WWW.KONF.X-PDF.RU
- , ,
 

Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 13 |

IV - , , 70- (1941-1945 .) ...

-- [ 1 ] --

-

. ..

, ,

, ,

, ,

,

-,

. , . . , . , IV -

, ,

70- (1941-1945 .) 100- .. (27-29 2015 ) I , 20 551.58+504.03+631.95+6 26.234.7+28.081+41.28+40 49 , , : IV , 70- (1941-1945 .) 100- .. (27-29 2015 ). I. : - , 2015. 296 .

IV - , , , , , . 5 : ;

;

; ; .

, .

:

.. ;

.. ;

.. . ;

.. - ;

.. ;

.. ;

.. ;

.. , ;

.. . ;

.. . ;

.. . ;

.. . ;

.. . , ;

.. - . - . .. .

ISBN 978-5-91777-154-0

   

.

.., ..

ȅ.... 6 Viewegh J., Podrzsk V., Martink A., Matjka K., Shvetsova S.V. DOUGLAS-FIR

(PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII/MIRB./ FRANCO) ALLOCHTONOUS STANDS AND

THEIR INFLUENCE ON UNDERSTORY LAYER SPECIES DIVERSITY.................. 1 .., ..

Kolev Tanko, Petrova Iliyana, Todorov Zhivko, Koleva- Valkova Lyubka THE

INFLUENCE OF NATURAL ORGANIC PRODUCTS ON THE PRODUCTIVITY

OF DURUM WHEAT

Kolev Tanko, Todorov Zhivko, Koleva Lyubka, Zlatev Zlatko, Mangova Mariya

PRODUCTIVITY OF NEW BULGARIAN VARIETIES OF DURUM WHEAT33

.., ..

,

.., .., .. ( )

.., .., ..

ȅ

.., .. - ͅ... 58 .., ..

-

-

.., .., ..

ȅ

.., ..

߅

.., ..

.., .. ............ 85 .., .. Ņ

.., .., .., .., ..

߅

.., .., ..

.

.., ..

- ߅

..

.

()........110 .., .., ..

߅

.., .. ͅ

.., .., ..

ȅ

.., .. Ņ

.., .., ..

Ņ............ 134 .., ..

()

..

ȅ

.., ..

ȅ.15 .., .., .. .................155 .., .., .., ..

-

ʅ

.., .. -1221 ȅ

.., .., ..

߅

.., .. . .... 178 .., .., .. ߅

.., .. -............. 189 .., .., .. Ѕ

.., .. ........... 202 .., ..

.., .. Ņ

.., .., .., .., ..

Ʌ.. 216 .., .., ..

Ʌ

.., .., ..

.

.. -

ĸ .., .., .. - ............ 235 .., .., .. ۅ

.., .., ..

,

Ʌ.......... 241 .., ..

-

4 … 247

.., ĸ .., .. - ..253 .., ..

.., . .... 263 .., - .., .., ..

...... 267 .., .. - ۅ

.., ..

...282

.

   

. .. , . , , . .

. . - , - .

: - , , .

INTRODUCTION TO LOCAL AND CULTURE INTRODUCTION OF NEW SPECIES OF

MEDICINAL AND ORNAMENTAL PLANT SPECIES IN THE IRKUTSK REGION

Galyomina M.A., Belyh O..

Irkutsk State Agrarian University A.A. Ezhevsky, Irkutsk, Russia We consider the beneficial properties of different kinds of mints, and the feasibility of introduction into the environment of the Irkutsk region. It noted the value of this type of plant raw materials and preliminary experiments on the success of its cultivation in the vicinity of the city of Irkutsk. The necessity of biotechnological approaches for the success of this work. Enriching the range of aromatic plants is one of the priorities in the south and south-east Siberia, where the soil and climatic conditions allow to obtain cost-effective products.

Keywords: aromatic plants, introduction, the environmental conditions.

: , , - . , . : , , , . , . . , , . -, , .

. , , .

, , . , , , . . Mentha , , . . . , , . , , . , , . , , . , .

, . , .

- . , . , , , . , , , [1, 2].

, .

, 25 - .

Mentha piperata L. . , , . , , . , , .

