Analysis of the Performance of two Rangeland Protocols, Monitoring and Assessment

Soumana Idrissa
{"title":"Analysis of the Performance of two Rangeland Protocols, Monitoring and Assessment","authors":"Soumana Idrissa","doi":"10.5539/JPS.V5N2P47","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study compared and contrasted data from the stick and modified Braun-Blanquet monitoring protocols in three areas with different land use histories: an unrestored barren area, a young and old restored areas. The study areas are part of extensive degraded of birch woodland and willow shrubland that have partly been re-vegetated.Vegetation and site characteristics were assessed in the three areas using the two protocols and soil sampling to characterize the ecological status of a land that has been re-vegetated. The analysis of the two protocols data indicates similar tendency which is the improvement of the ecological condition of the restored areas compared to the unrestored area. The soil carbon and nitrogen contents increased when the pH decreased with the restoration age. The improvement is better at the old restored area which has received more fertilization compared to the young restoration. Stick method estimated greater cover of vascular plants, litters, mosses and rocks, and lower amount of bare ground than modified Braun-Blanquet. The two protocols provided similar estimates cover of lichens and sedges. Stick method also provided three supplementary indicators which were not included in modified Braun-Blanquet: plants base, basal and canopy gaps. Another observation that could be proved by further studies, stick seemed to be more precise and economical than modified Braun-Blanquet. The indicators provided by the two protocols were related to the three attributes of ecosystems and the rangelands health indicators. This study is a preliminary that cannot be able to recommend one method, but it advocates stick method to assess and monitor vegetation dominated by herbaceous layer as grassland and modified Braun-Blanquet for the one dominated by woody layer.","PeriodicalId":410634,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Plant Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Plant Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5539/JPS.V5N2P47","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study compared and contrasted data from the stick and modified Braun-Blanquet monitoring protocols in three areas with different land use histories: an unrestored barren area, a young and old restored areas. The study areas are part of extensive degraded of birch woodland and willow shrubland that have partly been re-vegetated.Vegetation and site characteristics were assessed in the three areas using the two protocols and soil sampling to characterize the ecological status of a land that has been re-vegetated. The analysis of the two protocols data indicates similar tendency which is the improvement of the ecological condition of the restored areas compared to the unrestored area. The soil carbon and nitrogen contents increased when the pH decreased with the restoration age. The improvement is better at the old restored area which has received more fertilization compared to the young restoration. Stick method estimated greater cover of vascular plants, litters, mosses and rocks, and lower amount of bare ground than modified Braun-Blanquet. The two protocols provided similar estimates cover of lichens and sedges. Stick method also provided three supplementary indicators which were not included in modified Braun-Blanquet: plants base, basal and canopy gaps. Another observation that could be proved by further studies, stick seemed to be more precise and economical than modified Braun-Blanquet. The indicators provided by the two protocols were related to the three attributes of ecosystems and the rangelands health indicators. This study is a preliminary that cannot be able to recommend one method, but it advocates stick method to assess and monitor vegetation dominated by herbaceous layer as grassland and modified Braun-Blanquet for the one dominated by woody layer.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两个牧场协议的绩效分析:监测和评估
本研究在三个不同土地利用历史的地区:未恢复的荒地、年轻的恢复区和年老的恢复区,比较和对比了棍子和改进的布朗-布兰凯监测方案的数据。研究区域是大面积退化的桦树林地和柳树灌丛的一部分,这些林地部分被重新种植。利用两种方案和土壤取样来评估这三个地区的植被和场地特征,以表征重新种植植被的土地的生态状况。对两份协议数据的分析表明,恢复地区的生态状况较未恢复地区有改善的趋势。土壤碳、氮含量随恢复年龄的增加而增加,pH值随恢复年龄的增加而降低。与幼龄恢复区相比,施用更多肥料的老恢复区改善更好。棍法估计维管植物、凋落物、苔藓和岩石的覆盖面积比改良的布朗-布兰法大,而光秃秃的地面面积比改良的布朗-布兰法少。这两份协议提供了类似的地衣和莎草覆盖面积估计。棒法还提供了3个补充指标:植物基部、基部和冠层间隙。另一个观察结果可以通过进一步的研究来证明,那就是棍子似乎比改良的布朗-布兰凯更精确、更经济。两个议定书提供的指标与生态系统的三个属性和牧场健康指标相关。本研究为初步研究,尚不能推荐一种方法,但建议采用棍棒法对以草本层为主的草地植被进行评价和监测,对以木本层为主的草地植被进行改良布朗-布兰植被评价和监测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A New Fossil Flower of the Genus Vouarana (Sapindaceae) in Amber from the Dominican Republic Effects of Salts on Helical Protoplast-Callose-Fiber Formation and Cell Division in Leaf Protoplast Culture of Arabidopsis thaliana: Ultrastructure of PCF Using Transmission Electron Microscopy Reviewer Acknowledgements for Journal of Plant Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1 Correlations among Agronomic Traits Obtained from Sorghum Accessions Planted in a Field Infected with Three Important Fungal Diseases Mg2+ Ions Stimulate both Helical Protoplast-Callose-Fiber Formation and Protoplast Division in a Mangrove Tree, Sonneratia caseolaris: Analysis of Sub-fibril Structures of PCF by Atomic Force Microscopy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1