The role of agri‐environment schemes in conservation and environmental management

Over half of the European landscape is under agricultural management and has been for millennia. Many species and ecosystems of conservation concern in Europe depend on agricultural management and are showing ongoing declines. Agri‐environment schemes (AES) are designed partly to address this. They are a major source of nature conservation funding within the European Union (EU) and the highest conservation expenditure in Europe. We reviewed the structure of current AES across Europe. Since a 2003 review questioned the overall effectiveness of AES for biodiversity, there has been a plethora of case studies and meta‐analyses examining their effectiveness. Most syntheses demonstrate general increases in farmland biodiversity in response to AES, with the size of the effect depending on the structure and management of the surrounding landscape. This is important in the light of successive EU enlargement and ongoing reforms of AES. We examined the change in effect size over time by merging the data sets of 3 recent meta‐analyses and found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU's agri‐environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. Furthermore, schemes aimed at areas out of production (such as field margins and hedgerows) are more effective at enhancing species richness than those aimed at productive areas (such as arable crops or grasslands). Outstanding research questions include whether AES enhance ecosystem services, whether they are more effective in agriculturally marginal areas than in intensively farmed areas, whether they are more or less cost‐effective for farmland biodiversity than protected areas, and how much their effectiveness is influenced by farmer training and advice? The general lesson from the European experience is that AES can be effective for conserving wildlife on farmland, but they are expensive and need to be carefully designed and targeted.     

刈割对香港草地干物质生产的影响

研究了刈割频率对香港草地于物质生产的影响。结果表明，刈割使干物质生产量下降，刈割频率越高生产量下降越大。禾本科植物受刈割影响比木本和非禾本科草本植物大，且停止刚割一年后生物量仍低于对照点。认为常年刈割是华南草地生产力下降的重要原因之一。     

施肥对华北高产区土壤NO-3-N淋失与作物NO-3-N含量及产量的影响

利用4a的平衡施肥定位试验，研究太行山山前平原高产区冬小麦、夏玉米轮作制度下施肥对潮褐土中硝态氮的分布、移动、积累、植株吸收以及作物产量的影响。结果表明，土壤剖面中硝态氮含量与施肥量直接相关，过量施用氮肥使硝态氮在土壤中大量积累并向下层快速移动；氮磷对作物的养分供应存在着既相互促进又相互竞争的关系，施用适量磷肥可以促进小麦、玉米对氮素的吸收，提高作物产量，减少氮素在土壤中积累和淋失，但施磷量太高，由于氮磷之间的竞争作用，作物吸氮量反而下降，从而导致土壤中硝态氮的积累和淋失加剧，施用钾肥抑制了土壤硝态氮积累，促进了两季作物植株对氮素的吸收，从减少土壤硝态氮积累和淋失的角度，提出该区合理的施肥配比为组合N2P2K2，即ρA(N)=200kg hm^-2，ρA(P)=32．5kg hm^-2，ρA(K)=150kg hm^-2。图6参13。     

风蚀条件下人类活动对高寒草地水分保持功能影响的定量模拟

青藏高原是我国重要的生态屏障,具有重要的水源涵养功能。高寒草地生态系统退化将严重地影响高原的水源涵养功能。为了定量研究人类活动对青藏高原高寒草地水分保持功能的影响,采用大型风洞实验,模拟人类不同的干扰方式和干扰程度对高寒草地土壤水分保持功能的影响。实验样品采自青藏高原三个草地类型:高寒草甸、草原化草甸和高寒草原。干扰方式包括破坏草地地上部分和根系,干扰程度包括轻干扰、中度干扰、重度干扰和全部破坏。实验结果表明,地上部分破坏后,土壤含水率均有下降,降幅分别为:QZ1为6.9%～9.2%、QZ2为6.8%～10.1%、QZ3为9%～10%;当根系遭到破坏后土壤含水率的降幅则分别为:QZ1为16%～30%,QZ2为17.25～32.1%,QZ3为22%～50%,显然,根系破坏后土壤含水率降幅远大于地表植被破坏后的情形。因此,植被根系是高寒草地水分保持功能的关键。随着干扰程度的加剧,土壤含水率在迅速下降。从试验模拟结果看,三个草地类型中土壤水分保持功能分别是高寒草甸>草原化草甸>高寒草原。     

Nitrogen availability in relation to vegetation changes resulting from grass encroachment in Dutch dry dunes

The encroachment of some tall grass species in open dune vegetation, as observed in a Dutch dry dune area, is considered unfavourable from a conservation viewpoint. This paper investigates differences in vegetation and soil properties between grass-dominated and still existing open dune grassland plots at four locations along the coast. Soil properties studied include nitrogen and phosphorus pools and nitrogen availability by mineralization. Vegetation properties included are above and below-ground biomass and nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in above-ground biomass. Systematic differences in N-pools between grass-dominated and open dune grassland plots were not observed. However, N-availability by mineralization and its turnover rates are higher in grass-dominated plots than in open dune grassland plots, as well as above and below-ground biomass. In open dune grassland plots, atmospheric N-input is an important source of N, whereas in grass-dominated plots mineralization largely exceeds atmospheric N-input. However, these observations do not explain the mosaic-like vegetation pattern. Grazing intensity is most likely the determinant factor in the dry dune system. It is concluded, that grass encroachment is probably triggered by atmospheric deposition and is enhanced by positive feedbacks in the N-cycle. The relevance of these results for restoration management is briefly discussed.     