, . : .

, , , 120 . 5 - 15 , . , -, , . . , -, - , . . - . , .

Mentha arvensis L. , . , , , , , [3, 4, 5].

, . . 20 , , . , , , -.

c , , . - . , Banana Mint. . . , . , .

, . , . , , . .

- , . .

, , , 30-40 . 5 - 15 , . , -, , . , -, - , . . , . , , .

- Mentha aquatica L. . 30 - 90 , , . , , . , . , , , . . , . , , , , .

, , , , . , , .

, (). .

. . . Maroccanisch Minz . , , , .

Mentha suaveolens Ehrh. . , 25 - 30 . . , , , . , , . , , 40 . , - , , . , , , . - . . , , , . , , . , , , . , , , .

, Mentha gracilis variegata Ginger Mint (M. arvensis x M. spicata).

30-60 . .

, , , , -. 3-7 , - -, , , , , , , , . , , , , . 0,2-0,35 , -, , -, , . 0,5 , . . -. , , . , , . . . .

. , .

Mentha rotundifolia (L.) Huds. (Mentha longifolia HUDS.) (Mentha suaveolens EHRH.). 1 - . , , , .

, , , , . .

, , .

, , , . . , . .

.

, , . , , , , , ( ) - , . : .. (1933) 3 , .. (1946) 4 . .., .. (1978) 12 , . ..

100- (1986) 80 , [6, 7, 8].

, : - , , : , , .

1. Menthaarvensis L. s.l. / .. , . . , . . ,

. . // . 3 . .:

- . . , - ., 2004. . 3. (:

). . 133.

2. , .. . , , , - , 1974.- 155 .

3. .- 12 ., .1.- .: - , 2008.- 704 .

4. ( 14 ) / .. , .. .. // -: , , 1987-2003, 4500 .

5. , .. - - : / ..

, .. , .. ; . . . . . .: , 1989.

304 .

6. , .. / .. // . . . , 1989. . 96.

7. , .. / .. // . . VI . . : . 1978.

. 175176.

8. , .. . .. :

50- / .. , .. .; . . . .. . .: , 1995. 188 .

630*443.3.

DOUGLAS-FIR (PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII/MIRB./ FRANCO)

ALLOCHTONOUS STANDS AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON UNDERSTORY

LAYER SPECIES DIVERSITY

1,4 J. Viewegh,, 1 V. Podrzsk, 2 A. Martink, 3 K. Matjka,5 S.V. Shvetsova

   

In total, 67 parallel plots were chosen from the database of 153 phytosociological relevs made in the Douglas-fir and parallel Norway spruce, European Beech and oaks dominated stands to find influences of this introduced tree on the understory layer in totally 12 localities on the whole Czech Republic territory. Douglas-fir stands influence their habitats, which was indicated by species composition changes in the ground vegetation, as well as by abundance and dominance of particular species. Douglas-fir cultivation increases species diversity of the stands, but decrease their abundance. Described differences in understory are not so noticeable, when European beech and oak stands are substituted by Douglas-fir once. But even the significant phenomenon of striking nitrophilous species occurrence as Geranium robertianum, Urtica dioica and Galium aparine manifests here. This indicates conspicuous content of available nitrates in the humus and top of the soil horizon.

Keywords: introduction, Douglas-fir, understory layer species, diversity, nitrification.

(PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII / MIRB. / ) EE

1,4 ., 1 ., 2 . , 3 . , 5 .. 67 153 , o ( . ) 12 . , , .
, . , . , Geranium robertianum, Urtica dioica Galium aparine. .

: , E , , , .

Introduction. Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) is one of the most commercially important tree species worldwide, both in its natural range, i.e.

North America, as well as in many other regions including Europe [37]. Its premier introduction to Europe as a tree of parks ranks to the period between 1826 [14] and 1830 [3, 42]. However, this species was planted into European commercial forest stands step by step in the next decades [9, 14]. The oldest Douglas-fir plantation into forest stands on territory of the Czech Republic was established on University Forest at Ktiny area in 1844 [19]. Although planting of the Douglas-fir was spread on all Czech Republic territory, it covers only 0.22 % of the total forest area at present.

