The Use of Grass Typology in Diagnosing and Sustainably Managing Permanent Grasslands
1
Department of Biology and Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I” from Timisoara, Calea Aradului 119, 300645 Timisoara, Romania
2
Department of Genetic Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Technologies, University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I” from Timisoara, 300645 Timisoara, Romania
3
Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I” from Timisoara, Calea Aradului 119, 300645 Timisoara, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(15), 6309; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156309
Submission received: 22 May 2024
/
Revised: 15 July 2024
/
Accepted: 19 July 2024
/
Published: 24 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Grassland, Soil, and Forest Ecology)
Abstract
:Permanent grasslands are characterized by herbaceous flora adapted to local conditions, with deep root systems that facilitate resource uptake and provide resistance to anthropogenic and abiotic stresses. This study aimed to develop and implement efficient diagnostic and agronomic management tools for farmers. In order to demonstrate the methodology, we selected five diverse grasslands with different characteristics. The research tested the grass typology method to diagnose these areas and establish optimal management practices based on floristic composition. The method was applied to achieve the rational management of the grasslands studied. The results provided valuable data on floristic composition, species frequency, and specific functional indices. The characterization of the five grasslands in Moșnița Nouă in Timiș County enabled us to recognize optimal grassland strategies for each area, maximizing production based on the grass typology. Thus, the study demonstrated the impact of using simplified tools to improve grassland diagnosis and management, significantly contributing to the more sustainable maintenance of the permanent grasslands for farmers.
1. Introduction
Permanent grasslands are ecosystems characterized mainly by the predominant presence of herbaceous species that are successfully adapted to their environment [1,2,3]. The species present in these ecosystems contribute to the distinctive characteristics of permanent grassland [4]. These plants often develop well-developed root systems, which help to efficiently absorb water and nutrients from the soil [5,6,7,8,9].
Plant adaptation in permanent grassland ecosystems usually involves regeneration abilities and tolerance to the influences of external factors [10], such as regular cutting or mowing, but also to temperature and humidity variations specific to these open areas [11,12,13]. Through the dominance of these herbaceous species, permanent grassland not only provides an essential habitat for diverse life forms, but also brings multiple ecological benefits [14], contributing to the maintenance of biodiversity, carbon sequestration and the provision of food resources for herbivorous animals [15,16]. Today’s permanent grasslands are, in many cases, the result of constant human intervention, exploited through grazing, the felling of woody species or other agricultural practices [17,18,19,20,21].
There is a rich diversity of plant species in the permanent grassland because the space is open to a greater variety of herbaceous plants. From an ecological point of view, permanent grasslands have a significant ecological role [5,15,22]. They can contribute to the conservation of biodiversity, maintain habitats for different species and provide open spaces for human recreation [17,22,23].
The development of natural grassland requires advice and proper management at plot and farm level [24,25,26]. An accurate assessment of grassland resources and a measurement of the impact of farming practices on them are essential, and should lead to the definition of the use value of plant communities, considering area-specific agronomic characteristics. Forage production from grassland should have a nutritional value determined by the amount of biomass harvested and the date of peak biomass [27,28,29,30].
Use values vary according to farming practices and environmental availability. Knowledge of these values is essential to allocate grassland functions equitably within a farm, which may also include aspects of specific diversity or residual biomass [16,19,20].
There are difficulties in implementing methods to diagnose the condition of vegetation [22], as they are time-consuming and taxonomic knowledge-intensive and have little or no generalizability [31]. The botanical composition of a meadow does not provide sufficient information on its agronomic properties. Thus, there is a need for simpler and more efficient diagnostic and management tools to meet the needs of farmers and agricultural advisors [4,23,29,32].
In the absence of an ecological approach that considers the presence of minor species as an indicator of environmental conditions, we assume that in an agronomic characterization of plots it is sufficient to focus only on the main species of gramine [17].
The objectives of the research include the characterization of vegetation for making a diagnosis of grasslands in the specific geographical, climatic and pedological context, the establishment of optimal management practices based on floristic composition and the sustainable and balanced management of grasslands to conserve plant biodiversity.
2. Materials and Method
2.1. Description of the Experimental Field
The grasslands analyzed are situated in the administrative territory of Moșnița Nouă commune, Timiș County.
The geographical coordinates of Moșnița Nouă are 45°43′05″ N latitude and 21°19′33″ E longitude. The research was conducted on five grassland areas (I–V) (Figure 1). The location presents landscape and ecological diversity, being in the low plain of Banat, strategically placed in the watersheds of the Timiș and Bega rivers, which reflects a particular agricultural and ecological potential for the study and diagnosis of permanent grasslands.
The five grassland experimental research sites were selected based on the following criteria: ecological diversity, agricultural potential and species dynamics.
Each site represents different ecological zones within the low plain of Banat, offering a variety of landscapes and soil types. The sites were selected for their agricultural relevance, reflecting the traditional and current use of these grasslands for farming and pasture.
The dynamic species composition across the five analyzed grasslands makes them particularly suitable for this study. These variations provide a valuable opportunity to demonstrate how different grasslands can be evaluated and managed, emphasizing the ecological and agricultural potential of each site.
2.2. Experimental Method
The simplified botanical survey method was used to characterize permanent grassland. This method is described and developed by the ORPHE—INRA Toulouse team. It is a method based exclusively on the recognition of the dominant grasses in a grassland area coupled with a functional approach to vegetation, allowing for an agronomic diagnosis of a plot to be made in a limited time. This simplified method does not modify the two variables studied (% of grasses in biomass and % of each functional type of grasses), which allow for the application of functional typology to estimate the use value of pastures (productivity, forage quality, earliness, and lateness) [33].
2.3. Dominant Species Survey Principle
According to Grime (1988), the properties of an ecosystem are influenced by the biomass ratio of species grouped under the same functional trait [34]. This hypothesis is close to the concept of grassland background introduced by Vivier (1971) and Hédin et al. (1972), a concept later taken up by Hubert and Pierre (2003) [35,36,37].
Thus, the aim was to reduce the number of species to be recognized, thus limiting the botanical knowledge required by the user of this method and the time needed for species recognition.
To determine whether a species is dominant or not, we rely on the notation proposed by De Vries and De Boer [38], which codes abundance on a scale from 0 to 6 (0 if the species is present but not abundant and contributes to less than 1/6 of the abundance of a sample, 1 if it contributes to 1/6, 2 for 2/6, etc.). This coding has been adapted to score only species that receive a minimum score of 1 while maintaining a total score of 6 for each sample frame. For species present but not abundant (<2%), “1” indicates species presence (3–20%), “2” indicates species presence (21–40%), “3” indicates species presence (41–60%), “5” indicates species presence (61–80%), and “6” indicates species presence (81–100%).
2.4. Operating Mode
To analyze the predominant vegetation of grassland area, we propose to walk a transect through these fields. On this line, which can have a sinuous trajectory, 10 observations are made, within a frame placed at roughly equivalent distances, thus ensuring an adequate representation of vegetation diversity. We consider that mixing different vegetation types does not affect the diagnosis of the fields, provided that, on the one hand, the sampling considers their area ratio, and, on the other hand, the surveyed grassland (regardless of vegetation type) truly corresponds to a homogeneous use entity.
