Acta Prataculturae Sinica ›› 2021, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (7): 1-10.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2020434
Previous Articles Next Articles
Xin-lei XU(), Yan-tao SONG(), Jing-dong ZHAO, Yun-na WU
Received:
2020-09-27
Revised:
2020-11-24
Online:
2021-07-20
Published:
2021-06-03
Contact:
Yan-tao SONG
Xin-lei XU, Yan-tao SONG, Jing-dong ZHAO, Yun-na WU. Changes in forage quality and its relationship with plant diversity under fertilization and mowing in Hulun Buir meadow steppe[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(7): 1-10.
因子 Parameters | 施肥 Fertilization (F) | 刈割 Mowing (D) | 施肥×刈割 F×D |
---|---|---|---|
粗灰分 Ash | ns | ns | ns |
粗脂肪 EE | ns | *** | ns |
粗蛋白 CP | *** | *** | ns |
木质素 Lignin | ns | * | ns |
可溶性碳水化合物 WSC | ns | ** | ns |
酸性洗涤纤维 ADF | ** | *** | ns |
中性洗涤纤维 NDF | ns | *** | ns |
非纤维性碳水化合物 NFC | ns | *** | ns |
体外30 h干物质消化率IVTDMD30 | ** | *** | ns |
体外30 h中性洗涤纤维消化率 NDFD30 | ns | * | ns |
产奶净能 NEL | ns | *** | ns |
维持净能 NEM | ns | *** | ns |
增重净能 NEG | ns | *** | ns |
相对饲养价值 RFV | * | *** | ns |
相对牧草质量 RFQ | ns | *** | ns |
产奶量 Milk production | ns | *** | ns |
Table 1 Analysis of variance of fertilization and mowing and their interactions on various forage quality indices
因子 Parameters | 施肥 Fertilization (F) | 刈割 Mowing (D) | 施肥×刈割 F×D |
---|---|---|---|
粗灰分 Ash | ns | ns | ns |
粗脂肪 EE | ns | *** | ns |
粗蛋白 CP | *** | *** | ns |
木质素 Lignin | ns | * | ns |
可溶性碳水化合物 WSC | ns | ** | ns |
酸性洗涤纤维 ADF | ** | *** | ns |
中性洗涤纤维 NDF | ns | *** | ns |
非纤维性碳水化合物 NFC | ns | *** | ns |
体外30 h干物质消化率IVTDMD30 | ** | *** | ns |
体外30 h中性洗涤纤维消化率 NDFD30 | ns | * | ns |
产奶净能 NEL | ns | *** | ns |
维持净能 NEM | ns | *** | ns |
增重净能 NEG | ns | *** | ns |
相对饲养价值 RFV | * | *** | ns |
相对牧草质量 RFQ | ns | *** | ns |
产奶量 Milk production | ns | *** | ns |
施肥处理 Fertilization treatment | 留茬高度 Stubble height (cm) | 粗灰分 Ash | 粗脂肪 EE | 粗蛋白 CP | 木质素 Lignin | 非纤维性碳水化合物 NFC | 可溶性碳水化合物 WSC | 酸性洗涤 纤维 ADF | 中性洗涤 纤维 NDF |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
施肥 Fertilization | 3 | 5.53±0.18 | 3.71±0.16 | 15.46±0.48 | 23.72±1.54 | 7.17±0.35 | 9.23±0.75 | 29.73±0.89 | 54.06±1.82 |
6 | 4.60±0.55 | 2.99±0.10 | 14.02±0.47 | 26.54±1.47 | 6.87±0.35 | 9.19±0.55 | 31.91±1.04 | 54.33±1.25 | |
9 | 5.76±0.37 | 3.12±0.12 | 12.53±0.44 | 20.01±1.53 | 5.87±0.16 | 7.64±0.63 | 34.62±0.90 | 61.06±1.21 | |
12 | 6.02±0.55 | 2.96±0.22 | 12.70±0.96 | 22.75±2.02 | 5.85±0.43 | 7.67±0.78 | 34.13±1.42 | 58.05±1.21 | |
15 | 5.25±0.44 | 2.73±0.14 | 12.95±0.43 | 20.60±2.23 | 5.05±0.48 | 7.16±0.86 | 35.18±1.16 | 60.94±2.93 | |
ND | 5.13±0.33 | 2.86±0.13 | 12.54±0.53 | 16.92±1.64 | 4.12±0.68 | 5.49±0.79 | 37.00±1.08 | 65.03±2.20 | |
不施肥 Not fertilization | 3 | 4.64±0.35 | 3.64±0.14 | 13.14±0.05 | 26.14±1.51 | 7.63±0.19 | 8.88±0.48 | 31.06±0.42 | 54.93±1.41 |
