J. Bio. & Env. Sci.

2017

Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences (JBES)

ISSN: 2220-6663 (Print) 2222-3045 (Online)
Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 115-122, 2017
http://www.innspub.net

RESEARCH PAPER OPEN ACCESS

Comparison of plant species indices under wildlife and livestock

grazing site

Samira Hossein Jafari1, Ali Akbar Karimian*2

Agricultural Science and Natural Resources, University of Gorgan, Iran

1

Faculty of Natural Resources, Yazd University, Iran

2

Article published on January 23, 2017

Key words: Plant indices, Arid rangelands, Wildlife, Livestock, Kalmand-Bahadoran, Yazd

Abstract
Vegetation changes in terms of specific plant or family can determine vegetation composition, rangeland
condition, grazing pressure and herbivores food preference. Therefore, it can be a base for ecosystem planning
and rangelands management. This research tried to compares some of plant species indices between two regions
under livestock and wildlife grazing in Kalmand-Bahadoran plain rangelands of Yazd province. For this purpose,
in the first step two areas of Kalmand-Bahadoran plain rangelands of Yazd province were selected. Sampling was
done using random-systematic method. In each plot and along each transect, species names, families, their
presence and absence, canopy cover percentage, production and density for each species were noted. The results
showed that in livestock grazing site, the dominant species (Artemisia sieberi), Stipa barbata (p<0.01) and
Scorzonera sp. Canopy cover (p<0.05) increased significantly, while Colchicum kotschyi, Iris songarica
(p<0.05) and Stachys inflata canopy cover (p<0.01) decreased. In deer grazing area, in terms of production and
density, some species like Stachys inflata, Colchicum kotschyi, Aegopordon berardioides and Boissiera
squarrosa (p<0.01) had significantly increased in comparison to livestock grazing area but Stipa barbata and
Scorzonera sp. (p<0.05) raised significantly in livestock grazing site. According to results, it is necessary to
recognize all vegetation aspects in rangelands specially plant species indices in order to proper grazing
management and decide for future restoration planning.
*Corresponding Author: Ali Akbar Karimian  [email protected]

115 | Jafari and Karimian

 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2017

Introduction Most studies have focused on vegetation

Rangelands consist of different plant species with characteristics totally but they didn’t investigate
distinctive life forms and growth characteristics, particular plant species properties.
which have a specific grazing value (Ahmadi et al.,
2009). Plant species have different Strategies and this This study tries to find degradation effects of livestock

causes their more resistance to grazing. Changes in on specific plant species characteristics in an arid

vegetation indices in terms of specific plant or family ecosystem. So, the purpose of this study is to compare

can determine vegetation composition, rangeland plant species indices such as canopy cover

condition, grazing pressure and herbivores food percentage, production and density between wildlife

preference. Therefore, it can be a base for ecosystem (deer) and livestock (sheep and goat) grazing sites.

planning and rangelands management. There are The results can be applied in restoration programs to

several studies about grazing effects on plant species choose particular plants in each kind of grazing

characteristics. Some researches revealed a significant management.

increase about production and density of some

Materials and methods
species such as Stipa barbata, Artemisia sieberi,
Study site
Astragalus sp. salsola sp. and also Scorzonera sp.
Kalmand-Bahadoran plain is located southeast of Yazd
canopy cover (Akbarzadeh, 2005; Aghajanlou &
province and at 31º20' north latitude and 54º30' east
Moosavi, 2006; Akbarzadeh et al., 2007; Baghestani
longitude. Plain areas cover most of the region and the
Meybodi et al., 2007) under livestock grazing. Other
rest composed of impassable height, mountains and
studies showed that canopy cover percentage,
hills. The average altitude is 1616 meters above sea
production and density of the species like Echinops
level. Maximum and minimum heights in the region
sp. Bromus sp. Boissiera squarrosa, Onobrychis sp.
are 3290 m and 1400 m respectively. The averages of
and Scariola orientalis increased significantly in the
maximum and minimum temperatures are respectively
regions with more livestock grazing pressure
44.29ºC and 22.5ºC. The average annual precipitation
(Firinioglu et al., 2007; Jalilvand et al., 2007;
is about 77 mm and the mean annual moisture is 30%
Heidarian Aghakhani et al, 2010; Imani et al., 2010).
Eftekhari et al. (2009) announced that the species (Karimian, 1999).