For each of the five fields, we proceed in two distinct steps: First, we try to assess the proportion of the four categories of plants contained within the frame, grasses, and legumes, as well as cyperaceous and other families. We assign each a value between 1 and 6, provided that the sum of the values is always 6 for all three categories. For example, in a frame, we can have a value of 4 for grasses, 2 for legumes and 0 for other families (less than 2%), but the latter represents less than 1/6 of the total abundance of the frame.
Second, we assign an abundance value to dominant species, i.e., species that are dominant enough to account for at least 1/6 of the visual abundance within the frame.
The total abundance of dominant species must respect the values assigned to the three plant categories.
Thus, returning to the previous example, if there are 4 dominant grasses with equivalent abundance in the frame, each will receive 1 point. If one of them accounts for half of the grass biomass, it will receive 2 points and the remaining 2 points will be assigned to the other 3 grass species.
2.5. Methodology Forage Quality Indicators
To evaluate the quality of the five pastures included in this study, specific biological indicators were used.
These indicators allow for a detailed assessment of the floral composition and nutritional value of the vegetation available on each pasture. The methodology for assessing forage quality was based on the studies by Kovacs J. Attila (1979), which provide a rigorous framework for classifying plants according to their forage value. The biological indicators included in this study were selected to provide a comprehensive picture of the forage quality of the pastures. These indicators were evaluated based on the methodology proposed by Kovacs J. Attila, which utilizes the quality index (QI) to classify the plants.
The quality index (QI) is a comprehensive measure used to evaluate the forage quality of pasture species. This index integrates various chemical and nutritional parameters to provide an overall assessment of the nutritional value of the forage.
The quality index (QI) classifies plant species on a scale from 0 to 5, according to the following categories: QI-0: no forage value; QI-1: low forage value; QI-2: mediocre forage value; QI-3: good forage value; QI-4: very good forage value; QI-5: excellent forage value.
This classification enables an objective and quantifiable evaluation of the forage quality of pastures. Each plant species present on the pastures was individually assessed and assigned a score based on the QI scale, allowing for a detailed analysis of the floral composition and nutritional value of the available vegetation.
2.6. Functional Typology of Perennial Forage Grasses
Cruz et al. (2010) developed a typology of perennial forage grasses based on 6 morpho-functional traits chosen for their ability to differentiate the agronomic characteristics of species [39]. These characteristics, measured at the leaf level (dry matter content, specific leaf area, life span and resistance to breakage) or plant level (flowering date and maximum height), allowed for the classification of several grass species into 6 distinct functional groups, determined by their potential use value. This value encompasses the plants’ growth strategies (resource capture or conservation), their phenology (earliness and lateness), their ability to accumulate biomass, their frequency of use and their food value [17].
The association of species to a forage use value can be inferred from the distinct characteristics that identify each type [39]:
Type A: This comprises species adapted to fertile environments, with relatively small size, very early phenology, and short life span. They are suitable for early and frequent grazing (Alopecurus pratensis, Holcus lanatus, Lolium perenne…).
Type B: Species of this type prefer fertile environments and are larger in size. They have a moderately early phenology and a longer life span than Type A. These species are suitable for early mowing, but their ability to accumulate biomass gives them flexibility in late mowing (Arrhenantherum elatius, Dactylis glomerata, Festuca arundinacea…).
Type b: This type comprises species that prefer relatively fertile environments but are distinguished by their late phenology. These are often species subordinate to meadows used for hay or allow more summer grazing (Agrostis capillaris, Phleum pratense, Trisetum flavescens…).
Type C: This comprises small species, specific to poor grasslands, poorly adapted to mowing practices because of their low production characteristics and the areas they occupy (often sloping land). These species have low resistance to breakage but offer a good forage value in the vegetative phase.
Their phenology is quite early, and conservation strategies for them are being developed (Briza media, Cynosurus cristatus, Festuca rubra…).
Type D: Species of this type are of medium size, very late and characteristic of low fertility grasslands with limited use. Their high resistance to breakage indicates low forage value (Brachypodium pinnatum, Helictotrichon sulcatum…).
Type E: This type comprises very early species (Es) with variable productivity during the first growing cycle. They can be both wild and cultivated grasses (Ec) (Gaudinia fragilis, Lolium multiflorum, Poa annua…).
A field estimation of potentiality indices from a simplified botanical survey offers the possibility to estimate agronomic potential at plot level [40].
3. Results
For this study, five experimental fields were analyzed, from which botanical surveys were collected from 10 points for each area (grassland I–V). In these surveys, the number of points where the species was present, the frequency of the species per field (F%) and the “visual” abundance of the species in the plot were noted.
At the same time, for each grassland, we calculated the percentage participation of each functional type of grass, their percentage of the total grass and the percentage participation of the different life forms (grasses, legumes, other families and cyperaceous).
Also, the index of fertility (grass types A, B and Es)—IF, the index of earliness (grass types A and Ec)—IE and the index of lateness (grass types b and D)—IL were calculated, as well as the contrasting environment index (grass types C and D)—IC, the percentage of colonizing annual grasses (grass type Es)—CG and the percentage of grasses with a short leaf lifespan (grass types A and b)—SLL.
3.1. Floristic Survey for Grassland I
From the floristic typology analyses, it can be observed that only three species of grasses exhibit an excellent quality index (QI-5) (Lolium perenne, Festuca pratensis, Dactylis glomerata), and only two of them have a very good forage value (QI-4). The dominant species, Agrostis stolonifera, presents a good forage value index (QI-3) (Table 1).
Among the legume species present, four have a very good forage value (Medicago lupulina, Trifolium pratense, Lotus corniculatus, Trifolium repens), and one has a good forage value (Trifolium fragiferum). Among the species of “other families”, only three of them have a forage value (QI-2) (Table 1 and Table 2).
Grassland I contain 67% grasses, 10% legumes, 20% other families and 3% cyperaceous. Of the perennial grasses, type b is dominant (70%) followed by type A grasses (20%) (Table 2).
As type b grasses exceed the 70% threshold, we can say that the vegetation on this plot is of type b. From an agronomic point of view, this grassland has a low productivity potential with a fertile medium index of 30%, and the dominant grasses are mostly late (IL—70%, type b + D grasses).
This grassland can be classified as low yielding, with the maximum yield being obtained in late use (Figure 2). Leguminous plants are quite common and mostly represented by Trifolium repens (8% of the total 10%). The other dominant families are Achillea millefolium (7%) and Daucus carota, Centaurea jacea and Taraxacum officinale, with 3% each.
3.2. Floristic Survey for Grassland II
From the floristic survey present in grassland II, it can be observed that among the grass species, only one species exhibits an excellent quality index (QI-5) (Lolium perenne), and only two species have a very good forage value (QI-4) (Alopecurus pratensis, Poa pratensis). Regarding species with good forage quality (QI-3), only one species was present (Cynosurus cristatus) (Table 3).