Forestry research in the autochthonous managed Douglas-fir forests is focused, besides the basic silvicultural treatments, to the optimization of the nutrition and nutrient cycling in the managed ecosystems of particular stand ages [10, 13, 15, 39], including different fertilization ways of young stages [e.g. 12, 7, 11, 1, 2]. Different situation is in the European countries, where the environmental issues prevail [4, 37], as well as the production in comparison with native species is studied. Also in the Czech Republic, this species was quite intensively studied from the production point of view, and its production potential was satisfactorily evaluated [6, 16, 20, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 32, 35, 40]. Also the soil effect of this species were to some extent described, so it is possible to exclude its negative influences on the forest soil [29, 31, 32, 34], its resistance against draughts was documented as well [8, 30, 40, 41].

Very important environmental issue is represented also by the effects of introduced tree species on the understory vegetation diversity and status.

Bioindication of herb layer is possible to use for it. Podrzsk et al. [33] and Viewegh et al. [44] present preliminary studies of the changes in herb layer under introduced Douglas-fir stands in comparison with autochthonous tree species stands, in the conditions of the Czech Republic. The aim of this article is the extension of these results evaluating much broader set of compared plots and concluding the understory vegetation effects of the Douglas-fir in comparison with common native tree species.

Methods. Data have been collected in stands situated in different regions of the Czech Republic in the summer (July and August) period 2010 - 2013. Stands of dominant native tree species (Picea abies (L.) Karst., Fagus sylvatica L., Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. or Q. robur L. and some others) were located in parallel to each test stand of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) within the research areas. All stands aged at least 60 years old have been chosen to examine the effect of impacts on the herb layer. Stands of Douglas-fir and these comparable ones have had to be situated on similar habitats, i.e. similar altitude, exposure, slope, soil type and belong to the same classification unit according to the Czech forest ecosystem (site) classification [43].

Phytosociological relevs have been collected in DBreleve [27] database. The database contents 153 phytosociological relevs. Before numerical analysis, the data have been transformed in the following way: abundance-dominance degrees (the Braun-Blanquet scale was applied) used in phytosociological relevs have been transformed into average abundance. Than abundances of all species in etage () have been transformed, so as their sum for corresponding etage has equalled to total

appropriate of this etage (C):

where xi is abundance of i-th species in etage.

Etages are marked in standard way of phytosociology: E3 - tree etage, E2 - shrub etage, E1 - herb etage and E0 - moss etage.

Three groups of parallel plots according to the dominant tree species were considered: Douglas-fir Norway spruce, Douglas-fir European beech, and Douglas-fir oaks (Q. petraea + Q. robur).

Difference of frequencies of a species in two sets of relevs (sets of the parallel plots) was evaluated using the statistics where fi is frequency of the species in i-th set and ni is number of relevs in i-th set of relevs. This variable shows the Student t-distribution and thus it can be tested with n1+n2-2 degrees of freedom [e.g. 38].

Two measures of distance between two communities in the pair of comparable plots were selected. First measure - Jaccard's distance (= 1 - Jaccard's similarity coefficient) is based on the presence/absence data, second one - Euclidean distance process transformed species representation values [28,]. Distances were calculated from the data on the herb layer. Differences among distances according to three groups of parallel plots were statistically tested by the one-way ANOVA.

Understory (herb layer) species have been grouped to bioindication groups as acidophilous, mesophilous, nitrophilous, nitrophilous-to-ruderal and indifferent (Appendix 1). Nitrophilous species have been divided into two groups according to different behaviour of these species. Considerably nitrophilous species, which often accompany human affected localities e.g. Urtica dioica, Chelidonium majus, Impatiens parviflora, Galium aparine and Geranium robertianum entered the nitrophilous-to-ruderal group. Other nitrophilous species have entered pure nitrophilous group.

In a frame of present data processing, attention has been paid to correlations among structural parameters of monitored plant communities and some significant dominant tree species. DBreleve package [27] has been used to calculate indices elucidating community structure [23] i.e. species richness (equal to number of species, S), Shannon-Wiener's diversity index [sensu 36; H] and equitability (e = H' / log2 S).