6 | 5.28±0.40 | 3.05±0.06 | 11.44±0.64 | 25.53±1.18 | 6.92±0.47 | 8.91±0.64 | 33.97±1.03 | 57.19±0.69 | |
9 | 5.15±0.62 | 2.96±0.10 | 9.97±0.34 | 22.47±2.22 | 5.50±0.40 | 6.79±0.66 | 36.97±0.89 | 61.93±1.83 | |
12 | 7.03±1.84 | 3.03±0.04 | 9.81±0.73 | 22.13±0.61 | 4.68±0.93 | 6.07±1.05 | 37.93±1.89 | 60.47±1.71 | |
15 | 4.89±0.37 | 2.70±0.10 | 10.23±0.52 | 23.96±1.40 | 5.71±0.46 | 7.44±0.64 | 37.16±0.77 | 60.69±1.63 | |
ND | 5.29±1.08 | 3.35±0.07 | 9.57±0.33 | 17.41±2.80 | 5.44±0.41 | 6.57±0.73 | 37.39±1.05 | 66.87±2.65 | |
l.s.d0.05 | 2.04 | 0.35 | 1.50 | 0.99 | 4.90 | 0.95 | 2.03 | 3.06 |
Table 2 The difference of forage nutrient content under treatments of fertilization and different stubble height (%)
施肥处理 Fertilization treatment | 留茬高度 Stubble height (cm) | 粗灰分 Ash | 粗脂肪 EE | 粗蛋白 CP | 木质素 Lignin | 非纤维性碳水化合物 NFC | 可溶性碳水化合物 WSC | 酸性洗涤 纤维 ADF | 中性洗涤 纤维 NDF |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
施肥 Fertilization | 3 | 5.53±0.18 | 3.71±0.16 | 15.46±0.48 | 23.72±1.54 | 7.17±0.35 | 9.23±0.75 | 29.73±0.89 | 54.06±1.82 |
6 | 4.60±0.55 | 2.99±0.10 | 14.02±0.47 | 26.54±1.47 | 6.87±0.35 | 9.19±0.55 | 31.91±1.04 | 54.33±1.25 | |
9 | 5.76±0.37 | 3.12±0.12 | 12.53±0.44 | 20.01±1.53 | 5.87±0.16 | 7.64±0.63 | 34.62±0.90 | 61.06±1.21 | |
12 | 6.02±0.55 | 2.96±0.22 | 12.70±0.96 | 22.75±2.02 | 5.85±0.43 | 7.67±0.78 | 34.13±1.42 | 58.05±1.21 | |
15 | 5.25±0.44 | 2.73±0.14 | 12.95±0.43 | 20.60±2.23 | 5.05±0.48 | 7.16±0.86 | 35.18±1.16 | 60.94±2.93 | |
ND | 5.13±0.33 | 2.86±0.13 | 12.54±0.53 | 16.92±1.64 | 4.12±0.68 | 5.49±0.79 | 37.00±1.08 | 65.03±2.20 | |
不施肥 Not fertilization | 3 | 4.64±0.35 | 3.64±0.14 | 13.14±0.05 | 26.14±1.51 | 7.63±0.19 | 8.88±0.48 | 31.06±0.42 | 54.93±1.41 |
6 | 5.28±0.40 | 3.05±0.06 | 11.44±0.64 | 25.53±1.18 | 6.92±0.47 | 8.91±0.64 | 33.97±1.03 | 57.19±0.69 | |
9 | 5.15±0.62 | 2.96±0.10 | 9.97±0.34 | 22.47±2.22 | 5.50±0.40 | 6.79±0.66 | 36.97±0.89 | 61.93±1.83 | |
12 | 7.03±1.84 | 3.03±0.04 | 9.81±0.73 | 22.13±0.61 | 4.68±0.93 | 6.07±1.05 | 37.93±1.89 | 60.47±1.71 | |
15 | 4.89±0.37 | 2.70±0.10 | 10.23±0.52 | 23.96±1.40 | 5.71±0.46 | 7.44±0.64 | 37.16±0.77 | 60.69±1.63 | |
ND | 5.29±1.08 | 3.35±0.07 | 9.57±0.33 | 17.41±2.80 | 5.44±0.41 | 6.57±0.73 | 37.39±1.05 | 66.87±2.65 | |
l.s.d0.05 | 2.04 | 0.35 | 1.50 | 0.99 | 4.90 | 0.95 | 2.03 | 3.06 |
施肥处理 Fertilization treatment | 留茬高度 Stubble height (cm) | 体外30 h干物质消化率 IVTDMD30 (%) | 体外30 h中性洗涤纤维消化率 NDFD30 (%) | 产奶净能 NEL (Mcal·kg-1) | 维持净能 NEM (Mcal·kg-1) | 增重净能 NEG (Mcal·kg-1) | 相对饲养 价值 RFV | 相对牧草 质量 RFQ | 产奶量 Milk production (kg·MT-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
施肥 Fertilization | 3 | 61.06±0.33 | 32.35±1.72 | 1.46±0.02 | 1.42±0.02 | 0.69±0.02 | 113.50±4.40 | 113.75±3.79 | 1496.75±31.49 |
6 | 61.10±1.20 | 34.10±2.96 | 1.45±0.02 | 1.38±0.02 | 0.66±0.02 | 110.00±3.71 | 107.00±3.18 | 1466.00±38.24 | |
9 | 58.56±0.88 | 33.45±1.94 | 1.32±0.02 | 1.22±0.03 | 0.50±0.03 | 94.50±2.32 | 85.25±4.55 | 1278.75±35.29 | |