Among the grass species, the highest abundance is found in type A species, specifically Lolium perenne (QI-5), accounting for over 50% of the total analyzed area and 70% of the total grasses.
The remaining 30% is covered by Poa pratensis. Considering this, the pasture is classified as high-quality but should be managed according to its typology (Type A) (Table 3).
Regarding the legume species, Trifolium repens (QI-4) accounts for 10% of the total area, with the remainder up to 13% being covered by Trifolium fragiferum and Lotus corniculatus species.
Grassland II contains 77% grasses, 13% legumes, 8% other families, and 2% cyperaceae (Table 4).
Among the perennial grasses, type A is dominant (70%), followed by type B grasses (30%). Since type A grasses exceed the threshold of 66%, the vegetation of this pasture is classified as type A. Among other species from families with good pastoral quality (QI-2) and considerable frequency, species such as Achillea millefolium and Taraxacum officinale are listed (Table 4). The total analyzed area is distributed as follows: 77% grass species, 13% legume species, 8% other families, and 2% Cyperaceae (Table 4).
From an agronomic point of view, this grassland has a very good production potential, with a fertile medium index of 100%, and the dominant grasses that make up the vegetation cover are early (IE—70%). This grassland can be qualified as very productive with early use (Figure 3).
Legumes are common and mostly represented by Trifolium repens (10% of the total 13%). The other dominant families are Achillea millefolium and Taraxacum officinale, with 3% each, and Carduus nutans with 2%. There is also a cyperaceous, Carex hirta, which is abundant in this meadow at 2% (Figure 3).
3.3. Floristic Survey for Grassland III
In terms of floristic typology, among all species of grassland type III, which constitute 63% of the total surface, those of type A (Alopecurus pratensis, QI-4) are predominant. The perspective of quality, the species predominantly found in this pasture is Alopecurus pratensis, with a very good quality (QI-4), constituting 40% of the total species present. Also, of very good quality (QI-4), but in percentages below 10%, are species such as Poa pratensis and Festuca arundinacea, while the species Lolium perenne, of excellent quality, is found in less than 2% abundance (Table 5).
The legume species represent 10% of the total area studied. Among these, species with very good quality (QI-4) are listed, namely Lotus corniculatus and Trifolium repens.
A percentage of 11% is represented by other families, among which the species Achillea millefolium has the highest percentage, at 8%. The remaining area occupied by other species with pastoral quality is covered by species such as Cichorium intybus and Taraxacum officinale. Legumes are common and mostly represented by Trifolium repens (7% of the total 10%). For the other families, the dominant species are Achillea millefolium (8%) followed by Eryngium campestre, Rumex acetosella, and Carduus nutans, with an abundance of 3% (Table 5).
Grassland III contains 63% grass, 10% legumes, and 27% other families. Among the perennial grasses, type A is dominant (71%), followed by type B grasses (13%) and type B grasses (11%). As type A grasses exceed the threshold of 66%, the vegetation of this grassland is classified as type A (Table 6).
From an agronomic point of view, this meadow has a very good production potential with a fertile medium index of 84%, and the dominant grasses that make up the vegetation cover are early (IE—71%). This grassland can be qualified as very productive with early use (Figure 4).
3.4. Floristic Survey for Grassland IV
In terms of floristic typology, regarding the quality of grassland IV, no species of excellent (QI-5) or very good (QI-4) forage quality were recorded. Among the grasses, the dominant species is Festuca pseudovina, which is of medium quality (QI-1) and covers a percentage of 47% of the total analyzed area (Table 7). Additionally, there are partially present species of good quality, comprising only 10% of the total area, including the species Cynodon dactylon and Agropyron repens.
Among the dominant legume species, Trifolium repens accounts for 5% and Trifolium campestre for 3%, with quality indices of 4 and 3, respectively. For the dicotyledonous species, only three species (Taraxacum officinale, Achillea millefolium, Achillea setacea) have a quality index QI-2, representing 10% of the total area (Table 7).
Grassland IV contains 78% grasses, 8% legumes, and 13% other families (Table 8). Of the perennial grasses, type C is dominant (70%), followed by type B grasses (13%). As type C grasses exceed the threshold of 66%, the vegetation of this grassland is classified as type C.
In grassland IV, from an agronomic point of view, this meadow has a very low production potential with a fertility index of 0%, and the dominant grasses that make up the vegetation cover are species of contrasting environments (IC—79%). Therefore, this grassland can be classified as very low production. For the rehabilitation of this grassland, fertilizers and the sowing of good forage species are needed to revitalize this pasture (Figure 5).
3.5. Floristic Survey for Grassland V
In grassland V, grasses from various species were encountered, with the most abundant being Agropyron repens at a percentage of 37% (QI-2), followed by Dactylis glomerata at 10% (QI-5), Festuca arundinacea at 8% (QI-4), and Lolium perenne at 7% (QI-5), from the total analyzed area (Table 9). Legumes occupy a total percentage of 7%, with the dominant species being Trifolium repens, which has a very good quality index (QI-4) (Tables 9 and 10).
Among the other families, Polygonum aviculare dominates with a percentage of 5%, followed by Eryngium campestre and Potentilla reptans, each with a dominance of 3% (Table 9).
Grassland V contains 73% grasses, 7% legumes and 20% other families). Of the perennial grasses, type b is dominant (66%), followed by type B grasses (25%). As none of the functional grassland types are greater than 66%, the vegetation of this grassland is type Bb (Table 10).
From an agronomic point of view, this grassland has a good production potential, with a fertile medium index of 34%, and the dominant grasses making up the vegetation cover are late (IL—66%). This grassland can be described as productive with late use (Figure 6).
4. Discussion and Recommendation
Even though the species in the studied grasslands range from good to excellent in quality, this information alone does not provide a comprehensive view of optimal exploitation.
The use of grass typology in this study helps implement long-term management, considering that this typology is determined based on characteristics measured at the leaf level (dry matter content, specific leaf area, lifespan, and resistance to breakage) or the plant level (flowering date and maximum height).
Compared to traditional methods, which often require extensive taxonomic knowledge and are time-consuming, the simplified botanical survey allows for much quicker diagnostics. Traditional botanical surveys often involve precise species identification and comprehensive ecological information, which farmers may not possess. The proposed method is much simpler as it is based on dominant grass species, making it easier to use and applicable in various agricultural contexts.
According to the results obtained, we can observe diverse flora in all the studied grasslands.
Grassland I. Composed of 67% grasses, 10% legumes, and 20% other families. Dominant type B grasses represent 70%, and type A grasses 20%. It presents a low productivity potential with a moderate fertility index of 30%. Key species include Lolium perenne, Festuca pratensis, and Dactylis glomerata, known for their excellent forage quality.
Grassland II. Predominantly occupied by species with QI-5 covering 53%, and QI-4 covering 23% of the total area, dominated by type A species (70% of total grasses). For optimal use, early and frequent grazing is recommended.
Grassland III. Species with QI-5 represent only 2%, while QI-4 species cover 49% of the total area. Given that type A species represent 71% of total grasses, early and frequent grazing is recommended for sustainable use.