Taxonomical nomenclature has been used according to Kubt et al. [21].

Results. Difference in species composition under native tree and Douglas-fir.

The increase of frequencies was recorded under Douglas-fir comparing to oak for species Oxalis acetosella (p = 0.0%), Mycelis muralis (p = 0.1%), Senecio ovatus (R) (p = 0.1%), Carex pilulifera (p = 0.2%), Calamagrostis epigejos (R) (p = 0.5%), Rubus fruticosus agg. (R) (p = 3.0%), Cardamine impatiens (p = 3.6%), Dactylis glomerata (p = 3.6%), Euphorbia amygdaloides (p = 3.6%), Dryopteris dilatata (p = 3.7%), Urtica dioica (R) (p = 4.4%), Brachypodium sylvaticum (p = 5.3%), Torilis japonica (R) (p = 5.3%) and regenerating Pseudotsuga menziesii (p = 0.6%). Species Galeopsis pubescens (p = 4.3%), Melica uniflora (p = 2.8%), Quercus petraea agg.

(p = 2.8%) and Impatiens parviflora (R) (p = 1.4%) show decrease in frequencies. The decrease for the last invasive neophyte (I. parviflora) is of great interest. The listed species marked by (R) are possible to consider being markers of ruderalization process.

The dominant occurrence of Douglas-fir leads to an increase of frequency of

several species in herb layer comparing on relevant stands with dominant beech:

Convolvulus arvensis (R) (error probability of t-test p = 0.3%), Glechoma hederacea (R) (p = 0.3%), Asarum europaeum (p = 0.4%), Urtica dioica (R) (p = 0.

5%), Dryopteris filix-mas (p = 0.7%), Brachypodium sylvaticum (p = 0.7%), Sambucus nigra (R) (p = 0.9%), Hordelymus europaeus (p = 1.8%), Fragaria vesca (p = 2.7%), Rubus idaeus (R) (p = 2.7%), Chelidonium majus (R) (p = 3.5%), Oxalis acetosella (p = 4.2%), Carpinus betulus (p = 4.2%), Senecio ovatus (p = 4.2%), Viola reichenbachiana (p = 4.7%), and Geranium robertianum (R) (p = 4.9%). Conversely, decrease of frequencies was recorded for two juvenile tree species Acer platanoides (p = 4.2%) and Quercus petraea agg. (p = 2.7%).

Comparing Douglas-fir and both autochthonous broadleaved species, Douglasfir leads to the increase for more species (16 comparing to beech in canopy and 14 comparing to oak in canopy) compared to count of decreased species. Many of increased and new species indicate ruderalization of the site. This process is underlined by increase of some archeophytes (Convolvulus arvensis and Chelidonium majus). Regeneration of Douglas-fir is common under oak (at 46 % of plots) but it is present under beech (17 % of plots), too.

Comparing with the cultivated Norway spruce, dominance of Douglas-fir in the stand caused increase in frequency of species Stellaria media (p = 0.1%), Fraxinus excelsior (p = 1.9%), Acer platanoides (p = 2.0%), Galium odoratum (p = 2.2%), Milium effusum (p = 3.2%), Circaea lutetiana (p = 3.5%), Dactylis glomerata (p = 3.5%), Juncus effusus (p = 3.5%), Prenanthes purpurea (p = 3.5%), Impatiens parviflora (p = 3.9%), Urtica dioica (p = 5.5%), Viola reichenbachiana (p = 5.8%) and regenerating Pseudotsuga menziesii (p = 4.6%). The frequency decrease was observed in Abies alba (p = 5.1%), Maianthemum bifolium (p = 4.0%), Galeopsis pubescens (p = 2.8%) and Quercus petraea agg. (p = 1.4%) in the herb layer. It points to possibility of recurrence of some species from natural potential vegetation under Douglas-fir comparing to cultivated spruce. However, this positive process is counterbalanced by occurrence of tree neophyte with potential high invisibility. In total 70 % of comparable plots with Douglas-fir contains regeneration of this tree species.