传统农业区土地利用对土壤氮素季节动态变化的影响——以官厅水库上游延庆盆地为例

土地利用对土壤养分时空动态变化的影响,不仅影响到土壤中养分元素的利用效率,同时会影响到养分流失的危险性和区域非点源污染的形成。本文通过野外采样分析,按照不同时期对官厅水库上游延庆盆地内的玉米地、蔬菜地、果园、其他经济类用地的土壤全氮含量进行了测定;分析了不同农业用地影响下土壤氮素的季节动态变化特征和土壤垂直剖面变化。结果发现:(1)0～40cm是玉米地养分活跃层;蔬菜地的养分含量在0～10cm土层变化最剧烈;果园整个剖面上养分变化均较剧烈;其它经济用地在25～40cm土层养分变化较大;(2)果园和蔬菜地是研究区内养分活动最活跃的土地利用方式,蔬菜地的表层养分流失风险性最高,对于地表水和地下水具有很高的潜在影响;果园在整个剖面上养分变化较大,其发生养分的淋溶流失的风险性最高;玉米和其他经济用地养分变化不大。研究结果建议,传统农业区在开展农业结构调整时,尤其是将传统的农作物种植改为蔬菜地和果园时,必须加强对农田生态系统研究,实施严格的科学管理,提高养分的利用效率,降低对环境的影响。     

西南喀斯特环境移民示范区柑橘园水土流失及土壤水分变化

对西南喀斯特地区2种不同建园方式柑橘园水土流失情况进行连续3a的定位监测,并研究了4种类型柑橘园土壤含水量的年动态变化。结果表明,2种不同建园方式柑橘园的土壤流失量逐年减少,坡地柑橘园的年径流系数大于梯地柑橘园;不同类型柑橘园土壤含水量与土壤层次、建园方式及柑橘园成土母质有关;柑橘园土壤含水量与月降雨量呈正相关,应在不同月份对柑橘园采取不同水分调控措施。     

草坪绿地对土壤温度的调节作用

在冬半年,对南宁市郊草坪绿地和空旷裸地土壤温度的对比观测表明,０、５、１０、１５、２０ｃｍ土层中的温度日较差、草坪绿地依次为９．６、２．７、１．６、ｌ．０、０．６℃,相应比空旷裸地(１２．８、５．７、３．２、１．９、１．３℃)分别低３．２、３．０、１．６、０．９、０．７℃,并随土层深度的增加,日较差逐渐减少。研究结果显示草坪绿地缓热降温、降低土温日较差的效果比空旷裸地更为显著。     

若尔盖西部草甸的基本类型、特点及近几十年来的变化

2000年8月对若尔盖西部草地的调查，确定了该地18个草丛类型（不包括典型的沼泽植被）。经群丛间Pearson最大相关系数配合生境作图，将该地区的草地群丛分成3大类，即沼生草地，中生性草甸和旱生性草地。各群丛的SW指数，物种丰富度，地上生物量，裸地面积按照生境序列作图，显示中性草甸具有最高的物种丰富度和地上生物量。群丛C和J分别是沼生和旱生植被与中生性草甸之间的拐点式过渡类型，其物种丰富度明显比周期的群丛低，生境转换关键种分别为鹅绒委陵菜和垂穗披碱草。在草地物种组成上，杂类草占81．3％，莎草类仅占6．8％；群丛建群种方面，杂类草占61％，莎草类占28％；在次优势种方面，杂类草和禾草所占比重都有所增加。草原成分出现在丛中生至旱生的群丛中，在有些群丛中甚至成为次优势种。沼泽消退，黄河河道附近沙化以及过牧的阳坡山地生长带刺的旱生化植被，说明当地正经历着干旱化的过程，原因不仅有自然的还有人为的，特别是草地的过度使用。最后对当地草场的管理及发展提出了一些建议。图3表2参20     

利用年限对农牧交错带退耕还草地土壤物理性质的影响

在农牧交错带以小麦为对照,比较研究不同利用年限对退耕还草种植的老芒麦草地土壤物理性质的影响。结果表明,随利用年限增加,在0~30cm范围内,老芒麦草地土壤体积质量呈现先降低后增加,土壤含水量、孔隙度呈现先增加后降低的趋势。利用第2年的老芒麦草地土壤体积质量最小、孔隙度最大,利用第3年的老芒麦草地土壤含水量最大。利用年限对0~120min内的老芒麦草地土壤渗透性影响不大。不同利用年限老芒麦草地首30min渗透率大小顺序为:第2年>第1年>第3年>第4年,利用第2年的老芒麦草地通过渗透截留降水的能力较强。一个生长季后,不同利用年限的老芒麦草地土壤含水量、孔隙度和体积质量分别比小麦地平均提高3.86%、1.53%和降低6.07%。