Stachys inflata canopy cover and production has

Methodology
increased in deer grazing site.
After determining the study area using topographic

In most parts of the world livestock grazing is the most maps (1:50000), during field investigation, two

common use of rangelands, and this is the main factor regions were chose, one in the protected area under

of rangelands degradation and extinction of wildlife wildlife grazing (deer) and the other outside that area

(When et al., 2011; Pellerin et al., 2006). Wildlife and under livestock grazing (sheep and goat).

livestock cause changes on rangeland plant species and

The two regions are flat; their climatic and
vegetation (Cesa & Paruelo, 2011; Jeddi & Chaieb,
topographic conditions are the same (Consulting
2010). In arid rangelands in many parts of the world,
engineers of Iran, 2002; Alikhani & Ahmadi, 2012).
identifying vegetation characteristics changes under
wildlife and livestock grazing is the most important
Sampling was done using random systematic method.
basic study to find a correct way for range management
Depending on vegetation type and condition
(Manier & Hobbs, 2007; Moser & Witmer, 2000;
(Mesdaghi, 2003), 10 transects of 100 m randomly
Hossein Jafari et al., 2013).
and 3 plots of 2 m2 were placed on each transect using

According to the literature reviews, there is a little systematic method in each site. In each plot and along

information about wildlife and livestock grazing each transect, species names, families, their presence

effects on plant species indices. and absence,

116 | Jafari and Karimian

 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2017

canopy cover percentage, production and density for Results

each species were noted. Data processing and analysis During sampling, 27 plant species of 10 families are

related to plant species indices between the two study found in the region under wildlife grazing. 25 species
which belong to 10 families were identified in
regions were performed using SPSS16 software
livestock grazing site. These species have different life
(independent sample t-test analysis).
and biologic forms (Table 1).

Table 1. Species presence and absence list in two wildlife and livestock grazing sites related to sampling.

Species name Family Longevity Life form Biologic form Livestock Wildlife
Acantholimon sp. Plumbaginaceae P Shrub Ch - +
Aegopordon berardioides Compositeae P Forb He - +
Aellenia subaphylla Chenopodiaceae P Shrub Ch + -
Artemisia sieberi Compositeae P Shrub Ch + +
Astragalus glauca canthus Papilionaceae P Shrub Ph + +
Astragalus microphysa Papilionaceae P Shrub Ch - +
Astragalus sp. Papilionaceae P Shrub Ch + +
Atraphaxis spinosa Polygonaceae P Shrub Ch + -
Boissiera squarrosa Gramineae A Grass Th + +
Centaurea sp. Compositeae A Forb Th + +
Cirsium sp. Compositeae P Forb He + +
Colchicum kotschyi Liliaceae P Forb Ge + +
Convolvulus virgatus Convolvulaceae P Shrub Ph - +
Cornulaca leucacantha Chenopodiaceae P Shrub Ch - +
Cornulaca monacantha Chenopodiaceae P Shrub Ch + -
Cousinia deserti Compositeae P Shrub Ch + +
Cyperus sp. Cyperaceae P Forb Ge + -
Echinops sp. Compositeae P Shrub He + -
Euphorbia helioscopia Euphorbiaceae A Forb He + -
Gymnocarpus decander Caryophyllaceae P Bush- Ph + -
tree
Heliotropium sp. Boraginaceae P Shrub Ch - +
Iris songarica Iridaceae P Forb He + +
Jurinea radians Compositeae P Shrub Ch - +
Lactuca sp. Compositeae P Shrub Ch + +
Launea acantodes Compositeae P Shrub He + +
Lolium rigidum Gramineae A Grass Th - +
Noea mucronata Chenopodiaceae P Shrub Ch - +
Paracaryum persicum Boraginaceae A Forb Th - +
Peganum harmala Zygophyllaceae P Forb He + -
Salsola tomentosa Chenopodiaceae P Shrub Ch + -
Scariola orientalis Compositeae P Shrub Ch + +
Scorzonera sp. Compositeae P Forb Ge + +
Scrophularia steriata Scrophulariaceae P Shrub Ch - +
Stachys inflata Lamiaceae P Shrub Ch - +
Stipa barbata Gramineae P Grass He + +
Ziziphora tenuir Lamiaceae A Forb Th + +
Zygophyllum eurypterum Zygophyllaceae P Bush- Ph + -
tree
(Ch= Chamophyt, He= Hemicriptophyt, Ph= Phanerophyt, Th= Therophyt).

