本文關(guān)鍵詞：烏魯木齊市周邊草地禁牧效益分析　出處：《新疆農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 草地 禁牧 群落結(jié)構(gòu) 經(jīng)濟(jì)效益

【摘要】：新疆主要以傳統(tǒng)的游牧為主,過(guò)度放牧是新疆草原退化的主要原因。禁牧作為生態(tài)恢復(fù)的重要手段,已成為新疆草地恢復(fù)和保護(hù)的一項(xiàng)重要措施。研究植被群落結(jié)構(gòu)與草地經(jīng)濟(jì)效益對(duì)禁牧的響應(yīng),對(duì)理解草地退化與恢復(fù)機(jī)理以及合理利用封育后的草地等提供指導(dǎo)作用。本研究以烏魯木齊市周邊禁牧3年、4年和5年的平原荒漠、山地荒漠、平原荒漠草原、山地荒漠草原、山地草原和低地草甸草地類(lèi)型為對(duì)象,分別測(cè)定圍欄內(nèi)草地植被群落結(jié)構(gòu)、高度、覆蓋度、生物量,并計(jì)算其合理載畜量和圍欄后的經(jīng)濟(jì)效益,以期為政府決策提供科學(xué)依據(jù)。主要結(jié)果如下:1、經(jīng)過(guò)3年、4年、5年的禁牧后,不同類(lèi)型草地植物群落的組成結(jié)構(gòu)未發(fā)生明顯的變化;圍欄主要植物種的高度存在一定差異,均表現(xiàn)為禁牧5年禁牧4年禁牧3年;除低地草甸外,其余各類(lèi)型草地植被覆蓋度均為禁牧4年禁牧5年禁牧3年。2、受到氣候波動(dòng)和所處位置的影響,不同草地類(lèi)型間生物量總體上表現(xiàn)為禁牧4年禁牧5年禁牧3年。草地禁牧雖可以有效地禁止牲畜對(duì)植物的采食踐踏干擾,但其對(duì)植被生物量的影響遠(yuǎn)不及年度氣候條件波動(dòng)的影響。3、山地荒漠和山地荒漠草原合理載畜量在禁牧4年出現(xiàn)最大值,而平原荒漠在禁牧5年出現(xiàn)最小值;隨禁牧?xí)r間的延長(zhǎng),山地草原和低地草甸合理載畜量逐漸減小,平原荒漠草原變化趨勢(shì)則與之相反,在禁牧5年合理載畜量達(dá)到頂峰。4、山地荒漠和低地草甸禁牧經(jīng)濟(jì)效益最高,且在禁牧4年經(jīng)濟(jì)效益達(dá)最大;山地草原經(jīng)濟(jì)效益隨著禁牧?xí)r間延長(zhǎng)而逐漸降低,平原荒漠草原則與之呈相反的變化趨勢(shì);平原荒漠經(jīng)濟(jì)效益在禁牧4年有最小值,僅為431.75元。5、綜合禁牧后不同草地類(lèi)型中植物群落和草地經(jīng)濟(jì)效益,禁牧需要與利用(放牧和刈割)合理配置,才能使牧草在蓋度、高度、生物量等方面比單純放牧有所提高,但提高的程度并不與圍欄禁牧?xí)r間成正比。
[Abstract]:Xinjiang is dominated by traditional nomadic, overgrazing is the main reason of grassland degradation in Xinjiang. Grazing ban as an important means of ecological restoration. It has become an important measure for grassland restoration and protection in Xinjiang. The response of vegetation community structure and grassland economic benefit to forbidding grazing has been studied. This study provides guidance to understand the mechanism of grassland degradation and restoration and to make rational use of fenced grassland. In this study, the desert of plain, mountain and desert in Urumqi for 3 years, 4 years and 5 years were banned. The vegetation community structure, height, coverage and biomass of grassland community were measured in plain desert steppe, mountain desert steppe, mountain steppe and lowland meadow grassland. In order to provide scientific basis for government decision-making, the main results are as follows: 1, after 3 years, 4 years, 5 years of grazing ban. There was no significant change in the composition of plant communities in different types of grassland. The height of the main plant species in the fence was different to some extent, all of them were five years and four years and three years. With the exception of lowland meadow, the vegetation coverage of all types of grassland was 4 years, 5 years and 3 years, which was affected by climate fluctuation and location. The biomass of different grassland types was 4 years, 5 years and 3 years. Although forbidding grazing could effectively prevent livestock from interfering with plant feeding and trampling. But its influence on vegetation biomass was much less than that of annual climatic fluctuation. The reasonable carrying capacity of mountain desert and mountain desert steppe appeared maximum in 4 years of no grazing. However, the desert of the plain had the lowest value in the five years of forbidding grazing. With the extension of the grazing ban time, the reasonable stocking capacity of mountain steppe and lowland meadow gradually decreased, and the change trend of plain desert steppe was opposite, and the reasonable stocking capacity reached the peak in 5 years. The economic benefit of forbidding grazing in mountain desert and lowland meadow was the highest, and the economic benefit of forbidding grazing was the highest in 4 years. The economic benefits of mountain steppe gradually decreased with the extension of grazing ban time, while the desert steppe in plain showed the opposite trend. The economic benefit of desert in plain had the minimum value in 4 years, which was only 431.75 yuan. The economic benefits of plant community and grassland in different grassland types after comprehensive grazing ban were analyzed. In order to improve forage coverage, height and biomass, the forage forage needs reasonable allocation and utilization (grazing and mowing), but the increase is not proportional to the time of fencing grazing.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：新疆農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：F323.212;S812

