草业学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (8): 1-11.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2021027
• 研究论文 •
张峰1,2(), 孙嘉伟1,2, 孙宇1,2, 郑佳华1,2, 乔荠瑢1,2, 赵萌莉1,2()
收稿日期:
2021-01-20
修回日期:
2021-03-08
出版日期:
2021-07-09
发布日期:
2021-07-09
通讯作者:
赵萌莉
作者简介:
Corresponding author. E-mail: nmgmlzh@126.com基金资助:
Feng ZHANG1,2(), Jia-wei SUN1,2, Yu SUN1,2, Jia-hua ZHENG1,2, Ji-rong QIAO1,2, Meng-li ZHAO1,2()
Received:
2021-01-20
Revised:
2021-03-08
Online:
2021-07-09
Published:
2021-07-09
Contact:
Meng-li ZHAO
摘要:
为探究不同载畜率对荒漠草原群落建群种与优势物种间的关系及其空间分布的影响,于2020年7-9月在内蒙古四子王旗短花针茅荒漠草原进行野外调查,以建群种短花针茅及优势种无芒隐子草和冷蒿为研究对象,设置不放牧对照(CK)、轻度(LG)、中度(MG)和重度放牧(HG)载畜率水平(分别放牧0、4、8和12只羊),结合常规方法与地统计学方法分析建群种及优势种出现频率、多度、种间关系强度及空间分布特征。结果表明:1)与CK相比,LG下冷蒿出现频率仅在7月显著降低了50.55%(P<0.05),而MG和HG在7-9月均显著降低(P<0.05),7-9月平均降低77.76%和97.53%;而不同处理及月份下短花针茅和无芒隐子草出现频率无显著差异(P>0.05)。 2)与CK相比,各处理在7-9月时短花针茅种群多度均显著增加(P<0.05),LG、MG和HG分别在7-9月平均增加37.34%、75.72%和99.32%;冷蒿种群多度均显著降低(P<0.05),分别降低61.26%、66.32%和99.31%;无芒隐子草除LG在9月无显著变化外,各处理在7-9月时种群多度均显著增加(P<0.05)。3)短花针茅与无芒隐子草主要表现为亲和关系,而在9月时从CK的亲和关系转化为HG的竞争关系;短花针茅与冷蒿主要表现为竞争关系,放牧未改变其种间关系。4)短花针茅与无芒隐子草对冷蒿的作用强度较大,而冷蒿对短花针茅和无芒隐子草的作用强度较小。5)模拟9月物种间空间分布发现,CK中短花针茅种群多度随无芒隐子草种群多度增加而增加,随冷蒿种群多度增加而呈降低的趋势;HG中冷蒿种群多度不随短花针茅与无芒隐子草的变化而变化,但随着无芒隐子草种群多度增加,短花针茅种群多度整体上呈波动下降的趋势,表明短花针茅与无芒隐子草之间的关系由CK中的亲和关系转变为HG下的竞争关系。综上,放牧会改变物种的种群多度及物种间的关系。
张峰, 孙嘉伟, 孙宇, 郑佳华, 乔荠瑢, 赵萌莉. 不同载畜率对短花针茅荒漠草原优势物种间关系及其空间分布特征的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(8): 1-11.
Feng ZHANG, Jia-wei SUN, Yu SUN, Jia-hua ZHENG, Ji-rong QIAO, Meng-li ZHAO. Effects of different stocking rates on interspecific relationships among dominant species and their spatial distribution characteristics in the Stipa breviflora desert steppe[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(8): 1-11.
