Plant morphological characteristics and resistance to simulated trampling

The relationship between responses of plants to trampling and their morphological characteristics was studied in a glasshouse experiment. Thirteen species with four different growth forms were used in this experiment. They were five tussock species.Chloris gayana, Eragrostis tenuifolia, Lolium perenne, Panicum maximum, andSporobolus elongatus; three prostate grasses,Axonopus compressus, Cynodon dactylon, andTrifolium repens, two herbaceous species,Daucus glochidiatus andHypochoeris radicata; and three woody species,Acacia macradenia, Acrotriche aggregata, andSida rhombifolia. These species were subjected to three levels of simulated trampling. For each species, measurements were taken of aboveground biomass, root biomass, leaf length, leaf width, leaf thickness, leaf number, broken leaf number and plant height. Overall, these measurements were greatest in the control plants, moderate in the level of light trampling, and the lowest in the level of heavy trampling. Biomass was used as a basis of the assessment of plant resistance to trampling. Three tussock species,Eragrostis tenuifolia, Lolium perenne, andSporobolus elongatus had a high resistance. Woody and erect herbaceous plants were more intolerant to trampling. There appear to be two processes involved in the reduction of the plant parameters: direct physical damage with portions of the plants detached, and physiological changes, which slow down vegetative growth rates. Plant height was found to be the most sensitive indicator of trampling damage.

[1]  S. Kellomäki,et al.  Trampling tolerance of forest vegetation. , 1975 .

[2]  V. B. Youngner.  Accelerated Wear Tests on Turfgrasses1 , 1961 .

[3]  B. E. Willard,et al.  Effects of human activities on alpine tundra ecosystems in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado , 1970 .

[4]  M. Maun,et al.  A study of the effects of trampling on the vegetation of Lake Huron sand dunes at Pinery Provincial Park , 1982 .

[5]  M. J. Liddle.  A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural ecosystems , 1975 .

[6]  Donald R Byrkit,et al.  Statistics today: a comprehensive introduction , 1986 .

[7]  Dan Sun,et al.  Field occurrence, recovery, and simulated trampling resistance and recovery of two grasses , 1991 .

[8]  D. Edmond.  Some effects of sheep treading on the growth of 10 pasture species , 1964 .

[9]  M. J. Liddle.  The effects of trampling and vehicles on natural vegetation. , 1973 .

[10]  F. R. Kuss.  A review of major factors influencing plant responses to recreation impacts , 1986 .

[11]  J. B. Beard,et al.  Turfgrass Wear Tolerance Mechanisms: III. Physiological, Morphological, and Anatomical Characteristics Associated with Turfgrass Wear Tolerance1 , 1975 .

[12]  S. Bratton.  Effects of disturbance by visitors on two woodland orchid species in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA , 1985 .

[13]  R. Frenkel.  Trampled Vegetation and Floristic Convergence in the Tropics , 2014 .

[14]  M. J. Liddle.  A theoretical relationship between the primary productivity of vegetation and its ability to tolerate trampling , 1975 .

[15]  G. Bates.  The vegetation of footpaths, sidewalks, cart tracks and gateways. , 1935 .

[16]  G. Bates.  The Vegetation of Wayside and Hedgerow , 1937 .