嵩草草甸退化和恢复过程中主要牧草演替和地表特征变化

草业学报 ›› 2010, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (5): 179-185.

嵩草草甸退化和恢复过程中主要牧草演替和地表特征变化

李以康¹,林丽¹,张法伟¹,梁东营^1,2,王溪¹,曹广民^1*

1.中国科学院西北高原生物研究所,青海西宁 810008;
2.中国科学院研究生院,北京 100039

收稿日期:2009-10-14 出版日期:2010-05-25 发布日期:2010-10-20
作者简介:李以康(1973-),男,山东临沂人,工程师,硕士。E-mail:liyikang501@163.com
基金资助:
中国科学院知识创新工程重要方向项目“中国草地生态系统固碳潜力及其增汇措施”(KZCX2-YW-Q1-06),国家自然科学基金重点项目 “三江源区高寒草甸退化分异过程及调控机理”(30730069)和国家自然科学基金面上项目“青藏高原高寒草甸植物对大气甲烷行为分异及其环境效应”(30970520)资助。

The main forage succession and ground surface characteristic changes during degradation and restoration of alpine Kobresia meadow

LI Yi-kang¹, LIN Li¹, ZHANG Fa-wei¹, LIANG Dong-ying^1,2,WANG Xi¹, CAO Guang-min¹

1.Northwest Institute of Plateau Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xining 810008, China;

2.Graduated University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100039, China

Received:2009-10-14 Online:2010-05-25 Published:2010-10-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 以青藏高原高寒草甸禾草、矮嵩草和小嵩草的重要值及斑块变化为对象,研究其在嵩草草甸退化和恢复过程中的变化规律。结果表明,退化中的嵩草草甸小嵩草重要值显著高于矮嵩草和禾草,样带调查显示在小嵩草样带矮嵩草盖度急剧降低,黑斑盖度增加近一倍,小嵩草斑块分布普遍;重牧小嵩草草甸小嵩草成为优势种,重要值显著高于矮嵩草和禾草(P＜0.05),黑斑面积增大,塌陷增多,矮嵩草斑块出现几率小;恢复中的小嵩草草甸禾草重要值增大,矮嵩草恢复慢,恢复斑块上禾草成为优势种,小嵩草斑块接近消失,黑斑和秃斑面积急剧缩小,植被盖度增加;恢复较好的草甸禾草成为样地的优势种,矮嵩草和小嵩草的重要值低(零星斑块分布),没有黑斑和秃斑出现。高寒草甸退化引起优势植物更替,地表黑斑和秃斑严重,封育和减牧措施能够有效恢复退化的草甸。

Abstract: The change of soil surface characteristics during degradation and restoration of alpine Kobresia meadow was followed together with the important value changes of Kobresia pygmaea, K. humilis and Gramineae and of their patch dispersal. During degradation, the value of K. pygmaea was significantly more important than that of K. humilis and Gramineae(P＜0.05). In a transect, the coverage of K. humilis was rapidly reduced, the coverage of black patch increased to nearly double, and patches of K. pygmaea were widely dispersed. K. pygmaea is the dominant species in seriously grazed K. pygmaea meadow, and its importance is significantly higher than that of K. humilis and Gramineae(P＜0.05), the coverage of black patch increased, then collapsed. The emergency ratio of K. humilis patch is little. In the course of restoration, the importance of Gramineae increased, K. humilis was not common, and in the restoration patch, Gramineae became the dominant species while K. pygmaea nearly disappeared and the coverage of black patch and bald patch shrunk, but plant coverage increased. Gramineae became the dominant species in the better restoration meadow, and the importance of K. pygmaea and K. humilis decreased: there was no black patch or bald patch. Alpine meadow degradation resulted in a succession of dominant species, but black patch and bald patch were universal. Fencing and light grazing measures can effectively restore degraded meadows.

中图分类号:

李以康,林丽,张法伟,梁东营,王溪,曹广民. 嵩草草甸退化和恢复过程中主要牧草演替和地表特征变化[J]. 草业学报, 2010, 19(5): 179-185.

LI Yi-kang, LIN Li, ZHANG Fa-wei, LIANG Dong-ying,WANG Xi, CAO Guang-min. The main forage succession and ground surface characteristic changes during degradation and restoration of alpine Kobresia meadow[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2010, 19(5): 179-185.