Among 13 plant families in sampling plots, Boraginaceae and Convolvulaceae exist only in deer
Scrophulariaceae, grazing site. On the other side,

117 | Jafari and Karimian

 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2017

families such as Zygophyllaceae, Polygonaceae and Liliaceae and Iridaceae (p<0.05) in wildlife grazing site
Euphorbiaceae were found in livestock grazing site and Compositeae (p<0.01) and Gramineae families
and 7 plant families were in both sites. The results (p<0.05) in livestock site increased significantly (table2).
show that Lamiaceae (p<0.01),

Table 2. Comparing families with the most canopy cover percentages in study sites using independent sample t-
test.
Families Treatment Average Sd df t
Chenopodiaceae wildlife 0.06 0.08 58 1.004ns-
Livestock 0.11 0.13
**
Compositeae wildlife 8.66 2.05 58 4.119-
Livestock 12.10 1.67
*
Gramineae wildlife 0.34 0.18 58 2.552-
Livestock 0.58 0.22
*
Iridaceae wildlife 0.66 0.34 58 2.300
Livestock 0.25 0.45
**
Lamiaceae wildlife 2.05 1.06 58 6.082
Livestock 0.02 0.03
*
Liliaceae wildlife 0.18 0.18 58 2.229
Livestock 0.05 0.06
Papilionaceae wildlife 0.78 0.50 58 ns1.107ns

Livestock 0.59 0.21

**: p<0.01), (**: p<0.05)), (ns: No significant.

The results of comparing the species with the most grazing site compared to livestock grazing site
canopy cover percentage in sampling plots indicate (table3).
that there is no difference.
The results show a significant increase in relation to
Between the two regions in terms of species canopy Colchicum kotschyi, Stachys inflata and Boissiera
cover percentage like Noea mucronata, Aegopordon squarrosa in deer grazing site (p<0.01), while the
berardioides, Boissiera squarrosa, Astragalus sp. species production like Aegopordon berardioides
and Lactuca sp. The species Colchicum kotschyi, (p<0.01), Stipa barbata and Scorzonera sp. (p<0.05)
Iris songarica (p<0.05) and Stachys inflata has increased significantly in livestock grazing area.
(p<0.01) reveal a significant increase in deer There is no difference between the two study areas
grazing site, but some species such as Artemisia related to the species production such as Noea
sieberi, Stipa barbata (p<0.01) and Scorzonera sp. mucronata, Iris songarica, Artemisia sieberi,
(p<0.05) indicate a significant reduction in deer Astragalus sp. and Lactuca sp. (Table 4).

Table 3. Comparing species with the most canopy cover percentages in study sites using independent sample t-test.

Species Treatment Canopy cover Sd df t

percentage
Noea mucronata Wildlife 2.04 0.59 58 0.863ns
Livestock 1.79 0.68
*
Colchicum kotschyi Wildlife 0.185 0.181 58 2.229
Livestock 0.050 0.062
*
Iris songarica Wildlife 0.660 0.336 58 2.300
Livestock 0.250 0.453
**
Artemisia sieberi Wildlife 5.065 1.608 58 - 4.729
Livestock 7.915 1.022
**
Stachys inflata Wildlife 2.055 1.059 58 6.135