Grassland IV. Species with excellent forage quality (QI-5) are present in small proportions, only 2%. The same applies to those with very good quality (QI-4). In contrast, species with mediocre forage quality (QI-1) are present in 55%, with type C species representing 70% of total grasses. This grassland is typical of low productivity grasslands, poorly adapted to mowing but with good forage value in the vegetative phase. These grasslands are recommended for early mowing.
Grassland V. Species with excellent forage quality (QI-5) represent only 17% of the total area, while those with very good quality (QI-4) represent only 8%. In this grassland, species with a medium quality index (QI-2) make up 37%. Of the total grasses, type B species represent 66%. This grassland can be sustainably exploited through late mowing or grazing.
During our study, we were able to successfully adopt agricultural methods based on the existence of various grass species by employing the grass typology method. The innovation of this study is reflected in the integration of a simplified diagnostic tool that maintains the integrity of essential agronomic variables, such as the percentage of grasses in biomass and their functional types.
However, there are some significant limitations. One of these is the potential for excessive simplification, which may overlook the ecological nuances of less dominant species that could be crucial for the long-term sustainability of grasslands. For example, minor species can be indicators of specific environmental conditions and contribute to the overall resilience of the grassland ecosystem [41,42].
The results of this study align with those of similar research in identifying key species and their functional roles in grasslands [43]. For instance, the focus on grasses such as Lolium perenne and Festuca arundinacea, known for their high forage quality and productivity, is consistent with findings from other studies on grassland management [44,45,46,47]. However, the detailed analysis of species frequency, visual abundance, and specific functional indices provides a more nuanced understanding of the ecological and agronomic potential of grasslands [48].
In the future, farmers can use this method to ensure optimal economic and ecological management tailored to the plant species present in their grasslands.
5. Conclusions
This diagnostic process ensures the precise evaluation and identification of agronomic characteristics, allowing us to provide optimal management strategies for farmers for each grassland studied.
Grassland I can be classified as low yielding, and management strategies should be aimed at late use to maximize production, given the dominant characteristics of the plant species.
Grassland II can be characterized as highly productive, suggesting that management strategies should focus on early use to maximize production and the agronomic benefits of this area.
Grassland III is a very productive resource when used early, taking full advantage of the production potential and floristic diversity it offers.
Grassland IV indicates extremely low production potential, suggesting that to develop optimal harvesting strategies and minimize negative production impacts we need to consider that this grassland is dominated by species adapted to late contrasting environments.
Grassland V can be classified as poorly productive with a tendency towards late use, and its management should consider the specific vegetation composition to optimize resource use.
The use of grass typology may prove to be an effective method for diagnosing the condition of permanent grassland. The use of this approach can provide an accurate diagnosis, which in turn allows for the implementation of appropriate farming practices.
Author Contributions
The contributions of the authors to grassland research were essential and complementary. S.C. and S.M. led the collection of field data, while I.P. and E.O. synthesized the literature and created visual materials. S.I. provided critical analysis, and I.P. managed the field data. Project coordination was ensured by S.C. The writing of the paper was carried out by E.O. and S.C. Validation was performed by all authors: S.C., S.I., I.P., E.O., and S.M. The collective efforts provided perspectives on the management and conservation of grasslands, as well as their management. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research paper was supported by the project “Increasing the impact of excellence research on the capacity for innovation and technology transfer within USAMVB Timișoara”, code 6PFE, submitted to the competition Program 1—Development of the national system of research–development. Subprogram 1.2—Institutional performance. Institutional development projects—Development projects of excellence in RDI.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The research conducted in this article did not involve animals or humans.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the funding institutions.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Török, P.; Dembicz, I.; Dajić-Stevanović, Z.; Kuzemko, A. Grasslands of Eastern Europe. In Encyclopedia of the World’s Biomes; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 703–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nuñez, G.A.; Glimskär, A.; Zacchello, G.; Francksen, R.M.; Whittingham, M.J.; Hiron, M. Agriculturally Improved and Semi-Natural Permanent Grasslands Provide Complementary Ecosystem Services in Swedish Boreal Landscapes. Agronomy 2024, 14, 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Niu, J.; Buyantuev, A.; Zhang, Q.; Dong, J.; Kang, S.; Zhang, J. Understanding grassland degradation and restoration from the perspective of ecosystem services: A case study of the Xilin River Basin in Inner Mongolia, China. Sustainability 2016, 8, 594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srivastava, R.; Singh, K. Species diversity in dryland and irrigated agroecosystems and marginal grassland ecosystem in dry tropics. Community Ecol. 2005, 6, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, D.J. Grasses and Grassland Ecology; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, X.; Liu, L.; Yang, Q.; Xu, H.; Shen, G.; Chen, Q. Optimizing Biochar Application Rates to Improve Soil Properties and Crop Growth in Saline–Alkali Soil. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehman, R.M.; Cambardella, C.A.; Stott, D.E.; Acosta-Martinez, V.; Manter, D.K.; Buyer, J.S.; Maul, J.E.; Smith, J.L.; Collins, H.P.; Halvorson, J.J.; et al. Understanding and enhancing soil biological health: The solution for reversing soil degradation. Sustainability 2015, 7, 988–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, J.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, Z.; You, N.; Meng, J. Dynamic Ecological Risk Assessment and Management of Land Use in the Middle Reaches of the Heihe River Based on Landscape Patterns and Spatial Statistics. Sustainability 2016, 8, 536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitton, M.M.; Ren, X.; Yu, S.J.; Irving, A.D.; Trotter, T.; Bajagai, Y.S.; Stanley, D. Sea minerals reduce dysbiosis, improve pasture productivity and plant morphometrics in pasture dieback affected soils. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Zhang, X. Total Factor Productivity of Herdsmen Animal Husbandry in Pastoral Areas: Regional Differences and Driving Factors. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deleglise, C.; Meisser, M.; Mosimann, E.; Spiegelberger, T.; Signarbieux, C.; Jeangros, B.; Buttler, A. Drought-induced shifts in plants traits, yields and nutritive value under realistic grazing and mowing managements in a mountain grassland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 213, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miao, R.; Song, Y.; Sun, Z.; Guo, M.; Zhou, Z.; Liu, Y. Soil Seed Bank and Plant Community Development in Passive Restoration of Degraded Sandy Grasslands. Sustainability 2016, 8, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ritzema, H.; Kirkpatrick, H.; Stibinger, J.; Heinhuis, H.; Belting, H.; Schrijver, R.; Diemont, H. Water management supporting the delivery of ecosystem services for grassland, heath and moorland. Sustainability 2016, 8, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, H.; Cheng, W. Landscape Analysis and Ecological Risk Assessment during 1995–2020 Based on Land Utilization/Land Coverage (LULC) and Random Forest: A Case Study of the Fushun Open-Pit Coal Area in Liaoning, China. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schils, R.L.; Bufe, C.; Rhymer, C.M.; Francksen, R.M.; Klaus, V.H.; Abdalla, M.; Milazzo, F.; Lellei-Kovács, E.; ten Berge, H.; Bertora, C.; et al. Permanent grasslands in Europe: Land use change and intensification decrease their multifunctionality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 330, 107891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stroia, C. Fonctionnement de L’écosystème Prairial. Méthode de Diagnostic; Éditions Universitaires Européennes: Chisinau, Republic of Moldova, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Samfira, I.; Stroia, C. Typological classification and analysis of grassland plant associations in the managed area. Grassland management framework. Case study Vege-tation description and management of grasslands belonging to the U.A.T. Denta. Calcula-tion application for determining green mass production and grazing capacity. In Applied Guidelines for Pastoral Planning. Methodology and Applied Legislation on Pasture lease/Concession; Mirton Timisoara: Timișoara, Romania, 2021; 240p. [Google Scholar]
