نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه جیرفت، ایران
2 گروه مهندسی طبیعت، دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه جیرفت
چکیده
خدمات فرهنگی اکوسیستم‌ها همچون خدمت زیبایی نقش مهمی در رفاه اجتماعی انسان‌ها بازی می کنند. شناخت پتانسیل اکوسیستم‌ها در ارائه این خدمت برای مدیریت پایدار اکوسیستم‌ها لازم است. هدف این مطالعه تعیین ارزش زیبایی مراتع ییلاقی استان کرمان است بدین منظور پوشش گیاهی در 200 پلات در 10 تیپ مرتعی در مرحله گلدهی گیاهان بررسی و با استفاده از چهار شاخص تنوع سیمپسون نسبی و تاج پوشش نسبی گیاهان گلدار، دوره نسبی گلدهی و ماکزیمم نسبی تعداد رنگ گل‌ها ارزش زیبایی برآورد شد. نتایج تجزیه تحلیل واریانس نشان داد که تیپ‌های مرتعی از نظر ارزش زیبایی متفاوت هستند و تیپ مرتعی Astragalus gossypinus-Artemisia aucheri بیشترین ارزش زیبایی را داشت و منطقه پیشگام در برنامه‌های حفاظتی است. تیپ مرتعی Salsola brachiata- Artemisia sieberi به دلیل چرای شدید و تخریب پوشش گیاهی کمترین ارزش زیبایی را داشت. تیپ‌های‌های گیاهی بیشترین زیبایی را به ترتیب در فصل بهار، تابستان و پاییز داشتند. آزمون همبستگی نشان داد که دو شاخص تنوع سیمپسون نسبی گیاهان گلدار و ماکزیمم نسبی تعداد رنگ گل‌ها بیشترین همبستگی را با ارزش زیبایی دارند. آنالیز PCA همچنین نشان داد که ارزش زیبایی با ویژگی‌های تنوع گونه‌ای و فراوانی گیاهان فورب ارتباط مثبتی دارند. ارزش زیبایی را می‌توان شاخص مناسبی برای بررسی ارزش اکولوژیک اکوسیستم‌ها دانست که در توسعه پایدار باید لحاظ شود.
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
Evaluation of beauty service of vegetation types in summer rangeland of Kerman province(Case study: Lalehzar mountain rangelamd)
نویسندگان [English]
- Azam Khosravi Mashizi 1
- Mohsen Sharafatmandrad 2
1 Faculty of Natural Resource of university of Jiroft,Iran
2 Department of Natural Science, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Jiroft, Jiroft, Iran.
چکیده [English]
Ecosystems’ cultural services, like beauty services, play an important role in human social well-being. Understanding the potential of ecosystems is essential in providing this service for sustainable ecosystem management. This study aimed to determine the beauty value of summer rangelands in Kerman province. Hence, the beauty value of ten rangeland types was determined through flowering plants in 200 plots in flowering season. The beauty value was estimated using four indexes, including relative Simpson diversity and relative canopy cover of flowering plants, relative flowering period, and relative maximum number of flower colors. The analysis of variance showed that rangeland types are different in terms of beauty value, and Astragalus gossypinus-Artemisia aucheri rangeland type had the highest beauty value and is a pioneer region for conservation programs. Salsola brachiata- Artemisia sieberi rangeland had the lowest beauty value due to severe grazing and vegetation degradation. Plant types were most beautiful in spring, summer and fall, respectively. Correlation analysis showed that relative Simpson diversity and relative maximum number of flower colors had the highest correlation with beauty value. PCA also showed that beauty value was positively correlated with the attributes, including species diversity and abundance of forbs. The beauty value can be considered a good indicator of the ecological value of ecosystems that should be considered in sustainable development.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Color diversity
- flowering plants
- beauty value
- steppe
- Abbasi Ghadi, V., Azadbakht, M., Tajvar, Y. and Akbarzadeh, M., 2018. Aesthetic evaluation of autumn landscape of Hyrcanian native trees species for use in urban landscape (A Case Study in Sari City Area of Iran). Journal of Ornamental Plants, 8: 67-78.
