四川农业大学草业科学学科

四川农业大学草业教育始于20世纪50年代，是由牧草学、草原学和饲料生产学等单门课程逐步发展为完整的专业。草业科学专业创建于1985年，2002年草业工程实验室遴选为四川省重点实验室，2004年草业科学学科遴选为四川省重点学科。     

四川农业大学草业科学学科

四川农业大学草业教育始于20世纪50年代，是由牧草学、草原学和饲料生产学等单门课程逐步发展为完整的专业。草业科学专业创建于1985年。2002年草业工程实验室遴选为四川省重点实验室，衅草业科学学科遴选为四川省重点学科。     

四川农业大学草学学科

<正>四川农业大学草业教育始于20世纪50年代,由牧草学、草原学等单门课程逐步发展为完整专业。草学专业创建于1985年,2002年草业工程实验室遴选为四川省重点实验室,2004年草业科学学科遴选为四川省重点学科,2009年草业科学专业批准为国家级特色专业,2012年获得国家一级学科博士点,2013年获准设立草学博士后流动站。人才培养:1985年开始招收本科,1986年教育部批准为草业科学硕士点,2000年教育部批准为畜牧一级学科草     

俄罗斯草地经营学的形成与发展

<正> 1996年是俄罗斯/苏联草地经营教育创始100周年,了解100年来俄罗斯/苏联草地经营学形成与发展的过程及其目前状况,借鉴他们的有益经验与成果对我国草原科学及草业发展无疑是十分必要的。1 俄罗斯草地经营学的建立 据现任莫斯科季米里亚捷夫农学院草地经营教研室主任、俄罗斯农业科学院通讯院士B.A丘里纠可夫()的资料称,     

中国草业教育发展史:1.本科教育

中国现代意义上的草业教育是从高等教育开始,由20世纪30年代在大学陆续开设的牧草学、草原学、饲料生产学等单门课程逐步发展、扩大为完整、系统的草业科学专业。70多年来,通过单门课程教学,本、专科专业教学体系初步形成,恢复及完善,本科专业教学体系快速发展和提高4个发展阶段,草业教育由畜牧专业的单门课程发展为独立的二级专业,继由二级专业提升为草业科学一级学科。草业本科教育在内涵提高的同时,其外延也取得了巨大的发展与成就,专业的数量和培养的草业人才大幅度增加,2010年全国共有草业科学本科专业30个,截至2008年底,有专业教师486人,已毕业本专科生14 225名,有在读本科生5 107名,中国成为世界上草业科学专业和学生的数量最多、培养层次最完整、教学指导思想最先进的国家之一,而且,甘肃农业大学的草业科学本科专业是世界上规模最大的本学科本科专业。     

华南农业大学南方草业中心

华南农业大学有98年历史,草业教育始于20世纪60年代,是由饲料生产学单门课程逐步发展为专业。2001年成立华南农业大学南方草业中心,2007年4月30日成立华南农业大学农学院草业科学系。实验室建设南方草业中心下设草业研究室、草坪研究室、园林草地研究室、草地生态研究室;生物质能研究所下属的能源作物育种研究室。建立了草业生物技术实验室、草资源与育种实验室、草坪实验室、草营养与栽培实验室、草产品实验室、草发育生理实验室。现有各种仪器设备约180台(件),大型仪器设备有果岭剪草机、草坪打孔机、凝胶成像系统、纤维分析仪、PCR仪、…     

吉林省农业科学院畜牧科学分院草地研究所

吉林省农业科学院草业科学研究始于20世纪30年代,60年代初发展为草原研究室,1990年正式命名为吉林省农业科学院畜牧科学分院草地研究所。研究方向包括:国内外牧草种质资源的收集、鉴定评价与创新研究;高产、优质、抗逆牧草新品种选育研究;牧草良种繁育技术研究;牧草高效生产技术研究;人工饲草料基地建设与利用研究;退化草地改良治理与利用研究;草产品开发与应用研究等。     

吉林省农业科学院畜牧科学分院草地研究所

吉林省农业科学院草业科学研究始于20世纪30年代,60年代初发展为草原研究室,1990年正式命名为吉林省农业科学院畜牧科学分院草地研究所。研究方向包括:国内外牧草种质资源的收集、鉴定评价与创新研究;高产、优质、抗逆牧草新品种选育研究;牧草良种繁育技术研究;牧草高效生产技术研究;人工饲草料基地建设与利用研究;退化草地改良治理与利用研究;草产品开发与应用研究等。     

吉林省农业科学院畜牧科学分院草地研究所

吉林省农业科学院草业科学研究始于20世纪30年代,60年代初发展为草原研究室,1990年正式命名为吉林省农业科学院畜牧科学分院草地研究所。研究方向包括:国内外牧草种质资源的收集、鉴定评价与创新研究;高产、优质、抗逆牧草新品种选育研究     