来源 Resource | 因变量 Dependent variable | df | 频率Frequency | 多度Abundance | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | P | F | P | |||
处理Treatment (T) | 短花针茅S. breviflora | 3 | 1.84 | 0.17 | 106.63 | <0.01 |
无芒隐子草C. songorica | 3 | 1.52 | 0.24 | 46.97 | <0.01 | |
冷蒿A. frigida | 3 | 31.72 | <0.01 | 35.44 | <0.01 | |
月份Month (M) | 短花针茅S. breviflora | 2 | 0.67 | 0.52 | 145.85 | <0.01 |
无芒隐子草C. songorica | 2 | 3.02 | 0.07 | 3.67 | 0.03 | |
冷蒿A. frigida | 2 | 0.25 | 0.78 | 9.32 | <0.01 | |
T×M | 短花针茅S. breviflora | 6 | 0.26 | 0.95 | 3.71 | <0.01 |
无芒隐子草C. songorica | 6 | 0.87 | 0.53 | 5.24 | <0.01 | |
冷蒿A. frigida | 6 | 0.29 | 0.94 | 1.97 | <0.01 |
表1 优势种群频度及多度的双因素方差分析
Table 1 Two-way analysis of variance for frequency and abundance of dominant population
来源 Resource | 因变量 Dependent variable | df | 频率Frequency | 多度Abundance | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | P | F | P | |||
处理Treatment (T) | 短花针茅S. breviflora | 3 | 1.84 | 0.17 | 106.63 | <0.01 |
无芒隐子草C. songorica | 3 | 1.52 | 0.24 | 46.97 | <0.01 | |
冷蒿A. frigida | 3 | 31.72 | <0.01 | 35.44 | <0.01 | |
月份Month (M) | 短花针茅S. breviflora | 2 | 0.67 | 0.52 | 145.85 | <0.01 |
无芒隐子草C. songorica | 2 | 3.02 | 0.07 | 3.67 | 0.03 | |
冷蒿A. frigida | 2 | 0.25 | 0.78 | 9.32 | <0.01 | |
T×M | 短花针茅S. breviflora | 6 | 0.26 | 0.95 | 3.71 | <0.01 |
无芒隐子草C. songorica | 6 | 0.87 | 0.53 | 5.24 | <0.01 | |
冷蒿A. frigida | 6 | 0.29 | 0.94 | 1.97 | <0.01 |
图2 不同载畜率下优势物种出现频率不同大写字母表示同一处理下不同月份间存在显著差异(P<0.05),不同小写字母表示同一月份不同处理间差异显著(P<0.05),没有字母表示月份与处理下均无显著差异(P>0.05)。冷蒿在7和9月中的HG未发现。数据为均值±标准误。下同。Different capital letters indicate significant differences among different months under the same treatment, and different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different treatments in the same month (P<0.05). No letters indicate no significant differences both among month and treatment (P>0.05). A. frigida in HG was not found in July and September. The data in Figure is mean±standard error. The same below.
Fig.2 Frequency of dominant species under different stocking rates
因变量 Dependent variable | 处理 Treatment | 7月July | 8月August | 9月September | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R2 | P | 方程Equation | R2 | P | 方程Equation | R2 | P | 方程Equation | ||
无芒隐子草 C.songorica | CK | 0.08 | <0.01 | y1=0.30x+2.74 | 0.02 | 0.19 | - | 0.17 | <0.01 | y1=0.62x+2.68 |
LG | <0.01 | 0.84 | - | 0.04 | 0.05 | y1=0.54x+4.67 | <0.01 | 0.78 | - | |
MG | 0.01 | 0.25 | - | 0.09 | <0.01 | y1=0.87x+8.55 | 0.01 | 0.42 | - | |
HG | <0.01 | 0.27 | - | 0.13 | <0.01 | y1=0.71x+2.92 | 0.05 | 0.03 | y1=-0.54x+13.00 | |
冷蒿 A.frigida | CK | 0.07 | <0.01 | y2=-0.14x+2.46 | 0.07 | <0.01 | y2=-0.20x+2.91 | 0.09 | 0.02 | y2=-0.22x+2.54 |
LG | <0.01 | 0.43 | - | 0.07 | <0.01 | y2=-0.07x+1.08 | 0.12 | <0.01 | y2=-0.25x+2.05 | |
MG | 0.06 | <0.01 | y2=-0.10x+1.53 | 0.08 | <0.01 | y2=-0.31x+3.55 | 0.04 | 0.12 | - | |
HG | - | - | - | 0.02 | 0.12 | - | - | - | - |
表2 建群种与优势种间的回归分析
Table 2 Regression analysis between the constructive species and the dominant species
因变量 Dependent variable | 处理 Treatment | 7月July | 8月August | 9月September | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R2 | P | 方程Equation | R2 | P | 方程Equation | R2 | P | 方程Equation | ||
