No abstract

Regional differences in Caragana microphylla density in the Mongolian steppes were explained by considering multiple abiotic and biotic factors collectively, including aridity gradients, grazing regimes, fire disturbance, and interspecific interactions. In the central and eastern Mongolian steppes, we collected vegetation data from 127 sites. Along 250‐m line transects, the hit frequencies of C. microphylla and tall‐grass species were recorded. Ancillary data included weather information, livestock populations, fire occurrence maps, and herder camp locations. Based on the steppe types and disturbance regimes, the sites were classified into 12 sub‐groups. The data were statistically analyzed at the site, county, and sub‐group levels. The natural C. microphylla density decreased with climatic aridity from forb‐steppes to semi‐desert steppes, but this pattern was not observed at grazed and burned sites. Livestock grazing decreased C. microphylla density, but this effect was considerably confounded by aridity effects, especially in the central steppes, making the relationship between C. microphylla and livestock densities complex. Although fire appeared to be an important factor in the eastern steppes, the mechanism of its effect on C. microphylla density was unclear, because the fire–shrub interaction is influenced by the tall‐grass recovery process after fire. Based on our results, we propose that two different confounding effects, namely aridity versus grazing and fire versus interspecific interactions, play important roles in determining the spatial distribution of C. microphylla density in the central and eastern Mongolian steppes, respectively.

As a result of the physical properties of the soil, the soil density in the areas with high impacts of tourism, livestock, and machinery impacts increased by 8.1% from the fenced area and the sand content increased by 20.2 %, clay content decreased by 14.4 %. According to the chemical analysis, the humus content of soil at 0-8 cm in the non-fenced area is less than 4.8 % of fenced area soil. As a result, the characteristics of the chernozem degraded. Суурьшлын бүс дэх хашсан болон хашаагүй талбайд тархсан хар шороон хөрсний шинж чанарыг харьцуулан судалсан дүнгээс Хураангуй: Бид уг судалгаагаар ойт хээрийн бүслүүрт орших амралт, аялал жуулчлалын бааз, мал бүхий айл өрхүүд төвлөрөн суурьшсан байгалийн цогцолборт газрын хязгаарлалтын бүсэд тогтворжсон уулын хар шороон хөрсний физик, химийн шинж чанарыг голлох үзүүлэлтээр ижил хэв шинжийн 10-с дээш жил хашиж хамгаалсан талбайтай харьцуулан судаллаа. Хөрсний физик шинж чанарын судалгааны үр дүнгээр хяналт болгон сонгож авсан хашиж хамгаалсан талбайн уулын хар шороон хөрсний 0-8 см үе дэх эзлэхүүн жин 1.10 г/см3, сүвшилт 54.2 %, элс 25.5 %, шаврын агууламж 22.9 % байгаа бол харьцуулагдаж буй зүсэлт 3, 6 (Зү-3, Зү-6) дэх хөрсний эзлэхүүн жин 1.13-1.25 г/см3, сүвшилт 52.4-52.5 % элсний агууламж 42.3-49.2 %, шаврын агууламж 5.8-11.3 % тус тус байна. Хими шинж чанарын голлох үзүүлэлтээс үзэхэд хяналт болгон сонгож авсан хашиж хамгаалсан талбайн уулын хар шороон хөрсний 0-8 см үе дэх давсжилт 0.035 %, ялзмагийн агууламж 12.5 % байхад харьцуулагдаж буй хөрсний (Зү-3, Зү-6) дээрх үе давхарга дахь давсжилт 0.035-0.04 %, ялзмагийн агууламж 7.1-8.3 % байна. Дээрхи үр дүнгээс үзэхэд судалгааны талбайд тогтворжсон уулын хар шороон хөрсний шинж чанарт мэдэгдэхүйц өөрчлөлт орж талхагдал, доройтолд нэлээд өртжээ гэж үзэх үндэстэй байна. Түлхүүр үг: Хөрсний физик шинж, хими шинж, хөрсний доройтол, хөрсний эзлэхүүн жин, ялзмаг

The study aims to investigate changes in the physical properties of soil depending on the utilization conditions of the Special Protected National Park compared to the area fenced for more than 10 years. The stability and stabilization of the stabilized mountain meadow soil stabilization and physical properties of soil in the Gorkhi-Terelj National Park (GTNP) resort and limited concentration of tourism. As a result of the study, the stability of the soil structure was 2.8 points in the area of vegetation cover 0-3 cm outside the fence, while the 2.6 layered soil layers above the soils of the vegetation cover. However, the area with vegetation cover within the fence is 4.2 points in soil 0-3 cm and 4 leaves in soil without vegetation cover.