Suppr超能文献

让放牧动物获取额外营养源对半天然牧场生物多样性的影响:一项系统综述

Effects on biodiversity in semi-natural pastures of giving the grazing animals access to additional nutrient sources: a systematic review.

作者信息

Jakobsson Simon, Envall Ida, Bengtsson Jan, Rundlöf Maj, Svensson Matilda, Åberg Charlotte, Lindborg Regina

机构信息

Independent Researcher, Previously Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Torgarden, P.O. Box 5685, 7485, Trondheim, Norway.

The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (Formas), Box 1206, 111 82, Stockholm, Sweden.

出版信息

Environ Evid. 2024 Aug 1;13(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s13750-024-00343-4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Traditionally managed semi-natural pastures are recognised for their high biodiversity. One drawback is that these pastures are often low in fodder production and hence rather unprofitable, which may lead to abandonment. Two ways to increase production and profitability and maintain grazing are to (i) offer the grazers supplementary feed, or (ii) co-enclose the semi-natural pasture with an improved pasture. Both practices may transfer nutrients to the semi-natural pasture, with potential negative effects on biodiversity. This systematic review aimed to analyse the available evidence concerning the following primary question: "What is the effect of giving grazers access to additional nutrient sources on biodiversity in semi-natural pastures?" (Q1). We also used two supporting questions: "What is the effect of giving grazers access to additional nutrient sources on nutrient status of the soils of semi-natural pastures?" (Q2) and "How do the grazers of semi-natural pastures behave while having access to additional nutrient sources?" (Q3).

METHODS

Searches for peer-reviewed and grey literature were made using bibliographic databases, search engines, specialist websites, and stakeholder contacts. Literature was screened for relevance according to predefined eligibility criteria, and critical appraisal was performed using the tool CEECAT. A database of the relevant studies was compiled. Descriptive information about the evidence base is presented in tables and an interactive evidence atlas. Because of absent study setup replication, Q1 and Q2 were not analysed quantitatively. However, sample size allowed the use of mixed modelling to quantitatively analyse Q3 regarding the effects of (i) co-enclosing an improved pasture on grazers' electivity for the improved area, and (ii) supplementary feed on the forage intake of grazers.

REVIEW FINDINGS

A total of 12 articles on the effects of supplementary feeding and 19 on the effects of co-enclosing an improved pasture were included, of which some targeted multiple review questions. Because of the limited literature, it is not possible to draw any conclusions concerning the effects on biodiversity (Q1) or nutritional status (Q2) in semi-natural pastures. For Q3, 28 studies fulfilled our criteria, of which 18 investigated the behaviour of grazers related to co-enclosing an improved pasture, and 10 investigated their forage intake while having access to supplementary fodder. The results show that all grazer species except goats preferred grazing in the improved areas regardless of whether they were grazing together with other grazer species or not. We found no effect of supplementary feeding on forage intake of the grazers.

CONCLUSIONS

We detected a knowledge gap concerning the effects of the two additional nutrient sources on semi-natural pasture biodiversity (Q1) and nutrient status (Q2), which points toward further research needs. Analysis of Q3 showed that grazers prefer to graze improved compared to semi-natural pasture areas. However, how this behaviour subsequently affects nutrient transport and biodiversity is unclear and cannot be translated into management recommendations. To gain better knowledge about the primary question of our review, research focusing specifically on this question is needed. We provide suggestions for how such studies could be designed, including spatio-temporal setup, and key management and environmental conditions to consider.

摘要

背景

传统管理的半天然牧场因其高生物多样性而受到认可。一个缺点是这些牧场的饲料产量往往较低,因此利润相当微薄,这可能导致牧场被弃用。增加产量和利润并维持放牧的两种方法是:(i)为放牧动物提供补充饲料,或(ii)将半天然牧场与改良牧场共同围起来。这两种做法都可能将养分转移到半天然牧场,对生物多样性产生潜在的负面影响。本系统综述旨在分析关于以下主要问题的现有证据:“让放牧动物获得额外养分来源对半天然牧场生物多样性有何影响?”(问题1)。我们还使用了两个辅助问题:“让放牧动物获得额外养分来源对半天然牧场土壤的养分状况有何影响?”(问题2)以及“半天然牧场的放牧动物在有额外养分来源时会有怎样的行为?”(问题3)。

方法

通过文献数据库、搜索引擎、专业网站和与利益相关者联系来搜索同行评审文献和灰色文献。根据预先定义的纳入标准筛选文献的相关性,并使用CEECAT工具进行批判性评价。编制了相关研究的数据库。关于证据基础的描述性信息呈现在表格和交互式证据图谱中。由于缺乏研究设置的重复,未对问题1和问题2进行定量分析。然而,样本量允许使用混合模型来定量分析问题3,即关于(i)将改良牧场共同围起来对放牧动物对改良区域的选择性的影响,以及(ii)补充饲料对放牧动物采食量的影响。

综述结果

共纳入了12篇关于补充饲料影响的文章和19篇关于将改良牧场共同围起来影响的文章,其中一些针对多个综述问题。由于文献有限,无法就对半天然牧场生物多样性(问题1)或营养状况(问题2)的影响得出任何结论。对于问题3,28项研究符合我们的标准,其中18项研究了与将改良牧场共同围起来相关的放牧动物行为,10项研究了它们在有补充饲料时的采食量。结果表明,除山羊外,所有放牧动物物种都更喜欢在改良区域放牧,无论它们是否与其他放牧动物物种一起放牧。我们发现补充饲料对放牧动物的采食量没有影响。

结论

我们发现关于这两种额外养分来源对半天然牧场生物多样性(问题1)和营养状况(问题2)的影响存在知识空白,这表明有进一步的研究需求。对问题3的分析表明,与半天然牧场区域相比,放牧动物更喜欢在改良区域放牧。然而,这种行为随后如何影响养分传输和生物多样性尚不清楚,也无法转化为管理建议。为了更好地了解我们综述的主要问题,需要专门针对这个问题的研究。我们提供了关于如何设计此类研究的建议,包括时空设置以及需要考虑的关键管理和环境条件。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5753/11378873/ac9fe550da0b/13750_2024_343_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验