118 | Jafari and Karimian

 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2017

Species Treatment Canopy cover Sd df t

percentage
Livestock 0.003 0.003
**
Stipa barbata Wildlife 0.020 0.042 58 -
4.405
Livestock 0.185 0.111
Aegopordon berardioides Wildlife 0.003 0.004 58 - 1.964ns
Livestock 0.02 0.02
Boissiera squarrosa Wildlife 0.320 0.173 58 - 0.961ns
Livestock 0.395 0.175
Astragalus sp. Wildlife 0.240 0.227 58 0.915ns
Livestock 0.155 0.186
*
Scorzonera sp. Wildlife 0.270 0.111 58 - 2.846
Livestock 0.510 0.242
Lactuca sp. Wildlife 1.485 1.241 58 0.142ns
Livestock 1.420 0.740
**: p<0.01), (**: p<0.05)), (ns: No significant.

Table 4. Comparing species with the most production in study sites using independent sample t-test.
Species Treatment Production Sd df t
Noea mucronata Wildlife 0.18 1.01 58 0.949ns
Livestock 0.01 0.04
Colchicum kotschyi Wildlife 0.39 0.41 58 3.639**
Livestock 0.07 0.23
Iris songarica Wildlife 1.84 4.68 58 0.685ns
Livestock 0.96 5.19
Artemisia sieberi Wildlife 24.71 20.31 58 0.411ns
Livestock 22.73 16.92
Stachys inflata Wildlife 9.11 8.18 58 6.088**
Livestock 0.02 0.06
Stipa barbata Wildlife 0.01 0.03 58 - 2.371*
Livestock 0.23 0.52
Aegopordon berardioides Wildlife 0.01 0.06 58 -3.160**
Livestock 0.23 0.37
Boissiera squarrosa Wildlife 0.74 0.53 58 4.748**
Livestock 0.23 0.25
Astragalus sp. Wildlife 0.02 0.06 58 .987ns
Livestock 0.003 0.007
Scorzonera sp. Wildlife 1.00 1.10 58 - 2.109*
Livestock 1.66 1.30
Lactuca sp. Wildlife 3.89 6.42 58 1.017ns
Livestock 2.45 4.37
**: p<0.01), (**: p<0.05)), (ns: No significant.

Comparing the species with the most density in two Stipa barbata and Scorzonera sp. (p<0.05) increase
regions indicate that the species density like significantly in livestock grazing site. There is no
Colchicum kotschyi, Stachys inflata and Boissiera significant difference between two sites in terms of
squarrosa raise in deer grazing site (p<0.01), but species density such as Noea mucronata, Iris songarica,
Aegopordon berardioides (p<0.01). Artemisia sieberi, Astragalus sp. and Lactuca sp.

119 | Jafari and Karimian

 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2017

Table 5. Comparing species with the most density in study sites using independent sample t-test
Species Treatment Density Sd df t
Noea mucronata Wildlife 0.10 0.20 58 0.684ns
Livestock 0.07 0.17
Colchicum kotschyi Wildlife 0.47 0.54 58 3.762**
Livestock 0.07 0.22
Iris songarica Wildlife 2.77 7.28 58 1.357ns
Livestock 0.72 3.92
Artemisia sieberi Wildlife 1.07 0.80 58 - 0.324ns
Livestock 1.13 0.80
**
Stachys inflata Wildlife 0.95 0.88 58 5.494
Livestock 0.05 0.15
*
Stipa barbata Wildlife 0.02 0.09 58 - 2.397
Livestock 0.23 0.49
**
Aegopordon berardioides Wildlife 0.03 0.13 58 2.925-
Livestock 0.40 0.67
Boissiera squarrosa Wildlife 12.97 8.75 58 5.500**
Livestock 3.50 3.51
Astragalus sp. Wildlife 0.03 0.18 58 1.985ns
Livestock 0.002 0.01
*
Scorzonera sp. Wildlife 2.03 2.43 58 2.346-
Livestock 3.65 2.89
Lactuca sp. Wildlife 0.30 0.50 58 0.294ns
Livestock 0.27 0.36
**: p<0.01), (**: p<0.05)), (ns: No significant.