参考文献

[1] 李博. 中国北方草地退化及其防治对策[J]. 中国农业科学, 1997, 30(6): 1-9.
[2] 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): 1-3.
[3] 董全民, 赵新全, 马玉寿, 等. 牦牛放牧率和放牧季节对小嵩草高寒草甸土壤养分的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2005, 24(7): 729-735.
[4] 董锁成, 周长进, 王海英. “三江源”地区主要生态环境问题与对策[J]. 自然资源学报, 2002, 17(6): 713-720.
[5] 李政海, 王炜, 刘钟龄. 退化草原围封恢复过程中草场质量动态的研究[J]. 内蒙古大学学报(自然科学版), 1995, 26(3): 334-338.
[6] 杨利民, 李建东, 杨允菲. 草地群落放牧干扰梯度β多样性研究[J]. 应用生态学报, 1999, 10(4): 442-446.
[7] 柳小妮, 孙九林, 张德罡, 等. 东祁连山不同退化阶段高寒草甸群落结构与植物多样性特征研究[J]. 草业学报, 2008, 17(4): 1-11.
[8] 周兴民, 王启基, 张堰青, 等. 不同放牧强度下高寒草甸植被演替规律的数量分析[J]. 植物生态学与地植物学学报, 1987, 11(4): 276-285.
[9] 王亚军, 魏兴琥, 杨萍. 超载放牧对那曲地区高山嵩草草甸植被退化的影响[J]. 兰州大学学报(自然科学版), 2005, 41(1): 32-38.
[10] 鲁为华, 朱进忠, 王东江, 等. 天山北坡围栏封育条件下伊犁绢蒿幼苗分布格局及数量动态变化规律研究[J]. 草业学报, 2009, 18(4): 17-26.
[11] 刘振国. 内蒙古退化草原对不同类型干扰的相应研究[D]. 北京: 中国科学院研究生院, 2006.
[12] 侯扶江, 常生华, 于应文, 等. 放牧家畜的践踏作用研究评述[J]. 生态学报, 2004, 24(4): 784-789.
[13] 刘桂霞, 韩建国. 草地生态学领域空斑研究进展[J]. 生态学杂志, 2006, 25(9): 1136-1140.
[14] 张卫国, 黄文冰, 杨振宇. 草地微斑块与草地退化关系的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2003, 12(3): 44-50.
[15] 左万庆, 王玉辉, 王风玉, 等. 围栏封育措施对退化羊草草原植物群落特征影响研究[J]. 草业学报, 2009, 18(3): 12-19.
[16] 辛晓平, 徐斌, 王秀山, 等. 碱化草地群落恢复演替空间格局动态分析[J]. 生态学报, 2001, 21(6): 877-883.
[17] Alados C L, Aich E A, Komac B, et al. Self-organized spatial patterns of vegetation in alpine grasslands[J]. Ecological Modeling, 2007, 201: 233-242.
[18] 辛晓平, 徐斌, 单保庆, 等. 恢复演替中草地斑块动态及尺度转换分析[J]. 生态学报, 2000, 20(4): 587-593.
[19] 祖元刚, 马克明, 张喜军. 植被空间异质性的分形分析方法[J]. 生态学报, 1997, 17(3): 334-337.
[20] 张宏斌, 杨桂霞, 黄青, 等. 呼伦贝尔草甸草原景观格局时空演变分析-以海拉尔及周边地区为例[J]. 草业学报, 2009, 18(1): 134-143.
[21] Wayne P. Sousa. The role of disturbance in natural communities[J]. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1984,15:353-391.
[22] 任继周. 草业科学研究方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1998: 1-29.
[23] 曹广民, 杜岩功, 梁东营, 等. 高寒嵩草草甸的被动与主动退化分异特征及其发生机理[J]. 山地学报, 2007, 25(6): 641-648.
[24] 周兴民, 赵新全, 曹广民, 等. 中国嵩草草甸[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2001.
[25] 周华坤, 赵新全, 周立, 等. 青藏高原高寒草甸的植被退化与土壤退化特征研究[J]. 草业学报, 2005, 14(3): 31-40.
[26] Skarpe C. Spatial patterns and dynamics of woody vegetation in an arid savanna[J]. Journal of Vegetation Science, 1991, 2: 565-572.
[27] Fehmi J S, Laca E A, Rice K J. The effect of small gaps in California annual grassland on above-ground biomass production[J]. Grass and Forage Science, 2001, 56: 323-329.
[28] Kleijn D, Steinger T. Contrasting effects of grazing and hay cutting on the spatial and genetic population structure of Veratrum album, an unpalatable, long-lived, clonal plant species[J]. Journal of Ecology, 2002, 90: 360-370.
[29] 陈利顶, 傅伯杰. 干扰的类型、特征及其生态学意义[J]. 生态学报, 2000, 20(4): 581-586.
[30] 王长庭, 曹广民, 王启兰, 等. 三江源地区不同建植期人工草地植被特征及其与土壤特征的关系[J]. 应用生态学报, 2007, 18(11): 2426-2431