p. 191−202
2383-1138
Vol.19/No.2
p. 203−220
2383-1138
Vol.19/No.2
p. 221−232
2383-1138
Vol.19/No.2
p. 233−243
2383-1138
Vol.19/No.2
p. 244−263
2383-1138
Vol.19/No.2
p. 264−282
2383-1138
Vol.19/No.2
p. 283−296
2383-1138
Vol.19/No.2
p. 297−305
2383-1138
Vol.19/No.2
p. 306−320
2383-1138
Vol.19/No.2
p. 321−332
2383-1138
Vol.19/No.2
p. 333−343
2383-1138
Vol.19/No.2
p. 344−354
2383-1138
Vol.19/No.2
0.01) among species and the years. According to the results of mean comparisons (Duncan’s multiple test) and cluster analysis (Ward method), Eryngium billardieri, Cousinia esfandiari, Artemisia aucheri, Verbascum speciosum, Agropyron intermedium, and Cirsium haussknechtii had higher forage production. Interaction effect of species * year was significant at 1% probability level and sustainability parameters were calculated based upon average forage production. Parameters of CVi, S2di and R2 had similar trends in introduction of sustainable species and most of them showed low forage production based upon these parameters. Parameters of Bi, W2i and S2i also showed the same trend in expression of sustainability and on the basis of these three parameters, an average forage production was recorded for most of sustainable species. In general, Cousinia esfandiari and Artemisia aucheri showed appropriate production sustainability based upon most sustainability parameters. Agropyron intermedium and Cirsium haussknechtii were not sensitive to adverse conditions while Verbascum speciosum and Eryngium billardieri were sensitive to adverse conditions. Therefore, Agropyron intermedium and Artemisia aucheri could be introduced for range improvement programs. ]]>
p. 355−369
2383-1138
Vol.19/No.2