Notes on the Concept of Preference in Grazing Ecology and Grassland Management

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2014.03.001

Acta Agrestia Sinica ›› 2014, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (3): 433-438.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2014.03.001

Notes on the Concept of Preference in Grazing Ecology and Grassland Management

WANG De-li, WANG Ling

Institute of Grassland Science, Northeast Normal University, Key Laboratory of Vegetation Ecology, Ministry of Education, Changchun, Jilin Province 130024, China

Received:2013-09-03 Revised:2013-11-18 Online:2014-06-15 Published:2014-06-04

放牧生态学与草地管理的相关概念：Ⅰ.偏食性

王德利, 王岭

东北师范大学草地科学研究所植被生态科学教育部重点实验室, 吉林长春 130024

作者简介:王德利（1963- ），男，辽宁锦州人，教授，研究方向为草地生态学，E-mail：wangd@nenu.edu.cn
基金资助:
农业部行业公益项目（201003019）；国家自然科学基金（31230012）（31370453）资助

Abstract

Abstract:

For this paper, preference as one of the basic concepts is described from its contexts and dimensions. Firstly, preference in generally is defined by foraging intensity without grazing pressure, and animal preference, having species-specific, i.e. endogenous genetic structure and developmental or physiological characters, also may refer to potential diet selectivity or foraging strategy. Second, based on foraging time-scale and habitat, two couples of preference dimension are put forward as continuous preference vs. instaneous preference, and absolute preference vs. relative preference. Continuous preference is characterized as a stable long-term foraging intensity under evolutionary experiences, but instaneous preference for a short-term foraging intensity for animals. Absolute preference is here defined by voluntary intake within the foraging habitat with one kind of food, and relative preference refers to those foraging habitats within two or multiple foods. We suggested that it is essential to further explore the contexts, significances, and measurement of animal preference, and their implications to foraging theory, co-adaptation and co-evolution between plant and herbivore, as well as grassland or grazing management practices.

Key words: Preference, Palatability, Foraging, Grazing ecology, Grassland management

摘要：

本文对放牧生态学中的一个基本概念-偏食性的涵义（属性）与维度等进行了相对全面地释义；并对比分析了与之密切相关的适口性概念。偏食性是指动物基于自身特性以及动物体状态（包括遗传特征、发育阶段、生理与营养状态等），在不受食物供给量限制的条件下，对所在生境中食物（或植物种类）表现出的采食程度差异，它具有动物依赖性、动态性及相对性。偏食性的测度能够一定程度地反映动物的食性选择趋向，或者体现动物对生境中不同食物的潜在采食或消耗量；对偏食性的分析还有助于解释动物的食性选择策略，有益于揭示动物的采食行为规律。偏食性的维度包括持续偏食性与即时偏食性，以及绝对偏食性与相对偏食性。持续偏食性是动物经过长期进化形成的、对某种食物表现出较长时间的稳定的采食强度，即时偏食性是动物在某一时间对食物的采食强度，即动物偏食性的瞬时度量；绝对偏食性是动物在面对某种单一食物、于自由采食状态下所度量的对该食物的采食强度，绝对偏食性可以被认为是动物最基本的偏食性维度，而相对偏食性是指同时提供2种或多种食物背景下，所度量的动物对某种食物的自由选择采食强度。深刻认识、理解动物的偏食性概念及涵义，并将之有效地应用于实际的草地放牧管理之中，对于发展动物采食理论，动、植物协同适应及进化理论，有效实施草地家畜管理都具有突出的科学价值和实践意义。

关键词: 偏食性, 适口性, 采食, 放牧生态学, 草地管理

CLC Number:

WANG De-li, WANG Ling. Notes on the Concept of Preference in Grazing Ecology and Grassland Management[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2014, 22(3): 433-438.

王德利, 王岭. 放牧生态学与草地管理的相关概念：Ⅰ.偏食性[J]. 草地学报, 2014, 22(3): 433-438.

