Some vegetation characteristics of rangelands subjected to different grazing pressures with single- or multi-species of animals for a long time (A case of Zonguldak province, Turkey)

Year 2019, Volume: 34 Issue: 3, 360 - 370, 15.10.2019

Ferat Uzun Nuh Ocak

https://doi.org/10.7161/omuanajas.492494

Cited By: 11

Abstract

Two studies were carried out to evaluate the rangelands subjected to
grazing pressures (GP) at different levels with single (SSG, cattle) - or
multi (MSG, cattle, sheep and goats)-grazing animals species (GAS) for a long time in Zonguldak province,
Turkey. These studies were done in 2015 and 2016 years. The GP treatment was classified as <0.30
(very low, VL), 0.31 to 0.60 (low, L), 0.61 to 0.90 (high, H) and 0.91<
(very high, VH) livestock unit (LU) ha^-1. The percentages of decreaser, increaser and
invader range plant species, including shrub and herbaceous species and
rangeland condition score interacted among the GP and GAS treatments. The
percentages of decreaser species in the MSG communities under the L level and
in the SSG communities under the VH level were higher compared to other
treatments. The rate of shrub species in the VL rangeland subjected to SSG was
higher than that in the VH rangeland. The rate of shrub species in VH range
subjected to MSG was higher than that in other ranges subjected to MSG and in
VH range subjected to SSG. The frequencies of decreaser and invader
species of SSG were higher than that of MSG, but the frequency of increaser species was lower than that
of MSG. The range condition class for the SSG and MSG rangelands were “poor”
and “fair”, respectively. These results indicate that increasing GP prevents
animals from grazing selectively and the MSG system can contribute to the
control of weeds.

Keywords

Grazing livestock, Overgrazing, Range condition, Response to grazing, Stocking rate

Uzun süre farklı otlatma baskısında bir veya birden fazla hayvan türü ile otlatılan meraların bazı vejetasyon karakteristikleri (Durum çalışması: Zonguldak ili, Türkiye)

Abstract

Zonguldak ilinde uzun süre bir
(BTO; sığır) veya birden fazla (karışık) hayvan türü (KTO; sığır, koyun ve
keçi) ile farklı seviyelerde otlatma baskısına maruz kalan meraların
değerlendirilmesi için 2015 ve 2016 yıllarında iki çalışma yapılmıştır. Otlatma
baskısı muameleleri şu şekilde oluşturulmuştur: büyük baş hayvan birimi (BBHB)
ha^-1<0.30 (çok düşük, ÇD), 0.31-0.60 (düşük, D), 0.61-0.90
(yüksek, Y) ve 0.91< (çok yüksek, ÇY). Çalı ve otsu türler de dâhil azalıcı,
çoğalıcı ve istilacı bitki türleri ve mera durum skorları üzerine otlatma
baskısı ve hayvan türü arasındaki etkileşimin etkisi önemli bulunmuştur. Çalı ve
otsu türler de dâhil azalıcı, çoğalıcı ve istilacı bitki türleri ve mera durum
skorları üzerine otlatma baskısı ve hayvan türü arasındaki etkileşimin etkisi önemli bulunmuştur. Azalıcı
türlerin oranı bakımından, D otlatma basınçlı KTO sistemine ve ÇY otlatma
basınçlı BTO sistemine ait meralar, diğer otlatma basınçlı sistemlere ait
meralardan daha yüksek bir değere sahip olmuştur. BTO sistemine ait meralardaki
çalı türlerinin yüzdesi, ÇD otlatma basıncında, ÇY otlatma basıncı ile
karşılaştırıldığında daha yüksek bulunmuştur. ÇY otlatma basınçlı KTO sistemine
ait meralardaki çalı türlerinin oranı, diğer otlatma basınçlı KTO sistemine ve
ÇY otlatma basınçlı BTO sistemine ait meralardakinden daha yüksek bulunmuştur.
BTO sistemine ait meralardaki azalıcı ve istilacı türlerin frekansı, KTO
sistemindekilerden daha yüksek, çoğalıcı türlerin frekansı ise daha düşük
olmuştur. BTO ve KTO sistemlerine ait meralarının mera durum sınıfı sırasıyla
“zayıf” ve “orta” olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu sonuçlar, artan otlatma baskısının
hayvanların seçici otlamasını önlediğini ve karışık hayvan türleri ile otlatma
sisteminin yabancı otların kontrolü açısından daha etkili olabileceğini göstermiştir.