无芒隐子草 C.songorica | CK | 0.08 | <0.01 | y1=0.30x+2.74 | 0.02 | 0.19 | - | 0.17 | <0.01 | y1=0.62x+2.68 |
LG | <0.01 | 0.84 | - | 0.04 | 0.05 | y1=0.54x+4.67 | <0.01 | 0.78 | - | |
MG | 0.01 | 0.25 | - | 0.09 | <0.01 | y1=0.87x+8.55 | 0.01 | 0.42 | - | |
HG | <0.01 | 0.27 | - | 0.13 | <0.01 | y1=0.71x+2.92 | 0.05 | 0.03 | y1=-0.54x+13.00 | |
冷蒿 A.frigida | CK | 0.07 | <0.01 | y2=-0.14x+2.46 | 0.07 | <0.01 | y2=-0.20x+2.91 | 0.09 | 0.02 | y2=-0.22x+2.54 |
LG | <0.01 | 0.43 | - | 0.07 | <0.01 | y2=-0.07x+1.08 | 0.12 | <0.01 | y2=-0.25x+2.05 | |
MG | 0.06 | <0.01 | y2=-0.10x+1.53 | 0.08 | <0.01 | y2=-0.31x+3.55 | 0.04 | 0.12 | - | |
HG | - | - | - | 0.02 | 0.12 | - | - | - | - |
物种对 Species pairs | 月份 Month | 对照 Control | 轻度放牧 Light grazing | 中度放牧 Moderate grazing | 重度放牧 Heavy grazing |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
短花针茅-无芒隐子草 S. breviflora-C. songorica | 7 | 0.46 | 0.79 | 1.00 | - |
8 | 0.25 | 1.00 | 0.28 | 0.50 | |
9 | 0.25 | - | - | - | |
短花针茅-冷蒿 S. breviflora-A. frigida | 7 | 0.23 | 0.54 | - | - |
8 | 0.15 | 0.45 | <0.01 | - | |
9 | 0.18 | - | - | - | |
无芒隐子草-短花针茅 C. songorica-S. breviflora | 7 | 0.14 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.16 |
8 | 0.50 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 1.00 | |
9 | 0.33 | 0.23 | - | - | |
无芒隐子草-冷蒿 C. songorica-A. frigida | 7 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.04 | - |
8 | 1.00 | 0.14 | <0.01 | - | |
9 | 0.18 | - | - | - | |
冷蒿-短花针茅 A. frigida-S. breviflora | 7 | 0.03 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.00 |
8 | 0.03 | <0.01 | 0.00 | <0.01 | |
9 | 0.04 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.00 | |
冷蒿-无芒隐子草 A. frigid-C. songorica | 7 | 0.03 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.00 |
8 | 0.03 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | |
9 | 0.04 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.00 |
表3 物种间的同分布指数
Table 3 Co-occurrence index among species
物种对 Species pairs | 月份 Month | 对照 Control | 轻度放牧 Light grazing | 中度放牧 Moderate grazing | 重度放牧 Heavy grazing |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
短花针茅-无芒隐子草 S. breviflora-C. songorica | 7 | 0.46 | 0.79 | 1.00 | - |
8 | 0.25 | 1.00 | 0.28 | 0.50 | |
9 | 0.25 | - | - | - | |
短花针茅-冷蒿 S. breviflora-A. frigida | 7 | 0.23 | 0.54 | - | - |
8 | 0.15 | 0.45 | <0.01 | - | |
9 | 0.18 | - | - | - | |
无芒隐子草-短花针茅 C. songorica-S. breviflora | 7 | 0.14 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.16 |
8 | 0.50 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 1.00 | |
9 | 0.33 | 0.23 | - | - | |
无芒隐子草-冷蒿 C. songorica-A. frigida | 7 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.04 | - |
8 | 1.00 | 0.14 | <0.01 | - | |
9 | 0.18 | - | - | - | |
冷蒿-短花针茅 A. frigida-S. breviflora | 7 | 0.03 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.00 |
8 | 0.03 | <0.01 | 0.00 | <0.01 | |
9 | 0.04 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.00 | |
冷蒿-无芒隐子草 A. frigid-C. songorica | 7 | 0.03 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.00 |
8 | 0.03 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | |
9 | 0.04 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.00 |
图4 不同载畜率下建群种与优势种间空间分布特征由于冷蒿种群多度在HG中较少,所以y轴会形成窄条。Because the abundance of A. frigida in HG is less, the y axis forms a narrow range.