- Ignatavičius, G.; Sinkevičius, S.; Ložytė, A. Effects of grassland management on plant communities. Ekologija 2013, 59, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naveh, Z.; Lieberman, A.S. Landscape Ecology: Theory and Application; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Sheng, Z.; Du, J.; Sun, B.; Mao, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Diao, Z. The role of plant functional diversity in regulating soil organic carbon stocks under different grazing intensities in temperate grassland, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Y.; Shi, Y.; Li, R.; Guo, L. A Long-Term Ecological Vulnerability Analysis of the Tibetan Region of Natural Conditions and Ecological Protection Programs. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balent, G. Construction of a reference frame for studying changes in species composition in grasslands: The example of an old-field succession. Options Méditerranéennes 1991, 15, 73–81. [Google Scholar]
- Fort, F.; Cruz, P.; Lecloux, E.; Bittencourt de Oliveira, L.; Stroia, C.; Theau, J.P.; Jouany, C. Grassland root functional parameters vary according to a community-level resource acquisition–conservation trade-off. J. Veg. Sci. 2016, 27, 749–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Wang, L.; Li, G.; Chang, L.; Li, Y. Vegetation Changes in Response to Climatic Factors and Human Activities in Jilin Province, China, 2000–2019. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlier, L.; Rotar, I.; Vlahova, M.; Vidican, R. Importance and Functions of Grasslands. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2009, 37, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daily, G.C. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, Y.; Xu, D.; Li, S.; Tang, K.; Yu, H.; Yan, R.; Li, Z.; Wang, X.; Xin, X. Comparative Analysis of Feature Importance Algorithms for Grassland Aboveground Biomass and Nutrient Prediction Using Hyperspectral Data. Agriculture 2024, 14, 389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, W.; Li, Z.; Guo, H.; Chen, B.; Wang, T.; Miao, F.; Yang, C.; Xiong, W.; Sun, J. Annual Weeds Suppression and Oat Forage Yield Responses to Crop Density Management in an Oat-Cultivated Grassland: A Case Study in Eastern China. Agronomy 2024, 14, 583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lisec, U.; Povše, M.P.; Gselman, A.; Kramberger, B. Sustainable Grassland-Management Systems and Their Effects on the Physicochemical Properties of Soil. Plants 2024, 13, 838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hensgen, F.; Wachendorf, M. The Effect of the Invasive Plant Species Lupinus polyphyllus Lindl. on Energy Recovery Parameters of Semi-Natural Grassland Biomass. Sustainability 2016, 8, 998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cruz, P.; Duru, M.; Therond, O.; Theau, J.P.; Ducourtieux, C.; Jouany, C.; Al Haj Khaled, R.; Ansquer, P. A new approach to characterize natural grasslands and their use value. Forages 2002, 172, 335–354. [Google Scholar]
- Cerf, M.; Jeuffroy, M.-H.; Prost, L.; Meynard, J.-M. Participatory design of agricultural decision support tools: Taking account of the use situations. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 32, 899–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Theau, J.-P.; Cruz, P.; Fallour, D.; Jouany, C.; Lecloux, E.; Duru, M. A simplified botanical survey method for agronomic characterization of permanent grasslands. Forages 2010, 201, 19–25. [Google Scholar]
- Grime, J.P. Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: Immediate, filter and founder effects. J. Ecol. 1988, 86, 902–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vivier, M. Prairies permanents Du Bessin et du Pays d’Auge. Ph.D. Thesis, Caen University thesis. Caen University, Caen, France, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Hédin, L.; Kerguelen, M.; De Montard, F. Ecology of the French Permanent Grassland, 5th ed.; Masson et Cie: Échandens, Switzerland, 1972; 229p. [Google Scholar]
- Hubert, F.; Pierre, P. Guide pour un Diagnostic Prairial; Chambre d’Agriculture du Maine-et-Loire: Angers, France, 2003; 23p. [Google Scholar]
- De Vries, D.M.; De Boer, T.A. Methods used in botanical grassland research in the Netherlands and their application. Herb. Abstr. 1959, 29, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Cruz, P.; De Quadros, F.L.F.; Theau, J.P.; Frizzo, A.; Jouany, C.; Duru, M.; Carvalho, P.C.F. Leaf traits as functional descriptors of the intensity of continuous grazing in native grasslands in the south of Brazil. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 63, 350–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duru, M.; Cruz, P.; Theau, J.P. Évaluer la souplesse d’utilisation des prairies permanentes par la caractérisation de la composition fonctionnelle de la végétation et la phénologie des espèces. Fourrages 2010, 201, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
- Fallour, D.; Theau, J.P.; Corler, K.; Hossard, L.; Martin, G.; Jouany, C.; Duru, M.; Cruz, P. A simplified method to determine the abundance of grass functional groups in natural grasslands. In Proceedings of the 22nd General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Uppsala, Sweden, 9–12 June 2008; pp. 93–95. [Google Scholar]
- Michaud, A.; Plantureux, S.; Amiaud, B.; Carrère, P.; Cruz, P.; Duru, M.; Dury, B.; Farruggia, A.; Fiorelli, J.L.; Kerneis, E.; et al. Identification of the environmental factors which drive the botanical and functional composition of permanent grasslands. J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 150, 219–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Louault, F.; Pillar, V.D.; Aufrère, J.; Garnier, E.; Soussana, J.-F. Plant traits and functional types in response to reduced disturbance in a semi-natural grassland. J. Veg. Sci. 2005, 16, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Craine, J.M.; Froehle, J.; Tilman, D.G.; Wedin, D.A.; Chapin, F.S., III. The relationships among root and leaf traits of 76 grassland species and relative abundance along fertility and disturbance gradients. Oikos 2001, 93, 274–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maire, V.; Gross, N.; Börger, L.; Proulx, R.; Wirth, C.; Pontes, L.d.S.; Soussana, J.; Louault, F. Habitat filtering and niche differentiation jointly explain species relative abundance within grassland communities along fertility and disturbance gradients. New Phytol. 2012, 196, 497–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whalley, R.D.B.; Hardy, M.B. Measuring botanical composition of grasslands. In Field and Laboratory Methods for Grassland and animal Production Research, 1st ed.; Mannetje, L.T., Jones, R.M., Eds.; CABI Publishing: Oxfordshire, UK, 2000; pp. 67–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peratoner, G.; Pötsch, E.M. Methods to describe the botanical composition of vegetation in grassland research. Bodenkult. J. Land Manag. Food Environ. 2019, 70, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McIntyre, S. The role of plant leaf attributes in linking land use to ecosystem function in temperate grassy vegetation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 128, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Grasslands analyzed situated in the administrative territory of Moșnița Nouă commune, Timiș County.
