Search results

Filters

  • Journals
  • Authors
  • Keywords
  • Date
  • Type

Search results

Number of results: 2
items per page: 25 50 75
Sort by:
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Ornithogenic tundra developing near large seabird colonies with its dense vegetation creates sites for foraging, hiding and breeding of herbivores. Grazing, trampling and faeces deposition are considered as the most important ways that vertebrate herbivores influence the plants. Excrement deposition level informs us on the intensity of grazing i.e. foraging ground attractiveness. We have compared vertebrate herbivores’ faeces deposition (biomass) in the vicinity of big colonies of piscivorous (kittiwake Rissa tridactyla and Brünnich’s guillemot Uria lomvia) and planktivorous (little auk Alle alle) seabirds and the control area was in Hornsund, SW Spitsbergen. Much higher level of faeces deposition was recorded nearby seabird colonies as compared to the control area. These finding points out that vertebrate herbivores concentrate and feed more intensively on rich ornithogenic pastures. Number of herbivores and their faeces deposition level recorded nearby planktivorous seabird colony were greater as compared to those found nearby the colony of piscivores. The highest number of geese (Branta bernicla and Anser brachyrhynchus) and of their faeces biomass were found near the colony of planktivorous little auk, where distinct gradient in faeces deposition level along the colony-seashore axis was recorded. Reindeers Rangifer tarandus were observed in considerable numbers near the little auk colony, and were not recorded at all near cliff-nesting sites of kittiwakes and guillemots. Total deposition of excrements produced by geese was generally higher if compared to reindeers.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Dariusz Jakubas
Katarzyna Zmudczyńska
Katarzyna Wojczulanis-Jakubas
Lech Stempniewicz
ORCID: ORCID
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This study aims to investigate how grazing is perceived across the Curvature Subcarpathians (Romania) by farmers. We investigate farmers’ attitudes toward and understanding of grazing practice and associated processes involving small ruminants (sheep and goats). Additionally, we review the scientific literature and new discussions about grazing vs overgrazing terms and changes in the Romanian small ruminant livestock. Results of the survey on the total of 101 case studies from villages in 3 counties (Damboviţa, Buzau, and Vrancea) show that: (i) grazing is differently perceived; (ii) most of the areas designated for grazing are located near riverbanks (over 55%); most of the respondents reported that the areas intended for grazing are quite close to the inhabited areas; distances are less than 2.5 km; and over 60% of respondents believe that the areas are continuously subject to soil degradation processes; (iii) answers given in connection with the issues addressed provide both relevance to the Curvature Subcarpathians (6792 km2) and the potential impact of higher pressure of grazing on local areas due to the discouragement of specific transhumance policies (more than 60% required subsidies). The average stocking density is about 4.7 head per ha. In general, beyond different farmers’ perceptions, a scientific question remains open regarding the quantitative impact of grazing on hydrological processes. Hence, a field survey (e.g., rainfall-runoff experiments) to assess grazing pressure on water and soil resources will be performed.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Gianina Neculau
1 2
ORCID: ORCID
Gabriel Minea
1 2
ORCID: ORCID
Nicu Ciobotaru
1 2
ORCID: ORCID
Gabriela Ioana-Toroimac
3
ORCID: ORCID
Sevastel Mircea
1
ORCID: ORCID
Oana Mititelu-Ionuș
4
ORCID: ORCID
Jesús Rodrigo-Comino
5
ORCID: ORCID

  1. University of Bucharest, Research Institute of the University of Bucharest, 90 Panduri Street, Sector 5, 050107, Bucharest, Romania
  2. National Institute of Hydrology and Water Management, 97 E Bucureşti – Ploieşti Road, Sector 1, 013686, Bucharest, Romania
  3. University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geography, Bucharest, Romania
  4. University of Craiova, Faculty of Sciences, Department of Geography, Craiova, Romania
  5. University of Granada, Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, Department of Regional Geographic Analysis and Physical Geography, Granada, Spain

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more