Fig.4 Spatial distribution characteristics of constructive species and dominant species under different stocking rates
1 | Zheng C C, Yi L T, Zhang C, et al. Interspecific relationship and canonical correspondence analysis of the dominant species in ecological service forest of Jiangshan City in Zhejiang Province. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2015, 35(22): 7511-7521. |
郑超超, 伊力塔, 张超, 等. 浙江江山公益林物种种间关系及CCA排序. 生态学报, 2015, 35(22): 7511-7521. | |
2 | Ren H, Zhao C Z. Spatial pattern and competition relationship of Stellera chamaejasme and Aneurolepidium dasystachys population in degraded alpine grassland. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2013, 33(2): 435-442. |
任珩, 赵成章. 高寒退化草地狼毒与赖草种群空间格局及竞争关系. 生态学报, 2013, 33(2): 435-442. | |
3 | Guo J B, Di X Y, Li S Q. Interspecific associations among dominant species in naturally colonized plant communities on coal gob piles of the Datong mining area in Shanxi, China. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2015, 34(12): 3327-3332. |
郭俊兵, 狄晓艳, 李素清. 山西大同矿区煤矸石山自然定居植物群落优势种种间关系. 生态学杂志, 2015, 34(12): 3327-3332. | |
4 | Jian X M, Shui W, Chen Y P, et al. Interspecific relationships of dominant species in the grassland community of moderately degraded tiankeng of Yunnan, China. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2018, 29(2): 492-500. |
简小枚, 税伟, 陈毅萍, 等. 云南中度退化的喀斯特天坑草地植物群落优势种种间关系. 应用生态学报, 2018, 29(2): 492-500. | |
5 | Zhang J Y, Liu T X, Luo Y Y, et al. Temporal and spatial distribution of aboveground biomass of vegetation and quantitative analysis of impact factors in semi-arid grassland basin. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2020, 39(2): 364-375. |
张俊怡, 刘廷玺, 罗艳云, 等. 半干旱草原型流域植被地上生物量时空分布特征及其影响因子. 生态学杂志, 2020, 39(2): 364-375. | |
6 | Zhang F, Yang Y, Qiao J R, et al. Effects of utilization regimes on spatial heterogeneity of the dominant species Cleistogenes squarrosa in Stipa grandis steppe. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2019, 38(4): 953-960. |
张峰, 杨阳, 乔荠瑢, 等. 利用方式对大针茅草原优势种糙隐子草空间异质性的影响. 生态学杂志, 2019, 38(4): 953-960. | |
7 | Zhang F, Chen D L, Zhao M L, et al. Effects of grazing intensity on spatial heterogeneity of the constructive species Stipa breviflora desert steppe. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2019, 30(9): 3049-3056. |
张峰, 陈大岭, 赵萌莉, 等. 放牧强度对荒漠草原建群种短花针茅空间异质性的影响. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(9): 3049-3056. | |
8 | Gao L, Zhang S W, Zhao H B, et al. Spatial heterogeneity of soil physical and chemical properties in degraded grassland and their effect on soil moisture. Arid Zone Research, 2020, 37(3): 607-617. |
高露, 张圣微, 赵鸿彬, 等. 退化草原土壤理化性质空间异质性及其对土壤水分的影响. 干旱区研究, 2020, 37(3): 607-617. | |
9 | Zhang H, Shi S L, Wang S X. Effect of grazing intensities on plant community structure and grassland productivity in desert steppe of Ningxia. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2012, 26(9): 73-76. |
张虎, 师尚礼, 王顺霞. 放牧强度对宁夏荒漠草原植物群落结构及草地生产力的影响. 干旱区资源与环境, 2012, 26(9): 73-76. | |