12 | 60.69±1.36 | 37.21±3.75 | 1.36±0.02 | 1.28±0.03 | 0.56±0.03 | 100.00±2.79 | 95.50±5.17 | 1339.25±43.71 | |
15 | 57.65±1.86 | 32.26±3.11 | 1.32±0.04 | 1.19±0.08 | 0.47±0.08 | 94.75±5.39 | 82.50±10.78 | 1249.75±85.03 | |
ND | 53.99±1.74 | 26.86±1.62 | 1.25±0.04 | 1.09±0.06 | 0.36±0.06 | 86.25±4.32 | 68.75±7.53 | 1149.00±66.76 | |
不施肥 Not fertilization | 3 | 59.19±1.39 | 31.89±2.94 | 1.47±0.01 | 1.42±0.01 | 0.70±0.01 | 110.00±2.79 | 111.25±2.95 | 1511.25±9.80 |
6 | 57.51±1.50 | 34.07±2.11 | 1.40±0.01 | 1.32±0.01 | 0.60±0.01 | 101.50±1.19 | 98.25±2.59 | 1389.00±22.40 | |
9 | 55.37±0.80 | 35.18±2.28 | 1.34±0.02 | 1.25±0.03 | 0.53±0.03 | 90.50±3.57 | 88.25±5.02 | 1307.25±39.76 | |
12 | 57.85±2.25 | 32.90±4.16 | 1.30±0.03 | 1.21±0.03 | 0.49±0.03 | 91.50±1.65 | 87.25±5.28 | 1251.75±48.54 | |
15 | 54.94±1.27 | 33.95±1.94 | 1.35±0.02 | 1.26±0.04 | 0.54±0.04 | 92.25±2.59 | 89.50±7.35 | 1318.00±46.33 | |
ND | 51.17±1.96 | 25.32±2.44 | 1.26±0.05 | 1.10±0.06 | 0.38±0.06 | 83.50±4.29 | 69.75±7.64 | 1161.50±82.65 | |
l.s.d0.05 | 4.09 | 7.49 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 9.61 | 16.52 | 140.47 |
Table 3 Difference in indices of forage feeding value under treatments of fertilization and different stubble height
施肥处理 Fertilization treatment | 留茬高度 Stubble height (cm) | 体外30 h干物质消化率 IVTDMD30 (%) | 体外30 h中性洗涤纤维消化率 NDFD30 (%) | 产奶净能 NEL (Mcal·kg-1) | 维持净能 NEM (Mcal·kg-1) | 增重净能 NEG (Mcal·kg-1) | 相对饲养 价值 RFV | 相对牧草 质量 RFQ | 产奶量 Milk production (kg·MT-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
施肥 Fertilization | 3 | 61.06±0.33 | 32.35±1.72 | 1.46±0.02 | 1.42±0.02 | 0.69±0.02 | 113.50±4.40 | 113.75±3.79 | 1496.75±31.49 |
6 | 61.10±1.20 | 34.10±2.96 | 1.45±0.02 | 1.38±0.02 | 0.66±0.02 | 110.00±3.71 | 107.00±3.18 | 1466.00±38.24 | |
9 | 58.56±0.88 | 33.45±1.94 | 1.32±0.02 | 1.22±0.03 | 0.50±0.03 | 94.50±2.32 | 85.25±4.55 | 1278.75±35.29 | |
12 | 60.69±1.36 | 37.21±3.75 | 1.36±0.02 | 1.28±0.03 | 0.56±0.03 | 100.00±2.79 | 95.50±5.17 | 1339.25±43.71 | |
15 | 57.65±1.86 | 32.26±3.11 | 1.32±0.04 | 1.19±0.08 | 0.47±0.08 | 94.75±5.39 | 82.50±10.78 | 1249.75±85.03 | |
ND | 53.99±1.74 | 26.86±1.62 | 1.25±0.04 | 1.09±0.06 | 0.36±0.06 | 86.25±4.32 | 68.75±7.53 | 1149.00±66.76 | |
不施肥 Not fertilization | 3 | 59.19±1.39 | 31.89±2.94 | 1.47±0.01 | 1.42±0.01 | 0.70±0.01 | 110.00±2.79 | 111.25±2.95 | 1511.25±9.80 |
6 | 57.51±1.50 | 34.07±2.11 | 1.40±0.01 | 1.32±0.01 | 0.60±0.01 | 101.50±1.19 | 98.25±2.59 | 1389.00±22.40 | |
9 | 55.37±0.80 | 35.18±2.28 | 1.34±0.02 | 1.25±0.03 | 0.53±0.03 | 90.50±3.57 | 88.25±5.02 | 1307.25±39.76 | |
12 | 57.85±2.25 | 32.90±4.16 | 1.30±0.03 | 1.21±0.03 | 0.49±0.03 | 91.50±1.65 | 87.25±5.28 | 1251.75±48.54 | |
15 | 54.94±1.27 | 33.95±1.94 | 1.35±0.02 | 1.26±0.04 | 0.54±0.04 | 92.25±2.59 | 89.50±7.35 | 1318.00±46.33 | |