Keywords

Aşırı otlatma, Mera durumu, Mera hayvancılığı, Otlatmaya tepki, Hayvan yoğunluğu

References

• Ahmed, H.M., Tessema, Z.K., Tolera, A., Korecha, D., 2017. Rangeland water requirement satisfaction index under rainfall variability and predicting future rainfall scenarios: implication for availability of feed resources. Ecologic Proces, 6: 25. doi:10.1186/s13717-017-0092-6
• Allred, B.W., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Smeins, F.E., Taylor, C.A., 2012. Herbivore species and grazing intensity regulate community composition and an encroaching woody plant in semi-arid rangeland. Basic Appl Ecol, 13:149-158. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2012.02.007.
• Alexander, J.M., Lembrechts, J.J., Cavieres, L.A., Daehler, C., Haider, S., Kueffer, C., Liu, G., McDougall, K., Milbau, A., Pauchard, .A, Rew, L.J., Seipel, T., 2016. Plant invasions into mountains and alpine ecosystems:current status and future challenges. Alpine Bot, 126: 89-103. doi:10.1007/s00035-016-0172-8.
• Animut, G., Goetsch, A.L., Aiken, G.E., Puchala, R., Detweiler, G., Krehbiel, C.R., Merkel, R.C., Sahlu, T., Dawson, L.J., Johnson, Z.B., Gipson, T.A., 2005.
• Performance and forage selectivity of sheep and goats co-grazing grass/forb pastures at three stocking rates. Small Rumin Res, 59:203-215. doi:10.1016/ j.smallrumres.2005.05.015.
• Aydın, İ., Uzun, F., Algan, D., 2015. Yield and nutritive values of some wild annual medic species collected from different geographical location. Anadolu J Agr Sci, 30: 275-280 (In Turkish). doi: 10.7161/ anajas.2015.30.3.275-280.
• Baumont, R., Ginane, C., Garcia, F., Carrere, P., 2005. How herbivores optimise diet quality and intake in heterogeneous pastures, and the consequences for vegetative dynamics. In: Pastoral systems in marginal environments. 20th International Grassland Congress, 39-50, 3-6 July, Glasgow, Scotland.
• Benavides, R., Celaya, R., Ferreira, L.M.M., Jáuregui, B.M., García, U., Osoro, K., 2009. Grazing behaviour of domestic ruminants according to flock type and subsequent vegetation changes on partially improved heath lands. Spanish J Agric Res, 7: 417-430. doi:10.5424/sjar/2009072-432.
• Batchelor, J.L., Ripple, W.J., Wilson, T.M., Painter, L.E., 2015. Restoration of riparian areas following the removal of cattle in the northwestern Great Basin. Environ Manag, 55: 930-942. doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0436-2.
• Cheng, Y., Tsubo, M., Itoa, T.Y., Nishihara, E., Shinoda, M., 2011. Impact of rainfall variability and grazing pressure on plant diversity. J Arid Environ, 75:471–476. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2010.12.019.
• DiTomaso, J.M., 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: Species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci, 48:255-265. doi: 10.1614/0043-1745.
• Dyksterhuis, E.J., 1949. Condition and management of range land based on quantitative ecology. J Range Manage, 2:104-115. doi: https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/view/4330/3941.
• Evans, R.A., Love, R.M., 1957. The step-point method of sampling-A practical tool in range research. J Range Manage, 10:208-212.
• Foroughbakhch, R., Hernández-Piñero, J.L., Carrillo-Parra, A., Rocha-Estrada, A., 2013. Composition and animal preference for plants used for goat feeding in semiarid northeastern México. J Anim Plant Sci, 23:1034-1040.
• Gemedo-Dalle, T., Maass, B.L., Isselstein, J., 2006. Rangeland condition and trend in the semi-arid Borana lowlands, Southern Oromia, Ethiopia. Afr J Range for Sci, 23:49-58. doi:10.2989/ 10220110609485886.
• Gökkuş, A., Koç, A., Çomaklı, B., 2015. Çayır-Mera Uygulama Kılavuzu. Erzurum, Türkiye: Atatürk Üniversitesi Ofset Tesisi. Gulshan, A.B., Dasti, A.A., 2012. Studies on animal grazing preference and socio-economic impacts of animals on human population. Res J Agric Biol Sci, 7:206-214.
• Haftay, H., Yayneshet, T., Animut, G., Treydte, A.C., 2013. Rangeland vegetation responses to traditional enclosure management in eastern Ethiopia. Rangeland J, 35:29-36. doi: 10.1071/RJ12054.