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 荀其蕾;安沙舟;孫宗玖;梁娜;楊合龍;;不同放牧壓力下伊犁絹蒿構(gòu)件生物量分配的變化[J];草地學(xué)報(bào);2015年02期

2 周華坤;趙新全;溫軍;陳哲;姚步青;楊元武;徐維新;段吉闖;;黃河源區(qū)高寒草原的植被退化與土壤退化特征[J];草業(yè)學(xué)報(bào);2012年05期

3 單貴蓮;初曉輝;田青松;馬玉寶;李臨杭;陳功;;典型草原恢復(fù)演替過(guò)程中土壤性狀動(dòng)態(tài)變化研究[J];草業(yè)學(xué)報(bào);2012年04期

4 李步杭;張健;姚曉琳;葉吉;王緒高;郝占慶;;長(zhǎng)白山闊葉紅松林草本植物多樣性季節(jié)動(dòng)態(tài)及空間分布格局[J];應(yīng)用生態(tài)學(xué)報(bào);2008年03期

5 牛麗麗;張學(xué)培;曹奇光;;我國(guó)西北干旱區(qū)生物多樣性研究[J];水土保持研究;2007年01期

6 劉忠寬;汪詩(shī)平;陳佐忠;王艷芬;韓建國(guó);;不同放牧強(qiáng)度草原休牧后土壤養(yǎng)分和植物群落變化特征[J];生態(tài)學(xué)報(bào);2006年06期

7 趙鋼;李青豐;張恩厚;;春季休牧對(duì)綿羊和草地生產(chǎn)性能的影響[J];仲愷農(nóng)業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年01期

8 侯扶江;楊中藝;;放牧對(duì)草地的作用[J];生態(tài)學(xué)報(bào);2006年01期

9 王靜;楊持;王鐵娟;;放牧退化群落中冷蒿種群生物量資源分配的變化[J];應(yīng)用生態(tài)學(xué)報(bào);2005年12期

10 蔡學(xué)彩,李鎮(zhèn)清,陳佐忠,王義鳳,汪詩(shī)平,王艷芬;內(nèi)蒙古草原大針茅群落地上生物量與降水量的關(guān)系[J];生態(tài)學(xué)報(bào);2005年07期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 金花;基于3S技術(shù)支持的草地營(yíng)養(yǎng)與載畜量評(píng)價(jià)研究[D];內(nèi)蒙古農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號(hào)：1440630