- Abdollahi, S., Ildoromi, A., Salmanmahini, A. and Fakheran, S., 2019. Identifying and determining key areas for multiple ecosystem services supply in central part of Isfahan province. Journal of Environmental sciences studies, 4: 2029-2036.
- Akhani, H. 2006. Flora Iranica: Facts and figures and a list of publications by K. H. Rechinger on Iran and adjacent areas. Rostaniha, 7: 19-61.
- Ariapour, A., Mehrabi, H.R. and Kheradmand, G., 2015. Evaluating range plant species suitability for apiculture (Case study: rangeland Sarab Sefid, Boroujerd, Lorestan). Journal of Rangeland. 9: 142-158.
- Buhyoff, G.J., Gauthier, L. and Wellman, J.D., 1984. Predicting scenic quality for urban forest using vegetation measurements. Forest Science, 30: 71-82.
- Carpenter, S.R., Mooney, H.A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R.S., Díaz, S., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A.K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Miguel, H., Perrings, C., Scholes, R.J., Whyte, A. and Reid, W.V., 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106: 1305-1312.
- Casado-Arzuaga, I., Onaindia, M., Madariaga, I. and Verburg, P.H., 2014. Mapping recreation and aesthetic value of ecosystems in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt (northern Spain) to support landscape planning. Landscape Ecology, 29: 1393–1405.
- Cazalis, V., Loreau, M. and Henderson, K., 2018. Do we have to choose between feeding the human population and conserving nature? Modelling the global dependence of people on ecosystem services. Science of The Total Environment, 634: 1463-1474.
- Chan, K.M.A., Hoshizaki, L. and Klinkenberg, B., 2011. Ecosystem services in conservation planning: targeted benefits vs. co-benefits or costs?. Public Library of Science ONE, 6: 14-30.
- Cooper, N., Brady, E., Steen, H. and Bryce, R., 2016. Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’. Ecosystem Services, 21: 218–229.
- Daniel, T.C., 2002. Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60: 43–56.
- Fernandes, M.R., Francisca, C.A. and Ferreira, M.T., 2011. Assessing riparian vegetation structure and the influence of land use using landscape metrics and geostatistical Tools. Landscape Urban Planning, 99(2): 166-177.
- Frank, S., Furst, C., Koschke, L., Witt, A. and Makeschin, F., 2013. Assessment of landscape aesthetics–Validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty. Ecological Indicators, 32: 222–231.
- Ghahraman, A. 1997-2008. Colorful flora of Iran. 1-26. – Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands, Tehran.
- Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T. and Bieling, C., 2013. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators, 29: 434–444.
- Ingold, K. and Zimmermann, W., 2011. How and why forest managers adapt to socio-economic changes: a case study analysis in Swiss forest enterprises. Forest Policy and Economics, 13:97-103.
- Johnson, W.C., 2019. Ecosystem services provided by prairie wetlands in northern rangelands. Rangelands, 41: 44-48.
- Kafi, M. and Asgarzadeh, M., 2004. Examining the aesthetic tastes of users in choosing the type of plant and its related properties as an important element in the landscape. View Garden, 2: 35-42.
- Karimi, A.H., Nazarian, H. and Jafari, E., 2008. Identification of Fars honey bee plant resources from three families in Fars province (Asteraceae, papilionaceae and Lamiaceae). Pajouhesh & Sazandegi, 75: 101-111.
- Khoshkhoui, M., 2015. New principles of gardening. Shiraz University Press. 638.
- Khosravi Mashizi, A. and Sharafatmandrad, M., 2020. Value assessment of aesthetic function of Sarbijan Mountain’s rangeland using Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) south of Kerman province, Iran. Journal of Rangeland, 14:422-434.