• Hickman, K.R., Hartnett, D.C., Cochran, R.C., Owensby, C.E., 2004. Grazing management effects on plant species diversity in tall grass prairie. J Range Manage, 57:58-65. doi: 10.2111/1551-5028.
• Hussain, F., Durrani, M.J., 2009. Seasonal availability, palatability and animal preferences of forage plants in Harboi arid range land, Kalat, Pakistan. Pak J Botan, 41:539-554. doi:10.5897/AJPS12.169.
• Holechek, J.L., Pieper, R.D., Herbel, C.H., 2010. Range Management: Principles and Practices (6th Edition). One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, Amsterdam: Prentice Hall.
• İspirli, K., Uzun, F., Alay, F., Çankaya, N., 2016. Impacts of livestock grazing and topography on vegetation cover and structure in natural rangelands, Turk J Agric Res, 3:14-22. doi: 10.19159/tutad.76350.
• Kemp, P.D., Kenyon, P.R., Morris, S.T., 2010. The use of legume and herb forage species to create high performance pastures for sheep and cattle grazing systems. R Bras Zootec, 39:169-174. doi: 10.1590/S1516-35982010001300019.
• Koç, A., Gökkuş, A., Altın, M., 2003. Comparison of world-widely used methods in definition of range condition and a suggestion for Turkey. Proceeding 5th Field Crop Congress, 36-42, 13-17 Oct., Diyarbakır, Turkey.
• Koç, A., Kadıoğlu, S., 2012. Some vegetation characteristics of an upland rangeland in Eastern Anatolia. Dry Grasslands of Europe: Grazing and Ecosystem Services. Proceedings of 9th European Dry Grassland Meeting (EDGM), 19-23 May, Prespa, Greece.
• Louhaichi, M., Salkini, A.K., Petersen, S.L., 2009. Effect of small ruminant grazing on the plant community characteristics of semiarid Mediterranean ecosystems. Int J Agric Biol, 11: 681-689.
• Ocak, N., Çam, M.A., Kuran, M., 2006. The Influence of pre- and post-mating protein supplementation on reproductive performance in ewes maintained on rangeland. Small Rumin Res, 64:16-21. doi:10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.03.012.
• Ouédraogo-Koné, S., Kaboré-Zoungrana, C.Y., Ledin, I., 2006. Behaviour of goats, sheep and cattle on natural pasture in the sub-humid zone of West Africa. Livestock Sci., 105:244-252. doi:10.1016/ j.livsci.2006.06.010.
• Read, C.F., Duncan, D.H., Vesk, P.A., Elith, J., 2011. Surprisingly fast recovery of biological soil crusts following livestock removal in southern Australia. J Veg Sci, 22:905–916. doi: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2011.01296.x.
• Reis, M. Şen, N., 2017. The piosphere effects of livestock grazing on rangeland vegetation in Ahir mountain of Kahramanmaraş region. Tarım Bil Derg, 23: 260-267. doi: 10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30661-6.
• Shakhane, L.M., Scott, J.M., Hinch, G.N., Mackay, D.F., Lord, C., 2013. Estimating the balance between pasture feed supply and demand of grazing livestock in a farmlet experiment. Animal Produc Sci, 53: 711-726. doi:10.1071/AN12453.
• Tallowin, J.R.B., Rook, A.J., Rutter, S.M., 2005. Impact of grazing management on biodiversity in grasslands. Anim Sci, 81:193-198. doi:10.1079/ASC50780193.
• TSMS, 2017. Meteorology office records for provinces and cities of Turkey. Turkish State Meteorological Service. http://www.meteror.gov.tr (Accessed: 25 February, 2018).
• TUIK, 2017. Turkish Statistical Institute. http://www.tuik.gov.tr (Accessed: 25 February, 2018).
• Utsumi, S.A., Cibils, A.F., Estell, R.E., Baker, T.T., Walker, J.W., 2010. One-seed juniper sapling use by goats in relation to stocking density and mixed grazing with sheep. Range Ecol Manag, 63:373-386. doi: 10.2111/08-215.1.
• Uzun, F., Garipoğlu, A.V., Dönmez, H.B., 2015. Using goats for weeds control in pastures. Int J Agric Wild Sci, 1:40-50.
• Uzun, F., Alay, F., İspirli, K.., 2016. Bartın ili meralarının bazı özellikleri (Some properties of rangelands in Bartın province). Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3: 174-183. doi:10.19159/tutad.54652.