Both Jaccard's and Euclidean distances for three groups of parallel plots have not shown too big differences, which are not statistically significant (Table 1). The biggest distances were recorded by comparison Douglas-fir with oaks. Distances from Douglas-fir sites to sites with European beech and Norway spruce are comparable.

It is necessary to comment that Norway spruce stands have been largely unnatural, planted on lower forest vegetation altitudinal zones (2 nd 4th) than these natural ones of Norway spruce ((5th 6th 8th) (details see in [43]). Norway spruce represents planted allochthonous stands in all our plots. Very preliminary look on it is proved by next two blocks of parallel plots (Douglas-fir European beech and Douglas-fir oaks), where Douglas-fir had been planted in the first generation on indigenous European beech and oak localities and where the larger proportion of herbaceous species (understory) have kept to autochthonous dominant stand tree species.

Ecological groups of species Number of mesophilous, nitrophilous and nitrophilous-to-ruderal species prevail on Douglas-fir stands in all three parallel stand groups of plots (Table 2). This fact is marked in Douglas-firEuropean beech parallel plots (Table 2), but averages of frequency and sum of abundances show the increase only in nitrophilous-to-ruderal group. It could be a result of different light conditions under Douglas-fir and European beech stands. But changed soil conditions towards to higher available nitrogen in the soil could be more dominant factor than light conditions there.

In spite of the above mentioned fact about prevailing mesophilous, nitrophilous and nitrophilous-to-ruderal on Douglas-fir Norway spruce parallel plots results of the average of frequency are not such clear. Results of sum of abundances are more interesting. More distinct decreasing of acidophilous species and increasing of mesophilous, nitrophilous and nitrophilous-to-ruderal species abundances show changes in nutrient content of the soils towards to higher available nitrates in the soil, in its top surfaces primarily.

The results of changes in frequency and abundance averages on Douglas-fir oaks parallel plots are not so much noticeable. It could be due to more naturalness of the stands with oaks than imported Douglas-fir ones there. However, it could be also seen, that frequency and abundance averages do not increase much.

Species diversity The species richness varies between 3 and 30 species in a relev through the whole data set (153 relevs). The total species diversity (as Shannon-Wiener's index) was found in broad interval 0.33 - 3.18, and the equitability was between 0.11 and 1.00.

Comparison of the species diversity and equitability in compared groups of plots is shown in the Table 3. By comparison, stands with markedly dominant one tree species, communities with dominant Douglas-fir in tree layer show the highest diversity and conversely these with Norway spruce dominance as the lowest ones, but species equitability is influenced by dominant tree species minimally. Both species richness and diversity are highest in the plots under Douglas-fir and oaks with admixture other tree species.

Influence of species diversity parameters by Douglas-fir silviculture compared to other tree species is the basic issue.

Species diversity and species richness changes mirrored complex features of the whole community, such they have been a result of the changes in species composition, which were described in proceeding paragraphs. Douglas-fir presence in stands increases species diversity of the herb layer, both overall and in cultural Norway spruce and European beech stands (Table 4). While Douglas-fir presence in Norway spruce stands (Fig. 1) could be assessed positively, since Douglas-fir increases similarity of the site conditions to natural stands, increasing of Douglas-fir in European beech stands (Fig. 2) could be assessed negatively, since it promotes ruderalizating processes, when species incoming to communities are not natural in.

However, it is necessary to pay attention to the observed increase in total canopy of the tree layer in mixtures of Douglas-fir with Norway spruce compared with just Norway spruce, which may result in a reduction in the light penetration, thus reduces the presentation of some species in the herb and moss layers. Indeed, a reduction in total abundance of moss layer (E0) with an increasing proportion of Douglas-fir in Norway spruce tree layer was demonstrated (Table 4).

Discussion and Conclusions. As it is shown, Douglas-fir stands influence their habitats, which is indicated by species growing in the understory. This species increase species diversity of the stands, but decrease their abundance. The most striking it may be seen by comparison of Douglas-fir stands with managed Norway spruce stands, planted in lower altitudes. That fact is also confirmed by research conducted in other European countries [e.g. 22, 4, 5], where Douglas-fir stands are more spread. Above described differences in understory are not so noticeable, when European beech and oak stands are substituted by the Douglas-fir once. However, even the significant phenomenon of striking nitrophilous species occurrence as Geranium robertianum, Urtica dioica, and Galium aparine manifests here. This indicates conspicuous content of available nitrates in humus and top of soil horizon.