0
/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/EN/10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2014.03.001

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/EN/Y2014/V22/I3/433

References

[1] Hodgson J, Illius A W. The ecology and management of grazing systems [M]. Australia, Wallingford: CAB International, 1996
[2] Wang D L, Han G D, Bai Y G. Interaction between foraging behaviour of herbivores and grassland resources in the eastern Eurasian steppes[M]//Grassland: A globe resource. The Netherlands:Wageningen Academic Publishers,2005:97-110
[3] 滕星,王德利,张宝田. 羊草(Leymus chinensis)草地雨天放牧与非雨天放牧的绵羊采食特征[J]. 生态学报,2006,26(3):762-767
[4] Gordon I J, Prins H H T. The ecology of browsing and grazing [M]. Germany: Spring-Verlag, 2008
[5] Krebs C J. Ecological methodology [M]. 2nd Edition. California: US Addison, Menlo Park: Wesley Longman, Inc., 1999
[6] Liu J S, Wang L, Wang D L, et al. Plants can benefit from herbivory: Stimulatory effects of sheep saliva on growth of Leymus chinensis [J]. PLoS ONE,2012,7(1):e29259
[7] Olff H, Ritchie M E, Prins H H T. Global environmental controls of diversity in large herbivores [J]. Nature, 2002,415(6874):901-904
[8] Wang L, Wang D L, He Z B, et al. Mechanisms linking plant species richness to foraging of a large herbivore [J]. Journal of Applied Ecology,2010,47(4):868-875
[9] Crawley M J. Herbivory: The dynamics of animal-plant interactions [M]. UK, Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1983
[10] 王德利. 植物与草食动物之间的协同适应及进化[J]. 生态学报,2004,24(11):2641-2648
[11] 陈化鹏,马建章,高晓芳. 有蹄类动物对食物的选择性及其确定[J]. 野生动物,1992,69(5):29-31
[12] 王旭,王德利,刘颖,等. 羊草草地生长季放牧山羊采食量和食性选择[J]. 生态学报,2002,22(5):661-667
[13] Wang L, Wang D L, Liu J S, et al. Diet selection variation of a large herbivore in a feeding experiment with increasing species numbers and different plant functional group combinations [J]. Acta Oecologica,2011,37(3):263-268
[14] Villalba J J, Provenza F D. Self-medication and homeostatic behaviour in herbivores: Learning about the benefits of nature's pharmacy [J]. Animal,2007,1(9):1360-1370
[15] 中国农业大学. 草地学[M]. 北京:中国农业出版社,1982:69-70
[16] Molyneux R J, Ralphs M H. Plant toxins and palatability to herbivores [J]. Journal of Range Management,1992,45(1):13-18
[17] 任继周. 草业大辞典[M]. 北京:中国农业出版社,2008:748
[18] 王岭,王德利. 放牧家畜食性选择机制研究进展[J]. 应用生态学报,2007,18(1):205-211
[19] Forbes J M. Consequences of feeding for future feeding [J]. Comparative and Biochemistry and Physiology,2001,128(3):463-470
[20] Krueger W C. Evaluating animal forage preference [J]. Journal of Range Management,1972,25(6):471-475
[21] Wang L, Wang D L, Bai Y G, et al. Spatial distributions of multiple plant species affect herbivore foraging selectivity [J]. Oikos,2010,119(2):401-408
[22] Wang L, Wang D L, Bai Y G, et al. Spatially complex neighboring relationships among grassland plant species as an effective mechanism of defense against herbivory [J]. Oecologia,2010,164(1):193-200
[23] Loehle C, Rittenhouse L R. An analysis of forage preference indices [J]. Journal of Range Management,1982,35(3):316-319
[24] Manly B F J, McDonald L, Thomas D L. Resource selection by animals: Statistical design and analysis for field studies [M]. 2nd Ed. London: Chapman & Hall, 1992
[25] Huang Y, Wang Y, Wang D L, et al. The effect of plant spatial pattern within a patch on foraging selectivity of grazing sheep [J]. Landscape Ecology,2012,27(6):911-919
[26] 王德利,王岭. 草食动物与草地植物多样性互作关系研究进展[J]. 草地学报,2011,19(4):699-704