ND | 51.17±1.96 | 25.32±2.44 | 1.26±0.05 | 1.10±0.06 | 0.38±0.06 | 83.50±4.29 | 69.75±7.64 | 1161.50±82.65 | |
l.s.d0.05 | 4.09 | 7.49 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 9.61 | 16.52 | 140.47 |
留茬高度 Stubble height (cm) | 施肥 Fertilization | 不施肥 Not fertilization | 留茬高度 Stubble height (cm) | 施肥 Fertilization | 不施肥 Not fertilization |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 11.5±1.6 | 11.3±0.5 | 15 | 12.3±0.6 | 11.3±0.8 |
6 | 11.5±1.7 | 9.5±1.8 | ND | 7.0±1.2 | 8.0±1.3 |
9 | 8.0±1.5 | 10.5±1.6 | l.s.d0.05 | 2.3 | 1.8 |
12 | 11.0±2.6 | 12.0±1.4 |
Table 4 Differences in species richness under treatments of fertilization and different stubble height (species·m-2)
留茬高度 Stubble height (cm) | 施肥 Fertilization | 不施肥 Not fertilization | 留茬高度 Stubble height (cm) | 施肥 Fertilization | 不施肥 Not fertilization |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 11.5±1.6 | 11.3±0.5 | 15 | 12.3±0.6 | 11.3±0.8 |
6 | 11.5±1.7 | 9.5±1.8 | ND | 7.0±1.2 | 8.0±1.3 |
9 | 8.0±1.5 | 10.5±1.6 | l.s.d0.05 | 2.3 | 1.8 |
12 | 11.0±2.6 | 12.0±1.4 |
1 | Hou X Y. Priority approaches, techniques and models to sustainably tap the grassland productivity potential. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2016, 49(16): 3229-3238. |
侯向阳. 可持续挖掘草原生产潜力的途径、技术及政策建议. 中国农业科学, 2016, 49(16): 3229-3238. | |
2 | Richman S E, Leafloor J O, Karasov W H, et al. Ecological implications of reduced forage quality on growth and survival of sympatric geese. Journal of Animal Ecology, 2015, 84(1): 284-298. |
3 | Hasan B, Shah W A. Biomass, grain production and quality of oats (Avena sativa) under different cutting regimes and nitrogen levels. Cereal Research Communications, 2000, 28(1): 203-210. |
4 | Han X G, Li L H. The maintenance mechanism of grassland ecosystem in Inner Mongolia. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2012. |
韩兴国, 李凌浩. 内蒙古草地生态系统维持机理. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2012. | |
5 | Wang D P, Chen W J, Zhao T Q, et al. Effect of cutting regime on yield and nutritional value of Stipa grandis steppe. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2019, 41(1): 91-95. |
王德平, 陈万杰, 赵天启, 等. 刈割对大针茅草原产量和牧草营养品质的影响. 中国草地学报, 2019, 41(1): 91-95. | |
6 | Wang Z F, Wang D J, Yu H Z, et al. Effects of cutting time and stubble height on hay yield and quality of Leymus chinensis meadow. Pratacultural Science, 2016, 33(2): 108-114. |
王志锋, 王多伽, 于洪柱, 等. 刈割时间与留茬高度对羊草草甸草产量和品质的影响. 草业科学, 2016, 33(2): 108-114. | |
7 | Jiang H. General evaluation on study of yield, qualities and degradability about mix-sowing of alfalfa& smooth bromegrass. Shihezi: Shihezi University, 2007. |
蒋慧.紫花苜蓿与无芒雀麦混播草地产量、品质和降解率研究及其综合评价. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2007. | |
8 | Hrevušová Z, Hejcman M, Hakl J. Soil chemical properties, plant species composition, herbage quality, production and nutrient uptake of an alluvial meadow after 45 years of N, P and K application. Grass and Forage Science, 2014, 70(2): 205-218. |
