Assessment and reserve of some feed phytocoenoses

Бюллетень науки и практики / Bulletin of Science and Practice

Animal husbandry is one of the areas of engagement of the local population living in the regions of the Republic. From ancient times, farmers engaged in animal husbandry, especially nomadic animal husbandry, regularly grazed livestock in summer and winter pastures, and drove animals to these pastures depending on the season.

Cattle grazing in natural pasture conditions has a positive effect on obtaining (for slaughter, dairy) high economic benefit in favor of low financial costs. Also, the rich content of the natural feed with protein, microelements and vitamins is the main condition for quality feeding of cattle. For this purpose, searches for the plants with high feed quality and widespread in the pastures, especially alternative feed plant resources are the focus of researchers [1, 3, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17].

This issue remains relevant not only to Azerbaijani scientists, but also to scientists all over the world [2, 9]. In general, the development of this area put forward the relevance of expanding research in this direction in terms of the implementing the tasks arising within the framework of State Programs. In order to successfully fulfill these tasks, first of all, pastures and hay fields shall be identified, their flora and vegetation be investigated, plants with high quality indicators be identified for creating a fodder base, and resource assessment be carried out.

Many fodder plants are spread in natural pastures and hayfields. Since the feed value of these plants is different, their assimilation by cattle is also different. At present, since a large part of the pastures is given to the use of the local population for cultivation, and as a result of unregulated grass cutting and overloading, the inefficiently used soils have been degraded, eroded or salinized, and the structure and species composition of their phytocenoses have changed [14].

As a result, the species of economic importance in the grassland, especially Poa , Agropyron , Astragalus , Trifolium , Kochia and other species die without completing their ontogenetic period of development. The improvement of the fodder content of pastures is possible, first of all, by reducing loading. In this way, it is possible to increase productivity up to 20% [9].

The forage composition of pastures plays an important role in the year-round feeding of animals on farms. From this point of view, the study of forage quality in the grass cover of the pasture and resource assessment can play a fundamental role in determining the forage capacity and creating the fodder base. The conducted research aimed at studying the species composition of pastures, determining the leading coenoses, and assessing the seasonal dynamics of grass cover productivity.

Material and Methods

The studies were conducted in Zardab and Ujar districts in 2020-2021. The area is characterized by a semi-desert and dry desert climate with mild winters and hot, dry summers. In summer, the maximum temperature of air reaches 35–45°C. The average monthly air temperature is 3-7°C in the coldest month of the year (January), and 27°C in the hottest month (July-August) (The World Weather Information Service). The amount of annual precipitation is 250–335 mm. Graymeadow, gray-brown soil type is characteristic in the area.

In order to study the vegetation, measurements were made in 6 isolated plots with a size of 5×5 m2 in stationary conditions in the area, and geobotanical descriptions were given. The calculation of the productivity of the grass cover was performed by the mowing method in a marked area of 2.5 m2 in 4 replicates [12, 18]. Depending on the season, the selection of fields was changed.

Classic and modern methodological tools were used during the identification and naming of species [4, 6]. Naming of plant groupings was done according to dominant species, abundance according to Drude’s 5-point scale [5, 7].

Results and Their Discussion

During monitoring in the study area, first of all, the floristic composition of coenoses selected as pasture area was analyzed and 87 species belonging to 12 families were recorded in both districts (Figure 1). Of these, Fabaceae (by 18 species), Poaceae (by 15 species), Asteraceae (by 12 species) and Chenopodiaceae families (by 10 species) were represented by more species. In the pastures with observed seasonal dynamic changes, there are 12 species distinguished by the abundance

Бюллетень науки и практики / Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 8. №12. 2022

(85%) and long-term presence in these groupings: Poa bulbosa L., Poa pratensis L., Artemisia lerchiana Weber, Chenopodium album L., Bromus scoparius L., Alhagi pseudalhagi ( M. Bieb.) Desv. ex Wangerin, Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers., Climacoptera crassa (M. Bieb.), Stipa capillata L., Brassica napus L., Glycyrrhiza glabra L., Alyssum tortuosum Willd. These species, as founders of coenoses, are mostly dominant and ensure the sustainability of pasture ecosystems. However, long-term grazing accelerates the processes of succession and fluctuation in coenoses and stimulates structural changes.

■ annual ■ perennial

■ semi brush and brush

Figure 1. Distribution of dominant species in groupings by seasons

During the vegetation period, the effect of climatic factors on the variability, abundance and development of the species composition of coenoses is not small. Although overgrazing has been shown to be the main limiting factor, lack of soil moisture, high temperatures and high number of hot days also significantly affect the development and productivity of vegetation. In this respect, the composition of spring groupings in selected coenoses was productive with the presence of ephemerals ( Poa bulbosa L., Bromus japonicus Thunb., Lepidium perfoliatum L., Malvalthaea transcaucasica (Sosn.) Iljin, Galium verum L., Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem. et Schult., Aegilops cylindrica Host etc.) (Cop³) (Table 1).