However, detail knowledge will be necessary to support soil analyses and thus pertinently to confirm results of the other scientists [37].

Appendix 1. List of recorded species according to the nutrition groups Acidophilous species: Anthoxanthum odoratum, Avenella flexuosa, Calamagrostis arundinacea, C. epigejos, C. villosa, Calluna vulgaris, Carex canescens, C. echinata, C. nigra, C. pilulifera, Dryopteris dilatata, Gymnocarpium dryopteris, Hieracium murorum, H. sabaudum, Luzula luzuloides, L. pallescens, L.

pilosa, Melampyrum pratense, M. sylvaticum, Molinia arundinacea, Nardus stricta, Phegopteris connectilis, Picea abies, Pinus strobus, Prenanthes purpurea, Pteridium aquilinum, Senecio ovatus, Vaccinium myrtillus, Veronica officinalis.

Mesotrophic species: Acer campestre, Actaea spicata, Agrostis stolonifera, Anemone nemorosa, Asarum europaeum, Astragalus glycyphyllos, Athyrium filixfemina, Bromus benekenii, Campanula patula, C. persicifolia, C. trachelium, Carex digitata, C. ovalis, C. pairae, C. pallescens, C. pilosa, C. sylvatica, Clinopodium vulgare, Convallaria majalis, Dactylis polygama, Dentaria bulbifera, Dryopteris filixmas, Euphorbia amygdaloides, Festuca drymeja, Galeobdolon luteum, Galium odoratum, G. sylvaticum, Hedera helix, Hepatica nobilis, Hypericum hirsutum, H.

montanum, H. perforatum, Lathyrus niger, L. vernus, Melica nutans, M. uniflora, Milium effusum, Poa nemoralis, Polygonatum multiflorum, P. odoratum, Quercus robur, Ranunculus auricomus, Salvia pratensis, Sanicula europaea, Scrophularia nodosa, Sonchus arvensis, Sorbus torminalis, Stellaria graminea, S. holostea, Tilia cordata, Veronica chamaedrys, Viola reichenbachiana, V. sylvatica.



Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 13 |

:

. .. III ( ) 20-21 2014 . IV 2014 III ( ) / :, . .. , 2014, . IV. 225 . : .....

I - .. : I - (5 c 2015 ) 2015 ...

. .. - , 85- , ...

- , ٨ 85- , XXV і2015 1719 2015 . III ...

.. 19 - 63.001-57(082) 4431 23 . . 19. .: -, 2014. 186 . ISBN 978-5-9675-1015-1 .. : . . , . .. , . .. , . .....

. .. III ( ) 20-21 2014 . II 1 2014 III ( ) / :, . .. , 2014, . II. 1. 217 . ...

. .. - , 70- 100- .. (25-26 2015 ) II...

- I 65- V - ...

64- I 2011 / :, , 2011, . I 175 . : .. , (. ) .. , ...

. .. - , 70- 100- .. (25-26 2015 ) III...

. .. IV - XXI 16-20 2014 . II , 201 63 : 001 IV - XXI 16-20 2014 : . II. : . .. , 2014. 230 . ...

64- III / :, , 2011, . III 357 . : .. , (. ) .. , ...

.. - , 15- ۻ 70- , , .. 16-18 2015 . 2015 339.13 ...

. .. III ( ) 20-21 2014 . V 1 2014 III ( ) / :, . .. , 2014, . V. 1. 370 . ...

- ʻ (17-18 2013 .) I , 2013 63:001 4 347 : - ...

.. - , 15- ۻ 70- , , .. 15 ...

.. ( ) - 378:001.89 4 74 74 ( ): - ....

.. ( - , 28-29 2015 ., . , 1) ...

23 24 2012 . .. - IV . .. - IV ...

.. IV - 378:001.89 4 : IV...







 
<<     |    
2016 www.konf.x-pdf.ru - - , ,

, .
, , , , 1-2 .