9 | Zhang Q Q, Liang Q W, Narisu, et al. Effects of clipping on native grassland: A review. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 2018, 39(1): 33-42. |
张晴晴, 梁庆伟, 娜日苏, 等. 刈割对天然草地影响的研究进展. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2018, 39(1): 33-42. | |
10 | Gough L, Osenberg C W, Gross K L. Fertilization effects on species density and primary productivity in several herbaceous plant communities. Oikos, 2000, 89(3): 428-439. |
11 | Provenza F D. Acquired aversions as the basis for varied diets of ruminants foraging on rangelands. Journal of Animal Science, 1996, 74(8): 2010-2020. |
12 | Westoby M. What are the biological bases of varied diets? The American Naturalist, 1978, 112(985): 627-631. |
13 | Wiggins N L, Mcarthur C, Davies N W. Diet switching in a generalist mammalian folivore: Fundamental to maximising intake. Oecologia, 2006, 147(4): 650-657. |
14 | Wang L, Wang D, He Z, et al. Mechanisms linking plant species richness to foraging of a large herbivore. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2010, 47(4): 868-875. |
15 | Early D M, Provenza F D. Food flavor and nutritional characteristics alter dynamics of food preference in lambs. Journal of Animal Science, 1998, 76(3): 728-734. |
16 | Hasi M, Zhang X Y, Niu G X, et al. Effects of nitrogen addition on ecosystem CO2 exchange in a meadow steppe, Inner Mongolia. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2018, 53(1): 27-41. |
哈斯木其尔, 张学耀, 牛国祥, 等. 氮素添加对内蒙古草甸草原生态系统 CO2交换的影响. 植物学报, 2018, 53(1): 27-41. | |
17 | Rohweder D A, Barnes R F, Neal J. Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. Journal of Animal Science, 2018, 47(3): 747-759. |
18 | Sergei S, Robert F, Florian L, et al. Plant diversity effects on forage quality, yield and revenues of semi-natural grasslands. Nature Communications, 2020, 768(11): 1-11. |
19 | Huo C J, Han J G, Hong F Z, et al. Effect of the first clipping dates and different stubble heights on the yield and quality of mixture pasture. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2001, 9(4): 257-264. |
霍成君, 韩建国, 洪绂曾, 等. 刈割期和留茬高度对混播草地产草量及品质的影响. 草地学报, 2001, 9(4): 257-264. | |
20 | Yang K H, Yu L, Zhang Q B, et al. Effects of nitrogen application on Phleum pretense pasture’s forage yield and quality. Pratacultural Science, 2015, 32(12): 2071-2077. |
杨开虎, 于磊, 张前兵, 等. 施氮对猫尾草栽培草地饲草产量和品质的影响. 草业科学, 2015, 32(12): 2071-2077. | |
21 | De K J, Zhou Q P, Liu W H, et al. Effects of nitrogen application on the yield and quality of oat in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2007, 29(5): 43-48. |
德科加, 周青平, 刘文辉, 等. 施氮量对青藏高原燕麦产量和品质的影响. 中国草地学报, 2007, 29(5): 43-48. | |
22 | Hu H F, Jie X L, Guo X, et al. Effects of Se application as basal fertilizer on the nutrient contents and distribution rates of alfalfa at different growth stages. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2014, 22(4): 871-877. |