Figure 1.
Grasslands analyzed situated in the administrative territory of Moșnița Nouă commune, Timiș County.
Figure 2.
Productivity and use of grassland I.
Figure 3.
Productivity and use of grassland II.
Figure 4.
Productivity and use of grassland III.
Figure 5.
Productivity and use of grassland IV.
Figure 6.
Productivity and use of grassland V.
Table 1.
Floristic inventory of grassland I.
| Species/Nr. of Area Analyzed | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | F | F% | Ab% | QI | TF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lolium perenne | 1 | 0 | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 90% | 13% | 5 | A |
| Alopecurus pratensis | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 4 | 40% | 0% | 4 | A |
| Festuca pratensis | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | 1 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 6 | 60% | 2% | 5 | B |
| Dactylis glomerata | - | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | - | 0 | 0 | - | 1 | 7 | 70% | 5% | 5 | B |
| Festuca arundinacea | - | 0 | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | 4 | 40% | 0% | 4 | B |
| Agrostis stolonifera | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 100% | 43% | 3 | b |
| Cynodon dactylon | 1 | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | 1 | 0 | - | 5 | 50% | 3% | 2 | b |
| Agropyron repens | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | 4 | 40% | 0% | 2 | b |
| Medicago lupulina | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | 0 | 4 | 40% | 0% | 4 | Legum. |
| Trifolium pratense | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | 6 | 60% | 0% | 4 | Legum. |
| Trifolium fragiferum | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | 1 | - | - | - | 3 | 30% | 2% | 3 | Legum. |
| Lotus corniculatus | - | - | 0 | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 5 | 50% | 0% | 4 | Legum. |
| Trifolium repens | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 100% | 8% | 4 | Legum. |
| Achillea millefolium | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 90% | 7% | 2 | Other fam. |
| Galium verum | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | - | 3 | 30% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Daucus carota | 1 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | 1 | 7 | 70% | 3% | 0 | Dicot |
| Rumex acetosela | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | 5 | 50% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Centaurea jacea | - | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | 3 | 30% | 3% | 0 | Dicot |
| Leontodon autumnalis | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | 7 | 70% | 0% | 1 | Dicot |
| Taraxacum officinale | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 100% | 3% | 2 | Dicot |
| Veronica chamaedrys | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | 2 | 20% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Plantago lanceolata | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - | 1 | - | 5 | 50% | 2% | 2 | Dicot |
| Agrimonia eupatoria | - | - | 0 | 1 | - | 0 | 0 | - | - | 0 | 5 | 50% | 2% | 0 | Dicot |
| Thymus pannonicus | 0 | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | 5 | 50% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Carex hirta | - | - | 0 | - | - | 1 | - | - | 1 | 0 | 4 | 40% | 3% | 0 | Cyper |
| Score max | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
F—Number of points where the species is present, F%—Species frequency/plot, Ab—Visual abundance of the species, QI—quality index (“-”—species not present, “0”—species present but not abundant (<2%), “1”—species present (17%), “2”—species present (37%), “3”—species present (50%), “4”—species present (67%), “5”—species present (83%), “6”—species present (100%)).
Table 2.
Percentage calculation of grass functional type, life form and use indices for grassland I.
Table 2.
Percentage calculation of grass functional type, life form and use indices for grassland I.
| A | B | b | C | D | Ec | Es | Total Gram | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13% | 7% | 47% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 67% | IF% | 30 |
| Functional type of grasses in Total Grasses | IE% | 20 | |||||||
| 20% | 10% | 70% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | IL% | 70 | |
| Life Form/Biomass | IC% | 0 | |||||||
| Gram. | Legum. | Other fam. | Cyper. | CG% | 0 | ||||
| 67% | 10% | 20% | 3% | 100% | SLL% | 90 | |||
A, B, b, C, D, E—functional types of grasses; IF—index of fertility (grass types A, B, and Es); IE—index of earliness (grass types A and Ec); IL—index of lateness (grass types b and D); IC—contrasting environment index (grass types C and D); CG—percentage of colonizing annual grasses (grass type Es); SLL—percentage of grasses with a short leaf lifespan (grass types A and b).
Table 3.
Floristic inventory of grassland II.
| Species/Nr. of Area Analyzed | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | F | F% | A% | QI | TF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lolium perenne | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 100% | 53% | 5 | A |
| Alopecurus pratensis | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 90% | 0% | 4 | A |
| Poa pratensis | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 100% | 23% | 4 | B |
| Cynodon dactylon | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 6 | 60% | 0% | 2 | b |
| Agropyron repens | - | 0 | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | 5 | 50% | 0% | 2 | b |
| Cynosurus cristatus | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | 0 | 6 | 60% | 0% | 3 | C |
| Bromus hordeaceus | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 4 | 40% | 0% | 1 | Es |
| Medicago lupulina | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - | - | 0 | 5 | 50% | 0% | 4 | Legum. |
| Trifolium campestre | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | 4 | 40% | 0% | 3 | Legum. |
| Trifolium fragiferum | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | 1 | 4 | 40% | 2% | 3 | Legum. |
| Lotus corniculatus | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 6 | 60% | 2% | 4 | Legum. |
| Trifolium repens | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 100% | 10% | 4 | Legum. |
| Achillea millefolium | 0 | 0 | 1 | - | 1 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 8 | 80% | 3% | 2 | Dicot |
| Galium verum | - | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | 4 | 40% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Daucus carota | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 70% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Rumex crispus | 0 | 0 | - | - | 0 | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | 5 | 50% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Pimpinella saxifraga | - | - | 0 | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | 4 | 40% | 0% | 1 | Dicot |
| Mentha pulegium | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | 2 | 20% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Taraxacum officinale | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 8 | 80% | 3% | 2 | Dicot |
| Veronica chamaedrys | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | 30% | 0% | 0 | Dicot | ||
| Plantago lanceolata | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | - | 0 | 6 | 60% | 0% | 2 | Dicot |
| Euphorbia cyparissias | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - | 8 | 80% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Carduus nutans | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 70% | 2% | 0 | Dicot |
| Carex hirta | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | 1 | - | 4 | 40% | 2% | 0 | Cyper |
| Score max | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
F—Number of points where the species is present, F%—species frequency/plot, Ab—visual abundance of the species, QI—quality index (“-”—species not present, “0”—species present but not abundant (<2%), “1”—species present (17%), “2”—species present (37%), “3”—species present (50%), “4”—species present (67%), “5”—species present (83%), “6”—species present (100%)).
Table 4.
Percentage calculation of grass functional type, life form and use indices for grassland II.
Table 4.