10 | Li D X. Dynamics and ecological stability of form. Stipa breviflora desert steppe. Grassland of China, 1990(4): 1-5. |
李德新. 短花针茅荒漠草原动态规律及其生态稳定性. 中国草地, 1990(4): 1-5. | |
11 | Ma Z H, Liu G X, Li J P, et al. The evaluation of desert-steppe eco-environment quality in Inner Mongolia. China Journal of Grassland, 2007, 29(6): 17-21. |
马治华, 刘桂香, 李景平, 等. 内蒙古荒漠草原生态环境质量评价. 中国草地学报, 2007, 29(6): 17-21. | |
12 | An H. Effects of grazing disturbance on leaf traits and their interrelationships of plants in desert steppe. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2012, 23(11): 2991-2996. |
安慧. 放牧干扰对荒漠草原植物叶性状及其相互关系的影响. 应用生态学报, 2012, 23(11): 2991-2996. | |
13 | Huang C, Zhang Y, Zhao M L, et al. Effects of different grazing intensities on vegetation characteristics of desert steppe. Pratacultural Science, 2013, 30(11): 1814-1818. |
黄琛, 张宇, 赵萌莉, 等. 放牧强度对荒漠草原植被特征的影响. 草业科学, 2013, 30(11): 1814-1818. | |
14 | Zhang F, Yang Y, Qiao J R, et al. Effects of grazing on spatial distribution relationships among constructive and dominant species in the Stipa grandis steppe. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019, 39(20): 7649-7655. |
张峰, 杨阳, 乔荠瑢, 等. 放牧对大针茅草原建群种与优势种空间分布关系的影响. 生态学报, 2019, 39(20): 7649-7655. | |
15 | Callaway R M, Walker L R. Competition and facilitation: A synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology, 1997, 78(7): 1958-1965. |
16 | Armas C, Pugnaire F I. Plant interactions govern population dynamics in a semi-arid plant community. Journal of Ecology, 2005, 93(5): 978-989. |
17 | Mao Z K, Hao Z Q, Yuan Z Q, et al. Abundance-asymmetry in conspecific aggregation and interspecific interaction. Scientia Sinica Vitae, 2020, 50(4): 381-390. |
毛子昆, 郝占庆, 原作强, 等. 物种聚集分布与种间关系的多度不对称性. 中国科学: 生命科学, 2020, 50(4): 381-390. | |
18 | Li Y H. The divergence and convergence of Aneurolepidium chinense steppe and Stipa grandsis steppe under the grazing influence in Xilin river valley, Inner Mongolia. Acta Phytoecologica et Geobotanica Sinica, 1988, 12(3): 27-34. |
李永宏. 内蒙古锡林河流域羊草草原和大针茅草原在放牧影响下的分异和趋同. 植物生态学与地植物学学报, 1988, 12(3): 27-34. | |
19 | Zhang X N, Hadachaolu, Pan Q M. Adaptive regulation in reproductive strategy of two bunchgrasses under mowing disturbance in Inner Mongolia grassland. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2010, 34(3): 253-262. |
张晓娜, 哈达朝鲁, 潘庆民. 刈割干扰下内蒙古草原两种丛生禾草繁殖策略的适应性调节. 植物生态学报, 2010, 34(3): 253-262. | |
20 | Bai Y F, Li D X, Xu Z X, et al. Growth and reproduction of Stipa krylovii population on a grazing gradient. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 1999, 19(4): 479-484. |
白永飞, 李德新, 许志信, 等. 牧压梯度对克氏针茅生长和繁殖的影响. 生态学报, 1999, 19(4): 479-484. | |
21 | Hou M D, Wang M J, Li Z Q, et al. Effect of grazing intensity on characteristics of vegetative propagation of three plants in the Stipa breviflora steppe. Journal of Inner Mongolia Agricultural University (Natural Science Edition), 2009, 30(1): 71-75. |
侯牡丹, 王明玖, 李志强, 等. 放牧强度对短花针茅草原3种主要植物营养繁殖性能的影响. 内蒙古农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2009, 30(1): 71-75. | |