- Lamarque, P., Quetier, F. and Lavorel, S., 2011. The diversity of the ecosystem services concept and its implications for their assessment and management. Compte-Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, Biologie, 334: 441-449.
- Lindemann-Matthies, , Karlsruhe, P.H., Junge, X. and Matthies, D., 2010. The influence of plant diversity on people's perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Journal of Biological Conservation, 143(1):195-202.
- Mesdaghi, M., 2003. Range management in Iran. Astan Ghods Razavi prss, Mashhad, 187 pp.
- Milcu, A., Ioana, J., Hanspach, D. and Abson, F.J., 2013. Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecology and Society, 18 (3): 44.
- Moghadam, M.R., 2005. Range and range management. University press, Tehran, 470 pp.
- Mueller, D. and Ellenberg, H., 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 547 pp.
- Musacchio, L.R., 2009. The ecology and culture of landscape sustainability: emerging knowledge and innovation in landscape research and practice. Landscape Ecology, 24: 989–992.
- Purcell, A.T., Peron, E.M. and Berton, R., 2001. Why do preferences differ between scene types?. Environment Behavior, 33: 93-106.
- Saidi, S., 2014. Evaluation of visual quality and modeling aesthetic values of walking roads of Ziarat watershed. M.Sc. Thesis. Gorgan university of agricultural science and natural recourses. 144p.
- Scholte, S.S.K., Van Teeffelen, A.J.A. and Verburg, P.H., 2015. Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: a review of concepts and methods. Ecolgical Econimics, 114: 67–78.
- Sevenant, M. and Antrop, M., 2010. The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference. Land use policy, 27: 827-842.
- Shimamura, A.P. and Palmer, S.E., Aesthetic science: connecting minds, brains, and experience. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Sklenicka, P. and Molnarova, K., 2010. Visual perception of habitats adopted for post-mining landscape rehabilitation. Environment Management, 46: 424-435.
- Southon, G.E., Jorgensen, A., Dunnett, N., Hoyle, H. and Evans, K.L., 2017. Biodiversity perennial meadows have aesthetic value and increase residents’ perceptions of site quality in urban green-space. Landscape Urban Planning. 158: 105–118.
- Swaffield, S.R. and McWilliam, W.J., 2013 Landscape aesthetic experience and ecosystem services. In Ecosystem services in New Zealand—conditions and trends (ed. JR Dymond), pp. 349–362. Lincoln, New Zealand: Manaaki Whenua Press.
- Swanwick, C., 2006. The role of landscape character assessment. In: Farming, forestry and the national heritage – towards a more integrated future. Davison, R. and Galbraith, C.(Eds.) The Stationery Office, Edinburgh.
- Toimil, A., Díaz-SimalInigo, P., Losada, J. and Camus, P., 2018. Estimating the risk of loss of beach recreation value under climate change. Tourism Management, 68: 387-400.
- Toopchi-Khosroshahi, Z.H. and Lotfalizadeh, H.A., 2011. Identification of honey plants and their attractiveness to honey bee in Kandovan, Northwest of Iran. Biharean Biologist, 5(1): 36-41.
- van Zanten, B.T., Zasada, I., Koetse, M.J., Ungaro, F., Häfner, K. and Verburg, P.H., 2016. A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes. Ecosystem Services, 17: 87-98.
- Wöhrle, E.R. and Wöhrle, H.J., 2008. Basics designing with plants. Publisher: Birkhäuser Architecture;1 edition.
- Wu, J., 2010. Landscape of culture and culture of landscape: does landscape ecology need culture?. Landscape Ecology, 25: 1147–1150.
- Yang, D., Luo, T., Lin, T., Qiu, Q. and Luo, Y., 2014. Combining aesthetic with ecological values for landscape sustainability. Public Library of Science ONE 9(7): e102437. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102437
)