Discussion and conclusions be an index to show more degradation of livestock

The specie Colchicum kotschyi and Stachys inflata grazing site and approximate resistance of this species to
canopy cover, production and density from Liliaceae grazing (Jauffret & Lavorel, 2003; Navarro et al., 2006).
and Lamiaceae families and Iris songarica canopy
The results showed that Aegopordon berardioides,
cover (Iridaceae) increased in wildlife grazing site, but
Scorzonera sp. increase significantly in livestock
Artemisia sieberi and Scorzonera sp. canopy cover
grazing site. Some species like Scorzonera sp. and
(Compositeae) raised in livestock grazing area. The
Aegopordon berardioides have different strategies as
reason of decreasing these shrub species and
resistant species to grazing. For example, they partly
increasing all species belong to the mentioned protect themselves from grazing with expanding and
families can be deer food preference in comparison to sticking the leaves to the ground surface (Akbarzadeh
sheep and goat. Deer graze these species more than et al., 2007). This can be the reason for increasing
livestock and cause decreasing shrubs. According to them in livestock site. Stipa barbata canopy cover
some researches, deer prefer shrub species more than (Gramineae) also had a significant raise in livestock
other life forms (Moser & Witmer, 2000; Pellerin et grazing area, because this species final bud is on the
al., 2006; Bagheri et al., 2008). Livestock use forbs soil surface and grazing pressure injuries is less than
better than other life forms and it can be a reason for other plants. This has been demonstrated through
a significant reduction in Stachys inflata parameters Louhaichi et al. (2012) research.

in livestock site. Firinioglu et al. (2007) and

Most of species related to Compositeae family are thorny
Heidarian Aghakhani et al. (2010) studies results
and non-palatable. Increasing the number of
confirmed this issue. In addition, deer grazing site
Compositeae family species in livestock grazing site can
condition secure these species ecological requires, be the reason of more degradation and grazing pressure.
spreading and reproduction of the species increase Vakili et al. (2001) and Khosravi et al. (2010) announced
(Akbarzadeh et al., 2007). Raising Artemisia sieberi that the presence of Compositeae family species can be
canopy cover percentage can also related to the utilization conditions.

120 | Jafari and Karimian

 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2017

According to results, it is necessary to recognize all Fakhimi E, Dyanati Gh A, Mesdaghi M, Naderi

aspects and details about vegetation in rangelands H. 2007. The effect of gradient grazing on species
specially the specific plant species in order to proper diversity and plant community structure in steppic
grazing management and decide for future rangelands of Nodushan, Yazd province, Iran. The
restoration planning. Second National Conference of Iran Ecological
Agriculture 657-671.
References
Aghajanlou F, Moosavi A. 2006. Investigating the
Firinioglu HK, Seefeldt SS, Sahin B. 2007. The
effects of exclusion on qualitative and quantitative
effects of long- term grazing exclosures on range
changes of rangelands vegetation (1985-2003).
plants in the Central Anatolian region of Turkey.
Publication of Natural Resources College 4, 981-986.
Journal of Environment Management 39, 326- 337.
Akbarzadeh M, Moghadam MR, Jalili A, Jafari
M, Arzani H. 2007. Vegetation dynamic study of HeidarianAghakhani M, NaghipourBorj AA,
Kuhrangexclosure. Iranian Journal of Range and Tavakoli H. 2010. The effects of grazing intensity on
Desert Research 13, 324-336. vegetation and soil in Sisab rangelands, Bojnord,
Iran. Iranian Journal of Range and Desert Research
Akbarzadeh M. 2005. Investigation of vegetation
17, 243-255.
changes inside and outside of Rood Shour exclusion.
Iranian Journal of Range and Desert Research 12,
HosseinJafari S, Tatian MR, Tamartash R,
167-188.
Karimian AA. 2013. Comparison of plant indices
and life forms between Two Sites under wildlife and
Arzani H, Fattahi M, Ekhtesasi MR. 1999.
Investigating quantity and quality of vegetation changes livestock grazing (Case Study: Kalmand-Bahadoran
in Yazd Poshtkuh rangelands during the last decade plain rangelands of Yazd Province). Journal of
(1986-1998). Pajouhesh & Sazandegi 44, 31-35. Rangeland 7, 316-329.