草业科学研究的现状与展望

<正> 一、草业科学的发展轨迹草业科学是从草原科学(草地科学)发展而来。现代草原科学虽是20世纪20年代逐步形成的,但作为草原科学的某些片断,在中国早已出现。早在公元前500年前《诗经》中就有关于草原土地规划的记载。如“邑外谓     

Effects of Livestock Grazing Management on Grassland Birds in a Northern Mixed-Grass Prairie Ecosystem

Grassland birds have undergone substantial population declines throughout much of their historic ranges in North America. Most of the remaining grassland bird habitat is restricted to rangelands managed for livestock production, so grazing management has strong implications for grassland bird conservation efforts. We conducted 1 830 point-count surveys at 305 sites during 2016–2017 to evaluate the relative effects of three livestock grazing systems on the abundance and community composition of grassland birds in a northern mixed-grass prairie ecosystem of eastern Montana, United States. Our objectives were to 1) evaluate effects of grazing management on abundance and community composition of grassland obligate birds, focusing specifically on grazing systems, stocking rates, and interactions with rangeland productivity; 2) evaluate the importance of local vegetation characteristics for grassland birds within grazing systems; and 3) assess the effectiveness of rest-rotation grazing to create patch-heterogeneity in rangeland vegetation through the alteration of structural components and the response of grassland birds to these treatments. Overall, we found inconsistent responses in abundances of grassland birds relative to livestock grazing systems and no discernable differences among grazing systems relative to community composition. However, local abundances were often driven by interactions between grazing system and rangeland production potential, suggesting the effects of livestock grazing management were generally mediated by rangeland productivity. In addition, associations between avian abundance and grazing management parameters (e.g., stocking rate) were species specific. Ubiquitous guidelines for livestock grazing systems may be inappropriate for grassland bird conservation efforts in the northern mixed-grass prairie, and high stocking rates may negatively impact populations of dense-grass obligate grassland birds in this region.     

草原管理学课程的发展与科学定位刍议

草原管理学是草业科学专业的核心课程,因受草地资源地理分布、学科不同发展历史阶段及人文因素的影响,课程名称并不统一。通过梳理我国草原管理学课程名称的变迁与学科发展的背景与意义,围绕课程名词的选择,从课程性质、"草原"与"草地"的概念、学术与行业认同等方面,就草原管理学课程的内涵与科学定位进行阐述。     

草业科学专业学生野外实习中生态思维的培养

通过对5届草业科学专业本科生生态意识的调查,发现学生对草地生态知识比较渴求,但是生态教育欠缺、意识薄弱、认知不足。针对以课程为体系设置教学实习内容缺乏系统协调性、生态思维能力培养不突出的原因,提出在草业科学专业草地群课程教学中贯穿生态教育、野外教学实习培养学生的生态思维、独立观察思考和解决问题的能力等措施。     

美国公共放牧地管理政策演进的历史经验

当初步遏制草地退化后,我国当前迫切需要对草地管理政策进行优化和调整,进而更好地通过草畜平衡和生态补贴实现生态保育和牧民利益的协调和可持续发展目标。长达90年的美国公共放牧地政策可以为我国调整和优化草地管理政策提供借鉴。美国经验表明,实现草地生态保育需要在社会共识、法律体系和行政管理等方面,牢固地树立和实现草地的多重功能和生态系统服务理念。进一步地,公有的草地产权制度是保障草地多重生态系统服务的法律前提,非牧产业发展是实现草地多重功能的经济基础,精细的行政管理是实现草地生产生态平衡的技术保障,多种利益主体参与是实现草地管理制度改革的活力来源。美国草地管理制度发展的曲折反复,也说明了生态管理政策的失效和调整,禁牧和监管强度的张弛反复,不同利益集团的矛盾诉求和博弈消长,都是草地治理中的正常情况。我国草地治理也可能经历复杂曲折的过程。在下一阶段,草地产权的优化、行政管理的精细化、牧民利益和生态保育目标的协调,是实现我国草地可持续治理的核心要务。     

美国草原管理法律法规发展概况

草地资源的立法管理是各国管理草地资源防止草地退化的主要人为调控手段。美国草原立法开始早,立法体系完善,对美国公共草地合理管理做出了巨大贡献。美国草地立法经历了3个阶段:首先是草原立法和管理主要在各州层面上,对公共草地管理作用不大,使西部公共草地处于无序利用状态,草地退化严重;第二是《泰勒放牧法》颁布后,开始了公共草地管理,建立了有照放牧和放牧收费制度;第三是美国草地的多用途管理,出台了与草地资源管理相关的一系列法律,主要是《环境政策法》和《联邦土地政策管理法》,草地资源相关价值受到高度重视。在国家立法规定下,对草地资源的价值进行评估。研究美国草地立法过程和立法思想,对于合理管理中国草地资源具有重要指导意义。     