Notes on the Concept of Preference in Grazing Ecology and Grassland Management

放牧生态学与草地管理的相关概念：Ⅰ.偏食性

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

References

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	HOU Lu-lu, WANG Xu, ZHANG Xiang, YAN Yu-chun, YAN Rui-rui, CHENG Li, XIN Xiao-ping. The Effect of Grazing Intensity on Beef Cattle’s Behavior [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(9): 1974-1982.
[2]	GAO Juan-ting, SUN Fei-da, HUO Fei, ZHANG Lyu-bing, ZHOU Su, YANG Ting-yong, BIANBA Zha-xi. Application and Evaluation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Remote Sensing in Grassland Animal and Plant Monitoring [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(1): 1-9.
[3]	SONG Jun-xiang, LEI Xiong, YE Ming-qing, ZHANG Jing-le, YANg Ying, CAI Dong-yang, ZHA De. Effects of Bioorganic Fertilizer on Community Diversity and Production Performance of Degraded Grassland [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(5): 1355-1363.
[4]	TONG Tao, ZHANG Kai-dong, WU Yu-jiang, SUO-langda, YANG Fang, CHEN Yu-lin, YANG Yu-xin. Seasonal Changes of Grazing Grassland Nutrition and Yields and Feeding Preferences of Tibetan Cashmere Goats in Nagqu Prefecture of Tibetan Plateau [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(1): 104-111.
[5]	MU Shao-jie, ZHU Chao, ZHOU Ke-xin, LI Jian-long. The Preventive Strategies of Degradation and the Approaches to Enhance Carbon Sequestration Ability in Inner Mongolia Grassland [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2017, 25(2): 217-225.
[6]	ZHANG Wen-jun, ZHOU Qi-xing, WEI Wei. Mechanisms of Restoration of Degraded Ecosystem by Clonal Plants [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2016, 24(3): 485-490.
[7]	WU Rui-xin, SHAO Xin-qing, HU Xin-zhen, ZHONG Meng-ying, WEI Xiao-ting, PAN Duo, ZHANG De-gang. Response of Stem and Leaf Traits of Thermopsis lanceolata to Different Grassland Management Strategies and the Allometric Growth [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2015, 23(3): 476-482.
[8]	HE Yu-ji, GUO Na, GAO Jian-hua, ZHANG Zhen, LIU Ming-xiu, GUO Yan-jun. The Response of Wax n-Alkanes in Ficus tikoua Leaf to Growing Environments [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2015, 23(1): 114-119.
[9]	WANG Hong-bo, DING Xue-zhi, LANG Xia, LIANG Chun-nian, YAN Ping, LI Fa-di. Foraging Behavior of Oula Sheep in Summer Pastures of Maqu Gannan [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2012, 20(3): 583-588.
[10]	LI Ling-hao, WANG Kun. Perspectives on the New-era Strategies for Advancing Grassland Ecology & Environmental Studies in China [J]. , 2012, 20(2): 199-206.
[11]	WANG De-li, WANG Ling. Interactions between Herbivores and Plant Diversity (Review) [J]. , 2011, 19(4): 699-704.
[12]	ZHOU Yan-chun, WANG De-li, BA Lei, WANG Ling, HE Zheng-biao. Effects of Patch Area on the Foraging Behavior of Beef Cattle [J]. , 2007, 15(6): 613-616.
[13]	ZHOU Qi, HE Rui-guo, LI Xiang, HAN Du, LI Shan-yuan, Lin Xian-mei. A Study on the Relations Between Forage Crude Protein and Microelements Content and Eld’s Deer Feed Preference [J]. , 2004, 12(1): 36-39.
[14]	LI Qing-feng, David, MICHALK, CHEN Liang, ZHANG Ping, TONG Shao-min. Analysis of Constrains and Management Strategy for Animal Production in Grassland of Northern China [J]. , 2003, 11(2): 178-182.
[15]	WANG-Qin, LI Jun-cheng, AN Yu-feng, ZHANG Fa-hui, XIAO Jin-yu. Dynamics of Grazing Ecosystem between Plant output and Animal Production [J]. , 2002, 10(3): 173-178.