Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Different grassland managements significantly change carbon fluxes in an alpine meadow
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Different grassland managements significantly change carbon fluxes in an alpine meadow
Do you wish to request the book?
Different grassland managements significantly change carbon fluxes in an alpine meadow
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Different grassland managements significantly change carbon fluxes in an alpine meadow
2022
Overview
Alpine meadow plays vital roles in regional animal husbandry and the ecological environment. However, different grassland managements affect the structure and function of the alpine meadow. In this study, we selected three typical grassland managements including free grazing, enclosure, and artificial grass planting and conducted a field survey to study the effects of grassland managements on carbon fluxes in an alpine meadow. The carbon fluxes were observed by static chamber and environmental factors including vegetation and soil characteristics were measured simultaneously. Our results show that the alpine meadow was a CO 2 and CH 4 sink, and grassland managements had a significant effect on all CO 2 fluxes, including gross ecosystem production (GEP, P < 0.001), net ecosystem production (NEP, P < 0.001) and ecosystem respiration (ER, P < 0.001) but had no significant effect on CH 4 fluxes ( P > 0.05). The ranking of GEP under the different grassland managements was enclosure > free grazing > artificial grass planting. Furthermore, NEP and ER at enclosure plots were significantly higher than those of the free grazing and artificial grass planting plots. In addition, different grassland managements also affected the vegetation and soil characteristics of the alpine meadow. The aboveground biomass of artificial grass planting was significantly higher than that of the free grazing and enclosure plots. The vegetation coverage under three different grassland managements was ranked in the order of enclosure > artificial grass planting > free grazing and significant differences were observed among them. Moreover, significant differences in the number of species ( P < 0.01) and the Margalef richness index ( P < 0.05) were detected under three different grassland managements. Further analysis of the relationship between environmental factors and carbon fluxes revealed that GEP and NEP of the alpine meadow were positively correlated with vegetation coverage, the number of species, and the Margalef richness index. Therefore, grassland restoration should be configured with multiple species, which could improve carbon sink capacity while considering the functions of grassland restoration and production.
