Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 511–521 | Cite as

Plant morphological characteristics and resistance to simulated trampling

  • Dan Sun
  • Michael J. Liddle
Research

Abstract

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.

Key words

Plant morphology Trampling Resistance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Bates, G. H. 1935. The vegetation of wayside and hedgerow.Journal of Ecology 23:470–487.Google Scholar
  2. Bowles, J. M., and M. A. Maun. 1982. A study of the effects of trampling on the vegetation of Lake Huron sand dunes at Pinery Provincial Park.Biological Conservation 24:273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bratton, S. P. 1985. Effects of disturbance by visitors on two woodland orchid species in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA.Biological Conservation 31:211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byrkit, D. R. 1987. Statistics Today, A comprehensive introduction. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., Menlo Park, California.Google Scholar
  5. Canaway, P. M. 1975. Turf wear: A literature review.The Journal of Sports and The Turf Research Institute 51:92–103.Google Scholar
  6. Cole, D. N. 1988. Disturbance and recovery of trampled montane grassland and forests in Montana. Research paper. INT-389. US Department of agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.Google Scholar
  7. Deans, J. D. 1968. Some aspects of the influence of treading on grasses. PhD thesis. Napier College of Science and Technology, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  8. Edmond, D. B. 1964. Some effect of sheep treading on the growth of 10 pasture species.New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 7:1–16.Google Scholar
  9. Frenkel, R. E. 1972. Trampled vegetation and floristic convergence in the tropics.Association of Pacific Coast Geographers Yearbook 34:87–98.Google Scholar
  10. Fushtey, S. G., D. K. Taylor, and D. Fairey. 1983. The effect of wear stress on survival of pure stands and on mixtures.Canadian Journal of Plant Science 63:317–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goryshina, T. K. 1983. The effect of trampling caused by recreation on the internal structure of the leaf and thallus of some plants.Ekologiya 2:11–18.Google Scholar
  12. Grabherr, G. 1982. The impact of trampling by tourists on a high altitudinal grassland in the Tyrolean Alps, Austria.Vegetation 48:209–219.Google Scholar
  13. Hewitt, E. J. 1966. Sand and water culture method used in the study of plant nutrition, 2nd ed. Commonealth Bureau Horticultural and Plantation Crops. Technical Communication 22. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, Farnham Royal, Australia.Google Scholar
  14. Jurko, A. 1983. Trampling effects on species diversity and leaf characteristics of vegetation in the high Tatras mountains.Ekologia (CSSR) 2:281–293.Google Scholar
  15. Kellomaki, S., and V.-L. Saastamoinen. 1975. Trampling tolerance of forest vegetation.Acta Forestalia Fennica 147:5–19.Google Scholar
  16. Kuss, F. R. 1986. A review of major factors influencing plant responses to recreation impacts.Environmental Management 10:637–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liddle, M. J. 1973. The effects of trampling and vehicles on natural vegetation. PhD thesis. University College of North Wales, Bangor, Wales.Google Scholar
  18. Liddle, M. J. 1975a. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural ecosystem.Biological Conservation 7:17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liddle, M. J. 1975b. A theoretical relationship between productivity of vegetation and its ability to tolerate trampling.Biological Conservation 8:251–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Naito, T. 1969. Changes of alpine vegetation in Mt. Hakkoda due to human treading.Ecological Review 17:171–176.Google Scholar
  21. O’Connor, K. F. 1956. Influences of treading on grasslands. PhD thesis. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Pardhan, P., and R. S. Tripathi. 1983. Competition betweenTrifolium repens andPaspalum dilatatum as related to trampling.Acta Oecologica 4:345–353.Google Scholar
  23. Sankey, J., and H. Mackworth-Praed. 1969. Headley Warren Reserve in 1968. The survey naturalist: Annual report for 1968.Google Scholar
  24. Shearman, R. C., and J. B. Beard. 1975. Turf wear tolerance mechanisms: III. Physiological, morphological, and anatomical characteristics associated with turfgrass wear tolerance.Agronomy Journal 67:215–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shildrick, J. P. 1974. A comparison of three seedling turf products.The Journal of Sports and The Turf Research Institute 50:95–107.Google Scholar
  26. Sun, D., and M. J. Liddle. 1991. Field occurrence, recovery and simulated trampling resistance and recovery of two grasses.Biological Conservation 57:187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tothill, J. C., and J. B. Hacker. 1973. The grasses of southeast Queensland. University of Queensland Press, St. Lucia, Queensland.Google Scholar
  28. Van der Horst, J. P., and H. A. Kamp. 1974. Sports turf research in the Netherlands.The Journal of Sports and The Turf Research Institute 50:81–94.Google Scholar
  29. Willard, B. E., and J. W. Marr. 1970. Effects of human activities on alpine tundra ecosystems in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado.Biological Conservation 2:267–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Youngner, V. B. 1961. Accelerated wear tests on turfgrasses.Agronomy Journal 53:217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan Sun
    • 1
  • Michael J. Liddle
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Australian Environmental StudiesGriffith UniversityNathanAustralia

Personalised recommendations