胡华锋, 介晓磊, 郭孝, 等. 基施硒肥对不同生育期紫花苜蓿营养含量及分配的影响. 草地学报, 2014, 22(4): 871-877. | |
23 | Ji Y F, Wu B L, Ding Y H, et al. Nutritional components of Phragmites australis and Spartina alterniflora in Dafeng freerange David’s Deer habitat of Jiangsu Province, East China: A comparative analysis. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2011, 30(10): 2240-2244. |
纪一帆, 吴宝镭, 丁玉华, 等. 大丰野放麋鹿生境中芦苇和互花米草的营养对比分析. 生态学杂志, 2011, 30(10): 2240-2244. | |
24 | Wu F L, Wang Z S, Yang Q, et al. Analysis of growth characteristics, nutritional components and feeding values of native forage grass from the high-cold steppes in the Luqu and Hezuo region of Gannan in summer and winter. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(4): 31-38. |
吴发莉, 王之盛, 杨勤, 等. 甘南碌曲和合作地区冬夏季高寒天然牧草生产特性、营养成分和饲用价值分析. 草业学报, 2014, 23(4): 31-38. | |
25 | Fu Q, Liu Y. Recent progress in research on the effects of calcium, phosphorus and vitamin D on bone metabolism in animals. Chinese Journal of Comparative Medicine, 2006, 16(8): 502-505. |
付强, 刘源. 钙、磷与维生素D对动物骨代谢的影响研究进展. 中国比较医学杂志, 2006, 16(8): 502-505. | |
26 | Zhang Y, Bai X, Guo C H, et al. Analysis of nutritional value of common used forages in the goat production area in Sichuan Province. Pratacultural Science, 2012, 29(2): 285-290. |
张艳, 柏雪, 郭春华, 等. 四川省山羊主产区常用饲料营养价值分析. 草业科学, 2012, 29(2): 285-290. | |
27 | Xiong Y, Xu Q F, Yu Z, et al. Evaluation of nutritional and feeding value of oat hay from different regions. Pratacultural Science, 2018, 35(10): 2457-2462. |
熊乙, 许庆方, 玉柱, 等. 不同产地燕麦干草养分及饲用价值. 草业科学, 2018, 35(10): 2457-2462. | |
28 | Lincoln T, Eduardo Z. Plant physiology (Fourth Edition). Song C P, Wang X L,translation. Beijing: Science Press, 2009. |
Lincoln T, Eduardo Z. 植物生理学(第四版). 宋纯鹏, 王学路, 译. 北京: 科学出版社, 2009. | |
29 | Ozier-lafontaine H, Lesueur-jannoyer M. Sustainable agriculture reviews 14. Berlin: Springer, 2014. |
30 | Mu Y, Geng Y B. The element content characteristics of main species in Leymus chinensis grassland in Inner Mongolia, China. Ecology and Environment, 2015, 24(7): 1118-1124. |
母悦, 耿元波. 内蒙古羊草草原植物营养元素的含量特征. 生态环境学报, 2015, 24(7): 1118-1124. | |
31 | Liu Z Y, Wang X G, Wei H W, et al. Effects of nitrogen supplementation on forage yield and quality of a degraded grassland in Hulunbuir, China. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2019, 30(9): 2992-2998. |
刘卓艺, 王晓光, 魏海伟, 等. 氮素补给对呼伦贝尔草甸草原退化草地牧草产量和品质的影响. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(9): 2992-2998. | |
32 | Wang Q H, Li C, Pang Z, et al. Poisonous weeds in chinese grassland and control technology. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2013, 21(5): 831-841. |
王庆海, 李翠, 庞卓, 等. 中国草地主要有毒植物及其防控技术. 草地学报, 2013, 21(5): 831-841. | |
33 | Güsewell S, Lenedic C. Effect of winter mowing on vegetation success in a lake shore fen. Applied Vegetation Science, 2004, 7(1): 41-48. |
