006.
[29] 周建伟, 花立民, 左松涛, 等. 高原鼢鼠栖息地选择研究进展. 草业科学, 2013, 30(4): 647-653.
[30] 刘伟, 周立, 王溪. 不同放牧强度对植物及啮齿动物作用的研究. 生态学报, 1999, 19(3): 376-382.
[31] 文陇英, 李仲芳. 干扰对物种多样性维持机制的影响. 西北师范大学学报, 2006, 42(4): 87-91.
[32] 黄彬. 高原鼢鼠种群密度与植被土壤因素的关系[D]. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2014.
[34] 刘晚苟, 李良贤, 谢海蓉, 等. 土壤容重对野生香根草幼苗根系形态及其生物量的影响. 草业学报, 2015, 24(4): 214-220.
[35] 戴强, 顾海军, 王跃招. 栖息地选择的理论与模型. 动物学研究, 2007, 28(6): 681-688.
[36] 赵青山, 楼瑛强, 孙悦华. 动物栖息地选择评估的常用统计方法. 动物学杂志, 2013, 48(5): 732-741.
[37] 金龙如, 孙克萍, 贺红士, 等. 生境适宜都指数模型研究进展. 生态学杂志, 2008, 27(5): 841-846.