Bagheri E, Mesdaghi M, Amirkhani M. 2008. Imani J, Tavili A, Bandak I, Gholinejad B.

Comparison of vegetation composition under exclosure, 2010. Assessment of vegetation changes in
gazelle and sheep grazing in Golestan National Park and rangelands under different grazing intensities, case
vicinities. Pajouhesh & Sazandegi 80, 83-93. study: Charandow of Kurdistan province. Iranian
Journal of Range and Desert Research 17, 393-401.
Baghestani Maybodi N, Zare MT, Abdollahi J.
2007. Effects of 2-decade livestock exclusion on
Jalilvand H, Tamartash R, Heydarpour H.
vegetation changes in steppic rangelands of Yazd
province. Iranian Journal of Range and Desert 2007. Grazing impact on vegetation and some soil

Research 13, 337-346. chemical properties in Kojour rangelands, Noushahr,

Iran. Journal of Rangeland 1, 53-66.
Cesa A, Paruelo JM. 2011. Changes in vegetation
structure induced by domestic grazing in Patagonia Jauffret S, Lavorel S. 2003. Are plant functional
(Southern Argentina). Journal of Arid Environment types relevant to describe degradation in arid,
75, 1129-1135. southern Tunisian steppes? Journal of Vegetation
Science 14, 399-408.
Eftekhari A, Farahpour M, Arzani H,
Abdollahi J. 2009. Investigation and comparison of
Jeddi K, Chaieb M. 2010. Changes in soil
species under livestock (sheep & goat) and wildlife
(Deer) grazing in steppic rangelands of Poshtkoohin properties and vegetation following livestock grazing

Yazd province. Agriculture and Natural Resources exclusion in degraded arid environments of South
Science and Technology 47, 367-379. Tunisia. Flora 205, 184-189.

121 | Jafari and Karimian

 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2017

Karimian AA. 1999. Investigation and identification Navarro T, Alados CL, Cabezudo B. 2006.
of plant species in Kalmand-Bahadoran protected Changes in plant functional types in response to goat
area. Study project of environment p. 90. and sheep grazing in two semi-arid shrublands of SE
Spain. Journal of Arid Environments 298-322.
Khosravi M, Asri Y, Abootalebi A. 2010.
Introduction of flora, biologic forms and plants Pellerin S, Huot J, Cote SD. 2006. Long term effects
geographical distribution of Ashtian Varsan region of deer browsing and trampling on the vegetation of
(Markazi province) in Iran, Journal of plant Science peatlands. Biological Conservation 128, 316-326.
researches 5, 1-13.
Vakili MA, Atri M, AsadiM. 2001. Introduction of
Louhaichi M, Ghassali F, Salkini AK, Petersen flora, life form and plants geographical distribution of
SL. 2012. Effect of sheep grazing on rangeland plant Shahr Babak Meymand region (Kerman province).
communities: Case study of landscape depressions Journal of Pajouhesh & Sazandegi 52, 75-81.
within Syrian arid steppes. Journal of Arid
Environments 79, 101-106. When S, Pedersen B, Hanssen SK. 2011. A
comparison of influences of cattle, goat, sheep and
Manier DJ, Hobbs NT. 2007. Large herbivores in reindeer on vegetation changes in mountain cultural
sagebrush steppe ecosystems: livestock and wild Landscapes in Norway. Landscape and Urban
ungulates influence structure and function. Oecologia Planning 102, 177-187.
152, 739-750.
Zhao WY, Li JL, Qi JG. 2007. Change in vegetation
Moser BW, Witmer GW. 2000. The effect of elk diversity and structure in response to heavy grazing
and cattle foraging on the vegetation, birds, and small pressure in the Northern Tianshan Mountains, China.
mammals of the Bridge Creek Wildlife Area, Oregon.
Journal of Arid Environments 68, 465-479.
International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 45,
151-157.

122 | Jafari and Karimian