ك تسا نرق كي زا شيب هرادا رد تلود يدج روضح زا ه  هب يعيبط عبانم يم عتارم هژيو اومه هك درذگ ديكأت هر ب و ظفح ر هصرع نيا يايحا عتارم تيريدم زا نخس نايهاگشناد و ناسانشراك نارود نيا زا سپ لاح .تسا هتشاد اه ا هب ناري  يم نايم م لماوع هك تسا نآ زا يكاح هدش ماجنا تاعلاطم رب يرورم .دنروآ هبناجدنچ و ددعت كشم شياديپ رد ييا ارم تلا اد شقن عت .دنر تيولوا فده قيقحت نيا رد هعماج .تسا يمتسيس و يرگن عماج دركيور اب روشك عتارم هدمع تلاكشم يدنب ي پ ،وگخسا  طيحم و نانابقرق نشسرپ و هبحاصم ،تاعلاطا يروآ عمج يارب هدافتسا دروم رازبا و يعيبط عبانم ناناب تسا هما .  دادعت 27  ظفاح هب يعيبط عبانم برجم هعماج ناونع هنومن شور اب يرامآ ي اختنا يياهرايعم هب هجوت اب دنمفده يرادرب ب .دندش  ليلحت حارط اب سپس .تسا هدش ماجنا اوتحم ليلحت دركيور اب يدركلمع و يراتخاس ظاحل زا عتارم هدمع تلاكشم شسرپ ي ،همان يط سايقم زا اهريغتم يهدزايتما رابتعا يسررب زا دعب .دش هدافتسا تركيل يف  لباق) يياياپ و (يياور) تي  همانشسرپ ،(دامتعا  اب سوق يقيبطت زيلانآ زا هدافتسا ) هدش يريگ DCA رازفا مرن رد ( 5 ORD PC  مهم ،يگتسبمه صخاش و يفرعم تلاكشم نيرت مهم داد ناشن جياتن .دندش يبط عبانم ناظفاح رظن زا عتارم تلاكشم نيرت ف لئاسم ،تيولوا بيترت هب يع ،يگنهر  ،يداصتقا .دنتسه يقوقح و يعامتجا

Analyzing Iranian rangeland problems, a natural resources conservationists perspective

678 9:;< = 3 > ? ? @ ?=A B @=AC =; D? EEF G ? H7 ?=>? ./ ? ? 6 C D @ .= G ? ? @ =A! J K @ ?LM N? 3;O 6 C P C /EAQ LM < D 3R 6C ? ? ? C ! E S T3U3O? @ 4!>? C ? Q V WE8X ? Y= ./ ? P= C ? > E K ? ? @ ?=A B @ 6! LM 3C ? . 6ZV 4 6 ; WE8X ?[C 3C . = \ ] O) @ 4!>? EA 6 ? P ^! ? C C _! ? @ EA D? EEF = P C Z" 3C ( ? ? C ! E ( ? =EU3 ] O) !` ; 6 C D ?=>? 3C W03 ) @ HEK (/U @ 9 6; [M .= = C ? D SEU @? _! ? a / bEC ? @ \ ?3< @ ?=A B @=E O ? O = ? D S C ;!Z 6 3 =;!" =8!A 3:_ ?3< ./0 M D 3R =; 0= @ EM c` P C ? 9R V = \ ? =EU3 @ @ ! ? @ ? C P C 940 @ ? C 6! LM " ! EC " C ! ? E d 3! 49 / 7 / ? P 3C 6C \ = 6SEU V 6Z C d 3! @ 8 / 1 f ! bE;g ./ ? 6!0 ] O O Q V V ? ? @ ?=A B = 6! LM ? 6S 3K 6C ./"E = \ 3;O P C ! Q ] O A D?=EU3 ? h7 60 V ? ? ? C 0 K ? ./ ? 6!0 ] ?[0? @ ?=A 6 C D ?=>? Y K ? 6O 6ER3 ./ ? P 3Z Ni ?=; ? ?=A 3 /EAQ / ? P= G ? 3j" @ 3 !U R34` ]_C d 3 ? E8!" EM ?3< @ =; ?3 3<3 ? k^V @? C 9>?=V @ Ni D ?=>? . 3 G ?

Evaluating the efficiency of rangeland management system over the past half century

Current Challenges of Laws for Preservation of Forest and Rangeland, Iran

Developing countries must consider the influence of anthropogenic dynamics on changes in rangeland habitats. This study explores happened degradation in 178 rangeland management plans for Northeast Iran in three main steps: (1) conducting a trend analysis of rangeland degradation and anthropogenic dynamics in 1986–2000 and 2000–2015, (2) visualizing the effects of anthropogenic drivers on rangeland degradation using bivariate local spatial autocorrelation (BiLISA), and (3) quantifying spatial dependence between anthropogenic driving forces and rangeland degradation using spatial regression approaches. The results show that 0.77% and 0.56% of rangelands are degraded annually during the first and second periods. The BiLISA results indicate that dry-farming, irrigated farming and construction areas were significant drivers in both periods and grazing intensity was a significant driver in the second period. The spatial lag (SL) model (wi=0.3943, Ei=1.4139) with two drivers of dry-farming and irrigated farming in the first period and the spatial error (SE) model (wi=0.4853, Ei=1.515) with livestock density, dry-farming and irrigated farming in the second period showed robust performance in quantifying the driving forces of rangeland degradation. To conclude, the BiLISA maps and spatial models indicate a serious intensification of the anthropogenic impacts of ongoing conditions on the rangelands of northeast Iran in the future.

Visualization and quantification of significant anthropogenic drivers influencing rangeland degradation trends using Landsat imagery and GIS spatial dependence models: A case study in Northeast Iran

One of the effective ways for reducing atmospheric CO2 is carbon sequestration by plants and soils. Rangelands with an expanded area have a great potential for Carbon (C) Stocks. In this study, C stocks in three treatments including natural rangelands (NR), Pit- seeding by Agropyrum elongatum (PS) and abandoned dry farming (ADF) were examined in Kardeh basin Mashhad, Iran in 2013. In each treatment, ten transects and in each transect, ten plots were established. Percentages of vegetation cover, litter, rock and soil were recorded in each plot. Aerial and root biomasses of dominant species were sampled by the clipping and weighing method. Litters in each plot were collected and weighed, too. Carbon content of biomass and litter were measured by combustion method using Electric Combustion Furnace. Ten soil samples were taken along each transect at two depths of 0-25 and 25-50 cm. The soil organic carbon percent was determined by the Walkley–Black method. Data analysis was performed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and means were compared using Duncan test. Results showed significant differences between treatments for total C stocks (soil+biomass+litter). NR and ADF management with the average values of 535.32 and 177.14 (t.ha-1) had the highest and lowest C stocks, respectively. Among the components of the ecosystem, soil had a main role in C sequestration followed by above biomass, roots and litters. PS management had the highest C stocks in plant biomass and litter but its soil C stocks were significantly lower than NR. Perennial grasses, bushes and perennial forbs were dominant in PS and NR management that play the most important role in plant C stocks. In conclusion, proper management of natural rangelands and more attention to vegetation and soil conservation may lead to store a considerable amount of C stocks in these lands.

http://www.rangeland.ir/article_524076_1099f365466186936c4e5952f7a2eb26.pdf

Ghasemi Mohammad Hasan

Papers

Determination of socio-economic factors on natural resources degradation of iran

Estimate of iran-turanian zone rangelands degradation rate by measuring and suggestion index