34 | Antonsen H, Olsson P A. Relative importance of burning, mowing and species translocation in the restoration of a former boreal hayfield: Responses of plant diversity and the microbial community. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2005, 42(2): 337-347. |
35 | Huhta A P, Rautio P, Tuomi J, et al. Restorative mowing on an abandoned semi-natural meadow: Short-term and predicted long-term effects. Journal of Vegetation Science, 2009, 12(5): 677-686. |
36 | Zobel M, Osus M, Liira J, et al. Is small-scale species richness limited by seed availability or microsite availability? Ecology, 2000, 81(12): 3274-3282. |
37 | Dee J R, Thomas S M, Thompson S D, et al. Long-term late season mowing maintains diversity in southern US tallgrass prairie invaded by Bothriochloa ischaemum. Applied Vegetation Science, 2016, 19(3): 442-453. |
38 | Early D M, Provenza F D. Food flavor and nutritional characteristics alter dynamics of food preference in lambs. Journal of Animal Science, 1998, 76(3): 728-734. |
39 | Sergei S, Nina B, Andreas L, et al. Economic benefits from plant species diversity in intensively managed grasslands. Ecological Economics, 2020, 168(2): 1-12. |
40 | Yao X X, Gong X Y, Zhang L P, et al. Effects of grazing and long-term fencing on nutritive values of dominant species in alpine meadow of Qilian Mountains. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2018, 26(6): 1354-1362. |
姚喜喜, 宫旭胤, 张利平, 等. 放牧和长期围封对祁连山高寒草甸优势牧草营养品质的影响. 草地学报, 2018, 26(6): 1354-1362. |
[1] | Xin-you WANG, Wen-xia CAO, Xiao-jun WANG, Yu-zhen LIU, Rui GAO, Shi-lin WANG, Hai-tao AN, Xiu-xia DENG, Wen-hu WANG. Herbage production and forage quality responses to cutting height and fertilization of legume-grass mixtures in the Hexi region [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(4): 99-110. |
[2] | Xiao-jiao WANG, Li-qun CAI, Peng QI, Ya-zhi Wang, Xiao-long CHEN, Jun Wu, Ren-zhi ZHANG. Effects of alternative fertilizer options on soil CO2 emission and carbon pool management index in a dryland soil [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(2): 32-45. |
[3] | Hui-xin JIANG, Shan-shan BAI, Bo WU, Jing-yi SONG, Guo-liang WANG. A multivariate evaluation of agronomic straits and forage quality of 22 oat varieties in the Huang-Huai-Hai area of China [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(1): 140-149. |
[4] | GUO Jian-bo, ZHAO Guo-qiang, JIA Shu-gang, DONG Jun-fu, CHEN Long, WANG Shu-ping. Comprehensive evaluation of effects of fertilization on grassland quality index and soil properties in alpine steppe [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(9): 85-93. |
[5] | WU Yong, LIU Xiao-jing, LIN Fang, TONG Chang-chun. A data envelopment analysis study of alfalfa fertilization responses and economic return in the desert irrigation area of Hexi [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(9): 94-105. |