Table 1

Species	st к	£	к ° « bo I	к
Artemisia lerchiana	3	3	I (40)	1–2
Alhagi pseudalhagi	3	3	I (35)	1–2

Species	st к	d £	к ° « bo	к •2 ^
Lactuca serriola	2	3	II (20)	3
Poa bulbosa	2	2	III (9)	4
Allium rubellum	1	2	II (16)	4
Papaver arenarium	2	1	III (6)	3–4
Achillea micrantha	1	2	II (13)	4
Hordeum leporinum	2	3	III (5–7)	4
Bromus scoparius	1	2	II (24)	4
Bromus japonicus	3	3	II (30)	4
Malvalthaea transcaucasica	2	3	III (8)	4
Stellaria media	2	3	III (9)	4

Note: In abundance assessment, it is an indicator of growth from 1 to 5, in vitality 3 is normal, below 3 is weak, above 3 is high vitality. Vegetation periods: 1. development of vegetative organs, 2. Budding, 3. Flowering, 4. Fruiting, 5. Drying

Although the increase of phytomass decreased to 0.61-1.75 c/ha in summer (Cop 1 -Sol) (Table 2), the increase in forage mass in autumn in all variants was balanced due to the restart of vegetation in some species ( Atriplex tatarica L., Stipa capillata L., Medicago minima L., Astragalus arenarius L., Petrosimonia brachiata (Pall.) Bunge, Lolium rigidum Gaudin, Alhagi maurorum Medik., Artemisia sp. and etc.) (Cop 3 - Soc).

Table 2

DESCRIPTION OF FORB-WORMWOOD GROUPING IN THE TERRITORY

Species		£	к ° « bo ^ I	к
Artemisia lerchiana	3	3	I (40)	2–3
Salsola dendroides	2	3	I (35)	1–2
Petrosimonia brachiata	2	1	III (7)	1
Convolvulus arvensis	1	3	III (9)	1
Hordeum leporinum	1	2	II (16)	4
Bromus japonicus	2	1	III (6)	3–4
Atriplex tatarica	1	2	II (13)	1
Eremopyrum triticeum	2	3	III (5-7)	4
Asperula humifusa	2	3	II	3

Seasonal dynamic variability of productivity was calculated in Zardab district in 2020 in ephemeral-grass and forb grouping, in 2021 in grass-forb, forb-grass and forb grouping, in Ujar in 2020 in grass-forb-wormwood, wormwood-forb-grass and grass-wormwood, in 2021 in ephemeral-wormwood, forb-wormwood and wormwood-forb grouping. As a result, the highest productivity in the territory of both districts was recorded in the grass-forb-wormwood spring grouping in Ujar district in 2020, and the lowest in the forb-wormwood summer grouping in 2021 (Table 3).

Fodder plants in the coenoses which seasonal dynamics were studied, were also distinguished by botanical groups. On average, changes were observed in the coenoses formed by the abundance of forbs (40%), correspondingly with the abundance of legumes (34%) and grasses (26%) depending on the season and climatic conditions. Although the forage quality of legumes and grasses in pastures and their assimilation by animals are high compared to forbs, there are also species of forbs that are the main founders of coenoses, which do not lag behind them in terms of feed value.

Of these, Bassia prostrata (L.) Back (= Kochia prostrata (L.) Schrad.) (protein 9.8%, cellulose 23.6%), Leontodon hispidus L. (protein 18.6%, cellulose 18.8%) and others can be shown [14].

Table 3

PRODUCTIVITY OF FODDER MASS OF PHYTOCENOSES IN PASTURE AREAS IN 2020-2021

Area	Spring (April-May)		Summer (June-July)		Winter (October)
	Grouping	Productivity (hwt/ha)	Grouping	Productivity (hwt/ha)	Grouping	Productivity (hwt/ha)
Zardab d. (2020)	ephemeral-grass	1,16±0,1	forb	0,90±0,07	forb	2,75±0,15
Zardab d. (2021)	grass-forb	1,39±0,4	forb-grass	0,99±0,02	forb	1,14±0,08
Ujar d. (2020)	grass-forb-wormwood	2,01±0,17	wormwood -forb-grass	1,00±0,03	grass-wormwoo d	1,79±0,06
Ujar d. (2021)	ephemeral-wormwood	1,18±0,09	forbwormwood	0,53±0,06	wormwoo d-forb	1,97±0,07

In general, in terms of ensuring the development of animal husbandry, especially local farms, studies shall be continued in order to assess and improve pasture areas, as well as to reveal future perspectives for the protection and use of valuable alternative fodder plants in the pastures.

Conclusion

In the composition of the coenoses noted in the pastures of both studied districts, 87 species belonging to 12 families were identified. Out of them, the representatives of the Poaceae, Fabaceae and Compositae (=Asteraceae) families dominated. The abundance of groupings (Soc-Cop 3 ) for spring and winter seasons is quite high (0.61-1.75 hwt/ha) compared to summer due to climate factor and soil moisture level. Productivity in spring coenoses was 1.16-2.01 hwt/ha, in summer 0.53-1.00 hwt/ha, and in autumn the productivity of winter pastures varied between 1.14-2.75 hwt/ha.