22 | Gu C, Zhao T Q, Wang Y T, et al. The response of growth and reproduction for Stipa breviflora to different stocking rates. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2017, 26(1): 36-42. |
古琛, 赵天启, 王亚婷, 等. 短花针茅生长和繁殖策略对载畜率的响应. 生态环境学报, 2017, 26(1): 36-42. | |
23 | An H, Xu K. The effect of grazing disturbance on soil properties in desert steppe. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2013, 22(4): 35-42. |
安慧, 徐坤. 放牧干扰对荒漠草原土壤性状的影响. 草业学报, 2013, 22(4): 35-42. | |
24 | Dong T. Effect of grazing intensity on root biomass and root morphological of Stipa grandis. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2011. |
董亭. 放牧强度对大针茅根系生物量及其形态特征影响的研究. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2011. | |
25 | Xijiritana, Lv S J, Wei Z J, et al. Analysis of the role of Stipa breviflora desert grassland plant populations and the interspecific relationships under different grazing systems. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2013, 22(6): 976-982. |
希吉日塔娜, 吕世杰, 卫智军, 等. 不同放牧制度下短花针茅荒漠草原植物种群作用和种间关系分析. 生态环境学报, 2013, 22(6): 976-982. | |
26 | Wu Y L, Lv S J, Liu H M, et al. Effect of different grazing intensity on population inter-specific relationship of Stipa breviflora steppe. Ecological Science, 2016, 35(6): 34-40. |
吴艳玲, 吕世杰, 刘红梅, 等. 不同放牧强度对短花针茅草原植物种群种间关系的影响. 生态科学, 2016, 35(6): 34-40. | |
27 | Fang K, Song N P, Wei L, et al. The effect of different grazing systems on aboveground biomass and interspecific relationships in desert steppe. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2012, 21(5): 12-22. |
方楷, 宋乃平, 魏乐, 等. 不同放牧制度对荒漠草原地上生物量及种间关系的影响. 草业学报, 2012, 21(5): 12-22. | |
28 | Zhang S. Response of main populations interspecific relationships to grazing in Stipa breviflora desert steppe. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2020. |
张爽. 短花针茅荒漠草原主要植物种群间相互关系对放牧的响应. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2020. | |
29 | Liu J H, Zhang J, Lv S J, et al. Response of interspecific relationships among main plant species to the change of precipitation years in desert steppe. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2019, 39(7): 1289-1297. |
刘菊红, 张军, 吕世杰, 等. 荒漠草原主要植物种间关系对降水年型变化的响应. 西北植物学报, 2019, 39(7): 1289-1297. | |
30 | Lv S J, Liu H M, Wu Y L, et al. Effects of grazing on spatial distribution relationships between constructive and dominant species in Stipa breviflora desert steppe. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2014, 25(12): 3469-3474. |
吕世杰, 刘红梅, 吴艳玲, 等. 放牧对短花针茅荒漠草原建群种与优势种空间分布关系的影响. 应用生态学报, 2014, 25(12): 3469-3474. | |
31 | Liu Z M, Li X H, Li R P, et al. A comparative study on seed germination of 15 grass species in Keeqin Sandyland. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2003, 14(9): 1416-1420. |
刘志民, 李雪华, 李荣平, 等. 科尔沁沙地15种禾本科植物种子萌发特性比较. 应用生态学报, 2003, 14(9): 1416-1420. | |
32 | Gu C, Chen W J, Du Y F, et al. Stocking rates affect the resource allocation patterns of Artemisia frigida in the Inner Mongolia desert steppe. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017, 37(7): 2237-2243. |