Percentage calculation of grass functional type, life form and use indices for grassland II.
| A | B | b | C | D | Ec | Es | Total Gram | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 53% | 23% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 77% | IF% | 100 |
| Functional type of grasses in Total Grasses | IE% | 70 | |||||||
| 70% | 30% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | IL% | 0 | |
| Life Form/Biomass | IC% | 0 | |||||||
| Gram. | Legum. | Other fam. | Cyper | CG% | 0 | ||||
| 77% | 13% | 8% | 2% | 100% | SLL% | 70 | |||
A, B, b, C, D, E—functional types of grasses; IF—index of fertility (grass types A, B, and Es); IE—index of earliness (grass types A and Ec); IL—index of lateness (grass types b and D); IC—contrasting environment index (grass types C and D); CG—percentage of colonizing annual grasses (grass type Es); SLL—percentage of grasses with a short leaf lifespan (grass types A and b).
Table 5.
Floristic inventory of grassland III.
| Species/Nr. of Area Analyzed | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | F | F% | A% | QI | TF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lolium perenne | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 8 | 80% | 2% | 5 | A |
| Alopecurus pratensis | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 100% | 40% | 4 | A |
| Anthoxantum odoratum | - | - | 1 | 0 | 1 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 70% | 3% | 1 | A |
| Poa pratensis | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 100% | 7% | 4 | B |
| Festuca arundinacea | 0 | - | - | 1 | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | 4 | 40% | 2% | 4 | B |
| Cynodon dactylon | - | - | 0 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 1 | - | 1 | 5 | 50% | 5% | 2 | b |
| Agropyron repens | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 5 | 50% | 0% | 2 | b |
| Agrostis stolonifera | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 80% | 2% | 3 | b |
| Festuca rupicola | 1 | - | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 70% | 3% | 1 | C |
| Deschampsia caespitosa | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 3 | 30% | 0% | 0 | D |
| Trifolium striatum | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | 0 | - | 3 | 30% | 0% | 0 | Legum. |
| Trifolium campestre | - | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | 0 | - | - | 0 | 4 | 40% | 0% | 3 | Legum. |
| Trifolium fragiferum | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | 4 | 40% | 0% | 3 | Legum. |
| Lotus corniculatus | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | 0 | - | 1 | - | 3 | 30% | 3% | 4 | Legum. |
| Trifolium repens | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | 1 | 8 | 80% | 7% | 4 | Legum. |
| Achillea millefolium | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 100% | 8% | 2 | Dicot |
| Galium verum | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | 4 | 40% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Daucus carota | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 7 | 70% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Eryngium campestre | 1 | - | 0 | - | 1 | - | - | 0 | - | - | 4 | 40% | 3% | 0 | Dicot |
| Potentilla reptans | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - | - | 4 | 40% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Ranunculus repens | 0 | 0 | - | 1 | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 70% | 2% | 0 | Dicot |
| Rumex crispus | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - | 1 | 7 | 70% | 2% | 0 | Dicot |
| Synphytum officinale | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | 0 | - | 3 | 30% | 0% | 1 | Dicot |
| Cichorium intybus | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | 0 | 5 | 50% | 2% | 1 | Dicot |
| Rumex acetosella | - | - | 1 | - | 0 | - | 1 | 0 | - | - | 4 | 40% | 3% | 0 | Dicot |
| Pimpinella saxifraga | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | 5 | 50% | 0% | 1 | Dicot |
| Mentha pulegium | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | 4 | 40% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Taraxacum officinale | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 1 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 80% | 2% | 2 | Dicot |
| Veronica chamaedrys | - | - | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 1 | 0 | - | 5 | 50% | 2% | 0 | Dicot |
| Plantago lanceolata | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 80% | 0% | 2 | Dicot | |
| Euphorbia cyparissias | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | 5 | 50% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Carduus nutans | - | 1 | - | 0 | - | 1 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 6 | 60% | 3% | 0 | Dicot |
| Score max | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
F—Number of points where the species is present, F%—species frequency/plot, Ab—visual abundance of the species, QI—quality index (“-”—species not present, “0”—species present but not abundant (<2%), “1”—species present (17%), “2”—species present (37%), “3”—species present (50%), “4”—species present (67%), “5”—species present (83%), “6”—species present (100%)).
Table 6.
Percentage calculation of grass functional type, life form and use indices for grassland III.
Table 6.
Percentage calculation of grass functional type, life form and use indices for grassland III.
| A | B | b | C | D | Ec | Es | Total Gram | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 45% | 8% | 7% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 63% | IF% | 84 |
| Functional type of grasses in Total Grasses | IE% | 71 | |||||||
| 71% | 13% | 11% | 5% | 0% | 0% | 0% | IL% | 11 | |
| Life Form/Biomass | IC% | 5 | |||||||
| Gram. | Legum. | Other fam. | Cyper | CG% | 0 | ||||
| 63% | 10% | 27% | 0% | 100% | SLL% | 82 | |||
A, B, b, C, D, E—functional types of grasses; IF—index of fertility (grass types A, B, and Es); IE—index of earliness (grass types A and Ec); IL—index of lateness (grass types b and D); IC—contrasting environment index (grass types C and D); CG—percentage of colonizing annual grasses (grass type Es); SLL—percentage of grasses with a short leaf lifespan (grass types A and b).
Table 7.
Floristic inventory of grassland IV.
| Species/Nr. of Area Analyzed | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | F | F% | A% | QI | TF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lolium perenne | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | 0 | 5 | 50% | 0% | 5 | A |
| Poa pratensis | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 4 | 40% | 0% | 4 | B |
| Cynodon dactylon | 1 | - | - | 1 | - | 0 | - | 0 | 1 | - | 5 | 50% | 5% | 2 | b |
| Agropyron repens | 1 | - | 0 | - | 1 | - | 0 | 1 | - | 0 | 6 | 60% | 5% | 2 | b |
| Festuca pseudovina | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 100% | 47% | 1 | C |
| Festuca vallesiaca | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | 0 | - | 1 | 8 | 80% | 8% | 1 | C |
| Apera spica-venti | - | 0 | 1 | - | 0 | - | - | - | 1 | 0 | 5 | 50% | 3% | 1 | D |
| Calamagrostis epigejos | - | - | 1 | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 1 | 4 | 40% | 3% | 0 | D |
| Bromus mollis | - | 1 | - | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | 1 | 5 | 50% | 3% | 0 | Es |
| Hordeum hystrix | 1 | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | 1 | 0 | 5 | 50% | 3% | 0 | Es |
| Lotus corniculatus | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 7 | 70% | 0% | 4 | Legum. |
| Trifolium repens | 0 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 80% | 5% | 4 | Legum. |
| Trifolium striatum | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | 5 | 50% | 0% | 0 | Legum. |
| Trifolium campestre | - | 0 | 0 | - | 1 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 70% | 3% | 3 | Legum. |
| Achillea millefolium | 1 | - | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 7 | 70% | 3% | 2 | Dicot | |
| Achillea setacea | 0 | 0 | 1 | - | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | - | 8 | 80% | 7% | 2 | Dicot |
| Eryngium campestre | - | - | 0 | - | 1 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 4 | 40% | 2% | 0 | Dicot |
| Cartamus lanathus | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | 0 | - | 3 | 30% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Cichorium intybus | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | 1 | - | - | 0 | 4 | 40% | 2% | 1 | Dicot |
| Galium verum | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | 5 | 50% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Euphorbia cyparissias | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 6 | 60% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Potentilla argentea | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | - | 0 | 5 | 50% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Daucus carota | - | 0 | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | 0 | 5 | 50% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Potentilla reptans | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | - | 5 | 50% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Centaurea jacea | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | 0 | 4 | 40% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Cirsium vulgare | 0 | - | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | 2 | 20% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Taraxacum officinale | - | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 6 | 60% | 0% | 2 | Dicot |
| Erigeron annus | 0 | - | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | 2 | 20% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Potentilla heptaphylla | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | 3 | 30% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Lactuca saligna | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | 2 | 20% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Salvia nemorosa | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | 0 | 2 | 20% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Score max | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
F—Number of points where the species is present, F%—species frequency/plot, Ab—visual abundance of the species, QI—quality index (“-”—species not present, “0”—species present but not abundant (<2%), “1”—species present (17%), “2”—species present (37%), “3”—species present (50%), “4”—species present (67%), “5”—species present (83%), “6”—species present (100%)).