[6] | TONG Chang-chun, LIU Xiao-jing, LIN Fang, YU Tie-feng. Yield effect of optimisation of photosynthetic characteristics of alfalfa through balanced fertilization [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(8): 70-80. |
[7] | Zaituniguli Kuerban, Tuerxun Tuerhong, TU Zhen-dong, WANG Hui, Shan Qimike, Aikebaier Yilahong. Effects of fertilization on growth and yield of continuously cropped sweet sorghum [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(8): 81-92. |
[8] | XU Qi-wen, MA Shu-min, ZHU Bo, ZHANG Xiao-duan, XING Yi, DUAN Mei-chun, WANG Long-chang. Effects of the combined application of biochar and chemical fertilizer on fertility and microbial characteristics of purple soil and yield and quality of oilseed rape [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(5): 121-131. |
[9] | YOU Yong-liang, LI Yuan, ZHAO Hai-ming, WU Rui-xin, LIU Gui-bo. Effects of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer application on yield and forage quality of forage triticale on the Haihe Plain [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(3): 137-146. |
[10] | Yu-xuan CUI, Zong-jiu SUN, Hui-xia LIU, Yi-qiang DONG. Effects of short-term grazing exclusion on standing biomass and plant community diversity in sagebrush desert [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(12): 17-26. |
[11] | FANG Yan-jie, ZHANG Xu-cheng, YU Xian-feng, HOU Hui-zhi, WANG Hong-li, MA Yi-fan, ZHANG Guo-ping, LEI Kang-ning. Effects of soil plastic mulching and fertilizer application on the water utilization and yield of Tartary buckwheat crops in a semiarid rain-fed area [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(11): 46-56. |
[12] | ZHANG Yong-liang, YU Tie-feng, HAO Feng, GAO Kai. Effects of fertilization and legume-grass ratio on forage yield and NPK utilization efficiency [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(11): 91-101. |
[13] | WANG Xiao-jiao, QI Peng, CAI Li-qun, CHEN Xiao-long, XIE Jun-hong, GAN Hui-jiong, ZHANG Ren-zhi. Effects of alternative fertilization practices on components of the soil organic carbon pool and yield stability in rain-fed maize production on the Loess Plateau [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(10): 58-69. |
[14] | YU Tie-feng, LIU Xiao-jing, WU Yong, KUAI Jia-lin. Fertilization effect of alfalfa high yield field and its recommended fertilizer application in northwest drought irrigated area [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(8): 15-27. |
[15] | TIAN Meng, SUN Zong-jiu, LI Ying, LI Pei-ying, XIE Kai-yun. Response to increasing precipitation in Artemisia desert grassland of soil seed bank composition and species diversity of germinating plants [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(12): 17-28. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||