古琛, 陈万杰, 杜宇凡, 等. 载畜率对内蒙古荒漠草原冷蒿种群资源分配格局的影响. 生态学报, 2017, 37(7): 2237-2243. | |
33 | Wu G L, Hu T M, Liu Z H. Trade-off of sexual and asexual recruitment in a dominant weed Ligularia virgaurea (maxim.) in alpine grasslands (China). Polish Journal of Ecology, 2010, 58(1): 81-86. |
34 | Zhang B, Chen H J, Hou X Y, et al. Ecological response of reproductive performance of Stipa baicalensis in Xilingol steppe of Inner Mongolia. Journal of Gansu Agricultural University, 2015, 50(4): 103-108. |
张勃, 陈海军, 侯向阳, 等. 内蒙古锡林郭勒草原贝加尔针茅的繁殖特性及其生态响应. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2015, 50(4): 103-108. | |
35 | Du L X, Li Q F, Dong K H. Effects of grazing intensity on reproductive characteristics of Artemisia frigida Willd. in Stipa breviflora Griseb. steppe. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2007, 15(4): 367-370. |
杜利霞, 李青丰, 董宽虎. 放牧强度对短花针茅草原冷蒿繁殖特性的影响. 草地学报, 2007, 15(4): 367-370. |
[1] | 吴旭东, 蒋齐, 任小玢, 俞鸿千, 王占军, 何建龙, 季波, 杜建民. 降水水平对荒漠草原生物土壤结皮碳、氮和微生物的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(7): 34-43. |
[2] | 孙忠超, 郭天斗, 于露, 马彦平, 赵亚楠, 李雪颖, 王红梅. 宁夏东部荒漠草原向灌丛地人为转变过程土壤粒径分形特征[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(4): 34-45. |
[3] | 蒙仲举, 陈颜洁, 包斯琴. 苏尼特右旗荒漠草原三种放牧方式下群落斑块特征[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(4): 13-23. |
[4] | 顾继雄, 郭天斗, 王红梅, 李雪颖, 梁丹妮, 杨青莲, 高锦月. 宁夏东部荒漠草原向灌丛地转变过程土壤微生物响应[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(4): 46-57. |
[5] | 熊梅, 乔荠瑢, 杨阳, 张峰, 郑佳华, 吴建新, 赵萌莉. 不同载畜率下短花针茅和土壤生态化学计量特征研究[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(2): 212-219. |
[6] | 张静静, 刘尊驰, 鄢创, 王云霞, 刘凯, 时新荣, 袁志友. 土壤pH值变化对3种草原类型土壤碳氮磷生态化学计量特征的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(2): 69-81. |
[7] | 李静, 红梅, 闫瑾, 张宇晨, 梁志伟, 叶贺, 高海燕, 赵巴音那木拉. 短花针茅荒漠草原植被群落结构及生物量对水氮变化的响应[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(9): 38-48. |
[8] | 万芳, 蒙仲举, 党晓宏, 王瑞东, 张慧敏. 封育措施下荒漠草原针茅植物-土壤C、N、P化学计量特征[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(9): 49-55. |
[9] | 孙世贤, 丁勇, 李夏子, 吴新宏, 闫志坚, 尹强, 李金卓. 放牧强度季节调控对荒漠草原土壤风蚀的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(7): 23-29. |
[10] | 马涛, 吕文强, 李泽霞, 陈爱华, 董彦丽. 黄土高原丘陵沟壑区轮作休耕模式下5种土地利用方式土壤剖面水分分布特征[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(7): 30-39. |
[11] | 于露, 周玉蓉, 赵亚楠, 郭天斗, 孙忠超, 王红梅. 荒漠草原土壤种子库对灌丛引入和降水梯度的响应特征[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(4): 41-50. |
[12] | 许爱云, 许冬梅, 曹兵, 刘金龙, 于双, 郭艳菊, 马晓静. 宁夏荒漠草原不同群落蒙古冰草种群空间格局及种间关联性[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(3): 171-178. |
[13] | 谢莉, 宋乃平, 孟晨, 吴婷, 陈晓莹, 李敏岚, 岳健敏. 不同封育年限对宁夏荒漠草原土壤粒径及碳氮储量的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(2): 1-10. |
[14] | 王占军, 马琨, 崔慧珍, 李光文, 俞鸿千, 蒋齐. 土壤丛枝菌根真菌与宁夏主要草原类型植被群落分布间的相互关系研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(12): 150-160. |
[15] | 常海涛, 刘任涛, 陈蔚, 张安宁, 左小安. 内蒙古乌拉特荒漠草原红砂灌丛林引入柠条后地面节肢动物群落结构分布特征[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(12): 188-197. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||