试论青藏高原草业系统生态危机主要成因及对策

草业系统是青藏高原生态系统大惊讶时空异质景观，是该区域的生命支持系统，气候生态因子主导性、大尺度时空相悖性和灰色属性是青藏高原草业系统的显著特征。草业系统通过自身适应机制，调控来自地境及其它系统的胁迫，从而实现脆弱的动态平衡。生态危机症状发生在青藏高原草业系统的3个界面：牧草－－地景界面、草地－－动物界面、草畜－－经营管理界面。疏探经营管理是青藏高原草业系统生态危机的发动机和催化剂，可以用经营者－－投入等多方面无序，构建新的经营管理系统是遏制生态危机、恢复生态平衡的根本出路。     

Monitoring of Livestock Grazing Effects on Bureau of Land Management Land

Public land management agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), are charged with managing rangelands throughout the western United States for multiple uses, such as livestock grazing and conservation of sensitive species and their habitats. Monitoring of condition and trends of these rangelands, particularly with respect to effects of livestock grazing, provides critical information for effective management of these multiuse landscapes. We therefore investigated the availability of livestock grazing-related quantitative monitoring data and qualitative region-specific Land Health Standards (LHS) data across BLM grazing allotments in the western United States. We then queried university and federal rangeland science experts about how best to prioritize rangeland monitoring activities. We found that the most commonly available monitoring data were permittee-reported livestock numbers and season-of-use data (71% of allotments) followed by repeat photo points (58%), estimates of forage utilization (52%), and, finally, quantitative vegetation measurements (37%). Of the 57% of allotments in which LHS had been evaluated as of 2007, the BLM indicated 15% had failed to meet LHS due to livestock grazing. A full complement of all types of monitoring data, however, existed for only 27% of those 15%. Our data inspections, as well as conversations with rangeland experts, indicated a need for greater emphasis on collection of grazing-related monitoring data, particularly ground cover. Prioritization of where monitoring activities should be focused, along with creation of regional monitoring teams, may help improve monitoring. Overall, increased emphasis on monitoring of BLM rangelands will require commitment at multiple institutional levels.     

“The Range Problem” After a Century of Rangeland Science: New Research Themes for Altered Landscapes

The rangeland science profession in the United States has its roots in the widespread overgrazing and concurrent severe droughts of the late 19th century. These drivers contributed to rangeland resource degradation especially in the American Southwest—what E. O. Wooton (1908) called the “Range Problem.” Although logical for the time, the scientific activities and resulting policies that arose out of this catastrophe were based on reductionist experimentation and productionist emphases on food and fiber. After a century of science and policy, there are two additional perspectives that shape our vision for the emphases of the future. First, rangeland landscapes are extremely heterogeneous; general principles derived from scientific experimentation cannot be easily or generally applied without adjusting to the distinct societal and ecological characteristics of a location. Second, rangeland management occurs at spatial scales considerably larger than those that have typically been addressed in range science. Scaling up science results is not a simple, additive process. The leading features of the emerging science are 1) research at landscape scales and 2) over longer time spans that 3) approaches conservation and management practices as treatments requiring scientific evaluation, 4) incorporates local knowledge, 5) is explicitly applied in nature, and 6) is transparent in its practice. We strongly argue for a science that supports resource management by testing hypotheses relevant to actual conservation practices and iteratively applying its findings in partnership with managers in an ongoing, adaptive fashion.     

青藏高原人工草地暖季不同放牧方式对牦牛增重的影响

在青藏高原高寒草甸区比较研究了多年生人工草地和天然草地暖季放牧对犊牦牛生长的影响,结果得出:不同放牧方式下,1岁牛的个体增重差异明显,人工草地轮牧>人工草地连续放牧>天然草地连续放牧,2岁牛的增重不受草地和放牧方式的影响,个体增重、日增重和单位草地面积的增重都高于1岁犊牦牛。     

Effect of management on rangeland phytomass,cover and condition in two biomes in South Africa

In rangelands, grazing management is a main driver of rangeland condition. Due to masking effects of seasonal climate fluctuations, little is known about (dis)similarity of management effects on rangeland condition and forage provision across major dryland biomes. Taking a macro-ecological perspective, we analysed if management effects differed between South Africa’s central grassland and Kalahari savanna biomes. We recorded proxies of forage provision (phytomass, vegetation cover and their ratio) over five seasons, annual rainfall to account for seasonal climate fluctuations, and rangeland condition (through relative abundances of increaser and decreaser species). Regarding forage provision, we found effects of management for the savanna, where, irrespective of rainfall, rotational grazing management resulted in higher phytomass and phytomass–cover ratios than management with continuous grazing. In the grassland, however, this difference was only discernible for phytomass–cover ratio in two years with above-average antecedent rainfall. This suggests that management effects are biome-dependent and that modulating effects of annual rainfall are stronger in the grassland. In either biome, management effects on the dominance of increaser and decreaser species were negligible, i.e. rangeland condition did not differ across management types in either biome. We conclude that investigations on management effects should account for interactions with biome and rainfall.