Table 8.
Percentage calculation of grass functional type, life form and use indices for grassland IV.
Table 8.
Percentage calculation of grass functional type, life form and use indices for grassland IV.
| A | B | B | C | D | Ec | Es | Total Gram | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 10 | 55 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 78% | IF% | 0 |
| Functional type of grasses in Total Grasses | IE% | 0 | |||||||
| 0% | 0% | 13% | 70% | 9% | 0% | 9% | IL% | 21 | |
| Life Form/Biomass | IC% | 79 | |||||||
| Gram. | Legum. | Other fam. | Cyper | CG% | 9 | ||||
| 78% | 8% | 13% | 0% | 100% | SLL% | 13 | |||
A, B, b, C, D, E—functional types of grasses; IF—index of fertility (grass types A, B, and Es); IE—index of earliness (grass types A and Ec); IL—index of lateness (grass types b and D); IC—contrasting environment index (grass types C and D); CG—percentage of colonizing annual grasses (grass type Es); SLL—percentage of grasses with a short leaf lifespan (grass types A and b).
Table 9.
Floristic inventory of grassland V.
| Species/Nr. of Area Analyzed | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | F | F% | A% | QI | TF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lolium perenne | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 80% | 7% | 5 | A |
| Festuca arundinacea | 1 | - | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | - | 1 | - | 0 | 7 | 70% | 8% | 4 | B |
| Dactylis glomerata | 0 | 2 | - | 0 | - | 2 | 0 | 1 | - | 1 | 7 | 70% | 10% | 5 | B |
| Cynodon dactylon | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | - | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 8 | 80% | 8% | 2 | b |
| Agropyron repens | 2 | - | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 90% | 37% | 2 | b |
| Agrostis stolonifera | - | 0 | - | 1 | - | 1 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 6 | 60% | 3% | 3 | b |
| Trifolium hybridum | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | 5 | 50% | 0% | 4 | Legum. |
| Trifolium repens | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | - | - | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 6 | 60% | 7% | 4 | Legum. |
| Lathyrus pratensis | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | 2 | 20% | 0% | 0 | Legum. |
| Achillea millefolium | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - | - | 5 | 50% | 0% | 2 | Dicot |
| Polygonum aviculare | 0 | - | 1 | - | - | 0 | 1 | - | 1 | - | 5 | 50% | 5% | 0 | Dicot |
| Eryngium campestre | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | 0 | - | - | 1 | 3 | 30% | 3% | 0 | Dicot |
| Carduus acanthoides | - | 1 | - | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | - | 3 | 30% | 2% | 0 | Dicot |
| Cichorium intybus | - | - | 1 | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | 2 | 20% | 2% | 1 | Dicot |
| Plantago lanceolata | - | 0 | - | - | 1 | 0 | - | - | 1 | - | 4 | 40% | 3% | 2 | Dicot |
| Euphorbia cyparissias | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 10% | 2% | 0 | Dicot |
| Pimpinella saxifraga | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | 2 | 20% | 0% | 1 | Dicot |
| Rumex crispus | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | 0 | 3 | 30% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Potentilla reptans | - | 1 | - | 0 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | 30% | 3% | 0 | Dicot |
| Centaurea jacea | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | 0 | - | 2 | 20% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Cirsium lanceolata | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | 2 | 20% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Aster tripolium | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0 | 2 | 20% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Erigeron annus | - | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 10% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Rorippa sylvestris | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0 | 3 | 30% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Mentha longifolia | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | 2 | 20% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Salvia nemorosa | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0 | 2 | 20% | 0% | 0 | Dicot |
| Carex hirta | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | - | 4 | 40% | 0% | 0 | Cyper |
| Score max | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
F—Number of points where the species is present, F%—species frequency/plot, Ab—visual abundance of the species, QI—quality index (“-”—species not present, “0”—species present but not abundant (<2%), “1”—species present (17%), “2”—species present (37%), “3”—species present (50%), “4”—species present (67%), “5”—species present (83%), “6”—species present (100%)).
Table 10.
Percentage calculation of grass functional type, life form and use indices for grassland V.
Table 10.
Percentage calculation of grass functional type, life form and use indices for grassland V.
| A | B | b | C | D | Ec | Es | Total Gram | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7% | 18% | 48% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 73% | IF% | 34 |
| Functional type of grasses in Total Grasses | IE% | 9 | |||||||
| 9% | 25% | 66% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | IL% | 66 | |
| Life Form/Biomass | IC% | 0 | |||||||
| Gram. | Legum. | Other fam. | Cyper | CG% | 0 | ||||
| 73% | 7% | 20% | 0% | 100% | SLL% | 75 | |||
A, B, b, C, D, E—functional types of grasses; IF—index of fertility (grass types A, B, and Es); IE—index of earliness (grass types A and Ec); IL—index of lateness (grass types b and D); IC—contrasting environment index (grass types C and D); CG—percentage of colonizing annual grasses (grass type Es); SLL—percentage of grasses with a short leaf lifespan (grass types A and b).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Ciprian, S.; Ioan, S.; Petrescu, I.; Onisan, E.; Marius, S. The Use of Grass Typology in Diagnosing and Sustainably Managing Permanent Grasslands. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6309. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156309
AMA Style
Ciprian S, Ioan S, Petrescu I, Onisan E, Marius S. The Use of Grass Typology in Diagnosing and Sustainably Managing Permanent Grasslands. Sustainability. 2024; 16(15):6309. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156309
Chicago/Turabian StyleCiprian, Stroia, Sarac Ioan, Irina Petrescu, Emilian Onisan, and Stroia Marius. 2024. "The Use of Grass Typology in Diagnosing and Sustainably Managing Permanent Grasslands" Sustainability 16, no. 15: 6309. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156309
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
